Post Incentives

Incentives

Incentives for people to work
(For hard work not pleasurable hobbies or artistic pursuits)

Innovation requires hard work which requires years of study and training
This learning cannot be transferred in its totality in a short period of time. It involves experience and gestation to ensure the learned info becomes fully absorbed

Technology is attractive not just because of marketing but because it can lead to labour saving, educational benefits, added comfort and convenience, and tools for communication and independence. Eg smart phones, PCs, laptops, cloud tech, VR, AR, etc These tools empower many people from all walks of life.

Volunteers offer their labour, knowledge, time, empathy and compassion for free. Yet these pursuits offer limited currency in terms of survival mechanisms within the neo-corporate capitalist system. Volunteers are exploited more than paid workers yet feel rewarded by a sense of duty (or egotistical pandering / sense of selflessness) as compared to their paid counterparts.

The key incentives to encourage people to work are based of agreed, or more precisely, interpreted as a reward or incentive, and how that holds currency within any value system of rewards and punishments.
For instance, capitalism rewards selfishness and sociopathy over collectivism and charity. However, capitalism thrives on the expected donation of free deals on offer from volunteers, which provides the illusion of incentives, usually translated into social, psychological or cultural benefits which empower the volunteer and their community.

By inherent design, capitalism can manifest through monetary savings or gains which are made available by following a particular set of actions, or otherwise become unattainable due to inaction or apathy. This framework is analogous to the natural world - living things need to consume energy to survive yet need to expend energy during the process of obtaining more substances which will harness the sought after additional energy needed to continuing living.
So too, like hunters or gamblers, it becomes a question of losses verses gains. If you know the impact of potential losses which will be incurred during the pursuit of particular gains, and can accept this sacrifice of energy or resources, and potential for additional losses in lieu of the expected (calculated) amount of losses, then you are in a position to make a choice.

Making the correct choice (or what is considered to be the correct choice at that particular time) is a privilege and expression of free will, yet the tools at one's disposal at that time (educational tools like specialised or general training, previous experience, skilled reckoning abilities or simply, dumb luck) will largely determine the outcome of this transaction with the universe (including the influence of unknown forces of the universe upon the individual protagonist(s), the environment, and the inherent properties of energy itself).

Life, itself becomes a gamble against the universal forces attempting to snuff it out of existence, whilst simultaneously actively transforming and manipulating the very essence of the universal forces themselves to realise its own benefits, as if bending the will of the properties of the entire universe in every infinite instant; bringing in order whilst simultaneously sowing the seeds of chaos, in a cosmic dance between evolution and entropy. To what end? To achieve an incongruous tao? This all seems hopelessly paradoxical, inasmuch as the forces of life and death float around in a universe that decide if it wants to remain fluid or achieve a solid state equilibrium.

Entropy appears on the scene as the omnipotent villain, akin to the image of grim reaper, coming to collect all those so-called 'free' lunches, to restore the thermodynamic balance as it may be. The influence of surrounding forces (known by human sciences or otherwise) similarly intersect and continually interact with one another, endlessly striving to win out in some sort of posturing of cosmological brinkmanship, with no immediate end in sight or singular vision. These physical forces seem almost blind in their purpose, and opposition when called upon to tip the balance in favour of power or supremacy, only to instantaneously sow the inherent seeds of their individual diminishing, yet to live on to fight another day or hadron second (and lower orders of magnitude all the way down to what (in)exactly?).

This forming of order from chaos only to embody and foster the growth of formative stages of innermost destruction, which kicks in at the bell curve apex of ordering, may be a peculiarity of the mathematical or physical laws of our piece of the universal or multiversal puzzle.
It's also possible human science still is purely a simplified version of the true explanation of which forces are at work here - facets of our place in the universe, which humanity at large has come to understand and perceive with precision and accuracy, through collection of samples, labeling, cataloging, building up information repositories and dedicated knowledge libraries could be merely an infantile intimation of these forces true operative form, function and or purpose, - if they are to be even considered 'forces' in this traditionalist sense.
Humans can barely detect any parts of our immediate physical surroundings and gauge the nature of our environment with the most modern technology and theoretical modelling. Most practitioners' work in scientific, technological or philosophical fields tackling aspects of reality, or realities, in this area or that of enquiry, understand early the vastness of what remains unknown or tantalisingly just out of reach, almost irrespective of what is completely unfathomable at any given point of enquiry.
Hypothetical theories aside, the discovery of scientific or spiritual 'truths' is a slow process, requiring the height of intelligence, creativity, talent, and smattering or abundance of genius (and, again, luck) with little or no immediate rewards. For the bulk of researchers and general folk, pursuit of such endeavours are unattainable, unattractive or simply impossible. But that doesn't imply this type of inquiry requires a special breed of human or other life form to elucidate the inner workings of the universe. On the contrary, the universe simply offers this information of its own volition through the extension of itself, through its mechanisms of burgeoning self awareness at the smallest scales and deep contemplation and reflection at the (perceived) pinnacle of thought (which could all potentially be thought of as forms of consciousness). And in reflection there are inherent patterns and symmetries, and methods of self-organising interactions, as amongst subatomic particles, complimentary or directly oppositional forces, and the way these properties are definable by the codes and languages of mathematics, physics, chemistry, genetics and, computer code).

All scientific discovery boils down to successive waves of knowledge establishing their credentials and credibility upon the shores of reason, until additional evidence and lack of repeatable testing invalidates the fad theory or premise, and new swathe of hypotheses flail about, only to be superseded by a future set of paradigms which will more succinctly describe and define phenomena. The progression of knowledge in turn follows the trajectory of universal time yet simultaneously is tethered to the inherently destructive principles of entropy which demand such knowledge wither away and be effectively replaced with another placeholder principle of explanation.

So the dance goes on. But does it matter if the music stops? If there were nothing to destroy would that herald a finality; an inescapable truth built upon the propriety elements of a system which finally become identifiable and known, and hence finite. Who knows whether such esoteric philosophical meandering would harvest any fruitful food for thought? These meandering flights of fancy do instigate deeper, serious questions which we continue in our attempts to answer, utilising ever increasing sophistication in our theory and method and technology. These aspects go hand in hand in the pursuit of ever expanding knowledge and appear almost infinite (albeit contingent upon the known quantities of human species' experience or a anthropomorphic vision of intelligence at large, say with our expectations of what a strong AI would 'think'. Surviving and prospering in its own unique and ongoing thirst for knowledge.

So some key question arise:
How can we prolong the impending demise of the species (or potentially intelligence itself)?

Is death actually a finality within the framework of this environment? Is this it all just an illusion or simulation?

Is the concept of the multiverse, with its ongoing births and deaths of universes, and infinite potentialities even possible? Some of the smartest mind contend so, but are such presumptions inherently flawed (and deeply ironic) when attempting to describe the concept of infinite?
If so, are the same 'forces' at work which govern individual universes operational upon the multiverse at large? Further, is every 'thought' a universe unto itself, experiencing the impacts of these forces in ways which cannot be disconnected from the whole yet are infinitely separated by their individual uniqueness of beginnings and ends?

Are there overarching principles or laws which govern all reality no matter which area, dimensions or positioning an entity of intelligence finds itself operating? Is there but one set of rules to rule them all, or are house rules at play - everywhere and all the time?

Is it too simplistic to describe the multiverse in evolutionary terms or through appeal to order/chaos paradigms?

Actions to consider:

Engage in conversations with everyone and everything
Record thoughts after consuming info
Capture and annotate bibliographies of sources
Create diagrams of concepts and findings
Look for connections everywhere and link back to everyone and everything

Then go to your friends, drink, dance, sing and be merry!