Moral comments on the matchmaking problem

There are statistics, of women beaten by their husbands. It is usually considered as a legal problem, that is, what can be done to protect the rights of mistreated women, such as the right to divorce, financial rights related to sharing the time of keeping children. However it never addresses the root of the problem, what is, why did they choose to marry these bad guys in the first place ? Did they have no better option ?
Once I was in a restaurant near 2 girls talking together. I heard one say "All guys are bastards". That is what they observe. Is that true ? Well I don't think so, as I am still a desperate single and I consider that I definitely would not have any such behavior that they complain of. However I was too shy to be able to enter the conversation. So they would not know that exceptions such as mine would exist, and they will keep the experience as if all guys are bastards, because only bastards can dare to run after them. This also explains the abundance of bastards, as a vicious circle : if bastards have better chances to find love than nice guys and nerds then they also reproduce better.

I am not the only one with this problem. Other very good people suffered the hell of loneliness, such as Beethoven or Evariste Galois. You might say he did not wait long enough to find his chance before dying. However this is the very claim everybody always smashed me under: they always told me "You are young, you will find !". This way people give themselves good conscience, that is, of course I am stupid to complain about loneliness because of course I'm going to find my love soon later. And of course they are very good and wise to have faith that this is a non-existing problem for this reason. They smash all possibilities of understanding of the world under this absolute moral value of beliefs : that it is spiritual to deny the problem, and one has to be an ugly villain to complain and believe in the problem. However the fact is still there : many years later I still did not find, and my life remains a hell as it has always been, so that I still fail to find a justification why the world can be considered worth my care to stay alive in this suffering. So I guessed the truth from the start, that I am victim of a huge problems and my chances to get out are low, while they were in denial. However there is no way to explain this to anyone, because for everybody, claiming that the problem does not exist and that it is a shame and a ridicule for anyone to complain, is a matter of a priori value of beliefs, not a matter of facts. Because their beliefs live in a separate world of values, of "what is good to believe" in order to be nice, to be spiritual, to have faith in God, to be humanist or humble towards the rest of people. Facts have no place there, they are just considered wrong whenever they are in conflict with such values.
And what is the result ? Some people are so dumb that they find it strange and paradoxical when things reach their logical consequences, such as mass murders committed by naturally nice people like Elliot Rodger. He finally decided to kill everybody as he observed how cruel and unfair is this world where the privilege of love relationships is reserved to bastards because pretty girls only love bastards while nice people are left alone. So, while of course there are times when people become serial killers because they are mad, there are other times when someone has legitimate reasons to become a serial killer because he is the nice guy who wisely understood that the rest of the world is mad and persecutes him precisely because of his qualities, so that these mad people really do not deserve to live.
Admittedly, mass murder is not a good solution either, as it does not much help people understand the problem and start looking for effective solutions (since people are usually much too stubborn in their worship of stupidity, denialism, and the domination of the majority of bastards as their norm and ultimate virtue, that even when their attention is forced to notice that something is going wrong by such a spectacular evidence as a mass murder by a nice guy, it still won't work to wake them up to sane reason). And even if more people understood, so what ? They could not do anything about it, since a good solution is a matter a few wise people inventing a wise solution, not a matter of how many dumb people would be miraculously aware of a problem which they have no intelligence to solve anyway.
How might the problem be solved then ? And what needs to be exactly done, that this mad world is guilty of not doing ? What is needed, is to create a dating system giving much better chances for good people to find their love. You may say : dating sites exist, so the solution is here. Yes but their way of working is quite sub-optimal. There are independent sites for a separate kinds of public, not the same sites being most popular depending on countries, making it cumbersome for someone to make a wide search across many possibilities (countries or any kind of orientation). The very fact of the multiplicity of sites competing for users and having separate databases, is sheer nonsense, one of the terrible causes of relative inefficiencies compared to what should be possible in principle, together with many other kinds of bad designs of such systems as they currently exists. The principle of online dating has advantages, not only its possible efficiency to easily browse for the best possible matches across many people, but also because in front of a computer, shy people can much more easily overcome their shyness to declare their interest for someone, and it can ensure that people do not so accidentally lose contact without a chance of return if they happen to find a possible match, as what often happens in real life.

Another trouble is the possibility for people to lie on themselves in their profile, so that many girls don't trust such systems and are afraid to meet bad people there. Indeed, any advantage that bad guys can take over good guys in the search for love, such as the possibility to lie, is a very unfortunate thing - maybe not just worse there than in the "outside world".
However, the point is that it is possible to do a better system, as I envision in the framework of my project. And precisely, it is possible to solve the trust problem. The problem is : why is so many people's attitude just that "dating systems are risky, so, Internet does not appear as a good solution to find love", but so few people would think "We see a new kind of solution but it has a big defect, so how can we design a similar system that would be free from this defect ?"
So there is a problem, and it looks far from obvious to think about a solution. But just because stupid people do not naturally see a solution, it does not mean that there is no problem to solve, or that no solution is possible in principle making it vain to express the problem and put it in the list of global problems that need a solution.

Now, here are two interesting observations about this problem.

One is : how strange it is that essentially none of the generous people around the world, appears able to understand this trouble, one of the worst cases of cruelty and injustice of the world, that is precisely a terrible accident happening in feelings : loneliness, the lack of love ; and what kind of possible solution may help. That these generous people are only able to understand the material needs of others, which may be answered just by sending money to those in need. That they are ready to dedicate their charity resources to expensive material needs of the many poor just because the understanding of these needs can be understood as the most trivial abstract generalities, and the answer is also the most trivial abstract generality to understand (just sending money to finance known help to the poor). But nobody would ever consider providing any little bit of help that would require a mental effort to understand, first that the problem exists (as it feels a shame to admit) and second, to define the plan of what can be efficiently done in reply, in face of the evidence of (already existing and thus potentially higher) usefulness that the success of dating sites demonstrate, and that it would cost much less than the usual charity budget to make a good dating system providing love to millions of people who direly need it, and the fact (maybe not smashingly visible enough against the widespread denialism) that among victims are many good people awfully suffering loneliness for no decent reason but the sheer accident of not knowing the contact address of their right matches on time. Instead, only greedy people happened to understand the problem and care providing some kinds of pseudo-solutions (more dedicated to abuse people's money as much as possible than to really help).
I might admit, it is not exactly that greedy people would really understand love and its miseries better than generous people do. Rather, it seems to be that greedy people understand money, while money understands love. Exceptions (generous people able to understand the needs of love) are so few and hard to find. And they are clearly absent from religions anyway.
In a philosophical debate with a Catholic guy (fond of Thomas Aquinas), I pointed out the presence of the problem of loneliness, by statistics of how many people used dating sites, and even, that many people find their love in this way. For one time that statistics can mean something about the generality of problems that people are usually reluctant to admit ! His answer ? Something like, "dating sites develop because there is a market, there is money to make there". Well, if the deep reason why dating sites appear and multiply is that it is a profitable business, then the deep reason why so many people register and pay to use them, must surely be their irresistible need to throw their money out of the window in this way.

The other : Why did we never see any demonstration of large crowds of singles in front of scientific research institutions, to put forward this claim : "We need a new technology to more efficiently find good lovers, please help !" ? And why do many people expect the help to come from God instead, and would care to pray Him for this ? Is it only because of the fear of ridicule attached to the first option, that may be avoided in the second one ?
Indeed, I find it vain to pray God for this, for the following reasons

But, now replacing God by science and technology, do the above reasons hold against the hope that the needed help may come from scientists if people clearly decided to charge them with this mission ?
Already the second point looks different, as technologies of dating sites visibly happened to be helpful, only not ideal, since existing systems were not so well-thought, being not well-designed by scientists.
Still the first point remains unclear. Namely, if some scientists can be clever enough to be potentially able to design a very efficient dating system, how can they at the same time be so stupid that they could not notice the presence of this need, as if the existence of so many people in such a desperate need to find love that they are ready to pay totals of many million $$ to dating sites, remained a mystery beyond the scope of a reasonable guess of good scientists, so that an explicit procedure of public expression is needed to let them know ?
Don't worry, you don't need to search far away anymore for good intelligent people able to understand love and which method would efficiently answer its needs, nor to demonstrate much in front of scientific research institutions to ask for the creation of a new research program in this sense : I already did the work and designed the plans for this. I found 2 main structures of solutions, one very simple and low-tech that would be very easy to implement (just look at the idea and see how ridiculously easy to understand and implement it is ! so the big mystery is why nobody thought about it and implemented it earlier), and the other as part of my project of online social network. However, the big need now is to actually get a team of good programmers to implement this network. This is THE problem.
It is interesting to see how what looked like a plausible guess when considered in its abstract generality, "Generalizing from the abundance of caring scientists we know leaves only one explanation consistent with all evidence: human minds as they currently exist are not capable of effecting our most desirable present and future. ", suddenly collapses when a concrete example comes to mind. F***g statistics.

Next : Another example of concrete reality

Main page:
On humanity's failures to steer itself properly