26 Comments

Very thoughtful commentary. I agree.

Like you, I believe that people will not settle for minimum and will continue to do things that are socially useful. This sentiment stands in opposition to a globally enforced system which is predicated on the idea that societies will not be productive if they are not incentivized to work harder and invest more. This manifests as the "healthy" inflation rate of 2% which central banks uniformly preach to be necessary. Buy and borrow now because tomorrow everything is going to be more expensive.

Expand full comment

Well written with great thought behind it!

There’s a limit to size of community in the usefulness of democracy me imo. Yes there’s a need for oversight and even some regulation for the sake of international trade and the regulation of air and water pollution since they are shared by the entire globe. We don’t need central currency that is led by central banks. Currency is for the exchange of goods and services and has been used widely for usury enrichment of banksters not to mention used for control of people.

Having a right to privacy implies that each has a place of their own. We are caretakers of the land we live on and should encourage gardens in as many yards as possible to keep it local and have intouch appreciation for where food comes from.

Expand full comment

You state that the percentage of sociopaths in East Asia is well under 1%...

SIGH! I know there are some studies that say this, but as they say in some parts, "that just ain't so." It's like those silly studies that come out every once in a while that try to tell us that women on average do not talk more than men -- anyone one with more than 10 minutes of life experience knows that is just false.

Expand full comment
author

I'm willing to look at the evidence...are there other studies claiming there are more sociopaths in Japan than in England?

As for chatterboxes -- I can think of both men and women who run at the mouth, inconsiderate of others. In mixed company, I would have guessed they are more likely to be male. Maybe all-female groups are more garrulous than all-male. I haven't been fly on the wall where housewives gather.

Expand full comment

I didn't say there were more sociopaths is Asia, I was just saying it's not under 1% and is actually similar %-wise to Western cultures.

My sociopathic % observation of Asians being similar to Western Europeans and others is just based on direct personal & professional experiences and readings of history. I will make an observation about studies that suggest otherwise. The difference in many behaviors, mannerisms, and focus of Asian cultures compared to Western European, especially the Chinese & Japanese can make it very difficult for Westerners to detect what's going on, especially with high functioning sociopaths (not a technical term). It's like trying to deal with extremely disordered passive aggressive behavior when you don't have the concept; you don't realize what's happened to you.

A note about female vs male chattiness. I was having a similar conversation about 25 years ago with a friend working on their masters in Psychology ( I was Aerospace Engineering at the time). I suggested we take a walk and observe study groups around campus with single sex compositions and then have lunch in the commons and observe the different single sex groups having lunch there and then latter peruse the athletic facilities and observe the action there. 100% of the time, the female groups scored significantly higher on the blabber scale. She was floored.

This is just an observation of excessively chatty behavior, not an evaluation or criticism of it -- though if one finds certain behaviors annoying you do your best to limit your exposure.

Expand full comment

Housewives? Or equally, professional, student, caring professional etc etc. I love your work but we’re no longer in the 1950s. 😊

Expand full comment

> This suggests a path of decentralization, freedom, trust in the individual and trust in cultural norms rather than rules backed by a monopoly on violence. A hundred years ago this philosophy was known anarchism, a word whose meaning is distorted beyond recognition in today’s discourse.

Agreed. Time to reclaim the terminology and the framing of the issues.

Expand full comment

"Libertarian Municipalism", described by Murray Bookchin, is the form of cooperative, orderly and low-overhead anarchism you may be describing: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-libertarian-municipalism-an-overview

Expand full comment

individually we can't solve the big problems and probably don't see them clearly enough anyways

Expand full comment
author

Yes, we need democratic institutions on a global level that will be restrained in their power and responsive to a needs of a diverse population and an even more diverse ecosystem. It's a tall order, but let's create that together.

Expand full comment

We can see them more clearly though, and clearly enough to guide our individual and group actions...

Expand full comment
Aug 22·edited Aug 22

The "Reversal of biological age in multiple rat organs" paper, based on Harold Katcher's research, has been cited in another paper, also with Steve Horvath as one of the listed authors:

"Young Plasma Rejuvenates Blood DNA Methylation Profile, Extends Mean Lifespan, and Improves Physical Appearance in Old Rats"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11020299/

Also of interest, with Katcher, Sanghavi, and Horvath among the listed authors:

"Universal DNA methylation age across mammalian tissues"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10501909/

"DNA methylation networks underlying mammalian traits"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11180965/

Expand full comment

I watched a very interesting documentary called the Chimpanzees of Ngogo in Uganda. It was a very large tribe- around a hundred members. There were attempt(s) by Beta males to build alliances with other Betas against the alpha male.

David Rogers Webb in his video "The Great Taking," also remarked that human tribes have evolved so there are usually around 50 individuals or so, as that is the maximum number of individuals a person can know well enough to make a decision....whether to take them on a patrol party to defend the territory if they are good fighters, or not to leave them alone with their children if they are known child abusers. Forming alliances would be a method of keeping apha males in check. Centralized government makes it impossible to know the character of those who are calling the shots.

So what survival/reproductive advantage does this alliance seeking behavior offer? At first glance it would appear that it is detrimental to the reproductive success of the tribe. It is a different type of genetic selection than simply the strongest alpha male chimp or wolf getting to mate to ensure genetic fitness of the tribe. H sapiens have evolved from relying on brute strength and have learned the art of deception and subterfuge to thwart an alpha male.

The Zionists have perfected this deception by always distracting others with the "Remember the Holocaust" as they demonstrate that they are the ultimate racists while constantly accusing anyone who sees their duplicity as "anti-semitic." They quietly build alliances to gain control of the monetary system, media, elections, and judicial processes. They declare themselves as "The Chosen Ones" who have the right to exterminate all other races and religions, pitting Muslims against Christians, Blacks against Asians etc. They proclaim their enemies, i.e. anyone who is "Goyim," especially all Palestinians, as "terrorists" which gives them the right to engage in wanton genocide; "We aren't killing women and children. We are killing terrorists." At a minimum, their Talmudic doctrine requires that all other races be subservient.

Expand full comment
Aug 19·edited Aug 19

Hi. I just came from your blog from an other one.

That was interesting read.

But if I may, with regard to the paradox between community behavior and individual selfishness you mentioned at the beginning, I'd like to quote Richard Dawkins' works, which tends to show that this paradox is only apparent, since evolution takes place neither at the level of individuals nor at the level of groups, but at the level of genes.

This might be bit disturbing but has the great advantage of explaining the vast majority of cases of altruism observed in nature, which are also only apparent, since they most often occur in a group where individuals have a high probability of sharing the same genes.

Beside, I found it hard to believe in this cooperation curbing predation. For a start, many animals don't live in groups. So what tend to curb predation will quite probably be the fact that predation is often risky and takes precious time that could be better employed to find a mate or take care of offspring, thus propagating genes. So past a point and beside digestive capacity, predation is useless and detrimental.

In the mean time, many animals are territorials. That's means they tend to fight to keep the local food pool for themself.

The case of humans being different (at least to some extend) since unlike other animals, humans also have a culture and so their behavior and ultimately their offspring's survival doesn't only depends on gene fitness. And by the way, they are also strongly territorial.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, Dawkins is the loudest voice saying that what looks like cooperation in nature is really selfishness in disguise. Refuting him has been the main focus of my work. My book came out in China under the title "The Unselfish Gene". Certainly, Dawkins has a great deal more influence than I have.

As you make up your mind on the selfish gene version of evolution, I invite you to read my book, Cracking the Aging Code. For some dramatic refutations of Dawkins, I refer you to Dennis Noble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quNTjhUcnQI or Lynn Margulis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ-sZHHx7O0

Expand full comment

Thanks for your answer. Interesting indeed. I will definitely have a look to your book.

My own foray into evolutionary biology date back from the 2010s. I haven't read so much about it since then (and didn't write any book) but at my own much lower level, I always found the discipline fascinating. And Dawkins' work so very logical. So I was surprised that you mentioned a paradox while there are theories that try to resolve it. Be they controversial.

Beside, I was often under the impression that to look for examples of what looks like collaboration between animals is mostly done in order to demonstrate that there should be more collaboration between human beings. That might be a good things of course. But under these conditions, one might also too easily end up observing what one wants to see...

Expand full comment

I also want to live in that world of stewardship, cooperation and broad-adequacy.

The "owners" threaten to kill everybody at once who will not submit more and more to them as there is less and less total economic output, and more and more people participating.

It is existential to them, and they can kill everybody with the push of a button, so to speak.

This is a difficult negotiation to survive, which we, as a species, have entered.

Expand full comment

These ideas are perfect for a society of loving, caring, rational people who want to live as a community. Open that society to people without these traits and collapse is a foregone conclusion.

Expand full comment

Good réflexion I agree with you. You say : « We are and by rights ought to be free to do what we want, to think our own thoughts, to go where we want and associate with whom we want. »

This is « Libre arbitre », Free will, our God given right in the endeaviour of this existence.

And as you put it, «  right of private ownership is not on the same level »

I agree we know in our heart this is destructive

Expand full comment

What societies survived that practiced child sacrifice? AKA pro choice. The story is developing for those that embrace it. Japan is below replacement rate. So is the US. Many countries in Europe like France is as well. Ai provides a rundown. In my opinion like the locust it appears to be a good thing.

A believer in Jesus and not pro elimination.

Expand full comment
author

I understand and respect the view that the life of the unborn child takes precedence, though it is not my view.

Expand full comment

Maybe below-replacement is the right thing to do.

There is a "Limit To Growth" on a finite planet. We may have passed peak-industrial-output and peak net oil in late 2018. Notice there were inflections after that, starting with the repo-crisis in August/September 2019, then that Event 201 in October 2019, "going direct" bailout in March 2020, time-obscured for effect by COVID lockdowns, and now the lead-in to WW-3, as the financial system Ponzi scheme can't be sustained...

Expand full comment

Thank you, Josh. Your writing keeps me hopeful in the knowing that strong and clear-headed thinking still exists in the world. And it emboldens me to hold my own, especially in times like today.

Expand full comment

I'm with you, Josh.

Expand full comment