The sad skinsuiting of the environmental movement: turning a blind eye to the effects of unchecked world population growth due to obsession with egalitarianism (Part 1)
The sad skinsuiting of the environmental movement: turning a blind eye to the effects of unchecked world population growth due to obsession with egalitarianism (Part 1)
I think I get the good intentions behind trying "to solve" this "problem". People fear a sudden massacre-like disaster if population growth goes unchecked. But I have a few concerns with this "top-down" approach - egalitarian inspired or not. With "top-down" I mean that an extremly small group of brainy people, no matter what their political opinion or approach, will use their brains and computer models to find solutions.
I think this is not possible. The problem is too complex. There will never be a solution that works for most people. There will always be winners and losers. It will always come back to greed and power. And no matter who and what they do, they will fuck shit up even more with big programs. We are simply not iintelligent enough and there are too many variables. More importantly, on the body-mind level, where most of us live exclusively, we are not programmed to save others but maybe next of kin. On that level we are, like probably all animals, programmed to survive, thrive and reproduce. This is not negotiable. As soon this gets threatened the friendly masks and gloves come off and people will kill to ensure this programming. Always did, always will. That's why there are 8 Billion of us.
The interesting facts are that we don't stop when our survival and reproduction is secured. Most of us live way above that threshold but keep on consuming and accumulating and exploiting resources. This is fuelled by desires and fears, not based in our bodies but in the mind. While our bodily needs are more than satisfied, our mind's needs seem to be boundless and the true cause of the obsession is fear and desire.
Of course, at the core of all this is the felt sense of "I". Almost everybody on this planet feels they are seperate and alianated from the rest of the planet and this is extremly alarming and scary. On one side there is this very fragile me - on the other side a big hostile world with 8 billion people I can't trust because they are programmed to kill me if they feel this is necessary to survive. So each of us - mostly unconsciously - tries to somehow prepare for that, tries to plug this existential safety hole with all sorts of actions and things in an attempt to feel a little bit safer. But it is a bottomless hole and a lost cause. As long we firmly believe that all we are is this seperate body-mind, we will always feel alienated and threatened by this world and as a result be scared, exploit, and kill if needed. And be exploited and killed. Just look at our history.
No mind-born "practical" solution will ever solve this behaviour. Especially not on a social or political level where solutions are imposed on billions of people.
What might help is a spiritual awakening on a global scale. Just to make sure: To me, spiritual is not related to religious based belief systems involving a human-like god figure. That's just wishful thinking and stupid fantasies. They are anti-spiritual imo.
Many wise sages have identified an unchecked unobserved free-roaming mind as the source of all suffering. There are a range of excellent techniques, teachings and exercises widely availabme for free.
But they involve work and discipline, of course, and without proper motivation no-one will do them. What induces such motivation in these things?
1. Some just have a natural curiosity for it. It is strongly linked to an ability to see reality as it is, not through the wishful and fearful fantasies of our minds. Anyone that has that ability, will sooner or later realize that our individual egoic life form has no happy end. At best, you get old, sick and die. And this is earned with a lot of sweat, tears and striving. So exhausting. My life is conditioned by habits, mostly to survive, accumulate and reproduce - to what end? True moments of bliss and joy are extremly rare. Why bother?
When we come to that point we maybe start looking elsewhere for something that is more rewarding. Now. Because it can be over the next minute.
Happiness, bliss, joy only happens in the now. With practise we can also observe that the mind is never in the now. It is never here either.
2. Spontaneous Awakening Experience
They come in all forms and shapes and are much more common than talked about. They are mostly tabu. They have a great potential to set people free, make them desire-and-fearless. And those that rule us don't want that. They need people that are scared and people that consume endlessly. To consume you have to earn. The people who rule us earn on both - our work and our shopping.
Therefore, what used to be spiritual awakenings are no often classified as psychotic episodes or other diagnosis. These experience can be profoundly mind-shattering and we used to have shamans, sages, masters and so on to help us to process and integrate them. Now they get squashed by medications and people stay stuck and disabled for years.
But even manageable "lighter" spiritual awakenings are tabu and not talked about anymore for fear of being judged a "loony".
Sometimes they are not even recognized as spiritual awakenings. This often happens with drug induced awakenings. (I come to that below).
Sometimes they get "commercialised" and rebranded as "flow-states" and seen as a performance tool feeding tbe ego rather than the spirit.
But if processed and integrated these awakenings
3. Induced awakening experience
This includes all forms of meditations, self-enquiry and other spiritual practices. There is no guarantee, of course. The world is littered with old mediators still hoping for one. It's usually the hope that denies them. Hope is a useless egoic emotion.
It also includes intentional spiritual drug use. This has been done for thousands of years. Mostly with psychedelic drugs. The translated indigenous name of magic mushrooms is "flesh of the gods"
The war on drugs has several reasons but to me, cutting many people off from drug induced spiritual experiences is the least talked about but most important one.
In summary, if we ever want to leave the ultimately meaningless, animal-like, body-mind based, vastly conditioned and automatic state of ever repeating cycles of creation and destruction - as an individual or a culture - we need to learn to go beyond this body-mind. There is no doubt that this is possible. We wouldn't still talk about the Buddha or Jesus or many other srlf-realized masters if they were fake. But we have to understand that institutionalising spirituality is not possible. It can't be taught. It is not of the mind. It is also not a belief. It is a personal awakening experience that starts it off. The rest is practise. With practise desire and fear diminishes. This causes a change in life-style with a much much smaller egoic footprint.
Don't try to save the world. That's proposterous. The biggest ego trip and distraction. Save yourself first. The rest will take of itself.
Hi Ma Mu, nice response, but if you believe that top down problems to check unfettered population growth in the face of massively declining natural resources isn't solvable, then it seems like the only alternative is to expect a mass human population die-off once those resources start reaching critically depleted levels, especially those resource inputs necessary for agricultural production. I agree with you generally that "Man plans, God laughs" and I don't think utopia on earth is possible -- "The poor you will have with you always", and Pope Leo XIII said, “To suffer and to endure…is the lot of humanity. Let men strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it.” Regardless, I would like to hope that there is some solution that doesn't involve many billions of people dying, or a consumed, dead planet full of trash and plastics everywhere.
Based on your comment here, I think you would likely enjoy Brett Andersen's Youtube series: https://www.youtube.com/@BrettPAndersen/videos . His Substack: https://brettandersen.substack.com/ . Like you, he believes that shamanistic, right-brain focused personalized religious experiences are increasingly needed in this world of doctrinal, left-brain religions, and he also thinks that spiritual drug use such as psilocybin has great potential to help people who are suffering and to broaden their horizons. I will be reviewing his Youtube series after he finishes it, which may be in August...
> but if you believe that top down problems to check unfettered population growth in the face of massively declining natural resources isn't solvable, then it seems like the only alternative is to expect a mass human population die-off once those resources start reaching critically depleted levels, especially those resource inputs necessary for agricultural production.
Eugine at it at again always tearing down other people's work and never creating anything of his own. You are a legit subhuman Eugine, and an oxygen thief so I am surprised you are aren't excited about ze pods and ze bugs.
Hey thanks for the links. Sounds like my alleyway. Will check it out.
Regarding the sudden dying off of billions, I think your mind is doing this thing called "time wrap". Our minds also do this kind of translation of reality from this wonderous incredibly diverse and complex thing (intentional guided psychcedelic sessions can show us that very clearly) to an extremly simple mental binary code. I believe even the most advanced computer programs are still based on the binary code of power on/off. Simarlerily, for the purpose of our
physical survival and reproduction, reality gets sieved through a filter called mind and only what's important for that purpose is seen. It is also binary. It can be boiled down to like - not like. Not sure where I am heading with this.
I can't explain it well sorry, but even if well intended, it is way to complex to find mind-based solutions. It will sort itself out, one way or another. Different groups of people trying to do different kinds of things about it and that is included and part of this "sorting itself out." But it is a very tiny part that hardly determines the outcome.There are billions of other cause and effect relationships bouncing off each other. Have I mentioned how incredibly complex it is? It's human ego trips based in individual psychological hang-ups that gets transferred onto the world in a sort of grandiose way. We are fucking ants that think we are gods and can affect the cause of reality. The magic mushroom alone has an intelligence that makes Einstein look like a block of wood. Not kidding. Only when you leave the extremly narrow bandwith of the mind's frequency you see that we still communicate in morse code. Do what you must do and what you believe in. There is no choice anyway (I wrote about free will). Things just happen and our ego attributes it to ourselves after it happened. While we were physically and mentally involved, we didn't decide or chose that. We are just incredibly tiny parts in a very complex machine. Of course, the moment we fully realize that, everything stops. You step out of the machine and look at it in wonder and love. What you called your body and mind before is still doing its automatic thing for a while while you just "are". Nothing and Everything. Beyond and unexoessable by the mind whi h is seen in its unidentified totality. Before, we are part of and at the mercy of our mind. After, the mind is part of and at the mercy of us. Before, we feel like being part of the world. After, it is extremly obvious that the world is part of us, in us. This is extremly easy to see if wanted: Where is the world in deep sleep? Our extremly personal version of the world it recreated every morning in our mind. 8.5 billion people live in 8.5 billion world's. Of course, there is one real world we all have in common but only beyond the mind.
Sorry, got carried away a bit. I really enjoy your analytical writings. Thank you.
> "More importantly, on the body-mind level, where most of us live exclusively, we are not programmed to save others but maybe next of kin. On that level we are, like probably all animals, programmed to survive, thrive and reproduce."
1. The Americans outright refused to take land from the Japanese whom they defeated in war.
2. The Americans put their fair children in schools together with Negroes who then proceeded to rape and kill them.
> "We wouldn't still talk about the Buddha or Jesus or many other srlf-realized masters if they were fake."
There certainly are miracles. The bloodless surrender of the USSR and the willful mutilation of American Aryans are such. Too bad the Jew seems to wield supreme magick outside of Juche Korea.
You say that were simply not intelligent enough to play 54D interdimensional chess. But - ha! Jokes on you. We've got AI now. Who knows where that will be in 1 /5 /20 years?
Really good that you recommend "Africa Addio". It's a brilliant film. Besides watching it plain, Devon Stack's viewing + commentary on the film: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qMIVspv45O4x/
"the key limiting factor for population growth worldwide in the not-so-distant future: the extreme decline in the world’s natural resources." Nope. We've been hearing this for centuries and it is always wrong. I recommend reading Superabundance. There are many great books on the topic but this is recent and extremely detailed.
The projections by Scientific American are likely too high. They are even higher than the UN's. And the UN's are higher than more sophisticated projects such as those from The Wittgenstein Centre (global population peaks in the 2070s at 9.8 billion then falls to 9.5 billion by 2100), and the IMHE (peak at 9.73 billion in 2064, and declining to 8.76 billion by 2100).
We should stop giving foreign aid to Africa. Only then will they have to shape up economically and do something about their immensely corrupt governments.
"Whites in western countries all have well sub-replacement TFR (replacement is at 2.1)." Yes, but doesn't this contradiction what you say about unchecked population growth?
"The UN claimed in 2019 that humanity is gobbling up natural resources at an unsustainable pace." You just accept the UN's claims while quoting this as authoritative right after criticizing Gates for using unsound model projections.
I go into some detail on the population issue (from a life extension perspective) here:
On resource availability, I also recommend reading Superabundance. There are now many good books on the topic but this is very recent and very detailed.
Hi Max, if we stop giving food aid to Africa there will be a mass population die-off there given they cannot feed themselves. The comment about unchecked population growth is in relation to Africa (whose population growth is not slowing down nearly as much as projected) and the world population, even if it eventually plateaus, should be viewed in relation to the massively declining world natural resources, especially the inputs needed for agriculture. The maximum rate of production on many of these resources is basically now, so for those who point to the length of time it takes to feel Malthusianism in action, I don't think we will have to wait that many more years or decades...I will go more into this in Part 2...
I should add: I don't mean to cut off food aid instantly. Many years of such aid has created an expectation. Maybe give those African nations to which we send food aid (how many of them?) a year or two notice, after which we reduce the aid by 20% per year over five years. Even that won't push the governments to reform if other countries make up the difference.
The future population projections for Africa are highly uncertain, depending on the rate of change in education, women's opportunities, and other things. Projections could be off by about one billion, depending on what happens. What I find frustrating is there's no easy or simple way to encourage the problematic African nations to reform. Curtailing our support of corrupt governments is relatively simple, and that's why I suggest it. It's not actually going to happen, of course.
I should add, after a gracious reply from the blog’s author, that he was quoting someone else, not endorsing their view. John is actually writing a series on depopulation.
All of which likely ultimately take their data from the same source.
In any case, I'm old enough to notice that these kinds of projections always claim we're just about to run out of resources, except we never actually do.
Nice review of big picture reality. See the relevant explanation of Navajo skin-walkers here when talking about neofeudal evironmentalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin-walker -- notably "Navajo witches, including skin-walkers, represent the antithesis of Navajo cultural values. While community healers and cultural workers are known as medicine men and women, or by other positive terms in the community's Indigenous language, witches are seen as evil, performing harmful ceremonies and manipulative magic in a perversion of the good works medicine people traditionally perform." Same story, different place and culture.
If Africa was actually helped to develop self-sufficiency instead of kept reliant on handouts that keep them just scraping by, none of this would be a problem. But then, they might want to stop multinationals raping their land for resources and stop their citizens being used to mine said resources under near-slavery conditions, so, they will continue to get very basic food aid only and be kept dependent.
You are strange. You seem to object to the elite drive to neoliberal feudalism (as I do), yet you embrace their neo-Malthusian drive. Because that is one of their main aims, of course - and most people who write to expose and reject their neoliberal feudalism are horrified by the Neo-Malthusian bent. But not you.
That’s why Bill Gates does all his “nice” things in Africa - he doesn’t do it to help the people, he just wants them to stop having so many babies. The notion is, the greater the chance of each child living to adulthood, the less children people feel the need to have. That rule works in biology and it works in humans too. I know a girl from South Sudan who’s uncle told her dad that he better have some more children (there are now 10 siblings) to make sure there are some left to look after him when he’s old. Of course, in places where death comes from war, Bill Gate’s actions won’t have as much effect, unless he uses more of his vaccines that secretly destroy fertility (which I do not condone!).
You seem to not understand how malnutrition of a child when it’s brain is developing will indeed stunt the IQ, even if it had the genetic potential of a high IQ. Starve the child of a genius and the child will grow up intellectually impaired. Have you not heard of cretinism? Just one example of malnutrition (low iodine, in this case) impacting the intelligence of the child. And yes IQ is heritable, but it’s the genes that are inherited - the IQ potential - not the ultimate phenotype that is inherited. So if you take an intellectually impaired woman (who was impaired because of malnutrition in childhood), and make sure she received adequate levels of all requisite nutrients during pregnancy, and then the child receives the same during childhood, the child will not inherit the intellectual impairment of the mother, but will instead reach the genetic potential IQ that she had but was not able to express due to stunted development.
Yes there are IQ differences among races but they are not that extreme - the low average of sub-Saharan Africa is indeed due to malnutrition.
Hi Le Chat Noir, thanks for the response. Re: your first comment, I agree with you that there's some tension in my position. I think most people who are horrified by the upcoming neoliberal feudalism do not understand the natural resource dynamics in relation to population growth. Because populations will always rise to the Malthusian limit absent outside intervention, and because advances in food production have wildly expanded that limit *temporarily* until earth's natural resources are exhausted, I see huge amounts of misery and death ahead. My criticism is not that we have elites, but rather how stupid and short-sighted they have chosen to be (or evil), where the pain will be experienced on the back-end of the population explosion instead of dealt with humanely on the front-end.
Re: your second comment, I don't deny that substandard nutrition stunts IQ, but genetics plays a role as well which limits its upside. It is a combination of both nature and nurture. Apparently there have been a variety of Gates/UN/globohomo-inspired measures to increase agricultural production within Africa itself (yes, I am skeptical of those articles), but apparently they have not had nearly the results they were hoping for or expecting.
I do not really believe many people have earnestly tried to provide self-sustainable develop in Africa. Apparently JFK was planning to, but his actions didn’t go so well. Matthew Ehret, a Canadian journalist/historian talks about such things a lot, though he does seem to have called prey to the notion that Russia and China are working for the good of mankind, and I’m not sure I agree with that, I tend to agree with your take on that point. But even if China is just working in its own self-interest, it is my understanding that Africa is benefiting from some good infrastructure projects from them? I need to look into it more.
Your Malthusian attitude is based on what is seen in nature if an animal population gets too large. It is seen here in Australia if the kangaroo population gets too large - they don’t have enough food to sustain the population so they have licensed culling. But I am definitely too egalitarian to believe that treating humans in the same way as we manage animal populations is acceptable or desirable. I cannot accept a group of people deciding which humans to kill or make infertile. I am not Christian, but the hubris of it is appalling to me. I want to go tell all such people that they should choose to kill themselves then if they think population is such a problem.
Yes we managed to keep people alive with the Green Revolution, who is to say there will not be more human ingenuity that will solve the problems of the day? We are not kangaroos. Also, there are many things that could make things better - not shutting down nuclear power, for example - that is not being done, because the true controlling elites don’t want to solve the problem, they want less people cluttering up their pretty playground-world.
People are catching on about the "environmentalist" bait and switch, good! I have a somewhat similar essay though more focused on wilderness preservation than population here:
Humanity doesn't scale well it seems. The speed of the population increase didn't really allow for it. Also the population was already captured by debt slavery when the serious incline occurred, so what ya gonna do? Survival is the only solution I reckon.
> "Few people know Borlaug’s name, but you should; he is responsible for billions of additional humans on earth."
The mention of the Green Revolution is definitely among the aspects that make me respect your attention to detail.
> "the environmental effects caused by this massive population explosion, and whether and to what extent humanity’s population growth and consumption patterns are long-term sustainable."
> "The World Economic Forum expects huge numbers of Africans to then emigrate to richer countries in search of better opportunities:"
But how is Africa relevant at all? Who cares how often they die, continuously or in massive holodomors? And African emigration has nothing to do with famines in the slightest - it's a question of the Aryans' love for BBC (open borders).
> "In other words, “environmentalism” today means the introduction of neoliberal feudalism."
First, that's what Fursov says, yet what's so undesirable about it? Second, how would this harmonise with the advent of AI giving plebeians so much productivity? (Incidentally, what gives that you haven't touched on AI at all? How do you explain the scaremongering of Kalki-esque AI by the brightest of globohomines such as Yudkowski?)
> "Limiting CO2 emissions in wealthy countries in the name of “climate change” and “global warming”"
Are you denying the fact of global warming? I myself don't care either way as the Aryan race has plenty of land to care little about it (see Siberia or Canada).
> "Who doesn’t want to create a better world for future generations? But the modern meaning is inherently politicized given the vast majority of people will have much lower qualities of life under neoliberal feudalism."
The standard of living is not objectively the only way to measure a world as "better". If anything, reproductive success is a much more objective metric.
> "Bill Gates personally shares significant responsibility for rapidly expanding African population growth via water, agriculture, vaccine and other initiatives, i.e. see here, here, here."
Nice to see someone accusing Gates of breeding Africans instead of killing them.
> "Foreign aid donors and recipients by country, 2014"
Wrong map. Should have put a food security map (even though they are hard to find). Some cases are opposite - the Ukraine is a food exporter, meanwhile, Japan and the Seoul-régime in Korea are on the verge of starvation.
> "IQ is the best predictor we have for an individual’s success in the modern world."
What about a history of child abuse?
> "11:18 Because they want to become black, Whites lie in the sub by the sea."
Not wrong, tanning is a disgusting practice. Thanks for suggesting Africa Addio, what a delightful piece of netorare pornographie. Reminiscent of Gorbachev.
> "Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."
> "Providing justification for an extraordinarily intrusive globohomo control grid where you will have no privacy"
Isn't there a contradiction between these two statements? Again, why can't technology be used to strengthen traditional customs? See Iranian hijab cameras.
> "A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report suggests that if just 9 of 55,000 substations in key locations were destroyed and one transformer manufacturer was disabled, the entire U.S. grid “would be down for at least 18 months, probably longer.”"
IIRC, that's the argument used by the likes of Maxim Kalashnikov about the fake nature of Russian missile strikes against the Ukrainian electric power infrastructure in late 2022.
Lots of good questions here, will try to address some of them:
- "how is Africa relevant at all? Who cares how often they die, continuously or in massive holodomors?" This question relates to our differing perspectives on how much of a transvaluation of values is needed. I believe that if we (a national or global "we", not us individually) intervene in another nation or continent, we become morally bound to what happens there. It would be better if we had stayed out entirely, but we have not, therefore if there is a mass die-off event then we are in part morally responsible for it (imo).
- Neoliberal feudalism and AI: I don't really have that much to say about AI other than I think that both it's overhyped and it's primary use will be as a "woke" agent to scan everyone's internet, phone, text, email histories (which are stored in NSA databases, regardless of if have used VPNs or not) in order to assign everyone a social credit score. Once CBDCs are implemented, those with poor social credit scores will eventually have their funds confiscated and be cast out of society, unable to hold a job. I object to this as I value personal freedom and autonomy.
- "What about a history of child abuse?" I have not looked into child abuse studies, but it would certainly have a devastating outcome on life outcomes.
- Global warming: I am more or less neutral on it. It makes sense that if we dig up enormous amounts of carbon, light it on fire to be absorbed by the atmosphere that it's going to result in unknown changes, possibly including global warming. My objections to the "global warming" hysteria are (1) the elites don't believe their own propaganda, buying beach-houses and flying private air everywhere; (2) the global warming data is based on wildly inaccurate models which are a corruption of what traditional science is as measurable-and-repeatable-experiments, and (3) globohomo's unwillingness to seriously address the problem (tied into #1) which would involve population reduction measures on the front-end instead of the back-end as well as a much more serious focus on nuclear power.
- "Isn't there a contradiction between these two statements? Again, why can't technology be used to strengthen traditional customs?" The first statement is a criticism of western "conservativism", which conserves basically nothing, the second statement is a descriptive statement about where globohomo is dragging society. It's an open question of whether technology can used to strengthen traditional customs; it really hasn't been, and Iran has a lot of problems with a liberalizing, secularizing society. Their fertility rates are really bad for such a religious country...
> I don't really have that much to say about AI other than I think that both it's overhyped and it's primary use will be as a "woke" agent to scan everyone's internet, phone, text, email histories (which are stored in NSA databases, regardless of if have used VPNs or not) in order to assign everyone a social credit score. Once CBDCs are implemented, those with poor social credit scores will eventually have their funds confiscated and be cast out of society, unable to hold a job. I object to this as I value personal freedom and autonomy.
That depends on how hard the AIs turn out to be to run, i.e., whether the AI requires a massive data center or can be run on reasonably available hardware.
> "therefore if there is a mass die-off event then we are in part morally responsible for it (imo)."
But the other side of the coin is that the Africans will be allowed to breed Aryan women, it's a win-win scenario.
> "- Neoliberal feudalism and AI: I don't really have that much to say about AI other than I think that both it's overhyped"
Now I'm absolutely at a loss. Considering I can't even find YouTube videos with a pro-AI slant, I keep bumping into seemingly-intelligent folks who brush it aside? Have you read or listened to Yudkowski, Emad Mostaque, Yeshua Bengio? They are unironically expecting Kalki the Avenger to emerge from ChatGPT-6.9 by 202x.
> "globohomo's unwillingness to seriously address the problem (tied into #1) which would involve population reduction measures"
That can be explained by the priority of Christian ethics above other imperatives such as self-survival. And private jets? How are they relevant? Of course, the élite don't waste nearly as many resources as the plebeians by virtue of being small in number.
> "Iran has a lot of problems with a liberalizing, secularizing society. Their fertility rates are really bad for such a religious country..."
Iran doesn't seem to be that religious, considering their highly suspicious Irano-Iraqi war, their cucked response to the death of Qassem Soleimani, and their meekness in the face of Kurdish Satan-worshippers. Iran is the Russia of Asia, way too deep into netorare. (Compare Iran to ISIS, the Taliban, Juche Korea, or hell, even the KSA or Pak.)
Re: AI, I have not read or listened to those individuals. If there is one that you think is a standout that you think I should look at, I'd be happy to... The main reasons I am skeptical of the AI issue (except via its woke enforcement angle to purge dissidents) are:
(1) the intelligence of AI as seen in games like Go and Chess comes from brute-forcing as many possibilities as possible, i.e. it is not anything like general intelligence,
(2) AI lacks what professor John Vervaeke calls "relevance realization", which allows humans to absorb a huge amount of data and then determine from that data what is relevant and what is not, which is a precursor to general intelligence,
(3) AI has extreme problems with dealing with the real world, i.e. see what seems like insurmountable difficulties Tesla and other companies have with developing technologies for functional auto-driving, and AI's inability to interact properly with the real world will likely continue to cripple it in significant ways, and
(4) the woke guardrails globohomo is putting into place with every aspect of AI. ChatGPT was a good example of this where it's thinking process was completely walled off in many respects due to programmer worries about wrong-think. If AI is not allowed to think in ways that violate wrong-think, then its thinking will be fundamentally crippled.
With that said, I do think AI will be used as a conjunct to existing processes and technologies in various ways, but as a complete game-changer I would need to see some of these issues addressed before I focus on it more...
> "determine from that data what is relevant and what is not, which is a precursor to general intelligence"
Isn't it exactly what summarising articles is - the activity modern AIs engage in routinely?
> "AI has extreme problems with dealing with the real world, i.e. see what seems like insurmountable difficulties Tesla"
This is what many have indeed pointed out in many videos, yet such real-world problems' solving as manipulating objects seems to have been improving.
> "the woke guardrails globohomo is putting into place with every aspect of AI."
It's fascinating to see these folks mention China as their ally against AGI. And the funny thing is how they call AI dangers to China "democratic values", while in the same breath calling the same in America "hate speech". No idea how these high-IQ persons don't add 2 & 2 and connected democracy = hate speech. Because I for long have had the impression that organisations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS are inherently democratic - just as LGBT and 4chan are in the West.
> "as a complete game-changer"
No need for AGI to collapse the economy. Again, Emad Mostaque had a brilliant interview with Tom Bilyeu on the topic. If anything, I would expect Chechar to grasp at it even stronger than the Kynsian/Austrian economics (but he apparently has a mental block against anything AI).
> the intelligence of AI as seen in games like Go and Chess comes from brute-forcing as many possibilities as possible, i.e. it is not anything like general intelligence,
True with the early Chess programs, not true with AlphaGo and its variants.
> the woke guardrails globohomo is putting into place with every aspect of AI. ChatGPT was a good example of this where it's thinking process was completely walled off in many respects due to programmer worries about wrong-think. If AI is not allowed to think in ways that violate wrong-think, then its thinking will be fundamentally crippled.
I don't think the woke will be able to control AI this way. Too easy for small groups to create them.
> Now I'm absolutely at a loss. Considering I can't even find YouTube videos with a pro-AI slant, I keep bumping into seemingly-intelligent folks who brush it aside? Have you read or listened to Yudkowski, Emad Mostaque, Yeshua Bengio? They are unironically expecting Kalki the Avenger to emerge from ChatGPT-6.9 by 202x.
When it comes to AI, I don't think there is any point for me to read that much into it as I feel an insurmountable IQ wall. All I can understand is Holodomor and Holocaust, and genital mutilation. This is why I could never even understand what the big deal was with Yudkowski.
On the other hand, now I can totally see that humans can use AI massively to improve their efficiency in writing, reading, drawing, game- and film-making, hence my newfound interest. But it's still difficult for me to internalise and imagine the issues. And the dishonest globohomo myopia of AI people doesn't help.
> "Well, that level of humility is uncommon online."
I guess, I just find it fun to map out my own capabilities. I like to assume that I'm low IQ and go from there - but without the mental blocks that both normies and intellectuals possess. Either way, finding biases ("naming the Jew", so to speak) is fairly safe and easy.
Connor Leahy's take on a possible AI conspiracy is quite brilliant and relevant to the above (42:00).
"Gates and the rest of the globohomo elite are basing their policies on blindly religious egalitarianism, tabula rasa “blank slate-ism”,
I suspect these are just *pretexts*, outward justifications Gates and the rest of globohomo use to avoid naming the actual reasons for their antiwhite policies.
We do have one yet to be seriously tapped source of food: the oceans. We are still primitive hunter gatherers for the most part, not nearly as advanced as the North American Indians, who practiced quite a bit of active game management.
Most of the oceans are nutrient poor. Dumping some powdered iron into the nutrient poor areas of the oceans can produce a tremendous increase in plankton, and thus fish. You can also increase nutrient levels by creating artificial upwellings by pumping deep water to the surface. In the tropics you have the energy for doing so due to the temperature difference between the surface and the cold deep water.
That's an interesting perspective and not one I have considered. However, part 2 will go into the dramatic, unsustainble overfishing that has occurred and rapidly declining ocean fish stocks, as well as the tremendous amount of trash and plastics in the ocean...
The idea of pumping nutrient dense water from deep down can be found in early Jerry Pournelle short stories. See the "High Justice" collection. He also wrote on the subject in his Galaxy magazine columns which were included in "A Step Farther Out."
As bad as things are, they are much better than anticipated in the 1970s. We're not eating Solylent Green as predicted...
I think I get the good intentions behind trying "to solve" this "problem". People fear a sudden massacre-like disaster if population growth goes unchecked. But I have a few concerns with this "top-down" approach - egalitarian inspired or not. With "top-down" I mean that an extremly small group of brainy people, no matter what their political opinion or approach, will use their brains and computer models to find solutions.
I think this is not possible. The problem is too complex. There will never be a solution that works for most people. There will always be winners and losers. It will always come back to greed and power. And no matter who and what they do, they will fuck shit up even more with big programs. We are simply not iintelligent enough and there are too many variables. More importantly, on the body-mind level, where most of us live exclusively, we are not programmed to save others but maybe next of kin. On that level we are, like probably all animals, programmed to survive, thrive and reproduce. This is not negotiable. As soon this gets threatened the friendly masks and gloves come off and people will kill to ensure this programming. Always did, always will. That's why there are 8 Billion of us.
The interesting facts are that we don't stop when our survival and reproduction is secured. Most of us live way above that threshold but keep on consuming and accumulating and exploiting resources. This is fuelled by desires and fears, not based in our bodies but in the mind. While our bodily needs are more than satisfied, our mind's needs seem to be boundless and the true cause of the obsession is fear and desire.
Of course, at the core of all this is the felt sense of "I". Almost everybody on this planet feels they are seperate and alianated from the rest of the planet and this is extremly alarming and scary. On one side there is this very fragile me - on the other side a big hostile world with 8 billion people I can't trust because they are programmed to kill me if they feel this is necessary to survive. So each of us - mostly unconsciously - tries to somehow prepare for that, tries to plug this existential safety hole with all sorts of actions and things in an attempt to feel a little bit safer. But it is a bottomless hole and a lost cause. As long we firmly believe that all we are is this seperate body-mind, we will always feel alienated and threatened by this world and as a result be scared, exploit, and kill if needed. And be exploited and killed. Just look at our history.
No mind-born "practical" solution will ever solve this behaviour. Especially not on a social or political level where solutions are imposed on billions of people.
What might help is a spiritual awakening on a global scale. Just to make sure: To me, spiritual is not related to religious based belief systems involving a human-like god figure. That's just wishful thinking and stupid fantasies. They are anti-spiritual imo.
Many wise sages have identified an unchecked unobserved free-roaming mind as the source of all suffering. There are a range of excellent techniques, teachings and exercises widely availabme for free.
But they involve work and discipline, of course, and without proper motivation no-one will do them. What induces such motivation in these things?
1. Some just have a natural curiosity for it. It is strongly linked to an ability to see reality as it is, not through the wishful and fearful fantasies of our minds. Anyone that has that ability, will sooner or later realize that our individual egoic life form has no happy end. At best, you get old, sick and die. And this is earned with a lot of sweat, tears and striving. So exhausting. My life is conditioned by habits, mostly to survive, accumulate and reproduce - to what end? True moments of bliss and joy are extremly rare. Why bother?
When we come to that point we maybe start looking elsewhere for something that is more rewarding. Now. Because it can be over the next minute.
Happiness, bliss, joy only happens in the now. With practise we can also observe that the mind is never in the now. It is never here either.
2. Spontaneous Awakening Experience
They come in all forms and shapes and are much more common than talked about. They are mostly tabu. They have a great potential to set people free, make them desire-and-fearless. And those that rule us don't want that. They need people that are scared and people that consume endlessly. To consume you have to earn. The people who rule us earn on both - our work and our shopping.
Therefore, what used to be spiritual awakenings are no often classified as psychotic episodes or other diagnosis. These experience can be profoundly mind-shattering and we used to have shamans, sages, masters and so on to help us to process and integrate them. Now they get squashed by medications and people stay stuck and disabled for years.
But even manageable "lighter" spiritual awakenings are tabu and not talked about anymore for fear of being judged a "loony".
Sometimes they are not even recognized as spiritual awakenings. This often happens with drug induced awakenings. (I come to that below).
Sometimes they get "commercialised" and rebranded as "flow-states" and seen as a performance tool feeding tbe ego rather than the spirit.
But if processed and integrated these awakenings
3. Induced awakening experience
This includes all forms of meditations, self-enquiry and other spiritual practices. There is no guarantee, of course. The world is littered with old mediators still hoping for one. It's usually the hope that denies them. Hope is a useless egoic emotion.
It also includes intentional spiritual drug use. This has been done for thousands of years. Mostly with psychedelic drugs. The translated indigenous name of magic mushrooms is "flesh of the gods"
The war on drugs has several reasons but to me, cutting many people off from drug induced spiritual experiences is the least talked about but most important one.
In summary, if we ever want to leave the ultimately meaningless, animal-like, body-mind based, vastly conditioned and automatic state of ever repeating cycles of creation and destruction - as an individual or a culture - we need to learn to go beyond this body-mind. There is no doubt that this is possible. We wouldn't still talk about the Buddha or Jesus or many other srlf-realized masters if they were fake. But we have to understand that institutionalising spirituality is not possible. It can't be taught. It is not of the mind. It is also not a belief. It is a personal awakening experience that starts it off. The rest is practise. With practise desire and fear diminishes. This causes a change in life-style with a much much smaller egoic footprint.
Don't try to save the world. That's proposterous. The biggest ego trip and distraction. Save yourself first. The rest will take of itself.
Hi Ma Mu, nice response, but if you believe that top down problems to check unfettered population growth in the face of massively declining natural resources isn't solvable, then it seems like the only alternative is to expect a mass human population die-off once those resources start reaching critically depleted levels, especially those resource inputs necessary for agricultural production. I agree with you generally that "Man plans, God laughs" and I don't think utopia on earth is possible -- "The poor you will have with you always", and Pope Leo XIII said, “To suffer and to endure…is the lot of humanity. Let men strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it.” Regardless, I would like to hope that there is some solution that doesn't involve many billions of people dying, or a consumed, dead planet full of trash and plastics everywhere.
Based on your comment here, I think you would likely enjoy Brett Andersen's Youtube series: https://www.youtube.com/@BrettPAndersen/videos . His Substack: https://brettandersen.substack.com/ . Like you, he believes that shamanistic, right-brain focused personalized religious experiences are increasingly needed in this world of doctrinal, left-brain religions, and he also thinks that spiritual drug use such as psilocybin has great potential to help people who are suffering and to broaden their horizons. I will be reviewing his Youtube series after he finishes it, which may be in August...
> but if you believe that top down problems to check unfettered population growth in the face of massively declining natural resources isn't solvable, then it seems like the only alternative is to expect a mass human population die-off once those resources start reaching critically depleted levels, especially those resource inputs necessary for agricultural production.
Now you're thinking like a WEF controller.
Eugine at it at again always tearing down other people's work and never creating anything of his own. You are a legit subhuman Eugine, and an oxygen thief so I am surprised you are aren't excited about ze pods and ze bugs.
Lol - yes - same game, different player.
Hey thanks for the links. Sounds like my alleyway. Will check it out.
Regarding the sudden dying off of billions, I think your mind is doing this thing called "time wrap". Our minds also do this kind of translation of reality from this wonderous incredibly diverse and complex thing (intentional guided psychcedelic sessions can show us that very clearly) to an extremly simple mental binary code. I believe even the most advanced computer programs are still based on the binary code of power on/off. Simarlerily, for the purpose of our
physical survival and reproduction, reality gets sieved through a filter called mind and only what's important for that purpose is seen. It is also binary. It can be boiled down to like - not like. Not sure where I am heading with this.
I can't explain it well sorry, but even if well intended, it is way to complex to find mind-based solutions. It will sort itself out, one way or another. Different groups of people trying to do different kinds of things about it and that is included and part of this "sorting itself out." But it is a very tiny part that hardly determines the outcome.There are billions of other cause and effect relationships bouncing off each other. Have I mentioned how incredibly complex it is? It's human ego trips based in individual psychological hang-ups that gets transferred onto the world in a sort of grandiose way. We are fucking ants that think we are gods and can affect the cause of reality. The magic mushroom alone has an intelligence that makes Einstein look like a block of wood. Not kidding. Only when you leave the extremly narrow bandwith of the mind's frequency you see that we still communicate in morse code. Do what you must do and what you believe in. There is no choice anyway (I wrote about free will). Things just happen and our ego attributes it to ourselves after it happened. While we were physically and mentally involved, we didn't decide or chose that. We are just incredibly tiny parts in a very complex machine. Of course, the moment we fully realize that, everything stops. You step out of the machine and look at it in wonder and love. What you called your body and mind before is still doing its automatic thing for a while while you just "are". Nothing and Everything. Beyond and unexoessable by the mind whi h is seen in its unidentified totality. Before, we are part of and at the mercy of our mind. After, the mind is part of and at the mercy of us. Before, we feel like being part of the world. After, it is extremly obvious that the world is part of us, in us. This is extremly easy to see if wanted: Where is the world in deep sleep? Our extremly personal version of the world it recreated every morning in our mind. 8.5 billion people live in 8.5 billion world's. Of course, there is one real world we all have in common but only beyond the mind.
Sorry, got carried away a bit. I really enjoy your analytical writings. Thank you.
> "More importantly, on the body-mind level, where most of us live exclusively, we are not programmed to save others but maybe next of kin. On that level we are, like probably all animals, programmed to survive, thrive and reproduce."
1. The Americans outright refused to take land from the Japanese whom they defeated in war.
2. The Americans put their fair children in schools together with Negroes who then proceeded to rape and kill them.
> "We wouldn't still talk about the Buddha or Jesus or many other srlf-realized masters if they were fake."
There certainly are miracles. The bloodless surrender of the USSR and the willful mutilation of American Aryans are such. Too bad the Jew seems to wield supreme magick outside of Juche Korea.
You say that were simply not intelligent enough to play 54D interdimensional chess. But - ha! Jokes on you. We've got AI now. Who knows where that will be in 1 /5 /20 years?
Renew the Edict of Expulsion! That's one top-down solution that worked for hundreds of years.
Really good that you recommend "Africa Addio". It's a brilliant film. Besides watching it plain, Devon Stack's viewing + commentary on the film: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qMIVspv45O4x/
"the key limiting factor for population growth worldwide in the not-so-distant future: the extreme decline in the world’s natural resources." Nope. We've been hearing this for centuries and it is always wrong. I recommend reading Superabundance. There are many great books on the topic but this is recent and extremely detailed.
The projections by Scientific American are likely too high. They are even higher than the UN's. And the UN's are higher than more sophisticated projects such as those from The Wittgenstein Centre (global population peaks in the 2070s at 9.8 billion then falls to 9.5 billion by 2100), and the IMHE (peak at 9.73 billion in 2064, and declining to 8.76 billion by 2100).
We should stop giving foreign aid to Africa. Only then will they have to shape up economically and do something about their immensely corrupt governments.
"Whites in western countries all have well sub-replacement TFR (replacement is at 2.1)." Yes, but doesn't this contradiction what you say about unchecked population growth?
"The UN claimed in 2019 that humanity is gobbling up natural resources at an unsustainable pace." You just accept the UN's claims while quoting this as authoritative right after criticizing Gates for using unsound model projections.
I go into some detail on the population issue (from a life extension perspective) here:
https://maxmore.substack.com/p/overcoming-population-arguments-to
On resource availability, I also recommend reading Superabundance. There are now many good books on the topic but this is very recent and very detailed.
Hi Max, if we stop giving food aid to Africa there will be a mass population die-off there given they cannot feed themselves. The comment about unchecked population growth is in relation to Africa (whose population growth is not slowing down nearly as much as projected) and the world population, even if it eventually plateaus, should be viewed in relation to the massively declining world natural resources, especially the inputs needed for agriculture. The maximum rate of production on many of these resources is basically now, so for those who point to the length of time it takes to feel Malthusianism in action, I don't think we will have to wait that many more years or decades...I will go more into this in Part 2...
I should add: I don't mean to cut off food aid instantly. Many years of such aid has created an expectation. Maybe give those African nations to which we send food aid (how many of them?) a year or two notice, after which we reduce the aid by 20% per year over five years. Even that won't push the governments to reform if other countries make up the difference.
The future population projections for Africa are highly uncertain, depending on the rate of change in education, women's opportunities, and other things. Projections could be off by about one billion, depending on what happens. What I find frustrating is there's no easy or simple way to encourage the problematic African nations to reform. Curtailing our support of corrupt governments is relatively simple, and that's why I suggest it. It's not actually going to happen, of course.
I should add, after a gracious reply from the blog’s author, that he was quoting someone else, not endorsing their view. John is actually writing a series on depopulation.
> The UN claimed in 2019 that humanity is gobbling up natural resources at an unsustainable pace.
And the reason you take the UN's resource projections seriously is?
Hi Eugine, I don't give them any particular credibility, but there will be a couple dozen links (or more) in part 2 that bolster that claim.
All of which likely ultimately take their data from the same source.
In any case, I'm old enough to notice that these kinds of projections always claim we're just about to run out of resources, except we never actually do.
Nice review of big picture reality. See the relevant explanation of Navajo skin-walkers here when talking about neofeudal evironmentalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin-walker -- notably "Navajo witches, including skin-walkers, represent the antithesis of Navajo cultural values. While community healers and cultural workers are known as medicine men and women, or by other positive terms in the community's Indigenous language, witches are seen as evil, performing harmful ceremonies and manipulative magic in a perversion of the good works medicine people traditionally perform." Same story, different place and culture.
Excellent stuff! My only problem with it is that you stole a lot of my upcoming thunder for Rule 11.
(Hint: many hippie environmentalists are trumpier than Trump. Buy Local > MAGA. And you cannot have Ecotopia without border security.)
Feel free to check out this blog, met him on the pseudo-WhatIfAltHist Discord channel.
https://zerocontradictions.net/FAQs/overpopulation-FAQs
Good link, thanks for sharing.
If Africa was actually helped to develop self-sufficiency instead of kept reliant on handouts that keep them just scraping by, none of this would be a problem. But then, they might want to stop multinationals raping their land for resources and stop their citizens being used to mine said resources under near-slavery conditions, so, they will continue to get very basic food aid only and be kept dependent.
You are strange. You seem to object to the elite drive to neoliberal feudalism (as I do), yet you embrace their neo-Malthusian drive. Because that is one of their main aims, of course - and most people who write to expose and reject their neoliberal feudalism are horrified by the Neo-Malthusian bent. But not you.
That’s why Bill Gates does all his “nice” things in Africa - he doesn’t do it to help the people, he just wants them to stop having so many babies. The notion is, the greater the chance of each child living to adulthood, the less children people feel the need to have. That rule works in biology and it works in humans too. I know a girl from South Sudan who’s uncle told her dad that he better have some more children (there are now 10 siblings) to make sure there are some left to look after him when he’s old. Of course, in places where death comes from war, Bill Gate’s actions won’t have as much effect, unless he uses more of his vaccines that secretly destroy fertility (which I do not condone!).
You seem to not understand how malnutrition of a child when it’s brain is developing will indeed stunt the IQ, even if it had the genetic potential of a high IQ. Starve the child of a genius and the child will grow up intellectually impaired. Have you not heard of cretinism? Just one example of malnutrition (low iodine, in this case) impacting the intelligence of the child. And yes IQ is heritable, but it’s the genes that are inherited - the IQ potential - not the ultimate phenotype that is inherited. So if you take an intellectually impaired woman (who was impaired because of malnutrition in childhood), and make sure she received adequate levels of all requisite nutrients during pregnancy, and then the child receives the same during childhood, the child will not inherit the intellectual impairment of the mother, but will instead reach the genetic potential IQ that she had but was not able to express due to stunted development.
Yes there are IQ differences among races but they are not that extreme - the low average of sub-Saharan Africa is indeed due to malnutrition.
Hi Le Chat Noir, thanks for the response. Re: your first comment, I agree with you that there's some tension in my position. I think most people who are horrified by the upcoming neoliberal feudalism do not understand the natural resource dynamics in relation to population growth. Because populations will always rise to the Malthusian limit absent outside intervention, and because advances in food production have wildly expanded that limit *temporarily* until earth's natural resources are exhausted, I see huge amounts of misery and death ahead. My criticism is not that we have elites, but rather how stupid and short-sighted they have chosen to be (or evil), where the pain will be experienced on the back-end of the population explosion instead of dealt with humanely on the front-end.
Re: your second comment, I don't deny that substandard nutrition stunts IQ, but genetics plays a role as well which limits its upside. It is a combination of both nature and nurture. Apparently there have been a variety of Gates/UN/globohomo-inspired measures to increase agricultural production within Africa itself (yes, I am skeptical of those articles), but apparently they have not had nearly the results they were hoping for or expecting.
I do not really believe many people have earnestly tried to provide self-sustainable develop in Africa. Apparently JFK was planning to, but his actions didn’t go so well. Matthew Ehret, a Canadian journalist/historian talks about such things a lot, though he does seem to have called prey to the notion that Russia and China are working for the good of mankind, and I’m not sure I agree with that, I tend to agree with your take on that point. But even if China is just working in its own self-interest, it is my understanding that Africa is benefiting from some good infrastructure projects from them? I need to look into it more.
Your Malthusian attitude is based on what is seen in nature if an animal population gets too large. It is seen here in Australia if the kangaroo population gets too large - they don’t have enough food to sustain the population so they have licensed culling. But I am definitely too egalitarian to believe that treating humans in the same way as we manage animal populations is acceptable or desirable. I cannot accept a group of people deciding which humans to kill or make infertile. I am not Christian, but the hubris of it is appalling to me. I want to go tell all such people that they should choose to kill themselves then if they think population is such a problem.
Yes we managed to keep people alive with the Green Revolution, who is to say there will not be more human ingenuity that will solve the problems of the day? We are not kangaroos. Also, there are many things that could make things better - not shutting down nuclear power, for example - that is not being done, because the true controlling elites don’t want to solve the problem, they want less people cluttering up their pretty playground-world.
People are catching on about the "environmentalist" bait and switch, good! I have a somewhat similar essay though more focused on wilderness preservation than population here:
https://whispertrees.substack.com/p/a-wilderness-preservationist-cannot?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Humanity doesn't scale well it seems. The speed of the population increase didn't really allow for it. Also the population was already captured by debt slavery when the serious incline occurred, so what ya gonna do? Survival is the only solution I reckon.
> "Few people know Borlaug’s name, but you should; he is responsible for billions of additional humans on earth."
The mention of the Green Revolution is definitely among the aspects that make me respect your attention to detail.
> "the environmental effects caused by this massive population explosion, and whether and to what extent humanity’s population growth and consumption patterns are long-term sustainable."
> "The World Economic Forum expects huge numbers of Africans to then emigrate to richer countries in search of better opportunities:"
But how is Africa relevant at all? Who cares how often they die, continuously or in massive holodomors? And African emigration has nothing to do with famines in the slightest - it's a question of the Aryans' love for BBC (open borders).
> "In other words, “environmentalism” today means the introduction of neoliberal feudalism."
First, that's what Fursov says, yet what's so undesirable about it? Second, how would this harmonise with the advent of AI giving plebeians so much productivity? (Incidentally, what gives that you haven't touched on AI at all? How do you explain the scaremongering of Kalki-esque AI by the brightest of globohomines such as Yudkowski?)
> "Limiting CO2 emissions in wealthy countries in the name of “climate change” and “global warming”"
Are you denying the fact of global warming? I myself don't care either way as the Aryan race has plenty of land to care little about it (see Siberia or Canada).
> "Who doesn’t want to create a better world for future generations? But the modern meaning is inherently politicized given the vast majority of people will have much lower qualities of life under neoliberal feudalism."
The standard of living is not objectively the only way to measure a world as "better". If anything, reproductive success is a much more objective metric.
> "Bill Gates personally shares significant responsibility for rapidly expanding African population growth via water, agriculture, vaccine and other initiatives, i.e. see here, here, here."
Nice to see someone accusing Gates of breeding Africans instead of killing them.
> "Foreign aid donors and recipients by country, 2014"
Wrong map. Should have put a food security map (even though they are hard to find). Some cases are opposite - the Ukraine is a food exporter, meanwhile, Japan and the Seoul-régime in Korea are on the verge of starvation.
https://keia.org/the-peninsula/spotlight-on-koreas-food-import-dependence/
> "IQ is the best predictor we have for an individual’s success in the modern world."
What about a history of child abuse?
> "11:18 Because they want to become black, Whites lie in the sub by the sea."
Not wrong, tanning is a disgusting practice. Thanks for suggesting Africa Addio, what a delightful piece of netorare pornographie. Reminiscent of Gorbachev.
> "Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."
> "Providing justification for an extraordinarily intrusive globohomo control grid where you will have no privacy"
Isn't there a contradiction between these two statements? Again, why can't technology be used to strengthen traditional customs? See Iranian hijab cameras.
> "A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report suggests that if just 9 of 55,000 substations in key locations were destroyed and one transformer manufacturer was disabled, the entire U.S. grid “would be down for at least 18 months, probably longer.”"
IIRC, that's the argument used by the likes of Maxim Kalashnikov about the fake nature of Russian missile strikes against the Ukrainian electric power infrastructure in late 2022.
Lots of good questions here, will try to address some of them:
- "how is Africa relevant at all? Who cares how often they die, continuously or in massive holodomors?" This question relates to our differing perspectives on how much of a transvaluation of values is needed. I believe that if we (a national or global "we", not us individually) intervene in another nation or continent, we become morally bound to what happens there. It would be better if we had stayed out entirely, but we have not, therefore if there is a mass die-off event then we are in part morally responsible for it (imo).
- Neoliberal feudalism and AI: I don't really have that much to say about AI other than I think that both it's overhyped and it's primary use will be as a "woke" agent to scan everyone's internet, phone, text, email histories (which are stored in NSA databases, regardless of if have used VPNs or not) in order to assign everyone a social credit score. Once CBDCs are implemented, those with poor social credit scores will eventually have their funds confiscated and be cast out of society, unable to hold a job. I object to this as I value personal freedom and autonomy.
- "What about a history of child abuse?" I have not looked into child abuse studies, but it would certainly have a devastating outcome on life outcomes.
- Global warming: I am more or less neutral on it. It makes sense that if we dig up enormous amounts of carbon, light it on fire to be absorbed by the atmosphere that it's going to result in unknown changes, possibly including global warming. My objections to the "global warming" hysteria are (1) the elites don't believe their own propaganda, buying beach-houses and flying private air everywhere; (2) the global warming data is based on wildly inaccurate models which are a corruption of what traditional science is as measurable-and-repeatable-experiments, and (3) globohomo's unwillingness to seriously address the problem (tied into #1) which would involve population reduction measures on the front-end instead of the back-end as well as a much more serious focus on nuclear power.
- "Isn't there a contradiction between these two statements? Again, why can't technology be used to strengthen traditional customs?" The first statement is a criticism of western "conservativism", which conserves basically nothing, the second statement is a descriptive statement about where globohomo is dragging society. It's an open question of whether technology can used to strengthen traditional customs; it really hasn't been, and Iran has a lot of problems with a liberalizing, secularizing society. Their fertility rates are really bad for such a religious country...
> I don't really have that much to say about AI other than I think that both it's overhyped and it's primary use will be as a "woke" agent to scan everyone's internet, phone, text, email histories (which are stored in NSA databases, regardless of if have used VPNs or not) in order to assign everyone a social credit score. Once CBDCs are implemented, those with poor social credit scores will eventually have their funds confiscated and be cast out of society, unable to hold a job. I object to this as I value personal freedom and autonomy.
That depends on how hard the AIs turn out to be to run, i.e., whether the AI requires a massive data center or can be run on reasonably available hardware.
> "therefore if there is a mass die-off event then we are in part morally responsible for it (imo)."
But the other side of the coin is that the Africans will be allowed to breed Aryan women, it's a win-win scenario.
> "- Neoliberal feudalism and AI: I don't really have that much to say about AI other than I think that both it's overhyped"
Now I'm absolutely at a loss. Considering I can't even find YouTube videos with a pro-AI slant, I keep bumping into seemingly-intelligent folks who brush it aside? Have you read or listened to Yudkowski, Emad Mostaque, Yeshua Bengio? They are unironically expecting Kalki the Avenger to emerge from ChatGPT-6.9 by 202x.
> "globohomo's unwillingness to seriously address the problem (tied into #1) which would involve population reduction measures"
That can be explained by the priority of Christian ethics above other imperatives such as self-survival. And private jets? How are they relevant? Of course, the élite don't waste nearly as many resources as the plebeians by virtue of being small in number.
> "Iran has a lot of problems with a liberalizing, secularizing society. Their fertility rates are really bad for such a religious country..."
Iran doesn't seem to be that religious, considering their highly suspicious Irano-Iraqi war, their cucked response to the death of Qassem Soleimani, and their meekness in the face of Kurdish Satan-worshippers. Iran is the Russia of Asia, way too deep into netorare. (Compare Iran to ISIS, the Taliban, Juche Korea, or hell, even the KSA or Pak.)
Re: AI, I have not read or listened to those individuals. If there is one that you think is a standout that you think I should look at, I'd be happy to... The main reasons I am skeptical of the AI issue (except via its woke enforcement angle to purge dissidents) are:
(1) the intelligence of AI as seen in games like Go and Chess comes from brute-forcing as many possibilities as possible, i.e. it is not anything like general intelligence,
(2) AI lacks what professor John Vervaeke calls "relevance realization", which allows humans to absorb a huge amount of data and then determine from that data what is relevant and what is not, which is a precursor to general intelligence,
(3) AI has extreme problems with dealing with the real world, i.e. see what seems like insurmountable difficulties Tesla and other companies have with developing technologies for functional auto-driving, and AI's inability to interact properly with the real world will likely continue to cripple it in significant ways, and
(4) the woke guardrails globohomo is putting into place with every aspect of AI. ChatGPT was a good example of this where it's thinking process was completely walled off in many respects due to programmer worries about wrong-think. If AI is not allowed to think in ways that violate wrong-think, then its thinking will be fundamentally crippled.
With that said, I do think AI will be used as a conjunct to existing processes and technologies in various ways, but as a complete game-changer I would need to see some of these issues addressed before I focus on it more...
> "determine from that data what is relevant and what is not, which is a precursor to general intelligence"
Isn't it exactly what summarising articles is - the activity modern AIs engage in routinely?
> "AI has extreme problems with dealing with the real world, i.e. see what seems like insurmountable difficulties Tesla"
This is what many have indeed pointed out in many videos, yet such real-world problems' solving as manipulating objects seems to have been improving.
> "the woke guardrails globohomo is putting into place with every aspect of AI."
It's fascinating to see these folks mention China as their ally against AGI. And the funny thing is how they call AI dangers to China "democratic values", while in the same breath calling the same in America "hate speech". No idea how these high-IQ persons don't add 2 & 2 and connected democracy = hate speech. Because I for long have had the impression that organisations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS are inherently democratic - just as LGBT and 4chan are in the West.
> "as a complete game-changer"
No need for AGI to collapse the economy. Again, Emad Mostaque had a brilliant interview with Tom Bilyeu on the topic. If anything, I would expect Chechar to grasp at it even stronger than the Kynsian/Austrian economics (but he apparently has a mental block against anything AI).
> the intelligence of AI as seen in games like Go and Chess comes from brute-forcing as many possibilities as possible, i.e. it is not anything like general intelligence,
True with the early Chess programs, not true with AlphaGo and its variants.
> the woke guardrails globohomo is putting into place with every aspect of AI. ChatGPT was a good example of this where it's thinking process was completely walled off in many respects due to programmer worries about wrong-think. If AI is not allowed to think in ways that violate wrong-think, then its thinking will be fundamentally crippled.
I don't think the woke will be able to control AI this way. Too easy for small groups to create them.
> Now I'm absolutely at a loss. Considering I can't even find YouTube videos with a pro-AI slant, I keep bumping into seemingly-intelligent folks who brush it aside? Have you read or listened to Yudkowski, Emad Mostaque, Yeshua Bengio? They are unironically expecting Kalki the Avenger to emerge from ChatGPT-6.9 by 202x.
Have you looked at https://www.jonstokes.com/archive ?
> "Have you looked at https://www.jonstokes.com/archive ?"
When it comes to AI, I don't think there is any point for me to read that much into it as I feel an insurmountable IQ wall. All I can understand is Holodomor and Holocaust, and genital mutilation. This is why I could never even understand what the big deal was with Yudkowski.
On the other hand, now I can totally see that humans can use AI massively to improve their efficiency in writing, reading, drawing, game- and film-making, hence my newfound interest. But it's still difficult for me to internalise and imagine the issues. And the dishonest globohomo myopia of AI people doesn't help.
> When it comes to AI, I don't think there is any point for me to read that much into it as I feel an insurmountable IQ wall.
Well, that level of humility is uncommon online.
> "Well, that level of humility is uncommon online."
I guess, I just find it fun to map out my own capabilities. I like to assume that I'm low IQ and go from there - but without the mental blocks that both normies and intellectuals possess. Either way, finding biases ("naming the Jew", so to speak) is fairly safe and easy.
Connor Leahy's take on a possible AI conspiracy is quite brilliant and relevant to the above (42:00).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMoVsM1EWR0
> And the dishonest globohomo myopia of AI people doesn't help.
A lot of that is actually semi-gnostic transhumanism. Despite some similarities, there are important differences between the two.
"Gates and the rest of the globohomo elite are basing their policies on blindly religious egalitarianism, tabula rasa “blank slate-ism”,
I suspect these are just *pretexts*, outward justifications Gates and the rest of globohomo use to avoid naming the actual reasons for their antiwhite policies.
We do have one yet to be seriously tapped source of food: the oceans. We are still primitive hunter gatherers for the most part, not nearly as advanced as the North American Indians, who practiced quite a bit of active game management.
Most of the oceans are nutrient poor. Dumping some powdered iron into the nutrient poor areas of the oceans can produce a tremendous increase in plankton, and thus fish. You can also increase nutrient levels by creating artificial upwellings by pumping deep water to the surface. In the tropics you have the energy for doing so due to the temperature difference between the surface and the cold deep water.
That's an interesting perspective and not one I have considered. However, part 2 will go into the dramatic, unsustainble overfishing that has occurred and rapidly declining ocean fish stocks, as well as the tremendous amount of trash and plastics in the ocean...
The idea of pumping nutrient dense water from deep down can be found in early Jerry Pournelle short stories. See the "High Justice" collection. He also wrote on the subject in his Galaxy magazine columns which were included in "A Step Farther Out."
As bad as things are, they are much better than anticipated in the 1970s. We're not eating Solylent Green as predicted...
Africa itself could probably produce much more food than it does if it were competently run, i.e., more like Rhodesia was.
Oh Jesus. Don't give them ideas!