Category Archives: Uncategorized

he Ultimate Diet Battle

Goatis VS Dr Anthony Chaffee

Probably the only video with the Alpha Carnivore and the Alpha Raw Primal in the same video.

(There’s a 5 year old interview of Shawn Baker with Goatis, but Chaffee is better at thinking than Baker)

My take on the battle is that Goatis wins on what is natural, and wins on what is bioavailable.

Chaffee wins on the idea that fruits are toxic until they are not, and who is to say they successfully removed the toxins once “ripe”.

Chaffee would win on metabolism since ketosis is more beneficial than non-ketosis. Obv Ben Bikman and Nick Norwitz are better instructors on that topic.

A commenter said “I’ve seen every Chaffee video and he’s right about everything” and someone correctly replied “he’s wrong about exercise”, they also said he’s wrong about organs.

I genuinely don’t know who is right about organs. I confirmed Goatis’s claim that there is no evidence of hypervitaminosis of Vit A from humans consuming liver, only from people taking supplements. I spent 15 months not eating organs (Chaffee, Mikhaila camp) and now that Goatis took control of my brain I’ve been eating raw liver, kidney, heart, and brain. Both sides have good arguments and I’m genuinely undecided.

Overall, I think Goatis versus Chaffee is a tie, and because I think it is a tie, I eat half a Chaffee diet and half a Goatis diet.

I also think for people who want to lose weight, like me, you should go Chaffee until you get close to your goal weight (say 85% of the way) and only go Goatis after that. I’m not doing that, but it’s what I think is right.

I’m almost sure raw meat is healthier than cooked meat and found no backing for higher biovailability of anything except energy from the protein de-naturing, so Goatis wins that one.

I think Chaffee is right on salt – salt to taste – and Goatis is wrong – salt is a rock and toxin. Mostly because goats and animals are willing to fall off cliffs to lick that rock. must be a pretty useful rock.

So half cooked, half raw meat, eat organs but not exclusively, drink blood milk and eat honey but don’t trust plants to self-remove all poison, and squeeze citric fruits on your food when you feel like it.
Half Chaffee, Half Goatis.

I still drink flavored pellegrino, diet redbull, and coke zero (yes I saw the recent study on aspartame, looks bad), which I’m sure both would disapprove.

For now, the battle rages on, until more studies of carnivore and raw primal come out.

Planta Delenda Est!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr87Qal_Kis

Who are the anti-vegans?

Who are the anti-vegans?

The Anti-vegan community is a thriving community of now well-nourished people who were r4p3d by veganism at some point in their lives, then they left. Some became natural eaters, some became carnivores, and some became omnivores.

They don’t like that they were wrecked by an evil ideology into destroying their health, so they go out and about making anti-vegan content. Let’s talk about them

1) Sv3rige, Goatis, Gatis – The world’s foremost anti-vegan, he has a naturalist philosophy according to which all that is natural is good, and we should follow nature. Despite this simplified philosophy, he is the best in the business by a margin. He’s also a criminal and an evil man on the side.

2) Vegan Deterioration – She’s extremely active. Every day she posts a new post of some vegan giving up veganism somewhere. Sometimes she makes funny voices and says silly things, sometimes she is just nice to the vegans. She reports vegan deterioration. She was also wrecked by veganism, as was Goatis.

3) Vegan Phobic – He was more active 2019-2022 and made a great series of video compilations of people who are “no longer vegan” which is just hundreds of people saying “hey, I’m no longer vegan”. He was also wrecked by veganism

Both vegan phobic and vegan deterioration are black, and occasionally mention aspects of veganism that make it bad for black people.

4) Happy Now Olivia – She was vegan for a whole of 16 years. !!! 16 years! and she’s still young and a hot woman, which I think factors in the popularity of her one video about veganism, “The Dangers of Veganism”. She’s especially influential among women leaving veganism, as she’s very womanly and addresses the crime inflicted on her from a feminine perspective but also with a lot of knowledge. She’s half Indian, one reason she survived so long eating plants. As the name says, she’s happy now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7sHlB4Yxb8&t=1014s&pp=ygUQdmVnYW5pc20gZGFuZ2Vycw%3D%3D

5) Shannon Michaela – Arguably the most viral anti-vegan, Shannon is an influencer TikTok girl who does 4 different things: Archery with her feet, she holds the world record for it, Bitcoin, Birth-tourism (the art of giving your child citizenship somewhere by birth, in Costa Rica in her case), and destroying veganism and feminism. Her video “Veganism is a scam” is one of the most compact anti-vegan distillations.

There are many other people who influence people to leave veganism, me, Ann Vo, Bella Ma, Shawn Baker, Dr Barry, much of the carnivore community and the raw primal meat-based community, and your neighbour who makes the best smelling barbeques you’ve ever felt the scent of. They are anti-vegans as a by-product of something else.

As far as I can tell, those people are the biggest influences in the anti-vegan space, which grew super-exponentially in the last 8 years – if you look at google trends that coincides with veganism losing power, carnivore gaining power, and the Keto era, a period of a few years in which people believed ketogenic diets were great and they became popular, only to return into oblivion once people figured out that as long as you’re eating plants, they are not sustainable in the long run.

There are of course hundreds of videos of people who left veganism once the 15 micronutrients you literally cannot get from plants, which make humans obligate carnivores started missing to the point it was wrecking their lives. Some are mad at veganism. Some are still vegans at heart. Some are fighting internally with the cognitive dissonance. I would not count them as anti-vegan.

One interesting thing about these people is that they often use a spiritual revelation or something as explanation for their leaving veganism. It requires a big mental transformation and sometimes they associate it with some philosophy of spiritual stance. Ultimately they do that because they need nutrition, and they need to justify the horrific fact that nutrition means dead animals, and that is hard for their recently vegan brains. By pretending that there’s spiritual grandiosity in the circle of life, or that you honor an animal by killing it, they feel less cognitive dissonance, eat a steak , and stop being sick.

Veganism itself is very irrational, so it’s no wonder that leaving veganism is also very irrational in execution. Imagine poking your left eye with a needle for 16 years because you don’t have 3 hours to study nutrition and how agriculture needs animal manure for fertilization, or how the economy works, and then stopping poking the needle in your own eye. The cognitive dissonance is tremendous. It helps to think the spirit force of mother gaea wants you to kill bambi.

And that’s ok. Whatever makes people leave the cult and their brain get 15 micronutrients they’ve been missing for so long. Once nourished, they can abandon the crutch they needed to leave.

Goatis is the biggest abandoner of crutch. He is ultra-pro-nature and ultra-anti-religion and spirituality, man made beliefs to enslave the populous. Like the man made belief that you should only eat plants, which once wrecked him near death, and against which he now fights.

Some battles are easy, and some battles are hard. The anti-vegans are fighting a battle that is easy. Yes, in the last decade, 10s of billions of dollars were put into companies that sell poison pretending to be meat, in lobbying for calling strained poison “milk”, or seed sludge “meat” (which is illegal in Switzerland and will soon go back to being illegal everywhere, god willing).
Thankfully, those companies are going bankrupt every day, restaurants that are vegan are adopting animal products from regenerative farms every day, and most importantly in my opinion, when supermarkets were obliterated during the pandemic, and every shelf was missing, there was no meat, no water, no almost anything, the vegan section was still there standing, with all their impossible poison-burguers, and fake shit-white-liquid. The people are not retarded, and the pandemic demonstrated that unequivocally. Impossible sludge is trash, not food, and we know it.

Some battles are easy, and in that sense, the anti-vegan battle is won before it even starts. Vegans are minute fraction of the population, and they don’t have the strength to carry a few gallons of milk from the supermarket. They are irritable, annoying, frail, emasciated, and ugly, no one likes them, and they are the butt of every joke, as it should be. Being vegan is humiliating outside of hollywood, and their efforts have not changed the planet or history, but it has harmed their own health, enormously, for a decade. The battle is won before it starts because 6 billion people work for meat every day. Whatever the top billion tries to indoctrinate, they ain’t buying. Mukbang videos of korean girls eating 3 kilos of seafood in one sitting get dozens of millions of views. Many channels are about eating animals, and get millions of views, not to mention the number of steak channels that also get millions of views.

Some battles are easy, and veganism has the seed of its own destruction embedded in it, the absence of 15 micronutrients, which automatically makes 80% of vegans quit their emasculating emasciating delirium.

Despite the best efforts of great orator Ed Earthling and the almost scientific capability and tassive mits of Unnatural Vegan, veganism continues to lose popularity worldwide, and I’m confident it will soon be illegal to call seed sludge burguer and toxic seed creampie milk. We are taking back control.

Unfortunately, millions of children grew up vegetarian or vegan, missing out on essential points of IQ, centimeters of height, beauty of dental development, cheekbones and chin. A crime against humanity, but not exactly the fault of the veg parents themselves, who were just delusional about 3 topics at once, and too weak to think themselves out of the rut.

Peter Singer is frail, bald, crooked teeth, horrible skin, and dying from veganism, and soon his animal liberation book will be a fringe radical left screed abandoned into a burned Alexandria. The vegan part of his philosophy, we can hope, dies with him. (Sorry Peter, thanks for the EA support, but, the vegan children need help). The same destiny will befall other vegans, even Bryan Johnson, in due time.

Since women are easier to brainwash, and need less protein, veganism infects more women than men, and that’s why Shannon Michaela and Happy Now Olivia are so important.

A guy in his 30s saying they like steak is common. A mother nourishing her 1 year old baby with a tomahawk on Tiktok, now, that’s impact.

If you’re a young woman reading this, specially if you’re skinny and pretty, consider joining the anti-vegans. No one is more needed as a counterbalance to the death cult ideology than hot young women who can bring in millions of other women away from veganism.

Veganism wrecks women’s hormones, and a lot, like A LOT of vegan women lose their periods due to not consuming enough fat, also those pesky 15 micronutrients. The more anti-vegan young hot women in the world, the more hormonally balanced women there will be. This also means more mums with healthy placentas and milks, more babies with big brains, and more sex for everyone as veganism was first big-time promoted by 7th day assholes who wanted to make people infertile and without lust. 3 yolks and steak are the real erection drugs or female desire afrodisiac. Fuck the 7th people and their zealot veganism.

Many people I know have been infected by veganism at one or another point, some are still contaminated. I hope they see the forest for the trees and zoom out of the insanity before they lose their periods, their minds, or their health.

And for that, I have the anti-vegans to thank!

Thank you anti-vegans, for all the hard work you do to make other people healthy!

For Bryan Johnson and Against His Diet

For the past weeks, I’ve been rabidly watching as Bryan Johnson argued against Red Meat on Twitter based on correlational studies.

I ended up writing several texts and comments about it, some with other people replying. Bryan didn’t reply.

I have decided post a compilation of all these posts here, in hopes of helping anyone trying to decide whether or not to trust Bryan and his diet.

1

Hi Bryan, big fan of yours here, and carnivore advocate, I was also doing don’t die while you were still Mormon.

All those studies you mentioned are correlational studies.

Because we’ve been misled to believe in the pyramid food thing, and before that we’ve been misled to believe fat causes cholesterol causes heart attack (because the military needed to subsidize corn after ww2, and because Kellogg sponsored studies and only published those that exonerated plants) the elites, who have longer life strategies, better quality genes, exercise more, stress less, sleep better and have an overall better biological constitution have attempted to follow the food pyramid.

This breaks the correlations completely.

If you give some sausage and pepperoni to an unhealthy population with bad genes, and you give great plants and chicken to a great population with great genes, the great population will live longer.

This creates the appearance, but not the reality, that plants are healthier than red meat.

Evolution of humans is my area of doctorate. Though some human populations have adapted to eating some vegetables, the Scandinavians who became Mormons who became your genes today didn’t have much vegetable access in the last hundred thousand years.

You, specifically, are not adapted to eating plants as much as an Indian man of similar constitution.

Evolutionary pressure is strongest the younger you are. Vegetables are causing less harm to
@talmagejohnson_
than to you, because you’re older.

Agricultural revolution was not long ago and having a high percentage of calories from carbs is not something our ancestors have dealt with. They ate aurochs, mammoths 🦣, horses and whatever animals they could find. Our stomach acidity is carnivore, and we’re obviously designed to hunt.

These diseases of modernity may have a multitude of causes which are impossible to disentangle. Toxins, air pollution, stress, lights at night, seed oils, and processed high shelf life food are some commonly cited culprits in potential.

If red meat gave you excess iron, you can easily quelate for less than millions you already spend.

Brains prefer ketones.

About a million people became carnivore in the last 7 years. They cured anxiety, depression, arthritis and some auto immune conditions, became more calm and likely had longer nocturnal erections.

Only 3 that I know of left carnivores for health reasons.

Meanwhile, thousands and thousands of vegans are visibly harming themselves. Their eyes are sunk, skin dry with rashes and pimples, some have low muscle mass some are obese.

They often have brain problems, and chronic pain (which you yourself have), anxiety, depression and even suicidality, some women lost their period.

While you are obviously healthy for your age, your body’s ability to deal with oxalates, and inflammation from carbs is already deteriorating, as evidenced by joint pains.

You’re living an agricultural life, and your ancestors have only done that for a few generations, Darwin didn’t have time to work his magic yet.

If you were getting nutrients from fat instead of carbs, your aging body would be able to process it better, you’d need to do less exercise, and your mood and cognitive function would improve. You’d likely need to sleep less as well.

When using evidence to assess something it’s necessary to understand the origins of the populations you study, that’s what my field of biological anthropology does.

I would take a bet of 20k that a high fat carnivore diet is healthier for Caucasians of Mormon ascent like you than any vegan diet. Even yours. And yours is likely the best on earth.

You’re optimizing 2 dimensions at once by being plant based, this may cost you your life. Do you really need to be an ethical quasi vegan? Would you die for that ethical commitment?

Will you sacrifice an eternity of tomorrows for 20 cows?

1a

Might need some backup for my claims from chemistry specialists and carnivore doctors. Assuming Artificial super intelligence goes well it should happen within the next 20 or 40 years. Bryan will be 86 by then. At most, he’d eat 120 cows

🐄

. Then ASI will solve nutrition and no further cows need be slaughtered. Bryan can afford to offset this 100 to 1, he can easily buy or save tens of thousands of cows. Should he risk his life with a vegan diet, given his stated goal of not dying? Can he trust the correlational epidemiological studies? Why? Why not?

2

Thank you for engaging with our arguments, Bryan.

You have joint pains, your teeth are less than perfect, and you supplement several hormones.

You, individually, are healthy.

I also don’t want to die, I was the first Brazilian of 230 million to sign up for cryonics.

We’re both trying to survive until the singularity.

I still believe the carnivore diet is more effective towards that goal than your diet and certainly than other vegan diets.

You are giving a lot of value to correlational studies.

You had 1 or 2 weak epistemology studies on causal mechanisms.

It’s true that there’s few studies about carnivores, but those who manage to do it have seen INCREDIBLE, astounding benefits that would translate to a higher probability of not dying.

It looks crazy to you because you don’t know people who have tried, and you’re not good at epistemology.

This battle will continue because we’re right. Meat is healthier, I’m happy to bet 50k on it.

But the epistemology of learning that is hidden behind a veil of clouds.

Your apprehension is understandable, and while your markers do well, perhaps justified.

The older you get, the harder it will be for your body to keep processing all the plant junk and carbs.

You can fight the damage with exercise and millions, but you are swimming against the current.

You are wrong about this. You may die because you are wrong about this.

But it’s very, very, very hard to thread the data on this topic. And even a man of your stature could remain wrong for a decade.

Your methods of obtaining data for don’t die are bad.

You are wrong about this.

You are wrong about red meat.

You will find out because thousands of people care about you enough to fight against those with bad epistemology who have misled you.

Going public about it will save your life, because we’re here for you.

Your strategy worked.

The data will penetrate your shields and barriers, just like you abandoned mormonism.

And you will switch away from a vegan diet. Because above all, you want to live.

And you will succeed.

We are here for you, not against you.

And we’ll be here tomorrow, and the day after.

Until the evidence becomes overbearing.

We got your back.


@eladmallel
Thank you for your passionate posts!

You’re saying pro plants and carbs research was and is biased – likely true in my mind, not sure how to easily double check but nbd

You’re saying we evolved to eat meat – cool, let’s go with this

But how do you make the leap to meat makes us live longer?

Evolution did not pressure us into longevity. We just needed to live long enough to multiply.

And other than evolution, I don’t think you made another clear argument why meat should be healthy (setting aside the obvious benefits of protein and vitamins and minerals).

So what’s actually the strongest argument for meat and longevity?

Thank you 🙏

You’re right on all counts.

My main goal with these posts is saving the lives of people who would normally follow Bryan to the abyss. Secondarily, I want to save Bryan himself. I am here to stir doubt more than to solve health, which is above the scope of my intelligence and epistemology.

I don’t know if red meat actively increases lifespan. It’s possible some oils like coconut or olive oil don’t reduce lifespan (I have Bryan’s oil at home).

Sadly, as a species, we don’t know that yet. It’s also possible that which foods make you live longer is individual-biology-specific, or ethnic-group-specific. Indians could be more adapted to eating some plants than nordics.

I have watched about 500 hours of carnivore videos where people had bad, bad, bad conditions improve on a carnivore diet. The number of people who went carnivore is about 1 million, the number who left FOR HEALTH reasons is 3 AFAIK. Vegans is the opposite. Millions of vegans stop for health reasons.

It stands to logic that optimizing for sentient animals and for health at once will damage one dimension. Not eating animals damages health.

Is it theoretically possible that eating carb-based plants which evolved to poison us and we adapted for consumption only 15k years ago, which cause obvious rashes, weakness, malnourishment, low muscle mass, diabetes, indigestion and other problems is good for longevity? Yes. It is possible that eating something we didn’t evolve to eat, that visibly causes disease, stroke, bloating, skin problems, ugly eyes, hair loss, cavities, ostheoporosis, pain, arthritis, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety is actually, deep down, good for us if we are only optimizing the dimension of existing until the singularity.

It is possible, but I personally don’t think it is very likely.

We will not know this before we have to decide. Because we have to decide now, Singularity is near.

The ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING preponderance of non-correlational data indicated that a carb-free diet (literally 0 or less than 1% carbs) is healthier than a diet with plants and carbs.

I will continue to try to eat carnivore until I get the hang of it, because I believe that is what will make me live longer.

If you don’t, you’re denying what your eyes and brain tell you about yourself and thousands of others, and you’re believing correlational studies about peperoni pizza are good evidence about tallow rib-eye.

It’s your life, and your choice.

I come in peace.

And I choose Ribeye.

NOTE: He posted a video of Larry Ellison looking not well (he’s 80, but he has rashes, sunken eyes, red ears and cheeks and many other known veg-eater signs of unhealthy) and praised it, to which I replied.

Big Epistemic Update:
I have reduced from 98% to 55% the probability that Bryan Johnson is completely well intentioned in his don’t die-ism and is actually trying to help others do the same because of this post.

Larry Ellison is clearly displaying several unlhealthy vegetable eater traits, like sunken eyes, less space above the eyes, rashes and redness to face and ears, excess inflammation.

Yet, of all 7 billion people on earth, that’s the one Bryan chose to praise, why?

“Ellison has been described as a “veg-aquarian,” consuming primarily vegetables, fish, and fruit. He reportedly avoids beverages other than green tea and water and refrains from eating snacks after 9 p.m.”

So Bryan is advocating for veg-heavyanism not only based on his own excellent markers, but based on someone else’s plant diet.

This is a strong indicative that Bryan is plant-based for ethical and not health reasons.

Which is fine to do for himself but is wrong to incite others to follow under the FALSE premise that it is healthiest and highest probability of Don’t Die.

I have kept it above 50% because Bryan is obviously a nice guy and a gifter and obviously wants to live a long time. But I think we should all be EXTREMELY cautious from here on out listening to him.

He didn’t pick Larry because he stops eating at 9. He picked Larry because larry doesn’t eat animals.

That means Don’t Die is not the only dimension he is fighting for. So he’s not being honest about your health. Maybe.

More as things progress.

Pavel Stankov
@Pavel_Stankov

3h
Does it not bother you that sentient animals need to be killed so that humans may eat their flesh?
Dr Diego Caleiro is excited about the future!
@diegocaleiro
Enormously. I’m a pluralist with a large 88% Utilitarian component.

Not just factory farming. Normal farming bothers me tremendously.

Wild animal suffering bothers me an amount you probably are literally incapable of conceiving.

There are trillions of beings suffering every day, and that has been the case for over a billion years. That has always been, and continues to be, the worst problem in our universe.

There is exactly 2 kinds of beings who can solve this problem, the two symbolic species on earth.

Humans
AIs.

Humans need to eat cows to be a peak shape, and AIs need to eat drill baby drill.

Extremely soon on a cosmic scale all of this will end. Either ASI will kill us all, or it will become a singleton, pause Darwinism, and end the slaughter.

We need humans in peak shape until that happens. Fewer than 300 billion cows will die until that happens.

Once we have a superintelligence, the liberation of all sentient beings into cosmic joy, meaning, purpose, fun, excitement, and glory is the main priority. We will all get to live happy lives.

Until that day comes, as one of the extraordinarily lucky 1 trillion organisms who may live to see this and become one of the chosen ones, I will not make any sacrifice whatsoever that reduces my probability of not dying by 1 in a hundred million.

Veganism reduces it FAR, FAR more than that.

We are at the last Blink of biological life. This is no time for half measures.
Eat cow.




Elon Musk x Jordan Peterson 2024



https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1815427698703090085

Topics – what they said :: my comments

Natalism – Earth can fit 10x, Erlich is wrong and evil, anti-natalism is evil. :: Hard to argue with any of this, it’s all obvious.

Consciousness – Elon seems as confused about consciousness as most philosophers of mind. We simply don’t know what point in between one cell and a whole organism things are conscious. He seems, like me, more skeptical of machine consciousness than the computationalists, Bostrom, and Lesswrongers.

OpenAI – Elon is pissed that the good moral compass of Ilya left and it’s no longer open. :: That’s my main disagreement with Elon in life. I think open company developing AI is super dangerous and having it be closed is also horrible but better than the alternative.

Woke Mind Virus – Elon is concerned about the virus in AI :: I don’t think that’s a relevant concern for ASI. If ASI goes awry with a Midas touch type error, it won’t be because it misgendered someone, it will be because it was misprogrammed in a Midas like way that narrowed the utility function goal content integrity in the wrong ways.

DEI – is bad and Democrats are stoking division.

Religion – Jordan couldn’t get to Elon, because his allegories and metaphors don’t feel like a response to Elon. Elon is able to pick apart specifics he doesn’t like even within Petersonian discourse, plus he has cached thoughts on Christian parts he likes. Basically, Elon was having “one more conversation about Christianity” whereas Peterson was trying to offer his unique view, unsuccessfully. The full mighty of Peterson’s map of meaning didn’t get to the convo.

Children – They both think people became better, phenomenologically, after having kids. :: I think this is true for guys like them, highly conscientious and wealthy, but not everyone.

Environmentalism – To the extent it’s antinatalist is evil. And to another extent, Elon thinks it is good but went too far. :: I have no strong opinion

MAG – Make America Greater – We have a choice of administrations and we need to pick sides. Elon doesn’t like cults of personality. He thinks America is controlled by the Unions? (WHAT?, Unions in the USA are so weak compared to other countries. Why does he believe that?). Elon says a Republican administration is good, whereas Jordan is more personal and psychological about the goodness of Trump. Elon thinks Trump is bright, intimidating, and courageous. :: I’m more like Jordan, I like Trump more than the republican agenda, I suspect that’s because we understand psychology better than Musk, and because of differences in the Trans-kids item below that led Musk to move republican.

Regulation reduction – Musk sees catalysts and chemistry in laws, and wants fewer laws so people can do more things, because most regulation ends up being permanent. :: I defer to Musk and Thiel. Trump is the great de-regulator, as is Vance. My usual caveat is that this is true of every technology except ASI, which could take over earth, Bostrom, Paul Christiano, etc…

Trans-kids / California leaving – Elon’s threat of leaving California if they do puberty blockers. He said Newsome knew beforehand. Elon has a trans kid. They think of it as sterilization and mutilation. :: I thought about this for a while. I think XY people should be able to prevent their bones from growing too much if they want to become female. But not the reverse. That’s because XX people behave like herds, especially as teens and are not great at entertaining future consequences. :: Elon said he was tricked into believing puberty blockers are just blockers, but the reality is they are sterilization and mutilation. That’s when he vowed to “destroy the woke mind virus”. Peterson cried in empathy. :: My stance depends on the science. IF puberty blockers for XY people can prevent skeletal growth without compromising reproductive potential, I don’t see why it should not be allowed, since 25 people don’t regret transitioning for each one that does. My stance here is utilitarian. Living 70 years as a woman but having the skeleton of a man is a very hard life, and 95%+ of people don’t regret transitioning. So one needs to evaluate the reproductive risks.
Asking GPT4o I’m getting 20% infertility for only Puberty blockers and 90% if you also do gender-affirming care, so my stance is that gender-affirming care should only be allowed for adults, whereas blocking puberty could be allowed for XY gender dysphoric people.

General: It would be useful to see Jordan and Musk expand the conversation of the scope and scale of consciousness which via Douglas Adams provides Musk with meaning, as well as to see Jordan compact better the lessons in Maps of Meaning in a digestible way to Musk.

Elon and Jordan are two of the 100 most influential living humans, and have done considerable improvement to the human condition. Anyone reading this should be inspired to do similar things, multiplied by the difference in IQ and conscientiousness, since both of them are 145+ and 99.9th conscientious. You’re likely not, but try to do as much good as your specs allow.

Chad Doerman, Facing Reality One Year Later, In Light of Sapolsky’s Killing of Determinism.

Chad Doerman, Facing Reality One Year Later, In Light of Sapolsky’s Killing of Determinism.

A year ago I wrote a long post (in comment) about Chad Doerman, who killed his 3 kids aged 3, 4 and 7, then peacefully surrendered to the police, confessed the crime, and said he dragged one of them back to the house before shooting him. The crime was premeditated, months in the making.

This writing is better read if you read the other one first. Go. Actually I’ll just copy it here:

2023 June begin

“In arguably the worst crime I’ve seen in quite a while in terms of how mean it seems. Chad Doerman executed his own sons age 3, 4 and 7 in his home and surrendered to police, confessed and said he dragged one of them back when he tried to run away before shooting him and that the crime was premeditated.

He didn’t seem very emotional when being arrested but was very emotional during the pre trial or whatever that’s called. Could be adrenaline but could also be indication of psychopathy and not having normal emotional centers. Most people would be emotional I suspect if their kids died even if they were the killer.

The only motivation that makes sense in my head would be to take revenge on the mum. This could be say because she was misbehaving, because she threatened to leave with the kids and he was not going to let her one up him, because she cheated, or because she told him or he found out the kids were not biologically his.

This last hypothesis has a counter argument because his step daughter was not killed. If he was doing some variation of the gorilla lion behavior of eliminating other male offspring to incite fertility in a female it would be the reverse. He spared the one who isn’t biologically related to him.

So this makes me guess he thought she had nothing to do with his relation to the mum and it made no sense to kill her. He was trying to take back from the mum all that she didn’t deserve that came from him. But no more than that.

So my guess is that it was a moral crime. He thought the correct retribution for some action by the mum was to get back what he gave her and she didn’t earn or lost. Their children and the prospect of having a life raising them.

He didn’t try to kill her probably because the punishment felt harsher if he didn’t and again the proportionality clause. Whereas her life wasn’t his to take, he was well within his right to take that which she would never have without him to begin with (in his mind, I’m not crazy). So it was only fair that he would kill his three kids.

Neighbors say he was a very angry man normally. So we might have a tumor near the amygdala or some other anger-inciting thing physically going on in the brain.

I can’t really decide if I think he wanted to prevent her from taking the kids away – strongest piece of evidence being the nice Facebook pictures of the kids you can see since I tagged him in this post, and her screaming in the video that he took her life away from her – combined those indicate that he probably liked the kids and so did she. He wasn’t ok with being separated.

Or the pictures were part of the premeditation though 3 months is kind of way too long to plan how to literally take candy from children as well as everything else they would ever eat or feel.

So maybe he cried in the trial because he loved his kids and didn’t like when the prosecutor or whatever said that this was the worst crime he had seen and hoped to ever see in his lifetime.

Confessing indicates he felt a moral debt was due by the woman. The woman paid the debt. And now he should pay the consequences for his chosen punishment. Resignated. He knew this would happen and had accepted that price.

It’s hard to premeditate the murder of children on the basis of cheating or some other offense like that.

So my number one guess is “If I can’t have them no one will” followed by “You thought you could have your cake and eat it too, but you can’t”

My guess is that he was under massive numbing and adrenaline, that he is not ASPD.

He may have brain cancer, but if he doesn’t, he’s really a one-of-a-kind level of immoral crime, and he’s not insane or has much any other excuse.”

2023 June End

2024 June
I called it the worst crime I’ve seen in a long time, and the most immoral crime I was aware of.

Then I read Sapolsky’s Determined (2023).

Sapolsky cold-bloodedly and premeditatedly assassinated Free Will. He had 54 years to premeditate the crime as he stopped believing in free will age 13. I stopped liking soccer at age 9 when I stopped believing in Free Will. I have been aware that Free Will doesn’t exist for a long time, and despite writing a book about Dennett who wrote the Elbow Room 1989 and Freedom Evolves 2003 , and agreeing with him about 98% of things, I understood the game Dennett was playing in Freedom Evolves to be a game of semantics, he created a concept that fits existing reality (deterministic or randomly undeterministic), allows for responsibility, and preserves a notion of merit. Freedom within a narrow range of counterfactuals. My stance was like “Ok, I get what you’re doing here, I’ll let you do it, but I won’t stand behind it”. Sapolsky was less kind, he was like “I am gonna blow this place up before I let this pedantic obfuscation of a narcissistic lie concocted so you feel you deserve your 0.05% lucky life as merit, you f-ing a-hole.” I don’t think Sapolksy ever said anything remotely this offensive in his life, but that is how I read it, as someone who read 7 books by both of these Titans.

Although I’m personally not particularly excellent of moral character outside utilitarian metaethics, being just a normal guy, I identify as an excellent judge of moral quandaries, far above the norm, among other things because I understand the structure of biology, neuroscience, evolution, motivation, evolutionary psychology, causality, the anthropology of justice, and the philosophy of metaethics and ethics better than 99.999% of people. That’s just a professional benefit of being both a philosopher, an altruist, a pluralist, and an anthropologist. Comes with the territory. So the first time Chad came into the public eye, I tried to demonstrate how my belief on this being the worst crime was deeply embedded in him not having any distractors, alibis, or explanations at a biological level for his actions. It didn’t seem like a biological flying wheel spinning in vain, because he had plentiful opportunity to kill his stepdaughter, and chose not to, he only shot his own Darwinian foot, so to speak. He seemed unusually oriented and aware of his surroundings when arrested, and, as the law says “capable of distinguishing right and wrong.” It was truly, seemingly, this case of a guy who was like “Maybe I should plan for 3 months to kill my three beautiful boys that I love and who did nothing wrong”

The strongest confounder I could come up with at the time is that he was trying to punish the mother, “If I can’t have them, neither can you” if she was separating him or “You cheated and don’t deserve this” or “You don’t treat me well enough”. A hard case, no doubt. And of course, all the bio confounders, he was an angry man, and that spells cancer or brain malformation, he snapped for physical reasons.

So in my entire writing, if you just read it, was me trying, grasping for straws, trying to find a way to causally, biologically, neurologically, to innocent Chad Doerman, to see his behavior as not the fault of his proverbial soul, but as the accident of a malfunctioning genetic entity.

More data came forth in this year. I was looking at the wrong domain of evolutionary malfunctioning flying wheels. I should have looked at memetics. He was a biblical guy, and said the bible says “you have to kill your first born first, and then second
and third, but you have to kill your wife first, and I didn’t kill my wife.” Ahá. He didn’t have a cancer or a tumor in the amygdala. He had a tumor in the metaethics! That’s why it was so hard to see! It was divine command theory all along! Chad Doerman, alongside everyone else, from Kazinsky to Shaulgin, from Hitler to Stalin, is innocent, we, the enlightened spirits who can see reality for what it really is, fight to see another day! All is well. The man who killed, dragged, and killed his own little kids, who trusted him with the world, is, like all of us, and to the same degree as all of us, innocent. Oooof, that was close.

Yeah, I know. You probably don’t think like that, and you wish I had taken Dennett a little more seriously when he invited us to pretend Free Will means could have been different in nearby counterfactuals. I get it. But if I am to follow Sapolsky all the way, to where he wants me to follow, I cannot stop there. I have to say “Huh, what an unlucky guy this Chad Doerman, he got a tumor right in the prefrontal metaethics, and then bam, now everyone hates him and he’s gonna have to hang out in a cage until someone with nothing to live for decides to be judge and executioner, and takes him out of here. It’s so sad he’s unlucky like that, and I’m so happy I’m not him, but I feel bad for the poor man.”
Wow.
Yeah, Sidarta got nothing on me.

(I admit that Sidarta and Tomasik have a stronger hold on empathizing with mosquitoes than I do)

Recently I got into some friendly banter with
@Michael
Pearson precisely over this question type. He was advocating for more revenge and more punishment. I was saying our punishment system is way more draconian than it needs to be and we should be trying to make it causally minimally efficacious – make it punish the exact minimal amount needed to suppress future misbehavior and atrocities at a low cost.

Sapolsky calls this the “Quarantine Model.” Astronauts didn’t do nuffin wrong but we keep them in a nice cage 40 days anyway. Or Covidians, or kids with measles.

Divine Command theory is a tough type of metaethics. If your book is the bible, you’re usually fine, if it’s the Torah, it could go really badly, because the Old Testament God is, rather mercurial of inclination. If it’s the Book of Mormon you might get away scott-free. But to 2 billion of us, it is the green book of evil. Divine command theory suffers from the problem that some books, like the Green book of evil, are evil. And that’s bad. (notice how if X causes 20% of people to be Evil, then X is evil, regardless of the 80% to whom X is innocuous or moderately benefic)

Notice also how Evil is not located in my axiology in things rather than people. The evil thing isn’t the horny prophet, but the Green Book. I think that’s how we can escape the mistake of following Dennett and blaming people while keeping our commitment to reduce the amount of evil in the world in the long run. Destroy the causes of evil, IFF they are not people or sub-parts of people that those people would endorse on reflection. I may hate your green book, I may hate your amygdalar cancer, but I don’t hate you anymore. Hating you makes no more sense than hating a water stream.

In my picture of the case, as I see it today, Chad Doerman probably had one or another brain problem, that is what made him an angry person to begin with. He probably had some developmental problem in the constitution of his organized persona where his wife played a larger role than she should have. He depended on her more than would be ideal, like a man who can’t get out of bed if his wife doesn’t respect him, or doesn’t hawk-tuah him. He had a cancer in the metaethics too, like literally 400 million green book domino cascade people. People missed his cancer because Biblism has a very low incidence of metaethical metastasis, but never zero (camera zooms in on a bible looking menacingly at you outside previous frame).

If we are to take Sapolsky seriously, there is no merit or demerit, just turtles and turtles of causality all the way down.

Of course we should stop crime, but we should stop it like a quarantine, with Uber Eats and university courses.

Breivnik is instructive here: That’s the brilliant Nazi guy who obliterated 73 innocent teens who liked communism a bit (if Breivnik had read Sapolsky, he would know it was not the kids fault that Marx seems appealing to humans as young and ignorant as they were). He did university after being imprisoned for 21 years (max in Norway) and regularly chats by mail with people. If he was deemed fit to reenter society, he could be free in 10 years. The American mind cannot comprehend.

So, if the American Mind is putridly infected with barbaric ape-throwing feces level of stupidity behavior, maybe we may want to examine why it is so. Why are Americans, of all people, so disgustingly wrong about morality, punishment, retribution, and how to manage evil?

You probably guessed half of it. Half of it is Christianity, and the other half is the South. Which one did you get? Anyway let’s look at them:

Christianity made people deliriously believe they have a soul, and free will (neither determined nor random, but a third, weirder thing) which they are responsible for, which exists causally separate, and precedent, to the body, and which is exhaustively sufficient to inhere personal responsibility on. Needless to say, every part of that is wrong. There is no soul. There is no free will. You are not responsible morally for your actions (see Sapolsky 2023), nothing we know of indicates phenomenology precedes physical causality, and personal responsibility doesn’t seem to be supervenient on phenomenology or self.

The South inherited the culture of Scottish and Irish highlands (Black Rednecks and White Liberals, Sowell 201x) assembled a pastoralist culture of honor, and spread it in the great African American diaspora after the second world war to the rest of the USA, promoting retributive justice, like slashing a slave for not picking enough cottons, or killing a guy who kissed your wife, into a sanctified event. Honor culture, like the green book, is evil, and for the same reason, it makes some percentage of people in it evil. And worse, it infects people who don’t come from honor culture. The entire USA these days has some influence from that catastrophic diaspora and its consequences.

Will we ever rise to the occasion? Will you ever look at Chad Doerman like I do? With pity for the hard life he lived and will have to live, sad for his predicament, thinking he deserved better? Some of you already do.

I dare say not the majority. The majority like Pearson just wants to see him burn in hell. Like they would have watched a witch burn back in the good old days, or an epileptic have demons removed from her. Some of you, I’m afraid, will never escape being a barbaric ape, it’s who you are. Some of you think even being born of a certain type is enough a crime to deserve punishment. You can’t be the wrong race. You can’t be the wrong country of birth and want prosperity and security. You can’t be gay. You can’t be born with a disparity between the dispositions of your brain and your body. You can’t this, you can’t that. Jesus man. You guys are such a bummer.

Quarantine or containment, the minimal utilitarian punishment, must rise to the surface. But it will only ever do so when you let it. When you learn to rise above your primate instincts and accept that we don’t choose how we are.

Why are these perspectives so seductive to me, but not to some? Simple, I am abnormal, and very much so. The world has been both blessing me, and punishing me, for things I have zero control over, for as long as I’ve been around. I have the executive function of a gold-fish, and I’ve lost tens of thousands of dollars, a semester in university, and at least one girlfriend because of that. I have the intelligence of a Titan, and I’ve been praised for it in every bulletin since I was 6 by teachers, peers, girlfriends and strangers alike. I have had toxoplasmosis as a kid, and I’ve been brave, impulsive, daring, and horny ever since. No choice, just causality.

For me, because of these 3 attributes that I so obviously have no control over, it is exceedingly easy to explore an ethics in a world where that is the condition of everyone. My lack of determinism is epistemically transparent. Yours might be opaque. You may be normal enough that the Christian illusion of control has some hold over your Bayesian distribution of Epistemic worlds you could be in.

So the challenge is harder for you.

That’s where drugs come in. One dose of em d em a will make you love a plushie like you never loved a woman. One dose of GLP-1 made me finally see what people mean when they say “satiety” or “feeling full”. Self-control with regards to food, it turns out, is available at the pharmacy. Love is at the back alleys though, we don’t want love to be just available legally to everyone, lol.

I invite you to leave your lizard brain inside your feces-throwing ape cocoon, and to join the pantheon of enlightened beings for quarantine.

Me and Sapolsky, beaming in pure light, are awaiting for your arrival.

You may say we are dreamers, but we are not the only ones. I hope someday you’ll join us.

Your descendants will not look kindly on those who burned witches, nor will they look kindly on those who blame Chad above the minimum necessary to prevent the genetic and memetic spreading of his form of cancer and his class of misbehavior to others.

Is that how you want your grandchildren to remember you?

Jordan Peterson VS Dennett on the foundational status of religion

Peterson VS Dennett on the foundational status of religion

I just watched the last discussion Dennett (who I wrote a book about) had before passing away, with Peterson, one of my greatest influences.

They basically agree about how neuroscience works, how development works, how the intentional stance can be used to advance one’s ability to have and follow aims and goals.

The agree that religion was fundamental to structure civilization and science.

Dennett argues that religion was a scaffold needed for science to unfold, but now that we have science (and philosophy and ethics) religion not only is no longer foundationally needed, but has historically been bad, always digging the heels in, while moral progress was done via secular institutions, like universities and the state.

Peterson then describes an analogy about how the self correction of essential DNA is very high, leading the mutation rate to near zero, whereas at the “fringes” there is less and less self correction, leading to modifications that don’t undermine the whole structure of the organism.

They stop there but Peterson was going to say that religion and its foundations is like this central skeletal part, that needs to be preserved, while civilization and science are more flexible, with an ever evolving set of negotiations.

Dennett would reply that there is no need for religion to serve that purpose, there are skeletal structures like our goodness, empathy, and moral secular ideals that themselves become set in stone over time, for example, we are fairly unlikely to go back to slavery this century.

I’m not sure where Peterson would go from here, he expected there to have been more disagreement before, since he didn’t know Dennett has thrice the mind of Sam Harris.

Where he did briefly venture is that woke people and stuff are ruining the universities. Dennett said “yeah, and postmodernism has a lot to do with it” “it’s a mess” “it needs to be discussed, taken seriously, and solved” but without conceding what
@jordanbpeterson
would have wanted, that is the assumption that one solution is to restore the religious foundational moral thingamajibs from which the unis went astray, leading to loss of academic freedom.

I am almost equally influenced by Dennett and Peterson, so I serve as a synthesis of their minds (and Dennett died so the guy who wrote a book called Simulating Dennett is the best you guys got now, sorry)

My take, as an Anthropologist, is populational. There are people that need Sam Harris and people that need Peterson. Religion isn’t going away, so having a Peterson to orient religious people into neurodevelopmental harmonic integration is better than not having someone do that. The great march of history though, is on Dennett’s hands, we are evolving, the scaffold is no longer needed at the top, by those having the conversaiton, secular ethics is enough. The postmodernists and wokes are causing a raucus now, but we will find a way to deal with them, and science and philosophy will continue to progress.

The other populational aspect Dennett never considers is the 2.2children per woman religion used to be able to produce. The sustainability criteria. However even religion has not been able to keep this growth knob going, so we should not give many points to religion for that.

As I see it, we need to push religion into a smaller and smaller corner, and steal as many religious people as possible. But since there will always be billions of them, we should also train them to understand the neurobiology of the bible, as Jordan has been doing last year.

If the changes at the fringes become too bad – say if universities start to look like BLM riots – then the religious institutions and universities, the skeleton, will be there to generate the seeds of the trees that will fix it all. But for now, we should do as Dennett and Destiny suggest, continue the march of ethical conversation within the universities and secular institutions, and hopefully find ways of destroying the woke and postmodernist and feminist cancers that infected it since Derrida cast his spells.

Not many can carry on the path Peterson is blazing, but hopefully both can continue to thrive in the respective populations, while slowly, but steadily, Dennett’s side, which has more truth, gains terrain in the interminable evolution of biocultures.

Semantics of Sex

What is Sex?
Semantics of Sex
Why Are Some Transwomen Women?

Sex is a function from a bimodal N-dimensional attractor field cluster family concept to a set of biocultural facts.

Let’s unpack.
1) Bimodal – Male Female
2) N-dimensional – several characteristics are sex determinative, none is essential. Same as religion. The concept is defined by an ostensive pointing of a cluster of concepts, and if you have enough of those concepts, you qualify as a category member.
3) Attractor – no one is perfectly male or female, but a dot in a large field where these two attractors are where the vast majority of people fall. Some fall in between, some fall past, hypermasculine and hyperfeminine.
4) Field – you can think of it as a scalar field or a vector field, but the point is that sex is a little fluid over time, for example, when hot girls cut their hair, they get far away from the female cluster, so they are tensioned towards the male attractor.
5) cluster family – that’s just how analytic philosophy calls these concepts that you have to be like 70% of 100 characteristics to belong.
6) To a set of cultural facts – some part of sex is performance, drag, societal perception, and the understanding of others. Sex is not exhaustively local. For example a person could be exactly in the middle of male female, having half of the determinations of each side, biologically, but they, twins separated at birth, went to live in two societies, one in Polite Lovinland, and one in Scarcity Island. The one living in Polite Lovingland identifies as male, and that rich society of polite people decided to treat them as male, since the cost to society is low, and the gains for the person are large. The other is living through 3 civil wars and two famines, not to mention diphtheria, tetanus, things are tough. That society has no time to be polite, it needs rigid rules to survive, to reproduce, to self-sustain. Despite identifying as male, that society uses only reproduction to label people, because they need munition, soldiers, and food, now. The enemy is at the gates. So in that society, that person is female.

So that’s what sex is, metaphysically.
A function from an N-dimensional bimodal cluster family concept field to a series of normative and cultural considerations.

Quoting the unforgetful David Lewis, the most accomplished analytic philosopher in history, who single-handedly published more than all women combined:
“I promised simplicity; I deliver functions from functions from functions to functions to functions from functions to functions.” General Semantics – 1970 pg 29

I wish the world today could process information at the level David Lewis was capable of.

Anyway, I know that compared to Lewis’s analysis, I simplified things a lot here, for a real definition of sex I’d have to talk about modality, primary and secondary intensions, and so on.

Most Medical Doctors Are Terrible Scientists and Nutritionists, Or Baptizing The Universal Human Diet

Most Medical Doctors Are Terrible Scientists and Nutritionists
Or
Baptizing The Universal Human Diet

Doctors are trained in an industrialized manner to pass through a lot of patients. This is mostly a good thing. Not many people are smart, interested, and conscientious enough to become doctors, and the vast majority of people have common diseases and problems. That’s what “common” means. So the maximal number of people are helped by doctors if they pass through people fast, act like cogs and robots, and tell everyone to do what they were told in med school.

Getting into med school is HARD. I did the university test to get into Uni 3 times, once, with my truly brilliant best friend in 8th grade, once in the second year of 3 of Brazilian high school, and once in the third year, which is when everyone should and does (and one extra time when I switched to philosophy later). Since both of us are truly outstandingly intelligent, like way off the charts, even in 8th grade we would have passed 70% of courses at the best university in the country. In the real last high school year, I did very well, and he passed in first place (his dad said he’d give him a car only if he passed first), we’d enter medicine 1 spot/27people easily. Second year though my score was only good enough to get into every course except Med. Luckily I wanted psychology, so it is safe to say I took the last year of high school VERY lightly, I simply didnt go to any class I didnt like the teacher 🙂 Fast forward 20 years, he’s doing biomedical research on the mathematics of cancer at Harvard, and I’m, well, an analytic Philosopher, Scientist, and Biological Anthropologist, with enough money to just write essays online and not really take a real job.

Analytic philosophy is even harder to get in above undergrad than Harvard Med. Analytic philosophers think with a level of precision literally inconceivable by people with 120 IQ or less. Like Superman can see like an X-ray, we can make distinctions and understand epistemology (the process through which something moves from unknown to known) very well. To be perfectly blunt: I can think.

Because getting into med is HARD, wannabe doctors, are trained at memorizing and going through a lot of material fast, too fast to do any analysis on it. They need to learn a metric ton by the end of high school when 18, and that they do. By then the habit of rote learning and memorizing is fully ingrained. You’re not there to contest, you’re there to learn first and help people later.

Of course some, perhaps 1% or 2% of doctors are almost as smart as my friend and I, so they have the affordance of learning everything every other doctor learns and on top of that still have leftover time and capability to think analytically about biology and medicine. Life can be very frustrating to these doctors, I know three of them, one in São Paulo who is also a philosopher, one in Rio who weightlifts and knows philosophy well, and one in Bulgaria who kept sciencing while becoming a med professor. Their creative and in-depth intellect isn’t quite appreciated.

As COVID made abundantly clear, it is very easy to convince the vast majority of doctors of a bunch of things that are false, based on biased methodological studies, and which cause unnecessary deaths by the thousands. Any doctor who followed their political orientation to decide whether to believe the Lancet study (left-coded) or Ivermectin (right-coded) at the time can be summarily dismissed as an authoritative source in medical THINKING – which, once again, is not what doctors are trained to do.

Meta-Analyses: This is very, very sad, but unfortunately, even before big data was a thing, we had already developed enough knowledge of statistics to be able to use a meta-analysis to prove a much wider range of things than is the case. So meta-studies can’t be trusted for most things if done after say 2005. Then Big Data came in and AI data analysis and selection techniques, and it became, to mathematical minds, as easy as taking candy from a child to use a data set to prove whatever you’re being paid to prove. Adding insult to injury, you can hide behind the math to not take responsibility, and to scare off the 98% of people who can’t think mathematically at all. Meta-analyses might do more harm than good today, and a large, large fraction of them, are pure garbage.

If the studies on which a Meta-analysis are methodologically flawed, that makes it garbage even if you know all the statistics, and are not being sponsored by industry to bias the results (and neither is your data analyst or statistician). Garbage in, garbage out.

Peer-Review: In one internet article, Adam Mastroianni single-handedly obliterated nearly half of the science produced in the last 50 years. There was a crisis of replication in psych before that was making the tabloids of smart people. But Adam just went in and said: FBI Open Up! and he killed peer-review in most sciences (not in homogenous physics and chemistry, but in a fraction of biology, a majority of biomedical science, almost the entirety of nutrition science and psychology, and the sum total entirety of my area, anthropology, social psychology, sociology, and the like).

So if you have a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed nutrition science in your hands, to determine say what should people eat to be healthy, you think you’re looking at science, so you teach your medicine school pupils that is science, and they believe you to ace the test, and repeat it to their patients. But as we just learned, a post-2005 meta-analysis of peer-reviewed nutrition study is a fancy name for a pile of crap in the form of a sequence of letters and graphs. I know it sucks. I know it is unfair. How dare the world require scientific, epistemological, mathematical, and incentive knowledge as the bare minimum combination for someone to even be able to assess whether the newest study or suggestion is true or not in an area that affects us every day? It’s very unfair, and by jolly God I wish the truth was as simple as “the industry you don’t like and the political side you don’t like are lying to you so just ignore them and believe the scientists on your political side”. That would suck, but it would at least be tractable. If you think that, that just means your genes code for a strength of political orientation so strong you can’t think in an unbiased manner, if you’re part of those, say 30% of extremists (15% each side) then you’re fucked even if you’re brilliant, and you knew all of the above.

Do you begin to see the magnitude of the task at hand here? This isn’t acceptable as a demand to an Ape species that just learned to write 10k years ago. We are simply not a match for the task.

And that’s why your doctor doesn’t know how to think, doesn’t know anything about nutrition, and can’t really evaluate information that comes out.

But at least my nutritionist knows about nutrition right? Think of the people you know or heard of who are nutritionists. How many of them were statistically competent in high school, and decided of their own accord to go into a low-prestige area that isn’t associated with the mathematics of deep analytic thinking so they could enlighten nutrition science. Probably not many. Most nutritionists you know are probably women who were bad at math and obese and wanted to stop being obese, or who were interested in having a flexible mobile job and were into fitness and looking top 10% among women. People like YouTuber mega-nerd Physionic are rare enough to warrant a big YouTube channel for nutrition nerds. Most nutritionists, compared to everyone else mentioned so far, are idiots. It’s not that they don’t know nutrition, it is that they are simply incapable of thinking about anything whatsoever, and thus they lack the ability to help all but the best-known known most common simple cases. I don’t make the rules, I just work here.

What a pickle! Your doctor wasn’t trained to think about nutrition, has only studied nutrition for 1 semester in school, and your nutritionist is literally an idiot. You’re probably feeling hopeless now, you are probably thinking “Well, I’m fucked”
That’s the part in a normal essay where I say “Don’t worry fratello, Actually, you can still do this, and this, and that, and these people here will tell you all you need to know”
Here’s what I’ll say in this one: Yep. You’re fucked. You’re totally fucked. You’re like Riley Reid hexa-interracially fucked.
Again, I just work here, don’t at me.

How can you get out of this clusterfuck in which you’ve been thrown? and also importantly, how long have you been fucked for?

You’ve been fucked since the 50s, but more emphatically since the 70s, and gangbanged since 2005 or so. You’re not only less healthy than you could be. You never developed completely to begin with. Your brain is smaller and less competent than it should have been. Girls rejected you because you were not as tall as you were meant to be. Your depression and anxiety were caused by what you eat and you could have been depression-free and anxiety-free your whole life. You make less money than you could, and you could never do as well in school as your mum wished you did because you’ve been a victim of clusterfuck nutritional gang-rape.

Many people who know what I’ve been eating for a few months are at this point eagerly waiting for me to sneak in the carnivore diet, and promise that if you were an analytic philosopher life scientist about humans who could get into university in 8th grade you would understand why, but just trust me, bro. I can do some unfucking, and I can think. But I can’t do hexa-cluster-unfucking in an area totally outside my domain in the span of 3 months. However, I can talk about the area I have a doctorate in the best department in the world in biological evolutionary anthropology, and can unify, through the analytic philosophy thinking skills and epistemological skepticism, mathematical intuition, and game theory knowledge, some part of what I can see from a distance when I look at the direction of the mountain of elephant dung mixed up with science they call nutrition.
It ain’t much, but it’s honest work.

Great-Grandma knew better: We’re getting old, Grandma no longer is the best person to ask for cooking tips, and the last person in the family who ate a decent diet. Now it is great-grandma. Grandma was already under the shackles of Kellogg, the sugar industry, mass-manufactured television, and the innocent belief that doctors on TV know what you should be eating, and are not part of a government program to feed people what the USA wanted to subsidize in the post-war economy. Great grandma ate lard, not margarine. So we can know this one thing: Lard is better than margarine.
When you know the science has been distorted by economic incentives of governments and corporations, ethical agendas of vegans and agriculturalists lobby groups, and even the military, sometimes, good old 100IQ mathematically illiterate, pre-internet great-grandma can be a great source of information.

But if we are going to take this seriously, if we are really doing this like our health depends on it, we need to add about 1000 “Great”s to that grandma. 1000-Great-Grandma lived 22 thousand years ago, and reports say she was a fine lady, a great wife/mate, and a good mother. Her eating algorithm was more or less this:

1) Eat cooked meat and fish in as much quantity as you can find before it smells bad.
2) If you’re lucky in the summer and live in an agricultural region, eat a few berries and fruits, thoroughly cooked, and once every many months, eat honey if you can fight the bees.
3) Beware of and pass on the acquired knowledge of poisonology your healers and shamans passed on to you, namely, learn which plants are more effective at poisoning your disease than poisoning you, and eat those plants so you can better poison your parasites and disease agents.

What do Carnivore dietists get wrong? Ken Berry, Anthony Chaffee, Shawn Baker, are systematizing intelligent male doctors who can spot a bad study. Chaffee and Baker can actually spot a bad meta-analysis. I cannot express how rare that is. It takes a lot of courage to detract a meta-analysis, it helps that both of them are bulky, six-packed medical doctors with surgical experience, world-competing performance in athletics, and more money than humans need. That begets the intellectual confidence necessary to profess that kind of thing.

But they do have one defect of fabrication: unlike 1000-Great-Grandma, they are male.

That’s where Mary Ruddick and Natasha Campbell-McBride come in, the first is a nutritional anthropological traveler who goes to visit the lost tribes of the world, finds out what they eat, and eats with them. The latter is under a completely different incentive regime, the Soviet one, and the creator of the gaps diet. Mary is a diet pluralist, with more than 40 diets under her belt.

Males are great for epistemology, mathematics, deep thinking, yadda, yadda, but females are the masters of nourishing, cooking, individualized care, and of non-aspie plurality and moderation. Females are also the masters of survival.

Chaffee and Baker are like the Triangle of Freedom. They have every bomb in the arsenal, and they will obliterate any opposing country before you can see them coming. Carnivore is the human diet, end of story, don’t like it? I can kill you by flexing my 6 pack.

Mary and Natasha are able to see plurality, how the specifics vary among groups and among humans. Being women makes them do that.

But women will women, as everyone’s favorite incel said: The Woman is an animal, long-haired, and short-sighted.

It is fun to study current uncivilized groups for their diets, but short-sighted. That’s where Evolutionary Anthropologists come in. These groups are the cockroaches, but we want to know the diet of the ants. This is a metaphor. Don’t kill me.
Cockroaches have been around since shortly after Premortals, Jesus, and Tethans made the Earth, long long ago.

Ants however are evolutionarily recent, eusocial ants came out recently and to put it mildly, they dominated the earth until the annoying monkeys started yapping. Cockroaches got cluster gang-banged when that happened. Ants took over the yummy yummy forests and great habitats, and they kicked the cockroaches out to the curb, having to live in less life-affirming, nutrient-dense environments, eating literal garbage and eventually relegated to live among those dirty, disgusting Sapiens Sapiens. Natural selection is unforgiving even to the animals famous for surviving nuclear holocausts (there’s a joke in here but I don’t wanna get banned, again). Civilization is like the ants. Wherever civilized Mankind went, we germed, weaponed, steeled, and frontal lobed the local inhabitants, until they had to chill only at the borders of deserts or in the arctic circles, we, like ants, used massive eusocial scale to outcompete and sumo-push everyone else out of the red circle of nutrient-dense food.

So the study of contemporary diets of those Darwin called savages like Mary does, is of limited use to know what our optimal diet is.

We need all this. We need the frontal lobe, the civilization, the nourishing mindset, the understanding of anthropological plurality and human genetic variability, we need to understand the gaps, we need to know when to bulldoze and nuke the enemy with bombs, and when to admit defeat to the guy who killed peer-reviewed research, we need mathematical intuition and not being motivated by money or sponsored, we need out of the box thinking and contrarianism, we need a middle of the pack political genetics that don’t force you either way, we need the confidence of either mega nerds or six packed surgeons, we need analytic philosophy precision in thinking, and no fear of saying nutritionists are idiots.

To put it mildly, that’s hard to find.

But here the fuck I am.

I kid. I’m close to well-equipped enough but I don’t know anything about the biochemistry of food processing and stuff. I can evaluate the scientists, and the methodological and game theoretic incentives, but I can’t evaluate the ground-level, fine-grained details of the science itself, physionic seems pretty good at that though. Sadly he lacks the overview capacity of an Evolutionary Anthropologist and all the female stuff because he’s a meganerd male of the six-pack variety.

So you can’t really just trust me. But I hope I made the case that among the people to trust, I at least have a place in the pantheon. Not only in nutrition science but also in any other area that has that level of complexity of research and incentives operating above it. That’s where evolutionary anthropologists who are also analytic philosophers can shine. People don’t like that we are arrogantly judging others, but judging people, ideas, and ideologies, is what we are better than the entire world than. Usain Bolt is good at running, Carl Lewis is even better from a theoretical standpoint (just doesn’t have the body for it). We Phil-Evo-Anthro are good at this kind of judging I laid out here. I don’t just work here, in this case, I make the rules.

Human Biodiversity and Nutrition. Mary is right that different human groups adapted to different diets though, even the ants. If we want the optimal diet, we want to find out what did rich ants eat when 1000-great-grandma was around, and what would they eat today that we are all mega-zillionaires globalized, by comparison.

Chaffee strikes me as the strongest carnivore thinker, but he calls the carnivore diet “natural human diet” and “human” is too coarse-grained a level of resolution for that. Speaking is natural to humans, but double eyelids are not, they are present only in East Asians and Norwegians, they are special adaptations. There is no natural human diet. There are diets natural to specific ethnic groups, and some groups, like the Han, are so large they even have the Wheat-Han and the Rice-Han who are adapted to different diets, within the same ethnic group.

If you want to find out your natural human diet, find out what your 1000-Great-grandma would have fed her children if she was the top lobster ant of her tribe. Then add to that a few things Physionic says because he was born 10k years post agriculture, while 1000-G-G was 10k years before, adjust that to your morphology and environment and hope no one made a mistake along the way, eat basically that (which will be mostly meat and some plants depending on your ethnic group). Simple right?

That’s why even when I talked to Chaffee I didn’t berate him for the “natural” thing, just mentioned it. Because I am a realist. There is no universe where more than 20000 people will do what I did, or travel to meet tribes like Mary. If we are going to win the incentive war against Kellogg, the 50s and 70s, and the agricultural revolution, we need a simplified message, something a thousand times shorter than this essay.

So we have to sacrifice plurality (Sorry Mary, love you still, Same Natasha) in the name of simplicity. We are not going to make everyone learn their genetic group and advanced statistics, so we gotta stick not to naturals, but to universals. Natural is what is actually practiced. Universal is what is common amongst all.

The only 2 food universals in humans are water and meat. Humans inhabit the whole earth, every nook and cranny. We make even the ants, a dominant animal if there ever was one, jelly. We are the one. The king, undisputed (shut off the GPU clusters if you wanna live, before GPT gets any ideas). We are not going to be able to devise a function from person ethnic group to 1000-G-G to food anytime soon. Birds are right there with ants and humans, so the quasi-universal third food after water and meat is eggs. Every single other thing that a human has ever eaten (that isn’t a mineral) is simply put, not a Human Universal.

That is why, now that we have gone berserk on globalization, scientific and technological progress, industrialization, and mega-wealth by historical standards, it is time for us to accept the truth, for the vast majority of us, and for 100% of public policy henceforth, we should not adopt a local diet, (your genes are not from your locale), we should not adopt a natural diet (that is extraordinarily rare to ascertain precisely), we should not adopt a fad diet.

We should adopt the Universal Human Diet.

The best diet for humans, not because it is natural, but because it is universal, and because we are wealthy enough we can afford it, is to eat water, meat, and eggs.

MEWU or UWEM?

MEWU sounds cool, right?

Meat Egg Water Universal

The diet that humans should advocate, make public policy for, incentivize governmentally to alleviate stress on the medical system, and eat.

If we want to help humanity eat better, we need to scrap most of nutrition science and teach doctors about MEWU.

MEWU is the universal human diet, it’s in the name.

MEWU will end medical inflation, runaway medical costs, and the obesity crisis, it will alleviate if not solve the great majority of cases of depression and anxiety, and it will bring humanity back to a moment of deep flourishing, decelerating if not verily reversing the decline of western civilization.

MEWU The universal human diet may seem like just a dream to you, but as Bertrand Russell Remaked:

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”

It is time to fire your nutritionist and to teach your doctor. It is time we start eating the Universal Human Diet.


Addendum: Past Water Meat and Eggs, the most common foods that are not universal are cheese, milk, honey, and fruit. So the algorithm for eating should be to feed all children the universal human diet, and later in life allow sophisticated people to tentatively try some of these foods while knowing they cause long-term insulin damage, and can lead to severe addiction, food poisoning, premature aging, cavities, depression and anxiety.

But for now, we need a strong reset as a civilization, and that starts by persuading everyone to voluntarily eat the Universal Human Diet until we better understand the relationship between genomes and food.

Without conflict of interest, with a pluralist primarily utilitarian metaethics, and a hypermasculine mind capable of systematizing but also feminine and compassionate, with training in analytic philosophy, mathematical intuition, and as a doctor in Evolutionary Anthropology with emphasis on incentives for altruism and cooperation, in the interest of reversing, now that we are rich, the curse of the agricultural revolution and the curse of scientific idiocy in peer review and meta-analyses:

I hereby proclaim the establishment of the Universal Human Diet for the betterment of Mankind, Meat, Eggs, and Water.

That’s what your children deserve to eat.

Let’s give them what we were deprived of.

An Autobiography of My Surprising Awesomeness

Since you seem willing to reference your IQ, I’m curious what is your greatest accomplishment with that IQ – does it extend to creative skill? Fairly new to following you so this is a good faith question

kalos
@kalos21million

In expectation I saved on the order of more than millions of lives. I’ve done altruism and AGI for most of my 20s, gave the first TED talk on EA, helped organize the early movement, created a branch of economics to increase morality, wrote a PhD about Altruism: Past Present Propagation, collaborated with some of the world’s greatest minds, most notably Bostrom and FHI and a few other people in the longtermist space, ran the world’s largest EA house, held the realm of Heterodox Effective Altruism when woke and feminists attempted to invade preventing max harm, brought many people into AI and EA. I’ve also done innefective altruism like donating some money to animal welfare, to individual EAs, to charity, to malaria and schistosomosis. I was one of the 5 sine qua non people who caused the largest donation in world history, most of which saved about 13k Indian lives but the part I really care about went to less tractable causes like future anti aging, AI, coordination tech, and preventing existential risk. I’ve brought a couple people back from suicidal ideation, put some shoulders back on the socket, and received at least 10 handwritten letters from different people saying I was the most important person in their lives and thanking me. I have a 70 page long document in my computer with a myriad of thank you notes and praise notes from all sorts of people I collected over the years. I made correct predictions about the future of specific things very often, and I made a few people rich through Bitcoin, I took a poor woman and her kid to see the ocean for the first time and gave them one of my weekend. I helped in a process that prevented the death of 60thousand teens in Brazil, and in the process I also became a philosopher, an evolutionary anthropologist, a self made rich guy who can say what he really thinks and not cancellable, and I’ve inspired a few hundreds of people during my trips because I am genuinely an impressively cool person when I’m in the more “hippieish” less “EA or rationalist” mindset, which happens when I am travelling. In short, I am probably one of the 20 thousand best living humans on earth, and I’m still 37, and almost surely top 1 million. All this with a massive disability, ADHD, which has made my sleep dysfunctional, made me obese, and caused me incalculable social distress and social problems in many of the groups I had. There is no doubt I have not been everything I could have been for the world, in the past or in the future. But I put my track record against anyone as having had a life as admirable as humanly possible given the deck of cards I was given. I am very proud of my accomplishments, in fact, I am surprised every time I do a recount that I have indeed done that much good to the world. I also don’t expect every other person with 145+ IQ to do as much as me. I was lucky in many turns along the road and was able to save an inordinate amount of lives due to factors completely outside my control. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. My inner altruist was honed and prepared. He took most chances he got. He came, he saw, he won. I hope I can continue to be inspiring to my fellow brilliant folk, and they too modulo stochastic luck manage to cause as much good as their deck of cards permits them to. Onwards and Upwards friends 😀

What Are The Moral Obligations of Brilliant People?

What Are The Moral Obligations of Brilliant People

Fellow 145+, and those 120-145 who all your friends call brilliant because you have other cognitive skills that compensate not being 3SD higher and you still output amazing stuff: What is our moral obligation to our fellow Men?

In humans there is a great level of correlation between goodness and intelligence. Although I have met some very intelligent people who are not moral, Alice, Ellie, Derrida, Foulcault, Rousseau, Trotsky? and many others, the overwhelming majority of us is genuinely good, and invested in making the world a better place at least a little bit, or at least to some people.

It is surely morally permissible for most humans, most of the time, to attempt to do good actions, as long as we follow the Jordan Peterson Locality principle, which states that the lower your cognitive range, the more important for you to clean and organize your real and abstract personal spaces, such as cleaning your room.

A very substantial number of us has one of two major mental illness conditions which change our moral permissions when it comes to goodness especially non-locally as well as obligations.

Aspies have stronger moral permissions, ADHD people have lower moral permissions. ADHDs have stronger moral obligations and Aspies have weaker moral obligations. Let’s break that down.
(there’s also some ASPDs amongst us, they have a moral obligation to reduce their impact maximally and to defer as much as possible to non ASPD people and work under them. They have active disregard for moral obligations though, so they won’t do it)

In our internet-heavy society, we risk not thinking outside the box enough for fear of social apprehension, cancellation and a sunken heart. Aspies are both less affected and less attacked for this, so they should abide by the Elon Musk Speech Delivery principle. Deliver impossible things to the minds of normies, do what no normie is cognitively capable of doing in your do-goodery, and always remember to tell people who should go fuck themselves to go fuck themselves, if you have the fuck you money for it. Without the aspies clearing the forest, the rest of us cannot easily advance progress, science, philosophy, and so on. Aspies are the explorers of the moral landscape, with machetes cutting the dense jungle of judgement by others.
Aspies are permitted bigger cognitive arcs, like Michael Arc (formerly Vassar), Curt Doolittle, or many others. Only the aspies can provide us landscape stochastic jumps in the moral landscape, so please, feel free to guys. We need you.

My crowd, the ADHD folk, we are not permitted to do some things. We are not good at cleaning our room and dealing with the micro-local, and we are not particularly excellent at long term execution either. So we have the permission and endorsement to try and hire people below and above us in timescale. Cleaners, secretaries, organizers below, and great executes above who can bring our infinite fountain of creative and brilliant ideas to fruition, as well as filter what gets or not to the public. Every Bostrom needs a Sandberg. Every Tate needs a Tristan (I’ve been guilty of not having this, and my output, though looming ultra-large in lives saved, has surely been less than ideal in other terms like, books published, compilations of my ideas organized and so on, because I have failed to secure someone in this position, which has significantly hindered the world counterfactual to what I could have done)

Aspies don’t need to partake in some moral obligations like explaining their morals to normies or dressing in normie ways, they are generally exonerated from most of the bio-regulatory moral mechanisms through which humans usually monitor each other, including the scapegoating mechanism (Girard 2006)

What do all of us bright people share in terms of moral obligations then?

A commitment to scaleable transparency seems to me a big one. While the Sam Altman strategy of partial information transfer can lead you pretty high in life, I contend that the brilliant have the obligation of going the Beast Elon route, deliver deliver deliver deliver in public, be distressingly transparent, and act as if 1 million people have cameras on you, because one day, if you do it right, they will.

10 million may sound like a big number, but there is only 10 million of us (and that’s making some assumptions that are all but guaranteed about the sensitivity to testosterone of East Asians, and maybe giving more statistical credit to Africans and Arabs than their due, it could be 6million)

We’re one relatively large city. That’s it.

We are as smart as a 6 foot 6 person, or 198 cm.

There are very few of us. I remember all the people taller than 198 I ever hung out with thrice or more.

If Basketball saved lives, tall people would have a moral obligation, not just a financial incentive, to play basketball. This is the situation we find ourselves in with regard to intelligence. We have capabilities that most people can’t even fathom, and those capabilities can literally save lives. I suggest that we have the moral obligation at least when the cost is relatively low to save a fraction of the lives we can save, be it through improving utility, making the world safer, coordinating and leading other humans, etc…

Abundance: North Korea notwithstanding most of us can obtain resource abundance (especially those without ADHD or aspies) but perhaps most importantly most of us end up meeting lots of others along the way, and perhaps we should try to provide them with abundance in such a way they don’t feel pressured to make money themselves and can dedicate more time and attention to others, I chose the do what you love route, philosophy, psychology, anthropology. But upon arriving at the very high echelons of academia, the wealthy folk around me have always gifted me with some of their wealth, in the form of invitations to trips, to their mansion parties, their island orgies, their houses with no rent where no one seems to work, their chef’s cake, and so on. Only some of us will be wealthy, I contend we have the moral obligation of helping the other brilliant people to choose giving to the world over getting rich by being systematically and categorically generous with our resources. Every single billionaire I have ever met was unequivocally and categorically generous to those around them, around their families, and those they perceived to be doing good in the world. And for us mere rich people, we can still help those young and brilliant who have not accumulated their own resources. The good 145+ people should have our own trickle-down gift economy. Billionaires giving to centimillionaires to decamillionaires to adventurous Brazilians who decided to pursue what they love in a country of max Gini index 🙂 I am grateful to my predecessors, and as I continue to get richer in the next 10 years of Bitcoin, I will continue to enlarge my already very significant amount of donations, whether in time, attention, money, or whatever resources I muster along the way.

The normie obligations. For those of us gifted who are also normies (couldn’t be me) you have some tough additional obligations. Take Vivek and Yang, both distinctively above 145, of different political philosophies, but able to keep the chatter going on what would it be like if an intelligent person commanded the world’s strongest country. Just like they sacrificed their millionaire do gooder life to try to do even gooderer, in a realm dominated by midwit normies, if you can ascend the social scales in ways that us ADHD and aspie smartfolk can’t, you have an obligation of keeping at least a moderate level of societal cohesion and function in the corporate and political worlds, as well as in the top charity world, EA, etc…

Reproduction: By far the hardest discussion when it comes to our tribe. Dutton found that only a third of historical geniuses have babies, and this was before condoms and pills. Fewer predictions about human behavior are stronger than that geniuses don’t choose children, with predictable Darwinian consequences. I say if you do end up choosing to reproduce, try assortative mating to decrease the odds or “return to the mean” (exapted term from math, I’m aware it took new meaning in bio).
If you’re able to, donate gametes, start early, do it often and widely. As you know, so much is genetic, and 10 million can make quite a genetic ripple in the world if we put our minds and gametes to it.
You can also surrogate if you don’t want to go old-school ape style.
If you are truly stellar, like the other 145+ all look at you and go “WOAH” then it depends on whether you’re a public or private person. Public people need to go the Elon route and have 10 kids to incentivize more of the 115+crowd to have kids. If you’re a private person, then go Tesla Newton and use all your precious brain cycles to improve the world fast.
I’ve seen many of us burnout over the years for not doing what they wanted with regards to kids, so don’t not have kids because you’re extremely smart, and don’t have kids because you’re extremely smart.
But math is math, so please, donate your sperm and eggs, that’s by far the least costly contribution you can have in our pleitropic, plurisemantic genetic world.

Solzhenitsyn: If the line between good and evil that cuts through every human heart starts to tilt to the evil side, you have a moral obligation of tell people as quickly as possible, people with power to control you if you keep ascening. in the words of past
@sama
“the board can fire me, i think that’s important” past sama was a wise cookie.
Many of us get tempted by evil on our way to power, some because power itself corrupts. Most because we are betrayed along the way, often betrayed precisely because we did good. “Remember the real game is above” as someone told Katniss in the hunger games 3. Although it seems like the local status dispute and betrayal are a massive deal at the time, specially for the ADHD RSD gifted, we must keep in mind that resentment is what made bad people bad, lack of gratitude is the hallmark of the evil Man or Woman, and above all that the real game is much bigger than our ape and mating trifles. The game will carry on for centuries if not trillenia, and if AGI is possible, the biggest lever of history is relatively close to us in reach. Don’t let your personal betrayal as an ape harm the quadrillions of people yet to come. This isn’t our fight, this is their fight. We are here for them. Our obligation is towards them, for they outnumber us as the grains of the Sahara outnumber the number 1.
Let’s make sure those tears are tears of joy.

We are born with a gift that doubles as a curse. Everything is and always will be easier for us.
But because it is easier (especially those without ADHD) it is incumbent upon us to do our very best for the other 7 billion, and for the quadrillions that shall come.

We are thrown in the world, and stand in no full moral obligation to it. But if you read this deep than in the past you have already made a personal commitment to being good. Don’t forget the commitment, and use guidelines to see what you’re permitted, required, obligated or incentivized to do, from this position of privilege in which we happen to be born.

Whether you feel, like Elon, that our condition is a curse, or you feel, like me, that it is a blessing with some contractual responsibilities, the fact is that you have the intelligence. So go ahead and use it 🙂