Evolution, psychology

Why humans evolved into such good bullshitters. A psychologist explains our obsession with other people’s opinions.

“History is a pack of lies agreed upon” – Napoleon Bonapart (‘The Great’)

“We deal in deception here. What we do not deal with is self-deception.” – Captain Queenan, The Departed (although should be attributed to MI6! :D)

‘So what are some other implications? Well, one is that we tend to think that the smarter we are, the more capable we are of seeing through people’s lies and the more capable we are of finding the truth. But that’s absolutely not the case. Humans are social animals, and if our group will benefit from seeing the world a certain way, we’ll use our intelligence to see the world that way.
It’s easy to see how these impulses explain so much of our politics and how willing so many of us are to believe what is false but convenient, as opposed to what is true but inconvenient. I think it also explains why the internet has not made us more intellectually honest; instead, people are just better at finding the information they need to confirm what they need to be true, which is what we’ve always done.’
– William von Hippel

“It’s rather ironic that now 3.5 million years later… the next stage of evolution, and the fate of our species’ survival depends upon a small group of us not giving a single flying fuck what the rest think!” 😀 “The very thing that ensured our survival millions of years ago, has now turned the human species into a weak, pathetic, suicidal species battling it’s own extinction! 😀 Maybe, nature will find a way, as it always has… and the levels of suicide will surge in the 21st century, to the point that overpopulation is longer a concern!” 😀 “It will level itself off to healthy population of half a billion… of people that truly don’t give a fuck!… You may say I’m a dreamer!”

 

Why humans evolved into such good bullshitters

A psychologist explains our obsession with other people’s opinions.
evo

Roughly 6 million years ago, our ancestors migrated from the dense rainforest to the open savannah in East Africa. It was one of the most significant events in the history of human evolution.

Life on the sprawling grasslands precipitated a shift from individualistic ways of living to more cooperative ways. This was the birth of what you might call “social intelligence,” and it changed the way our minds work forever.

It explains why our psychological health depends so heavily on our status within a particular social group. It even explains why we love to exaggerate and why we’re so good at believing each other’s bullshit.

This is the argument psychology professor William von Hippel makes in his fascinating new book The Social Leap. According to von Hippel, the move from the rainforest to the savannah produced a cascade of advances in human intelligence and innovation that led inexorably to the world we live in today. But it also cemented pathologies in the human mind that continue to shape how we live, think, and judge.

I spoke with von Hippel about the significance of the “social leap” and why he believes this mostly overlooked part of human history explains so many of our psychological quirks.

A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

Sean Illing
Your book is obviously about the past, but it has just as much to say about the present, about why human beings are so strange and self-destructive. Why tell this story now?

William von Hippel
I’m really interested in social intelligence. I want to know what makes people socially successful. And I’ve been trying to work that out for a long time, with limited success. So I started to think, well, maybe the better way to understand this problem is not to look at where we are now, but instead to look at where we came from.

So I became really interested in looking at our history as we separated from chimpanzees, because we’re so different from them socially. What caused that separation? What were they key events that occurred along the way? And can those events give us any purchase on understanding our social situation now?
“Humans are social animals, and if our group will benefit from seeing the world a certain way, we’ll use our intelligence to see the world that way”

Sean Illing
And what did you find? What did this history explain about the human psyche today?

William von Hippel
Well, I think it tells us a couple of very important things. Perhaps the most important thing is that what got us going, as a species, was when we came together to cooperate in our mutual defense on the East African savanna. This happened 3.5 million years ago, and it probably happened because our ancestors had to protect themselves against large predators like lions and leopards.

The consequences of this were profound for how we lived and how our minds worked. Suddenly, we were much more successful when our group goals aligned with our individual goals, which is, in this particular case, cooperation for mutual defense. But it also mandated a massive change in our psychology. Chimpanzees do not cooperate very well. And so we had to change the way we oriented toward the world.

Now, that tells us several important things. First, it’s weird that we’re both really kind to each other and also really, really mean to each other. But it actually makes perfect sense if you think about the fact that we evolved our cooperative nature in order to become more effective killers.

Important thing number two: This is also when our brain power really kicked into gear. Prior to this, we’d gained very little cognitive expansion from chimpanzees. We’d gained 70 grams of brain over 3 million years. And since then, we’ve almost tripled our brain size.

Why did that happen? Well, living together in large groups presented all sorts of challenges that had to be solved, and in solving them, we had to become more sophisticated, more intelligent, more innovative.

What that tells me is that, really, our intelligence didn’t evolve to solve abstract problems and complex ways of dealing with the environment. Our intelligence evolved to deal with each other more effectively and to leverage the skills and abilities we have when we work together.

Sean Illing
You spend a lot of time in the book talking about our primordial fear of being ostracized from our social group. Why is that such a big deal and an essential part of our psychology, even today?

William von Hippel
I recently read a great interview you did with a Stanford psychologist about how to avoid assholes. His advice was basically to not care what people think.

But that’s a stunningly difficult piece of advice to follow, because we’ve evolved to care a great deal about what everyone else in our group is thinking and about what everyone else in our group is doing. Because that’s what made us so effective.

And, simultaneously, because our groups have historically been so essential to keeping us alive, getting tossed out of them was often a death sentence for us.
So it’s not so easy to avoid worrying about what other people are thinking, or to not worry about being rejected. We’re simply hardwired to care deeply about what other people are thinking, whether it’s on the African savannah a few million years ago or on Twitter today — it matters a ton to us.

Sean Illing
This helps explain why we love gossip so much, right?

William von Hippel
Absolutely! It’s sort of the strength and weakness of humans. If you look back at our ancestral environment, we were in each other’s business all the time, and we regulated people’s behavior via gossip and what you might call “reputation management.” It was really, really important.

So gossip might be trivial and salacious in many ways, but it’s also super important for humans to make sure they’re all on the same page and get their group going in the right direction.

I think we’ve returned to this ancestral environment with the internet. People use social media to judge each other, to punish and reward, to regulate behavior. And the problem is that when all those people pile on you, it can be devastating because we’ve evolved in an environment in which having 20 people pile on you might have been a death sentence.

The stakes have obviously changed, but this stuff is still very much a part of our psychology, and it’s important to remember that.

Sean Illing
We have to talk about the role of reason in human life. According to your account, human intelligence evolved for strictly social purposes, and we developed our reasoning capacities as a means of manipulating our social environment, not necessarily as a tool for understanding how the world works.
Why is this so important?

William von Hippel
Well, the implications are hugely important. If we evolved to be smart in order to facilitate social functioning, then part of our smarts definitely will be dedicated to understanding the world, because you need some vague understanding of what’s actually out there in order to function.

But most of our smarts are going be dedicated to jockeying and manipulating our position among others. And if that’s the case, then the truth is only semi-important. If I can convince you of a world that’s actually favorable to me, then I can get you to back down in conflicts or defer to me when you really shouldn’t; that is a form of power.
So what are some other implications? Well, one is that we tend to think that the smarter we are, the more capable we are of seeing through people’s lies and the more capable we are of finding the truth. But that’s absolutely not the case. Humans are social animals, and if our group will benefit from seeing the world a certain way, we’ll use our intelligence to see the world that way.

It’s easy to see how these impulses explain so much of our politics and how willing so many of us are to believe what is false but convenient, as opposed to what is true but inconvenient. I think it also explains why the internet has not made us more intellectually honest; instead, people are just better at finding the information they need to confirm what they need to be true, which is what we’ve always done.

Sean Illing
Tell me how these group dynamics explain why we love to bullshit each other so much.

William von Hippel
We evolved in ways that forced us to come to an agreement about the facts within our groups. In other words, we needed to be on the same page about what’s going on, and we needed to share an emotional response to that reality.

Now, that means it’s very upsetting to me if you don’t share my emotional response to the world, and one of us has to change. One way I can ensure that you share my emotional response is to exaggerate my claims about the world. So if I need you to be outraged about something, it’s in my interest to exaggerate in ways that are more likely to outrage you, or whatever the case may be. The key is that we share an emotional response and forge a bond with one another.

This is how groups became tighter, and I think it’s the source of nearly all exaggeration. Why else would we lie about what happened or what’s happening? Ultimately, it’s about manipulating other people’s emotions.

Sean Illing
Cooperation is coded into our mental software and is a big reason for our success as a species, yet modern Western culture is essentially a sustained effort to individualize us. Is this a contradiction we can live with forever?
William von Hippel
That’s a terrific question, and it’s hard to answer. We’re all struggling with the tension between autonomy and connectedness. All humans want to have some level of self-directedness. We want to pursue our goals and dreams. And at the same time, all humans want to be connected to others. We want to maintain important relationships.
These two fundamental goals almost never mesh perfectly. And what’s interesting is if you look at the history of the world, people historically have been way more connected to each other with very little autonomy. As culture becomes more Westernized or industrialized or urbanized or whatever term you want to use, it shifts from a more collectivist culture to a more individualistic culture.

What that tells me is that at an individual level, all of us, when we’re in these tight and interconnected communities, have a strong desire for autonomy. But then when we get too much autonomy, we often miss that small town we grew up in or miss the connections we had with the people around us.

This is a contradiction we just have to live with now, and I’d be lying if I told you I knew how it was all going to play out in the future.

Ayahuasca, Consciousness, Dark Matter, Evolution, GUT-CP, Philosophy

GUT-CP, Ayahuasca, The Occult… consciousness at a molecular level? :/

 

“Unless you’ve drunk Ayahuasca… and even then, unless you truly understand how Ayahuasca can take your consciousness to both a molecular level and Universe level (At the same time)… YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FECKING IDEA AS TO WHAT I’M TRYING TO ARTICULATE HERE! 😥 I’m still unsure as to whether I do…

Most individuals in the ‘psychedelic’ movement, most Westerners, drinking Ayahuasca are absolute fucking whoppers… (almost all are blindly in love with Quantum Mechanics)

And most physicists, cosmologists, chemists… and the few ‘scientific realists’ left out there (of which I consider myself to be one) are not going to like what I say about my ‘discovery’ and understanding of GUT-CP…

I’ve got ALOT of my knowledge of The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics, of hydrino energy, of atomic structure, electron ‘orbitalities’, the Oscillating Universe… from tripping balls in the Amazon on Ayahuasca. 😀
tin7
tin8

And I grasped it soooooo fucking easy because of my understanding of The Occult and Natural Law.

Newton was a secret mystic! I’m sure many of the 20th centuries greatest minds where interested in exploring consciousness with psychedelic compounds… many read ancient mystic texts (Oppenheimer and The Bhagavad-Gita)…

I don’t know what I’m trying to say here… read The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby and Supernatural by Graham Hancock.
aya
(the first time I read Supernatural I had never experienced Ayahuasca, or any other ‘psychedelic’… and I thought he had lost his fucking mind… I read it a second time after my first trip to the Amazon and EVERYTHING made sense… IT’S HIS MATERPIECE!)

Some readers know exactly what I’m talking about here!!! (A really select few!… most of them Israelis! :D)

aya1aya2aya3aya4aya5

Climate Change, energy, Environment, Evolution, Global Warming, Natural Law, Planet Earth

Apocalypse Now!… Averting the collapse of civilisation? pffffft! :/

“Well… I can only see one way this is going to go… a global cull of the human species. No-one wants to publicly admit it, but we’ve evolved into two separate species…. we have the greatest discovery this species ahs ever made (GUT-CP)… if it’s a choice between throwing it in the dustbin of history or culling a few billion people… I’m going with GUT-CP.”

“While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory ‘so far’ in support of doing nothing.”

georgia

David Attenborough: collapse of civilisation is on the horizon

Naturalist tells leaders at UN climate summit that fate of world is in their hands

“Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” he said. “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for ‘irreversible collapse’?

Natural and social scientists develop new model of how ‘perfect storm’ of crises could unravel global system

earthwarm

A new study partly-sponsored by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.
Noting that warnings of ‘collapse’ are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

“The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

… accumulated surplus is not evenly distributed throughout society, but rather has been controlled by an elite. The mass of the population, while producing the wealth, is only allocated a small portion of it by elites, usually at or just above subsistence levels.”

The study challenges those who argue that technology will resolve these challenges by increasing efficiency:
“Technological change can raise the efficiency of resource use, but it also tends to raise both per capita resource consumption and the scale of resource extraction, so that, absent policy effects, the increases in consumption often compensate for the increased efficiency of resource use.”

Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?

Throughout our history environmental problems have contributed to collapses of civilizations. A new paper published yesterday in Proceedings of the Royal Society B addresses the likelihood that we are facing a global collapse now. The paper concludes that global society can avoid this and recommends that social and natural scientists collaborate on research to develop ways to stimulate a significant increase in popular support for decisive and immediate action on our predicament.

Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s paper provides a comprehensive description of the damaging effects of escalating climate disruption, overpopulation, overconsumption, pole-to-pole distribution of dangerous toxic chemicals, poor technology choices, depletion of resources including water, soils, and biodiversity essential to food production, and other problems currently threatening global environment and society. The problems are not separate, but are complex, interact, and feed on each other.
The authors say serious environmental problems can only be solved and a collapse avoided with unprecedented levels of international cooperation through multiple civil and political organizations. They conclude that if that does not happen, nature will restructure civilization for us.

Society will collapse by 2040 due to catastrophic food shortages, says study

‘The results show that based on plausible climate trends and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots’

A scientific model has suggested that society will collapse in less than three decades due to catastrophic food shortages if policies do not change.
The model, developed by a team at Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute, does not account for society reacting to escalating crises by changing global behaviour and policies.

However the model does show that our current way of life appears to be unsustainable and could have dramatic worldwide consequences.

Dr Aled Jones :D, the Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, told Insurge Intelligence: “We ran the model forward to the year 2040, along a business-as-usual trajectory based on ‘do-nothing’ trends — that is, without any feedback loops that would change the underlying trend.

“The results show that based on plausible climate trends, and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots.
“In this scenario, global society essentially collapses as food production falls permanently short of consumption.”

Apocalypse Soon: Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?

Although there is an urban legend that the world will end this year based on a misinterpretation of the Mayan calendar, some researchers think a 40-year-old computer program that predicts a collapse of socioeconomic order and massive drop in human population in this century may be on target

Remember how Wile E. Coyote, in his obsessive pursuit of the Road Runner, would fall off a cliff? The hapless predator ran straight out off the edge, stopped in midair as only an animated character could, looked beneath him in an eye-popping moment of truth, and plummeted straight down into a puff of dust. Splat! Four decades ago, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer model called World3 warned of such a possible course for human civilization in the 21st century. In Limits to Growth, a bitterly disputed 1972 book that explicated these findings, researchers argued that the global industrial system has so much inertia that it cannot readily correct course in response to signals of planetary stress. But unless economic growth skidded to a halt before reaching the edge, they warned, society was headed for overshoot—and a splat that could kill billions.
Don’t look now but we are running in midair, a new book asserts. In 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (Chelsea Green Publishing), Jorgen Randers of the BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, and one of the original World3 modelers, argues that the second half of the 21st century will bring us near apocalypse in the form of severe global warming. Dennis Meadows, professor emeritus of systems policy at the University of New Hampshire who headed the original M.I.T. team and revisited World3 in 1994 and 2004, has an even darker view. The 1970s program had yielded a variety of scenarios, in some of which humanity manages to control production and population to live within planetary limits (described as Limits to Growth). Meadows contends that the model’s sustainable pathways are no longer within reach because humanity has failed to act accordingly.
Instead, the latest global data are tracking one of the most alarming scenarios, in which these variables increase steadily to reach a peak and then suddenly drop in a process called collapse. In fact, “I see collapse happening already,” he says. “Food per capita is going down, energy is becoming more scarce, groundwater is being depleted.” Most worrisome, Randers notes, greenhouse gases are being emitted twice as fast as oceans and forests can absorb them. Whereas in 1972 humans were using 85 percent of the regenerative capacity of the biosphere to support economic activities such as growing food, producing goods and assimilating pollutants, the figure is now at 150 percent—and growing.

Advertisement
Randers’s ideas most closely resemble a World3 scenario in which energy efficiency and renewable energy stave off the worst effects of climate change until after 2050. For the coming few decades, Randers predicts, life on Earth will carry on more or less as before. Wealthy economies will continue to grow, albeit more slowly as investment will need to be diverted to deal with resource constraints and environmental problems, which thereby will leave less capital for creating goods for consumption. Food production will improve: increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause plants to grow faster, and warming will open up new areas such as Siberia to cultivation. Population will increase, albeit slowly, to a maximum of about eight billion near 2040. Eventually, however, floods and desertification will start reducing farmland and therefore the availability of grain. Despite humanity’s efforts to ameliorate climate change, Randers predicts that its effects will become devastating sometime after mid-century, when global warming will reinforce itself by, for instance, igniting fires that turn forests into net emitters rather than absorbers of carbon. “Very likely, we will have war long before we get there,” Randers adds grimly. He expects that mass migration from lands rendered unlivable will lead to localized armed conflicts.
Graham Turner of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization fears that collapse could come even earlier, but due to peak oil rather than climate change. After comparing the various scenarios generated by World3 against recent data on population, industrial output and other variables, Turner and, separately, the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, conclude that the global system is closely following a business-as-usual output curve. In this model run the economy continues to grow as expected until about 2015, but then falters because nonrenewable resources such as oil become ever more expensive to extract. “Not that we’re running out of any of these resources,” Turner explains. “It’s that as you try to get to unconventional sources such as under deep oceans, it takes a lot more energy to extract each unit of energy.” To keep up oil supply, the model predicts that society will divert investment from agriculture, causing a drop in food production. In this scenario, population peaks around 2030 at between seven and eight billion and then decreases sharply, evening out at about four billion in 2100.

End of days: Is Western civilisation on the brink of collapse?

History tells us all cultures have their sell-by date. Do political strife, crippling inequality and climate change mean the West’s time is now up
par396522-800x533

By Laura Spinney
AH, the good old days, when predictions that “the end is nigh” were seen only on sandwich boards, and the doom-mongers who carried them were easy enough to ignore.
If only things had stayed so simple. The sandwich boards have mostly gone and the world is still here, but the gloomy predictions keep coming, and not all of them are based on creative interpretations of religious texts. Scientists, historians and politicians alike have begun to warn that Western culture is reaching a critical juncture. Cycles of inequality and resource use are heading for a tipping point that in many past civilisations precipitated political unrest, war and finally collapse.
For the most part, though, people are carrying on as usual, shopping for their next holiday or posing on social media. In fact, many people seem blissfully unaware that collapse might be imminent. Are Westerners doing the modern equivalent of sitting around eating grapes while the barbarians hammer on the doors? And more importantly, does science have any ideas about what is really going on, what might happen next and how people could turn things around?

The idea that Western power and influence is in gradual decline, perhaps as a prelude to a precipitous fall, has been around for a while. But it has gained a new urgency with recent political events, not least the election of US president Donald Trump. For some, his turning away from international commitments is part of fulfilling his promise to “make America great again” by concentrating on its own interests. For others, it’s a dangerous move that threatens to undermine the whole world order. Meanwhile, over in the old world, Europe is mired in its own problems.
Using science to predict the future isn’t easy, not least because both “collapse” and “Western civilisation” are difficult to define. We talk about the collapse of the Roman Empire in the middle of the first millennium, for example, but there is plenty of evidence that the empire existed in some form for centuries afterwards and that its influence lingers today. The end of Ancient Egypt was more of a change in the balance of power than a catastrophic event in which everyone died. So, when we talk about collapse, do we mean that people lose everything and go back to the dark ages? Or that it’s going to be socially and politically turbulent for a while?
Western civilisation is a similarly slippery concept. Roughly speaking, it covers parts of the world where the dominant cultural norms originated in Western Europe, including North America, Australia and New Zealand. Beyond that, though, the lines get blurrier. Other civilisations, such as China, were built on different sets of cultural norms, yet thanks to globalisation, defining where Western culture starts and ends is far from easy.
Despite these difficulties, some scientists and historians are analysing the rise and fall of ancient civilisations to look for patterns that might give us a heads-up on what is coming.
So is there any evidence that the West is reaching its end game? According to Peter Turchin, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Connecticut, there are certainly some worrying signs. Turchin was a population biologist studying boom-and-bust cycles in predator and prey animals when he realised that the equations he was using could also describe the rise and fall of ancient civilisations.
In the late 1990s, he began to apply these equations to historical data, looking for patterns that link social factors such as wealth and health inequality to political instability. Sure enough, in past civilisations in Ancient Egypt, China and Russia, he spotted two recurring cycles that are linked to regular era-defining periods of unrest.
“You’ve got to be very optimistic to think that this is just a blip on the screen”
One, a “secular cycle”, lasts two or three centuries. It starts with a fairly equal society, then, as the population grows, the supply of labour begins to outstrip demand and so becomes cheap. Wealthy elites form, while the living standards of the workers fall. As the society becomes more unequal, the cycle enters a more destructive phase, in which the misery of the lowest strata and infighting between elites contribute to social turbulence and, eventually, collapse. Then there is a second, shorter cycle, lasting 50 years and made up of two generations – one peaceful and one turbulent.
Looking at US history Turchin spotted peaks of unrest in 1870, 1920 and 1970. Worse, he predicts that the end of the next 50-year cycle, in around 2020, will coincide with the turbulent part of the longer cycle, causing a period of political unrest that is at least on a par with what happened around 1970, at the peak of the civil rights movement and protests against the Vietnam war.
This prediction echoes one made in 1997 by two amateur historians called William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their book The Fourth Turning: An American prophecy. They claimed that in about 2008 the US would enter a period of crisis that would peak in the 2020s – a claim said to have made a powerful impression on US president Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon.
Turchin made his predictions in 2010, before the election of Donald Trump and the political infighting that surrounded his election, but he has since pointed out that current levels of inequality and political divisions in the US are clear signs that it is entering the downward phase of the cycle. Brexit and the Catalan crisis hint that the US is not the only part of the West to feel the strain.
As for what will happen next, Turchin can’t say. He points out that his model operates at the level of large-scale forces, and can’t predict exactly what might tip unease over into unrest and how bad things might get.
How and why turbulence sometimes turns into collapse is something that concerns Safa Motesharrei, a mathematician at the University of Maryland. He noticed that while, in nature, some prey always survive to keep the cycle going, some societies that collapsed, such as the Maya, the Minoans and the Hittites, never recovered.
Borrowed time
To find out why, he first modelled human populations as if they were predators and natural resources were prey. Then he split the “predators” into two unequal groups, wealthy elites and less well-off commoners.
This showed that either extreme inequality or resource depletion could push a society to collapse, but collapse is irreversible only when the two coincide. “They essentially fuel each other,” says Motesharrei.
Part of the reason is that the “haves” are buffered by their wealth from the effects of resource depletion for longer than the “have-nots” and so resist calls for a change of strategy until it is too late.
This doesn’t bode well for Western societies, which are dangerously unequal. According to a recent analysis, the world’s richest 1 per cent now owns half the wealth, and the gap between the super-rich and everyone else has been growing since the financial crisis of 2008.
The West might already be living on borrowed time. Motesharrei’s group has shown that by rapidly using non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, a society can grow by an order of magnitude beyond what would have been supported by renewables alone, and so is able to postpone its collapse. “But when the collapse happens,” they concluded, “it is much deeper.”

Joseph Tainter, an anthropologist at Utah State University, and author of The Collapse of Complex Societies, offers a similarly bleak outlook. He sees the worst-case scenario as a rupture in fossil fuel availability, causing food and water supplies to fail and millions to die within a few weeks.
That sounds disastrous. But not everyone agrees that the boom-and-bust model applies to modern society. It might have worked when societies were smaller and more isolated, critics say, but now? Can we really imagine the US dissolving in an internal war that would leave no one standing? There are armies of scientists and engineers working on solutions, and in theory we can avoid past societies’ mistakes. Plus, globalisation makes us robust, right?
This comes back to what we mean by collapse. Motesharrei’s group defines historical societies according to strict geographical limits, so that if some people survived and migrated to find new natural resources they would constitute a new society. By this criterion, even very advanced societies have collapsed irreversibly and the West could too. But it wouldn’t necessarily mean annihilation.
For that reason, many researchers avoid the word collapse, and talk instead about a rapid loss of complexity. When the Roman Empire broke up, new societies emerged, but their hierarchies, cultures and economies were less sophisticated, and people lived shorter, unhealthier lives. That kind of across-the-board loss of complexity is unlikely today, says Turchin, but he doesn’t rule out milder versions of it: the break-up of the European Union, say, or the US losing its empire in the form of NATO and close allies such as South Korea.
On the other hand, some people, such as Yaneer Bar-Yam of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Massachusetts, see this kind of global change as a shift up in complexity, with highly centralised structures such as national governments giving way to less centralised, overarching networks of control. “The world is becoming an integrated whole,” says Bar-Yam.
Some scientists, Bar-Yam included, are even predicting a future where the nation state gives way to fuzzy borders and global networks of interlocking organisations, with our cultural identity split between our immediate locality and global regulatory bodies.
However things pan out, almost nobody thinks the outlook for the West is good. “You’ve got to be very optimistic to think that the West’s current difficulties are just a blip on the screen,” says historian Ian Morris of Stanford University in California, author of Why the West Rules – For Now. So, can we do anything to soften the blow?
Turchin says that by manipulating the forces that fuel the cycles, by, for example, introducing more progressive taxes to address income equality and the exploding public debt, it might be possible to avert disaster. And Motesharrei thinks we should rein in population growth to levels his model indicates are sustainable. These exact levels vary over time, depending on how many resources are left and how sustainably – or otherwise – we use them.
The problem with these kinds of solutions, however, is that humans haven’t proved themselves to be great at playing the long game. New psychology research may help to explain why that is the case.
Cognitive scientists recognise two broad modes of thought – a fast, automatic, relatively inflexible mode, and a slower, more analytical, flexible one. Each has its uses, depending on the context, and their relative frequency in a population has long been assumed to be stable. David Rand, a psychologist at Yale University, though, argues that populations might actually cycle between the two over time.
Say a society has a transportation problem. A small group of individuals thinks analytically and invents the car. The problem is solved, not only for them but for millions of others besides, and because a far larger number of people have been relieved of thinking analytically – at least in this one domain – there is a shift in the population towards automatic thinking.
This happens every time a new technology is invented that renders the environment more hospitable. Once large numbers of people use the technology without foresight, problems start to stack up. Climate change resulting from the excess use of fossil fuels is just one example. Others include overuse of antibiotics leading to microbial resistance, and failing to save for retirement.
Jonathan Cohen, a psychologist at Princeton University who developed the theory with Rand, says it could help solve a long-standing puzzle regarding societies heading for ruin: why did they keep up their self-destructive behaviour even though the more analytical people must have seen the danger ahead? “The train had left the station,” says Cohen, and the forward-thinking folk were not steering it.
“Technological innovation may not be able to bail us out as it has in the past”
This is the first time anyone has attempted to link the evolution of societies with human psychology, and the researchers admit their model is simple, for now. And while Rand and his colleagues make no attempt to guide policy, they do think their model suggests a general direction we might look in for remedies. “Education has got to be part of the answer,” says Cohen, adding that there could be more emphasis on analytical thinking in the classroom.
But Tainter says trying to instil more forethought might be a pipe dream. If behavioural economics has taught us anything, he says, it is that human beings are much more emotional than rational when it comes to decision-making. He thinks a more pressing issue to tackle is the dwindling rate of invention relative to investment in R & D, as the world’s problems become harder to solve. “I foresee a pattern in the future where technological innovation is not going to be able to bail us out as it has in the past,” he says.
So, is the West really on the ropes? Perhaps. But ultimately its survival will depend on the speed at which people can adapt. If we don’t reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, tackle inequality and find a way to stop elites from squabbling among themselves, things will not end well. In Tainter’s view, if the West makes it through, it will be more by luck than by good judgement. “We are a species that muddles through,” he says. “That’s all we’ve ever done, and all we’ll ever do.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “The Fall”

9/11, Anti-gravity, astro-physics, Chemistry, CIA, cosmology, Dark Matter, DNA, energy, Evolution, Futurism, Genetics, GUT-CP, Humour, hydrides, hydrino, HydrinoDollars, HydrinoEconomy, Molecular modelling, New elements, Philosophy, physics, Randell Mills, SunCell, technology

“We wage a war with no rules”… MI6, you’ve gone mental! This is between me, the CIA, Israel and Russia ONLY! (fucking muppets)

“I use to think ‘ooh be a millionaire’, then I thought ‘be a billionaire’… unless you’re talking in the T’s,, I’m not fucking interested!”

“Energy, water and phosphates… nothing else matters!”

“Energy? This guy, has discovered the energy source of the Universe, the reason the Universe is expanding, the identity of dark matter and dark energy… he’s unlocked the secrets of the atom and Universe… Quantum Physics was ALWAYS bullshit… he’s created a multi-trillion dollar industry (and not just in energy, in EVERYTHING chemical, biological), the biggest paradigm shift in human history… THIS IS THE BIGGEST DISCOVERY SINCE FIRE… for the first time in human history the power of the of the Sun has been brought down to the surface of planet Earth 😉 …

I’ve always had fun with the CIA.
I have lunch with Mossad.
… You need to ask the Russians about our relationship.
MI6 can fuck themselves.

I eat cake with Rothschild.
(best champagne in the world)

wewage

Evolution, Futurism, Genetics, GUT-CP, Philosophy, physics, Planet Earth, technology

Humans… time to decide what kind of civilisation you wish to be! Star Trek or Jupiter Ascending?

 

“My friend was today asking the potential implications for the human race of Randell Mills’ monumental discovery…
Coincidently an interesting post appeared on Reddit Brilliant Light Power entitled ‘The Oiligarchs’
Fabius Maximus posed a similar question entitled “Is our future Star Trek or the dystopian Jupiter Ascending?”

The question is…
“Will hydrino energy and the Grand Unified Theory Of Classical have a beneficial impact upon human civilisation?”…

The answer is, it’s the same as EVERY other technology and discovery throughout history… it’s how it’s wielded, by whom, and for what purpose.

The way our civilisation functions today (and has functioned for the previous 12,800 years)… the psychopathic ruling elite will control all aspects to energy, eugenics, and ‘money’… The Grand Unified Theory Of Classical Physics will create a technological revolution for the 21st century… but by the end of that century, I imagine (in all seriousness), the planets elites will be well on their way to becoming immortal intergalactic GODS, whilst the rest of the mere mortal humans will be a subservient species at the complete mercy of their overlord masters.

And all those science fictions films, portraying terrifying planet conquering, evil invading alien civilisations, hell bent on control of the Universe… THAT’LL BE US! 😀

“The 20th century was the century of oil. From farm to fork, factory to freeway, there is no aspect of our modern life that has not been shaped by the oil industry. But as the “post-carbon” era of the 21st century comes into view, there are those who see this as the end of the oiligarchy. They couldn’t be more wrong. This is the remarkable true story of the world that Big Oil is creating, and how they plan to bring it about.”

Posted byu/WupWup9r
The Oiligarchs
Shortly before SoCP was terminated, Dr. Mills expressed an interest in expanding finance models. This was in association with the discussion concerning cryptocurrency. It may be important to examine this from a broader and historical perspective.
James Corbett is an extraordinary documentarian. There are many types of people in the world. Most of us want to mind our own business, to be helpful to people we know, and sometimes to people we don’t know, displaying altruism on occasion. Witness the explosion of helpful videos on YouTube, unrewarded. Few of us are psychotic or sociopathic. We may have ambitions, but ruling the world is not something the ordinary person becomes obsessed with doing. Sure, we’re not perfect, but we feel shame or guilt when we realize we did something wrong. We tend to believe in the golden rule, even if we do not consistently follow it. Most of us tend to believe that psychotics are scary people who live in the shadows, away from respectable people. Many psychotics do live obscurely, but some adapt to very challenging lifestyles, and command prestige. They can be quite likeable. Consider the psychologist Ted Bundy.
Corbett is vitally aware that psychologically dangerous people occupy social positions of great prestige, and I think he explains his clear thinking well. He believes that he sees through a lot of deceptions, and his opinions are worth considering, IMO.
The linked video is wide-ranging. The common thread is the way that energy has been used to control society, and which members of society benefit, and why, as well as the cost to the ordinary members of society.
Corbett is hardly alone in these views. If he is at least somewhat correct, then I would think it is not a stretch to conclude that Dr. Mills should take this history into consideration, because powerful psychotic people do not yield their power willingly. One need not be a psychotic to defeat a psychotic, but it helps. That is, a successful psychotic can be a very formidable opponent, and if you do not realize what you are up against, and how to fight, you will lose.

Hydrino007
Dude… we’ve been living under the control of psychopaths for the past 12,800 years! (not because of aliens or demons, but because of a cometary impact that almost wiped our species out, we’re a traumatised species)… OUR CIVILISATION IS BUILT UPON SURVIVAL MODE (the lowest form of consciousness), it rewards the psychopath and elevates him (or her) to the top level of feudal oligarchy (whether that be Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Monarchism, any ‘ism’)… … when you realise what ‘money’ actually is! Its a Babylonian magic trick… it’s the RESISTOR to the amount of the Suns energy in human society! If humans did away with it, they would be a peaceful, intergalactic, space faring civilisation (Type 2)… even if you don’t believe in ‘conspiracies’ as such, look into the work of Jacques Fresco and The Venus Project… money is a form of control, it is the resistor to the amount of the Suns energy in society… Mills has brought the power of the Sun down to the surface of planet Earth… THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE IN A BIG WAY FOR THIS SPECIES!
Whether that be a Star Trek civilisation, or a Jupiter Ascending civilisation (where the elites become immortal Gods, and the rest become fully obedient slaves… essentially a lower species)… things will change in the next 100 years! 😀
…Another thing to consider is, the last time we had a technological revolution of magnitude (The Industrial Revolution), the human population exploded from 1 billion to 7 billion in 200 years… … what do you think the effect of Mills’s discovery (energy, medicine, genetics etc.) is going to be? Do you think the planet can cope with another population explosion? Big things many people are not considering!

And who gives a shit for the Saudis? 😀 (they have no nukes for a reason!) They can fuck off and try selling sand! Us Brits created the Saudis, we can destroy them whenever we wish!
ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE PSYCHOPATHIC!

Our future will be Jupiter Ascending, unless we make it Star Trek

Larry Kummer, Editor
Book, Film, & TV Reviews, New Industrial Revolution
27 January 2016
Summary: Will our future be like Star Trek or Jupiter Ascending? Star Trek shows us a world beyond scarcity where everybody benefits. In Jupiter Ascending the 1% takes the wealth produced by technology and uses it to rule us. We can choose to make Star Trek our future if we are willing to work for it, but now we’re condemning our children to live in Jupiter Ascending.

jupiter-ascending
“No, I don’t share my wealth. Why do you ask?” From Jupiter Ascending.

Consider the increase in the West’s wealth since 1750 and the advancement in technology. Imagine similar progress for another 250 years, to the time of the original Star Trek TV series. Rick Webb describes that world in “The Economics of Star Trek: The Proto-Post Scarcity Economy“, a market economy whose productivity allows the government to easily provide a high basic income allowance to everybody.

“The amount of welfare benefits available to all citizens is in excess of the needs of the citizens. … Citizens have no financial need to work, as their benefits are more than enough to provide a comfortable life, and there is, clearly, universal health care and education. The Federation has clearly taken the plunge to the other side of people’s fears about European socialist capitalism: yes, some people might not work. So What? Good for them. We think most still will.”

Discussions about Star Trek often focus on what we do with the abundance of goods and services produced by their fantastic tech. It’s fun, like composing fantasy football teams or designing the ideal Prime Directive.
In our world the 1% shows us an alternative to Star Trek. The largest fraction of America’s increased income since 1970 has gone to the 1% — and even more to the .1%. They could share the booty (nobody can consume a billion dollars in a lifetime), but prefer instead to amass wealth and power. Why would this change with the invention of robots and replicators? Continue current trends for a few centuries and you reach Jupiter Ascending — a world of servants and lords, where the rich own planets, live almost forever, and harvest the peons. A world like that of our past, as seen in Pride and Prejudice.
enterprise1
This is the natural course of events for our future. Increased productivity comes from machines and intellectual property. Those who build them earn a living, while the wealth they create goes to those who own them. Software engineers live in nice homes while plutocrats own estates, yachts, submarines, and jets.
Our society has begun to adapt our new reality. The institutions formerly supported by the middle class, such as magazines and charities, find rich patrons to survive. Unions, the center of organized opposition to the 1%, have faded to shadows of their former strength. The major Republican candidates for president agree that taxes on the rich must fall and social services for the rest must be cut. Hillary, like her husband, likes the current rate at which the 1% grows in power and wealth, but wishes to tinker at the edges.
Visions of a great future, like that of Star Trek, can inspire us to act. But the window to do so will close eventually, if the 1% gains enough power that they become invincible. We will leave a dark future to our children if we continue our passivity. Perhaps that fear can shake us from our apathy.

I would say the ONLY way to prevent a dystopian future, where the ruling psychopathic elite have become immortal Gods, ruling their own planets (like Scientology, but for real! :D)… is to completely abandon the concept of money, of Government… The Venus Project… it’s the only way.

“Lord Hurley”
“Fucks talking to you boy?”