David's end goal, for example, "To see a world in which power is constrained," is a great example of a solution that makes the targeted problem worse. Power needs to be RELIEVED, NOT CONSTRAINED. You see that very successful transition from the startup growth process of any system relaxed to shift attention and resources to care of the system that formed in the birth process, in the innovation process, in the "making dinner" process. The start of all systems is a multiplication of the power of the germ of its energy capturing system, and systems that "look alive" relieve that to care for themselves as the natural limit to the system's growth -- triggered by internal COHESION - not by conflict.
This is such a good talk. The altruism in groups vs individuals was very interesting. I think Nate has two blind spots (most people have these same blind spots) and this talk kind of pushed him toward confronting one of them. Altruistic groups are essential for adapting to Nate's great simplification. It goes deeper though. The system that accumulated all of these problems won't be able to solve them. The fact that it encourages selfish behavior is one reason. Another reason is the idea that capital is spent to accumulate more capital. Money is loaned to get back principal + interest. Stocks are bought with the expectation that they can return dividends or better yet, be sold for more later. Businesses are started so that they will make back more than the initial investment. Employees are hired with the expectation that they will make the company more than the company pays in wages. If you want to understand exponential economic growth in our current system, there you go. The other problem is underlying our current system and previous systems like feudalism and slavery. It's where a minority rules the majority. When we need to be able to adapt to the problems created by our current system, the people with the most power are focused on maintaining the system that gives them that power. When we need as many minds as possible processing our situation and finding the best ways to move forward, the most powerful people are focused on increasing their agency at the expense of everyone else. When we need to be more altruistic, the people that succeeded by being selfish are making the most important decisions for the rest of us. We need to recognize these obstacles before we can navigate through them toward a better future.
What a great conversation. Wow! I appreciate all the helpful suggestions about how to support the Great Transition and what conditions/form(s) it will take. Thank you, Nate and David, for sharing the good work you are both doing.
Doc Hagens, please let me recommend a two way interview and discussion with Dr. John Vervaeke; CUZ, there's oodles of contact points between the two bodies of work that you two EACH are engaged in. Especially when Cognitive Science Human Psychology Anthropology ETC. Intersectionalities with the MANY aspects you bring out in terms of The Great Simplification. MOST often when I write or reply or communicate or comment, I ALSO recommend yours in addition to the series by Dr. John Vervaeke titled Awakening from The Meaning Crisis. Cheers, Luck, Peace, and Gaia.
Thank you very much for this long anticipated dialogue. I hope more with DS Wilson will address his vision of global equity and earth overshoot. Malthus needs to be included next time.
He had some very interesting concepts about human evolution and behavior, but I can't see them being of much practical benefit given the brick wall/cliff we're currently hurtling toward.
Thanks for the podcast Nate, I have a question unrelated to the topic of the podcast. I'm currently working as a software developer for a group that's looking to build technologies to support a digitally enhanced democracy. However I've recently been concerned that the requisite hardware side of this tech stack may be endangered due to your analysis of the coming Great Simplification, as our digital infrastructure would never be possible without the mining, industrial heating, and transportation that goes into producing hardware, which all depends on depleting resources (oil, copper, etc.). Do you view this as a reason for concern around the prospects of digital democracy? Could this topic make it in your queue of Frankly topics?
If you can’t get Tony Seba for an interview who else would be a great guest to give us a pro technology approach to solving or surviving the challenges we face I’m doubtful this approach will work but what keeps the science based technology approach going thanks for another wonderful program I’m listening with my 14 year old daughter as we get our day started 😊
In your probabilistic view of the future, what's your sense of the likelihood of a shortage of computer hardware in the coming great simplification. I fear that so much of society is built on an underlying layer of digital infrastructure, but when oil runs scarce and things that require oil become more difficult (mining for the required minerals, having 6 continent supply chains), the hardware side of the digital infrastructure will start to fracture, and that plans to improve governance such as digital democracy will become unfeasable.
💯 Also, here is a theory by Ken Wilbur that discusses human evolution, called Integral. It looks at evolving beyond the heavy emphasis on modern industrialization, thru post modernity to an integration along with the spiritial evolution from a more ancient era. If i recall correctly, he calls this second tier Teal. Again, Daniel Schmachtenberger would be a good source. There is a TH-camr, Jeff Slazman you should talk to, if time allows.
I am sceptical of a "kinder" capitalism because capitalism requires an environment favourable to growth and we are not always going to have this. The principle of capitalism is leveraging investment so that interest is serviced and that servicing requires growth and that translates into energy and resources. An environment of growth, reflecting an energy/resources mix, selects for capitalism and thus feudalism morphs into capitalism. An environment of tighter energy/resources not allowing for growth sees capitalism morphing into feudalism. It is not the case that western civilisation had a change of political/economic philosophy which brought about capitalism. It is the case that an infusion of new energy/resources starting with the discovery of the new world and dialled up to 11 with fossil fuels which chose capitalism. Today we are getting a glimpse into the future with the subscription economic model coming into being. This is the forerunner of an ownership culture morphing into a rentier culture and of capitalist corporations morphing into corporate lords, the reverse of the process of discovering the new world and fossil fuels.
What percentage of our income will these rent management companies (which are increasingly being absorbed by massive venture capital firms) be content with? Here in Ohio, USA my apartment rent used to be about 40 percent of my net income but, after recent rent hikes it's now nearly 50%, and I work two jobs.
think about whether these Core 42:19 Design principles apply to your group your group that they're thinking of might work well or poorly just think 42:25 about your group how well it works and whether these Core Design principles have might have something to do with it 42:30 so here they go number one strong sense of identity and purpose the group must 42:36 know that it's a group it must be an important group must know who's in it who's a member and what's its boundaries 42:42 so a strong sense of what the group is and its identity and purpose number two 42:49 benefits proportional to cost if some members of the group are getting the benefits 42:54 and others are doing the work that's the first chicken experiment so there must be some sense in which what you get from 43:00 the group is proportional to what you give to the group and number three decision making fair and inclusive but 43:07 not not sustainable for some members to make the decisions and for other people to be left out of that process number 43:13 one a recipe for unfairness number two not making use of everyone's wisdom 43:19 for monitoring agreed upon Behavior we need to know whether we're doing what we agreed upon to do if we don't all that's 43:26 off number five appropriate responding to helpful and unhelpful behavior if 43:31 you're not doing what you should that has to be corrected but we don't have to be mean about it Hey Brother friendly 43:37 reminder is enough most of the time but it must be possible to escalate in cases where 43:44 uh friendly reminders are not um enough and while we're while we're correcting uh unhelpful behaviors let's praise 43:50 helpful behaviors basically abundant praise for for good behavior coupled 43:56 with mild punishment for bad behavior that escalates when necessary there's a whole little interlocking piece there 44:02 number six fast and fair conflict resolution conflicts will occur and they need to be resolved quickly and in a 44:09 matter that's regarded as fair by all parties in a dispute most people think they have a point of view number seven 44:15 local autonomy a group has to have Elbow Room in order to manage its own Affairs 44:20 if it's being bossed around from above all bets are off and finally number eight appropriate relations with other groups 44:27 which embody the same courtesan principle so this illustrates the scale and dependence of the core design 44:34 principles needed to govern relations among groups in addition to relations within groups
This is hopeful, but is it realistic? It’s not just about scale but also time left before ‘the great simplification’ becomes obvious to all. The collective threat is already upon us, and huge profits are already being made on the fear and avoidance being experienced by many now. I look forward to part 2. Push back more, Nate. Ask the hard questions. I can imagine all of this - our collective maturation, a kinder world, but in the distant future and with far fewer humans. I’d like to believe that suffering will be minimal .. I really do. But I continue to grieve over what seems inevitable.
I was lucky enough to be exposed to the Dawkin's book selfish gene/ and the idea of memetics that he introduced when the book came out. What a gift that was.
What a beautiful mind, Mr. Wilson, is directing. Minds like his work on a fundamental principle of giving. Another corner stone, of future societies. Here are the very minds starting this ascending revolution of consciousness. Science is teaching us that nature works on the principle of taking. I question this theory. Has the light not been given by the universe? Has the water not been given to this planet? Would the universe function on the Principe of taking? I am afraid we have to introduce meditation in all schools and workplaces to save the sanity of humanity.
I often wonder what this world would be like if all the time, money, thought and energy that has been wasted on brutal, destructive wars throughout human history had, instead, been applied towards mutually-beneficial endeavors? That thought boggles my mind as I see nightly photographs of the needless carnage occurring in Ukraine at this very moment. It brings those musings in to sharp focus. Additionally, homo sapiens' wanton disrespect for its own life-sustaining habitat raises similar questions, fears, and doubts. Do not these examples refute the very premise of this conversation? I ask that question in all humble sincerity. I am just a disheartened and confused old man.
It is disheartening to see the lessons of Vietnam ignored, the chance of peace when the Berlin wall wasted, and the good will after 9/11 wasted in a prolonged set of wars. Just as disheartening is to see the continuing destruction of nature, the growing wealth of the one percent, and zero concern for the waste of resources.
@@timeenoughforart As of 2023 in Ukraine the Russian military has destroyed 131,400 private houses, 17,500 apartment buildings, 1,300 schools, and 280 dormitories. And Ukraine is now the most heavily mined country in the world.
I agree with another commenter, Ken Wilber explains the content of this podcast. Reality has been hijacked by empirical data / observations and we have stopped feeling. I believe our reality has been taken over by pathological hierarchies. Hierarchies are part of our life no avoiding them, to serve our species and all others the leaders need to be a higher level of consciousness. What separates our species from others is our ability to transcend to higher level of consciousness, how do we create a system that the people who have these higher level of consciousness can provide a pathway for the whole planet. Keep up the work Nate, most of our workplaces are toxic, they don’t need to be.
All living systems rely on a stream of energy and organize information for the purpose of extracting value from their environment. This principle occurs at many scales. Quantum jazz: local freedom, global cohesion.
You mean the idea that free will is nonsense? I highly highly recommend reading Behave to literally anyone. Audiobook might be easier for folks, it's really heavy and long. But one of the best books I've ever read.
@@cheweperro Do you agree with his premise? I have thought about it a lot in recent days, and have decided that I do not (though he is still a brilliant mind).
@@dbadagna I do agree with him. I don't believe that we have something inside us that is separate from our biology, from our culture, from the context. I believe that the 2 most important things that define your life are: who are your parents, which country you were born in. I do believe thar the majority of people alive today don't have the freedom to chose. Free will as in the choice between a blue pen and a red pen? Ok, but the most important things that affect who your are and what type of life you live? Those are not up to the individuals, so I can't really say there is free will. The way I see it, free will would require a basic standard for humans. But then why humans? Isn't all consciousness the same? Then I end up thinking about how shit we have setup the economy. We should be maximizing life, sentience, not profits for the elites. Sorry, english as a second language
How do natural systems achieve balance? They have no choice, it is either balance or oblivion. The system is broken and everyone from the bottom to the top is gaming the system. The system creates the actors, the actors protect the system. Power is the problem, power doesn't negotiate.
Interesting bit about the hens, it reminds me of the _eusocial_ mole rat species. The 'Queen' mole rat bullies all of the beta females, which somehow prevents them from estrous, so in turn, only she gets to reproduce.
Many foundational principles in evolution need to be revised. Dating methods, cause of sediments, epigenetics, uniformitarianism, etc... Dating methods require assumptions. If the sedimentary layers are like pages in a book, we should not expect to find fossilized trees standing in what has been described as millions of years of deposits. Genetics is a dance with the environment with vary complex mechanisms. Have we overlooked catastrophes and come to the wrong conclusions on occasion? The universe behaves more like an organism than a machine.
Didn’t think your discussion with David Sloan Wilson was one of your best, found Sloan too academic and purest in his views, did like however section on “The Super Chicken” and best bit for me was in last 15 minutes when you questioned him, felt he didn’t quite agree with you. You brought up analogy of World being put under threat by aliens and nations of the world coming together as a unified force and common agreement, Sloan disputed your analogy, and it’s with that analogy in mind I suggest you read Cixin Liu’s (well founded in science) Sci-fi Novel “Remembrance of Earth's Past Trilogy”, starting with “The Three Body Problem”, “The Dark Forrest”, and Death’s End” The novel’s about Earth’s scientists looking for alien life, only to be conquered by them, it doesn’t end well for us🤔
6:21 minutes. First of all, DSW (David Sloane Wilson) is correct in calling optimal foraging a theory, rather than a principle. You could also call it a model. This is the same format that should be followed with the so-called maximum power principle, so beloved of Nate, Richard Heinberg and others in the Resilience organization. Calling it a "principle" leads to Howard Odum, who actually tried and failed to make it the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics. As with all models, you can certainly use it to get your head around the data, BUT you have to drop it when it doesn't fit. Fer chrissakes, the Theory of Evolution is still referred to as a theory, even though my grad advisor and others referred to it as a paradigm. Optimal foraging theory and maximum power theory do not rise to the explanatory level of evolution. 14:42. Trying to extrapolate sociobiological and selective pressure questions back 50,000 or 200,00 years ago is a failure of concept and method. For example, we have stone tools in the archaeological record because they survive. We don't have slings for carrying babies because they do not survive in the archaeological record. I have always thought the baby slings were more important since they freed up hands for gathering, which provided a calorie base for allowing some of the group to hunt. When I was working as an archaeologist, I always thought of the disconnect between what we found on site survey versus what was in the ground below our feet. But where did we dig? Where we came across the surface finds. This is because of the nature of contract archaeology for oil pipelines, etc. So a corporate agenda drives the discoveries. The same disconnect exists for all theories about the past. We really don't know how ancient people thought. Even the written sources don't give an adequate explanation. 16:03. DSW says, "You don't have to do better than everybody; just better than your neighbors." This is outstanding. It explains a lot of within-group dynamics. Of course, an entirely different dynamic could be operating between groups without some sort of sociobiological explanation. People are loyal to their groups because they have already had interactions. I come to the aid of Philippe because he helped me out in that bar fight three years ago. Or, I come to the aid of Veronica because she gave me a load of potatoes last year when my crop failed. Parsimony is the key here. 19:32 The small group as a fundamental unit of human social behavior. This is important. 21:59 DSW later goes on to cite scale as independent of behavior. In other words we can have the same cooperative behaviors as a nation state that proved useful in a small tribal setting. I don't think he made his case on this one. Others may disagree. What he specifically said is that the same principles that apply in small group settings are needed for the global village. That is true but there are other more complex behaviors that are needed when you scale up the population. Think of small group behaviors as the foundation upon which the edifice of large scale behaviors are built. We can still see the importance of kin in our postmodern world, even though we have many other ways of classifying people and providing access to resources. 23:42 "Culture is a form of cooperation." Far too simplistic. Cooperation is just one aspect of culture. Competition is another. Transmitting behavior between generations does not depend solely on cooperation. Same with using symbols. The statue of Shiva in the temple transmits culture, whether or not you are an untouchable or a Brahmin. I also take issue with DSW's idea that we became a cooperative species before we became cultured. This implies cooperation trumps competition. Being able to transmit behaviors between generations does not have to be done in a cooperative manner. 24:42 Glad DSW mentioned dual-inheritance theory. For more on this I recommend Nate contact Peter Richerson and/or Robert Boyd. They are both still alive and in their 70s. Nature vs. Nurture - I have come down on a 50/50 model for the last forty years, simply because it controls for error. If the biological aspect is hypothesized at 90% and we find out it is actually 20%, we have a 70% error. If we hypothesize it is 50% and it is actually 20%, we only have a 30% error. Believe me, controlling error is far more important than peole realize. 25:13 Blank Slate - When I started studying anthropology in 1968, the blank slate had already been disavowed and dismissed. Pinker's book in 2002 just set up a straw man that was easy to knock down. When DSW talks about being able to acquire whatever culture we are exposed to, this does not mean that we have a choice whether to acquire culture or not. Of course we learn what we are exposed to! The blank slate theory says the mind is blank at birth and this is false. DSW's immune system analogy is flawed because it is too simplistic. The acquisition of culture is far more complex than the immune system or designing a rocket to reach the moon. Yet a baby does this easily. This is actually the key to culture. It is far more complex than the language we use to describe it - even though language is the main carrier of culture! There are many more criticisms I could make, but I think Nate and everyone else gets the picture. Culture is complex. Every culture is complex. It cannot be pinned down until it is dead. A living culture is fluid and amorphous. Better to focus on the genes but keep an open mind
David's end goal, for example, "To see a world in which power is constrained," is a great example of a solution that makes the targeted problem worse. Power needs to be RELIEVED, NOT CONSTRAINED. You see that very successful transition from the startup growth process of any system relaxed to shift attention and resources to care of the system that formed in the birth process, in the innovation process, in the "making dinner" process. The start of all systems is a multiplication of the power of the germ of its energy capturing system, and systems that "look alive" relieve that to care for themselves as the natural limit to the system's growth -- triggered by internal COHESION - not by conflict.
Recognition of the Common Good, reverence for it, and the implicit anxiety for its loss in our contemporary world. Thanks, Nate.
This is such a good talk.
The altruism in groups vs individuals was very interesting.
I think Nate has two blind spots (most people have these same blind spots) and this talk kind of pushed him toward confronting one of them.
Altruistic groups are essential for adapting to Nate's great simplification. It goes deeper though. The system that accumulated all of these problems won't be able to solve them. The fact that it encourages selfish behavior is one reason. Another reason is the idea that capital is spent to accumulate more capital. Money is loaned to get back principal + interest. Stocks are bought with the expectation that they can return dividends or better yet, be sold for more later. Businesses are started so that they will make back more than the initial investment. Employees are hired with the expectation that they will make the company more than the company pays in wages.
If you want to understand exponential economic growth in our current system, there you go.
The other problem is underlying our current system and previous systems like feudalism and slavery. It's where a minority rules the majority. When we need to be able to adapt to the problems created by our current system, the people with the most power are focused on maintaining the system that gives them that power. When we need as many minds as possible processing our situation and finding the best ways to move forward, the most powerful people are focused on increasing their agency at the expense of everyone else. When we need to be more altruistic, the people that succeeded by being selfish are making the most important decisions for the rest of us.
We need to recognize these obstacles before we can navigate through them toward a better future.
What a chat. We need a part 2!
"Selfishness beats altruism within groups. But altruistic groups beat selfish groups": what more do we need to know?
It's not the knowledge, it's the application what counts.
What a great conversation. Wow! I appreciate all the helpful suggestions about how to support the Great Transition and what conditions/form(s) it will take. Thank you, Nate and David, for sharing the good work you are both doing.
Enjoyed this conversation and was very pleased to finally hear someone reference The Dawn of Everything on this channel.
Doc Hagens, please let me recommend a two way interview and discussion with Dr. John Vervaeke; CUZ, there's oodles of contact points between the two bodies of work that you two EACH are engaged in. Especially when Cognitive Science Human Psychology Anthropology ETC. Intersectionalities with the MANY aspects you bring out in terms of The Great Simplification. MOST often when I write or reply or communicate or comment, I ALSO recommend yours in addition to the series by Dr. John Vervaeke titled Awakening from The Meaning Crisis.
Cheers, Luck, Peace, and Gaia.
Agreed: listening to this talk had reverberations of JV all through it…
Thank you very much for this long anticipated dialogue. I hope more with DS Wilson will address his vision of global equity and earth overshoot. Malthus needs to be included next time.
He had some very interesting concepts about human evolution and behavior, but I can't see them being of much practical benefit given the brick wall/cliff we're currently hurtling toward.
Loved this conversation! Lot of concepts I've never heard of. I enjoyed the group selection stuff.
This a wonderful discussion. It is like receiving a missing piece of a puzzle! Thank you Nate and David for an inspirational perspective.
Thanks for the podcast Nate, I have a question unrelated to the topic of the podcast. I'm currently working as a software developer for a group that's looking to build technologies to support a digitally enhanced democracy. However I've recently been concerned that the requisite hardware side of this tech stack may be endangered due to your analysis of the coming Great Simplification, as our digital infrastructure would never be possible without the mining, industrial heating, and transportation that goes into producing hardware, which all depends on depleting resources (oil, copper, etc.). Do you view this as a reason for concern around the prospects of digital democracy? Could this topic make it in your queue of Frankly topics?
Good question. Few people realize that reducing either demand or supply of fossil fuels means digitaliztion decreases.
@@wvhaugen It might increase
If you can’t get Tony Seba for an interview who else would be a great guest to give us a pro technology approach to solving or surviving the challenges we face I’m doubtful this approach will work but what keeps the science based technology approach going thanks for another wonderful program I’m listening with my 14 year old daughter as we get our day started 😊
Excellent discussion! Thank you!
In your probabilistic view of the future, what's your sense of the likelihood of a shortage of computer hardware in the coming great simplification. I fear that so much of society is built on an underlying layer of digital infrastructure, but when oil runs scarce and things that require oil become more difficult (mining for the required minerals, having 6 continent supply chains), the hardware side of the digital infrastructure will start to fracture, and that plans to improve governance such as digital democracy will become unfeasable.
Once fossil fuels run out, not only will the Internet go dark, but (even more importantly) the water won't even run from our taps any longer.
Fascinating - this updated understanding of evolution is something I was completely unaware of. Thank you again for your terrific podcast.
I would love to hear a conversation between Nate and Brian swimme!
💯 Also, here is a theory by Ken Wilbur that discusses human evolution, called Integral. It looks at evolving beyond the heavy emphasis on modern industrialization, thru post modernity to an integration along with the spiritial evolution from a more ancient era.
If i recall correctly, he calls this second tier Teal. Again, Daniel Schmachtenberger would be a good source. There is a TH-camr, Jeff Slazman you should talk to, if time allows.
I am sceptical of a "kinder" capitalism because capitalism requires an environment favourable to growth and we are not always going to have this. The principle of capitalism is leveraging investment so that interest is serviced and that servicing requires growth and that translates into energy and resources. An environment of growth, reflecting an energy/resources mix, selects for capitalism and thus feudalism morphs into capitalism. An environment of tighter energy/resources not allowing for growth sees capitalism morphing into feudalism.
It is not the case that western civilisation had a change of political/economic philosophy which brought about capitalism. It is the case that an infusion of new energy/resources starting with the discovery of the new world and dialled up to 11 with fossil fuels which chose capitalism.
Today we are getting a glimpse into the future with the subscription economic model coming into being. This is the forerunner of an ownership culture morphing into a rentier culture and of capitalist corporations morphing into corporate lords, the reverse of the process of discovering the new world and fossil fuels.
What percentage of our income will these rent management companies (which are increasingly being absorbed by massive venture capital firms) be content with? Here in Ohio, USA my apartment rent used to be about 40 percent of my net income but, after recent rent hikes it's now nearly 50%, and I work two jobs.
think about whether these Core
42:19
Design principles apply to your group your group that they're thinking of might work well or poorly just think
42:25
about your group how well it works and whether these Core Design principles have might have something to do with it
42:30
so here they go number one strong sense of identity and purpose the group must
42:36
know that it's a group it must be an important group must know who's in it who's a member and what's its boundaries
42:42
so a strong sense of what the group is and its identity and purpose number two
42:49
benefits proportional to cost if some members of the group are getting the benefits
42:54
and others are doing the work that's the first chicken experiment so there must be some sense in which what you get from
43:00
the group is proportional to what you give to the group and number three decision making fair and inclusive but
43:07
not not sustainable for some members to make the decisions and for other people to be left out of that process number
43:13
one a recipe for unfairness number two not making use of everyone's wisdom
43:19
for monitoring agreed upon Behavior we need to know whether we're doing what we agreed upon to do if we don't all that's
43:26
off number five appropriate responding to helpful and unhelpful behavior if
43:31
you're not doing what you should that has to be corrected but we don't have to be mean about it Hey Brother friendly
43:37
reminder is enough most of the time but it must be possible to escalate in cases where
43:44
uh friendly reminders are not um enough and while we're while we're correcting uh unhelpful behaviors let's praise
43:50
helpful behaviors basically abundant praise for for good behavior coupled
43:56
with mild punishment for bad behavior that escalates when necessary there's a whole little interlocking piece there
44:02
number six fast and fair conflict resolution conflicts will occur and they need to be resolved quickly and in a
44:09
matter that's regarded as fair by all parties in a dispute most people think they have a point of view number seven
44:15
local autonomy a group has to have Elbow Room in order to manage its own Affairs
44:20
if it's being bossed around from above all bets are off and finally number eight appropriate relations with other groups
44:27
which embody the same courtesan principle so this illustrates the scale and dependence of the core design
44:34
principles needed to govern relations among groups in addition to relations within groups
This was a great discussion - thanks for doing and posting!
Wow, brilliant discussion and insight into the not so tangible world of socioeconomic. Cheers
This is hopeful, but is it realistic? It’s not just about scale but also time left before ‘the great simplification’ becomes obvious to all. The collective threat is already upon us, and huge profits are already being made on the fear and avoidance being experienced by many now.
I look forward to part 2. Push back more, Nate. Ask the hard questions. I can imagine all of this - our collective maturation, a kinder world, but in the distant future and with far fewer humans. I’d like to believe that suffering will be minimal .. I really do. But I continue to grieve over what seems inevitable.
I was lucky enough to be exposed to the Dawkin's book selfish gene/ and the idea of memetics that he introduced when the book came out. What a gift that was.
What a beautiful mind, Mr. Wilson, is directing. Minds like his work on a fundamental principle of giving. Another corner stone, of future societies. Here are the very minds starting this ascending revolution of consciousness. Science is teaching us that nature works on the principle of taking. I question this theory. Has the light not been given by the universe? Has the water not been given to this planet? Would the universe function on the Principe of taking? I am afraid we have to introduce meditation in all schools and workplaces to save the sanity of humanity.
I often wonder what this world would be like if all the time, money, thought and energy that has been wasted on brutal, destructive wars throughout human history had, instead, been applied towards mutually-beneficial endeavors? That thought boggles my mind as I see nightly photographs of the needless carnage occurring in Ukraine at this very moment. It brings those musings in to sharp focus. Additionally, homo sapiens' wanton disrespect for its own life-sustaining habitat raises similar questions, fears, and doubts. Do not these examples refute the very premise of this conversation? I ask that question in all humble sincerity. I am just a disheartened and confused old man.
You’re not alone!
It is disheartening to see the lessons of Vietnam ignored, the chance of peace when the Berlin wall wasted, and the good will after 9/11 wasted in a prolonged set of wars. Just as disheartening is to see the continuing destruction of nature, the growing wealth of the one percent, and zero concern for the waste of resources.
@@timeenoughforart As of 2023 in Ukraine the Russian military has destroyed 131,400 private houses, 17,500 apartment buildings, 1,300 schools, and 280 dormitories. And Ukraine is now the most heavily mined country in the world.
Which Elinor Ostrom book is best to get a good understanding of her theories, for a layperson ? Thanks 🙏🏽
I agree with another commenter, Ken Wilber explains the content of this podcast. Reality has been hijacked by empirical data / observations and we have stopped feeling. I believe our reality has been taken over by pathological hierarchies. Hierarchies are part of our life no avoiding them, to serve our species and all others the leaders need to be a higher level of consciousness. What separates our species from others is our ability to transcend to higher level of consciousness, how do we create a system that the people who have these higher level of consciousness can provide a pathway for the whole planet. Keep up the work Nate, most of our workplaces are toxic, they don’t need to be.
You probably knew I'd listen to this if you put "chicken" in the title. I'm going to play this for my chickens too.
All living systems rely on a stream of energy and organize information for the purpose of extracting value from their environment. This principle occurs at many scales. Quantum jazz: local freedom, global cohesion.
Nate, check out Robert Sapolsky. Genetics, epigenetics, the idea of free will
You mean the idea that free will is nonsense? I highly highly recommend reading Behave to literally anyone. Audiobook might be easier for folks, it's really heavy and long. But one of the best books I've ever read.
Sapolsky was on Nate Hagens's "The Great Simplification" no. 88.
@@dbadagna I saw, it was great
@@cheweperro Do you agree with his premise? I have thought about it a lot in recent days, and have decided that I do not (though he is still a brilliant mind).
@@dbadagna I do agree with him. I don't believe that we have something inside us that is separate from our biology, from our culture, from the context. I believe that the 2 most important things that define your life are: who are your parents, which country you were born in. I do believe thar the majority of people alive today don't have the freedom to chose. Free will as in the choice between a blue pen and a red pen? Ok, but the most important things that affect who your are and what type of life you live? Those are not up to the individuals, so I can't really say there is free will.
The way I see it, free will would require a basic standard for humans. But then why humans? Isn't all consciousness the same?
Then I end up thinking about how shit we have setup the economy. We should be maximizing life, sentience, not profits for the elites.
Sorry, english as a second language
I mentioned Nate's "Mordor economy" in a comment thread just a few minutes ago!
How do natural systems achieve balance? They have no choice, it is either balance or oblivion. The system is broken and everyone from the bottom to the top is gaming the system. The system creates the actors, the actors protect the system. Power is the problem, power doesn't negotiate.
Interesting bit about the hens, it reminds me of the _eusocial_ mole rat species. The 'Queen' mole rat bullies all of the beta females, which somehow prevents them from estrous, so in turn, only she gets to reproduce.
Good luck, you'll need it.
Mae-Wan Ho biophysicists. Darwin was a Lamarckian.
I prefer the interpenetrating processes of emanation and emergence.
Many foundational principles in evolution need to be revised.
Dating methods, cause of sediments, epigenetics, uniformitarianism, etc...
Dating methods require assumptions.
If the sedimentary layers are like pages in a book, we should not expect to find fossilized trees standing in what has been described as millions of years of deposits.
Genetics is a dance with the environment with vary complex mechanisms.
Have we overlooked catastrophes and come to the wrong conclusions on occasion?
The universe behaves more like an organism than a machine.
Didn’t think your discussion with David Sloan Wilson was one of your best, found Sloan too academic and purest in his views, did like however section on “The Super Chicken” and best bit for me was in last 15 minutes when you questioned him, felt he didn’t quite agree with you. You brought up analogy of World being put under threat by aliens and nations of the world coming together as a unified force and common agreement, Sloan disputed your analogy, and it’s with that analogy in mind I suggest you read Cixin Liu’s (well founded in science) Sci-fi Novel “Remembrance of Earth's Past Trilogy”, starting with “The Three Body Problem”, “The Dark Forrest”, and Death’s End” The novel’s about Earth’s scientists looking for alien life, only to be conquered by them, it doesn’t end well for us🤔
Opponent processing.
Individual energy storage equity rights, plug n play, cache is cash.
6:21 minutes. First of all, DSW (David Sloane Wilson) is correct in calling optimal foraging a theory, rather than a principle. You could also call it a model. This is the same format that should be followed with the so-called maximum power principle, so beloved of Nate, Richard Heinberg and others in the Resilience organization. Calling it a "principle" leads to Howard Odum, who actually tried and failed to make it the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics. As with all models, you can certainly use it to get your head around the data, BUT you have to drop it when it doesn't fit. Fer chrissakes, the Theory of Evolution is still referred to as a theory, even though my grad advisor and others referred to it as a paradigm. Optimal foraging theory and maximum power theory do not rise to the explanatory level of evolution.
14:42. Trying to extrapolate sociobiological and selective pressure questions back 50,000 or 200,00 years ago is a failure of concept and method. For example, we have stone tools in the archaeological record because they survive. We don't have slings for carrying babies because they do not survive in the archaeological record. I have always thought the baby slings were more important since they freed up hands for gathering, which provided a calorie base for allowing some of the group to hunt. When I was working as an archaeologist, I always thought of the disconnect between what we found on site survey versus what was in the ground below our feet. But where did we dig? Where we came across the surface finds. This is because of the nature of contract archaeology for oil pipelines, etc. So a corporate agenda drives the discoveries. The same disconnect exists for all theories about the past. We really don't know how ancient people thought. Even the written sources don't give an adequate explanation.
16:03. DSW says, "You don't have to do better than everybody; just better than your neighbors." This is outstanding. It explains a lot of within-group dynamics. Of course, an entirely different dynamic could be operating between groups without some sort of sociobiological explanation. People are loyal to their groups because they have already had interactions. I come to the aid of Philippe because he helped me out in that bar fight three years ago. Or, I come to the aid of Veronica because she gave me a load of potatoes last year when my crop failed. Parsimony is the key here.
19:32 The small group as a fundamental unit of human social behavior. This is important.
21:59 DSW later goes on to cite scale as independent of behavior. In other words we can have the same cooperative behaviors as a nation state that proved useful in a small tribal setting. I don't think he made his case on this one. Others may disagree. What he specifically said is that the same principles that apply in small group settings are needed for the global village. That is true but there are other more complex behaviors that are needed when you scale up the population. Think of small group behaviors as the foundation upon which the edifice of large scale behaviors are built. We can still see the importance of kin in our postmodern world, even though we have many other ways of classifying people and providing access to resources.
23:42 "Culture is a form of cooperation." Far too simplistic. Cooperation is just one aspect of culture. Competition is another. Transmitting behavior between generations does not depend solely on cooperation. Same with using symbols. The statue of Shiva in the temple transmits culture, whether or not you are an untouchable or a Brahmin.
I also take issue with DSW's idea that we became a cooperative species before we became cultured. This implies cooperation trumps competition. Being able to transmit behaviors between generations does not have to be done in a cooperative manner.
24:42 Glad DSW mentioned dual-inheritance theory. For more on this I recommend Nate contact Peter Richerson and/or Robert Boyd. They are both still alive and in their 70s.
Nature vs. Nurture - I have come down on a 50/50 model for the last forty years, simply because it controls for error. If the biological aspect is hypothesized at 90% and we find out it is actually 20%, we have a 70% error. If we hypothesize it is 50% and it is actually 20%, we only have a 30% error. Believe me, controlling error is far more important than peole realize.
25:13 Blank Slate - When I started studying anthropology in 1968, the blank slate had already been disavowed and dismissed. Pinker's book in 2002 just set up a straw man that was easy to knock down. When DSW talks about being able to acquire whatever culture we are exposed to, this does not mean that we have a choice whether to acquire culture or not. Of course we learn what we are exposed to! The blank slate theory says the mind is blank at birth and this is false. DSW's immune system analogy is flawed because it is too simplistic. The acquisition of culture is far more complex than the immune system or designing a rocket to reach the moon. Yet a baby does this easily. This is actually the key to culture. It is far more complex than the language we use to describe it - even though language is the main carrier of culture!
There are many more criticisms I could make, but I think Nate and everyone else gets the picture. Culture is complex. Every culture is complex. It cannot be pinned down until it is dead. A living culture is fluid and amorphous. Better to focus on the genes but keep an open mind
given the influence of money from the powerful is it any wonder that selfishness was focussed on for so long?
Nature 70% nurture 30%.