Chills at the end when Jordan was talking about love. In that man you have a great courage matched with the literal cutting edge of intellect. What a brave thing to say, about friendship (admitting to not having any, a very real moment!), about love. To have the conversation they just did and then go there, great stuff. We'll be watching him.
Totally agree. That surprised me with its nakedness, sincerity and truth. I have appreciated what I have seen of Mr Hall via a lot of talks and interviews/discussions that exhibited his ability to formulate fairly complex theories in an accessible manner but when he said that at the end, with its sheer fundamental, basic and meaningful truth took my appreciation of him to a whole new level. He is one to watch as your post mentions. That is not to say the other two guys are not. I have been a big, big fan of Schmachtenberger for several months now and really get sucked in whenever I hear him speak; Forest I have not heard much from as yet but plan on keying in on him more going forward. These 3 guys have an inspirational understanding of where we need to be - hopefully their vision will expand such that we get through the mess we are in. Very good talk - I hope to see a lot more like this (and, actually, I have. This was 3 years ago and these 3 are still at it - I've seen recent talks by Daniel and Jordan both). Unfortunately, we are still in a messy place so its looking like the "soft landing" that came up (from Jordan, actually) may be getting more and more remote. Let's keep working at it.
Notes and Quotes: 00:00 “One way of framing it is that we are smack dab in the middle of a global scale, civilization level collapse. Now, if we do our job right it’ll be a transition into something else. But right now collapse is a good way of thinking about what’s happening.” ~Jordan Greenhall Daniel Schmachtenberger: 13:35 Ghani, Jacque Fresco 14:25 civilization mostly considered after agriculture ***17:25 Omni win win , good for all humans and environment . That system looks like no system we’ve ever had. 18:25 exponential tech increase but meaningful choice making is not 20:20 when operating at a global level there’s a need for global governing ***21:10 exponential good and exponential bad means a destabilizing system that could phase shift down or phase shift up 21:50 Forest 23:55 how do we know if we are making good choices, thriving? 26:25 eyes repair themselves, cameras don’t 31:25 technologically powerful enough that we have to become responsible for our own evolution 32:30 Jordan Greenhall 33:25 urgent things need not to happen and ones that should should: nuclear warfare, ***34:30 engineering a soft landing , ubi , transition to next step but not the next step 35:10 resiliency to exponential growth required, we’re not there yet 37:40 Q&A 38:25 How can I evaluate my truth detection process? (46:20) Daniel: most important question 56:00 Daniel: wanting to go too fast, not understanding problems enough, ie. geoengineeing , does it deal with causes? ***57:45 Daniel: Buckminster quote: civilization prototyping , what’s the min size? 57:55 Jordan: historically two societal failure conditions: 1. How elites relate to ie Roman Empire and US 1:00:45 How do we transition to 100% wellness of all away from market economies Daniel: individual success without success of whole is no longer viable ***1:04:55 Jordan Greenhall: “Daniel mentioned this notion of win lose, seemed like a viable strategy for a very long time. I’m actually going to make a stronger statement. For effectively all of evolutionary history up until like a couple weeks ago it was by far the best strategy. It was the absolute best strategy. If you didn’t do that you were going to be selected against and somebody else’s children will be the children who populated the world. It’s very important to keep that in mind. Evolution really, really, really wants us to struggle with other things to survive. But now we’re in a situation where things are changing. And the magnitude of this change is not just the sense that our civilization is collapsing. The other side as well, remember Daniel mentioned we’re reaching a point where there’s going to be a pivot and it’s either going to go up or down. And if it goes down it goes way down. And if it goes up it goes way up. And the people who talk about abundance aren’t wrong. We actually have created so much capacity that the kinds of things that we have been struggling over for hundreds of thousands of years are no longer meaningful. So for example, you guys I assume, are reasonably familiar with this notion of technological unemployment. It’s also getting a lot of press in the Bay area and places like that. Things like self-driving cars are going to unemploy 1.5 million people in the next decade and that robots are going to take everyone’s jobs. Now if you’re on the scarcity mindset that’s very scary. Being unemployed is very bad. But if you flip it around what that actually means is that you don’t need people to work that much anymore. In fact, in some sense in the next twenty years if we do our things right nobody needs to work anymore and we actually have to figure out how to apply ourselves to something completely different. So we’re in the process again of watching this old structure begin to fall apart and as Daniel said it’s going to be iterative. Things like universal basic income are a nice transitionary piece. And there will be other pieces as well that will begin to buffer the feeling of scarcity in a way that begins to allow people to have actual material freedom to not to have to feel like they have to go out to fight dog meets dog inside the workplace to survive. And then in the meantime we’re in the process of trying to figure out how to build structures that are designed for abundance which is a very different thing. Abundance is a completely different framework of how we go about doing things. (1:07:22) By the way, it’s nontrivial. Purpose for example is a big problem. If you think about it right now, we have this really nice mesh where you work to survive. They glue together. Right? If I pull that apart and I make it ok, well you don’t have to work and you can still survive, where’s purpose fit into this? Most people get their sense of purpose by being valuable to other people by doing their job and creating something in the world. If you’re no longer working and you’re still surviving that’s actually terrible. That will destroy things if you don’t have some way of actually generating purpose in a different mechanism. So this problem of designing for post transition, designing for abundance is a spiritual, it’s a psychological, it’s an economic, it’s a technological process. It’s another way of saying the new tool kit we’re trying to build.” ~Jordan Greenhall ***1:09:00 Forest: finding value in Post scarcity Econ. Meaning>value or purpose 1:14:45 Rapid Fire Q&A -Guide is through a perfect storm scenario of intelligent transition? ***Jordan: Hyper inflation as a god send. Need critical mass of elites who won the old game to jump on to the new game. Forest:imagine a world that doesn’t have any intellect property taxes, love equals that which gives us choices 1:19:30 Forest: enforcing laws, model of decision making, not top down, not bottom up, but peer to peer 1:25:00 Daniel: perspective taking, war with other people is lose lose? 1:27:10 emergence and transition 1:30:00 Daily rituals to get by? Meditation 1:38:20 Daniel: Bucky Fuller, Commons resource management *** 1:38:35 Daniel: “The technologies that are both forcing us to change cause they’re no longer viable also make possible change. The technological unemployment that is both going to end capitalism as we’ve known it also makes it possible to end capitalism as we’ve known it and make fundamentally better systems.” ~Daniel Schmachtenberger
This is so full of love's truths. Thank you for all the work guys do. Please know that it ripples & echoes infinitely into the ongoing evolution of love's unity & human awareness - impact💞
@@iamtheyorkiemom the construct of 'transaction' would emerge /upgrade from a different system paradigm. Love is infinite, with no quantity limits or metrics. So giving it multiplies it. A short old video, but it introduces the idea. th-cam.com/video/SPXdjawpFb8/w-d-xo.html
The Mushroom at the End of the World is a great book that talks about economic frameworks in post capitalist ruins, using mushrooms and fungal networks for framing. Great read.
I have heard Mr. Schmachtenberger speak in other videos. He demonstrates a deep understanding of the problems that have resulted from the current capitalist system. My question: how many of these panelists are aware of Copiosis (Copiosis.com)? Because much of what Schmachtenberger is saying sounds very similar.
I agree. When I hear these panelists speak about the need for a new socioeconomic system it seems like Copiosis is being described. Would be great to hear their thoughts about this innovative socioeconomic model that Copiosis offers in a discussion with its founder Perry Gruber.
Great stuff guys. I hope the world can get turned on to these concepts. It’s disheartening though to realize there’s a shit ton of greedy, dogmatic nations/peoples out there that probably won’t accept this way of thinking
Fascinating and deeply interesting talk, I discovered your work through Daniel & Jordans interviews on Rebel Wisdom. I'm interested to know what this event was called and if possible the hosts name ? Thank You :)
We need to be able to bounce back, and that we can’t do on our own, and that means we have our network, our web of life. The web of life has a desire to sustain life. The web of life is to celebrate life. And we celebrate life by cycling the nutrients, the energy, the matter. But we cycle it always by giving more and more values.
Closest place I've found is Rebel Wisdom, but unfortunately it's not quite up to this level (yet?) imo. Future Thinkers and Emerge podcasts are both having interesting conversations atm too.
I think there's some misunderstanding here. What we're dealing with is a highly organized growth system starting to cross thresholds of its own destabilization. That is a very clear problem, with a clear answer, use the growth resources to care for the system we want to perfect in the long run. That's what every growth system (billions of them) do to survive their own growth (also billions). Some growth systems do genuinely collapse, mostly for not being responsive to the need to change to survive. All of this pertains to systems that are both complex and highly organized. The way complexity is discussed here pertains to the information that observers have, very limited. not the about the systems, highly organized... well, until they collapse.
With robots doing work, we give up our participatory/perspectival knowledge and therefore our agency and autonomy. We will be losing practical skills which will make us more vulnerable to others who are after power over us. (...and do you want to be looked after robots when you are very ill and in hospital?) This is so incredibly idealistic that it is almost childish. Is this the complex way of approaching the complex problem of chaos? (But I do appreciate your trying to understand what on earth is going on! )
Real time comment: Not finished watching this, but one problem I came across in Daniel's presentation was the notion of competition for resources, which (it was assumed), are scarce. Another level of complexity was introduced, according to Merlin Donald and Rene Girard, with the invention of the "first tool." From the perspective of material culture the "first tool" could be regarded as something like flint gnapping, but that doesn't really tell us very much. However, another way of looking at it is to see the first tool as an innovative combination of something like identity formation using proprioception and memory creating a kind of perceptual cognitive triangle (or combination of triangle, really). The blanket term used by both Donald and Girard for this capacity is "mimeticism" although they mean something more than the kind of mimeticism that you'd find in the plant and animals worlds. (So, I'm not sure that their terminology quite captures what they're trying to say.) At any rate feedback is an essential aspect of this innovation and in the feedback between tool-making and the skills for making tools or "extending the corporeal" we selected for this. One unintended consequence of this selection and amplification process was, as Girard makes clear, the virtually infinite enhancement of *desire*, as a feedback of identity formation and display. And that's a problem, because it implies that it doesn't make any difference whether resources are scarce or plentiful, because desire is infinite. As second nature there is no inherent limit on it and the basic "scarcity" was illustrated by William Shakespeare (an ironic name if there ever was one) in the comedy, *Two Gentlemen of Verona*. Shakespeare also wrote an non-comedic version of this illustration as the poem: *The Rape of Lucrete*. So, what I'm saying is that to model civilization as a competition over scare resources is... well, a bit naive. Anyway, maybe Forrest has an answer to this, so I'll watch the rest of the presentation.
Absolutely: There is a great deal of fragmentation in our communication processes. We are hit with an avalanche of sense data and most of it is noise . . We need to come into a space where we get to have depth of conversation. . . The structure of the networks that we have available to us are not conducive to this kind of deep communication.
@@biocykle Our nature is what it is and the networks we build exist to serve us, so if we aren't getting what we need from them, we need to redesign them.
@@GumbyTheGreen1 Sure, although I'm not sure there is a general consensus anywhere about what "our nature is". My point was, these networks are very a new development. And a lot of deep conversations have happened online since the birth of the internet, this youtube channel being one of the more recent examples... So how do you guys know the "structure of the networks" is the problem, and not that we are in a toddler phase in regards to learning how to communicate through them? There are many, many different kinds of networks available to us, after all. More than ever before in the history of mankind.
@@susan4yahshua I would be honored to join that conversation, but I have not received an invitation. I am involved in conversation with the United People's Coalition: medium.com/@benjaminross_/united-peoples-coalition-d8cd25faf014
We will probably need something like super-human AI in order to make omni-win choices. It’s not clear that multiple human brains linked together by language (and personalities) will be able to consider so many dimensions together. But ultimately, this type of wide-ranging transformation always comes down to recruitment: Can you get enough people working on these endeavors, in the right ways, to discover (invent) and make the needed changes. Recruitment requires marketing, advertising and on-boarding. Very "corporate" sounding words, but it’s how "freedom of association" works. Maybe there is a more "Game B-ish" way to meet the recruiting needs, "Make friends and pursue verisimilitude together; take action when it seems appropriate."
i've been playing a game where i take a dose of noopept every time forrest says "in effect" sorry forrest, couldn't help myself! ya'll are doing excellent things though and i really appreciate it. good work!
The harder we try to fix the problems in the existing system using the tools we developed in the existing system, the faster we destroy the thing we are trying to protect. This is the lie of certainty. Trying to build systems of certainty leads to systems of collapse. One of the most counterintuitive things we might consider. Our misalignment with the nature of change has led us to systems that cannot help but collapse the harder they try not to. I’ve been on this stuff for a long time, and it’s very hard to get people to hear it. Still at the beginning, listening more.
I think we can phase shift down and up at the same time. The tools we’ve created would allow us to regress and advance. Let’s see if you mention social models that talk about Dunbar’s number.
Interesting. Still not seeing Dunbar’s number and the problem of scale coming up. It’s so close in so many ways to what I’ve figured out, but still has kinds of differentials I need to understand more. The problem of belief and certainty. Bottom up was mentioned by less emphasized than I’d have thought. Feels more like a think tank presentation than a fundamental rewrite so far. I’ve heard Daniel go into things not brought up here. And the level of abstraction is higher than I’d think is useful. Still much more to understand. Building a picture.
Hmmm 🤔 Daniel mentioned Dunbar’s number as a hard limit on the Portal recently. I wonder if he’s intuiting that aspect more now. He didn’t even get that deep into it and perhaps it’s hitting some cognitive walls. Gotta look into more recent stuff and see if it gets brought up.
UBI changes the purpose paradigm by giving people 2 things... Time and connection. Work as it is is partially designed to take away your purpose as self defined and sell it to you in a way that supports the system of power imbalance. Giving people their time back allows them the opportunity to create more meaningful connections and build real community. Real community is a position that allows the building of collective power. Purpose and meaning become self evident through connection. These things no longer require definitions sold as commodity.
Labor itself in current form is divisive. Remove the division and people are again able to create actual connected interdependent instead of systemic dependence on power position models that remove connection. Game theoretic expression becomes connective automatically. People define value in ways that can’t be taxed or sold, and in the process remove external dependence. Build self sustaining systems at a level within Dunbar’s number and you have your new social unit core structure. No elites. Weird that you’d go there. It totally misses how power dynamics change with connection. It’s interdependence, and it keeps us accountability as a function of the connection. Law is irrelevant as the connection itself determines the behaviour. It only sounds oppressive when the levels of connection exceed Dunbar’s number. At that point it’s no longer representative of emergence and is instead necessarily dependent on codified rules. Connected interdependence entirely removes all need for top down power.
complex systems have feedback loops that allow for parts of the whole to interact and itner-affect other parts dynamically so the entire system can grow and evolve beyond just the sum of its parts.
Sorry guys, but this civilization is going down hard. A word to the wise, think in terms of seeking out a lifeboat not repairing the big hole in the ship.
Yes. Bret Weinstein is part of this group working on these issues. I'd also love to see more conversations with Bret and this group so I'll see if I can make that happen.
I know Jordan is pursuing integrative 'sense-making' techniques that are extremely vital . . I just hope that we all keep in mind the 'truth-telling' technologies that ordinary people work with everyday: journalism, documentary, writing. Whatever Collective Intelligence system that we create must engage the creative facilities that we already have available to us . . I see a need for a common space within which to situate all these textual points of view as a necessary foundation for Collective Intelligence.
The internet is not sufficient in itself, because it provides no way of us revealing the relationships between the 'texts' that we create. We need that semantic web that Tim Berners-Lee was speaking of, but for the sake of human intelligence and readability, not AI and machine readability.
I appreciate: Try to separate Identity from World-View. & Any single perspective is a reduction of reality --we must learn to integrate many points of view.
I think blockchain etherium based currencies like an "eco-coin' or carbon coin which can be used as a carrot to motivate environmental remediation is a worthwhile thing to try. it would need to be backed by banks, but if we vote for not a dumbshit, and maybe someone younger we might actually get that.
The difference being, these are some of the cutting edge systems thinkers of our times who have been studying these dynamics pretty intensely for a good while. It's REAL, not a prophesy. We are already in the middle of it.
“It’s quite likely that within the next seven years our oceans will be dead.” Surely, you realize that’s where you lost a large part of your audience. It’s amazing how otherwise intelligent people can say bizarre things. If you have questions, get back to me in seven years. Excuse me, make that four years.
Although well intended, this is ton of double speak. The basic answer to these questions is teaching high character development to the youth and no collectivist thinking. Become your individual and authentic self. Basically study Nietzsche and other existentialist philosophers.
MrRyanmcmahon - Do you think a sufficient number of people have what it takes to not default to collectivist/tribal thinking? You expect a population where ~40% of people don't wash their hands when going to the bathroom (US. data) to study and comprehend existentialism? Most people run on evolutionary autopilot most of the time. Well, except for us enlightened, rational souls untarnished by instinct of course! ;) Social/cultural architechture is needed, to funnel that evolutionary autopilot trajectory into something not self-destructive. How? I have no idea about the particulars, but the only country who is working (publicly) on that area is China at the moment... and what they are doing with it is f-ing terrifying on so many levels
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
I feel so lucky to be in the few thousands who have heard this conversation.
8888899
896766 is is 666777879899788878uuuoi99788
an absolute honor
Great discussion! Now, lets not just smile and congratulate them. Everybody needs get involved and carry on the discussion, far and wide!
Chills at the end when Jordan was talking about love. In that man you have a great courage matched with the literal cutting edge of intellect. What a brave thing to say, about friendship (admitting to not having any, a very real moment!), about love. To have the conversation they just did and then go there, great stuff. We'll be watching him.
Totally agree. That surprised me with its nakedness, sincerity and truth. I have appreciated what I have seen of Mr Hall via a lot of talks and interviews/discussions that exhibited his ability to formulate fairly complex theories in an accessible manner but when he said that at the end, with its sheer fundamental, basic and meaningful truth took my appreciation of him to a whole new level. He is one to watch as your post mentions. That is not to say the other two guys are not. I have been a big, big fan of Schmachtenberger for several months now and really get sucked in whenever I hear him speak; Forest I have not heard much from as yet but plan on keying in on him more going forward. These 3 guys have an inspirational understanding of where we need to be - hopefully their vision will expand such that we get through the mess we are in. Very good talk - I hope to see a lot more like this (and, actually, I have. This was 3 years ago and these 3 are still at it - I've seen recent talks by Daniel and Jordan both). Unfortunately, we are still in a messy place so its looking like the "soft landing" that came up (from Jordan, actually) may be getting more and more remote. Let's keep working at it.
Notes and Quotes:
00:00 “One way of framing it is that we are smack dab in the middle of a global scale, civilization level collapse. Now, if we do our job right it’ll be a transition into something else. But right now collapse is a good way of thinking about what’s happening.”
~Jordan Greenhall
Daniel Schmachtenberger:
13:35 Ghani, Jacque Fresco
14:25 civilization mostly considered after agriculture
***17:25 Omni win win , good for all humans and environment . That system looks like no system we’ve ever had.
18:25 exponential tech increase but meaningful choice making is not
20:20 when operating at a global level there’s a need for global governing
***21:10 exponential good and exponential bad means a destabilizing system that could phase shift down or phase shift up
21:50 Forest
23:55 how do we know if we are making good choices, thriving?
26:25 eyes repair themselves, cameras don’t
31:25 technologically powerful enough that we have to become responsible for our own evolution
32:30 Jordan Greenhall
33:25 urgent things need not to happen and ones that should should: nuclear warfare,
***34:30 engineering a soft landing , ubi , transition to next step but not the next step
35:10 resiliency to exponential growth required, we’re not there yet
37:40 Q&A
38:25 How can I evaluate my truth detection process?
(46:20) Daniel: most important question
56:00 Daniel: wanting to go too fast, not understanding problems enough, ie. geoengineeing , does it deal with causes?
***57:45 Daniel: Buckminster quote: civilization prototyping , what’s the min size?
57:55 Jordan: historically two societal failure conditions: 1. How elites relate to ie Roman Empire and US
1:00:45 How do we transition to 100% wellness of all away from market economies
Daniel: individual success without success of whole is no longer viable
***1:04:55 Jordan Greenhall:
“Daniel mentioned this notion of win lose, seemed like a viable strategy for a very long time. I’m actually going to make a stronger statement. For effectively all of evolutionary history up until like a couple weeks ago it was by far the best strategy. It was the absolute best strategy. If you didn’t do that you were going to be selected against and somebody else’s children will be the children who populated the world. It’s very important to keep that in mind. Evolution really, really, really wants us to struggle with other things to survive. But now we’re in a situation where things are changing. And the magnitude of this change is not just the sense that our civilization is collapsing. The other side as well, remember Daniel mentioned we’re reaching a point where there’s going to be a pivot and it’s either going to go up or down. And if it goes down it goes way down. And if it goes up it goes way up. And the people who talk about abundance aren’t wrong. We actually have created so much capacity that the kinds of things that we have been struggling over for hundreds of thousands of years are no longer meaningful.
So for example, you guys I assume, are reasonably familiar with this notion of technological unemployment. It’s also getting a lot of press in the Bay area and places like that. Things like self-driving cars are going to unemploy 1.5 million people in the next decade and that robots are going to take everyone’s jobs. Now if you’re on the scarcity mindset that’s very scary. Being unemployed is very bad. But if you flip it around what that actually means is that you don’t need people to work that much anymore. In fact, in some sense in the next twenty years if we do our things right nobody needs to work anymore and we actually have to figure out how to apply ourselves to something completely different.
So we’re in the process again of watching this old structure begin to fall apart and as Daniel said it’s going to be iterative.
Things like universal basic income are a nice transitionary piece. And there will be other pieces as well that will begin to buffer the feeling of scarcity in a way that begins to allow people to have actual material freedom to not to have to feel like they have to go out to fight dog meets dog inside the workplace to survive. And then in the meantime we’re in the process of trying to figure out how to build structures that are designed for abundance which is a very different thing. Abundance is a completely different framework of how we go about doing things.
(1:07:22) By the way, it’s nontrivial. Purpose for example is a big problem. If you think about it right now, we have this really nice mesh where you work to survive. They glue together. Right? If I pull that apart and I make it ok, well you don’t have to work and you can still survive, where’s purpose fit into this? Most people get their sense of purpose by being valuable to other people by doing their job and creating something in the world. If you’re no longer working and you’re still surviving that’s actually terrible. That will destroy things if you don’t have some way of actually generating purpose in a different mechanism.
So this problem of designing for post transition, designing for abundance is a spiritual, it’s a psychological, it’s an economic, it’s a technological process. It’s another way of saying the new tool kit we’re trying to build.”
~Jordan Greenhall
***1:09:00 Forest: finding value in Post scarcity Econ. Meaning>value or purpose
1:14:45 Rapid Fire Q&A
-Guide is through a perfect storm scenario of intelligent transition?
***Jordan: Hyper inflation as a god send. Need critical mass of elites who won the old game to jump on to the new game.
Forest:imagine a world that doesn’t have any intellect property taxes, love equals that which gives us choices
1:19:30 Forest: enforcing laws, model of decision making, not top down, not bottom up, but peer to peer
1:25:00 Daniel: perspective taking, war with other people is lose lose?
1:27:10 emergence and transition
1:30:00 Daily rituals to get by?
Meditation
1:38:20 Daniel: Bucky Fuller, Commons resource management
*** 1:38:35 Daniel:
“The technologies that are both forcing us to change cause they’re no longer viable also make possible change. The technological unemployment that is both going to end capitalism as we’ve known it also makes it possible to end capitalism as we’ve known it and make fundamentally better systems.”
~Daniel Schmachtenberger
Been following Daniel, Jordan, and I'm aware of Forest it's nice to continue to find this bit of history. Thank you for sharing your content.
This is life-changing. Watch it all away though, live it, love it, sharing is caring
"nothing else can be good until you are smooth"
Smoooooooooooooth. Have a nice day.
That was a remarkable discussion and its given me much to ponder! Thanks to everyone involved.
This is so full of love's truths. Thank you for all the work guys do. Please know that it ripples & echoes infinitely into the ongoing evolution of love's unity & human awareness - impact💞
Love as currency💞
@@DocLynettebut then isn't it transactional... 😮
@@iamtheyorkiemom the construct of 'transaction' would emerge /upgrade from a different system paradigm. Love is infinite, with no quantity limits or metrics. So giving it multiplies it. A short old video, but it introduces the idea. th-cam.com/video/SPXdjawpFb8/w-d-xo.html
These guys are absolute heroes.
Omniconsiderate. Brilliant. Emergence of a new age.
God I love you all. After my near death reboot I saw all this happening . Thanks for letting me see I wasn’t crazy
True teachers. Such brilliant and timely stuff.
Thanks for the upload!
Damn that was powerful!! love it thank you guys!
Incredible. Deepest thanks.
Bridget, is this the man you were talking about?
Was not expecting to see you here in the comments! Hope you're well Bridget!
Please add the names of these people into the description and/or title of the video to make it more discoverable.
Done. They are/were tagged in the video but did not have their names in the description. I have corrected that.
The Mushroom at the End of the World is a great book that talks about economic frameworks in post capitalist ruins, using mushrooms and fungal networks for framing. Great read.
So incredibly life changing and validating
I have heard Mr. Schmachtenberger speak in other videos. He demonstrates a deep understanding of the problems that have resulted from the current capitalist system. My question: how many of these panelists are aware of Copiosis (Copiosis.com)? Because much of what Schmachtenberger is saying sounds very similar.
I've now heard him several times too and I agree. Seems like they describe Copiosis.
I agree. When I hear these panelists speak about the need for a new socioeconomic system it seems like Copiosis is being described. Would be great to hear their thoughts about this innovative socioeconomic model that Copiosis offers in a discussion with its founder Perry Gruber.
Truth tears of gratitude
Great stuff guys. I hope the world can get turned on to these concepts. It’s disheartening though to realize there’s a shit ton of greedy, dogmatic nations/peoples out there that probably won’t accept this way of thinking
Fascinating and deeply interesting talk, I discovered your work through Daniel & Jordans interviews on Rebel Wisdom. I'm interested to know what this event was called and if possible the hosts name ? Thank You :)
This event's name was called "The Transition" and we hosted this event in Encinitas California. civilizationemerging.com/the-transition/
We need to be able to bounce back, and that we can’t do on our own, and that means we have our network, our web of life. The web of life has a desire to sustain life. The web of life is to celebrate life. And we celebrate life by cycling the nutrients, the energy, the matter. But we cycle it always by giving more and more values.
The possibility of homelessness and having to be a soldier in war is the only thing that scares people into wo4king.
Important discussion. Where is this conversation taking place now?
Closest place I've found is Rebel Wisdom, but unfortunately it's not quite up to this level (yet?) imo.
Future Thinkers and Emerge podcasts are both having interesting conversations atm too.
Check out anything about game b and with Jordan and Daniel in it
So most part I am with you Jordan .
I think there's some misunderstanding here. What we're dealing with is a highly organized growth system starting to cross thresholds of its own destabilization. That is a very clear problem, with a clear answer, use the growth resources to care for the system we want to perfect in the long run. That's what every growth system (billions of them) do to survive their own growth (also billions). Some growth systems do genuinely collapse, mostly for not being responsive to the need to change to survive. All of this pertains to systems that are both complex and highly organized. The way complexity is discussed here pertains to the information that observers have, very limited. not the about the systems, highly organized... well, until they collapse.
Does anyone know the dissertation/study that Daniel refers to at 1:25:00?
Also very keen to identify this study if anyone is able to answer this. ;)
With robots doing work, we give up our participatory/perspectival knowledge and therefore our agency and autonomy. We will be losing practical skills which will make us more vulnerable to others who are after power over us. (...and do you want to be looked after robots when you are very ill and in hospital?) This is so incredibly idealistic that it is almost childish. Is this the complex way of approaching the complex problem of chaos? (But I do appreciate your trying to understand what on earth is going on! )
Phenomenal
Real time comment: Not finished watching this, but one problem I came across in Daniel's presentation was the notion of competition for resources, which (it was assumed), are scarce. Another level of complexity was introduced, according to Merlin Donald and Rene Girard, with the invention of the "first tool." From the perspective of material culture the "first tool" could be regarded as something like flint gnapping, but that doesn't really tell us very much. However, another way of looking at it is to see the first tool as an innovative combination of something like identity formation using proprioception and memory creating a kind of perceptual cognitive triangle (or combination of triangle, really). The blanket term used by both Donald and Girard for this capacity is "mimeticism" although they mean something more than the kind of mimeticism that you'd find in the plant and animals worlds. (So, I'm not sure that their terminology quite captures what they're trying to say.)
At any rate feedback is an essential aspect of this innovation and in the feedback between tool-making and the skills for making tools or "extending the corporeal" we selected for this. One unintended consequence of this selection and amplification process was, as Girard makes clear, the virtually infinite enhancement of *desire*, as a feedback of identity formation and display. And that's a problem, because it implies that it doesn't make any difference whether resources are scarce or plentiful, because desire is infinite. As second nature there is no inherent limit on it and the basic "scarcity" was illustrated by William Shakespeare (an ironic name if there ever was one) in the comedy, *Two Gentlemen of Verona*. Shakespeare also wrote an non-comedic version of this illustration as the poem: *The Rape of Lucrete*.
So, what I'm saying is that to model civilization as a competition over scare resources is... well, a bit naive. Anyway, maybe Forrest has an answer to this, so I'll watch the rest of the presentation.
Absolutely: There is a great deal of fragmentation in our communication processes. We are hit with an avalanche of sense data and most of it is noise . . We need to come into a space where we get to have depth of conversation. . .
The structure of the networks that we have available to us are not conducive to this kind of deep communication.
But is it really the structure of the networks that is the problem? Or could it be because we suck at using them?
@@biocykle Our nature is what it is and the networks we build exist to serve us, so if we aren't getting what we need from them, we need to redesign them.
@@GumbyTheGreen1 Sure, although I'm not sure there is a general consensus anywhere about what "our nature is". My point was, these networks are very a new development. And a lot of deep conversations have happened online since the birth of the internet, this youtube channel being one of the more recent examples... So how do you guys know the "structure of the networks" is the problem, and not that we are in a toddler phase in regards to learning how to communicate through them? There are many, many different kinds of networks available to us, after all. More than ever before in the history of mankind.
Hey , U , need to be on that panel .
@@susan4yahshua I would be honored to join that conversation, but I have not received an invitation.
I am involved in conversation with the United People's Coalition:
medium.com/@benjaminross_/united-peoples-coalition-d8cd25faf014
We will probably need something like super-human AI in order to make omni-win choices. It’s not clear that multiple human brains linked together by language (and personalities) will be able to consider so many dimensions together.
But ultimately, this type of wide-ranging transformation always comes down to recruitment: Can you get enough people working on these endeavors, in the right ways, to discover (invent) and make the needed changes. Recruitment requires marketing, advertising and on-boarding. Very "corporate" sounding words, but it’s how "freedom of association" works. Maybe there is a more "Game B-ish" way to meet the recruiting needs, "Make friends and pursue verisimilitude together; take action when it seems appropriate."
Awesomely super simple talks nice work
This is beautiful, yet I can’t help but feel that where I live, these ideas are so far from considered.
open source ecology is great too! the global village construction set!
Data + Permaculture
Yay!!! I'd like my blog, lots of collective thought process n developing evolution in my perspective
48:29
Thank you.
Beautiful beautiful
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
i've been playing a game where i take a dose of noopept every time forrest says "in effect"
sorry forrest, couldn't help myself! ya'll are doing excellent things though and i really appreciate it. good work!
Daniel Schmachtenberger powering up at 1:21:44
46:23 - 49:07
also plasma arc vaporization of our unrecyclable waste(geoplasma tech, great if powered by nuclear) to make road building material.
"Shit is fucked up..." You have no idea. *March 29th 2020
We all have the idea now ...
*August 31st 2021
The harder we try to fix the problems in the existing system using the tools we developed in the existing system, the faster we destroy the thing we are trying to protect. This is the lie of certainty. Trying to build systems of certainty leads to systems of collapse. One of the most counterintuitive things we might consider. Our misalignment with the nature of change has led us to systems that cannot help but collapse the harder they try not to. I’ve been on this stuff for a long time, and it’s very hard to get people to hear it.
Still at the beginning, listening more.
I think we can phase shift down and up at the same time. The tools we’ve created would allow us to regress and advance. Let’s see if you mention social models that talk about Dunbar’s number.
Interesting. Still not seeing Dunbar’s number and the problem of scale coming up. It’s so close in so many ways to what I’ve figured out, but still has kinds of differentials I need to understand more. The problem of belief and certainty. Bottom up was mentioned by less emphasized than I’d have thought. Feels more like a think tank presentation than a fundamental rewrite so far. I’ve heard Daniel go into things not brought up here. And the level of abstraction is higher than I’d think is useful.
Still much more to understand. Building a picture.
Hmmm 🤔 Daniel mentioned Dunbar’s number as a hard limit on the Portal recently. I wonder if he’s intuiting that aspect more now. He didn’t even get that deep into it and perhaps it’s hitting some cognitive walls. Gotta look into more recent stuff and see if it gets brought up.
UBI changes the purpose paradigm by giving people 2 things... Time and connection. Work as it is is partially designed to take away your purpose as self defined and sell it to you in a way that supports the system of power imbalance. Giving people their time back allows them the opportunity to create more meaningful connections and build real community. Real community is a position that allows the building of collective power. Purpose and meaning become self evident through connection. These things no longer require definitions sold as commodity.
Labor itself in current form is divisive. Remove the division and people are again able to create actual connected interdependent instead of systemic dependence on power position models that remove connection. Game theoretic expression becomes connective automatically. People define value in ways that can’t be taxed or sold, and in the process remove external dependence. Build self sustaining systems at a level within Dunbar’s number and you have your new social unit core structure.
No elites. Weird that you’d go there. It totally misses how power dynamics change with connection.
It’s interdependence, and it keeps us accountability as a function of the connection. Law is irrelevant as the connection itself determines the behaviour. It only sounds oppressive when the levels of connection exceed Dunbar’s number. At that point it’s no longer representative of emergence and is instead necessarily dependent on codified rules. Connected interdependence entirely removes all need for top down power.
💓
How does the open market system not meet the goals he is looking to meet?
Because it is based on an unsustainable system just about to crash?
But don't complex systems have a level of analysis at which they can be seen as complicated systems?
complex systems have feedback loops that allow for parts of the whole to interact and itner-affect other parts dynamically so the entire system can grow and evolve beyond just the sum of its parts.
Blockchains, Decentralized Self Organizing Cooperatives! Nested ecologies
Sorry guys, but this civilization is going down hard. A word to the wise, think in terms of seeking out a lifeboat not repairing the big hole in the ship.
Is the bret they reference bret weinstein? Let's see that conversation, too!
Yes. Bret Weinstein is part of this group working on these issues. I'd also love to see more conversations with Bret and this group so I'll see if I can make that happen.
Bret and Jordan will be sharing a stage in May at a Rebel Wisdom event.
Who are the people in this video?
Daniel Schmachtenberger - neurohacker.com/people/daniel-schmachtenberger
Jordan Greenhall - neurohacker.com/people/jordan-greenhall
Forrest Laundry - neurohacker.com/people/forrest-landry
@@qualialife Thank you!
Oh oh. Sounds like we might have to think outside of the box.
I know Jordan is pursuing integrative 'sense-making' techniques that are extremely vital . . I just hope that we all keep in mind the 'truth-telling' technologies that ordinary people work with everyday: journalism, documentary, writing. Whatever Collective Intelligence system that we create must engage the creative facilities that we already have available to us . . I see a need for a common space within which to situate all these textual points of view as a necessary foundation for Collective Intelligence.
The internet is not sufficient in itself, because it provides no way of us revealing the relationships between the 'texts' that we create. We need that semantic web that Tim Berners-Lee was speaking of, but for the sake of human intelligence and readability, not AI and machine readability.
I appreciate: Try to separate Identity from World-View. & Any single perspective is a reduction of reality --we must learn to integrate many points of view.
1:37:43
Thank you - AGAIN!!!
Thorcon can deliver clean reliable power to the world(they build one molten salt reactor a day!)
Why does the thumbnail look like it's trying to deify Jordan?
Now I thought the most cooperative lifeforms survived and propagated their genes.
I think blockchain etherium based currencies like an "eco-coin' or carbon coin which can be used as a carrot to motivate environmental remediation is a worthwhile thing to try. it would need to be backed by banks, but if we vote for not a dumbshit, and maybe someone younger we might actually get that.
I say stop killing are mother earth today
Interesting discussion, but oddly they sounded like 3 Christians preaching about the endtimes; very strongly at certain points.
The difference being, these are some of the cutting edge systems thinkers of our times who have been studying these dynamics pretty intensely for a good while. It's REAL, not a prophesy. We are already in the middle of it.
“It’s quite likely that within the next seven years our oceans will be dead.” Surely, you realize that’s where you lost a large part of your audience. It’s amazing how otherwise intelligent people can say bizarre things. If you have questions, get back to me in seven years. Excuse me, make that four years.
I wonder if he was referring to coral reefs
Although well intended, this is ton of double speak. The basic answer to these questions is teaching high character development to the youth and no collectivist thinking. Become your individual and authentic self. Basically study Nietzsche and other existentialist philosophers.
And the acute global crisis they're addressing magically goes away?
Becoming your highest self as we automate all the jobs away? I think we can think more broadly and better than this.
MrRyanmcmahon - Do you think a sufficient number of people have what it takes to not default to collectivist/tribal thinking?
You expect a population where ~40% of people don't wash their hands when going to the bathroom (US. data) to study and comprehend existentialism?
Most people run on evolutionary autopilot most of the time. Well, except for us enlightened, rational souls untarnished by instinct of course! ;)
Social/cultural architechture is needed, to funnel that evolutionary autopilot trajectory into something not self-destructive.
How? I have no idea about the particulars, but the only country who is working (publicly) on that area is China at the moment... and what they are doing with it is f-ing terrifying on so many levels
отставлю это здесь просто так
LFI.
Limited Feedback Interaction.
A game of 'telephone',
With 9 or so 'central scrutinisors ".
Who will be among them?
Obviously you.
1:21:10 loool
Disagree.
We do think best in dialog with one person.
Quality of interaction goes down with more than a few.
Engineer limited feedback interwctions!
Lots of genuflecting.
Define a GOAL, please.
So...who Christ like will surrender their rights first. My guess it won't be the techne-philosophe class, Socrates.
So many words, so little substance.
Seriously?