http://methalashun.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-bigg-picture.html
https://methalashun.blogspot.com/2016/12/i-get-it-i-get-it.html
Niggers, Read The Excerpt I Just Added To The Bottom Link! It'll Explain To You Why Your Genes And Culture Have Made You Poor In America!
Imposing suffering and mortality on those underneath you increases the selection on them—improving their genetic quality compared to yours. Do you think black Americans are getting relatively stronger than whites over time or weaker? Only genocide wipes out the entire game.
IRON SHARPENS IRON!
PRESSURE MAKES DIAMONDS!
(OR WHATEVER THOSE CORNY SAYINGS ARE)
Replying to
Based Richard Dawkins suggest that dysgenic fertility is caused by 1) the welfare state keeping kids of irresponsible/dull parents alive, and 2) enforced monogamy as opposed to natural polygyny!
It all boils down to how "fit" you are. Not so much whether you can run a marathon or how much you can lift, but how many children you can produce that are yours. The more kids you have that are genetically yours, the more copies of your genes there will be in the following gene pool. That, and only that, is success in the gene's-eye view of the world. If more lofty perspectives come to mind when you contemplate the meaning of "success" - like doing well in school, having a great job, or writing a book - then consider this: your gene machine has been built to generate these fanciful ideas to maliciously motivate you into gaining status and resources that will translate into reproductive success. It's a genetic con.
As a male you can maximize your genetic fitness in one of two ways. One, you can invest a lot of parental effort and resources into just a few offspring. You put all your eggs into a small basket, nurturing and protecting a couple of kids, ensuring their survival into full maturity, and even helping them look after their own children. Alternatively, you can put all your eggs, or rather sperm, into a lot of baskets. Here you maximize the number of your offspring without really doing very much to support them, spreading your parental effort more thinly.
A male can much more easily adopt this latter reproductive strategy of high offspring-low effort if he "cheats" on his many female partners by misrepresenting his ability to acquire resources and his long-term parenting intentions... (Bad Intentions)
The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime. Raine, p. 16
(Adrian "Let It Raines, Let It Drips" Raine)
The Girl Actually Looks MOSTLY Hawaiian! What A Surprise! I Was Looking At The Merrie Monarch Website Last Night And The Majority Of Miss Hulas Didn't Look Hawaiian. They Either Looked Filipino Or Japanese And Those That Did Look Hawaiian Only Looked A Little Hawaiian! Anywho, Read The Passages (Paragraphs) Above And Below! Native Hawaiians Are Being Out-Bred By Non-Native Hawaiians In Their Own Homeland (Hawaii)! That Is, Native Hawaiian Females And Males Are Having Children With People Outside Of Their Race And Those Native Hawaiian Males And Females That Are Breeding Within Their Race (Having Children With Other Native Hawaiians) Aren't Having Enough Native Hawaiian Children And Those Native Hawaiian Children Aren't Having Enough Native Hawaiian Children Of Their Own! So Within The Next Century I Predict that The Native Hawaiian Population Will Reproduce Themselves Into NON-EXISTENCE ! I Predict That The Phenotypic Traits (The Morphological, Anatomical, And Facial Traits) Specific To Native Hawaiians Will Go EXTINCT! (I Was Thinking About Why The Modern, Racially Admixed Native Hawaiians (The Ones That Look White Or Asian And White And Asian) Are Hesitant To Have Children With Native Hawaiians That Have More Prototypical, Ancestral Native Hawaiian Features And My Reasoning Was Along These Lines, "I, Peter Dagampat, As A Racially Admixed Person Would Be Hesitant To Have Children With A Filipina And I'd Definitely Be Hesitant To Have A Child With A Mexican Because My Distinct Features (The Facial And Bodily Features That I Like About Myself*) Would Be Lost Or Diluted If I Combined My Filipino Genes With A Person Consisting Of Mostly Filipino DNA Or If I Combined My Mexican Genes With A Person Consisting Of Mostly Mexican DNA" AND I THINK THE MODERN, RACIALLY ADMIXED HAWAIIANS SUBCONSCIOUSLY REASON ALONG THESE LINES. Many Of Them Like Their White And Asian Facial And Bodily Features (The Lighter Skin Color, The Lighter Hair Color, The Lighter Eye Color), So They'd Be Hesitant And, In Most Case, Resistant To The Idea Of Losing These Traits That They Like About Themselves By Having Children With More Ancestral, Native Hawaiian Looking Mates! They Likely Think To Themselves, "Oh, No, I Don't Want Any Child Of Mine Having That Dark Skin And Those Primitive, Polynesian Features. Oh, No, I Don't Want My Child Looking Like A NIGGER!")
*You Have To Have A Healthy Dose Of Self-Hatred! If You Don't Like One Or More Of The Races You're Composed Of You'll Be Disinclined To Have Children With People Of That Race!
*You Have To Have A Healthy Dose Of Self-Hatred! If You Don't Like One Or More Of The Races You're Composed Of You'll Be Disinclined To Have Children With People Of That Race!
"They Taught Us To Talk Like This And Not To LOVE Ourselves!" - Mr. Kane
"If A Bitch Don't Like Me She Don't Like Herself Mane! - Suga Buga #Bitch!
A contest is a situation in which different competitors have incompatible goals, so that success for one entails failure for the other(s). Often all want the same thing but only one can have it, such as the trophy, or the monogamous mate, or the auctioned painting. Biological evolution can be understood as a contest: winning is measured by reproductive success, and strictly speaking the criterion is not total offspring but rather successfully reproducing offspring. Put another way, natural selection is a contest in which nature measures success by the tally of grandchildren. Toward that end, individuals compete to attract and retain high-quality mates, with whom they will raise thriving offspring.
- “We measure success by how many people successful next to you.. we say you broke if everybody is broke except for you.”
I Don't Know Who Gives You This Advice, Senator Kerry, But It's Uninformed By Evolutionary Logic! The Only Success That Matters Is Reproductive Success, My White Nigga! All Of That Other Success Distracts You From Evolution's Only Goal (Passing On Your Genes).
Of course, individuals do not necessarily or consciously care about nature’s yardstick and may measure success in other ways. Individuals may judge their and each others’ success in terms of attracting romantic partners and even enjoying sexual relationships without reproduction. Potential mates may also evaluate an individual based on his or her success in other contests. As a familiar example, a man’s sex appeal to women is bolstered insofar as he bests other men in sports, business, or art. In contrast, men’s mate choices are largely indifferent to which women outperform other women in those arenas.
Yet, pure-blood and mix-blood Hawaiians continue at an alarming rate to further dissipate their descendants' percentage of Hawaiian ancestry through intermarriage. Proportionally, Hawaiians exceed every other people on earth in entering interracial marriages. Although it is commonly accepted that further dilution of Hawaiian blood by mixed marriages must be ebbed, there seems no way to stop it. Incentives to marry Hawaiian will not help; Hawaiians FOOLISHLY Marry for love. The only hope is to surround young people with enough of their own race that they will meet and fall in love with another Hawaiian...This is the Hawaiians' only homeland. There are no other Hawaiians "back home" preserving the race and the culture. There is no other "back home." When the Hawaiians' traditions have been completely lost and their blood dissipated until it causes no distinctive traits, The Hawaiians will be gone. For Hawaiians, the great and glorious American melting pot ideal is a black, boiling cauldron of extinction. (A Call For Hawaiian Sovereignty. p. 100, 144)
Somethin' 'Bout Seein' A Firme Part Hawaiiana Heina Witta Smug, Cocky, Rico Mayate Just Don't Sit Write Wit ME! Sumptin' 'Bout That Bother ME At A Primal Level! That Just Somethin' I Don't Like To See!
Beach City Hoops Retweeted
Jarod Lucas @LosAltosHoop has picked up an offer from Hawaii @jarodlucash one of the Top PG’s on the West Coast
I Was Just About To Comment On This On A University Of Hawaii Youtube Video! The University Of Hawaii Is Supposedly Partial To Native Hawaiians, Right? They Lower Admission Standards For Students That Claim Hawaiian Ancestry, Right? Well, If That's The Case, I've Always Thought To Myself, "Why Don't They Actively Recruit Standout Athletes For Their Respective Sports Teams That Have Hawaiian DNA?" If They're So Pro-Native Hawaiian Why Don't They Make A Conscious And Concerted Effort To Recruit Part Native Hawaiian Athletes? I Don't Think Jarod* Being A Tiny Part Native Hawaiian Factored Into Their Recruiting Of Him, But Why Shouldn't It Have? If They're Really Interested In Educating And Elevating The Native (Raising The Native's Social And Economic Status) Why Wouldn't They? Make No G0D DAM Cent!
*Know What Jarod Should Do? Pull The Rug From Under All Of His Recruiters' Feet (Throw Them All For A Loop) By Turning Down Their Offers And Trying To Walk-On At The Naval Academy! He Should Try To Raise His GPA This Coming Year, Score As High As He Can On The SAT Or Whatever Test High School Kids Take These Days, And Apply To The Naval Academy. If He Gets Accepted He Should Walk-On To The Naval Academy Basketball Team! If He Really LOVEs RMD44.. (Whoever RMD 44 Was) He Should Do This!
*Know What Jarod Should Do? Pull The Rug From Under All Of His Recruiters' Feet (Throw Them All For A Loop) By Turning Down Their Offers And Trying To Walk-On At The Naval Academy! He Should Try To Raise His GPA This Coming Year, Score As High As He Can On The SAT Or Whatever Test High School Kids Take These Days, And Apply To The Naval Academy. If He Gets Accepted He Should Walk-On To The Naval Academy Basketball Team! If He Really LOVEs RMD44.. (Whoever RMD 44 Was) He Should Do This!
You Hear A Lot Of Asians, Filipinos, And Whites Saying, "I AM" Which I Believe Is An Indirect Reference To Their Supposed Native Hawaiian Ancestry! And I Think To Myself, " No, They're Not!" They Have No Hawaiian DNA Whatsoever! They've Just Fooled Themselves (Deceived Themselves) Into Believing They Are! That's The Height Of Self-Deception, Mane! When You Can Hide The Truth About Your Genetic Makeup To Yourself (To Your Conscience)
You Know You're Self-Deceived! So Their "I AM" Should Really Stand For "I AM" Self-Deceived!
Banal interactions with other people become more interesting if you reflect that they are a barely domesticated ape puppeteered by neurochemicals to create more copies of themselves while using benign facial expressions as a skin-deep mask to obscure the primal chaos beneath.
Welcome to evolutionary psychology.
According to historian Yuval Noah Harari, it's been 125,000 generations since the emergence of human species, 7,500 since human physiology reached its current state, 500 since the agricultural revolution, and only 20 since the scientific revolution
...evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins...used The Selfish Gene as the title for a book that has since sold more than a million copies. By his use of the term, Dawkins underscored the fact that nature is indifferent to the survival of any individual organism. On a functional level, natural selection chooses winners and losers from among genes, not from among particular plants or animals. From a nucleic acid's perspective, each individual is little more than an experimental animal for testing which genes produce the traits with the greatest survival advantage within a given environment. Which helps understand why the "winning" genes that spread throughout a population are not necessarily the ones that appear most advantageous for any given individual in any given moment. The gene is driving a larger process.
Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. Cacioppo, Patrick, p. 65-66.
Living organisms evolve their characteristics for the benefit not of themselves but of REPLICATORS. The main replicator is DNA.
I think this sexual selection and natural selection in competition with each other highlights the fact that genes are 'individuals' and are competing against each other for their own survival, even if they happen to share a body and a common germ line 'doorway' into the future.
https://www.amazon.com/Human-Errors-Panorama-Glitches-Pointless/dp/1474608353
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/evolution-human-body-design-flaws-nathan-lents/
https://www.powells.com/post/original-essays/the-flawed-human-body-what-would-i-change-if-i-could
https://twitter.com/Qafzeh/status/1019984798872293376
Here's An Example, But It Has To Do With Our Anatomy (Musculature, Bone Structure, Bio-Mechanics, Etc.) In Relation To Locomotion Rather Than Our Psychological Adaptations! In Certain Environments In Our Proto-Human And Human Evolutionary Past Certain Musculature, Bone Structure, And Bio-Mechanics Were Adaptive, But This Same Musculature, Bone Structure, And Bio-Mechanics Now Causes Many Of Us Injuries And Chronic Pain In Our Current Environment! Think Of Back Pain! Hundreds Of Millions Of People Suffer From Back Pain And That's Because Humans Are Now Exposed To An Environment (Environmental Stimuli Such As Soft Beds, Chairs, Sedentary Lifestyles, Repetitive Unnatural Movement) That Our Backs Are Not Genetically Evolved To Handle!
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190610-how-modern-life-is-transforming-the-human-skeleton
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Gone-Wrong-Curious-Reasons/dp/1335690050
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/evolution-human-body-design-flaws-nathan-lents/
https://www.powells.com/post/original-essays/the-flawed-human-body-what-would-i-change-if-i-could
Here's An Example, But It Has To Do With Our Anatomy (Musculature, Bone Structure, Bio-Mechanics, Etc.) In Relation To Locomotion Rather Than Our Psychological Adaptations! In Certain Environments In Our Proto-Human And Human Evolutionary Past Certain Musculature, Bone Structure, And Bio-Mechanics Were Adaptive, But This Same Musculature, Bone Structure, And Bio-Mechanics Now Causes Many Of Us Injuries And Chronic Pain In Our Current Environment! Think Of Back Pain! Hundreds Of Millions Of People Suffer From Back Pain And That's Because Humans Are Now Exposed To An Environment (Environmental Stimuli Such As Soft Beds, Chairs, Sedentary Lifestyles, Repetitive Unnatural Movement) That Our Backs Are Not Genetically Evolved To Handle!
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190610-how-modern-life-is-transforming-the-human-skeleton
"SHE SAYIN' MA NECK, MA BACK...!" - CELLSKINI!
"KEEP IT CRACCIN' LIKE UH BAD BACC! - MA NIGGA SILKY SLIM THA MOTHAFUCCIN' P MANE!
Natural selection is indifferent to pain and suffering. But pain and suffering are inevitable consequences of natural selection. Discuss.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22201-the-total-amount-of-suffering-per-year-in-the-natural
The Leakey Foundation Retweeted
Early hominins differed from both humans and extant apes in having an economical walking gait without sacrificing climbing capability. Ardipithecus could do human-like walking hip extension, with powerful, ape-like hip extension during vertical climbing http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/27/1715120115 …
Nathan H. Lents Retweeted
We're biologically flawed. "Evolution is kind of dumb." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-botch-of-the-human-body-1523630069 … … by @nathanlents
To Put It Another Way, We Modern Humans, Like All Humans That Have Ever Lived Throughout The 2 Million Year History Of The Human Species, Are Here For A Brief Moment In Evolutionary Time To Act As a test for Evolution (Natural Selection, Group Selection, And Sexual Selection). Those of us with genes that are best suited to the current environment will have a better chance of surviving and reproducing and, hence, passing the Evolutionary test. Subsequently, these winning genes and the traits they code for (adaptations) will spread throughout the population (In effect, these genes that are better adapted to this environment will increase in number while those genes less adapted to this environment will decrease). Throughout this test, however, Evolution is indifferent to what is created. All Evolution keeps track of are the genes of the winners* (the genes that create the traits that help the individual survive and reproduce). So if after a few generations of testing and experimenting Evolution creates a species of human that has an inherent propensity for Wrath, Lust, Sloth, And Avarice, Evolution will not care. It will also not care if these traits are maladaptive to the current time in the species existence. As long as these traits were adaptive at some point in the evolutionary history of this species, Evolution will have done it's job. (This is why many of us find ourselves fighting with ourselves, trying to control our impulses and tendencies. We have genes that were adaptive for a time and place in our evolutionary history that no longer exists and are no longer adaptive for the time and place we live now. We have Anachronistic Genes**.)
5. You've got a selfish streak in you.
From the evolutionary perspective, organisms that passed the test of natural selection are those that had ancestors with qualities that facilitated their own survival and reproduction.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-evolving.html
"Only Homo sapiens fossils younger than 35,000 years show the same globular shape as present-day humans, suggesting that modern brain organisation evolved sometime between 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. We have been surprised to discover just how recent these changes to brain organisation were," he added.
Brain size has also changed in the past 30,000 years, and several studies point to a reduction in size. One study estimated that the brain of modern humans has decreased in size from 1,500 to 1,359 cubic centimetres—that's about the size of a cricket ball.
...
A similar trend of brain reduction was found by another study that compared 175 braincases from humans and human relatives that lived 1.9 million to 10,000 years ago. A key finding of this study was a correlation between brain size and population density. "As complex societies emerged, the brain became smaller because people did not have to be as smart to stay alive," said David Geary from the University of Missouri, who led the study, in a news report.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-evolving.html#jCp
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-evolving.html#jCp
Evolutionary psychologists try to explain human behavior as the result of our species’ long evolutionary history. During most of the existence of modern humans (roughly the past 200,000 years), and even before, we lived as hunter-gatherers in relatively small family groups where certain social interactions were crucial for survival and reproduction. Natural selection has shaped our brains and behaviors to cope with these social demands. In contrast, market-driven and money-oriented economies emerged only very recently, as a cultural phenomenon. Cultural evolution happens at a much faster pace than genetic evolution, and as a consequence, our inborn social behaviors are not (yet) fully adapted to this modern way of life. This is also wonderfully illustrated, in the context of modern diseases, in the book Mismatch by Gluckman and Hanson.
So, this explains much of our irrational behavior, also outside of the context of economics. For example, the sight of spiders and snakes induces a deep-rooted fear in most of us. The sight of a drawn gun does not produce nearly such a fearful reaction. Yet, these days many more people die from gunshots than from spider and snake bites combined. So why this irrational difference in fear response? It seems the logical explanation is an evolutionary one, where spiders and snakes have been a realistic threat throughout most of human history, while guns are only a very recent phenomenon. Our brains have not (yet) been wired by evolution to respond in the same way.
Moreover, evolution is largely a blind force that acts without foresight or deliberate design. It just works with whatever it has available at any given time, and tinkers with that by means of small (random) changes. In some cases, this leads to improvements which are then favored by natural selection over less successful variants. As a consequence, the “products” of evolution are not always the most perfect or efficient. This includes our own brain, which still leaves plenty of room for irrational behavior.
https://evolution-institute.org/mismatch-an-interview-with-mark-van-vugt/https://evolution-institute.org/projects/evolutionary-mismatch/
Is it mix match, miss match or mitch match!?! 
In other words, Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and Group Selection drive Human Evolution. But what they've produced (specifically the mental adaptations that they've produced) are not always beneficial to the species or the individual at a given time in Evolutionary history. For instance, millions of years of human evolution have selected for individuals that are inherently inclined to be violent, lascivious, lazy and greedy. These character traits, to an extent, were adaptive (beneficial) in certain environments in our evolutionary past, but in this information laden, technologically advanced, Globalized day and age, these traits can be detrimental to the species and the individual.
Western civilization is barely able to handle a conversation about humans and natural selection. It shouldn't surprise us that discussing humans and sexual selection is still way out of reach.
*Just Surviving Doesn't Make You A Winner. You Have To Survive And Reproduce To Win In Evolution's Game And THE MORE OFFSPRING YOU PRODUCE, ESPECIALLY THE MORE VARIED (DIFFERENT MOTHERS IF YOU'RE A MALE, DIFFERENT FATHERS IF YOU'RE A FEMALE) AND THE HIGHER THE GENETIC QUALITY OF THOSE OFFSPRING THE MORE OF A WINNER YOU ARE IN EVOLUTIONS GAME (What's the payoff for females of mating with more than one male?...there is the prospect of increasing genetic diversity of one's offspring. More different males = a greater variety of sperm = more genetic variety among one's offspring = higher long-term reproductive success if the environment changes in the future. Which, of course, it always does. (Strange Bedfellows).)
I Am A LOSER!
You're a loser with a cellphone.Mo
Yes, A Loser With 2 Cell Phones! Talk To ME Keiko!
**Many Of My Lesser Intelligent Viewers Don't Understand What This Means. Let ME Give You An Example. Do You Have A Problem With Over Eating? Do You Have A Problem With Not Exercising? Do You Watch Too Much TV? Do You Play On The Computer Too Long And Play With Yourself Too Much? Do You Have Trouble With Sleeping Too Much? Do You Have Trouble With Not Sleeping Enough Due To Work-Related Stress Or Too Much Play With Technological Devices And Too Much Play With Yourself? Do You Get Easily Angered And Want To Take Out Your Aggression Out On The Nearest Thing? Do You Want To Physically Harm (Possibly Kill) Males Or Females That Disrespect You? Are You Unable To Stay Sexually Committed In Your Relationships And Feel Guilty About It? Well, If So, You're NOT Alone And There's A Reason For This Behavior. It's Because We're Genetically Predisposed (Have Adaptations) To Be This Way. We Live In An Environment That Is Unlike Our Environment Of Evolutionary Adaptedness, However We Still Have The Genes That Evolved For That Time (That Time Tens Of Thousands Of Years Ago). As A Result, These Genes Aren't Adapted Well To This Current Environment (I'm Redundant NATHAN LENTS L0L!). (There Was No Great Technology And Everything That Comes With That Thousands Of Years Ago When These Genes Evolved.)
Of all functions, sex should work well since It is the object of strong selection. But that’s the problem. Selection maximizes reproduction at enormous costs to happiness.
I DIDN'T WRITE THE ABOVE WELL, BUT YOU GET THE POINT, RIGHT?
New paper on current natural selection.
Correlation between 33 polygenic scores and each person's number of children across two generations (in 400k Britons from UKBiobank).
Modern society is selecting for bad traits and selecting against good traits. Sad!
Perhaps. Not sure such individuals are especially concerned about the evolutionary time-scale though.
![Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior by [Miller, Geoffrey]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41gEcTAm89L._SY346_.jpg)
SOCIETY WAS NOT FOUNDED, ORGANIZED, AND GUIDED BY THE RIGHT PRINCIPLES. EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES* WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND USED AS A BASIS FOR SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC LIVING WHEN SOCIETY WAS CREATED, SO THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS OF SOCIETY THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE WAY HUMANS EVOLVED (INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR EVOLVED TENDENCIES AND DISPOSITIONS). THE BOOK ABOVE HAS A NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS TO AMELIORATE THIS PROBLEM (MAKE SOCIETY MORE IN LINE WITH OUR EVOLVED HUMAN NATURE AND THUS MAKE THE HUMAN CONDITION MUCH MORE TOLERABLE).
https://jasoncollins.blog/2011/06/15/millers-spent-sex-evolution-and-consumer-behavior/
https://jasoncollins.blog/2011/06/15/millers-spent-sex-evolution-and-consumer-behavior/
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/05/spents-main-argument.html
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/how_id_sell_civ.html
https://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/04/this-should-be-better-than-malcolm.html
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/how_id_sell_civ.html
https://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/04/this-should-be-better-than-malcolm.html
*EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES WERE NOT KNOWN WHEN SOCIETY WAS CREATED. NO ONE WAS AWARE OF FITNESS INDICATORS, COSTLY SIGNALING, CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION, CONSPICUOUS ALTRUISM, ETC. WHEN SOCIETY WAS DEVELOPING AND TAKING THE SHAPE THAT IT IS NOW IN TODAY.
Some harsh truths in this article. Many people impoverish themselves unnecessarily in the US with new car and large home purchases, as well as small daily indulgences like coffee shop purchases.
DR. KIM: Compensatory purchases. Essentially anything that people use to signal to other people that they are successful in some domain because they don’t feel so successful in reality can be a compensatory product. So, conspicuous things like luxury goods and accessories that have big showy logos, to signal that they have money and social status.
But even a relatively small-ticket purchase could be a compensatory purchase. I think this logic could be applied to many of the “fancy/hip” brands today, even with those handling smaller-ticket items like coffee.
WSJ: Why are people spending money on such purchases?
DR. SHILLER: Having a big house is a symbol of success, and people want to look successful. People have to know about your achievements. How do you know, really? Who knows what people are doing in their day job? But you do see their house.
...
DR. KIM: To show that they are something, perhaps something they currently feel that they are not. In other words, to compensate for what they don’t feel that they have. We have found that people who have purchased items that symbolize a discrepant area of the self actually do worse in subsequent tasks, like solving math questions or persisting in a difficult task.
WSJ: How do high- and low-income earners waste money differently? Similarly?
DR. KIM: There’s research saying that higher-income groups are happier buying experiences, whereas low-income groups are happier buying things and materials that are obviously more tangible and long-lasting. So, in the context of compensatory consumption, perhaps higher-income groups will try to signal success by going on uber-fancy vacations, whereas lower-income groups will try to signal success by buying branded objects.
Damian Calhoun Retweeted
THIS IS THAT MEANINGFUL TO PEOPLE? PEOPLE ACTUALLY CENTERED (SCHEDULED) THEIR DAY AROUND THIS? HOW SAD (WHAT A SAD REFLECTION OF OUR SOCIETY). WELL, IT WAS PROBABLY JUST THE LOW IQ, UNEDUCATED PEOPLE THAT STOPPED THEIR DAY FOR THIS. PROBABLY! (WHAT MAJOR IMPACT WILL KOBE HAVE HAD ON SOCIETY AND THE HUMAN SPECIES WHEN HE DIES? NO MAJOR IMPACT AT ALL (NONE AT ALL) JUST LIKE ALL OTHER ATHLETES AND ENTERTAINERS (MUSICIANS, SINGERS, ETC!)WHY? BECAUSE THE "WORK" THEY DO IS MEANINGLESS! IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE HUMAN SPECIES OR SOCIETY! IN FACT, I'D ARGUE THAT IT DOES THE OPPOSITE! IT DEGRADES SOCIETY!)
Changiz Khan Retweeted
Science nerds are the real heroes
Eugene Gu, MD
Researchers discovered insulin in 1921. They sold their patent for $1 because they wanted their lifesaving discovery to help as many people as possible. Then the pharmaceutical companies got their hands on it and price gouged. Azar himself more than tripled the price of insulin.
In 1923, 2 scientist at University of Toronto (U of T) got the Nobel Prize for discovering insulin. The patent was sold to U of T` for $1 so insulin would be widely available. Today, a single vial of insulin is > $250 and most patients use 2-4 vials per month and can't afford it
The soaring cost of insulin, which is killing diabetics, should be a front-page scandal.
#insulin4all
#insulin4all
November 14 is #WorldDiabetesDay, @WDD. For insulin's discovery, Canadian scientist, Frederick Banting, and John Macleod were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize in Medicine. Banting was knighted in 1934. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Banting … #WorldDiabetesDay #DiabetesDay #DiabetesAwarenessMonth
Natural Selection And Sexual Selection, In Particular, Drove Males To Be The More Innovative And Creative Gender. Why? because Ingenuity, Innovation, And Creation Allowed Males To Gain Status, Prestige, Wealth, And Power And With This Status, Prestige, Wealth, And Power Males Could Attract The Opposite Sex (Females). As A Result, The Male Sex Throughout Human History Has Primarily Been Responsible For All Of The Major Discoveries And Breakthroughs In Science As Well As All Of The Other Great Advances In Culture (i.e. Technology), But The Advances In Culture Haven't Always Been For The Best Of The Human Species. Let's Use The Example Above. A Breakthrough Was Made In Science That Benefited Humanity, But Pharmaceutical Executives Appropriated That Technology For Self-Serving Purposes (To Accumulate Wealth, Attain Status, And Achieve Reproductive Success*) And A Large Segment Of Humanity Has Suffered Because Of This. (I've Been Thinking About This For A While, But I Have To Develop This Line Of Thinking A Little Further, But Think Of The Internet. It Was Invented By Males For The Betterment Of Society (And Unconsciously Driven By Their Desire For Wealth And Women), But Much Of The Time People Spend On The Internet Nowadays Is Non-Beneficial. In Fact, It's More Harmful Than Good. You Can Look At A Million Other Inventions Or Industries** Or Cultural Trends And See The Same Deleterious Effect They Have On The Human Species And Why They'll Eventually Bring About The Demise Of The Human Species. Here's The Bottom Line. Cultural Evolution And Genetic Evolution Go Hand In Hand And The Way Culture Evolves (e.g. What Inventions Or Industries Or Trends Are Created) Isn't Necessarily Good For The Species! Read About The Negative Consequences Of The Pharmaceutical And Food Industry That Have Taken A Toll On Humans In The Links Below! Or Think About The Creation And Evolution Of Rap Music And It's Offshoots. What Good Has Come From Rap Culture? N0 G00D!
*We're Driven By Reproductive Success And We'll Do Just About Anything To Achieve That Success, Including Being Overly Avaricious (Being Greedy When It Hurts Humanity) And Creating Technology That Has Long-Term Negative Consequences For The Human Species!
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/1328117866491592704
There's always money to be made is in appealing to high time preference and bypassing effort for reward
Drugs, gambling, porn, processed food. Pills over lifestyle change.
There will always be a large market for those
https://twitter.com/awilkinson/status/1034643882489729025
Michael Eades, M.D. Retweeted
Imagine trying to explain Instagram to someone from 1950. It would seem super fucked up:
"Basically, it's like if every minute of the day, all your friends were over at your house showing you slideshows to make you jealous of their lives. Also: secretly, everyone is very sad"
The ‘everyone is very sad’ should include the cause for it: the fact that the social network forces or at least pushes u to live a lie, feeding your vanity with likes, which create a false and illusive sense of worth and relevance.
On social media, people are much more likely to compare themselves to those who are much better off than they are, and it hurts more there than in other areas of life. psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-59
"envy is more prevalent now than ever before, largely because of social media...a continual window into the lives of friends, pseudofriends, celebrities...what we see is not some unvarnished peek into their world but a highly idealized image they present" amzn.to/3sI2iVH
The seven deadly sins, updated:
1. Envy: Instagram
2. Sloth: Netflix
3. Greed: Amazon
4. Lust: Pornhub
5. Pride: LinkedIn
6. Gluttony: Grubhub
7. Wrath: Twitter
"neuroscientists make more at technology companies like Apple or Facebook, where I think they quite literally are making money addicting our children to devices, than neuroscientists trying to cure Alzheimer’s."
·
I say this to parents at school. The fat tech cats make their billions off you giving your children the latest tech gadget while they fill their houses with books.
https://www.amazon.com/Hacking-American-Mind-Corporate-Takeover/dp/1101982586/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R25KMON7ZJMY5D/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1101982586
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R25KMON7ZJMY5D/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1101982586
Same with the “news” and “food” industries. Some industries obviously should not be allowed the corporate form—which by law subordinates human best interests to profit. #ShareholderPrimacy
Nike wants you to believe that exercise is important for weight loss.
So does Coca-Cola.
https://twitter.com/Miss_Snuffy/status/1033748077872599040
Nike's business model involves taking advantage of poor black kids by selling them shoes they can't afford. They're not supporting Kaepernick, they're targeting a specific demographic they want to sell shoes to.
The moral of the story: Nike is giving terrible advice. Anyone who encourages you to sacrifice everything is probably a charlatan and actually wants you to sacrifice your money *to them.*
Cereal is candy disguised as actual food.
*Think Of The Food Industry Or The Pharmaceutical Industry Or The Medical Industry Or The Computer Industry Or The Cell Phone Industry Or The Media! The Creators And Executives In These Industries Profit While The Products They Produce Cause Physiological, Psychological, And Social Havoc. Read The Tweets Below To Get An Idea Of What I'm Saying.
Transforming the food industry can seem like a gigantic undertaking, but it is in fact an easy fix. The power lies in our shopping carts, our refrigerators, and our cupboards—and on our dining room tables.
Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian (@Dmozaffarian), my esteemed guest on the new The Doctor's Farmacy episode, advocates for taxing junk foods and spending that money to lower the cost of real, whole foods.
By redistributing where our tax money and government subsidies go, we can encourage consumers to purchase healthy foods and discourage them from purchasing junk.
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/865011791524282369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEHT7PnmGE
Big Bucks, Big Pharma {Documentary on the Pharmaceutical Industry}
No such thing as a free lunch? MDs who receive meals sponsored by drug companies tend to prescribe their products
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlEHT7PnmGE
Big Bucks, Big Pharma {Documentary on the Pharmaceutical Industry}
Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Government have entered into a conspiracy to keep you, fat, weak, and stupid.
Corporations can slap a brand name on junk food, advertise it, and make you think you need it.
But with a few exceptions, you can't do that with whole, unprocessed foods. Much less profit in them.
The only thing holding the breakfast cereal industry together is that people somehow still believe it's healthy. That, and lots of added sugar.
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/920794556601221122
Food marketing is about selling cheap carbs & sugar at big markup to those who don't care about health, and cheap vegetables to those who do
https://twitter.com/michaelgoran/status/1017820211104354305
These Big Corporations Fund The Scientists Who Do Research In The Food Industry, Leading These Researchers To Downplay The Harmful Effect Of These Corporations' Products And Write Papers About Them Favorably. (The Inventors Of These Products And The Executives Of These Companies Get Wealthy While You Become Unhealthy!)
"Moe Money...Moe Power...Moe Money...Moe Power...Moe Money...Moe Power...Biiiiiitch!" - G Puerto Ricoooooo
https://www.amazon.com/Undoctored-Health-Failed-Become-Smarter/dp/1623368669/
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/1725991741063565340
These Big Corporations Fund The Scientists Who Do Research In The Food Industry, Leading These Researchers To Downplay The Harmful Effect Of These Corporations' Products And Write Papers About Them Favorably. (The Inventors Of These Products And The Executives Of These Companies Get Wealthy While You Become Unhealthy!)
https://twitter.com/RobertLustigMD/status/1169148389927346176
"Research funded by the sugar industry finds no adverse health effects to consuming sugar, while research without funding from that industry always finds diets high in sugar lead to more disease and shorter life spans."
Big Food sells you food that makes you sick.
Big Pharma sells you drugs to treat your sickness.
Win win!
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/1725991741063565340
“the ‘antacids’ like Tums, Rolaids, Alka Seltzer...seem uniquely American... Only we seem to have developed a multibillion-dollar industry based on eating junk and then taking junk— chalk, largely— to overcome the effects of eating it.”
It’s not just the pharmaceutical industry; the entire mainstream healthcare system seems to be driven by profit first, patient care and health second. #unconventionalmedicine
For big pharma, the perfect patient is wealthy, permanently ill and a daily pill-popper. Will medicine ever recover?
- Industry influence similar to tobacco and sugar. Shoddy science polluting the literature. Industry sponsored studies are 7.61 times more likely to favor the industry.
But then an odd thing happened – sales began to drop precipitously. Harvoni, in conjunction with four other hepatitis C drugs, is projected to generate only $4 billion this year, a three-fold decline in as many years. Part of this decline is due to new competitors entering the market. But according to analysts at Goldman Sachs, another reason could be that the drug’s cure-rate erodes its own market.
In a private report leaked to news outlets in April 2018, the Goldman Sachs analysts caution against investments in pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies aiming to develop outright cures, and cite Harvoni as a case study. It’s a simple point to make – if profit is your goal, then a product that eradicates its own demand might not be a wise investment.
Though it sounds bad, it’s not a nefarious perspective. The overwhelming majority of pharmaceutical development occurs in the United States or other market economies abroad, where private industry is the force majeure that drives progress. And industry, as much in pharmaceuticals as in any other business, is at the game for revenue rather than the greater good. Much benefit can and has come from this arrangement, but it’s something of an externality to the powerful incentive to make money.
The predominance of the market in US healthcare has taken plenty of flak for promoting profit over quality, and for crescendoing costs.
But there’s a deeper set of issues surrounding how the market influences – or distorts, maybe – the very bedrock of healthcare and medicine. In a system driven primarily by profit, certain diseases or treatments must languish simply because they’re not lucrative. And how can such a system do other than favour revenue over patients?
they donate to the hospitals in exchange for contract. my aunt was counselled to drink it when she was taking chemo. sugar feeds cancer... hmmm
McCaskill’s proposed legislation follows from a scorching report she released in February detailing how opioid manufacturers funneled almost $9 million over five years to various advocacy groups that amplified messages and policies favorable to their industry. Many of these nonprofits had lobbied against laws to decrease opioid use and tried to downplay charges against physicians and pharmaceutical industry officials responsible for over-prescribing. As years of evidence began to confirm we were facing an epid.
10 companies control the world’s nutrition. The total value of these companies is approx $1,000,000,000,000. That’s one trillion dollars. Or one thousand billion. And they make their money through carb & sugar addiction. Hey, I like a challenge #LCHF #wecantwait #MeatNotWheat
In the wake of hysteria surrounding new ‘groundbreaking’ drugs (driven by the psychopathic big Pharma) know 2 cold hard facts :
1. Most published research findings are false
2. The greater the financial interests the LESS likely the ‘research’ findings are to be true
Modern industrial food products are a problem precisely because they are hyper-appealing to our natural instincts though! Many people do need to override their hijacked natural instincts, sometimes through seemingly drastic means (prolonged fasts or monodiets).
The Food Industry, Like The Pharmaceutical Industry, Like The Exercise Industry, Like The Cosmetics Industry, Like The Fashion Industry, Like The Music Industry, Like The Movie Industry, Like The Cell Phone Industry, Like The Computer Industry, Etc. Appeal To Our Evolved Psychological Preferences For Certain Foods***, Good Health, Beauty, Entertainment, Socializing, Etc. They Then Exploit These Preferences By Creating Evolutionarily Novel Products That We Feel Are Vital To Our Social And Sexual Success. We Then Buy These Products To Our Physiological, Psychological, Social, And Sexual Detriment While The Makers And Marketers Of These Products Become Rich And Reproductively Successful!
The BIG explanation is that selection shapes minds to maximize reproduction, not health or happiness. So, we have drives to do things--sexual, competitive and selfish--that cause misery in the long run. As most religions have long recognized.
Mismatch between our minds and modern environments is a big factor for drug abuse and eating disorders, not so much for other disorders that have been around before cities even existed.
"This Industry Can Succ Ma Dicc!" - G Puerto Ricoooooo
Our limited willpower evolved to deal with ancestral temptations; it may not operate well against enticements beyond anything known to hunter-gatherers. Even where we successfully resist a superstimulus, it seems plausible that the effort required would deplete willpower much faster than resisting ancestral temptations.
We gotta get u a iPhone
Like, I Don't Buy Trendy Shit! Why? Well, Not Only Do I Not Have Money To Buy It, But I Don't Need To Buy It. See, Males In Their Reproductive Prime (Late Teens To Mid-30s) Buy All Of That Flashy, Trendy Shit To Gain Status Among Their Peers And Attract Females. I Don't Need To Buy Any Of That Shit Because I Gain Status And Attract Females In More Genetically Superior Ways (Through Personality, Intelligence, And Athleticism).
One of your central claims is that we buy many products in a semi-conscious attempt to increase the social and sexual attractiveness of certain personal traits. Why do you say that? When we first meet people, our physical appearance is most obvious, so we try hard to wear nice clothing, jewellery, and cosmetics. The whole cosmetics business is focused on helping women appear younger, more fertile, healthier, and thus better able to bear offspring. The evolutionary background of cosmetics is that in most primate species, sexual selection focuses very heavily on facial appearance. In assessing women’s ages, men apparently evolved to pay close attention to facial and bodily cues of ebing in the young-adult phase of peak fertility. So women could evolve to fake their fertility all the way from around age 12 to around age around age 60 — not just physically, but behaviourly.
For instance when Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky in 1995, Monica (born 1973) was twenty-two, near peak-fertility, whereas Bill’s wife, Hillary Clinton (born 1947), was forty-eight, with negligible fertility. One way of faking fertility across a broader age range is to apply cosmetics that amplify facial fertility cues that peak in young adulthood, such as plump lips, large eyes, prominent cheekbones, smooth and radiant complexion, thick and glossy head hair, and minimal facial hair. But once we meet people, we start judging their intelligence, personality traits, and moral virtues.
Are they bright? Kind? Faithful? To advertise these kinds of traits, we are unconsciously driven to acquire certain goods and services that are hard-to-fake signals of these traits — such as a degree from an Indian Institute of Technology (to display intelligence), a donation to the Wildlife Trust (to show kindness to animals).
Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior
One subtext of my 'Spent' book: happy, long-term, pronatalist pair-bonds undermine people's need for runaway consumerism & materialism. To prevent this, advertisers, news, & mass media must work overtime to make the sexes dislike & mistrust each other.
When You're Married Or In A Long Term Relationship You're Less Concerned About Attracting The Opposite Sex, So You Invest Less In Products That YOU THINK Will Help You Attract The Opposite Sex. That Is, Runaway Consumerism And Materialism Are Driven Down By Marriage And Parenting!
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html
https://twitter.com/whsource/status/1007336994991730689Mudd then did the unthinkable. He drew a connection to the last thing in the world the C.E.O.’s wanted linked to their products: cigarettes. First came a quote from a
"These results provide the first demonstration that foods high in fat and carbohydrate are, calorie for calorie, valued more than foods containing only fat or carbohydrate". Carb + fat = high reward. #HungryBrain
***The Combination Of Fat And Carbohydrates Is Found In No Fruit, Vegetable Or Meat In The World And Never Has Been, But It's Essential To Proper Bodily Development, Growth, And Functioning So Our Bodies Easily Become Addicted To Them. The Food Industry Has Capitalized On This By Creating Foods That Contain This Precise Combination (Ice Cream, Cake, French Fries, Cheese Burgers, Pizza, Etc,. All Consist Of Fat And Carbohydrates) And These Foods Are Now Wreaking Havoc On The Human Digestive, Immune, Reproductive, Nervous, Skeletal, Muscle, Etc. Systems!
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-sweet-fat-foods-20180618-story.html
It may have taken thousands of generations of hunting, gathering, farming and cooking to get here. But in the end, the genius of humankind has combined fats and carbohydrates to produce such crowning culinary glories as the doughnut, fettuccine Alfredo, nachos and chocolate cake with buttercream frosting.
It goes without saying that these delectables do not exist in nature. It turns out combinations of carbohydrates and fats generally do not exist in the landscape in which man evolved.
Neither, new research finds, does the human capacity to intuit the caloric content of such gustatory delights. Instead, the human brain, when confronted with food products that combine fat and carbohydrates, responds with a surge of motivation that outstrips the response elicited by foods that are high in fat only or in carbohydrates only.
It’s a man-made conundrum like many others, and which probably has helped fuel a worldwide crisis of obesity: What do we do when the products of our genius and our industry short-circuit our evolved traits and lead us down a path of destruction?
Sugar is highly biologically addictive. And not by accident. Food giants have taste institutes, where they hire “craving experts” to identify the “bliss points” of foods to create “heavy users.”
GC: Early in the book, you observe that “[n]o other animal species masks and compensates as much for natural weaknesses through culture as humans”. Later on, you note that this gives us a significant advantage over most animals and plant species and that, because of it, we’re all but assured of not going the way of the dodo or Coast Rican golden toad. Is there a danger that the pendulum might swing too far in this respect? That by ensconcing ourselves so deeply in the buffer of culture we are unwittingly making ourselves a fragile species walking an evolutionary tightrope?
MvV: I think your conclusion is correct. We are so reliant on our cultural abilities to cope with the evolutionary mismatches we have created that there is a danger that at some point our inventiveness reaches its limits. We obviously see that with the impact that we have on our planet. Once a species goes extinct, as a result of what we do, we cannot recreate it. Only in a museum or perhaps in a virtual world does the dodo exist. The problem with culture is that these are experiments and that we cannot always foresee the consequences of our cultural experiments in the long-run. Take our modern weaponry: we now have the capacity to create nuclear bombs that could easily destroy us. Yet we cannot grasp that reality with our Stone Age minds, and that’s a scary thought with dictators around the world who have access to these nukes. Same goes for our health and hygiene. In an effort to get rid of pathogens in our environment – a good thing – we have gone over the top with cleaning ourselves and our houses. Medical specialists have argued that such sanitary environments are bad for children because they do not develop a healthy immune system. And what about the numbers of workers who sit at home with burnout because they are struggling to cope with the demands of the modern workplace? Yes, culture is good if it acts as a buffer against the threats in our environment – disease, violence, temperature changes – but sometimes our cultural innovations turn against us. The problem is: we only know when it is too late.
...
MvV: In our book, we offer a number of ways out of the mismatch challenges facing our society. We could, of course, decide to do nothing. That means that we humans will need to ultimately adapt biologically to the new environment that we have created for ourselves. Or, alternatively, we go extinct. The latter is not so unreasonable; all other known human subspecies went extinct, from the Neanderthals to Homo erectus and Homo habilis. So it is not inconceivable that we will go down the same path. Also, when we think of some of the global challenges that we face, this might happen sooner than we think. When we consider the huge numbers of weapons of mass destruction that are around, from nuclear to biological weapons, and the leaders that possess these weapons, we should be worried about mismatch catching up on us.
4:20 The Reaction Against A Type I Civilization...4:52 Instinctively They Don't Like The March Toward A Type I Civilization...
Begin Listening At 5:07! "Only A Few Of Them Make It To Type I Because That Society In The 1st Time In Its History Has The Ability To Commit Planetary Suicide!"
The decline in war deaths since world wars is encouraging, but it might be like part of a cycle as we've seen before, with another peak coming soon. If so, we need to prepare a lot more for war. And we REALLY need to better understand this war decline.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/07/will-war-return.html
Science Salon #80
Bryan Walsh — End Times
"It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine."
—nukes
—pandemics
—climate change
—AI
—biotechnology
—asteroids & volcanos
—extraterrestrials
—should we all be doomsday preppers? https://www.skeptic.com/science-salon/bryan-walsh-end-times-brief-guide-to-end-of-world/Michael Shermer
Bryan Walsh — End Times
"It's the end of the world as we know it...and I feel fine."
—nukes
—pandemics
—climate change
—AI
—biotechnology
—asteroids & volcanos
—extraterrestrials
—should we all be doomsday preppers? https://www.skeptic.com/science-salon/bryan-walsh-end-times-brief-guide-to-end-of-world/Michael Shermer
I Hope This Mismatch Between Our Psychological Tendencies (Specifically Our Tendency Towards Ethnocentrism, Territoriality, And Warfare) And Our Technological Advances (Our Creation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction) That Mr. Van-Vugt Speaks Of Catches Up To Us Soon Because I'd LOVE To See The Human Species Go Extinct! Actually, The Ideal End-Of-The-World Scenario Would Be One In Which The Genetically And Evolutionary Informed People Of The World Would Be Allowed To Survive, Reproduce, And Create Societies Founded On Genetic And Evolutionary Based Theories.
Are you unwittingly investing your savings in building new nuclear weapons? This new @DontBankonBomb report shows which 20 private companies build and lobby for nuclear weapons systems, and which financial institutions invest in them: https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/2018-dont-bank-on-the-bomb/ …
WATCH THE VIDEO!
Everybody almost died in global thermonuclear war on Sept 26 1983. This lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces kept a false alarm from escalating into a Russian retaliatory attack that could have unleashed hell on Earth.
Kudos to @FLIxrisk for celebrating him.
Yuval Harari on why humans won’t dominate Earth in 300 years http://www.vox.com/2017/3/27/14780114/yuval-harari-ai-vr-consciousness-sapiens-homo-deus-podcast?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter … via @voxdotcom
Ezra Klein
Do you think that in 200 or 300 years, human beings will be the dominant actor on Earth?
Yuval Harari
Absolutely not. If you asked me in 50 years, it would be a difficult question, but 300 years, it's a very easy question. In 300 years, Homo sapiens will not be the dominate life form on Earth, if we exist at all.
Given the current pace of technological development, it is possible we destroy ourselves in some ecological or nuclear calamity. The more likely possibility is that we will use bioengineering and machine learning and artificial intelligence either to upgrade ourselves into a totally different kind of being or to create a totally different kind of being that will take over.
In any case, in 200 or 300 years, the beings that will dominate the Earth will be far more different from us than we are different from Neanderthals or from chimpanzees.
Bacteria run the world and once we destroy ourselves they will recolonise it, and re-evolve something hopefully better than ourselves. They go down >10 km and have now evolved forms that are not resistant to antibiotics--they eat them. Here is the latest
