How To Avoid A Civilization Collapse - Daniel Schmachtenberg

Post Reply New Topic

It's a 12 minute clip, I think from a year or two ago but it's pretty good and helps showcase his level of thought:

Excellent! I subscribed to Rebel Wisdom about a week ago and have seen every clip on there...at least twice! They are helping to keep me grounded when it seems the rug is always being pulled out from underneath me and I haven't learned to fly yet. This man is brilliant.

TY. I think the more people who know who they are and what kinds of things they discuss the better.

On this topic, I'm about to start listening to this. 3 1/2 hours but considering the sources I'm really looking forward to every minute.

The intro is really good, Eric is extending a theory as to why things are so strange with with the Covid reaction and it seems to mesh somewhat with my own observations - not just unpreparedness but fear of accountability and lawsuits, not just at the layer of public health pronouncements or reopenings that might go badly but retrospectively on all the points that got us to the first few months where there weren't enough ventilators to go around and the like.

I enjoyed this clip and agreed with most everything that he said in it.

I would disagree that the collective shift of thinking he proposes hasn't been done before. He says that the current thought paradigm of individualistic rivalry must change to a paradigm where people believe that they are a product/part of and dependent upon the natural world around them. Native peoples have believed this for eons.

Also the shift away from individualistic rivalry has been around for eons in the various forms of theology. In his model, he's replacing "God" with nature; secular humanism.

In either case I agree that individualistic rivalry is ultimately destructive.

Last edited by Magna on 28 Apr 2020, 8:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

Brilliant interviews on the topic.

See especially Jim Rutt (10:45 minute mark)

Watching the second video (Weinstein and Schmachtenberger) I had a few interesting ideas hit me:

First - I've already known, and I think increasing numbers of people would agree, that the human procreation game is the primary bomb in the sequence and everything else fans out from there in the way of rivalrous competition. It seems like the farther down the line of either a) talent or b) empathy one goes the more cutthroat the game is and the more sharp elbows prevail over sharp minds and where honest and bright people are often taken out into deep astroturf by the powerfully corrupt and drowned out there.

On one level I've heard a lot of the 'red pill' stuff (I normally like what those guys say about keeping dignity and autonomy in a culture that wants to take that from you far better than I like their take on women). Why I think red pill philosophy is just dangerous in how incomplete it is gets outlined by Dr. Diane Fleishchman in this Triggernometry interview beautifully - it really underscored what I already sensed was true, ie. that the environment has been so punishing on women that they had to be social chess grandmasters and that not living by their instincts can be nearly fatal (or at least for this five minutes of history it might not be but the moment anything like civil war or armed conflict breaks out all bets are off):

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


So it seems like the mututally destructive status-race needs technological wrenches jammed into the sources of its pressure.

I think of myself, for example, as someone who had a terrible start and fell into a social rut that was impervious to self-improvement, merit, etc.. I started wondering - if somoene like me, at some point in the future, could clone myself (in a way where my clone would have fully working gamete and all of the telomeres I had when I was born), wouldn't that in some way smash the value that social exclusion cartels could exert on people like me? Ie. I could just raise my clone to be super-successful, do the exact of giving them all the gaslight I had to wade through, and if I could do that - removing people from the gene pool forever simply because they don't have enough friends to protect them simply won't work anymore.

While I could see human cloning going wrong in all kinds of other ways I think these kinds of pry bars that split the source of the competition at its root are helpful. Fore example expanding the digital commons so people who aren't wealthy can live far better has been absolutely key in decreasing the amount of warfare that would have made us extinct already. The trouble is - we're still willing to just about cut throats and stomp on heads either to get the best mate we can or to take the mate we want from the guy or girl who can't defend what they have, all of which seems horribly wrong on a moral level but it's physics - sentience on that level just cares about power and power is some combination of genetics, epigenetics, and luck.

I think the Game B people will be most effective when they learn how to hobble competition itself by satisfying the fundamental conditions that push it upward to begin with and that's probably the only place where the game can be won. Otherwise one is just welding a pressure-cooker shut and waiting for the thing to blow up.