Daniel is appearing at the Rebel Wisdom closing event, the Last Campfire, in London on November 5th. To find out more and to attend, click here: www.tickettailor.com/events/rebelwisdom/718672
The problem with the climate change debate is that it’s been co-opted for profit and control and does nothing to define what the actual issues are. It’s not CO2. Increased CO2 is the Earth’s response to massive deforestation. We are technically also at the end of the Ice Age after the cataclysm at the end of the Younger Dryas 10-13,000 years ago that caused the “great flood” and wiped out much of humanity resulting in small groups that had to repopulate in geographical isolation giving rise to different “races”. Right now all the catastrophic risks are man made to reduce the population based on bad data and misunderstanding of the finite resources of the planet.
20:00 Daniel talks of the rhinos. I witnessed the effects of protecting elephants in Africa where only some countries participated resulting in massive overpopulation of elephants in areas where they were protected, like Botswana. This did nothing to help the elephants as food and water became scarce. Solving one problem caused another. When people are starving and they get paid well to poach, the sentient animals stand no chance of survival.
38:55 one of the problems with the nuclear standoff and International relations is that the British and US (NATO) have reneged on nearly every deal they’ve ever made. Making other nations particularly cynical of any goodwill proffered.
40:00 it’s not true that the financial system is exponential. It’s finite by design given it’s a fiat (fake money) vapourware system that behaves like an ouroboros.
I'm so impressed with Daniel's phenomenal ability to articulate the complexity of the metacrisis in a direct way that a guy like me can grasp his ideas and actually understand them..I'm blown away. This is phenomenal
The only thing he gets wrong, is believing that there are possible solutions. There isn't because the fundamental problem behind all the other existential problems is humanity itself. We, are the problem.
I have only watched Part 1 (so far), and it required a very significant investment of my time. Nevertheless, I am left with the feeling that the time was well spent and that every single person on the planet should watch this presentation and that it should be required in all educational curricula to watch and then discuss this presentation. Like Daniel, I have a lot of faith in the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of humanity to collectively find solutions that will overcome the challenges to so clearly explained, as well as others that will arise in the future. But first we need to be aware of and comprehend the nature of those challenges and this presentation goes a long way to addressing that need.
But we cannot agree an almost anything even on a country- or state-level. How could we collectively find any solution, which is adaptable on smaller scale, when we disagree on almost everything and are so heterogenous even in a single country, or city or village? How? We cannot force anybody to accept a proposed "solution", because they won't do it if it's forced onto them.
@@adambazso9207: the polarization is a false impression that has been disseminated by people seeking to rule by division and discord (and fear). When you get down to the basics, people's wants, needs and even values are pretty similar (what does it matter if a Picasso painting was art or the work of an ego run amok, when people need nourishment and shelter?). And that is the building block upon which a healthier society can be erected. Contrary to what sociologists preach, culture is something malleable that evolves over time - otherwise cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery and taking what you want when you want it would still be considered the social norm.
This resonates for me in profound ways. Since the 70s I have made life decisions based on protecting the planet, decisions that have left me living in poverty and, to some degree, resentful of those who prioritize the god of expedient profit. However, watching this meta-crisis unfold has left me with a satisfying sense of validation. Sad that it takes the threat of extinction to motivate people to do the right thing.
Daniel's articulation of what a lot us iI believe only intuit and sense is phenomenal! I think to see these thought's visualised and perhaps animated would be a remarkable next step in sharing his/our ideas. It could help bring more coherence to a broader range of people.
I feel like your use of language has given me unique tools to think. It helps to know behaviour is predicable, documented and named for a given circumstances when considering solutions. I had to listen to this a few times to make sense of it, this is not like listening to the average person or political view. This should be archived as pertinent information in context to the future of human civilisation.
The concept of "Entropy" is often included in emerging sensemaking narratives along with its complement, "Syntropy", and I have been giving thought to this duality and how it relates to the predicaments of the Anthropocene. Spreading awareness and understanding of Syntropic power may be the third attractor... --- The supreme good is like water, which nourishes all things without trying to. It is content with the low places that people disdain. Thus it is like the Tao. --- Many have been struggling to better envision how to transition away from our entropic civilization toward a spontaneous self- expanding syntropic community. If this goal also interests you, please take time to consider the perspectives and questions below. Any feedback is much appreciated. As you know, entropy (and negentropy/syntropy) reflect how matter and energy change with time. As captured in the 2nd law of Thermodynamics: overall, things will progressively decay and become more chaotic, disordered and incoherent as time passes, and with less capacity for "useful" transformation. On the other hand, the universe and our planet have been evolving toward increasing order, syntropy and meaningful information. These rhythmic patterned exchanges of matter and energy have been embodied in the three kingdoms of life (matter/energy > plant growth > animal growth > fungi > repeat) and have created expanding capacity for information processing, including consciousness, social behavior, learning and human culture. Information theory and recent theories of mind are based on these same patterns of entropy vs syntropy. The Anthropocene dawned when human groups began to harness ever greater capacity for entropic power in which energy is narrowly focused in order to fragment materials, tissues and even chemical bonds - often for the purpose of killing and dismembering. Entropic power involves a fast, precise, and intentionally "optimized" flow of destructive energy based on positive feedback (e.g. exponential and unstable), often with unforeseen, "externalized" and longer lasting harms (winners and losers). Examples include fire, the sharp edges of flint tools, arrowheads, spears, the plow, bullets, and then explosives, combustion engines, nuclear fission, and all manner of modern tech. In the information sphere, entropic energy flow/power involves hidden information and deception for the purpose of manipulating or defeating others. At the spiritual level, entropic power enslaves us to desire and fear, hubris and hate, and separates into "us and them" - "lock and load, it's kill or be killed, and might makes right." These typically masculine technologies and attitudes have facilitated an ever greater concentration coercive entropic power and control, forming patriarchal, hierarchical, warring civilizations. This progressive growth and concentration of entropic power has been the foundation of imperialism and industrial capitalism, and is culminating in our planet's 6th mass extinction of life. On the other hand, the syntropic power of living things involves synthesizing matter, energy and information into holistic growth patterns of reciprocity and exchange. These rhythmic patterns of energy flow involve self-regulation by negative feedback, and are spontaneous, decentralized, slow, initially inefficient, and generally non-coercive (free choice), but provide win-win benefits and unexpected long-term efficiencies. They are typically feminine. From atomic and chemical evolution within stars, to cellular life, geo-ecology and the brain, syntropic patterns are woven throughout out planet's evolving beauty as understood by indigenous worldviews, Eastern wisdom traditions (e.g. the Taoism) and modern complexity/systems science. These syntropic world views, including the synoptic gospels of Jesus (especially red-letter translations or Jeffersonian Bible), offer low-cost and practical psychosocial strategies to help us (especially men) to turn away from the seductively addictive path of seeking and gathering destructive power and control. Buckminster Fuller, who conceived the term "Syntropy" as a response to the static principles of design and architecture of his day, would surely embrace the growing appreciation of its ecological and moral aspects as well. I wonder whether you folks would agree that the syntropic flow of information, energy and matter through our physical and metaphysical worlds should be viewed as a unifying thread - its unnamable way? Perhaps recognizing the elusive patterns and principles of its pervasive presence can help us transcend the baffling paradoxes and calamitous predicaments of the Anthropocene, and help us advance toward a culture based on spiritual and planetary regeneration? What are your thoughts about Elinor Ostrom's empirical identification of strategies that Syntropic communities have adopted to effectively resist the tragedy of the commons? Could Ostrom's design principles for Common Pool Resource help us to transcend the multipolar trap predicament? [BTW, in response to criticism based on economic/game theory, she replied, "A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory."] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom --- In dwelling, live close to the ground. In thinking, keep to the simple. In conflict, be fair and generous. In governing, don’t try to control. In work, do what you enjoy. In family life, be completely present. When you are content to be simply yourself and don’t compare or compete, everybody will respect you. --- Thank you for your dedication to sensemaking & meaningful truth. I look forward to any comments on this.
Hello Daniel. I'm so fascinated and enchanted on how intellectual quantum defined you are. The minds of understanding so well on how to tap into such clairvoyance and manifestations of the for system attachment to what is mentally imperative e to today's incline in intelligence that makes so much more important sence to science and the meaning of life. More important Quality of Life's. I feel like time has no Factor with you , I can watch the same interview and it's a different day and time but the conversations are kinetically appropriate to the now. I'm impressed and curious. Are you picking up frequencies or chemistry? Thank you for sharing such gifted intellective evidence to the health of social super conscience I'm so attracted to why and how like my own being. But yea thank you. You Rock! 🔥
Thank you for this illuminating and brave work, Daniel. I hope it unites brilliant minds and helps the rest of us who care, to articulate the messages to others.
Yes, his coherent language is wonderful. I can listen for hours. He knows his subject and his ideals for a less exponentially driven purpose of acquiring "stuff" as in the corporate markets run amok. (not to mention exponential biotech run amok).
Much of climate change is artificially manipulated weather events by certain parties; that is not to say our consumption patterns must change to halt overconsumption, waste and pollution; from what we consume as fuel for heating/cooling and electricity (when we have the ability to extract free energy via zero-point/vaccum field), our diets and means of food production (organic vegetarian is optimal for existential issues), clothing (sustainably and ethically sourced as opposed to fast-fashion), paper supply and materials (hemp is a great all-rounder). Although our monetary system is fraudulent and continually diluted with debt creation, conscious awareness on spending is for most the most powerful motion we can do. Maintaining awareness of all decisions made (not easy but highly encouraged) and mitigating impulsivities as best to ability provide a means for what we can to help at the smallest scale.
What if.. what if we are touching upon the power of the gods because the gods speak through us.. and our perception of the situation as a “lack of wisdom” is a misunderstanding of their dance.. err our dance. I mean you make it clear, Daniel, that we are fucked. McGilchrist just recently wrote another 1600 pages proving we are fucked. I think now its more about acceptance, about coming to terms and finding our moral roles in the closing. We need a strong story for that, as Jung told us with his metaphor of descending into a dark well. We need, as a collective, to see people walk to that story without a shred of doubt. In that walk will be a knowing of death that will provide paradoxical answers to our cry’s of agony.
Spread this words by talking to people in your circle about wat you think and feel about this,discussing comes later when I have more info and can think for myself about a topic😊
You should be more focused on living your life and adding beauty to the world, than trying to fight the forces of Durga. Decline and Destruction is part of the driving force of Life. And trying to prevent this cycle to unfold eternally is like trying to stop the ocean's tide. Just add beauty to the world... in you own words!
An admirably clear and compelling account of the challenges we face, with indications of the directions in which we might seek solutions being somewhat still stuck in the thinking patterns that so far have been producing the problems rather than solving them. The patterns are, perhaps unavoidably, somewhat top-down and thus preoccupied with the conflict between decentraliztions, small-scale self-governance, and the need for controlling the global-scale potentially catastrophic effects of the technologies we created; ‘ineffective, even ‘impossible’ citizen participation versus authoritarian effectiveness and control; etc. Does this the top-down perspective prevent him (asn many others from perceiving some possibkle remedies? I see that I have tried to struggle with much the same agenda of challenges form the narrower perspecive of creating a pltform for the support of the planning and policy-making (in effect, though I avoided the term:) governance discourse in which decisions would be based n the merit of discourse contributions rather or complementing voting. The needed provisions for evaluation surprisingly offered potential answers to some of the challenges he lists (supported by information technology). For example: the need for participation incentives becoming a means for eliminating duplication of essential content, further driven by the necessary formalization of ‘pro and con’ arguments for the purpose of some more systematic evaluation. These incentive records becoming the vehicle for particiapnts building up participation ‘merit accounts’ which then become part of the decision-making power for officials (still needed needed for making decisions that can’t wait for long discourse) - but by the same token become power controls with the provision of a rule that power dedisiosn must be ‘paid’ for with those credits - ( not money). These ideas are not meant to be panacea ‘solutions’ but proof that better measn to deal with the issues are possible - which seems to be missing from many lamentations about the crises. Another example that shows that the problems of power abuse resulting from the thinking habit that ensuring adherence / obeisance of agreements / laws must be ‘enforced; (by an en’force’ment agency that must necessarily be stronger and more violently forceful than any would-be violator, and thus generating continuing escalation of thret or use of violent force - on the global level ‘war’. There are technological devices that can prevent violations of laws that are NOT centralized but buiklt inot the indicidual users’s tecnologies. Such provisions of de’vices or rle provisions automatically’ triggered by the very attempt of violation should be the target of research, devlopment and sicussion for acceptance. There are many thousands or millions of proposals, efforts , experiments going on today all over the globe that involve solutions on other fields,- self-governance, agriculture, forestry, ocean pollution and overfisjhing issues to nam but a few - that are not communicating well yet yest to become global agreements based on thorough. communal. cooperative discourse and evaluation: shold that platform not be a high priority agenda item?
I once believed that psychology was the force, but I now see it's the social incentive structure and the solution is actually a restructuring of society to remove our social delusions and create systems that align better with a true reality.
The solutions to our problems are very simple. It’s simply a matter as to whether we have the wisdom and will to overcome those problems. The easiest way to try to overcome the challenges we face is to develope a simple theory and prescription which is based on logic and wisdom where the goal is to make everyone as happy, healthy wealthy and wise for as long as possible. (I know that sounds overly simplistic, but that’s what we need to do). It mostly entails using what we already have along with some paradigm shifts in the way we align our values and actions to what is best for everyone. And in order to do that you need a simple theory and prescription which lays out ideals which need to be continuously strived for which are aimed at achieving those goals. AI has to have that simple theory and prescription as both is governor and sole ultimate objective if it is to be used as a force for good for the human race as a species. This actually sets up a win, win, win situation which is good for us in the here and now and good for us into the intermediate and long term future.
24:34 It's not that we are not potentially "good at long range and more inclusive considerations", but we need to be taught. We need to learn it first. That is what makes us human, that we still have to learn everything when we are born, that we copy what other people do, and that we adapt to what society expects from us as best we can. I hear this misinterpretation of 'how humans are' over and over, also in this video, when it's the most essential thing to understand: Humans need to be taught, and that is in general what decides how they become as adults. There is obviously far more to this than can be explained in a simple comment, but knowing that what we see of humans today, and what most people believe is 'simply' how we are (like greedy, selfish, irrational, rivalrous), when it is mostly the result of how we raise and educate children, is paramount. Even if it is difficult to see when you don't (yet) know how this really works. This should open anyone's mind about humanity's possibilities to change direction.
2:28:00 re transparency as a new hilltop, I'd reframe to suggest that the instigating driver would be the development of a universal "safe cracker" that could see everywhere, all at once, a super real time wikileaks open to machine assisted analysis... Then the race you describe, is who can dismantle their now obsolete ingrained forms, processes and mindsets that assumed opacity, faster. And at double meta here: is there a diagrammatical representation of this discourse anywhere? (pictorial or even cartoonish expression of the thread of ideas) or even better, a dynamic tree where discussions and arguments about different aspects of the ideas could be spatially organised, to facilitate both their optimisation and evolution? Many thanks.
Any book recommendations on your specific field of systems studies that'll assist in adapting to these seismic systems shifts we are beginning to enter into?
Here is the video Daniel mentioned on the story of the lead additive in gasoline that cost us billions of IQ points: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IV3dnLzthDA.html
I'm only 50 minutes in (I'm familiar with his works though) and the thing which always struck me but which I never really understood Daniel's actual perspective on is "we". He keeps mentioning "we" and I'm assuming that "we" means "the human species" or similar catagorisation. I only see one issue to which I haven't heard a real answer to: "we" is not a real collective. In reality, "we" is highly fragmented and not able to do coordinated action. Daniel has analysed correctly that we are exhausting our resources on a global scale in order to keep things in check. But I feel there is a major hurdle: how are you going to align and incentivise the global world, get all at the same place and level, and have a global system of collective values? We have never ever coordinated or organised something at a truly global level. MAD is not a global thing, it is coordinated between a few superpowers (the ones having nukes) and the majority of the countries on this planet have nothing to do/to contribute to it, they only benefit from the system (as destruction would affect them as well). Global supply chains are still losely coupled entities which work on the basis of local control. Entity D in the chain just does the things D is hired for and has no knowledge of B or F, only C and E. D gets hired because entity A wanted something which set the full chain in motion. But D often is part of multiple chains. It does not fully depend on A to set the chain in motion. A1 can also exist and set a different chain in motion of which D is part of. Supply chains are best seen as graphs over which no entity in the graph has either the full knowledge nor full control over the graph. They merely might know/control the "direct neighbourhood| in the graph. So maybe to start with the question: how is it that "we" arises and pops into existence? The Pax-Americana might be in a failed state, but my guess is that it is the Pax-Americana which 1) is easiest to repair, 2) is easiest to align, 3) is capable of coming up with the solutions and means to implement them as the institutions and shared set of values needed for alignment are there.
The concept of ‘we’ is most neatly captured by a free enterprise system which generates its own incentives and does not depend on some external and necessarily totalitarian model. I also object to the way he sets the agenda of the ‘crises’ we face; for me, today, the biggest problems we face are due to hubristic attempts to fix issues such as climate change (even if you assume that is a problem at all.)
@@richardwoollaston3650 But it seems that is where the "problem" lies: you cannot come up with an enterprise system generating its own incentives to solve these crisises because humankind as a whole is not a singular entity to which a set of common incentives persuade. Take something like the EU as an example: that's somewhere between 20-30 countries sharing a common geography and history and supposed to share a same set of liberal values. The interests of all these countries are different, therefor you cannot persuade them with the same incentives as the impact of a certain problem is never distributed equally among the member states. Tackling global issues involves altruism as not all countries contribute equally to both the problem and the solution, and not all countries are impacted the same. Why would for example Russia be concerned with climate change? Sure Siberian tundra melts and burns but the autocratic government in the Kremlin does not give a damn about anything not happening in Moscow or Petersburg because they are elitist and kleptocratic by design.
@@santibanks maybe you shouldve finished the video before typing all that because he addresses potential solutions near the end. and i dont think anything you said is counter to what Daniel has said.
@@jonnygemmel2243 Daniel says that the battle between Centralization and Decentralization is misguided, and that neither is the solution, because Centralization will lead to totalitarianism and Decentralization will lead to uncoordinated action and miscommunication. I'm not sure I understand his solution to this problem. Do you?
@@NuanceOverDogma ... he says with no specific examples, with no superior or corrective articulations... Of course he has a bias against the past... The flagrant willful deliberate irresponsible conduct of negligent individuals in the past has caused our current existential crises.. Do you purport to rationalize or speak as apologist for the past ? Your "disappointment" stems from your presumed self-superiority and commensurate expectations - without actually evidencing or modelling such superiority. How about you make your case in a brilliant and comprehensive expression?
Many of us around the world are thinking about the entangled big risks and challenges you describe Daniel. You have perhaps a unique and deeply valuable ability to describe the entanglements in ways that are accessible to anyone who is interested enough to engage. It's like listening to reincarnations of Bohm, Bateson...coming through one voice. Thank you for how you show up in the world 🎁🙏
Once again, Daniel's ability to articulate the paralysing complexity facing humanity has given me some small hope that we might just be able to save this world. I can do nothing more than stand in total respect and admiration of his dedication, passion and hard work in achieving such intelligent clarity of the world. I also appreciated hearing his expression of compassion (11:04) at how disheartening it is to really engage with this topic. In order to reach the clarity of understanding which Daniel conveys about the world makes him one of the bravest modern day warriors of our time. I know that I need to find any way possible to contribute to a better world. We must all act.
I agree with what you say. I do not agree with the double space after the period. I think what Daniel is talking about here requires me to over come the urge to tell you this, that you do not actually need the double space after the period. However it irks me to the core. If you have good reason to use it, please tell me. Thank you.
@@matthewheadland7307 people of a certain age (and apparently I’m of that age) who learned old school typing in school from a teacher who learned on a mechanical typewriter were taught the double space after the period.
This is the most unheard and underrated intellects of our time. I like Jordan Peterson's perspectives on cultural issues. However, as far as real world issues that need to be discussed and framed in the proper way to have conversations which lead to real solutions... Schmactenberger is the real man of our time we need to hear and consider. If I could have a cup of tea with anyone in the world alive today- Daniel is my pick.
It's all connected. The individual requires a spiritual transformation before they will even sit and listen to a Daniel. Jordon Peterson is like step 1, Daniel is like step 10
I like some of the prespectives of Jordan Peterson, I think he means well - or at least ment well, prior to his breakdown. But since he recovered from that, he seems to become more and more angry and resentful. I have the impression, that Jordan Peterson tries to relativize the real complex problems, cherrypicks data which fits his worldview and labels other opinions as liberal-leftist propaganda. He seems to do more harm than good now. And his "followers" idolize him too much. Daniel Schmachtenberger is on a whole other level, if we compare the two. The contribution of J.P. can help to overcome despair and nihilistic tendencies, that's true. But a lot of what he says currrently is a part of identity-politics, has a narrow focus and is counterproductive.
Peterson is obviously intelligent and well educated, but his ego gets away from him and he engages heavily in 'culture wars'. He is often intentionally divisive and abrasive. He is nowhere near as intellectually 'mature' (for lack of a better word) as Schmachtenberger. Not even in the same league. Schmachtenberger is genuinely interested in-and perhaps even capable of-bringing disparate groups into alignment for everybody's benefit.
re: the hyper focus on parts vs the whole and the resulting consequences related to a lack of wider context it makes me think of McGilchrist’s hemispheric specialization approach. I’d love to see DS and McGilchrist discuss the relevant congruencies and practical solution approaches to this aspect of the meta-crisis. Vervaeke and DS would be AMAZING as well but I must admit, I’d need to drop down to .75 speed
Just reading your comment (I haven't seen the whole video yet), parts and whole and their danger is a big part of Nora Bateson's work, delivered in a softer, more poetic way than usual. Highly recommend
Holy sh*t. Around 2:30:00 he’s talking about things like AI driven object recognition on high fidelity satellite imagery fed into a wikimedia-like open database. What if everyone knew what was where at any given time, enabling those who have capacity to respond to do so locally or globally. Forced transparency ftw?
I love listening to Daniel and respect his work, I love the way he articulates the poly-crisis but what I need, now that I understand the problem, is a step by step guide on how to fix it. Is there such a thing? Has Daniel created a simple to understand step by step guide we can follow to fix this clusterfizzle? The takeaway is that we are in real trouble. Okay. So how do we fix it?
I think the insight that the engines of destruction are also the potential engines of salvation, to put it less eloquently than Daniel, is vital. It leads to the position where hope is possible, that we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater and go back to some pre-digital utopia, but can move gingerly forward mindful of the facilitative possibilities that these technologies enable. I also wonder if, given the generous attitude that the masters of the tech didn't deliberately create these polarising attention-grabbing engines out of evil intent, but out of the logic of what they initially imagined they were doing (selling stuff), could possibly mean that they might be persuaded that that was a perhaps necessary condition of its emergence, and that there's further to go, with wisdom guiding a more facilitative and transparent future for these systems.
I wouldnt be too sure that tech masters had no evil intent other than advertising stuff. Google is DARPA. Its very much about total population monitoring and control , way beyond advertising stuff. Big tech more or less runs the world now. And promotes pharma.
No he's not. He just another comfortable intellectual who gets his info from other wealthy intellectuals. He ignores corruption in Govs, institutions& plaguing the out of touch intellectual class
@@NuanceOverDogma I think he's more aware of the "intellectual Nomenklature" of the academic world ( and the lack of demand for more rigorous analyses in the mainstream medias) than you think, although I would agree that he doesn't t express it as much as I would like. I can only guess that it s strategic on his part.
2:20:13 - "We don't have a comparably effective way of studying the subjective and inter-subjective world; of being able to say 'good'" Yes, we do - it's called religion.
Fantastic talk. Schmachtenberger is like an alien superintelligence from the future that is observing humanity from the outside while sharing his insight with the rest of us in real-time.
No. He is just a human trying to work things out, warts and all. Placing him on a pedestal is not useful and not deserved; and in fact, part of the historical problem we have when it comes to the process of problem solving and sense-making..
@@neonhummingbird3906 My "alien superintelligence" comment was hyperbolic praise and a metaphor for expressing awe and appreciation. I agree with everything you are saying. Thanks for reminding me about that pedestal though, that tendency of mine is unfortunate. Vertical hierarchies seem to be automatic while going lateral takes effort.
I see him as a child who grew up homeschooled by two Activists who put really big ideas in a kids head far too early. The only reason why he hasn't melted into a puddle of confusion and despair is his terrifying intellect. Instead he has built, ground up, a view of the world that integrates all crisis. He has gone beyond his activist parents and is now able to actually clearly express the meta-crisis.
I don't know of anyone like Daniel S. who can see the big picture concerns and articulate what needs to be said. I would add that non-violence needs to be more central to our solutions and that ultimately, Jesus of Nazareth needs to be the foundation.
There is no transparency, but overreaching complex issues all screaming that something fundamentally basic is missing... there are technologies that could help everyone flourish, allow the planet's life systems to thrive insurmountably, solve our most complex problems and build wild dreams. But our own greed and controlling tendency hinder the very truth that could unite us all. We are a race of adolescent intentions, constantly avoiding basic aspects of our own lives by synthetic cultural design. The various other life forms we live beside are deemed inferior and cast away as below us but offer the biggest clues. Learning to love and be compassionate like every other complex living system studied by man would be a good start.... that means living by principles other than "first" ,"money" and "easy". While other aspects of humanity are so disproportionately advanced, we continue to pursue abstractions, technologies and far reaching breakthroughs as to continually allow our heads to swell disproportionately larger than the rest of our body can deal with, collapsing under the weight is the eventuality most should fear. Love your channel RebelWisdom ❤ good luck to everyone in the coming years! It should be very interesting to say the least
As usual, Daniel is wonderfully thoughtful & insightful while also presenting in an accessible way to many individuals. There is a bit of a barrier to learning enough of the unfamiliar terms he uses to grasp the content. It might be very nice for someone to create a set of audio/video clips extracted from his content in in which Daniel defines the various terms he uses that not everyone, or even many people, would not properly understand in the way he uses them. Ideally finding the best, most accessible & succinct explanation he has offered. Or new content could be created for this purpose specifically. This would also help to reduce the overall duration of Daniel's talks which can appear daunting since he will not need to spend so much time explaining and providing examples (each instance of which is an opportunity to get lost for a bit on a tangent).
My capacity of understanding Daniel goes up exponentially with the time he is given to, thanks a lot for taking the risk of making it long! Can't wait for part 2.
Mr. Schmachtenberger, the contribution is reassuring to me of individuals genuinely critically thinking on levels such as this. Especially since individuals who genuinely can and do think about these things have recently become more open and transparent with the public about our actual current dilemmas. And there is actually a collective audience (our current global civilization) comprised of more individuals than "normal" who have a conscious mindset that can pay attention and clearly understand what it is you are communicating. Slow and steady, my friend. I hug your soul every time I hear your voice crack. I think being more open and transparent about these things, coupled with at least a radically wiser narcissistically abusive institutional methodology, can be a right direction. I acquiesced a few years ago to the notion that our Western ("capitalist") system uses an emotional individual behavioral driver for growth that IS the morally licensed utilization of the narcissistic abuse cycle to determine truthiness, and to determine what is to be expected for us to fight for the continued existence of it. In the East, I notice the same pattern of behavior is utilized nearly identically, except the worshipped and idealized entity that is virtue-signaled toward in The East is the individual collective, whereas the individual person who is a part of an individual collective is the idealized object to virtue signal toward in The West. Both versions of narcissism proper, as THE exclusive means to calibrate our collective and individual perceptual apparatuses, are fundamentally nihilistic when scaled to reality. I'm not sure a synthesis between those two options can be what resolves our nihilistic circumstance. Much of what we currently believe requires our fighting defenses of it actually only requires our defense of our particular concept of it. Or requires our defense of the entity which is manifesting it (that may happen to also be performing some critical function for some other, narrowly defined almost-catastrophe to continue to be avoided, making it a kind of Chesterton's Fence). Idealize, devalue, discard is the bare bones of the narcissistic abuse cycle, and this is precisely the method that even our beloved scientists utilize in order to vet the worthiest scientists, as well as determine the truthiness of emergent scientific hypotheses as they emerge within the minds of individuals who tended to have "won" at the game-a narcissistic competition to BE that grandiose scientist, who also therefore unconsciously uses the narcissistic abuse cycle as THE means to vet the most defendable perception of any current actual thing while observing in any possible direction, even as an "expert scientist". The multipolar traps we currently find ourselves in can be seen to be a whole-collective karmic debit card, and we are about to exceed our karmic credit limit. Higher order harmony is the emergent manifestation of a wise and intentional action or set of actions that will genuinely resolve some fairly ancient cognitive dissonances (paying that karmic debt back) that we've actually only been sublimating toward the profitable, and NOT actually resolving. Since leaving them fundamentally unresolved does increase the probability of winning at a deceptive, game-a reality paradigm (until the multipolar traps pile up too highly on our collective's karmic debit card, anyway), we remain unconsciously emotionally incentivized to NOT do what can resolve them. When Karma acts out after we exceed our karmic credit limit, we call karma a bitch. And it's being as nice as it possibly can, practically always. The level of openness and transparency you demonstrate in this video is a necessary part of what can help move us THROUGH our current circumstance (as opposed to getting us away from the existentially threatening dilemmas that have not yet cut loose on us (and we have become more polarized, so the energy is on unconscious tap. (Single-digit number of years? *gulp*)) Going through our circumstance, rather than seeking pure escape from it, would suggest we are on the path toward what can be successful mitigations of our iatrogenic, existentially threatening dilemmas. These dilemmas appear to me to be built by fundamentally narcissistic institutions utilizing deception, complacency, and justified willful conscious ignorance while coercing complacency with those institutions. (I say justified due to the blatantly openly deceptive nature of the expressions and actions of the agents who are self-identified "leaders" within practically all institutions exercising power within our current reality paradigm in The West, at least.) Daniel, I love you, man. I'm grateful for what I presume has been your significant cognitive work and significant positive contributions to ensuring the continued survival of our civilization. I intuited that your contributions has been occurring for longer than you've been openly publicly speaking about it. While the necessity for you to BE more open about these kinds of dilemmas isn't necessarily overall reassuring, the fact that you are means, to me, that we are going to be genuinely doing something about a fuck-ton of problems that we've convinced ourselves for a loooong time that there's just nothing that can be done about them. Viva la Evolution, my friend. My written catharses may tend to be relatively unpalatable, I apologize for that. However, I humbly offer my ability to express some factoidal insights that I hope can at least help increase our collective perceptual acuity. We are in this together. What a ride.
This gives me the image of game we could all play on our smartphones which unites us into groups of 150 or so people, all with different specialities in the tribe and all incentivised to learn and know us much about our speciality so that when a problem faces the tribe which involves that speciality the individual can have a greater weighted contribution to the decision taken by the tribe. This set on a backdrop of information provided by global experts on what the likely consequences of certain decisions would tend to be. I'm sure I've explained this poorly but let me know if this makes any sense at all...
Exceptional to listen to someone who understands the legitimate arguments for surveillance (and related subjects, like the technical means of communication, Artificial Intelligence and so on) as well as against it.
Daniel obviously believes that he can think & talk himself out of the crisis or convince others that he/we can. The third ‘attractor’ already exist as ‘holy ghost’ in the power relationship between ‘God The father’ and his ‘Son’, a power dynamic repeated all over the world. The global crisis is not ‘new’ and for sure does not need more of the same - rational thinking & analysis - I recommend to Daniel to practice BE Here Now without thinking (listening to Eckhart Tolle).
Approval-voting is a great step in the right direction. It corrects the perverse incentives within the core decision-making apparatus of our democracy. You don't get much better than that for improving long-term conditions.
@@christiansgrignoli3351 Check out a book called "Gaming the Vote" or the Center for Election Science. Engineers have developed a blueprint for how to make democracy work right.
It would be good if we spent at least as much time focusing on the ontological basis for the values systems and choice making criteria that could generate solutions, as we do on defining the failure modes of our previous values systems. Im suggesting we make the case for universal care and compassion explicitly, not merely making the case; “hey lets try not to die or have dystopia”. Okay fine, but why exactly should we not self terminate? Survival is an uninspiring thing to get out of bed for.
The reason we have a "collective action failure", I think is because we have collectively been burnt so many times by abuses of central power and authority that does not have the interest of the whole in mind, but rather, their own power over the system, to the detriment of all else.
The people who try and talk comprehensively about framing issues and problems like this chap does without deeply analysing the economic standpoint beyond "it was an exponentially based economy on a linear resourced planet" are doing a disservice. The location of politics is in the economic framework. The economic, intelligence and military elements of our society are very happy to have people like this guy wax lyrical about many subject but fail to get to the depths of the economic feudalism/ monopolism/capitalism and why the people buffering this system are the glaring elephants in the room.
He does get into some of the economic problems, they may be hard to grasp sometimes bc it involves a closed loop economy which has never existed. I don’t think our current flawed views on economics (which have a poor grasp on human nature/psych) can help us in this century any longer. I’m a personal believer in free markets, but new technological corruption makes that almost impossible in terms of values and censorship.
You can no longer talk about Capitalism. It doesn’t exist. There is only Regulated Capitalism which interrupts the natural market forces of supply and demand that are the keystones of how Capitalism works, which is why it no longer works.
Also, while the Global Monetary System controlled by Global Elite Private Family Companies compels coerced counties to use the US fiat industrial chemical war complex vapourware petro dollar, those economies will fail and are failing because a currency based on nothing will always fail. Especially now there is a competing Gold Standard in the Ruble.
R Buckminster Fuller... “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Nobel words. Unfortunately there is not a shred of nobility left in government. Nothing gets done in Washington unless someone is making money off it. The current representative ruling class is worlds away from the founding fathers who's thoughts as described here seem fairly altruistic.
Very dense, but I'm sticking with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what this chap is trying to work towards is 'a unified theory of dealing with everything', right?
No I don't think so. When talking about our problems, he often uses the term "vectoring" - which is a directional process - rather than "solving" - which is an abstract, implicitly omniscient mental state. Reality is too complex to have a theory of everything, but more importantly, the universe unfolding out of itself would render a theory that's relevant today irrelevant tomorrow. Life doesn't stand still. Your theory can't either. Static solutions and theories are detached from the flow of life - and in being disconnected - eventually die.
A great romp around the big issues. It strikes me that small interventions can have a big impact. Like remove all fossil fuels subsidies , and give incentives to green technologies. Leverage insurers and pension funds risk management. Make ecocide a criminal offence. Use ai to model degrowth economies....
First time hearing about Daniel was on Lex Friedman podcast. What a fascinating, incredible mind, and his articulation is phenomenal. I’m dumb but he explanations I seem to understand him more than I thought exception of some terminology he uses so I write them down so I can read and learn what they mean later after the episode ends.
Just by you being here and handwriting written record of topics that Daniel mentioned, so that you choose to analyze and contemplate them further, has me mentioning that you are clearly not dumb.
One clear failing that is at issue here is the constant appeal to a 'we' that ought to attempt to understand and fix these existential problems. Who *exactly* is the "we"? If the "we" is the general public, well it has little capacity to effect change in these systems, particularly as democratic accountability on corporate power or transnational institutions is basically non-existent, and elected representatives of Western countries are subordinated to the interests of these actors. Take environmental problems for example; there is a clear solution path being proposed by elite institutions; ESG scores. Whether you like them or not, that is an actual solution being put forward by people who do have agency that needs to be assessed. You can level up your sensemaking on catastrophic risk all you like but unless there is a strategy for how to influence, capture or destroy these institutions, and/or build new competing ones it's a rather academic endeavour.
Thank you for addressing the "we". It seems to me that we are at the point where global totalitarianism is on the plan in the name of sustainability. I looked at the proposals of the corporations, who set up this mess in the first place and I see more destruction. There is too much green washing and hypocrisy. Corporations are running politics and as usual everybody is lining their pockets why they are jockeying for ultimate control. I am old fashioned; I grow my own organic veggies and love animals but I do not think that we should overnight turn off all nuclear reactors and run on solar and wind. They are trying to impose this in Germany right now and it will destroy the country if they get their way. The people have no say in this. Most of the proposals are based on computer models, which are created by university departments who get their grants to produce certain outcomes. The data does not represent reality. Nature does not run by zeros and ones. Neither do people. Schmachtenberger is right on many points but lately I feel more and more like he is part of some agenda. There are real problems with pollution, but I also think this could have been long taken care of if that was really what the power "elites"were after. I feel like I am not part of the "we" he uses it and find myself resentful being lumped in. Anyhow, I am rambling.
@@gimlisrage5 He's made these diagnoses many times before, and I agree with many of them. The "a problem fully articulated is a problem half solved" line will likely get used again , but if he changes tack and actually plots out a means of institutional capture/reform I'll be pleasantly surprised.
@@paddykiernanmusic The length of time devoted to articulating (ad nauseam and repetitively) the largely self evident issues with a variety of existential problems, and the failings of both governance and human nature, to effectively counter act them (at least for me) doesn't really half solve anything. I don't share the hagiographic views of D.S. which most on here espouse, but out of loyalty to an unfortunately named channel which was attempting to walk a very difficult line, and is now closing down - I'm waiting with bated breath for part 2
I'm wondering what percentage of really top politicians and top CEOs know of Schmachtenberger's insights? What percentage understands what this guy is sharing with the world? Judging by the actions of the overwhelming majority of politicians and corporate managers, virtually nobody is listening, let alone acting upon these deep insights.
great to have all these concepts presented in one video. doubtful that many of my facebook friends will actually take the time to sit down for almost 3 hours and engage with all of these topics, but perhaps at some point they´ll be ready to move away from short bite size videos and engage seriously with more in-depth content like this. The time stamps are a good way to engage them with specific topics they might be interested in and then hopefully ´lure´ them into the rest of the content. Either way, thank you to David Fuller and yourself for the effort put into this. You have my gratitude.
Wow! I was able to put this analysis to good use today in response to whining solar developers complaining about the cost, time & money to build solar projects on brownfields vs just clearcutting forestland. This made it even more clear to me why it's a flawed method, (including the goals driving it), that offsets (eternalizes) longterm responsibility and the lasting negative impact. Thank you!! I hope this goes viral and helps others to see the big picture as clearly. It would be great to see him in convo with Jordan Peterson.
I truly appreciate how much Daniel has thought all of this out. It's as if he can see all ends, and he makes it easier for us to do so as well. But... it would seem his solutions involve more mass surveillance, and more centralized power. While he also acknowledges the timeless pitfalls of these things, he still views and presents them as the only solutions to our decentralized problems without offering anything but pie in the sky solutions to the most timeless issues regarding the human condition in relation to absolute power. I get the impression that he would rather risk a repeat of the atrocities of the past (that we know have happened/can happen again), against what is merely a hypothetical future (albeit a very plausible one) pertaining to decentralized exponential tech. While his logic and concerns are sound and legitimate in the way he presents them. It also comes across as "fear porn" lobbying for a massive and singular "nanny/big brother state," even though he still acknowledges all of the potential issues that come along with them. The only question is... which is the lesser of two evils? And is there a third option?
The root cause of our problems in today's society is that we are all in a dog eat dog rat race to the bottom. When we have to constantly compete to get ahead we can't afford to anything but that which will give us a short term advantage, no matter if it results in damaging or destroying the rest of the world. The method to escape the bipolar trap is surprisingly simple and extremely effective. It is like exercising our heart. It is like watering our social garden. All we have to do is teach people to foster altruism, foster caring for others by advocating generosity, organising free collaboration networks that meet everyone's needs. Only when people know they will have all their needs met no matter what, can they afford to think long term, care for others, care for the environment and think for themselves. Once we foster enough generosity, we will provide for all and this will put an end to the dog eat dog rat race to the bottom. We must be generous enough to end the need to earn a living.
On the point of surveillance: We can construct a system of surveillance that monitors the extraction and distribution of the necessary materials and technologies to construct anything that would constitute a potential catastrophic risk. I'm not sure it would work for ai based stuff because technically all you need is a powerful computer. (We could also, for that case, regulate the maximum computing power an individual can have access to) But i can't think of any reason why it would not work for all kinds of biochemical / nuclear weapons. This would be a way to get around mass basement surveillance. Any counterarguments?
It would be extremely interesting and very valuable for the community if someone hosted a conversation between Dave Snowden, Daniel Smachtenberger, and Daniel Görtz. Maybe a comeback conversation for Rebel Wisdom? These three bring together unique perspectives on complexity, systems thinking, the metacrisis and cultural evolution that could lead to a really deep, challenging and fruitful discussion. Snowden’s focus on “scaffolding” and his skepticism of holistic thinking would be a fascinating counterpoint to Görtz’s metamodern vision of integrating new cultural narratives. I believe Smachtenberger could help bridge the two, given his work on meta-crisis solutions and civilization design and overall temperament in talks. It’s a conversation that could really push the boundaries of where we’re at, and leave us with some precious jewels by the end of it.
Yes! The Swedish example in centralizing power section ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8XCXvzQdcug.html I’ve seen an esoteric observation of this type of thing. The idea was that Mind moves up dimensions as it evolves. This is more or less symmetrical between dark and light applications until you get to a certain density where the dark cannot remain stable. I don’t remember if that was 6d or 7d, etc. I thought about why this might be and concluded that individual minds merge into a collective Mind that requires trust/truth and transparency to function.
David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurthi spoke for years about ideas that would fundamentally change the way things are. But that is just it. I think deep down we all know that nothing can or will be done, actually. The probability of an/the event grows greater each day, what are we actually doing to change it. Nothing changes. No one actually wants to change, but everyone wants to be a part of change, a movement. This is exactly what Jiddu spoke of so heavily. It’s gone to far, that’s my optimistic view. Live everyday like it’s your last, because it is all you’ll ever have, nothing more. That’s reality, all that has been and will be. How much control does an individual have, aside from running the shared framework? The work needed on an individual level decreases generationally. Hope is a wonderful thing, in its right place. But hope is trapped in a game that is being played at a level that most people don’t try to comprehend in a meaningful way. Daniel is light trying to guide increasing blind individuals, but to where? Is that place not another idea? Think about this, one of our best options, most practical options is to leave our home, our planet. Will we then and only then see how we treated the blessing of nature? The beauty of the sky and all the joys of this world? Maybe then, but certainly not now. Not collectively. if the game stopped, we wouldn’t know what else to do. The percent of people who actually care is so marginal, it’s pathetic.. I’m sorry for these words. But there’s is truth within them, shrug it off or debate it if you will, but once you see it, you can’t unsee it. Another great conversation, another shocking insight into what is really happening.
I agree with almost everything, but I think interstellar travel is very far from now and not really a viable option. So that leaves us with Earth. And as you described it so well, not many people are willing even just to think about this issues, let alone sacrifice their energy/life to understand them and try to change the status quo (which they aren't able to do anyway). Most people, when they are confronted with these realities, despair (as Daniel Schmachtenberger states at the beginning). Most people stay in that state for a while and than return to business as usual, because they can't bear the weight of these insights. It's sad and scary.
Entertainment seems to me to be one of the variables not considered in these conversations. I spend way too much time listening to conversations like this, and I never hear anyone bring up the fact that we don't have to care. We can just eat, drink, and be merry, for today we live and tomorrow we die. I myself am a byproduct of this externality. If this world goes to shit, entertainment we be at a premium because we would have to focus on survival. We're all dopamine drug addicts. Would love to hear that addressed from the likes of such learned men.
Great point. The HBO show Station 11 has a fascinating take on this…how even when we strip away everything and are just surviving, art/entertainment (leaving aside the complexity of differentiating between those 2 things) has a huge impact on humanity. Humans crave and need both consumption and expression of art/entertainment, no matter what. It’s how we tell our stories when direct objective language and action fail (which is often!). One point being, perhaps it’s unfair to judge ourselves too harshly for spending time consuming or producing entertainment and art…
@@peterjohnstoltzman I really liked that show. Agreed on your points about the almost biological necessity of myth and fantasy. Makes me wonder about the evolutionary advantage of role playing.if Girard is right about mimetics, which I'm inclined to think he is, I'd love to hear Mr. S or Jordan Hall explore the idea that our obsessive consumption of entertainment these days might be a symptom if the need of imagination in mimetics.
