"The best road is not necessarily the most interesting." The Rave I'Ching
This perspective seems overly simplistic. It seems we've traded our innate connection to nature with a synthetic connection to technology, by which we've become deluded that we're more connected to nature.
Most are not aware of Global Cycles - 412-year planetary epoc…
"The best road is not necessarily the most interesting." The Rave I'Ching
This perspective seems overly simplistic. It seems we've traded our innate connection to nature with a synthetic connection to technology, by which we've become deluded that we're more connected to nature.
Most are not aware of Global Cycles - 412-year planetary epochs that influence life on Earth through the precession of the equinox. According to this view, 2027 marks the end of our current cycle, which has emphasized community building and social planning as foundations for our current civilization. The next cycle is so starkly different, as it is fundamentally individual. Put shortly, we're in for a societal collapse. (https://kingofhearts.substack.com/p/global-cycles-part-ii)
This impending transition manifests in our current approach to challenges. Rather than addressing fundamental issues, we've developed an almost reflexive dependence on technological shortcuts and "life hacks," seeking ways to circumvent rather than confront core problems.
Nowhere is this more evident than in our infrastructure crisis - a silent but growing problem affecting urbanized nations worldwide. Roads, bridges, tunnels, and buildings are deteriorating at an accelerated pace, lacking proper maintenance and attention.
The solution isn't particularly mysterious or innovative. It requires what it has always required: methodical organization, prudent resource management, and committed effort - the very things that seem to have fallen out of fashion in our rush toward digital solutions. These fundamental needs get postponed indefinitely because they lack the allure of technological novelty.
Instead, we pour resources into developing apps that calculate insignificant data in insular technological vacuum bubbles, such as: carbon footprint of our everyday choices or monitor our sleep patterns with unprecedented precision. It's worth asking: what value does the most sophisticated navigation app provide when the infrastructure it guides us to is crumbling?
While visionaries like Elon Musk deserve recognition for challenging conventional thinking, there's a deeper critique to be made about the direction our technological development is taking. The distinction becomes clear when we examine the difference between responding to genuine planetary needs and pursuing innovation primarily for historical recognition.
Consider electric vehicles - a telling example of our approach to innovation. Few realize that electric vehicles were actually among the first automobiles developed in the early 20th century. This historical fact raises profound questions about our current perception of electric cars as “revolutionary” technology. What we're seeing is actually a repackaging of century-old concepts, marketed as innovation to a society that has become increasingly uncritical of technological promises.
This becomes even more significant when we consider the more pressing innovations needed here on Earth, particularly in the energy sector. Free energy, for instance, has been proven viable years ago, with the necessary theoretical and mathematical frameworks already established by pioneers like Nikola Tesla, James Maxwell and Thomas Bearden.
Yet these potentially transformative technologies have been historically sidelined by established industry interests. (nothing surpasses the medical racket, but the energy racket does come close to it. I suggest you consider doing a post on that).
In this context, Tesla's position in the technological landscape becomes particularly intriguing. While marketed as an automotive company, it's more accurately understood as a technology enterprise using electric vehicles as a platform for data collection and AI development - ultimately serving broader ambitions like Mars colonization. But again, this raises a crucial question about the direction of our technological capabilities and whether they're being channeled toward our most pressing needs.
The Mars colonization endeavor itself exemplifies this misalignment. Musk's dismissal of population crisis concerns while simultaneously pushing for Mars colonization reveals a peculiar prioritization. The fundamental challenges of such an endeavor often go undiscussed - our bodies evolved specifically for Earth's conditions, its gravity, atmospheric pressure, and protective magnetic field. Adapting to Mars's radically different environment presents profound biological challenges that can't be easily engineered away.
.
.
Second, is our monetary system.
It's interesting that in the "20th century healthcare" graph you posted, the time it begins to spike up is exactly at the same time the U.S. has departed forever from the gold standard. This shift marked the transition to a debt-based monetary system - a model that fundamentally altered how we exchange value and energy in our economy.
I've noticed that in many of your posts you have a tendency to portray wealth disparity in an overly subjective way, not really accounting for foundational basis. However, in my view it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the discussion of wealth inequality.
While wealth disparities are real and significant, reducing them to simple narratives of villains and victims misses the deeper structural complexities. Such oversimplification is often aligned with political rhetoric that encourages people to externalize responsibility and channel their frustrations outward.
The reality is more nuanced: wealthy individuals aren't necessarily malevolent orchestrators of inequality, nor are those with less means simply victims. Rather, most participants in this system - regardless of their financial status - are operating within and responding to these broader structural constraints.
This debt-based system, by its very design, rather than simply facilitating exchange, it establishes a framework where continuous debt creation becomes necessary for economic function, potentially contributing to wealth concentration through systemic mechanisms. All, until it implodes within itself.
This monetary architecture might warrant more urgent attention than ambitious projects like Mars colonization. Perhaps our innovation priorities should include developing more transparent and equitable systems of exchange?
.
.
Last but not least: AI.
Artificial Intelligence is so overhyped and seems to be overshadowing more fundamental concerns (perhaps, this reflects the fact that human beings have lost the art of discernment and contemplation - the byproduct of being tethered to a technological pacifier 24/7).
There's a profound irony here: AI systems, as sophisticated as they may appear, ultimately mirror their creators' mental states and limitations. This creates an interesting feedback loop - our scattered, distracted consciousness manifests in the technologies we develop, which in turn reinforces these same patterns in society. We're witnessing a decline in quality control and product longevity that mirrors our own collective exhaustion. This fatigue shows up in what we create: products that prioritize novelty over reliability, flash over substance.
ChatGPT serves as a particularly telling example of this phenomenon. Despite being notoriously error-prone, it commands a staggering $86 billion valuation simply because it represents something new and exciting. This presents an intriguing paradox: while society expresses concern about misinformation from individual sources, we're simultaneously celebrating and investing heavily in systems capable of generating inaccuracies at an unprecedented scale.
Another example is "smart" vehicles. We're creating cars loaded with sophisticated features that often create more problems than they solve. What's the value of real-time data analytics when replacement parts take months to arrive? How does an automatic braking system that occasionally misidentifies objects truly enhance safety? We're adding layers of complexity that often negate the very benefits they're meant to provide.
The medical field presents another striking example. While we pour resources into developing sophisticated robotic surgery systems, we're experiencing unprecedented increases in chronic illness, mental health issues, and medical complications. The fundamentals of preventive medicine take a back seat to more "exciting" technological solutions.
.
.
In conclusion, what's particularly concerning is our reluctance to address existing technological shortcomings before pushing forward with AI and other advanced systems. Instead, we're caught in a cycle of FOMO that prevents us from consolidating our gains and fixing what's already broken.
The thread running through all these technological discussions - whether about AI, monetary systems, or space exploration - inevitably leads us back to a fundamental truth: the challenges we face aren't primarily technological but human in nature. The real issue seems to be humanity's increasing disconnection from itself, rather than any particular technological limitation or innovation.
P.S.
Regarding your coverage of Elon Musk being on the spectrum, there appears to be a tension between presenting this neurological condition as a positive attribute while simultaneously characterizing autism as a disorder in other contexts. And so I'm curious, how do you reconcile that?
As the comment below states, I believe his vision to colonize Mars is to create an “insurance” haven for humans in times of self annihilation.
But there’s a hidden element, often misunderstood or not identified - a deeper inner motivation that deals with personality.
There’s an interesting pattern among the ultra-wealthy and highly capable: they often fall into a peculiar trap - the savior complex, driven by a deep-seated fear of mortality.
When people 'make it big,' they frequently develop an intense fear of death, which manifests as an obsessive need to somehow conquer it. Some take this to extreme lengths, genuinely believing they can outsmart mortality through tangible means - developing a revolutionary drug, a breakthrough vaccine, or some magical elixir promising eternal youth.
These are what I'd call the 'unhinged wealthy' - often displaying psychopathic tendencies, marked by their inability to genuinely feel or empathize. They're the real-life versions of mad scientists, and they're the ones we should be particularly wary of.
Then there's the more sensible approach - those who try to cheat death by crafting legacies or attempting to embed themselves in history's pages as saviors, innovators, or pioneers.
This connects directly to what I emphasized about the crucial difference between organic response and desire. Nature works through response, not wants. When we operate from desire rather than response, we inevitably create problems.
Elon Musk’s grand ventures, in my view, stem from a deeper psychological need for love and recognition, likely compensating for persistent low self-esteem. This drive interferes with his ability to focus on what's genuinely needed (practical solutions) versus what's merely interesting.
He's not alone in this - it's a pattern we see across the billionaire class. While each has their pet projects based on their personal vision of humanity's needs, they share one common trait: their solutions rarely address real-world problems.
Look at Bezos with his space elevator fantasy - it's so disconnected from reality that it reveals an emotional immaturity bordering on the absurd. And don't get me started on his other wet dream - creating a global 'listening' infrastructure. Imagine having Alexa-like devices on every street light and building, just like we have now with cameras. Is this really what humanity needs right now?
These projects aren't really about solving problems - they're personal fantasies masquerading as solutions, driven by an existential fear of mortality. The tragic result? Massive resources wasted on misguided planning.
In my analysis, Free Energy is the real answer. It's actually more achievable than many of these grandiose projects, but it faces political rather than technical challenges. The energy sector, much like Big Pharma, maintains a stranglehold that's hard to break. Ironically, someone like Musk has the influence and power to tackle this - which makes his choice of safer, showier projects all the more disappointing.
This is what happens when personal neuroses drive innovation rather than genuine response to human needs. The result? Technological theater rather than real solutions.
One reason may be to have a viable bug-out destination.
For example, Biden came very close in September to authorizing long-range missiles for Ukraine. The idiot neocons have taken over the current apparatus, and they have no problem escalating to nuclear war.
"The best road is not necessarily the most interesting." The Rave I'Ching
This perspective seems overly simplistic. It seems we've traded our innate connection to nature with a synthetic connection to technology, by which we've become deluded that we're more connected to nature.
Most are not aware of Global Cycles - 412-year planetary epochs that influence life on Earth through the precession of the equinox. According to this view, 2027 marks the end of our current cycle, which has emphasized community building and social planning as foundations for our current civilization. The next cycle is so starkly different, as it is fundamentally individual. Put shortly, we're in for a societal collapse. (https://kingofhearts.substack.com/p/global-cycles-part-ii)
This impending transition manifests in our current approach to challenges. Rather than addressing fundamental issues, we've developed an almost reflexive dependence on technological shortcuts and "life hacks," seeking ways to circumvent rather than confront core problems.
Nowhere is this more evident than in our infrastructure crisis - a silent but growing problem affecting urbanized nations worldwide. Roads, bridges, tunnels, and buildings are deteriorating at an accelerated pace, lacking proper maintenance and attention.
The solution isn't particularly mysterious or innovative. It requires what it has always required: methodical organization, prudent resource management, and committed effort - the very things that seem to have fallen out of fashion in our rush toward digital solutions. These fundamental needs get postponed indefinitely because they lack the allure of technological novelty.
Instead, we pour resources into developing apps that calculate insignificant data in insular technological vacuum bubbles, such as: carbon footprint of our everyday choices or monitor our sleep patterns with unprecedented precision. It's worth asking: what value does the most sophisticated navigation app provide when the infrastructure it guides us to is crumbling?
While visionaries like Elon Musk deserve recognition for challenging conventional thinking, there's a deeper critique to be made about the direction our technological development is taking. The distinction becomes clear when we examine the difference between responding to genuine planetary needs and pursuing innovation primarily for historical recognition.
Consider electric vehicles - a telling example of our approach to innovation. Few realize that electric vehicles were actually among the first automobiles developed in the early 20th century. This historical fact raises profound questions about our current perception of electric cars as “revolutionary” technology. What we're seeing is actually a repackaging of century-old concepts, marketed as innovation to a society that has become increasingly uncritical of technological promises.
This becomes even more significant when we consider the more pressing innovations needed here on Earth, particularly in the energy sector. Free energy, for instance, has been proven viable years ago, with the necessary theoretical and mathematical frameworks already established by pioneers like Nikola Tesla, James Maxwell and Thomas Bearden.
Yet these potentially transformative technologies have been historically sidelined by established industry interests. (nothing surpasses the medical racket, but the energy racket does come close to it. I suggest you consider doing a post on that).
In this context, Tesla's position in the technological landscape becomes particularly intriguing. While marketed as an automotive company, it's more accurately understood as a technology enterprise using electric vehicles as a platform for data collection and AI development - ultimately serving broader ambitions like Mars colonization. But again, this raises a crucial question about the direction of our technological capabilities and whether they're being channeled toward our most pressing needs.
The Mars colonization endeavor itself exemplifies this misalignment. Musk's dismissal of population crisis concerns while simultaneously pushing for Mars colonization reveals a peculiar prioritization. The fundamental challenges of such an endeavor often go undiscussed - our bodies evolved specifically for Earth's conditions, its gravity, atmospheric pressure, and protective magnetic field. Adapting to Mars's radically different environment presents profound biological challenges that can't be easily engineered away.
.
.
Second, is our monetary system.
It's interesting that in the "20th century healthcare" graph you posted, the time it begins to spike up is exactly at the same time the U.S. has departed forever from the gold standard. This shift marked the transition to a debt-based monetary system - a model that fundamentally altered how we exchange value and energy in our economy.
I've noticed that in many of your posts you have a tendency to portray wealth disparity in an overly subjective way, not really accounting for foundational basis. However, in my view it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the discussion of wealth inequality.
While wealth disparities are real and significant, reducing them to simple narratives of villains and victims misses the deeper structural complexities. Such oversimplification is often aligned with political rhetoric that encourages people to externalize responsibility and channel their frustrations outward.
The reality is more nuanced: wealthy individuals aren't necessarily malevolent orchestrators of inequality, nor are those with less means simply victims. Rather, most participants in this system - regardless of their financial status - are operating within and responding to these broader structural constraints.
This debt-based system, by its very design, rather than simply facilitating exchange, it establishes a framework where continuous debt creation becomes necessary for economic function, potentially contributing to wealth concentration through systemic mechanisms. All, until it implodes within itself.
This monetary architecture might warrant more urgent attention than ambitious projects like Mars colonization. Perhaps our innovation priorities should include developing more transparent and equitable systems of exchange?
.
.
Last but not least: AI.
Artificial Intelligence is so overhyped and seems to be overshadowing more fundamental concerns (perhaps, this reflects the fact that human beings have lost the art of discernment and contemplation - the byproduct of being tethered to a technological pacifier 24/7).
There's a profound irony here: AI systems, as sophisticated as they may appear, ultimately mirror their creators' mental states and limitations. This creates an interesting feedback loop - our scattered, distracted consciousness manifests in the technologies we develop, which in turn reinforces these same patterns in society. We're witnessing a decline in quality control and product longevity that mirrors our own collective exhaustion. This fatigue shows up in what we create: products that prioritize novelty over reliability, flash over substance.
ChatGPT serves as a particularly telling example of this phenomenon. Despite being notoriously error-prone, it commands a staggering $86 billion valuation simply because it represents something new and exciting. This presents an intriguing paradox: while society expresses concern about misinformation from individual sources, we're simultaneously celebrating and investing heavily in systems capable of generating inaccuracies at an unprecedented scale.
Another example is "smart" vehicles. We're creating cars loaded with sophisticated features that often create more problems than they solve. What's the value of real-time data analytics when replacement parts take months to arrive? How does an automatic braking system that occasionally misidentifies objects truly enhance safety? We're adding layers of complexity that often negate the very benefits they're meant to provide.
The medical field presents another striking example. While we pour resources into developing sophisticated robotic surgery systems, we're experiencing unprecedented increases in chronic illness, mental health issues, and medical complications. The fundamentals of preventive medicine take a back seat to more "exciting" technological solutions.
.
.
In conclusion, what's particularly concerning is our reluctance to address existing technological shortcomings before pushing forward with AI and other advanced systems. Instead, we're caught in a cycle of FOMO that prevents us from consolidating our gains and fixing what's already broken.
The thread running through all these technological discussions - whether about AI, monetary systems, or space exploration - inevitably leads us back to a fundamental truth: the challenges we face aren't primarily technological but human in nature. The real issue seems to be humanity's increasing disconnection from itself, rather than any particular technological limitation or innovation.
P.S.
Regarding your coverage of Elon Musk being on the spectrum, there appears to be a tension between presenting this neurological condition as a positive attribute while simultaneously characterizing autism as a disorder in other contexts. And so I'm curious, how do you reconcile that?
I agree! So many other important problems that need to be addressed & fixed. Mars colonization seems wasteful. What is the real reason?
It’s a combination of a few things.
As the comment below states, I believe his vision to colonize Mars is to create an “insurance” haven for humans in times of self annihilation.
But there’s a hidden element, often misunderstood or not identified - a deeper inner motivation that deals with personality.
There’s an interesting pattern among the ultra-wealthy and highly capable: they often fall into a peculiar trap - the savior complex, driven by a deep-seated fear of mortality.
When people 'make it big,' they frequently develop an intense fear of death, which manifests as an obsessive need to somehow conquer it. Some take this to extreme lengths, genuinely believing they can outsmart mortality through tangible means - developing a revolutionary drug, a breakthrough vaccine, or some magical elixir promising eternal youth.
These are what I'd call the 'unhinged wealthy' - often displaying psychopathic tendencies, marked by their inability to genuinely feel or empathize. They're the real-life versions of mad scientists, and they're the ones we should be particularly wary of.
Then there's the more sensible approach - those who try to cheat death by crafting legacies or attempting to embed themselves in history's pages as saviors, innovators, or pioneers.
This connects directly to what I emphasized about the crucial difference between organic response and desire. Nature works through response, not wants. When we operate from desire rather than response, we inevitably create problems.
Elon Musk’s grand ventures, in my view, stem from a deeper psychological need for love and recognition, likely compensating for persistent low self-esteem. This drive interferes with his ability to focus on what's genuinely needed (practical solutions) versus what's merely interesting.
He's not alone in this - it's a pattern we see across the billionaire class. While each has their pet projects based on their personal vision of humanity's needs, they share one common trait: their solutions rarely address real-world problems.
Look at Bezos with his space elevator fantasy - it's so disconnected from reality that it reveals an emotional immaturity bordering on the absurd. And don't get me started on his other wet dream - creating a global 'listening' infrastructure. Imagine having Alexa-like devices on every street light and building, just like we have now with cameras. Is this really what humanity needs right now?
These projects aren't really about solving problems - they're personal fantasies masquerading as solutions, driven by an existential fear of mortality. The tragic result? Massive resources wasted on misguided planning.
In my analysis, Free Energy is the real answer. It's actually more achievable than many of these grandiose projects, but it faces political rather than technical challenges. The energy sector, much like Big Pharma, maintains a stranglehold that's hard to break. Ironically, someone like Musk has the influence and power to tackle this - which makes his choice of safer, showier projects all the more disappointing.
This is what happens when personal neuroses drive innovation rather than genuine response to human needs. The result? Technological theater rather than real solutions.
One reason may be to have a viable bug-out destination.
For example, Biden came very close in September to authorizing long-range missiles for Ukraine. The idiot neocons have taken over the current apparatus, and they have no problem escalating to nuclear war.
Those got approved and used, yesterday.