Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Marcus Daniels]

On one hand human history & civilization will likely be captured and 
operationalized by machine learning systems.  On the other hand, countries fall 
toward fascism.   Fascism makes the many the one, and so the number of 
representative agents is smaller.   If these agents systematically destroy each 
other, the overshoot problem is addressed.This might occur to the 
generalized AI at Meta in 5 or 10 years as it re-reads the story of Noah's Ark 
for the 50,000th time.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of David Eric Smith
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

I guess — to the extent that there was a “reason” behind my musings; that very 
questionable — I wasn’t thinking the reason for descent into some.feral state 
would necessarily be that it was “better”.  It isn’t enough for something to be 
better that a group of people actually get there.  There also has to be some 
mechanism (in the probabilistic sense).  

I _think_ (?) it would be better for lots of things right now (climate, 
overshoot, social stability) for people to work more effectively together to 
address matters of substance that need to get taken care of.  Instead we see a 
bunch of countries tipping further into fascism.  

I don’t mean the fascism thing to be a literal model for the post-reduction 
phenomenon.  Fascism too is a coordinated condition.  It probably depends on a 
certain level of standing material and cultural capital as the precondition out 
of which it starts.  I don’t want to do a full-on endorsement of Peter Turchin, 
but the general drift of his arguments that these big political movements are 
outcomes of near-elites competing with settled elites, in a polarizable medium, 
appeal to me as an uncritical reader.  Resource scarcity might be a stressor 
that condenses the state, but it’s not nearly the scarcity of scraping to 
survive in a dustbowl.  Once the surplus had born burned off, big gaudy 
movements become unaffordable like everything else.

Dunno.

Eric




> On May 31, 2023, at 4:44 PM, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
> 
> To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
> fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of 
> the world?   How does being feral help?  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
> 
> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans 
> at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems 
> extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used 
> to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? 
> I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I suppose, just like 
> height and other features, that pruning spike might move around depending on 
> environmental pressure.
> 
> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
>> 
>>> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and 
>>> cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the 
>>> Corn were older than 2. 8^D
>>> 
 On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
 "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
 industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
 independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
 mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears 
 and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
 davew
> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, 
> the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
> .
> 
> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up 
> to chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on 
> the infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he 
> drops the kid off with the first available woman he meets.
> 
> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
> , the samurai with a 
> baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
> arsenal.
> 
> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
> your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental he

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[David Eric Smith]

Yeah.  It’s a good objection, because I don’t know either.

I know what sources I am feeding off of.  They are all this popular-science 
writing, and who knows its status; maybe it becomes the urban legend of 
“intellectual” spectators?

There is the whole follow-on from the Siberian silver foxes, and the stylized 
facts of piebald coloring, round ears, and chattiness as the mark of 
epigenetically altered hormonal profiles among domesticates.  Not sure how you 
do that with primates that already have short ears and limited hair, but 
there’s always the chattiness.

Some of it, I think, came from reading Barry Lopez’s book Of Wolves and Men as 
a young kid (a book that at the time, I figured was just a surplus on the 
used-book tables, but which I have seen referred to repeatedly over the years), 
and then some decades later, some other book-length thing about social 
intelligence among dog breeds and their relations to wolves.  The broad thesis 
being that adult wolves don’t have a sense of humor.  People see wolf pups that 
look like dog pups and think “I’ll raise one of those”, and then suddenly the 
transition to adulthood happens, and all this “relation” they thought they had 
vanishes as the wolf becomes the adult wild animal, and they realize they are 
in completely over their heads.

Factoid upon factoid, somewhere in this I fit the thing my boss mentioned a 
couple of years ago, about a Nature (?) article reporting that one of the 
mutations systematically separating dogs from the grey wolf was in the gene 
that is cognate to the one that mutates to cause Williams Syndrome in people.  
I mentioned that on the list maybe a year ago, but have’t gone to find the link 
myself.

The thing about vigilance as an important defining dimension of the PTSD 
phenotype comes from the Jonathan Shay book I mentioned, and probably also Tim 
OBrien’s The Things They Carried, though not emphasized there the same way in 
its own name.  Seems to correlate with being surprisingly strong while being 
surprisingly skinny and not needing to eat much (or having an interest I eating 
much), and with a portfolio of health problems that shorten lifespan.  Shay 
thinks that hypervigilance, as a requirement for survival, is one of the 
drivers of PTSD and not only a symptom; the other major one being betrayal 
within what was supposed to have functioned as the social in-group and support 
structure.  That was the connection to the SFI talk on “Living with Distrust” 
as a locked-in low-benefit social state (anthropological study of a small 
village I Romania).

Are wild animals like that?  I do have that impression, with about as much 
depth as my other impressions.  Getting close to a wild fox seems very very 
hard.  Raccoons too.  I think of big male domestic cats as being pretty 
menacing (having been attacked by one in the dark one time), but the reputation 
is that faced with a fox or a raccoon, they don’t have a chance of surviving.  
Makes me imagine that bobcats look like slightly enlarged big domestic cats, 
but probably aren’t like them very much at all.

I was having this discussion with someone once, sitting outside a small 
artificial lake in a little forest glen, watching the birds fight continuously 
with each other in every pairing over territory.  Thinking “These animals are 
really willing to make an effort.”

Eric



> On May 30, 2023, at 4:27 PM, glen  wrote:
> 
> "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think first-worlders 
> like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even be true for the 
> first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by a lot than a large 
> extinction."
> 
> IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are they 
> actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the attribution 
> of vigilance (and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of othering? A 
> standard whipping post for me is this "Are you a cat person or a dog person" 
> cocktail party ice breaker. Admitting the false dichotomy, dog people tend to 
> think of cats as non-social, selfish, blahblah. Cat people tend to think of 
> dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete nonsense born of arbitrary 
> delusions.
> 
> But of course, there is something to be said of the built environment. It 
> would be difficult for a human reared in a city to navigate the Mongolian 
> desert. But is that difference any greater than plopping a city dweller 
> 13,000 years in the past? Are office or political games significantly 
> different from the "games" wild babies play under the vigilant eye of their 
> den mother? Yeah, I know. I'm putting too much weight on "significant". 
> Obviously, everything's different from everything else. (I regret not being 
> able to engage more with Jon's exploration of Deleuze.) But my conservatism 
> tells me that objective othering would rely solely on coherent traits, 
> fingers vs. claws, hair vs. fur, cortex or no cortex. A huma

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[David Eric Smith]

I guess — to the extent that there was a “reason” behind my musings; that very 
questionable — I wasn’t thinking the reason for descent into some.feral state 
would necessarily be that it was “better”.  It isn’t enough for something to be 
better that a group of people actually get there.  There also has to be some 
mechanism (in the probabilistic sense).  

I _think_ (?) it would be better for lots of things right now (climate, 
overshoot, social stability) for people to work more effectively together to 
address matters of substance that need to get taken care of.  Instead we see a 
bunch of countries tipping further into fascism.  

I don’t mean the fascism thing to be a literal model for the post-reduction 
phenomenon.  Fascism too is a coordinated condition.  It probably depends on a 
certain level of standing material and cultural capital as the precondition out 
of which it starts.  I don’t want to do a full-on endorsement of Peter Turchin, 
but the general drift of his arguments that these big political movements are 
outcomes of near-elites competing with settled elites, in a polarizable medium, 
appeal to me as an uncritical reader.  Resource scarcity might be a stressor 
that condenses the state, but it’s not nearly the scarcity of scraping to 
survive in a dustbowl.  Once the surplus had born burned off, big gaudy 
movements become unaffordable like everything else.

Dunno.

Eric




> On May 31, 2023, at 4:44 PM, Marcus Daniels  wrote:
> 
> To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
> fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of 
> the world?   How does being feral help?  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
> 
> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans 
> at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems 
> extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used 
> to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? 
> I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I suppose, just like 
> height and other features, that pruning spike might move around depending on 
> environmental pressure.
> 
> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
>> 
>>> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
>>> 
>>> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and 
>>> cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the 
>>> Corn were older than 2. 8^D
>>> 
 On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
 "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
 industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
 independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
 mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears 
 and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
 davew
> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, 
> the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
> .
> 
> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up 
> to chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on 
> the infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he 
> drops the kid off with the first available woman he meets.
> 
> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
> , the samurai with a 
> baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
> arsenal.
> 
> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
> your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health 
> issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?
> 
> -- rec --
> 
>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels > > wrote:
> 
>"What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who 
> lost all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on 
> hormone profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
> 
>In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't 
> popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium 
> endures?We have lots of experience on earth making sure that 
> communit

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Prof David West]

Semi-independent: left alone while elders were out hunting/gathering; tagging 
along on hunt as "beaters" for the spear throwers; finding their own 'lunch' 
among local plants; carrying their own goods when group was moving from place 
to place; able to maintain disciplined silence and staying still when predators 
are about; daubing mud on the hut to fix leaks; gathering wood and plants along 
with the women, including balancing baskets on their heads; almost anything 
consistent with weight/height/body strength. Probably the most foreign to 
modern values is the being left alone to fend for selves while adults are 
absent and being able to avoid becoming prey.

davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 8:13 AM, glen wrote:
> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" 
> humans at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? 
> That seems extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 
> 2 year olds used to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a 
> better developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 
> years? I suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning 
> spike might move around depending on environmental pressure.
>
> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
>> 
>>> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
>>>
>>> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and 
>>> cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the Corn were 
>>> older than 2. 8^D
>>>
 On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
 "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
 industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
 independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
 mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears 
 and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
 davew
> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, 
> the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
> .
>
> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up 
> to chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on 
> the infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he 
> drops the kid off with the first available woman he meets.
>
> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
> , the samurai with a 
> baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
> arsenal.
>
> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
> your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health 
> issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?
>
> -- rec --
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels > > wrote:
>
> "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who 
> lost all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on 
> hormone profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
>
> In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't 
> popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium 
> endures?We have lots of experience on earth making sure that 
> communities are partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving 
> remnants I see around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use 
> of heroin and fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front 
> yard plants.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  > On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>
> "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think 
> first-worlders like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even 
> be true for the first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time 
> by a lot than a large extinction."
>
> IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? 
> Are they actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the 
> attribution of vigilance (and hence never unvigil

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[glen]

IDK. It won't be meaningless. We can take consequences seriously and measure which photographic and 
audio recordings "fail", which "succeed", which dominate, etc. and come up with 
a dynamics for that system. I suppose it's possible that such dynamics will be ungrounded or almost 
entirely self-referential. But I doubt it. I think the dynamics will tell us something about the 
larger world in which such fakes swim, maybe similar to the scientific hierarchy of physics ⇔ 
chemistry ⇔ biology ⇔ ... ⇔ deep fake sociology. It's just not clear to me that the degrees of 
freedom necessarily shrink xor grow as one goes up the hierarchy.

On 5/31/23 09:49, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I remember rationalizing television advertising when I was a teenager as a 
healthy thing, so that people would not be easily manipulated.   Somehow that 
all got turned on its head with social media.Maybe they were always easily 
manipulated?Soon, if not already, photographic and audio recordings will be 
meaningless.  Strange times..

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 9:15 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

I'm not a fan of evolutionary psychology. But there's some sort of sufficiency argument to be made, 
here. If some thing exists, then it must be at least somehow useful. That implies that PTSD is 
somehow useful [⛧]. It may not protect you from freezing to death. But it probably protects you 
from or facilitates some other circumstance. I mean, lots of people complain about things like 
psychopathy, narcissism, sickle cell, etc. But recessive traits (and defense mechanisms, 
"negative" emotions, etc.) help to keep the "temperature up" ...  or at least 
help keep it raisable when necessary.

At some point as the environment builds, though, no amount or composition of 
these potential behaviors are enough to hop to a different canal or form new 
canals, at least not in isolation.


[⛧] My own guess is that the diagnosis of PTSD relies fundamentally on temporal displacement. 
"Your stress response *was* appropriate at one time. But it is no longer appropriate." 
The focus on "debilitating" in the DSM is time and circumstance dependent.

On 5/31/23 09:00, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I don't see how PTSD protects people from starvation or death from 35 degC  
wet-bulb temperatures.It seems more likely to me they'll die.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:59 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Well of course with enough capital ... enough of a heavy rain or intense heat bath, you 
can jump canals. But even Elno faced the canals after buying Twitter. "They", 
millionaires and billionaires, may not need to be slave to a map. But everyone else does, 
including the AIs.


On 5/31/23 08:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To me it just seems like high temperature.  An Elizabeth Holmes or her more 
numerous male psychopath counterparts can turn up the temperature.   They don't 
need to be slave to map, but they can use one.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:54 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built environment 
canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* some other way to be, 
imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody can actually be that way because the 
built environment constrains the organism too much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open 
computation ... an initialization strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" 
... something like annealing, I guess.

I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll others 
to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, but it 
still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees of 
freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.

On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of the 
world?   How does being feral help?

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans at 
around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems extreme. Of course, 
I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used to be much more coordinated, 
perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning 
circa 4 years? I suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might 
move around depending on environmental pressure.

On 5/

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Marcus Daniels]

I remember rationalizing television advertising when I was a teenager as a 
healthy thing, so that people would not be easily manipulated.   Somehow that 
all got turned on its head with social media.Maybe they were always easily 
manipulated?Soon, if not already, photographic and audio recordings will be 
meaningless.  Strange times.. 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 9:15 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

I'm not a fan of evolutionary psychology. But there's some sort of sufficiency 
argument to be made, here. If some thing exists, then it must be at least 
somehow useful. That implies that PTSD is somehow useful [⛧]. It may not 
protect you from freezing to death. But it probably protects you from or 
facilitates some other circumstance. I mean, lots of people complain about 
things like psychopathy, narcissism, sickle cell, etc. But recessive traits 
(and defense mechanisms, "negative" emotions, etc.) help to keep the 
"temperature up" ...  or at least help keep it raisable when necessary.

At some point as the environment builds, though, no amount or composition of 
these potential behaviors are enough to hop to a different canal or form new 
canals, at least not in isolation.


[⛧] My own guess is that the diagnosis of PTSD relies fundamentally on temporal 
displacement. "Your stress response *was* appropriate at one time. But it is no 
longer appropriate." The focus on "debilitating" in the DSM is time and 
circumstance dependent.

On 5/31/23 09:00, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> I don't see how PTSD protects people from starvation or death from 35 degC  
> wet-bulb temperatures.It seems more likely to me they'll die.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:59 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
> 
> Well of course with enough capital ... enough of a heavy rain or intense heat 
> bath, you can jump canals. But even Elno faced the canals after buying 
> Twitter. "They", millionaires and billionaires, may not need to be slave to a 
> map. But everyone else does, including the AIs.
> 
> 
> On 5/31/23 08:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> To me it just seems like high temperature.  An Elizabeth Holmes or her more 
>> numerous male psychopath counterparts can turn up the temperature.   They 
>> don't need to be slave to map, but they can use one.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:54 AM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>>
>> Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built 
>> environment canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* 
>> some other way to be, imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody 
>> can actually be that way because the built environment constrains the 
>> organism too much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open computation ... an 
>> initialization strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" ... something like 
>> annealing, I guess.
>>
>> I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
>> initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll 
>> others to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, 
>> but it still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees 
>> of freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.
>>
>> On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
>>> fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of 
>>> the world?   How does being feral help?
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
>>> To: friam@redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>>>
>>> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" 
>>> humans at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That 
>>> seems extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year 
>>> olds used to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better 
>>> developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I 
>>> suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might move 
>>> around depending on environmental pressure.
>>>
>>> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
 There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.

> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
>
> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting 
> and cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of 
> the Corn were older than 2. 8^D
>
>> On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
>> "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
>> industrial society. Fo

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[glen]

I'm not a fan of evolutionary psychology. But there's some sort of sufficiency argument to be made, 
here. If some thing exists, then it must be at least somehow useful. That implies that PTSD is 
somehow useful [⛧]. It may not protect you from freezing to death. But it probably protects you 
from or facilitates some other circumstance. I mean, lots of people complain about things like 
psychopathy, narcissism, sickle cell, etc. But recessive traits (and defense mechanisms, 
"negative" emotions, etc.) help to keep the "temperature up" ...  or at least 
help keep it raisable when necessary.

At some point as the environment builds, though, no amount or composition of 
these potential behaviors are enough to hop to a different canal or form new 
canals, at least not in isolation.


[⛧] My own guess is that the diagnosis of PTSD relies fundamentally on temporal displacement. 
"Your stress response *was* appropriate at one time. But it is no longer appropriate." 
The focus on "debilitating" in the DSM is time and circumstance dependent.

On 5/31/23 09:00, Marcus Daniels wrote:

I don't see how PTSD protects people from starvation or death from 35 degC  
wet-bulb temperatures.It seems more likely to me they'll die.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:59 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Well of course with enough capital ... enough of a heavy rain or intense heat bath, you 
can jump canals. But even Elno faced the canals after buying Twitter. "They", 
millionaires and billionaires, may not need to be slave to a map. But everyone else does, 
including the AIs.


On 5/31/23 08:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To me it just seems like high temperature.  An Elizabeth Holmes or her more 
numerous male psychopath counterparts can turn up the temperature.   They don't 
need to be slave to map, but they can use one.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:54 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built environment 
canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* some other way to be, 
imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody can actually be that way because the 
built environment constrains the organism too much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open 
computation ... an initialization strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" 
... something like annealing, I guess.

I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll others 
to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, but it 
still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees of 
freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.

On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of the 
world?   How does being feral help?

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans at 
around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems extreme. Of course, 
I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used to be much more coordinated, 
perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning 
circa 4 years? I suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might 
move around depending on environmental pressure.

On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:

There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.


On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:

What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting
and cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of
the Corn were older than 2. 8^D


On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
"the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern industrial 
society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, independent existence was 
only marginally longer than that of other large mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months 
for elephants and bears and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, the 
Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
.

Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the infant 
who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Marcus Daniels]

I don't see how PTSD protects people from starvation or death from 35 degC  
wet-bulb temperatures.It seems more likely to me they'll die.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 8:59 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Well of course with enough capital ... enough of a heavy rain or intense heat 
bath, you can jump canals. But even Elno faced the canals after buying Twitter. 
"They", millionaires and billionaires, may not need to be slave to a map. But 
everyone else does, including the AIs.


On 5/31/23 08:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> To me it just seems like high temperature.  An Elizabeth Holmes or her more 
> numerous male psychopath counterparts can turn up the temperature.   They 
> don't need to be slave to map, but they can use one.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:54 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
> 
> Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built 
> environment canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* some 
> other way to be, imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody can 
> actually be that way because the built environment constrains the organism 
> too much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open computation ... an 
> initialization strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" ... something like 
> annealing, I guess.
> 
> I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
> initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll others 
> to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, but it 
> still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees of 
> freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.
> 
> On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
>> fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of 
>> the world?   How does being feral help?
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>>
>> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans 
>> at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems 
>> extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used 
>> to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? 
>> I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I suppose, just like 
>> height and other features, that pruning spike might move around depending on 
>> environmental pressure.
>>
>> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
>>>
 On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:

 What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting 
 and cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of 
 the Corn were older than 2. 8^D

> On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
> "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
> industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
> independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
> mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears 
> and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
> davew
>> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of 
>> Ötzi, the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
>> .
>>
>> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up 
>> to chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on 
>> the infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he 
>> drops the kid off with the first available woman he meets.
>>
>> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
>> , the samurai with a 
>> baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone 
>> wolf's arsenal.
>>
>> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
>> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
>> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
>> your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental 
>> health issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once 
>> supermen?
>>
>> -- rec --
>>
>>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels >> 

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[glen]

Well of course with enough capital ... enough of a heavy rain or intense heat bath, you 
can jump canals. But even Elno faced the canals after buying Twitter. "They", 
millionaires and billionaires, may not need to be slave to a map. But everyone else does, 
including the AIs.


On 5/31/23 08:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To me it just seems like high temperature.  An Elizabeth Holmes or her more 
numerous male psychopath counterparts can turn up the temperature.   They don't 
need to be slave to map, but they can use one.

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:54 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built environment 
canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* some other way to be, 
imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody can actually be that way because the 
built environment constrains the organism too much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open 
computation ... an initialization strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" 
... something like annealing, I guess.

I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll others 
to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, but it 
still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees of 
freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.

On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of the 
world?   How does being feral help?

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans at 
around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems extreme. Of course, 
I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used to be much more coordinated, 
perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning 
circa 4 years? I suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might 
move around depending on environmental pressure.

On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:

There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.


On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:

What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and
cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the
Corn were older than 2. 8^D


On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
"the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern industrial 
society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, independent existence was 
only marginally longer than that of other large mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months 
for elephants and bears and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, the 
Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
.

Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the infant 
who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the kid off 
with the first available woman he meets.

Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
, the samurai with a baby 
carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's arsenal.

So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from your 
morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health issues 
will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?

-- rec --


On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:


  "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost all 
the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone profiles more 
like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."

  In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't 
popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?
We have lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are 
partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see around 
here are homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and fentanyl.   
The deer, however, happily munch on my front yard plants.

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Marcus Daniels]

To me it just seems like high temperature.  An Elizabeth Holmes or her more 
numerous male psychopath counterparts can turn up the temperature.   They don't 
need to be slave to map, but they can use one.  

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:54 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built 
environment canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* some 
other way to be, imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody can 
actually be that way because the built environment constrains the organism too 
much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open computation ... an initialization 
strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" ... something like annealing, I 
guess.

I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll others 
to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, but it 
still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees of 
freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.

On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
> fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of 
> the world?   How does being feral help?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
> 
> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans 
> at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems 
> extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used 
> to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? 
> I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I suppose, just like 
> height and other features, that pruning spike might move around depending on 
> environmental pressure.
> 
> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
>>
>>> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
>>>
>>> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and 
>>> cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the 
>>> Corn were older than 2. 8^D
>>>
 On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
 "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
 industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
 independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
 mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears 
 and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
 davew
> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, 
> the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
> .
>
> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up 
> to chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on 
> the infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he 
> drops the kid off with the first available woman he meets.
>
> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
> , the samurai with a 
> baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
> arsenal.
>
> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
> your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health 
> issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?
>
> -- rec --
>
>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels > > wrote:
>
>  "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who 
> lost all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on 
> hormone profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
>
>  In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't 
> popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium 
> endures?We have lots of experience on earth making sure that 
> communities are partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving 
> remnants I see around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use 
> of heroin and fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front 
> yard plants.

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[glen]

Ferality (?) helps because it resists or mitigates canalization. The built environment 
canalizes behavior such that even if there *might have been* some other way to be, 
imagined in the fever dreams of a psychonaut, nobody can actually be that way because the 
built environment constrains the organism too much. Ideally, ferality is a kind of open 
computation ... an initialization strategy akin to randomizing the "weights" 
... something like annealing, I guess.

I can imagine a compromise where we allocate some to a (multiple?) feral 
initialization and others to a (multiple?) semi-structure(s) and sitll others 
to a (multiple?) very structured game(s). I haven't been keeping up, but it 
still seems like an open question whether ferality has higher degrees of 
freedom than the scaffolding provided by structure.

On 5/31/23 07:44, Marcus Daniels wrote:

To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of the 
world?   How does being feral help?

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans at 
around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems extreme. Of course, 
I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used to be much more coordinated, 
perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning 
circa 4 years? I suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might 
move around depending on environmental pressure.

On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:

There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.


On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:

What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and
cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the
Corn were older than 2. 8^D


On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
"the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern industrial 
society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, independent existence was 
only marginally longer than that of other large mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months 
for elephants and bears and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, the 
Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
.

Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the infant 
who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the kid off 
with the first available woman he meets.

Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
, the samurai with a baby 
carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's arsenal.

So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from your 
morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health issues 
will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?

-- rec --


On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:


 "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost all the 
epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone profiles more like 
chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."

 In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't popular 
science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?We have 
lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are partitioned by 
socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see around here are 
homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and fentanyl.   The deer, 
however, happily munch on my front yard plants.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) 

 -Original Message-
 From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> 
On Behalf Of glen
 Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
 To: friam@redfish.com 
 Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

 "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think first-worlders 
like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even be true for the 
first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by a lot than a large 
extinction."

 IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are they 
actually 

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Marcus Daniels]

To independently navigate the post AI world will require people that aren't 
fooled by fake media and are confident in their reasonably-useful models of the 
world?   How does being feral help?  

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans at 
around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems extreme. 
Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used to be much 
more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? I thought 
there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I suppose, just like height and 
other features, that pruning spike might move around depending on environmental 
pressure.

On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
> 
>> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
>>
>> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and 
>> cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the 
>> Corn were older than 2. 8^D
>>
>>> On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
>>> "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
>>> industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
>>> independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
>>> mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears 
>>> and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
>>> davew
 On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
 Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, 
 the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
 .

 Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
 chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the 
 infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the 
 kid off with the first available woman he meets.

 Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
 , the samurai with a baby 
 carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
 arsenal.

 So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
 juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
 domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
 your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health 
 issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?

 -- rec --

> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels  > wrote:

 "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who 
 lost all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on 
 hormone profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."

 In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't 
 popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures? 
We have lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are 
 partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see 
 around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and 
 fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front yard plants.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Friam >>> > On Behalf Of glen
 Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
 To: friam@redfish.com 
 Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

 "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think 
 first-worlders like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even 
 be true for the first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by 
 a lot than a large extinction."

 IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? 
 Are they actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the 
 attribution of vigilance (and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of 
 othering? A standard whipping post for me is this "Are you a cat person or 
 a dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. Admitting the false dichotomy, 
 dog people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, blahblah. Cat 
 people tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete 
 nonsense born of arbitrary delusions.

 But of course, there is something to be said of the built envir

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Frank Wimberly]

Our 2 year old granddaughter is at our place frequently.  It's
inconceivable that she could live independently.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, May 31, 2023, 8:13 AM glen  wrote:

> Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent"
> humans at around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That
> seems extreme. Of course, I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year
> olds used to be much more coordinated, perhaps taller, with a better
> developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning circa 4 years? I
> suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might move
> around depending on environmental pressure.
>
> On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.
> >
> >> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
> >>
> >> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and
> cooking, say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the Corn were
> older than 2. 8^D
> >>
> >>> On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
> >>> "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of
> modern industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to,
> mostly, independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other
> large mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and
> bears and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
> >>> davew
>  On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>  Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of
> Ötzi, the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film)>.
> 
>  Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears
> up to chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on
> the infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops
> the kid off with the first available woman he meets.
> 
>  Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub>, the samurai with a baby
> carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's
> arsenal.
> 
>  So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the
> extended juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to
> remain domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject
> from your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental
> health issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?
> 
>  -- rec --
> 
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels <
> mar...@snoutfarm.com > wrote:
> 
>  "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people
> who lost all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took
> on hormone profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
> 
>  In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why
> doesn't popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium
> endures?We have lots of experience on earth making sure that
> communities are partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving
> remnants I see around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use
> of heroin and fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front yard
> plants.
> 
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)>
>  -Original Message-
>  From: Friam  friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On Behalf Of glen
>  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
>  To: friam@redfish.com 
>  Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
> 
>  "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think
> first-worlders like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even
> be true for the first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by
> a lot than a large extinction."
> 
>  IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant
> way? Are they actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is
> the attribution of vigilance (and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born
> of othering? A standard whipping post for me is this "Are you a cat person
> or a dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. Admitting the false dichotomy,
> dog people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, blahblah. Cat
> people tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete
> nonsense born of arbitrary delusions.
> 
>  But of course, there is something to be said of the built
> environment. It would be difficult for a human reared in a city to navigate
> the Mongolian desert. But is that difference any greater than plopping a
> city

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[glen]

Yeah, that was a great show. I suppose I can see "mostly independent" humans at 
around 10 years ... maybe even down to 5, I guess. But 2? That seems extreme. Of course, 
I'm ignorant of the anthropology. Maybe 2 year olds used to be much more coordinated, 
perhaps taller, with a better developed cortex? I thought there was a spike in pruning 
circa 4 years? I suppose, just like height and other features, that pruning spike might 
move around depending on environmental pressure.

On 5/31/23 06:38, Marcus Daniels wrote:

There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.


On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:

What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and cooking, 
say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the Corn were older than 
2. 8^D


On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
"the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern industrial 
society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, independent existence was 
only marginally longer than that of other large mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months 
for elephants and bears and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, the 
Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
.

Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the infant 
who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the kid off 
with the first available woman he meets.

Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
, the samurai with a baby 
carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's arsenal.

So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from your 
morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health issues 
will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?

-- rec --


On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:


"What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost all the 
epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone profiles more like 
chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."

In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't popular 
science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?We have 
lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are partitioned by 
socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see around here are 
homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and fentanyl.   The deer, 
however, happily munch on my front yard plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) 

-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> 
On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

"Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think first-worlders 
like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even be true for the 
first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by a lot than a large 
extinction."

IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are they 
actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the attribution of vigilance 
(and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of othering? A standard whipping post for 
me is this "Are you a cat person or a dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. 
Admitting the false dichotomy, dog people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, 
blahblah. Cat people tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete 
nonsense born of arbitrary delusions.

But of course, there is something to be said of the built environment. It would be difficult 
for a human reared in a city to navigate the Mongolian desert. But is that difference any greater 
than plopping a city dweller 13,000 years in the past? Are office or political games significantly 
different from the "games" wild babies play under the vigilant eye of their den mother? 
Yeah, I know. I'm putting too much weight on "significant". Obviously, everything's 
different from everything else. (I regret not being able to engage more with Jon's exploration of 
Deleuze.) But my conservatism tells me that objective othering would rely solely on coherent 
traits, fingers vs. claws, hair vs. fur, cortex or no cortex. A human now would be insignificantly 
different 

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Marcus Daniels]

There's also "Hanna" (2011) and the series that followed.

> On May 31, 2023, at 6:24 AM, glen  wrote:
> 
> What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and cooking, 
> say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the Corn were older than 
> 2. 8^D
> 
>> On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:
>> "the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
>> industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
>> independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
>> mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears and 
>> large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.
>> davew
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>>> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, 
>>> the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
>>> .
>>> 
>>> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
>>> chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the 
>>> infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the 
>>> kid off with the first available woman he meets.
>>> 
>>> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
>>> , the samurai with a baby 
>>> carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
>>> arsenal.
>>> 
>>> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
>>> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
>>> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from 
>>> your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health 
>>> issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?
>>> 
>>> -- rec --
>>> 
 On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels >>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>"What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost 
>>> all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone 
>>> profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
>>> 
>>>In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't 
>>> popular science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?  
>>>   We have lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are 
>>> partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see 
>>> around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and 
>>> fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front yard plants.
>>> 
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) 
>>> 
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Friam >> > On Behalf Of glen
>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
>>>To: friam@redfish.com 
>>>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>>> 
>>>"Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think 
>>> first-worlders like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even 
>>> be true for the first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by 
>>> a lot than a large extinction."
>>> 
>>>IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are 
>>> they actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the 
>>> attribution of vigilance (and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of 
>>> othering? A standard whipping post for me is this "Are you a cat person or 
>>> a dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. Admitting the false dichotomy, 
>>> dog people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, blahblah. Cat 
>>> people tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete 
>>> nonsense born of arbitrary delusions.
>>> 
>>>But of course, there is something to be said of the built environment. 
>>> It would be difficult for a human reared in a city to navigate the 
>>> Mongolian desert. But is that difference any greater than plopping a city 
>>> dweller 13,000 years in the past? Are office or political games 
>>> significantly different from the "games" wild babies play under the 
>>> vigilant eye of their den mother? Yeah, I know. I'm putting too much weight 
>>> on "significant". Obviously, everything's different from everything else. 
>>> (I regret not being able to engage more with Jon's exploration of Deleuze.) 
>>> But my conservatism tells me that objective othering would rely solely on 
>>> coherent traits, fingers vs. claws, hair vs. fur, cortex or no cortex. A 
>>> human now would be insignificantly different from a human then. If the 
>>> apocalypse doesn't transform us into something other than human, whatever 
>>> is rebuilt will be strikingly similar to what we have now.
>>> 
>>> 
On 5/28/23 11:29, David Eric

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[glen]

What?!? The idea of a gaggle of toddlers running around hunting and cooking, 
say, boar for supper is astounding. Even Children of the Corn were older than 
2. 8^D

On 5/31/23 06:19, Prof David West wrote:

"the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern industrial 
society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, independent existence was 
only marginally longer than that of other large mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months 
for elephants and bears and large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.

davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:

Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, the 
Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film) 
.

Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the infant 
who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the kid off 
with the first available woman he meets.

Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub 
, the samurai with a baby 
carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's arsenal.

So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from your 
morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health issues 
will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?

-- rec --

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost all the 
epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone profiles more like 
chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."

In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't popular 
science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?    We have 
lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are partitioned by 
socioeconomic status.    All of the saving remnants I see around here are 
homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and fentanyl.   The deer, 
however, happily munch on my front yard plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film) 

-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> 
On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
To: friam@redfish.com 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

"Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think first-worlders 
like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even be true for the 
first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by a lot than a large 
extinction."

IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are they 
actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the attribution of vigilance 
(and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of othering? A standard whipping post for 
me is this "Are you a cat person or a dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. 
Admitting the false dichotomy, dog people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, 
blahblah. Cat people tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete 
nonsense born of arbitrary delusions.

But of course, there is something to be said of the built environment. It would be difficult 
for a human reared in a city to navigate the Mongolian desert. But is that difference any greater 
than plopping a city dweller 13,000 years in the past? Are office or political games significantly 
different from the "games" wild babies play under the vigilant eye of their den mother? 
Yeah, I know. I'm putting too much weight on "significant". Obviously, everything's 
different from everything else. (I regret not being able to engage more with Jon's exploration of 
Deleuze.) But my conservatism tells me that objective othering would rely solely on coherent 
traits, fingers vs. claws, hair vs. fur, cortex or no cortex. A human now would be insignificantly 
different from a human then. If the apocalypse doesn't transform us into something other than 
human, whatever is rebuilt will be strikingly similar to what we have now.


On 5/28/23 11:29, David Eric Smith wrote:
> I’m not sure elitist, Steve,
>
> That’s one bad habit that I don’t think they have.
>
> More along the line, I suspect, of “out of ordinary people who mostly get 
mowed down, here and there will be some pockets that started to pay attention and 
got lucky enough to have time to make a culture of it, of sorts”
>
> Wes Jackson likes the term “saving remnant”.
>
> I happen to be in Sw

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Prof David West]

"the extended juvenile development of humans," is an artifact of modern 
industrial society. For "de-domesticated humans" development to, mostly, 
independent existence was only marginally longer than that of other large 
mammals. Roughly two years for humans, 18 months for elephants and bears and 
large cats,12 months  for a host of other species.

davew

On Wed, May 31, 2023, at 5:34 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi, the 
> Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film).  
> 
> Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to 
> chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the 
> infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the 
> kid off with the first available woman he meets.
> 
> Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub, the samurai with a 
> baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's 
> arsenal.
> 
> So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended 
> juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain 
> domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from your 
> morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health issues 
> will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?
> 
> -- rec --
> 
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>> "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost all 
>> the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone 
>> profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
>> 
>> In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't popular 
>> science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?We 
>> have lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are 
>> partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see 
>> around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and 
>> fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front yard plants.  
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>> 
>> "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think 
>> first-worlders like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even be 
>> true for the first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by a 
>> lot than a large extinction."
>> 
>> IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are 
>> they actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the 
>> attribution of vigilance (and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of 
>> othering? A standard whipping post for me is this "Are you a cat person or a 
>> dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. Admitting the false dichotomy, dog 
>> people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, blahblah. Cat people 
>> tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete nonsense born 
>> of arbitrary delusions.
>> 
>> But of course, there is something to be said of the built environment. It 
>> would be difficult for a human reared in a city to navigate the Mongolian 
>> desert. But is that difference any greater than plopping a city dweller 
>> 13,000 years in the past? Are office or political games significantly 
>> different from the "games" wild babies play under the vigilant eye of their 
>> den mother? Yeah, I know. I'm putting too much weight on "significant". 
>> Obviously, everything's different from everything else. (I regret not being 
>> able to engage more with Jon's exploration of Deleuze.) But my conservatism 
>> tells me that objective othering would rely solely on coherent traits, 
>> fingers vs. claws, hair vs. fur, cortex or no cortex. A human now would be 
>> insignificantly different from a human then. If the apocalypse doesn't 
>> transform us into something other than human, whatever is rebuilt will be 
>> strikingly similar to what we have now.
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/28/23 11:29, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> > I’m not sure elitist, Steve,
>> > 
>> > That’s one bad habit that I don’t think they have.
>> > 
>> > More along the line, I suspect, of “out of ordinary people who mostly get 
>> > mowed down, here and there will be some pockets that started to pay 
>> > attention and got lucky enough to have time to make a culture of it, of 
>> > sorts”
>> > 
>> > Wes Jackson likes the term “saving remnant”.
>> > 
>> > I happen to be in Sweden just now, and it has me thinking about sci-fi 
>> > futures, ad also Nietzsche’s “last man” etc.
>> > 
>> > Also on this theme is the very interesting SFI lecture “living with 
>> > distrust”, which signals things I have seen (Ernst Fehr?) and others say 
>> > about the Ache and Machi

Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege

[Roger Critchlow]

Eric's musing on the character of the saving remnant reminded me of Ötzi,
the Tyrolean ice mummy, as portrayed in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceman_(2017_film).

Some commentators note the western movie tropes, but when Ötzi gears up to
chase down the pillagers of his family settlement, he also straps on the
infant who was the sole survivor of the pillaging.  Of course he drops the
kid off with the first available woman he meets.

Shades of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Wolf_and_Cub, the samurai with
a baby carriage.  But as I remember, the cub became part of the lone wolf's
arsenal.

So, when you posit a de-domesticated human, what happens to the extended
juvenile development of humans?  Babies and toddlers are going to remain
domestic concerns no matter how much bourgeois mediocrity you eject from
your morality, no?  And I guess burnt out philosophers with mental health
issues will be domestic issues, too, even if they were once supermen?

-- rec --

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:04 AM Marcus Daniels 
wrote:

> "What do I think the saving remnant will be?  I imagine people who lost
> all the epigenetic marks associated with domestication, and took on hormone
> profiles more like chimps.  Or “born this way” to PTSD."
>
> In stories like Elysium, the saving remnant survives.  Why doesn't popular
> science fiction consider the future in which only Elysium endures?We
> have lots of experience on earth making sure that communities are
> partitioned by socioeconomic status.All of the saving remnants I see
> around here are homeless or hovering near death due to use of heroin and
> fentanyl.   The deer, however, happily munch on my front yard plants.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 7:27 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] crackpots and privilege
>
> "Somehow not the domain of peace and spirituality that I think
> first-worlders like to project onto first-nationers, and which might even
> be true for the first-nationers, since they are also from a milder time by
> a lot than a large extinction."
>
> IDK, man. Are wild animals different from us in any significant way? Are
> they actually never lazy, never unvigilant, etc? Or, perhaps, is the
> attribution of vigilance (and hence never unvigilance) an illusion born of
> othering? A standard whipping post for me is this "Are you a cat person or
> a dog person" cocktail party ice breaker. Admitting the false dichotomy,
> dog people tend to think of cats as non-social, selfish, blahblah. Cat
> people tend to think of dogs as slobbery, vapid, etc. It's complete
> nonsense born of arbitrary delusions.
>
> But of course, there is something to be said of the built environment. It
> would be difficult for a human reared in a city to navigate the Mongolian
> desert. But is that difference any greater than plopping a city dweller
> 13,000 years in the past? Are office or political games significantly
> different from the "games" wild babies play under the vigilant eye of their
> den mother? Yeah, I know. I'm putting too much weight on "significant".
> Obviously, everything's different from everything else. (I regret not being
> able to engage more with Jon's exploration of Deleuze.) But my conservatism
> tells me that objective othering would rely solely on coherent traits,
> fingers vs. claws, hair vs. fur, cortex or no cortex. A human now would be
> insignificantly different from a human then. If the apocalypse doesn't
> transform us into something other than human, whatever is rebuilt will be
> strikingly similar to what we have now.
>
>
> On 5/28/23 11:29, David Eric Smith wrote:
> > I’m not sure elitist, Steve,
> >
> > That’s one bad habit that I don’t think they have.
> >
> > More along the line, I suspect, of “out of ordinary people who mostly
> get mowed down, here and there will be some pockets that started to pay
> attention and got lucky enough to have time to make a culture of it, of
> sorts”
> >
> > Wes Jackson likes the term “saving remnant”.
> >
> > I happen to be in Sweden just now, and it has me thinking about sci-fi
> futures, ad also Nietzsche’s “last man” etc.
> >
> > Also on this theme is the very interesting SFI lecture “living with
> distrust”, which signals things I have seen (Ernst Fehr?) and others say
> about the Ache and Machiguenga and other groups.
> >
> >
> > Take any wild animal, and contemplate just how _different_ they are from
> us.  Never lazy.  Never un-vigilant.  Or read Jonathan Shay’s Achilles in
> Vietnam.
> >
> > Suppose all the people who remain have survived only because they are
> that.  Unwind not only the past 70 years of developed-world tranquility,
> but the history of human domestication since at least the younger dryas.
> Maybe a lot longer ago than that.
> >
> > What is it like to have your Time Machine and go spend a weekend with
> those guys in their home?  Jared Diamond would be jealous