 This is the OGM weekly call for Thursday, December 14, 2023. It is almost Christmas. And the world is wacky. Which seems to be the status quo these days, so might as well get used to it. We're hoping that makes April's book an evergreen theme, but that's sort of a bad wish to have. Yeah. This is the on schedule for check-in round. We could check in and then start talking about whatever. So I'm going to offer that up. See who'd like to check in. And we'll go from there. How about you start today? Sounds good. Happy to. So I'm, as always, trying to figure out how to explain who I am and what I do. And I keep trying to refine what's the, what's the foundation or what's the outside wrapper or what's the core or I don't even know which metaphor applies best to all these things. And for so, so the closest place I've kind of come to that is some combination of trust and sense making. And that the two things are deeply intertwined because I by myself might try to do a lot of sense making and might even make a little bit of sense. But unless somebody trusts me even just a little bit, they're never going to listen to my sense making. And that a lot of sense making doesn't make sense. So I think that the decisions are made between people that have nothing to do with their self interest or logic or science or anything like that they have to do with many other forces that you have to acknowledge and deal with. But, but for me the interplay of those two forces seems to be like at the core of what I, what I care about and what I do with maybe the third complication of technology. And the advent of the sudden sort of step function and capacity of machine learning, which changes the game for a lot of things, including our ability to trust each other because deep fix are now easily possible, etc, etc, etc. So a whole bunch of things are mixed in here. And my hope is that this description this duo or trio of themes topics. It's a nice foundation or umbrella or tent for the different projects that I'm doing like new books and everything else. And I'm not sure. I don't know. I'll, I'll, when we free up to talk, I'll, I'll feedback welcome. Hi, Judy. No worries. I'm we're just doing check in round and I've, I'm going first. And I've just just reached the end of my little check in. So I think I will, I will stop there. Can you do a 30 second recap? Yeah, I'm picking out how to explain myself, which is my perennial thing. And I think that the duo or trio of topics are trust sense making, and then the effects of technology on all of the above. Thank you. That's my elevator pitch right now. It's not like, Hey, I want to build a marketplace where people can train stuff. So, which is, which is simpler. I sort of had the same feeling. I think I found finally, my, you know, the, the, it's too intense when you go to, to an operating unit, you know, like the family kitchen or neighbor impact and so on, because you know, what I'm talking about is just, it's just would really require intense personal engagements, you know, on a continued basis and so on. And, and that's just that would just hamstrung me completely. It's not really fair to get to sort of go in and out and let people hang. So you have to, you have to find a wall that where you can be beneficial. And so that's what I, what I, what I found is probably my niche. And so my kids actually had me and my daughter did the website and my son, you know, set me up with the newsletter that I just started. So, so trust their both in the, in the field. I just have to capture enough time from them. And, but I mean, it's really, it's really difficult to, to observe scary really, you know, to observe what's what's what the world around you is doing and trying to bend it a little bit towards towards some, some productive, some self help, some anticipation, some preparation. So I'm, I'm always floating back and forth between. Oh my God, now there's nothing you can do here. This is going down and how exciting there are people who want to make a change and participate and how can we do that? How can we move this forward? But I mean, honestly, the, the political process in the US right now is just totally not it up. And, and the, the, this, our structure that is our struggle now going back and forth completely neutralizes our ability to really do much of anything. So, so anyway, I got a pretty nice reception with the newsletters now I'm already like 750 people who signed up for it. And I haven't really advertised it yet much. So that's, that's encouraging, but it's also a challenge because now you feel like you have to really carefully consider what, what to post and what to do next now. Anyway, my partner and I, from, from climate system solutions, we are working on starting a workshop in January for industry professionals. And so we plan on doing a 360 group, meaning we want to have in there a farmer but also maybe a seed core, maybe a processor, someone who is in the wholesale retail section. So we can have conversations across a spectrum someone from the investment fund. And we have had we have some great connections because we have done these webinars for three years now and we had some pretty senior level people on the panels. So if we can so we wanted to start with pretty much OGM format, then I'll have a weekly top in meeting and then out of that spin specialized sessions that focus on on the more narrow very specific topic with specialists who are interested in that topic. So we'll start with the process of developing materials already worked and abstract. And so we'll see if we can pull this off in January my partner is extremely well connected now in the industry is super engaged and people really respond to him calling. So that that that should be, I mean, we should be able to to get a starting shot now. And I've done, actually all my career I've done sort of focus group research, while I was within Disney, while I was with my next job. I've always I had a monthly meeting where I put people from different departments together and had conversations now. And, and that that really assisted basically, you know, it's a it's a focus group of the function this preparation. So that's, that's, that's my plan. I'll see where it goes. You and me Judy. This is not on video but it doesn't mean she might want to check in slowly fair. I can go first Pete. I guess I'm, I'm not quite at the stage that class is in terms of energizing but I usually go into a year and reflection on what it is I want to be doing for the next year. It's sort of, where can I contribute and what can I do to make a difference. Recognizing time constraints and other things. And, as class has said it's, it's a really disturbing time to try to figure that out, and to figure out what organizations I could work with that would have an opportunity to have impact even on local in terms of attempting to change human behavior and write humans to consider their state a little more carefully. And so, I'm finding it harder this year because it doesn't feel as optimistic as it has in previous times. And that's influencing my energy levels a bit. I'm rotating off the board on arts which is okay. I'm still involved in some science and technology stuff in a couple different arenas, which feels like an area where I have more to contribute. But I'm just disappointed in humanity I guess in a way in our inability to sort of think in a bigger picture than self interest. Jesse do you want to go next. Okay. Jesse says she'll go after me. I've got all kinds of things going on. I'm not sure which to report out on. I'll pick a couple. I've had, I've been having conversations with a few folks about something that we've been calling into community. One of the things I do is is set up infrastructure that tries to at least bump communities into each other. So, CSE metamus is like that plexus like that. And recently, talking into a few other people who are interested in community stuff. I realized that the into community people don't have a community. There's a bunch of people doing into community work but we don't talk very much. So, next year, really next year, I'm going to be talking with a couple folks about that to see if there's more that we can do to do more into community stuff by doing it together. So an inner community inner community. This weekend. I'm pretty excited. There's a kind of a tech movement called indie web that's been around for a decade or so. It's actually really cool. The idea is that instead of big silos, like Facebook or or X or whatever. You, you do stuff on the web in your own space on your own domain, and then, and then syndicate it out to other parts of the web. So, it's a small movement. They never gained a lot of traction they've got some really cool stuff and it's good at decentralization. So I'm excited about that. The into community stuff that one of the headlines we came up with for it this week was decentralized coordination. There's somehow where, you know, it's, it's hard to hard to coordinate in a decentralized way like how do you find people, how do you find the right people, how do you tell people stuff. In a way that the indie web and into community stuff has is resonates harmonizes. So anyway, any web community is having their first in person meeting. Since the pandemic started, and it happens in San Diego so I'm going to go super excited. It's about, it's going to be like around 10 people or so it's not a big thing, but I'll get to see Chris Aldrich there, and probably Jack Park, and some of the other folks that I've kind of heard of and you know a little bit of. So that's pretty exciting. My main stuff is working on some AI things. Having some fun with GPTs and lots of image generation and AI art with mid journey and trying to figure out how marketplaces for both people producing AI content and then people who might be able to consume a generated content might work. I'm surprised it's, it's seemed, we have, I don't know, we have places where it seems to be a lot of mismatch between how we think of creating stuff and how we consume stuff and who can do it and who can't and what's professional means and and seems like a lot of marketplace opportunities, I guess, so that I'm doing the pitch backwards if I do the pitch forwards, it's, let me let me try it on for size real quick. New AI tools can do help you do help people do help humans do art and writing and thinking and being creative. And these tools unlock or democratize the power of creation for people who who it wasn't available to you before. We have this idea for whatever reason we had this idea oh great chat GPT is here we can make it do its homework and I can I can do my work and I don't have to do any work and that's totally the wrong way to look at AI. AI is, I was talking to my office this morning AI is kind of like a piano it sounds really pretty you know it sounds better than banging rocks together or sticks together. And you can you know make any note you want, as long as it's on the chromatic scale and, and as long as, you know, as long as it's a piano sound and not a guitar sound or whatever. But that doesn't mean that it makes the music for you it makes a sound for you doesn't make music so humans still are the things that that make creative music. So, AI tools kind of unlock the ability to be creative in a new way. They don't complete the art they get you started with the art or the, you know, the work or work of writing or whatever. And they, they help you do a lot better. So, in this world we've got this democratized ability to do a lot more creative stuff for humans. And that means that the places where we've had professionals doing image creation or text writing. More people can participate and more people can participate in smaller slivers of it. So little parts of it can get done by more people more effectively. So, then if you have lots of people, you know, writing stuff or lots of people generating art. And maybe in little niche parts of it. There needs to be a marketplace to tile that together. So I'm excited about that marketplace. And that's what I'm interested in doing next year. So, that's me to see it sounds like you're up. That is my last name. So, I love what you're talking about in terms of can you hear me just fine. Inter community. But you know what really angers me. And you know you're in the right space when you're working on something if it's really agree that there's just a duplicate of efforts and trying to find a way to reduce that duplicate duplication is something I was looking at. And so, I guess the first thing I'd like to say for a check in as I'm, you know, the world agreed to move away from fossil fuels and Dubai, so the yay on that. But there was this one interesting video that someone shared, I think it was tray. Judith you're on the call. The tray that shared. Yeah, I think that's worth sharing I'll put it in the chat just to drop it in there. It's funny and it's truth. But I won't go into it. We can do that later if you wanted to. But in my own little small world and what Judy do that already heard just yesterday on a call is it feels like it's just too big to be able to work on something so I've chosen food as some of you already know food security as a way to approach what's what can be better in this world, and it because food industry touches so many parts of the system. So, talk about connecting people and data and resources to support food security. And this way of trying to start something this form. I'll put it in chat and somehow it's going to move into some kind of. I don't know what it is, but I am meeting with Vincent today to discuss how this data can be visualized. But more simply, I am almost done finishing the app development for plant powered foodie. And it's all about putting more plants on your plate and not only that but enjoying enjoying it enjoying those plants. So, I don't know if that was a pitch backwards or a pitch forward but my story. Thank you. That's lovely. Thanks Jesse really appreciate that. And another video to watch excellent this. One of the things I like about my Celia or mushrooms as a metaphor is that my Celia externalize their digestive process, I think I don't and I'm not a biologist I'm probably saying this all wrong. But you know, humans and other animals have stomachs they have acids and so forth in their stomachs, stomachs and bacteria, they ingest things. And basically excrete acids and other substances that melt things like rocks and minerals and so forth that they can then metabolize. And it's really interesting and I feel, and one of the reasons why I love my Celia as metaphor is that I'm trying to imagine what it looks like for us to to externalize our digestion of media and materials, and yet make it available and understandable for each other. And how do we, and maybe that's too gross a metaphor for trying to try to process information, but but how do we process all of this together so that it's trustworthy and findable and connected and relatable and all those kinds of things. So hence my love of the big fungus as a metaphor overall for this thing. Cool. It sounds like there was some resonance in our check ins maybe because we all kind of follow ourselves but about like what our purpose is and where energy is headed. Things of that nature, but I'm open to talking about whatever and Pete's got his hand up. Thanks Jerry. I just took it a little bit by you saying that my seal networks have externalizer digestive system. There's a interesting article in nature that maybe humans did the same thing. By cooking by fermentation actually fermentation got it and they talk about how you don't have to know fermentation technology to start using fermentation if you just cash some food and a dark human place. But if you do that enough if you kind of get the hang of it. You're breaking down your food faster so you can move some of your metabolic energy investments from your gut to your brain. So that's the story. It's an interesting story. Thank you. Anyone else want to take this wherever you'd like. I came across yesterday. An experiment where there's someone some some copies calling brain cells. And then merging them with with a computer. So to use real human brain cells calling a lab to combine those with a computer now that gets pretty sketchy that kind of research. There's certainly ethical boundaries for all these kinds of things that are to be explored real soon now. It's frustrating that there doesn't seem to be any central body or even distributed body that addresses ethics across multiple arenas. And the arenas are all sort of blending together. Hey Bill we just did a quick round of check ins if you'd like to please do and we're finding our way toward a topic for the rest of the call. Okay well so just sorry to be late. So just what what Judith just said, I've just finished reading Wendy Brown's little book of talk she gave Yale lectures called Neolithic Times. Which Pete mentioned a moment ago when he checked out. Well I just finished it and the thing that's I'm going to have to read this again it's one of the board difficult books I've read, mostly because she's such a careful political scientist and philosopher the language. Yeah I had to look a lot of words up. My argument is that that Max Weber at the end of his life really saw it when he was at the end of the 18th century and the 19th century and stuff it was just like the displacement of authority from religion into science and then the whole kind of building up with the bureaucracy in these large other systems. He said what we really need what people need is to separate. This is a, I don't really completely understand it but basically separate intellectual academic work as to really understand what values are how do we create values all these things from the realm in which we actually put them at the practice which he called politics. And so, at the end, the basically I mean she does a really good critique because she says Weber basically was such a. He tried to make academic so pure that it really has led to what we have now which is like the over political politicalization of academia which was on display just in Congress last week with these, you know, underprepared university presidents. So it's more like what what we really need that was to really build a moat between academia and politics, one that actually allows us to examine what we what we know how we know what all these things. And then secondly understand how maybe to put that into practice and politics but without just reducing in a, you know, some intellectual study of, say, values or the morality. Be able to study that and then also then be able to talk about what kind of morals that we want to live by and how are we going to do that. I mean I have to read this again is very kind of but that's the basic story and she says the real thing we need need to do which struck me was. No one needs to study philosophy humanities literature arts is actually to develop ways to actually understand how to think about things or invent new ways to think about things or even talk about how we think about how we think about things or we could actually do it better. And then there is the realm in which we actually have to organize ourselves socially and you know, like accomplish, let's live by laws. Let's make that work, which is, you know, something different. Anyway, so thank you what what little I know about the book which I've not read is that it's based a lot on Weber's vocation lectures, and he wrote, he gave a he gave a lecture in 1917 just mid mid four or one science as a vocation. And then a second lecture in 1919 politics as a vocation. And I know nothing about them. Can you describe them a little bit or is there something else you can light up for us about what what he was thinking or because that gets a crazy time in history. World War two is a crazy war the end of World War two is a terrible time for the world because a lot of stupid stuff happened right then. Can you say more. No, I will very I just really do not I have the same. This is my first introduction to those two works by Weber is from her. She says she uses them in teaching, but mostly because he tried to make the point about what is it about politics, and this is where we actually determine amongst ourselves as a society, what we think is important, and how we actually put what's important like this. And the sciences of science is more like a shorthand for until academic and intellectual study of, you know, domains, including, you know, morality, or whatever. Yeah, and it sounds like the lectures were highly influential and shaped a lot of how we think about and how we do those things. And he said that that, well, he actually sort of was trying to struggle with his own issues right. I mean, you know, the quote from the INS go, you know, God is dead boxes dead, and I'm not feeling so good myself. So. But it was really struggling with now that you know authority which used to be institutionalized in religion and traditions was displaced by authority in terms of science here's how we know things. So truth is, you know, became much more contested. And we had developed your capitalism had started to develop mechanisms for how do we, you know, just do our thing. And he was sort of trying to figure out how do we actually get back to a place where we can actually have places to study. Think about things and also, you know, just not have the two. It's not one thing he said there are two basically two things going on here, studying academics, learning, thinking, and then putting it to practice socially and they need there needs to be some separation between them. I'm sorry, I just want to go off on one more second. It feels like in some corners of the world and certainly not a majority of the population there is a tremendous appetite for the conversation you're putting in front of us for doing more about that thinking more about that bringing back critical thinking, building better citizens and citizenship and all those kinds of things like there's a lot of appetite for that, which I like. Well, so the last thing and the afterward to the book she said this is what we need to, well, she's an educator right so, but she says, this is what we need to be doing in in, you know, academic and in education is, you know, because she said young people says they're not immune to the fact that they are being forced into like you got to get a job and you got to have skills and you got to have a CB and you got to be on LinkedIn with. Oh my god the climate's falling apart. You know she goes we need to help them. You know as best we can learn how to work with these questions and also. So that's more of I think what I thought I found the effort quite powerful because she says you know the problem with STEM education is it's all about being instrumental. That's what you said you know so there's one thing about making you seeing what we've done to soils and agriculture and all this stuff. And there's one piece about what we could be technical about it, but we also need to use what you pointed out many times. Well there's like a, and I appeal it to there's a basic morality here and how we are living. And, you know, taking care of basically ourselves in our whole world so she says that the appetite is really available. Because young people, they have it mean they're living it right now. Right, because I'm not going to be alive in 2050. You know, but my son will my grandkids will. So, I mean, you know, if they live that long but whatever, you know so anyway I just, I think it's a really important conversation to be had, and you know those. The wits call those three presidents hapless except for the fact that their institutions have a ton of money, and they were so ill prepared to walk into Congress. I don't know what they thought they were working into thesis a thesis defense like no. You know, so, so I think that just shows how, you know, we really need to work it. And separating learning how to think, and also learning how to, you know, and getting things done. Without, I don't know. Her take is vapor tried to make it really antiseptic and you're going to be an academic you basically can't have any opinions or values or it was like, she goes yeah, well, there was a lot of there was a lot of that going on at the time a lot of people. She just did that to anthropology, like there's a whole bunch of pick yourself out of the equation make this as objective, you know, objectivity through all of science and all that, and it screwed up a lot of things because the scientist inevitably is entwined with the work. She just said it was worse. Because vapor just set this thing up to be like, you know, completely pure tenant antiseptic and what did that did it let the door open to where we are now. Well, thanks, Bill. That's awesome. Pete Klaus Judy. Thanks. Thanks, Bill. Yeah, the visual metaphor or whatever of a moat between academics and politics. And I just wanted to kind of like the, the thing that happened with the university presidents and representatives to chronic, I thought was it was is one of those, you know, defining moments kind of where where I don't think anybody really enjoyed it, but you can see that the world kind of changed another notch and and I think a lot of people went great that's a good notch to have moved over, but if you pull back a little bit you go. It wasn't good for anybody, you know it's not good for free speech it's not good for decision making it's not good for politics or academia. You know all it does is it moves academia more into the position politics. I talked a little bit with about this with Bill and a little bit about with my wife and politics is actually kind of out of my depth so I don't know if I got anything wrong but the, you know, one of the questions my wife has is like, so why weren't these university presidents, just human, you know, if somebody says, you know when somebody says they're calling for you to say, I have more genocide, you know anywhere it happens so that's obviously a bad thing they couldn't say that. And she's like well if, you know, if I were a human and I were sitting in a chair that I would have been able to say that and I'm like well, you know the reason that they're sitting in that chair the reason they're sitting in their chair is not the congressional chair. The reason they're sitting in that chair is because they've been able to turn themselves into a particular kind of robot at certain in certain venues right so when they're in an academic, you know, discrimination, administration discussion, they have a can set of responses which they, they spool out right so they don't say the human thing like, you know, genocide makes me sick to my stomach. They say something else more nuanced and sad that goes along with the guidelines right. So it was a really interesting. And then another question is, these are essentially CEOs of like, you know, billion dollar corporations or whatever how could they have gone to and not been prepared for, you know, and it's like it was, it was wrong. It was a cleverly constructed trap that Stefanik sprung. You know, it wasn't she was she wasn't being particularly clever. I don't think she was effective at being a bear trap. But I'm pretty sure she got coached into why that bear trap how that bear trap works. What to do to, you know, when to spring the bear trap all that kind of stuff right it's levels of political machination way above a Stefanik's she was just the, you know, the sharp instrument at the, at the call face. So the whole thing is really fascinating to watch, you know, and so now that three, three university presidents like right in a row stepped in the bear trap and got their leg, you know, not off. It's like, Okay, well, so now academia has to learn that, you know, that trap and the route around that now, which ultimately doesn't nobody any good. And it's just sad to see it happen, play out that way. It's just, and fascinating, fascinating in a macabre and get wrenching way. So Pete, inadvertently, maybe mentioned the, the manipulation that's that's in the system, but because if I make if you say that that information really comes from someone else coaching or a group of people coaching or that really reveals the entire different nations that are in that are in place. No, behind to see not so much behind the scene anymore when you look at the heritage foundation and Liberty groups and so on and so on it's just, it's just blatant. But the what what really struck me out of the crop 28 is the on the one hand to realization that Western industrialized nations have to reduce their consumption patterns there's just no way around it. I mean, we're just which is depleting the planet of resources in with our lifestyle, and the absolute resistance to do that. So, so the, the, I mean, the Biden administration sort of is floundering right now with this with this position. I mean, when you think about electric cars, for example, you know, Ford just halved their most popular electric model, the 150 truck. They just cut the production line in half because they can't sell it. They are there is one year of supply of electric cars on car lots. So what that implies is that the the the market is just not receptive enough. And then you have, you don't have enough charging stations. There's not enough infrastructure in place. You know, there's no coordinated training program for mechanics and repair shops and all of this that would be able to deal with this massive influx of a new technology into the economy. So you, so it's not coordinated because the whole system is fighting every step of the way. I mean, people who own gas stations, they don't want to, you know, all of a sudden shift into electric. You know, they're not geared up for it. And then the same is true for repair shops. And so the entire infrastructure is corning because there is no consensus, right? There is no national consensus on we need to do this. And so the, I mean, I see it in the food business. And when you when you look at the most promising group of people should really be teenagers, you know, young adults, college kids and so on, they're clueless. I mean, the information doesn't penetrate into that group. They could actually create a counter-revolution and if they're just with their buying behavior, you know, just by shifting their consumption patterns, but they're not doing it. It's just, it hasn't, it hasn't sunk in. So there's it's, it's, it's just extremely difficult to create a form of coordinated action, which has to start with a common story, right? We need a story that everybody buys into and embraces and then acts on. So I mean, right now, I was reading Colorado, the Trump is just soaring, you know, to in the polls. And I mean, it's not that people care for the guy or they may they may actually despise him because he's such a revolting individual. But it's a form of protest. It's a form of we hate what's going on here. And which is, which is mad, you know, we want to pull this thing up because it's going in places we don't like. And that's basically because people haven't come to to accept, you know, I mean, my God, my son is flying to Colorado this weekend to go skiing. His girlfriend just came back from Miami last week for some art show. You know, I mean, they're like constantly those people who have the money are consuming like there's no tomorrow. It's just incredible. And even my own kids, you know, where they know what their dad is up to. And it doesn't mean that's just, you know, so. Yeah, I don't know how how we how we can shake that up and the unfortunate thing, of course, is the parallel would be the United States before entering World War Two. And when you when you look at this one year before Pearl Harbor, man, it was massive confusion. We had a neo-Nazi, you had neo-Nazis out in the streets. It wasn't neo at the time, they were Nazis, you know, in the street, protesting, marching, you know, you had a communist party that was active. I mean, it was just a pandemonium because the economy was in the tank also. And it wasn't until Pearl Harbor that became a unifying force, you know, that consolidated the national energy. The problem is, if we have a Pearl Harbor event caused by climate change, it's basically game over, you know. Now you have past irreversible tipping points and you can't put the ice back onto the glacier, it's gone. Sorry, I'm rambling. Class, no, thank you. Just your brief sentence up front. I'm paraphrasing, but supporting Trump as a form of protest was like nice and totally crisp and clear and something I hadn't put in such few words. So thank you for that and everything else you said. Go ahead, Judy. I'm trying to avoid getting depressed. The piece that bothers me all of the time is the presumption that people think similarly or behave similarly given circumstances. We are such a spectrum of humanity in terms of inherent capacity, experienced capacity, you know, what percentage of the population even gets to higher level education. How do we reach people who aren't in higher education if we presume that we need fairly sophisticated philosophy to reach people that doesn't seem like a successful approach. And so I get sort of frustrated with how to do something that will have impact, or how to change the system in some way to invite a different type of engagement. There's a difference between what I perceive societally as a predominance of behavior in people in self-interested behaviors. We even see it in generational changes from the baby boomers to the Gen Xers and less participation in any form of volunteerism by the Gen Xers. And in order for the kind of change to occur that would be needed to correct many of these things. We have to reach a lot more people than our current ways of reaching people go. And that might be something for us to think about where their pressure points that could be successfully leveraged that would actually reach people individually. I mean do we want the people in the street approach because that does engage people. And what will they be hearing or engaging in that might influence them to think about something differently or to actually change a behavior. And so there's sort of social psychology there's intellectualism there's discernment. And so many of our friends and neighbors are even in the intellectual categories of people, which this group pretty much is. We have different capacities for change different capacities for incorporating new information. And a lot of these topics, I don't even bring up in sort of typical neighborhood gatherings because I haven't figured out how to do it. So I, I'm not feeling very constructive here but I'm sort of trying to raise an issue that is really frightening for me. Because if the people who have discernment become so discouraged that they give up the game is over. And that's not where I'd like to see us all go. And the depletion of the planet is something that's so massive in scope that you can't really leave it to the legislators or the politicians, or even the educators to invite the shifts in behavior that would need to occur. I'll stop because otherwise I'll get sad. Thanks Judy I'm sorry you're sad and I'm very much noting the sort of the anger and desperation and exhaustion of a lot of people who care about these issues and that scares me as well. And maybe we, maybe we can go into silence just for a little bit to sit with what the last couple of people have added to the conversation. I'll bring us back out and then go to bill. Apparently it only takes 10 slow deep breaths to kind of reset your Vegas system or autonomous nervous system or I don't know which system resets but then 10 slow deep breaths usually helps a bunch. Which is usually a couple minutes worth of reading. You're muted. First time on zoom totally got it. Well that's really interesting about 10 breaths in the Vegas nerve because from my experience when I was a Zen practitioner the first send meditation practices is to count your breaths to 10 and start over again. If you find out I only got the three I don't know what I'm thinking about you just go back to one right you restart. As my teacher one such he said, it's the easiest practice. All you have to do is when you're not paying attention. Pay attention again. It's like, it's not very complicated. So it's not easy, but it's not very complicated. So. Well, I want to follow up on what Pete said his wife said what my wife said, in addition to these presidents like, you know, they talked to the lawyers but they didn't talk to the PR people it's like, you know, you're going to Congress. Like, you know, it's not the faculty Senate here, whatever. But the other thing is, and you know she's an academic as well as I've been she said, I think that some of these people. At class you mentioned as little, they don't really, then I think they think, oh this is Congress these people don't really know anything I can deal with this. Like I have no idea what they're walking into. I can deal with somebody who can't think well I think well, it's like, you know, I don't know what you think you're walking into, you know, this is not a, this is not a, you know, this is not a think off here. So there is a little bit of, you know, the feeling that, you know, smart people are just, you know, well, I'm smart, therefore, you know, I can. I'm just smarter. And I learned a long time ago that, you know, regardless of what I've read, not that smart. But the thing that Judith said I was a, there was a teacher in high school for a brief semester I was hired to take over from a science teacher that everyone loved who had to leave because he couldn't afford that what they were paying. So, you know, I started off in the downside. But one of the things I found then when I was trying to teach like ninth graders general science. Maybe because they're still no idealistic and just out of graduate school and like, yeah, I know, like, I know things. And just there was a lot of questions that they would ask that I would just say, That's a decent question. Let's talk about that. Rather than trying to be didactic and saying here's the material. And I think, I mean, Klaus, I think this is true because you started, you said you started to work with some people in the community and people who are actually trying to get things done do have questions. And sometimes they can feel, you know, I mean, I've had some neighbors that just, they were just intimidated because I had a graduate degree and I'm like, I don't know what you're talking about. You know, you know more about tending a garden than I do about anything. But so I I think we're in is we could touch people if we could be in situations where it's okay to ask whatever questions or like Pete said, right, if somebody says, you know, a genocide just just say what you think. Or if you're, you know, if you're frightened just say yeah scares me too. I don't like that because I do think I was Wendy Brown made a point about young people. I said it early but it really strikes me being in a system that they need to be in order to make a living to get ahead and still trying to squash this kind of questions and uncertainty and fear they have about how viable is this system there as to it. And so, I mean her take is like, that's what should be asking those questions with those people. And part of what we can be doing in school, even with younger people is learning how to ask questions about things. And it's okay to ask questions. Yeah, I don't know but I think we can, there, there is a way because in one reason I read murder mysteries is so I don't have to think about other things. So that could be like going to the latest concert as well. So, I mean, I think there is there are ways and I think maybe it's going to happen amongst in small groups, you know, and the setups can be weird. Let's all get together and talk about something so you walk into the room, you might not feel I'm like I wonder what this is about you're not really I mean I'm kind of a shy person sometimes so I'm not going to raise my hand. It's really weird because we're culture rated to be, you know, like the classroom scene is so weird. The whole thing is a weird scene. The raising of the hand to speak sort of thing to. Yeah, that that could be you could do that in a group just because it works for everyone. Yeah, right. And nobody jumps over somebody else and so, but yes. It's a I didn't. I'm braggling too but maybe this is just here. I've got the rambles this morning. That's right. I attended Quaker meeting in Connecticut which is where I fell in love with Quakerism. And one day I attended another meeting at a local bookstore. That was about Quaker meeting with an intent for business I think it's called got there's a different way of saying it. During his introduction, the guy who was basically talking to us about this asked us a question. I think Pete and a couple of you might have heard me say this tell the senator before, but he asked us a question. And then he said why don't we go into silence for a few minutes to sort of think about the question. And I think I was like 3035 somewhere in there that age and I'm like, fuck. How did I get to 35 years old and nobody ever everybody was always like, Oh, I got the like it was like first to answer was was the wind. Right. And how did I get through this old and nobody ever said let's take a while and get to a better answer. You didn't even say that he just said let's just be silent with this for a little bit and then and then talk about it. It was wonderful. So, Jesse, please. Thank you. I wish I want I found things way earlier in life to change the path. But hey, you know, it is what it is. I'm not a lovely saying. So Judith, I, when you said people, when you referred to people giving up that really did strike something in me and I know that as I see it, people give up. Because they, they're putting an effort. And it didn't create a result. I mean, they put in a lot of effort, actually, and over time, it didn't create a result and it didn't record a result and it didn't create a result. And similarly, you just put your hands up. And I'm just when I start, it's interesting that we have a Zen master in our, our house right here. But when creating an environment that's conducive to compassion, not only for the self but for others, I think it really does come down to, there's a lot of effort in going on. Therefore, a lot of failed expectations. You know, sadness and, and the Buddhism world. There's something called which seeds are you watering. And when you're having a certain feeling, it's just a, it's just a question saying what seeds are you watering. Or when, when people are giving up what seeds are they watering. And I just, I come back to that over and over again, and I just wanted to share it. Thanks. To go a little bit back to the dark stuff that Judy was going to, I keep seeing the train just barreling down the tracks toward an undesirable outcome and I keep wondering, what do we put on the rails or what do we do to this thing to derail it or how do we diffuse it or in a spirit of Akito, how do we blend with the energy and, and neutralize it's, it's negative or harmful effects. While accepting this is really an Akito this is really interesting thing once you get into it about the, the quality of connection between Uke and Nagi new the two roles or Uke and Nagi. The attacker and the receiver or the receiver is the one who pins or throws the attacker. And there's this quality of connection thing where you're both communicating with every, every sort of gesture and every, every moment of contact is not meant to be a blow and a parry, which is other sports. It's meant to be a weight and a sense of heart of your, your, your heart and your, your presence and where your energy is coming from all that stuff is at play in the middle of it. It's super interesting, because so much of it is a sense of communication and respect for your opponent, because you're trying not to kill your opponent. And our, our, my favorite of our teachers who's quite Marshall and love does a whole bunch of other things like nice sports and so forth night fighting. He always like, you know, in others, in other sports we would do this but we're Akitoists. So we're looking to neutralize or be peaceful about this and he will, he will show the variance he'd be like, there's four opportunities to kill your opponent here we're not we don't do that, we do this instead. It's really, really interesting. Sorry, I think I've got the rambles too, I think it's contagious bill. But I'm wondering, as we sit here, I feel like we're in the crowd with much better free, global telecommunications, we're in the crowd in 1938 and 34 to 38. I hate to bring up Hitler but rise of Hitler and watching different things happen that unfold and you know, Trump's statement a couple of days ago of I know I won't be a dictator except on day one was quite chilling and quite intentional I think it was extremely intentional. Klaus, go ahead. Yeah, I think we, we are in a, in a space right now that is, that's both good and bad, right, because Trump has become like depolarizing figure. And, and he is sort of, he has literally consolidated power because this Mike Johnson in the house. I mean Mike Johnson had no intention of pursuing despite impeachment until he went to Marsala Mar-a-Lago and came back and had new marching orders. So Trump actually influences, you know, the congressional actions, which is just like completely out of, out of, I mean, loads your mind. I mean, there is no day speculation that this whole thing holding up Ukraine aid and so on has something to do with wanting to pull back on persecution on the criminal trials for Trump. But conversely, if you take this guy out, you're completely resetting the clock. So the only real chance we have for any sense of normalcy in pursuing the nation's path towards a, towards a collective future that actually deals with the issues we have is to take this guy out. You know, and just, you know, you can't run. I mean, have the Supreme Court make this ruling that you're not immune and, and have other states like I think Colorado succeed in banning him from being on the ballot. And the Article 14, is it the Article 14 in the Constitution, right, invoke that and be done with it, right? And just make a, make a firm statement, you're done with it. Then the Republican Party is forced to refocus itself to a different leader. And, and that gives no breathing space to the Democratic Party of Biden or whoever wants to succeed there is, you can change the conversation. But for as long as this guy is running and the way this is pushing forward right now, the political process is completely captivated. And it's, I mean, the COP28 made it clear that this is not just an American issue. This is a global issue, right? I mean, the power that, I mean, look at the power Saudi Arabia has in this whole thing. Russia is in this thing, because the oil producing nations have absolutely no intention of backing off. I mean, that became very clear. So when you look at the mechanics of all these moving parts there, if the legal system can't master the backbone and the integrity and honor their role to the nation, then that's good. It just posted Robert Kagan's article in the post about dictatorship is increasingly inevitable, which was really pretty scary and keeps coming up that that article is going to have legs through the election. And the insanity of this. I mean, Hitler basically came into power with very similar dynamics, right? Because Germany at the time was in dire straits. The allies, I mean, the World War One's winners had overstretched their success and dominated German politics, humiliated the nation. I mean, it was just, I mean, I got some incredible stories about the arrogance of French occupants and so on, how they behaved and all this stuff. So that was just the anger in the population was just palpable. And then you had the industrialists who wanted to have a guy who is basically clearing out the obstacles and just let's just move. And they thought they can control this guy. And you can't. I mean, you can't control Trump. The guys is insane. I mean, you don't know where he's going to go. And the idea that you can put constraints on him is just naive. But I think they have now created this complete recklessness where the desire to hang on to start a school and to privileges and shape the future in their vision is just so powerful that they don't really care. There are a lot of mistakes and misjudgments and miscalculations made between World War One and World War Two. Germany was forced to pay incredible reparations. British foreign policy was we never want there to be one dominant power on the continent because they always try to invade us. And at the end of World War One, the dominant power was France and it was really strong and it looked really like it was going to get stronger. And so whatever reparations Germany repaid after World War One were financed by Britain. And the British were busy underestimating Hitler and thinking this joker, you know, this joker could never win control until he had control and until it was too late. And then we have Clement Datley in appeasement and a whole bunch of stuff. So the British were busy like screwing this thing up every which way till Sunday, right, you know, right up until they're busy fighting for their lives in the Battle of Britain. But I'm really interested in all the things that might have avoided huge calamities. You know, the Vietnam War was eminently avoidable. Some of you heard me say this before too. Ho Chi Minh, the famous Ho Chi Minh, wrote letters to President Woodrow Wilson after World War One, and to Truman after World War Two. Pretty much the same letter and he said in closed please find a draft constitution for a Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Could you please help me get rid of the French? Roosevelt was a fan of Ho Chi Minh's and probably would have said yes. Truman was the opposite and said no. And in both cases we didn't reply to Ho Chi Minh. So instead, the Vietnamese fought a multi year war to get rid of the French. We then tapped the French out and said, oh, let us take your place, because we had a faulty idea about the Domino theory. And that ate a whole bunch of treasure lives and goodwill around the world. And like it's humans making stupid judgments over and over and over that affect enormous numbers of humans because now we have weapons that are that big and politics and countries that are that big and the game is suddenly very large. Before we had standing armies. It was hard to marshal everybody else, everybody to send their sons and, you know, give up their crops and all that risk starvation in order to go fight a war someplace else. Yeah, that was not that was not more uplifting. Sorry, go ahead Bill. No, so it was really interesting. So I heard this and I kind of believe it in the story of the Domino theory. And so, I'm just thinking off the top of my head here. And that was just an idea people use to rationalize how they could behave the way they wanted to behave rather than actually having some theoretical thought based, you know, theory here. You know, I mean, because I think this just gets you know, well the vapor is right and we should use the academia to really think about things, maybe we should be thinking about these things. I mean, using our thinking tools, the gray cells for that. And so I just wonder. And if you know that just could be like well let's just get over it Bill, but I'm just been trying to tickle my own mind with trying to question things that I find. I don't have a question. I'm just a little bit more close to something came up in your writings about the, the, the soil but in the water cycle it made me go back and look at some of the climate science and models and you posted that link with all these, the studies and you know I've read basically Well, whatever that Yahoo list it was six or eight papers so I read, look at most of them and trying to make sense out of what is the issue, you know. So that was really helpful I really appreciate that. There was really a comment they saw somewhere or maybe it was Doug see you said you know the problem with climate models is they just you know they're terrible at predicting intensity of rainstorms. Well, it's been true for forever. Climate models have been you know they got better and better and better this just happened when I can't remember the name of the storm that that flooded Houston a few years ago but that hurricane they came and decided to sit on sit off shore. You know, they knew exactly where was going to hurricane people. Yeah, we can predict. You know the past pretty well now. You know five days out and still said what we can't predict is the intensity. So it's not like the climate scientists don't know they can't predict it. They do know that the models don't allow them to because intensity apparently is a lot more harder. There's a harder problem. The physics of physics of a the physics of a storm, you know, in motion or dynamic. Yeah, and this I think there's more pieces to it just more, more, you know, physics chemistry going on, and maybe a little chaotic in a way so that's not, you know, equations of motion, you know, the kind of like, here's the deal. You know, so I just wanted to thank you class for that because they helped me really think through some of what the issues are about how, you know, the focus on carbon dioxide. It takes away from actually thinking about other opportunities for action that can be taken. So, um, But I did read a bunch of papers for people said, well, you know, water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. So, you know, it's like so much more potent than carbon dioxide. We don't really have to worry about carbon dioxide. So I did a little, you know, chemistry and physics reading about that and so that's wrong. You know, because water, yeah, it's a vapor but it turns into droplets and it comes back down and whereas carbon dioxide is a gas. It stays a gas. It's always a gas. You know, so there is a some interesting for me was more nuanced way to try and think about how we, you know, are critical of the things we take for granted when we think about things and you know, how to poke at them. I have a practical question that springs out of what Bill was just saying, because you reminded me that I'm in a new conversation with a friend I made maybe a year ago, who's a local entrepreneur who's run a couple smaller companies is more conservative than me but doesn't call himself a Republican or far out hates Trump and has some really interesting critiques of the current system his name is Scott grout there he is in my brain so you can see what he's connected to if you want to. And many mornings I will wake up to four or five emails with articles and commentary and he and I are kind of in a conversation that's overwhelming to me so I respond a little bit and I apologize and it's actually very nice. And one of his biggest tropes is about performative progressives, which I can go into if you're curious, but I was trying to figure out how to get him involved in OGM because he's definitely got a different opinion from a lot of OGMers and I think that healthy dialogue and our ability to sort of address these things would be improved by his presence, but his posts are numerous enough that they would overwhelm the GM list. So I just he just opened an account yesterday on the matter most server. And I think what I want to do is open up a new channel on matter most I'm not sure what to call it politics, saving the world. I don't know what else, but I think, but I think matter most might be a really good place. And if he were to post the same number of articles into a channel on matter most that anybody could opt into who wanted to. I think there we could sort of scroll up and down and see what the history of the conversation was and that might be really fruitful. So I'm hoping to do that. If you have any ideas on what to call the channel, although you don't know enough about the sense of the conversations yet, let me know. I can I guess we can always rename the channel I can try something to start, but I'm probably going to open that up in the next day or two and you know invite Scott to it, and then ask him if he will talk to me through that channel instead of email. I don't want to go from there. But our conversations are really interesting because he's coming back and he's like, No, if, if the majority of the American populace is in favor of Democratic policy positions, like abortion, like whatever like like would have a whole then why is this a death match why is this a knife fight in an elevator and why is Trump on the brink of maybe winning a nomination and an election again. There's and his his conclusion is that there's something very broken about progressives. Yes, I saw bill I saw your brow furrow now I see your mouth, your mouth twist. I'm with you entirely, but I and it's a side of the equation I hadn't considered very much. And he talks about it the more I soften up to the idea that wow, something's really messed up about how we're approaching this, and it has something to do with our inability to talk in the public square, which is, I'm not going to both sides this but it's on both sides, like political correctness on campuses is the hot issue that the far right is using to shut down. It's really interesting the dynamics I find fascinating. Pete and class. Thanks, Jay. Don't let me dissuade you from starting a channel on matter most I think that's a great idea in a little bit longer term view. I've been wanting to have a CSE discourse instance for a while. Bill has generally generously said, I would support that if you did that wait reinstituting discourse. Yes, CPRing it. Not Jim discourse, CSE discourse, where it's an inter community thing. The matter most matter most is great. And it's a good substrate for, you know, in the moment, you know, in the in the few days kind of thing, but it suffers the same thing that any chat system does that it's got short memory. So, OGM forum was successful, I think we can talk about why, why it ended up getting pickled. But, but anyway, I think that and and exactly for the kind of thing you're talking about having a conversation that could last months and you know maybe years in a discourse is probably a good. Not necessarily alternative, but a good adjunct to. Very briefly, I don't find that that matter most has that short of memory because I can scroll back up to the top of all the conversations so I don't know that it's different it's just that the structure of the threads is different. And for some, and this is only me for some very weird reason I can keep up on matter most and I just can't keep up on threaded discussions, big forums like this course. And that's just my own, my own bias on it, but I don't find that that matter most is more amnesic than than whatever and then the second thing I want to add is, if discourse were weaving the big fungus. If discourse was leading to a set of issues that were being sculpted by the community over time, meaning you could have the thread discussions but every now and then somebody said this one right here we put on the tree, and this is where it goes. I'm not solving the problem that would bridge some of what you and I are busy looking for like, how do we bridge flowy conversation with static knowledge that accrues over time that gets better and richer and deeper over time right. And so, if that happened, I'd be on board, but that could also happen with matter most. Discussion for a longer time. Yeah, I think I think if you kind of measure it matter most is not, you know, absolutely amnesic but following, you know, following more than a couple threads over a couple months in a in a matter most channel is going to get really hard. Same difficulty as discourse. No, in a discourse, even OGM forum we had probably literally dozens a couple dozen threads that you could follow over the course of six months or 12 months without any problem. And, and in fact, even right now I think you could go to the static, you know, static snapshot of it and still look for the right thread and follow the right thread where that's not a thing that you would do in matter most. I think, I think matter most is more amnesic than you would imagine, especially compared to something like discourse, not that, you know, there's a overhead to participating in a threaded forum so you know there's, you can't, you know, some things got to give but but discourse also does have kind of natively the very good abilities at curating threads and putting them on, you know, a long term tree and all that kind of stuff so it's really good at that actually. It takes a little bit of skill and information architecture from a facilitation team, but you know that that kind of stuff is not hard and actually we had started developing that capability for the OGM forum. We just never really took advantage of it. Interesting. Thank you. Um, I wanted to say this has been a fascinating wonderful conversation. Thank you. I'm always struck. It's not clear to me. It's not clear to me that human society really scales well and can ever scale well. We come along. We have, you know, each of us here and many, you know, many hundreds of thousands of people. It's like if only we could engineer it a little bit better or only if we could politic a little bit better or only if we could collaborate better. If only we could lever up collective intelligence. I, and, and, you know, and thank you Jerry for for telling the history and the story of Vietnam and, and a lot of the stories that I think we tell ourselves about the success of the war or the evilness of a particular man Adolf Hitler or, you know, what happened in Vietnam or World War One or World War Two. A lot of it seems to me to be post hoc rationalization rather than an understanding of the, the psycho history to use as a to actually understand what happened and what you would have been able to tweak to change the outcome. I think it feels to me like that's a fantasy that people have because we operate in individual scale and you know a few dozens of individuals where you can see the dynamics of how that works. And, and I think it's an illusion that we can that you know that that same the same kinds of processes, even if you make the processes themselves bigger would scale to millions and billions of people I think it's, I think. And I don't, I don't, I don't say this with any joy because I wish it weren't true, but it seems really fallacious to me to think that it actually works that way. So, so, and then I guess the thing for the thing that does make sense to me and you've probably heard this before is decentralization, I absolutely know that in, you know, in threes and sixes and 1224 is that you can change minds that you can you know, politic better collaborate better learn to collaborate better. And my hope is that intercom, inter inter team wise. You know, we can, we can find a way forward. But even then, I think, you know, predicting or engineering or, or calculating or or anything, much above, you know, thousands of people, even with a bunch of decentralized teams working together. You're going to get an emergent thing that that people can't predict, I think. And, and so and I guess I want to underline. When we think we could have predicted you know when when we say this is what happened to lead to World War two. That's a kind of a reverse prediction going back to the conditions and saying this is what happened and this is why I think it's rationalization I don't think we I think we pull the wool over eyes when we say we know how that happened. We know that it happened. And we can, and we can, you know, draw a line backwards, but I don't think you can draw a line forwards. And, and we, I don't think we are still we aren't doing that yet. Yeah, no, I, I, I really disagree with you on that one because the entire Bible is based on studying what happened in the past and what commonalities you can extract from that and how that may influence the future. But I, I mean, I, I, I, I wanted to just, you know, I looked, I looked at Gaia at life, right, as a, as a living thing as a living entity. So the planet is alive. So how it came to be alive, we don't really know. You know, we know it got seeded from outer space and there's all kinds, but, but somehow there is a living entity now. And that entity is programmed to evolve higher forms of life, greater complexities. And it has bestowed all kinds of challenges to get us there, you know, the impact of a meteorite, you know, all kinds of disruptive forces that that that created a response to reshape itself. So we don't know if this, if they, what kind of intelligence that is, it could be like a program that just runs based on feedback mechanisms, and it's on a, on a certain path, but you could, you could ascribe a certain mechanistic perspective to it, right. And then think about war. So when we are observing each country, and think about the way the Ukrainian war started, right, we observed that they were pulling troops together. You know, they were building hospitals, they were building up the blood supply. So they were making very obvious preparations to invade while, you know, the sentiment was, oh no, they're never going to do this. This is just crazy, right. See, to me, the planet is rallying forces, you know, the melting of the ice caps. And the infusion of freshwater trillions of gallons of freshwater into the oceans that decreases the level of salinity, which decreases the temperature. So, so you're looking at, at forces being rallied around us, that could actually strike in a flash. Yeah, because if the, if the ocean, if the Gulf Stream collapses, you will have, and it is predicted who potentially collapsed. There is a linear, a linear progression of these, of the Gulf Stream slowing down, but then all of a sudden it stops. And if that happens, you have catastrophic impacts on the, on the US East Coast in Europe. It would just collapse our civilization as we know it. There are reports out there this could happen in 2025. Because the, the, the outflow of freshwater into the oceans is stunning, and it's picking up more speed. Now, so we are, we are not paying attention to this global system as a whole. Because we, it's just close our mind, right, to, to, but when I, when I go into sort of a dream state. I mean, to me, this is just like this living entity there, that, that absolutely is getting ready to make some really significant changes, right. And, and we, we have like a limited amount of time to prepare for that and to mitigate for that. But we're not, we're like running around point. And that's what Pete, what you're saying. So I think I agree with you. I don't think we're capable of uniting because we would have to, we would have to embrace a story one story that everybody acts upon and that one story is that we have violated the, the Gaia, Mother Earth, and, and that we need to really very quickly to everything we can individually, personally to mitigate that and it's not happening. Yeah, sorry. No, it's a tough, tough situation. Do we fold the call? Yeah. Great call, folks. See you. Bye-bye. Take care, everybody.