Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

spottybrowncow wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 9:03 pm I have spent a lot of time over the last few years trying to ascertain what makes otherwise intelligent people become liberal "wackos." I see this in some friends that I really like, and it truly upsets me. I don't know how they get there, but I know when they are there, because it becomes impossible to have a logical, coherent conversation with them about social or political issues, as they stop employing logical arguments and instead devolve into fits of emotion when they disagree with a premise. Mind you, some of these people have high IQ's, and yet they appear to have lost contact with reality. It really sucks watching this occur in people I care about.

I recently read some comments on an article in "American Thinker" which got my attention. The whole article is here https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... rence.html, but I have copied and pasted the most salient comments below.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Lydia
1 day ago
The Libs all demonstrate schizophrenia. It distorts the way they express emotion, perceive reality, and relate to others. They have difficulty distinguishing what is real and imaginary.

Schizophrenia is most often affects young people. They are prone to delusions. Many have attention deficit disorder. It is believed that there is a genetic disposition for schizophrenia, along with exposure to environmental toxins, and drug usage. Many or most of the children experiencing true gender dysphoria are on the autism spectrum. They are given drugs like Adderall (amphetamines) to "treat" it.

The point is, there may be a physical component to the irrationality on the Left. It is an anecdotal observation, but there is a common look in the eyes of radical Libs--they look crazy, either wide-eyed blank stares or eyes bulging with hatred. Think of the looks on the faces of young Libs (and some older ones too) after Trump won in 2016, screaming at the sky, then demanding safe places because they could not accept reality.

We're dealing with mentally ill people who should receive institutionalized help, but the psychiatric organizations are corrupted as well.

Charles Tate
1 day ago
People formerly identified as liberals are at war with reality. They possess the parasite's fear of the host, and of being deprived of the host. Hence they fear the host and transform it into dangerous monsters. People who can produce things as opposed to those in teaching, public work, government, etc., are looked upon with fear. They are also frozen by terror into a permanent adolescence where the obligations and "laws" of moral conduct threaten to hold them accountable for their actions. What they ask the vicious government to do, is to defeat the "parent" of reality so they can go back to cartoons and masturbation, specific and general. Soothing rituals that keep reality, mortality, at bay.

The Russians!!! Apparently represent the forceful intrusion of reality. Like Trump and his supporters, who must be defeated through wiles and conjurings, sanctions, etc. As it becomes more clear that this bizarre theater is in actuality the brutal sacrifice of the Ukrainians with no hope of success, their hysteria and denial grows. They all know Trump won, which is why they are so fervent at denying it.

As the man said in the movie No Country for Old Men advised when his nephew the sheriff tries to opt out of unpleasant truths..."you can't stop what's coming...it ain't all waitin' on you. That's vanity." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFz-tgDq1OE
t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't want to get "doxx'd", so I won't tell too much about my background, but I have a lot of training in STEM and medical sciences, and something about these comments rings true to me. I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions.

Spotty

A Brief Guide to Status Panic
June 18, 2025
John Michael Greer

The recent events just mentioned, and thus the insights, centered on a conversation I’d had recently with a friend and fellow blogger. The friend in question is one of the most intelligent people I know, with a broad knowledge of politics and international affairs, and a habit of incisive analysis that often impresses the stuffing out of me. Our conversations usually range over a dizzyingly broad landscape of ideas and current events, and I expected more of the same. What I got instead was a series of repetitive diatribes about Donald Trump.

Mind you, I have no objection if people want to criticize Trump—no politician should ever be immune to criticism, and I’ve got my own objections to some of the things the current US administration has done—but there’s a difference between thoughtful criticism and the endless rehashing of partisan talking points. My friend did the latter, circling back over and over again to the claim that Trump’s tariffs would result in economic catastrophe and empty store shelves within weeks. Of course he was wrong, and there was never any real danger that he would be right. Anyone who’s paid attention to Trump’s style recognized the initial round of tariffs as the negotiating ploy it obviously was. Governments overseas certainly got the memo and started negotiations in earnest immediately, and the store shelves stayed well stocked.

Yet my friend, usually so acute in his analyses, missed this completely. Instead, he insisted that this time Trump really had gone too far, and would be abandoned by his supporters and driven from office in short order. That gave away the game, of course. People in what we may as well call the laptop class—the people in and around the corporate, government, and nonprofit bureaucracies that dominate our society—have been saying that since Trump began his first presidential campaign back in 2015. They’ve been wrong every time, but that repeated failure somehow never keeps the same prediction from being trotted out every few weeks or so.

My friend isn’t quite a member of the laptop class, but he shares most of its values and interacts with that class frequently. Brooding over the sheer weirdness of our conversation got me thinking about the many comparable examples I’ve witnessed in recent years. Some of those had Trump’s antics as their common theme, but there are also plenty of examples that have nothing to do with the current US administration. It was while I was pondering this, and watching stations on the London Underground go rattling by, that it occurred to me that all these examples came from people from the same social sector: that is, the laptop class and its associated intelligentsia.

That, and another set of repetitive phenomena which I’ll discuss a little later, sent me on a deep dive into the underpinnings of social hierarchy among human beings. In order to forestall the inevitable misunderstanding, let me be explicit here: the positions occupied by individuals in a social hierarchy are assigned by society, not by biology. It’s the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional reactions that individuals have to the places assigned them by society that are hardwired into their nervous systems.

The point to keep in mind is that this same pattern can be expected any time any person or group of people undergo a significant rise in status over the short term. Beneath the veneer of rational thinking and the flurry of rationalizations it produces, their behavior is shaped by patterns of instinct that were age-old before the first dinosaurs, and it requires a massive effort of self-knowledge and self-mastery to overcome those patterns. The same is just as true on the other end of the scale. It’s when we turn to this of the picture, and consider the behavioral impacts of downward mobility, that we can circle back to my friend and his tirades about Donald Trump.

Status is not an abstraction. For most people, it’s an essential ingredient of their identity. Gaining status is disorienting and disruptive, but it has obvious benefits, and most people get used to it in due time. Losing status? Not so much. Rather, it’s felt as a catastrophe, both in practical terms and in the impact on identity. If you’re used to thinking of yourself as one of the important people, the ones whose opinions matter and whose needs and wants ought to be taken into account by everyone else, finding out that this isn’t the case any more is a shattering blow. We can describe the result as status panic. It’s a profoundly traumatic experience.

Status isn’t abstract. Losing it is an existential threat to the privileged.

What makes this especially agonizing is that the members of every privileged class end up thinking of themselves as the natural rulers of society, who deserve the unquestioning obedience and respect of the lower orders. They forget the mordant lesson Arnold Toynbee tried to teach them, which is that the rest of society tolerates privileged classes only so long as they provide effective solutions to collective problems. This is precisely what the laptop class has failed to do in recent decades. No matter what the problem is, the response is to hire more bureaucrats and commission more studies—a move that benefits the laptop class considerably, of course, but doesn’t do a blessed thing to remedy problems that are pressing down with ever more force on the rest of us.

That’s why every scenario spun these days by the laptop class and its penumbra of writers and bloggers ends with Trump being driven from the presidency so that the laptop class can return to power. No other outcome is imaginable to them.

Status is not an abstraction. For most people, it’s an essential ingredient of their identity. Gaining status is disorienting and disruptive, but it has obvious benefits, and most people get used to it in due time. Losing status? Not so much. Rather, it’s felt as a catastrophe, both in practical terms and in the impact on identity. If you’re used to thinking of yourself as one of the important people, the ones whose opinions matter and whose needs and wants ought to be taken into account by everyone else, finding out that this isn’t the case any more is a shattering blow. We can describe the result as status panic. It’s a profoundly traumatic experience.

What makes this especially agonizing is that the members of every privileged class end up thinking of themselves as the natural rulers of society, who deserve the unquestioning obedience and respect of the lower orders. They forget the mordant lesson Arnold Toynbee tried to teach them, which is that the rest of society tolerates privileged classes only so long as they provide effective solutions to collective problems. This is precisely what the laptop class has failed to do in recent decades. No matter what the problem is, the response is to hire more bureaucrats and commission more studies—a move that benefits the laptop class considerably, of course, but doesn’t do a blessed thing to remedy problems that are pressing down with ever more force on the rest of us.

That’s why every scenario spun these days by the laptop class and its penumbra of writers and bloggers ends with Trump being driven from the presidency so that the laptop class can return to power. No other outcome is imaginable to them. When news of the Russian Revolution was brought to Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia, at his comfortably secluded palace at Tsarskoe Selo, he is said to have responded in baffled and plaintive tones: “But the Russian people love me!” In much the same way, as the less violent revolution now under way comes to the attention of the current elite in its equally secluded virtual palace—call it Bourgeoiskoe Selo—they’re incapable of grasping that the vast majority of people are sick of their mismanagement of society, and are cheering Trump on as he fires bureaucrats by the job lot.

Nor, to be frank, is any other option available at this point. The United States is effectively bankrupt, having run itself trillions of dollars in debt to pay for all those bureaucrats and studies that the laptop class cheered on.

In the meantime, of course, the rest of us have to deal with a laptop class in the midst of full-blown status panic, flailing around frantically in an attempt to convince themselves that some sequence of events or other will restore them to their supposedly rightful place as masters of the world. I’d encourage my readers not to take any of those flailings personally. The people in question are going through a traumatic shift in self-image, battered by reactions that date from before our ancestors first crawled up onto dry land. While they’re incapacitated, it’ll be up to the rest of us to think about what realistically can be done to deal with the turbulent future bearing down upon us—a future that hasn’t been improved, and in some ways has been seriously worsened, by the gyrations of a decadent elite on its way out history’s exit doors.

Higgenbotham wrote: Tue May 27, 2025 12:45 am

Gates is optimistic about the overall benefits AI can provide to humanity...

"But in terms of making things and moving things and growing food, over time those will be basically solved problems,” Gates said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-ga ... hings.html

What seemed to come up in search is that Bill Gates sees AI as being able to accelerate the development of heat tolerant crops, as well as drought and flood tolerant crops. This seems like a reasonable goal, though probably better achieved by doing something other than screwing with plant genomes. But I'm not sure that that alone will make growing food, over time, a basically solved problem.

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:37 pm

John wrote:It's somewhat bemusing that even people who don't hate me still
don't believe what I'm writing about.

Yes, it's possible that the Singularity won't occur.

I searched all my posts for the word "singularity". The first one that had the word in it was a reply to you where you mentioned it, but I didn't respond to that part of your post. In 2014, I finally brought it up in this post:

Higgenbotham wrote: Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:09 pmI have some thoughts about the singularity, assuming it really does happen. Most who discuss the singularity seem to think that when the computers become smarter than the humans they will begin to solve all of our problems. Let's take a recent problem I read about as an example. Plastics are accumulating in the oceans as we know, but a lesser known problem is the plastics are degrading into fine particles that resemble sand and getting into the food chain that way. Most seem to assume that when the singularity hits the computers will just say, OK, we have figured out how to get this plastic out of the environment for little cost - here is what you do. Having studied another branch of engineering, my experience says things don't always work that way. With regard to some problems, the computers could just as easily come back with the answer that there is no solution that doesn't violate natural laws and the humans are trapped, they let it go too far. Upon hearing that, I think the humans would say the computers are lying to us and trying to outmaneuver us so they can inherit the earth, and then a war between the computers and the humans would ensue.

Our culture is steeped in the belief that every technical problem has a solution that can be implemented once the requisite knowledge is unveiled. Knowledge is not the limiting factor in all cases. As knowledge expands and the knowledge is put to use, it requires more energy and that is the limit that can constrain a technical solution. In the case referred to, there could be a life form invented that could preferentially separate the plastic but the biomass required may not be energetically achievable within the time frame required to prevent die-off.

Prior research has shown that microplastics have made their way to nearly every ecosystem on the planet, and now contaminate plants and animals, including humans. For this new study, the research team wondered if microplastics might have an unknown impact on plants living in the ocean, in fresh water or growing on land, and they conducted a study of prior research to find out.

The team suspected that microplastics might have a direct impact on the ability of plants to engage in photosynthesis. To that end, they searched the literature using an AI app and found 157 studies that mentioned both microplastics and impacts on photosynthesis, which included 3,286 observations.

Combining the results, the researchers calculated that microplastics reduced photosynthetic efficiency across all three plant types by 7% to 12% and caused reductions in production of chlorophyll. Such percentages, they suggest, result in approximately 4% to 14% harvest yield losses of maize, wheat and rice around the globe. They also suggest that microplastics account for up to 7% of losses in global aquatic net primary productivity.

The research team notes that the problem appears to be worsening, which will impact crop production even more. They further suggest that if the problem is not reversed, the result could be a major increase in the number of people at risk of starvation over the next two decades.

FullMoon wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 6:10 pm For me, the more pressing issue is the population drop scenario. If such a sizeable percentage doesn't make it until plastics really are known to be dangerous, that sizeable number includes me and my family. The difficulties we'll face will make just making through dwarf any environmental concerns. I taught English abroad to students who came from pretty bad poverty. They always chose economic growth over environmental concerns because they were afraid of the effects of poverty more than the pollution economic growth brought. As an American, I found it astounding because even back then environmental protection was an important consideration. But not for them. Surviving and trying to rebuild will probably change perspectives quickly.even though we're infested with toxic plastics.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:20 pm HEB is the top grocery chain in Texas by market share. About 15 years ago, the local HEB opened a wellness section and put a manager in charge of it. She didn't seem to have much to do. One day we had a discussion about GMO and after that I thought to ask her something that would give me some insight into current conditions (at that time). I asked her when people get concerned about the issues she was discussing, when do they seek you out and talk to you. I remember her answer clear as a bell: "When they get sick."

Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization
The White House
February 18, 2025

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Today, many hopeful couples dream of starting a family, but as many as one in seven are unable to conceive a child. Despite their hopes and efforts, infertility struggles can make conception difficult, turning what should be a joyful experience into an emotional and financial struggle. My Administration recognizes the importance of family formation, and as a Nation, our public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) offers hope to men and women experiencing fertility challenges. Americans need reliable access to IVF and more affordable treatment options, as the cost per cycle can range from $12,000 to $25,000. Providing support, awareness, and access to affordable fertility treatments can help these families navigate their path to parenthood with hope and confidence.

Therefore, to support American families, it is the policy of my Administration to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable.

Higgenbotham wrote: Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:54 pm Fourth generation: (born around 2045 plus or minus a few more years) Now really going out on a limb. Transgenerational effects in the mainstream American culture are now so severe that fertility and lifespan are affected to the point that it is evident mainstream culture is no longer viable. In most cases, disorders are so severe as to be irreversible and in many cases untreatable.

Higgenbotham wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:49 pm Life during the coming dark age will be similar to the last dark age but worse due to environmental damage and pollution.

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:13 pm Also, I think that once the numbers of births start to decline, that is the point at which the rate of physical expansion of the civilization also starts to slow down and, therefore, traditional male activities like building infrastructure begin to decline and the civilization enters into a maintenance phase before the inevitable decline. The mix of jobs begins to change and women are able to better do many of the jobs that become prominent during the maintenance and decline phase (like health care and education, which really just serve to milk out the surplus of the civilization before it collapses). This shift in the job mix has the effect of accelerating the decline (further reducing births and the effects that result from the further reduction in births).

The Research Triangle is one of the many places across the US that has doubled down on higher education and health care institutions — often dubbed the “eds and meds” approach — as a way to drive economic growth.

Duke University, which between its university and health system employs some 50,000 people, is the second largest private-sector employer in the state. It’s seeking to slash $350 million in spending to prepare for federal funding cuts, the threat of fewer international students and a potential endowment tax.

The job cuts announced in and around the Research Triangle related to federal funding so far aren’t large enough to throw the region’s economy off course, said Matthew Martin, a regional executive at the Richmond Fed.

The area’s richness in biopharmaceuticals, global health, research “didn’t happen by accident,” San Martin said. “That was the result of decades of consistent investment by the US government in these important areas.”

American workers are stuck in an 'infinite workday,' according to Microsoft report: 'People are feeling very burnt out'

Story by Sophie Caldwell • 9h • 3 min read

If you've ever complained that the modern workday is unending, you may be right.

According to a new report from Microsoft, employees are now experiencing an "infinite workday" of constant emails, meetings and notifications. They check their emails as early as 6 a.m., juggle meetings through the afternoon and then stay online well into the night.

Simply put, "it's a very long day," says Alexia Cambon, senior research director at Microsoft.

Beyond the extended hours, workers are beset with notifications. According to Microsoft's data, employees are interrupted every two minutes by meetings, emails or messages, and receive an average of 117 emails and 153 Teams messages each workday.

As a result, people are feeling overwhelmed: 48% of employees and 52% of leaders reported that work feels "chaotic and fragmented" in Microsoft's Work Trend Index survey, and 80% of global workers said they lack sufficient time and energy to do their work.

“If we have these contaminants in our rainwater they’re getting into our groundwater,” Brahney said. “They’re infiltrating our soils. Every organism is interacting with rainwater.”

Ultimately, what all of this research reveals is that the planet is dirty, even if the filth can be hard to see. These chemicals are in the rain because they’re abundant in the environment — and they’re in the environment because they’re in the rain. And while there’s ongoing research, we don’t yet fully understand how those pollutants impact our bodies and our ecosystems. We just know they’ll be around for a very, very long time.

“To be honest, I cry, because there’s no walking this back,” Brahney said of microplastic pollution. “These particles don’t break down at a time scale that would be relevant. So yeah, we’re not escaping that.”