Zach Bush is a triple board certified MD, and a medical and health polymath who works to reach the public via social media with accurate knowledge as to why the US public in particular dies prematurely from cardiovascular (heart attack and stroke), cancer, diabetes, and kidney disease.
One of the primary reasons for this may surprise you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0X-FyWeQuc
Question:
Is there general agreement the advent of hydrocarbons for energy production has accelerated “everything”?
Chat GPT sez:
Yes, there is a broad consensus among historians, scientists, and economists that the widespread use of hydrocarbons (like coal, oil, and natural gas) for energy production has significantly accelerated many aspects of human civilization. This acceleration manifests in several key areas:
1. Industrial and Technological Development
• The energy density and scalability of hydrocarbons powered the Industrial Revolution, enabling the rapid mechanization of industries and transportation. This led to exponential growth in manufacturing, agriculture, and infrastructure development.
2. Economic Growth
• Cheap and abundant energy from hydrocarbons fueled unprecedented economic expansion, facilitating globalization, urbanization, and the rise of consumer economies.
3. Population Growth
• With improved agricultural efficiency (e.g., mechanized farming and synthetic fertilizers derived from hydrocarbons), food production surged, supporting rapid population growth.
4. Transportation and Connectivity
• Hydrocarbons revolutionized transportation (e.g., steamships, automobiles, and airplanes), shrinking the world by enabling fast, long-distance travel and trade.
5. Scientific Advancement
• The availability of concentrated energy sources has allowed for the advancement of technology in fields such as medicine, computing, and materials science.
6. Environmental Impact
• The extraction, refinement, and burning of hydrocarbons have also accelerated environmental changes, particularly through greenhouse gas emissions, leading to global climate change.
While hydrocarbons have catalyzed significant progress, they’ve also introduced complex challenges, such as environmental degradation, resource depletion, and geopolitical conflicts over energy resources. These dynamics underline the dual-edged nature of their impact on human development.
Question: And is there significant consensus the growth curve is parabolic, and thus in danger of a relatively rapid period of regression?
GPT sez:
Yes, the parabolic growth curve fueled by hydrocarbons has significant implications, particularly regarding the potential for a rapid regression. This concern arises from the unsustainable nature of exponential growth in a finite system. Key areas of concern include:
1. Resource Depletion
• Finite Supply: Hydrocarbons are nonrenewable resources. While advances in technology (e.g., fracking) have extended their availability, the extraction of fossil fuels will eventually become economically or physically unviable. The tapering supply could cause a sharp decline in energy availability, leading to cascading effects on industries, transportation, and economies reliant on cheap energy.
• Critical Materials: Many other resources essential to modern technology (e.g., rare earth elements) are also being depleted at an unsustainable rate, compounding the issue.
2. Economic Instability
• Dependency on Growth: Modern economies are structured around continuous growth, driven in large part by cheap energy. A decline in energy availability or affordability could destabilize financial systems and lead to economic contraction.
• Debt and Collapse Risks: Many nations and corporations have built significant debt under the assumption of perpetual growth. A regression could lead to widespread defaults, market crashes, and economic turmoil.
3. Climate and Environmental Feedback Loops
• Climate Crisis: The same hydrocarbons that enabled rapid growth have also caused climate change, with increasingly severe consequences (e.g., extreme weather, rising sea levels, and ecological disruptions). These feedback loops could exacerbate resource scarcity and social instability.
• Biodiversity Loss: The strain on ecosystems from human activity has already led to mass extinctions, reducing the resilience of natural systems that support human survival.
4. Social and Political Instability
• Geopolitical Tensions: Competition for dwindling resources may spark conflicts between nations, as well as within countries.
• Inequality: The benefits of growth have been unevenly distributed, and regression could widen disparities, fueling unrest.
5. Energy Transition Challenges
• Scale of Transition: Moving from hydrocarbons to renewable energy is a massive undertaking, requiring decades of investment and innovation. A sudden energy shortfall could outpace efforts to transition, leading to systemic shocks.
• Energy Return on Investment (EROI): Renewables generally have lower EROI compared to hydrocarbons, which could reduce the overall energy surplus available to society.
Potential for Rapid Regression
The danger lies in the interconnected nature of modern systems. A disruption in one area—such as energy supply or climate stability—could trigger cascading failures across others, leading to a steep decline rather than a gradual one. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “Seneca’s Cliff,” reflects the idea that growth tends to be slow and steady, but collapse can be rapid.
Avoiding Collapse
To mitigate these risks, societies must:
• Invest in sustainable energy systems.
• Reduce dependency on continuous growth models.
• Promote resource efficiency and circular economies.
• Enhance resilience through localized systems and diversification.
In summary, while hydrocarbons have enabled explosive growth, the parabolic nature of this curve implies a vulnerability to regression. Proactively managing the transition to sustainable systems is crucial to avoiding a rapid and destabilizing collapse.
It can theoretically be done...now that we've cracked the riddle of the genome. It would come at a cost however, "drive" instinct, in other words survival instinct, would be blunted to one degree or other. So, in order for the species to continue, aggression modification could not be done to governing classes.
But is it actually true that this sort of modification can be done at all? The genome is, after all, incredibly more complex than is understood at this point. We do well to remember it is a "machine" we didn't invent.
And is the word machine even applicable to biology?
Imagine now how intelligent "biology" has to be to "invent" biological structure to begin with, being, as it is, incredibly rare in the known universe. Human hubris, the hubris that may eventually destroy us all, is essentially (unconsciously and mythologically) the presupposition that we can invent, or at least modify, biology because we have invented wonderous things.
But those things are all mechanical. Technological. And now we have hubristically coined the term "biotech", as if we can begin to successfully invent biology itself.
We humans have great imaginative capacity, beginning in our early days, with mythology, and tool making. Mythology is by definition a fiction, and toolmaking is the beginning of science and technology, which is not a fiction.
We have also created a literary genre called science fiction. In our imaginations we blur these two opposites together as if they were one, in an illustration of the continuing power of mythology to capture our imagination. Mythology is an important part of our survival instinct called "hope", and it would not be there to begin with if it was not an important part of survival. Hope drives us forward.
Ideally, however, we would develop the capacity to see and understand our hubristic tendencies, and use that perspective to understand the division between fiction and fact a bit more clearly, in real time, before we do something so stupid as to cause our collective self-immolation.
We do not have to give up hope in order to do that, in fact it would be impossible, and very likely will remain impossible, regardless of whatever the hubrist genetic fiddlers want to believe.
What we want to achieve is a tempering of "hope" in a purposeful recognition of our tendencies to not only create mythologicals, but believe in them wholeheartedly. Let's continue to believe in them, but more cautiously.
Is there a God who created the unimaginably intelligent biology that is earth? "Science" more or less refuses to believe this. But many of the great scientists through history were also mystics, perhaps occurring concurrently with their genius, and many of these were in full recognition of that mystic "knowledge", and grateful for that understanding.
Einstein is thought to have said several things along these lines. One example:
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive".This is worth reviewing for the single reason the same type of safety signals occurring in this children's trial were also occurring in large numbers during the initial mRNA rollout that we were told was safe and effective.
Let that sink in for a moment. Safety signals were occurring in large numbers all over the developed world (where the vaxx was primarily targeted) and we were not told this by the authorities at the time. Or since then for that matter. But now this trial in infants is halted and publicly announced.
IMHO we cannot say this worldwide disaster was caused by science since the actual rules of science were not followed. I think we can say however that rules are rarely followed when giant profits are in the mix.
But it does make one wonder how the medicopharma industry was able to rationalize this rollout, and why early seroprevalence studies were ignored that showed conclusively this virus was primarily dangerous to the elderly and infirm, and the odds of children being hospitalized by the virus were an effective zero.
And now in this honest study of children we see the mRNA itself is causing all the damage. Does that also implicate the initial rollout given to a few billion earthlings? If you are curious about that you may want to watch this conversation about ongoing studies on that topic...but be forewarned this information is very disturbing.
Ed Dowd speaking with Brett Weinstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trjv7-eUqt4
We've arrived at a strange place in the history of civilization where medical injuries of this scale were somehow rationalized, and allowed.
John Campbell again, in a refresher on where things stand at this point in time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVNMEfot9fQ
