It’s worse than that. Even smart people believe stupid things. If the few smart people believed things that are true and work, we’d be on a different world. They’d be no political leaders offering redistribution, nationalisation, net zero or unsustainable welfare schemes.
Smart people believing stupid things is the biggest problem.
So the biggest question is “Why do smart people believe stupid things?”
Ask Pascal Boyer and Dan Kahan.
The problem with universal suffrage is that the more technologically advanced a civilization becomes, the smaller the fraction of people there are in it with the native intelligence to understand how it works.
When the majority of humanity was employed in whacking at the dirt with a pointed stick, and the height of technology was a slightly better pointed stick, anyone with a triple digit IQ could understand what was going on.
Now, we have things like stock markets, the internet, transportation infrastructure, and the Linux kernel, but most people who vote are unable to conceive of these as anything but large piles of chocolate coins, or something else they can put their mouths.
Because that's how the average monkey interacts with money. They stack the blocks, the research assistant gives them a token, they exchange the token for a banana.
It's no good trying to explain to the monkeys what supply chain is, or how a trillion dollars worth of rockets can't magically be converted into a trillion dollars worth of bananas just because they're both measured in dollars, as if a six-foot man and a six-foot plank of wood were interchangeable.
Finding a slightly different explanation, or getting the monkeys to sit still and really listen, doesn't really help.
Because the problem isn't just that the monkeys aren't paying attention. The problem is that the monkeys are monkeys.
Their brains simply don't have the developmental capacity to grow the neural connections they would need in order to grasp and manipulate the concept.
In the long term, this is why universal democracy is doomed. Because societies that let retards vote will fail, and be replaced by those that don't.
You may think that we, as a society, face a great variety of problems. We do not. We have only one. Retards. Every other problem we have is downstream from their inability to understand the consequences of their political opinions.
But to fully grasp the implications of this, you have to understand that the definition of "retard" changes over time, as technology advances, because the IQ level required to grasp what's really going on gets steadily higher and higher.
Eventually, the category "retard" grows until it includes the average person.
This has already happened.
Nick Knudsen isn't dumber than the average guy. But the average guy, the 100 IQ salt of the earth guy that's sitting on the next bar stool over, can no longer understand the modern economy. And this isn't correctable, because the problem isn't ignorance, it's complexity.
You can't make Nick Knudsen smarter by telling him things. You can't even make him less ignorant, because the bare facts aren't believable to someone who doesn't have the framework to understand how they fit together.
The people who understand what's going on are so much smarter than him that he doesn't even think they sound smart.
He thinks they sound crazy.
@SaysSimulation I used to think our oceans would protect us but now the ideology is right next door.. literally. Thinking you’re just going to hunker down is 20th century thinking.
@SawyerMerritt@Tesla My experience with my 2 Teslas is that they will accelerate into brake lights and then brake hard. Like a teenager. Not surprised they get rear ended Yes Even with 5 car spacing and “normal” on drive setting. Other than that and the cost of any repair it’s a great great car.
@Loteknik@GadSaad I can even empathize with an 80s movie version of vigilantism, it’s the Karen power with guns that makes me nervous. They’re like the pee wee league of the Stasi. Until we culturally allow back God fearing high T leaders, nothing will work. It’s not just local vs national
Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme).
Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons donné Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants qui ont fabriqué, dans l'élégance de notre langue, l'arme idéologique qui paralyse aujourd'hui l'Occident.
Il faut comprendre ce qu'ils ont fait. Foucault a enseigné que la vérité n'existe pas, qu'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir. Que la science, la raison, la justice, l'institution médicale, l'école, la prison, la sexualité, tout n'est qu'une mise en scène de la domination. Derrida a enseigné que les textes n'ont pas de sens stable, que tout signifiant glisse, que toute lecture est une trahison, que l'auteur est mort et que le lecteur règne. Deleuze a enseigné qu'il fallait préférer le rhizome à l'arbre, le nomade au sédentaire, le désir à la loi, le devenir à l'être, la différence à l'identité.
Pris isolément, ce sont des thèses discutables. Combinées, exportées, vulgarisées, elles forment un système. Et ce système est un poison.
Car voici ce qui s'est passé. Ces textes, illisibles en France, ont traversé l'Atlantique. Les départements de Yale, de Berkeley, de Columbia les ont absorbés dans les années 80. Ils y ont trouvé un terreau qui n'existait pas chez nous : le puritanisme américain, sa culpabilité raciale, son obsession identitaire. La French Theory s'est mariée à ce substrat, et l'enfant de ce mariage s'appelle le wokisme.
Judith Butler lit Foucault et invente le genre performatif. Edward Said lit Foucault et invente le post-colonialisme académique. Kimberlé Crenshaw hérite du cadre et invente l'intersectionnalité. À chaque étape, la matrice est française : il n'y a pas de vérité, il n'y a que du pouvoir, donc toute hiérarchie est suspecte, toute institution est oppressive, toute norme est violence, toute identité est construite donc négociable, toute majorité est coupable.
Voilà comment trois philosophes parisiens, qui n'ont probablement jamais imaginé leurs conséquences pratiques, ont fourni le logiciel d'exploitation à une génération entière d'activistes, de bureaucrates universitaires, de DRH, de journalistes, de législateurs. Voilà comment on a obtenu une civilisation qui ne sait plus dire si une femme est une femme, si sa propre histoire mérite d'être défendue, si le mérite existe, si la vérité se distingue de l'opinion.
C'est de la merde pour une raison simple, et il faut la dire calmement. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers : la croyance qu'il existe une vérité accessible à la raison, la croyance qu'il existe un bien distinct du mal, la croyance qu'il existe un héritage à transmettre. La French Theory a entrepris de dynamiter les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui les avait nourris. Mais le résultat est là. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer. Une génération entière voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part.
Je m'excuse parce que nous, Français, avons une responsabilité particulière. C'est notre langue, nos universités, nos éditeurs, notre prestige qui ont donné à ce nihilisme son emballage chic. Sans la légitimité de la Sorbonne et de Vincennes, ces idées n'auraient jamais traversé l'océan. Nous avons exporté le doute comme d'autres exportent des armes.
Ce qui se construit maintenant, en silicon valley, dans les labos d'IA, dans les startups, dans les ateliers, dans tous les lieux où des gens fabriquent encore des choses au lieu de les déconstruire, c'est la réponse. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commentateurs. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu'elle vaut qu'on s'y consacre. Par ceux qui assument une hiérarchie du beau, du vrai, du bon, et qui n'ont pas honte de la transmettre.
Alors pardon. Et au travail.
A single operator with a chatbot just outmaneuvered the entire pharmaceutical discovery pipeline.
Australian tech entrepreneur Paul Conyngham cured his dog’s cancer.
No biology background.
Three thousand dollars.
ChatGPT and AlphaFold.
Conyngham: “We took her tumor, we sequenced the DNA, we converted it from tissue to data. And then we used that to find the problem in her DNA, and then develop a cure based off that. ChatGPT assisted throughout the entire process.”
He didn’t spend a decade in a lab.
He didn’t wait for a corporate grant.
He paid three thousand dollars to digitize a tumor and used the compute to solve it.
When one entrepreneur can use AlphaFold and an LLM to design a custom mRNA vaccine from scratch, the entire pharmaceutical discovery model is instantly exposed as friction.
The power to cure is no longer locked inside massive conglomerates.
It’s sitting on a laptop.
Professor Pall Thordarson: “I just didn’t think we could do this this quickly, and it would be in time to really help Rosie.”
The pharmaceutical industry measures progress in decades and billions.
The academic establishment is conditioned to expect total resistance.
Replace biological guesswork with algorithmic precision and the timeline violently collapses.
Professor Thordarson: “Once we had the sequence that Paul designed, it was less than two months from that point till we handed it over to Paul.”
One month after injection, the dog with a terminal diagnosis was jumping over fences.
Conyngham: “At the start of December, she was starting to shut down and be a bit sad. Towards the end of January, she was jumping over a fence to chase a rabbit.”
Professor Thordarson: “We can actually do this here. We don’t have to necessarily rely on foreign companies to help us doing this. And that means we can democratize this technology in Australia. And we can also use it for other diseases possibly.”
Biology has been translated into a data problem.
And data can be computed anywhere, by anyone, for almost nothing.
The greatest bottleneck in human health is no longer scientific knowledge.
It’s the institution standing between the knowledge and the patient.
One man. One chatbot. Three thousand dollars.
Every billion-dollar lab in the world just got outperformed by a man, a chatbot, and a credit card.
When Bitcoin finally gets to Joe six pack isn’t that the end of bank deposits and thus the end of traditional commercial lending? @cullenroche will know the answer. All the current fiat $ don’t disappear but there’s tremendous sell pressure. My head hurts thinking about it.