We have "cartesian blinders being put on us so that we are trying to make sense out of scraps of information and hints." - @bretweinstein
WEINSTEIN: I mean, even if you have your villains who are engaged in the behavior that motivated this war in Iran, even if that's the story, presumably most of the people in the path of these ferocious bombings that he is describing are not deserving of going back to the Stone Age.
In fact, I distinctly remember him telling us that part of what we were up to was liberating the people of Iran from their tyrannical regime.
So if it's the tyrannical regime that justifies the ferocious bombing, then it's a tragedy that other people are going to be sent back to the Stone Ages with them. Right?
HEYING: It's it's not a narrative. It's an incoherent set of talking points.
WEINSTEIN: Yeah, it's a kind of cheerleading that is completely inappropriate from the perspective of the president.
Bret Weinstein discusses the Trump administrations "back to the stone age" recent remarks in the latest episode of The Evolutionary Lens, Episode 320 "Are we back in the stone age?" on DarkHorse.
Bret Weinstein explains, "If you stop businesses from starting here, and if you drive people so that they move elsewhere—even though it's difficult to do—then the point is the tax base dries up, which then forces you to become even more predatory for the people who stayed.
And that's really the thing, right? They're setting themselves up so that they have to go after more and more people, because the people who are starting new businesses are not going to do it here."
Your audience already knows the institutions are failing, incentives are misaligned, technology is accelerating, and human potential is being wasted. Another diagnosis will not move them forward.
Life Forward asks the question almost nobody is answering: What should humanity select for now that selection can become intentional?
We have developed a practical answer. I am looking for a serious person willing to test it publicly.
Has evolution reached the point where selection can become intentional?
Bret and Heather—evolution produced a creature capable of examining reality, anticipating consequences, and choosing direction intentionally. Yet human selection still operates largely through systems that reward status, conflict, and captured attention.
Is developing individual capacity, directing it toward relevant contribution, and rewarding both a biologically defensible framework for intentional human progress?
Where does that framework fail, and what evidence would falsify it?
