What if we could keep them, but make them work for the good of us all?
I'd like to see them 'multi-nationalized' - not for one nation, but for the world.
All the major offenders, all the companies who have wreaked havoc on us: Fossil fuel shitheads who sponsored climate doubt, arms manufacturers who lobbied us into illegal wars, social media companies responsible for polluting the minds of our most vulnerable, advertisers who greenwash and whitewash crimes.
It's only a fantasy, for now - we can't even prevent our tax dollars from arming mass murderers. We need to do something though. I'm sick of paying for the privilege of being gaslit, and tired of subsidizing the strip-mining of the planet.
Switch the major offenders and monopolies by force to a co-op model, and let's see if we can't turn the fate of the planet around.
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Le Guin
That’s not true: for example the US government (CIA) in the past century has also been funded through shady drug deals. This isn’t fringe conspiracy stuff either, they freely admit to past activities and have shown no willingness to change.
> What if we could keep them, but make them work for the good of us all?
What if we could tame these gigantic, bloodthirsty monsters that casually wander into big cities and just start stomping skyscrapers down for shits and giggles? Think of how wonderful it would be to have one of those creatures under my control!!!
> I'd like to see them 'multi-nationalized' - not for one nation, but for the world.
Nothing would make such a kaiju safer than putting it beyond the reach of even sovereign nations. And when it's under the direction of some weird-assed UN committee no one's heard of, that has Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and China put in charge, think of all the wonderfully progressive things that will happen then!
I mean, the kaiju are kind of a great example - weren't they fought by everyone coming together to build giant monsters of their own but with humans making the decisions?
> when it's under the direction of some weird-assed UN committee no one's heard of
Er, not what I had in mind, but there's probably some useful energy behind that pessimism.
There are many examples of successful coops to choose from [0]. Seems a bit early to try and pin down all the details. I'm not an expert.
What I know for certain is that the current system can't continue.
Try playing the tape that's currently in the player to the end. It's not very pretty: Ask any climate scientist. Ask any historian, any ecologist.
Even (or especially) the billionaires know the current trajectory is not great; they're building apocalypse bunkers at a record pace.
Seems a lot of people expect someone to come along and offer a perfect solution out of the box, and somehow not get taken out by the people who like things just as they are. I don't think that's reasonable. There needs to be a critical mass of people pushing for radical change, or we're pretty much fucked.
Perhaps there are different types of kindness, because his films are deeply, profoundly kind; and acutely aware of inner life.
Someone with an extreme sensitivity for kindness can easily be seen as a curmudgeon by others, ie, after long years of disillusionment with the human race, or after a traumatic experience, or simply because of how they look.
Some people might be good at being kind 'in the moment', while others need to reflect - and the second kind can be a 'bigger', more encompassing, more effective or beneficial kindness.
And many (all?) of the people who give the most of themselves without hope for any reward genuinely care nothing for external validation or recognition - meaning we don't often hear about them or recognize them.
One could garner a reputation as an absolute arse, while accomplishing fantastically beneficial changes in the world. And conversely, a man could get a reputation as a folksy down-to-earth guy who you'd love to have a beer with, even as he sets the planet on a course to perpetual war. Cough.
"Hey archaeologists - here's a cool thing that doesn't fit with your timeline. Here are some ideas that could explain what's going on, but they're just ideas don't lynch me!"
The archaeological establishment: "Lynch this fucker!"
I would usually say, you first, since you made the outrageous claim he "provides no evidence at all".
But this might be fun... You do know the difference between evidence and proof though, right?
I'll go look at the most recent article on his website [0], and we'll see if there's evidence presented, or if he "provides no evidence at all"...
To avoid bias - and save time, because I'm doing your research for free - I asked ChatGPT to examine whether he provided evidence or not:
...
Evidence Provided by Graham Hancock
Cultural and Archaeological Evidence:
Hancock frequently references archaeological findings and scientific studies to support his theories. For example, he discusses the discovery of ancient human remains in California dating back 130,000 years, which challenges the conventional timeline of human migration into the Americas.
Comparative Analysis:
He often draws parallels between distant cultures to suggest the existence of a lost ancient civilization. For instance, he points out similarities between the spiritual beliefs of ancient Egyptians and Native American mound builders, arguing that these cannot be mere coincidences and suggesting a shared heritage from a forgotten civilization.
Scientific Studies:
Hancock cites recent studies and technologies, such as LIDAR, which have uncovered large, ancient geoglyphs and cities in the Amazon, suggesting advanced pre-Columbian civilizations that were previously unknown.
Historical Documentation:He references historical texts and accounts from early archaeologists and explorers, such as the work of Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray in Egypt, to support his claims about the existence of older and technologically advanced civilizations.
Analysis of the Evidence
Pros:
Innovative Perspective:
Hancock provides a fresh look at ancient history by challenging established narratives, which encourages further investigation and discussion.
Detailed References: His works are often well-documented with footnotes and references to scientific studies, which lend a certain level of credibility to his arguments.
Cons:
Interpretation of Evidence: Critics argue that Hancock often selectively interprets evidence to fit his theories, sometimes ignoring data that contradicts his views .
Speculative Nature: Some of his conclusions are speculative and not universally accepted by the academic community, relying heavily on what some consider circumstantial evidence.
Conclusion
While Graham Hancock does provide evidence to support his claims, the validity and interpretation of this evidence are often contested. His approach is not always balanced, as he openly admits to focusing on evidence that supports his alternative historical narratives. Readers must critically evaluate his claims and consider the broader academic consensus when interpreting his work.
...
Summarizing: At least 4 different types of evidence are regularly laid out. Benefits to his approach include encouraging fresh investigation and discussion, and the cons are acknowledged by Hancock himself.
I'm no Hancock fanboy - I've seen one show of his. But I've seen the way he gets attacked and it's so often so dumb. It reminds me of how people attack Assange and Snowden, or RMS, or Jared Diamond: surprisingly emotional, personal, venomous, and more often than not completely made up (as in this case).
I'm not a native English speaker so some nuances are lost. But I can concede that he does have something you could call evidence, for his conjectures.
Will you concede that he has no proof, only conjectures and that big archelogy are not out to get him? I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure, let me know what you think. https://youtu.be/IeIj_rNYhCU
I don't need to, because I never claimed he had proof, and neither did he. He is always very upfront about that fact.
> and that big archelogy are not out to get him
But they are. Look at all the comments in this thread accusing him of things he isn't doing; putting words in his mouth; completely inventing beliefs that he doesn't actually hold - where did all that come from?
> I'll leave this for your viewing pleasure
... A 2 hour video nitpicking a Joe Rogan interview? I'll pass, sorry bud. Maybe if I get really bored later, but I hope to have better things to do.
I'll leave you with this: We have bone flutes that are 50,000 years old that use a pentatonic scale. Reconstructions of the Divje Baba flute can be seen played on YouTube (2 mins long, not 2 hours).
You can claim those perfectly circular, perfectly placed holes are animal bites, but there's other examples confirmed to be >30k years old, also using a perfect pentatonic scale. If you understand how music works, you know that's insane.
You could play modern pop songs on these flutes. Saying that there isn't any chance of an advanced civilization older than 10k years just doesn't seem credible to me, and the insistence from 'big archaeology' that it's impossible is not to their credit.
So no proof, only conjectures? Sounds like he shouldn't act like he is correct and everyone else is wrong.
I guess I am big archaeology then, somehow.
Having a very hard time understanding how a bone flute equates humans having forgotten advanced technology in the past. I don't think anyone here disagree that modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and have made artifacts like this in their spare time and created bespoke tools to create them that have been lost.
Conjecture, yes. Conjectures drive inquiry and investigation, especially when linked with evidence. They serve as starting points for scientific research and exploration.
Ignoring interesting conjectures despite the evidence is a foolish, and a mainstream historical pastime. If we let that be an end of it, we wouldn't understand evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics, or heliocentrism.
Someone always puts the idea out first, lays out their evidence, gets roundly mocked by people who feel threatened... And years later, building on their work, someone finds proof of the idea (or, tbf, sometimes disproves it in an interesting way).
> I guess I am big archaeology then, somehow
I really have no idea why you would say this. Are you feeling personally attacked here or something? Have you forgotten that you are the one that first brought up this term?
> Having a very hard time understanding how a bone flute equates humans having forgotten advanced technology in the past.
Then you don't understand music, technology, humans, or Hancock's argument. Creating such an instrument requires a massive degree of understanding. It suggests symbolic thought, cultural sophistication, planning, and multi-generational knowledge sharing. And it demonstrates that 'modern humans' were not the only game in town, because the Divje Babe flute likely wasn't made by homo sapiens, but by neanderthals.
> I don't think anyone here disagree that modern humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years
Lol... Now most people would agree, but not long ago you'd have been treated just as Hancock is for suggesting so.
And again, the flute was probably made by Neanderthals.
For centuries, the archaeological establishment, influenced by outdated notions such as phrenology, underestimated Neanderthal cognitive abilities and cultural sophistication. Suggesting they were smart enough to make a flute would get you ridiculed by 'big anthropology'.
... I read 20 minutes of the transcript of that YouTube transcript you suggested, and it's really bad. Woeful stuff.
It's an obvious smear job: Someone could make a 1 hour video detailing the rhetorical bs Professor Miano uses in that 20 minutes. It's all there - hypocrisy, projection, ad hominems, insinuations, gish galloping, straw-man arguments, appeals to authority. Honestly how do people fall for this stuff?
He spends the first 3 minutes attacking Hancock's character, then says "I'm sure he's a nice guy, I'm only attacking his rhetoric". He then says a bunch of stuff that Hancock supposedly does, without any reference to evidence whatsoever. He does everything that he accuses Hancock of doing, without a hint of self awareness.
It feels like an elaborate prank on his audience, and I'd believe it was; if only for the fact that I know people do this all the time when they feel their worldview/career is threatened.
For a final time, I hope - Hancock is clear and upfront that he is making conjecture (with evidence). He doesn't claim to have proof. He delineates between evidence and conjecture, and no one in this thread has provided a counter example - only put words in his mouth. Watch for that in your video: look at the first 20 minutes and make a note every time Miano tells us what Hancock thinks or does without any reference to actual fact. You might be surprised.
Opinions are like buttholes Hikikomori - everyone has one.
> Flat earth theories also have evidence
So you're not just confused about the difference between evidence and proof, but also the difference between evidence and disproved claims. How fun! Everything that doesn't have direct proof and mainstream consensus is now on the same level as the flat earth theory, amazing!
> psuedoarcheology grifters
Hancock disagrees with the archaeologocial community on like, one point. Maybe two.
His 'grift' is to write interesting books about a very intriguing idea - wow, what a huckster piece of shit.
Your criticism says more about you than about Hancock, Hikikomori. It's very uncool to attack people like this without bringing any actual evidence for your claims, English as a second language or no.
It's funny that you think you are different from flat earthers when most people would put you in the same category.
Neither has any proof. Both have flimsy evidence and only conjectures (Opinion or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork). Both are anti science and anti establishment and believe them to be hiding or stopping the truth from coming out to protect their sweet academic/science jobs. And both are pushed by people that make money from it, ie grifters.
That is a very common thing with ancient and even modern shamans.
So, how does saying so in a book about ancient shamans equate to an endorsement that aliens built the pyramids?
People love attacking this guy but the attacks always seem to be remarkably poor strawmen. What's so hard about believing we were smarter than acknowledged 10,000 years ago?
> the idea that nonhuman entities from other realms kickstarted human culture
I'm not attacking him I'm just posting some quotes. In addition to his ideas about lost prehistoric societies influencing ancient Egyptians, he in turn believes that those prehistoric societies were influenced by aliens. I don't think this is an attack and I don't think he would disagree with this summary of his beliefs.
I spent less than one minute googling, and came up with this [0] on my first try:
> I am quite clear, however, having spent more than quarter of a century walking the walk across many of the most intriguing ancient archaeological sites on earth, and digging into ancient texts and traditions from all around the world, that NO ancient archaeological site and NO ancient text or tradition that I have yet come across provides persuasive evidence for the “ancient astronaut hypothesis”.
> ... My own view is that all of the anomalies of history and prehistory pointed to by advocates of the ancient astronaut hypothesis are far better and more elegantly explained as emanating from a lost, advanced HUMAN civilization of prehistoric antiquity than from high-tech alien visitors from another planet.
So, you just made that up, even though he expressly says the opposite on his own website. Why would you do that?
I don't know what to tell you, there are direct quotes from his books in my first comment. Here's another one:
> Shamanism is not confined to specific socio-economic settings or stages of development. It is fundamentally the ability that all of us share, some with and some without the help of hallucinogens, to enter altered states of consciousness and to travel out of body in non-physical realms - there to encounter supernatural entities and gain useful knowledge and healing powers from them.
- Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind
I do think it's different than the "ancient astronauts" theory, but anything living that isn't from Earth is an alien, so entities from other realms clearly qualify.
Edit: Sorry, rereading the thread I see the misunderstanding, you are right that he doesn't think aliens were involved in building the pyramids specifically and I didn't mean to imply that. I'm just saying that he thinks aliens were involved in the general development of the human species.
> he thinks aliens were involved in the general development of the human species.
That's still a gross mischaracterization of his stance, I think.
It sounds like you've never had a psychedelic experience yourself? If you had, I think you'd find it much easier to believe there's something to the 'stoned ape' theory. Especially when you realize that basically every culture ever - I know of no exceptions - has developed some way of leaving their normal state of reality.
No one has ever left the normal state of reality. Only perception. Certainly humans have been hallucinating and imagining things forever. Also, lying about your knowledge is a pretty universal human trait. Graham Hancock is proof of that.
No. But it didn't unfold itself to anyone else either. Shamans have never produced a single falsifiable hypothesis. Reality is exposed but by bit through observation and experimentation. Preferably while sober.
The combination of plants that creates ayahuasca appeared in a dream. Shamans have identified cancers and illnesses in people. If science can’t cope with these realities, that’s a science problem.
That's it. Shamans appear in disparate cultures over millenia upon millenia, helping people in astounding and near-inexplicable ways... And modern academia is just like, 'well, they believe in spirits and take drugs so they must be dumb - now off I go to work to pay my $400,000 mortgage, because that's sensible'.
We owe these traditions an astonishing unacknowledged debt, and the people telling us so are ferociously attacked.
Fair point. When there is proof (as there is with your example), it is a different story. But unsubstantiated claims? Still judging, by way of wanting proof.
Sure they are. They're victims of the entities which killed public transport so they could profit more, and the oil companies who lied and funded disinformation about climate change.
> As for oil company research, anybody could do research.
Many have? Even long before the 70s.
That does not absolve oil companies of their crimes. They've spent untold millions promoting doubt for 50+ years, lobbied politicians for subsidies, infiltrated regulatory agencies, targeted activists, smeared alternatives, etc etc, all in full knowledge that they were putting us on a catastrophic course.
> You can also blame the activists for preventing nuclear power generation.
"Activists" are not a monolithic entity. Nuclear isn't perfect either - there's only so much fuel in the world.
Also, I would instantly bet you my life savings that Big Oil money promoted the anti-nuclear campaign.
I think you need to think much, much deeper on this.
And if the oil companies shut down in 1960, what would our economy have run on?
In WW2, the main target of the USAF bombing campaign was the Reich's fuel supply. They were successful, the German war machine ground to a halt from fuel shortages. They did use a lot of horses, but there weren't remotely enough.
The German U-Boot campaign was aimed at cutting Britain off from fuel.
A better question would be if they had remained at the scale they were at in the 60's (or 70's) while their parent energy companies transitioned into better alternative energy technology earlier one.
The option was there, the dangers were known and the choice was made by executives to FUD their way out of any action other than funding thinks to counter the early climate change findings, to actively work against better public transport in the US, to promote larger and larger vehicles, etc.
Like building roads where traffic expands to fill capacity, society expands to consume available energy .. and those profiting from fossil fuel extraction expanded production rather than pivot towards better sources.
That's pure unfettered capitalism for you - dumb as an ox and making poor decisions at scale for the masses much of the time.
You keep asking what the alternatives to covering up imminent planetary destruction with a decades long coordinated campaign are...
The alternative was to come out and say, this is what we found, let's put money into alternatives - solar, hydro, nuclear etc.
How is that not incredibly obvious?
And why is your immediate reaction to being informed of oil companies global atrocity scale actions to defend them, as if you couldn't possibly imagine a single thing they might have done differently?
> What do you think the USSR ran on?
Are you one of those binary thinkers, who think the only alternative to unfettered predatory crony criminal capitalism is full on gulag-style communism? How fascinating.
Remember, we're talking the 1960s. Solar panel technology was not very good. Hydro is nice, but it is economically destructive (which is why in the PNW the dams are being removed). There is also not remotely enough hydro power even if all the rivers were dammed. Nuclear power was not stopped by oil companies, it was stopped by activists.
The Haber-Bosch process converts air to fertilizer, and results in about 1% of global emissions. Eliminating that would quickly cut the population by several billions.
Removing oil (and coal) from the economy in 1960 would have necessitated the population being reduced to 1800 levels. Such a decline would inevitably result in absolutely massive wars, and we all know how environmentally destructive wars are.
As for government run agriculture, the USSR is hardly the only example of its massive failure. Government run agriculture always results in famine.
The idea that our oil reliance is all because of evil oil companies is simply absurd.
P.S. I remember, back in the 1970s oil crisis, there was a lot of talk about the oil companies buying up patents for 200mpg carburetors, and keeping them off the market. I ask my dad about that (career military) and he bust out laughing. He said the military runs on oil (recall my remarks about crippling enemy oil being a goal of all the major combatants). There was no way in hell the military would eschew use of 200mpg patents regardless of any silly patent laws.
Your insistent avoidance of the point* would be alarming and surprising if I expected better.
But I've read your previous four comments, and I don't.
* One more time, just in case it gets through: oil companies covered up their own research and deliberately set the entire planet on a course to self destruction for profit. This is profoundly evil, and if you don't see why there's not much I can do about that.
Hearing isn't the same as understanding. When someone responds with points that don't really connect to the original argument, it's sensible to repeat yourself in case the other person didn't understand.
You really don't understand how systematically lying about fossil fuel's role in climate change for 50 years makes big oil *directly* responsible? Yikes dude.
> Show us any non-profit communist economy with a better environmental track record
The fact that they lied and committed unthinkable damage to us all for profit doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with communist economies. Your thinking is extraordinarily disjointed. It seems to be built of naughties AM radio talking points that don't all quite fit together.
Such confused thought is a sadly predictable consequence of how big oil's decades of FUD has poisoned the discourse, and warped vulnerable minds.
Buddy they put our species in massive harm's way, just so they could keep profits rolling in. If they weren't tight with our politicians and media they'd be in jail, or worse.
They're the cause of unimaginable suffering already, with far more to come. Stop defending them, for the sake of literally all life on the planet (excepting maybe cockroaches and tardigrades). We have very little time to fight back and save ourselves the worst of it - about 2 years according to most every climate scientist.
I have no problem with disagreement when it's at least coherent and based on actual fact.
But I can't see any legitimate criticism in the entire post, just a load of people jumping to conclusions and even attacking the author. Misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and disturbing assumptions are all over the place. It's weird.
So many people very obviously missed the entire point, and are mad about stuff they invented entirely.
Dear lord, there are many people missing the point of the article but this entire comment is egregious.
> Neither of the psychological tendencies noted by the author are “bugs” or failings of the human psyche.
They can be, and those situations were what was described. The author never claimed that these failings are not sometimes or even often a useful heuristic - in fact, they linked to a research article which shows that these processes are even separate from our evaluations of people (the evil bananas study).
> They are useful heuristics that are right more often than wrong
Maybe - but knowing they're there so you can understand and prevent the wrongness is important, not just in your life but to the future of our species.
> Tendencies like these don’t rule absolutely over human thought
Author never claimed they do.
> If we want to psychologize
What?
> the author seems to be in the throes of a persecution complex typical of certain stages of life.
What the fuck?
> It stems from an erroneous belief in both the certitude of one’s own conclusions and the impossibility of anyone coming to a contrary opinion based on sound reasoning.
The author linked to important and interesting research, and wrote about it in a very engaging way. At no point anywhere did they make logical leaps, or insist that one conclusion or another was the only right way to think.
The stone cold fact is that this phenomenon, which shows up in multiple studies, explains a lot about our biggest current problems, from corrupt politicians to alarming climate research. Attacking the messenger and even pathologizing them is completely unwarranted, actively unhelpful, and a perfect example of the author's point.
> I strongly suspect that, over the next 100 years, we are going to find that we’ve been waging war on the human biome through food preservatives and environmental contaminants. And that many common chronic disorders/illnesses (including ADHD, Autism, weight gain, etc) in our generation are actually attributable to a disfunctioning microbiome.
I suspect you're very right, and I further suspect that there's already research proving this that has been shelved and hidden behind NDAs by the people profiting from this, just as with big tobacco and big oil and big agri etc.
There is a very strong inverse correlation between obesity and elevation above sea level, the higher you go the thinner the people. One of the thoughts is that environmental contaminates are in higher concentrations the further down the water cycle you go, and these contaminants cause obesity.
I’m not sure it’s so simple. Socioeconomic studies indicate that the worse shape you’re in, the less social mobility you are likely to have. Moving on a whim might not be possible for many of these people.
On the other hand, contaminants concentrating further down stream is a known phenomenon and we known we’ve inundated many places with hormone disrupting substances. It doesn’t seem all that complicated or far fetched.
Both could be factors, and I’m not aiming to be contrarian so much as investigate the possibilities a bit. It’s an interesting topic
I'd like to see them 'multi-nationalized' - not for one nation, but for the world.
All the major offenders, all the companies who have wreaked havoc on us: Fossil fuel shitheads who sponsored climate doubt, arms manufacturers who lobbied us into illegal wars, social media companies responsible for polluting the minds of our most vulnerable, advertisers who greenwash and whitewash crimes.
It's only a fantasy, for now - we can't even prevent our tax dollars from arming mass murderers. We need to do something though. I'm sick of paying for the privilege of being gaslit, and tired of subsidizing the strip-mining of the planet.
Switch the major offenders and monopolies by force to a co-op model, and let's see if we can't turn the fate of the planet around.
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings." - Le Guin
reply