Monday, December 21, 2020

The incredible ibex defies gravity and climbs a dam | Forces of Nature with Brian Cox - BBC

 What a world - I hope there's a reason for it all!

And I'm scared of heights, so it was even hard watching it 




57 comments:

Peter Pan said...

I'm afraid of heights too!
Ibex and human free climbers give me the willies.

Matt Franko said...

https://www.farmandfleet.com/products/110172-agrimaster-all-purpose-mineral-block.html

Andrew Anderson said...

I'm afraid of heights too except in my dreams where I have an unlimited athletic ability; e.g. support myself by one finger.

Also, in dreams, I have the unlimited ability to extend a jump by just stretching a bit further. Often I can levitate 6" or so (like in Dark City) and sometimes even fly above the power lines.

As for those ibexs, more evidence that a loving, extremely creative Creator exists.

Not that the evidence is ever irrefutable lest the wicked not be sorted out but it's enough to leave man without an excuse.

Matt Franko said...

“more evidence that a loving, extremely creative Creator exists.“

Uh... no.... obviously the worm that the ibex randomly evolved from developed legs and hard sharp split hooves the tips of which could get into the small masonry joints so in case some other life form that randomly revolved from chimpanzees might build a dam that leeched required minerals and salts... Duh....

Peter Pan said...

The narrative presented by the theory of evolution, dismisses the need for a creator.

Discuss.

Matt Franko said...

“ dismisses the need for a creator.”

I look at it rather that the Darwin people become biased away from purpose and creativity...

iow it trains the people to have a cognitive bias against purpose and creativity...

Andrew Anderson said...

There's still the Origin of Life problem which appears unsolvable by natural means alone.

Besides, the Bible implies that God Himself "formed" (it's in Isaiah) so there's really no conflict there; i.e. God evolved and then created this Universe.

Moreover, historically speaking, some have denied or been agnostic about a Creator even when they had no scientific basis for it.

Tom Hickey said...

biased away from purpose and creativity...

Modern science was developed as a reaction to Aristotelian explanation based on purpose. It's called teleology from classical Greek telos, meaning "end," "goal" or "purpose." In the modern view, natural processes and natural systems do not have purpose, ends, or goals. They are to be explained by functions rather than "causes" in the pre-modern sense. Now causality is basically derivability from axioms in a theoretical model based on observational data.

This is basic to the assumption of naturalism that is the foundation for the scientific method. Purpose is viewed as anthropomorphism as opposed to naturalism.

Good luck with trying to get scientists to abandon naturalism as a key assumption of scientific method and reintroduce purpose other than in systems and processes involving human agency. And even then, no supernatural factors influencing mentality and behavior. Skinner's stimulus-response model is considered scientific, for instance, in the sense of providing a framework for explaining animal agency, including human. Here the edges get a bit blurry, and there is some disagreement over what is admissibly scientific, e.g., in historical explanation that goes beyond just reporting facts.

There is nothing wrong with introducing purpose, creativity, and other anthropomorphisms, and even supernaturalism, into other explanatory methods such as the philosophical and theological, however. A scientist might use different explanatory methods in life but not introduce non-naturalistic method into scientific work.

Peter Pan said...

My father never attended church, yet disbelieved in the theory of evolution.

The narrative presented is that a blind process can result in great diversity/complexity. In that light, the water cycle is complementary to evolution.

Purpose requires agency.

Peter Pan said...

Gaia wiping out the human species in a series of climate-related disasters may be viewed as purpose.

Andrew Anderson said...

The coincidences required for life to exist ANYWHERE in this Universe are so great that non-Creationists are forced to BELIEVE in an INFINITE number of universes and we just happen to be in one of the EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY rare ones (anthropic principle).

Here's the kicker: Currently, there's no evidence for those other universes while the evidence for the God of the Bible is very considerable.

So if the world ended this moment, many would have to explain why they rejected very considerable evidence in favor of NO evidence at all. That's what I call living dangerously...

Peter Pan said...

According to the Drake equation, there is life throughout the cosmos.

Andrew Anderson said...

The assumption there being that mud plus enough time = Life.

Meanwhile Earth life is the only known life in the Universe.

But let's test mud + time = life by exploring all the places in the Solar System where there is/has been liquid water for enough time and see. If any life is found and proved to be unrelated* to Earth life then the Drake equation can be considered valid - otherwise no.

Btw, life on Earth originated very soon ~ 10 million years after it cooled enough to allow liquid water.

*Since asteroid impacts on Earth have likely scattered Earth life abroad in the Solar System.

Andrew Anderson said...

But even if truly alien life is ever discovered, the burden of proof would still be on those who claim it had a purely natural origin.

Peter Pan said...

Within the Solar System, expeditions are being planned for Europa and Enceladus, as places where life may exist. Outside of the Solar System, a catalog of potentially habitable worlds is underway.

I agree that the earliest stages of evolution are murky, if not a mystery.

p.s. Mars once had water, so the possibility that life once existed on Mars cannot be ruled out.

Andrew Anderson said...

And let's lavishly fund SETI too - not that we'll ever hear anything but that deafening silence is a very important message.

Greg said...

“Meanwhile Earth life is the only known life in the Universe”


Yes, and the % of the universe we’ve been able to explore ( and explore with very limited tools) is about equivalent to looking at one grain of sand on one beach on the planet earth and trying to come to a conclusion about every other grain of sand. There are more galaxies in the universe than their are grains of sand on those beaches. We haven’t even adequately assessed our own galaxy, our own solar system for chrissakes.

Andrew Anderson said...

Fermi Paradox

Matt Franko said...

“other than in systems and processes involving human agency. “

Yo that’s what we are doing here..

Matt Franko said...

1787 ... Purpose: “we the people in order to form a more perfect union... promote the general welfare...”

1859 Darwin: “survival of the fittest!”

2020 Darwin morons devoid of purpose and creativity: “it’s survival of the fittest and we’re out of money!”

Checkmate.... AGAIN ....

Matt Franko said...

“There's still the Origin of Life problem”

It’s not a problem moron it’s already been accomplished....

Matt Franko said...

“Origin of Life problem”

You make me laugh... we have morons running everything going all around that think their grandparents were chimpanzees and think “we’re out of money!” and can’t even apply 8th grade algebra and you fucking think these morons are going to solve THAT problem????



Matt Franko said...

“There is nothing wrong with introducing purpose, creativity, and other anthropomorphisms,”

LOL you’re in an infinite regress you can’t say human beings proceeding with purpose is anthropomorphism... anthropomorphism is applying human characteristics to non human things,,, how can you say humans applying human characteristics to humans is a fallacy?

This is comical...

Peter Pan said...

Bees have a purpose, but don't tell anyone.

Andrew Anderson said...

and can’t even apply 8th grade algebra and you fucking think these morons are going to solve THAT problem????

It's insolvable without resorting to the infinite number of universes hypothesis.

But that currently requires more FAITH than believing the Bible does.

So while you call non-Creationists "morons", others have pointed out (e.g. Dr Hugh Ross, Phd Astrophysics, at reasons.org) that they're being illogical.

But even if there were evidence for an infinite number of universes, it's still a coin toss EXCEPT for the testimony of unprecedented Miracles in the Bible, fulfilled prophesies, consistency of message over centuries, etc.

Tom Hickey said...

LOL you’re in an infinite regress you can’t say human beings proceeding with purpose is anthropomorphism... anthropomorphism is applying human characteristics to non human things,,, how can you say humans applying human characteristics to humans is a fallacy?


The blame is on the naturalistic assumption on which modern scientific method is based. Argue with the scientists about their methodological approach. Good luck with that.

Tom Hickey said...

1787 ... Purpose: “we the people in order to form a more perfect union... promote the general welfare...” 1859 Darwin: “survival of the fittest!” 2020 Darwin morons devoid of purpose and creativity: “it’s survival of the fittest and we’re out of money!” Checkmate.... AGAIN ....

Uh, the Constitution is not a scientific document. It is a political one. Terms that are ruled out of use in scientific discourse by naturalism, like purpose, etc., are fine outside of doing science based on accepted methods. Biology is considered a science, so it is subject to the naturalistic assumption.

Social sciences including economics that involve agency, as well as psychology, have not been able to develop frameworks for doing science in those areas of subject matter owing to the human element. For example, few accept that Skinner's S-R model is a sufficient causal explanation of human behavior to put psychology on the level of natural science. Similar issues with utility in econ.

Social sciences including econ and psych are recognized as scientific only in the sense that studies based on scientific method are applicable. There are no naturalistic theories in these field that constitute normal science in Kuhn's sense. There is no accepted framework for doing normal science in these field, as there is in physics, chem and to a lesser degree in biology. Natural selection in evolutionary theory is genetics based since the modern synthesis, so no role for purpose in the theory as an explanatory principle.

Biology won't be fully admitted to the sciences and social science and psych won't be recognized as real sciences until there is explanation possible entirely in terms of biophysics. That is not yet on the horizon in any way comparable to creating a naturalistic causal explanation on the level of natural science. But that is the direction.

Even biology is called a life science rather than a natural science since it is not (yet) reducible to explanation solely on the basis of natural systems when humans are included in the subject matter.

The other big issue is complexity. Biological systems are complex adaptive systems and those involving human agency have many variables and parameters to consider. Scientists and mathematicians are just beginning to get a handle on this, but real progress will likely have to wait for more highly develop AI to generate models that are at all comprehensive.

Tom Hickey said...

To put this another way, science, which methodological naturalism, is based on operational definition, which requires being specific about what is to be measured and how, e.g., variables and parameters. It's about mathematical modeling and data.

This is Krugman's problem with MMT. He thinks that econ is a natural science, so MMT is unscientific because it doesn't fit the profile — "no model."

Conventional econ fits the profile but doesn't produce results reliably. So it looks like causal explanation but isn't.

Peter Pan said...

The water cycle has a profound effect on the origin and future of life, yet no one argues that a creator is behind it.

Andrew Anderson said...

Not true, the constants of nature are fine tuned to allow all sorts of phenonemon that allow life.

That's why belief in an infinite number of universes, each with their own constants of nature, is necessary to plausibly believe there was no Creator.

Believe what you want (but don't expect there to be no consequences) but currently the science is on the side of there being a Creator.

Peter Pan said...

That is a variation of the Monte Carlo fallacy. Btw, I don't believe in multi-verses.

Andrew Anderson said...

Please elaborate, I see no fallacy.

Peter Pan said...

Monte Carlo fallacy for the multi-verse:
That the odds of there being a universe that can support life is so unlikely, that such a universe would only come into existence after a huge/infinite number of lifeless universes had come into existence.

It's a fallacy since the probability of an event is not tied to any other event.
It's normally applied to games of chance (e.g. lotteries, rolling of dice) where initial conditions are identical. Thus the probabilities for each gambling event are identical.

Matt Franko said...

Hey I remember in the one Star Trek there was an alternate universe and good kirk got switched with bad kirk and over in the bad universe the good Kirk had access to a system where all he had to do was push a button and he could cause the immediate death of any one individual...

Hmmmmmm......

Matt Franko said...

“ Uh, the Constitution is not a scientific document. ”

I know you’re making my point... it’s our statement of purpose... “we the people in order to form a more perfect union ... promote the general welfare...”

This is the purpose of our nation...

Science degree didnt exist when that was written...

Science degree was established after Darwin ...

US constitution iirc 1787... Darwin 1859 ...Science degree 1860...

You don’t need science to first establish purpose...


Tom Hickey said...

To use terms like "purpose" in science they have to be operationalized.

Outside of science, all that is needed is observe the rules of grammar to avoid nonsense. If the terms are not operationalized or otherwise technically defined though, there is no objective criterion to decide truth-value of propositions that are not simple descriptions of putative states of affairs that can be checked against observable facts. That limits descriptive propositions to objects, properties and relations. Much of what is interesting in human behavior and communication doesn't fit into simple description (propositional calculus) or scientific discourse, other than doing specific studies on what can be operationalized.

For example, "the purpose of science" and "purpose in science" are not part of science but of philosophy of science. For "purpose" to be used in science, it has to be operationalized.

Science doesn't exclude agency. It just requires that agency be operationalized in scientific discourse, e.g, in agent-based modeling.

For example, utility (satisfaction) is operationalized in microeconomics based on revealed preferences. It's basically an S-R mechanism.

Quantification of the model lies in economic value being determined in markets based on supply-demand curves in the theory, which supplies the causality affecting the variables.

But "purpose" plays no explanatory role in the model beyond the assumption that rational economic agents act to maximize satisfaction ("utility"). Agents just react to price changes — pretty much like experiments with lab rats. One can impute purpose but it's not part of the model other than the maximization assumption. Then all that is needed is to observe market behavior.

In evolutionary theory, natural selection (genetics) is the driver. There is no purpose involved. Environmental changes favor some inherited traits over others. The favorable traits are selected in and the unfavorable are selected out.

There is some "purpose" involved in sexual selection but sexual selection doesn't play a major role in natural selection, and sexual selection can be explained using S-R modeling.

Tom Hickey said...

You don’t need science to first establish purpose...

Of course, but then you are doing philosophy or just gassing.

Philosophy is about building conceptual models that are not data-based and regarding which there are no universally agreed upon criteria that compel agreement on evidence.

Just gassing is making an appeal to common sense. The purpose of philosophy is to clarify expression and the purpose of science is to based claims on objective criteria that can be universally agreed upon by those qualified to understand the claim.

Appeals to common sense result in "alternative facts."

Tom Hickey said...

BTW, regarding the US Constitution as the law or the land, the preamble is considered to be the "enacting clause" of constitutional law. As such it is not part of substantive constitutional law and there is no precedent under which it can be brought forward in case argument as substantive law.

...the Preamble’s statements of purpose do not themselves grant powers or confer rights; the substantive provisions in the main body of the Constitution do that. There is not, for example, a general government power to do whatever it judges will “promote the general Welfare.” The national government’s powers are specified in Article I and other provisions of the Constitution, not the Preamble. Congress has never relied on the Preamble alone as the basis for a claimed power to enact a law, and the Supreme Court has never relied on the Preamble as the sole basis for any constitutional decision.... source

Peter Pan said...

Hey I remember in the one Star Trek there was an alternate universe and good kirk got switched with bad kirk and over in the bad universe the good Kirk had access to a system where all he had to do was push a button and he could cause the immediate death of any one individual...

Hmmmmmm......


The good Kirk refused to use that button, but his "girlfriend" had no such qualms, and saved Kirk who was about to die at the hands of evil Sulu.

I'd push the button if the target were Nancy Pelosi.

Matt Franko said...

LOL... hey think about how many wars could be avoided if we had that button!

(Star Trek very under appreciated... Shatner one of the all time greats)

Greg said...


“Science degree was established after Darwin ...

US constitution iirc 1787... Darwin 1859 ...Science degree 1860...

You don’t need science to first establish purpose... “


This is some wild shit Matt, you are really spouting off here. You seem to be using this to suggest that “Darwin” isn’t science or some such crap. So why wasn’t there formalized science education til late 1800s? Hmmmmmm let’s see maybe it’s because up until then all “education” was done by religious institutions. Less than 10% of the population could frikken READ! After Darwin established THE method to look at biology England started a Bachelors of science education (around 1870) at institutions that had little to no church interference.

Matt Franko said...

Darwin’s Theory is dialogic not scientific...


Matt Franko said...

“all “education” was done by religious institutions.“

You’re making my point... Roman Catholic Church was founded and run by Platonist philosophers... Church of England followed in the same tradition...

All the Liberal Art schools started as Protestant bible colleges...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

“Thomas Aquinas (/əˈkwaɪnəs/; Italian: Tommaso d'Aquino, lit. 'Thomas of Aquino'; 1225 – 7 March 1274) was an Italian[10][11] Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic priest, and Doctor of the Church. An immensely influential philosopher, theologian, and jurist in the tradition of scholasticism, he is also known within the latter as the Doctor Angelicus and the Doctor Communis.[12] The name Aquinas identifies his ancestral origins in the county of Aquino in present-day Lazio, Italy. He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology and the father of Thomism; of which he argued that reason is found in God. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy developed or opposed his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory.”

Our Tom is trained in this tradition he has Art degree and doctorate in Philosophy from Georgetown...

I have Science degree from land grant university founded in 1855.. first Science degree in North America was awarded by USMA West Point after Darwin...

Darwin stayed at Cambridge... the Science people left there once he told them their great great grandfathers were chimpanzees... that apparently was the last straw...

Matt Franko said...

“When he finally broke the news of his distaste for medicine to his father, he enrolled to take a degree in Divinity at Christ College, Cambridge University, from which he graduated in January of 1831. “

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

Darwin had a divinity degree... no scientific training... trained in more or less Philosophy... Like Fauci.. and Rand Paul... somebody should ask Fauci if he thinks we are “out of money!” he’d probably say yes....

Science and Philosophy are opposed..... they are opposites...

You can’t do material work via Philosophy... you blow yourself up or the structure collapses...electrocute yourself...

This is why MMT keeps failing...

Tom Hickey said...

Aquinas was an Aristotelian. He called Aristotle "the Philosopher," as he called Paul "the Apostle." Aristotle is considered "scientific" in the ancient sense of basing knowledge on empirical observation, contra Plato, his teacher, who was an intuitionist.

Darwin, like Marx and Freud, where considered "scientific" in their time too (19th c.), although their methods would not be considered "scientific" now, since scientific method has developed considerably since then, owing to greater understanding of math and information and data science.

Centuries from now, scientists will look back at the 21st c as primitive in comparison too. They will have AI most likely, for example, or at least computational power that dwarfs ours and well as other advanced tech — if we don't exterminate ourselves or undergo civilization collapse, that is.

Evolutionary biologists are NOT "Darwinian" now. They accept the basic idea of Darwin's natural selection, but Darwin wouldn't have a clue of what modern biologists are talking about if he came back from the dead with the same knowledge he had then. And we are just probing the margins of genetics at this point. The big scientific discoveries in this century are expected in the life sciences, with technology following.

Greg said...

My point is that it was Darwin who overturned the previous methods and sprung forth true science investigative processes in England. It is more accurate to consider him the father of modern scientific inquiry in my view. Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, essentially started England’s Science degree programs.

“Darwin had no scientific training” .... smh.....Jesus was completely ignorant of Christianity too and those Land Grant Colleges in 1855 didn’t even have Quantum Physics classes... ha some science curriculum!!
Those Land Grant Colleges weren’t doing nearly what you suggest they were.

Your notion that of what counts as science is absurd. Science is a method for answering questions. The prior method was to accept the scripture or word from some previous enlightened person as truth.

What are we and how did we get here?

Pre Darwin—— we are copies of our creator, described in scripture, read Genesis to know how we got here

Darwin and after— look at us in a detailed manner, look at all animals in detailed manner (comparative anatomy)..... hmmmm notice that we look an awful lot like many other primates.... is it possible that things that look alike have a common origin? How is it that we pass on our traits ? I’ll bet there must be something that we give to our off spring. Oh, about 80 years later we find a protein called DNA that carries traits.... wow.... fancy that

Ask a question, gather detailed data, look to see if anything might link the data then come up with test if you can that’s science


@Tom

I disagree with you about modern biology being over Darwin’s head. Not sure why you would think that

Matt Franko said...

I submit that without 30% of current biochemists rejecting Darwin, we would never have had this mRNA vax from Pfizer and moderna...

Matt Franko said...

“ The prior method was to accept the scripture or word from some previous enlightened person as truth. ”

You’re making my point again that’s exactly what the morons are doing...

They get their Art degree in Economics from some Platonist Liberal Art school in in the philosophical tradition and their iinstructors make them believe the thesis we are “out of money!” and then they graduate and go out in the world believing and advocating that thesis...

MMT people trying to train people in the anti-thesis to that and dialogue with the morons....

Not getting anywhere... it does not work..,

Matt Franko said...

I’m not saying there is not some sort of earthly use for philosophy or the dialogic method ..,

I’m just saying it has no place being used in anything having to do with our material systems production, management or administration....

It is probably proper for use in strictly non material matters.. Art .. jurisprudence...strictly inter-human matters, etc...

Paul wrote “ Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of the world, and not in accord with Christ,”. Col 2:8

So he didn’t exactly outright ban it ... he just cautioned (“beware”) about it.., and imo with good cause...

Roman Church obviously ignored Paul’s teaching here... whole thing was a philosophical cesspool...

Matt Franko said...

“ Those Land Grant Colleges weren’t doing nearly what you suggest they were.”

It was just the start of a new era in the academe... look what they are doing now...

Matt Franko said...

“ My point is that it was Darwin who overturned the previous methods”

He didn’t overturn the previous methods he used the same exact method.. this was the method he was trained in .. what else is he going to do?

.He just proposed a dialogic antithesis to the previous scripture based thesis...

Neither side were doing science.., they were doing dialogic philosophy..,


Greg said...

I submit that without 30% of current biochemists rejecting Darwin, we would never have had this mRNA vax from Pfizer and moderna...


That might be the stupidest thing you have ever posted. How does their rejection of Darwin have anything to do with vaccine development. Even by your numbers 70% of the biochemists recognize “Darwin” as you say. Are you postulating that only those who rejected Darwin cam up with the right answer? And exactly what way do all 30% reject him? What does that even mean?

Darwin most certainly overturned the methods which simply accepted scriptural explanations, he went against them.

Serious question Matt

What is your story for when the first human appeared on this planet and how? Did they ( there had to be a couple right?) just appear fully formed at the whim of a creator one instant 50,000 hrs ago ? 100,000 years ago? 6,000 years ago?
You scoff at the chimpanzee grandfather story, what’s the one you believe to be true? You have to have some belief about it.

Merry Christmas

Matt Franko said...

It’s not important, if it was important we would know.. it’s vain... who cares?

“nor yet to be heeding myths and endless genealogies” 1 Tim 1:4

or if you don’t like to listen to Paul:

“Don’t skate to where the puck was, skate to where the puck is going to be” Wayne Gretzky

Paul taught that we shouldn’t be concerned about it.., so I’m not concerned about it..,



Matt Franko said...

“10 For His achievement are we,”. Eph 2:10

We are His achievement.., maybe seek to be satisfied in that knowledge.., don’t over-think it Greg..

He has his achievements and we (created in his image) accordingly have ours ...

He has His purpose and we (created in His image) accordingly should have ours...

Darwinism destroys both His purpose and our (created in His image) purpose...

It’s “Satanic” in figurative language (personification)...

Matt Franko said...

“in Him in Whom our lot was cast also, being designated beforehand according to the purpose of the One Who is operating all in accord with the counsel of His will,” Eph 1:11

He has His purpose and we (created in His image) should have ours.. ofc morons don’t see it that way.., “survival of the fittest via random Chance mutation!! And our great grandparents were chimpanzees with no money!”

It’s humiliating I have to share the same oxygen with these people... completely humiliating... they are subhuman morons..

Peter Pan said...

We are descendants of apes. Deal with it.

Greg said...

Nice try Matt

Don’t give this “it ain’t important “ crap and then sit back and get outraged by people who do want to answer the question of “What are we and where did we come from” and come up with an answer you don’t like. Your response to others answers belies your supposed dismissal of their importance. You care greatly about that answer. It’s not nice to lie Matt



“He has His purpose and we (created in His image) should have ours., “

Ooooooooooh deep

“We are his achievement “

Ooooooooh another one....... are you sure it’s not her achievement?

“Darwinism destroys both His purpose and ours”

Interesting claim. No evolutionary theorist I know has said humans don’t have purpose. They might say we are not the result of a single purposeful act. Many would argue, and I agree that we humans were not a goal of evolution. We were not inevitable by design. Intelligence, consciousness, residing within a brain or some central processor was inevitable maybe but it could have taken many forms. Looking at where we are possibly headed it could be argued we are a dead end, gone in 20 more years. As a design to worship some designer,as some argue we will end up a huge failure...... back to the drawing board!

I’ll tell you what I think is unimportant on this Christmas Day. Whether there is some higher purpose. Some spiritual realm different from here that we need to be heeding the rules of. That’s completely uninteresting to me. There is us, there is things that we understand pretty well and things we don’t understand at all but there is no supernatural. We because of our brains limitations and our necessary ego came up with the idea of a supernatural to explain that which we have NFC (no Fukken clue) about. I do think there is a broad universal purpose, not handed down from scripture but wired into us called “don’t give up, keep trying” It’s a pretty simple purpose but often hard to achieve, our brain invents many ways to curb our trying and we DO have to learn that trying at some things aren’t good in mixed company. But the thing about this is it can apply at the planetary level, the continent level, the country level, the organism level, the cell level. Each level tries to find success at not giving up. I also think there is a correct perspective to look at our place, we are one part within something bigger. An important part of an organism . We are important but we ain’t THAT important. The level of importance we have should be cherished not dismissed but MORE importantly not overinflated. Overinflated self importance is way worse than under inflated. Overinflated self importance is communicable and toxic it leads to White Supremacy , ISIS, Nazis, Proud Boys. These are things that will end everything else cuz they foolishly believe they won’t be ended cuz they are special. We can successfully treat under inflated self importance but overinflated don’t listen

“It’s humiliating I have to share the same oxygen with these people... completely humiliating... they are subhuman morons..”

Prime example of overinflated self importance