Counterculture

'The Intellectual Johnny Appleseed of the Counterculture'

A conversation with Whole Earth Catalog founder, Merry Prankster, and woolly mammoth de-extinctionist Stewart Brand.

|

Has anyone lived a more interesting, influential, and inspiring life than Stewart Brand?

Born in 1938 and educated at Stanford, Brand was a Merry Prankster who helped conduct Ken Kesey's legendary acid tests in the 1960s. His guerilla campaign of selling buttons that asked "Why haven't we seen a photograph of the whole Earth yet?" pushed NASA to release the first image of the planet from space and helped inspire the original Earth Day celebrations. From 1968 to 1971, he published the Whole Earth Catalog, which quickly became a bible to hippies on communes and techno-geeks such as Steve Jobs, who famously quoted its parting message: "Stay hungry, stay foolish."

Brand helped shape early techno-culture and cyberspace by reporting on the personal computer revolution and interacting with many of the key figures responsible for what became known as cyberculture. His ideas were instrumental in the creation of one of the earliest online communities, The WELL. He also co-founded The Long Now Foundation, which seeks to deepen the way people think about the past and the future.

In a series of books on such topics as the MIT Media Lab and the rise of "eco-modernism," Brand has delineated a unique strain of ecological thought that embraces technology as a means of salvation and liberation rather than a destructive force that must be stopped. His current passion is Revive & Restore, a leading organization in the "de-extinction movement" that is using biotechnology to bring back plants and animals including the American Chestnut tree, the passenger pigeon, and the woolly mammoth.

Brand is the subject of the new documentary, We Are As Gods—a line from the first issue of the Whole Earth Catalog—which takes a long, critical look at his life and work. In March, Nick Gillespie interviewed Brand about his experience at the far frontier of social and cultural change.

Reason: I love the early description of you in the film as "the intellectual Johnny Appleseed of the counterculture." Do you think that's an apt summary of who you are?

Brand: I was an Appleseed guy for the counterculture and I've been other mythic characters for other people, in the sense that the Whole Earth Catalog was really a casting of seeds.

Johnny Appleseed was really trying to help out the farmers, the people living out on the landscape in America. There was a living-out-on-the-landscape aspect to the 1960s. The people the Whole Earth Catalog helped in terms of communes did not last more than two or three years at the most. The communes all failed and we all went back to town, having learned very important things, such as "free love is not free" and "when you rely on one guy for all the money, it's going to get distorted" and "gardening is hard" and "domes leak."

We got our noses rubbed in all our fondest fantasies at an early age. We were so lucky to have done that—it was way better than graduate school.

The movie begins and ends with your work with Revive & Restore. Why is it important to bring the woolly mammoth or the passenger pigeon or the American chestnut tree back from extinction?

As it happens, all three of those projects make a lot of ecological sense. There is a gap in the ecosystems those creatures were in that has not been filled by anything else. If you bring them back, you not only increase biodiversity; you increase resilience.

But maybe the deeper thing is that we get caught up in our kind of tragic sense of human damage, not only to each other but to the natural world. Most of the damage was done unintentionally. The idea of undoing that damage is potentially very freeing. I think it's a frame changer, the way seeing photographs of the Earth from space changes your frame of how you think about things.

If we can basically help nature heal itself from our previous misbehaviors, that not only helps nature; it helps us. We can move on from feeling guilty about what we've done. Undoing damage is one of the interesting ways to do good in the world.

Why do you think there is so much reticence among conservationists, who may be of a progressive bent, but then also among conservatives, who may have a skepticism of technology? The Whole Earth Catalog subtitle was "Access to Tools." What defines humans is that we use tools, but we seem terrified of actually using them in any kind of concerted way.

I think there are a couple of illusions out there about nature. Ecology is what I studied in college. Island ecologies can be incredibly fragile. But where most of life lives, which is on continents and in the ocean, it's the opposite of fragile. This business of "life finds a way" is incredibly real in this case. You can fuck up an island pretty quickly, but it's also the case that you can cure an island pretty quickly if you just get rid of the rats or the mice or the arctic foxes or whatever screwed it up.

Continents are where rather few extinctions actually occur. You'll have severe loss of population. You'll have extirpations where a particular species is no longer found where it used to be. Beavers have been gone from Scotland and England for 400 years. If you bring them back, they fit right in and improve the landscape immediately and quite thoroughly.

Environmental organizations are well-rewarded financially for telling a primarily tragic story, with a couple of bright stories that the organization has been responsible for. What's weird is you can raise more money with past human failures than you can raise money with present human successes. But conservationists have become very good at intervening in nature and basically helping nature find a way in cases where we have made it hard for nature to get past one particular problem or another.

So you get remnant populations that are having severe inbreeding. It means their fecundity goes down, and they're headed down the so-called extinction vortex. We can turn that around with genetic rescue by bringing in basically a form of out-breeding, either through the lab or through bringing in animals with wildlife corridors and cool things like that. And then nature will heal itself.

All you've got to do is either get out of the way or give it a helping hand. Getting out of the way is something that conservation has become very good at. Giving it a helping hand—people don't know how good conservation is becoming. So when we bring in a new toolkit of using genetics, that is met with more superstition than it deserves.

One of your constant themes is about reframing things in a way that shakes things up. How does de-extinction fit into that?

The way I feel I can have useful leverage in the world is by inventing genres—not just a new thing within a known subject area but a new subject area. Bringing biotechnology to wildlife conservation is not just a new toolset. It brings a whole new perspective on what wildlife conservation can be and what humanity's relationship with the natural world can be. In that sense, it's sort of like when we got the photographs of Earth from space: It completely helped us rethink our relationship to the whole planet and how the whole planet works and how we blend in with that or fail to blend in with that.

You've always talked a lot about systems. Another thread through your work is a do-it-yourself sensibility. Can you apply these two ideas to your experience with the Merry Pranksters and the role that psychedelics played in the cultural change that you were involved in?

Part of what you do when young is try shit. We were reading Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception when I was an undergraduate at Stanford, and I met Huxley. LSD was just becoming available, and marijuana and peyote had been around for a while. My avenue in was mainly through peyote, because I was hanging out with Indians in the early 1960s and joined the Native American Church. I actually am a card-carrying member. The Native American Church meeting, the peyote meeting, is a tremendously disciplined and difficult all-night thing. I got to see a very productive and medicinal-group-therapy version of psychedelics early on.

Shortly after that, I saw Ken Kesey's recreational approach to all that. I'd seen the psychiatric approach, which was in Menlo Park, where the group was giving LSD to people in very structured psychiatric sessions. I did that and kind of struck out, actually, but it was an instructive failure. And there was the sacramental version that was kind of recreational-spiritual.

We had all of these versions of psychedelics, which was an indication of what a general-purpose discovery path it was, and consequently very highly revelatory and sometimes quite destructive. But risk is part of what you're going for, so we were doing risky things on purpose to take advantage of being young and stupid.

The transfer to personal computers was, I saw people having more psychedelic experience with playing Spacewar! on not even personal computers but so-called mini-computers, which were as big as iceboxes. You started to play video games and then the power of programming turned out to be the tool with the most juice. The programmers that I knew had long hair, lived in communes, and weren't doing drugs very much because they had found a better drug: computers.

The opening line of my piece in Rolling Stone was, "Ready or not, computers are coming to the people. That's the best news since psychedelics." Lo and behold, it turned out that psychedelics leveled off. The drugs did not get better. The ideas of how to use them did not get better. It was the opposite case with computers, which were getting better, perhaps because of Moore's Law. You had to run as fast as you could to keep up with the capability that was emerging from computers.

A theme in your '60s work had to do with individualism and empowering individuals. Talk about how that is a powerful impulse in creating society and community. 

The opening line of the Whole Earth Catalog in 1969 was "We are as gods and might as well get good at it." When I did this book called Whole Earth Discipline in 2009, which was kind of apologizing for the number of things the environmentalists got wrong in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, the opening line was "We are as gods and have to get good at it." I was basically reflecting on climate.

But I didn't notice until later that while the two statements sound the same with a different imperative, they're actually completely different. In the "we are as gods" that I was promoting in the Whole Earth Catalog, I meant we individuals—we young humans—have these incredible powers, and we should be using them to expand our capabilities and do things in the world and improve the world and discover the world and all that stuff.

In light of climate, individuals can do almost nothing useful. It's we as a civilization. One of the byproducts of the photographs of the Earth from space is we got to think about humanity as a whole. Not only the planet as a whole but humanity as a whole. Well, what is humanity to do? Humanity is civilization and civilization bears a relationship to the natural world in a different way than individuals bear a relationship to the natural world.

We've never dealt with that before. We're dealing with it now in terms of COVID-19, which basically everybody is taking efforts to fix. Likewise, climate change is caused by everybody. It's going to take efforts by everybody to fix. The we this time is the opposite of the individual. It is the largest-scale collective of humanity that we can imagine.

In the credo of the Whole Earth Catalog, you talked about how power as it was being wielded by large entities—whether it was giant corporations, giant states, or cultural forces that were remote—was not working well. What has to happen for a large-scale organization to not be repressive? How do we work as a civilization without becoming authoritarian?

I think we're going to keep discovering, increasingly over time, the importance of managing the commons that [the late economist] Elinor Ostrom took on and got the Nobel Prize for. One of the things she came to is a discovery that commons are well managed when they're managed by the whole community of people involved. They declare boundaries, and they have multiple levels of responsibility. There are rules that people have to agree on and then abide by, or else, and there's an "or else" that has some teeth.

Humans actually have been getting better at a lot of things for a long time in terms of heading off various diseases, poverty, and a lot of things. We don't kill each other as much. We're not as unjust to each other as we have been. And there are different reasons at different times that it keeps getting better, and you can't count on the past ways of making it better to fix whatever the current problems are. You have to keep discovering new ones. That is an amazing and wonderful quest for humanity. It's not settled how to fix pathological large organizations. You've got to figure it out.

Things getting better at scale is an interesting problem. You've got to basically have everybody on deck to make that happen. And having a whole planet come to a shared awareness of these problems—and a shared sense of agency to deal with the problems—is pretty interesting.

Things change. I've had to change my mind about nations. In my 1988 book The Media Lab, I thought that with the coming of the internet, nations are going to fade because their boundaries don't stop digital information and value going back and forth. Indeed, we do have a global economy. We don't have a global body politic, and we probably never will.

So then what? Then you started getting into these multicentric, multi-level ways of managing that a whole lot of shared information and a whole lot of investigative and productive science and engineering lets you take on. The emerging capabilities and the emerging awareness keep me optimistic.

Your work was reintroduced to a lot of people when Steve Jobs, shortly before he died, gave a commencement speech where he quoted a line from the final Whole Earth Catalog, "Stay hungry, stay foolish." Do you want to revise that?

It's definitely for the earlier "we." What I had in mind was sort of the freedom of the hitchhiker.

I should have talked to Steve Jobs about why he loved it so much. After we did a gig together for the Library of Congress, he asked me to sign a copy of that epilogue for him, and I did.

I think for Steve, he was aware that wealth and power were going to drive him down paths that were going to take away what he cared about most, which was inventiveness and design. He was going to be spending more time defending what wealth and power he had or he was creating. The innovator's dilemma I think was on his mind, and staying hungry and foolish is a way to stay innovative.

You try shit that is not rational until it is. Ken Kesey's line, "If we don't boil rocks and drink the water, how do you know it won't make you drunk?" So that's foolish, and young people specialize in it. They're perfectly equipped to be as foolish as they want. It's harder later.

Can you boost "stay hungry, stay foolish" up to the civilizational level? What's the analog?

It's a really good question. I think that humanity is not going down an authoritarian path that would lead to a hierarchical lock-in. The empires that we keep worrying about in science fiction won't happen in those terms. It will be more multi-leveled and fragmentary, with some parts going very well, some parts going badly, and different degrees of paying attention to each other—but a fair amount of paying attention to each other.

Jared Diamond's book Collapse has a look at all these various civilizations that have collapsed. But they didn't know about each other. We sort of have a global civilization now, and we know about all those collapses that have occurred. In the West, we pay a lot of attention to what happened with the Roman Empire. This becomes time awareness and global awareness, giving humanity the ability, if not the necessity, of getting out of the selfishness and stupidity of adolescence and becoming a mature civilization that knows how to take responsibility. It knows how to be disciplined and knows how to be comfortable with diversity and a cosmopolitan, urban perspective on civilization.

That is in progress, and it's being forced to be in progress because of climate change, which is, in a sense, the version of "hungry" that civilization is dealing with. Maybe the "foolish" part is just: Try everything. Explore geoengineering. Explore ways to capture carbon, right from the air if we can. Explore biological ways to do that. Put some iron in the ocean, see if you can increase the biological fixation that goes on there.

As David MacKay, who was a top science adviser for Britain, said, "Take nothing off the table." That's what I think science, at its best, can do. You don't need a good hypothesis. Maybe you do for funding, but sometimes you can do these things without funding. Just go dead at it, and boil rocks and drink the water.

This interview has been edited for clarity and style. For a podcast version, subscribe to The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: Vegan Group Sues the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Promoting Dairy Products

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “There is a gap in the ecosystems those creatures were in that has not been filled by anything else.”

    Bullshit. There are 175 species of pigeons. They all do the same exact things; fly, eat, shit all over the place.

    And the American Chestnut isn’t extinct.

    1. They all do the same exact things; fly, eat, shit all over the place.”

      Every bird and a few bats do the basic body functions you just listed. Hell, pilots too. That’s not the burning counterpoint one might think.

      Passenger pigeons diet was dramatically different from other North American doves being focused on forest mast, and they helped several species of oak tree propagate.

      Other plants like the Avocado and Osange Orange relied on the giant ground sloth, Columbian mammoth, mastodon and the extinct American horse species to aid in seed dispersal.

      Woolly mammoths kept the fertile northern grasslands from turning into (today’s) barren tundra, which sustained millions of bison, horses and camels.

      The mastadons created natural fire breaks in their spruce forest homes. Making forest fires more regular but less devastating.

      North American camels were some of the only animals who could eat creosote bushes, and kept them in check.

      And these animals didn’t go extinct millions of years ago, but in an eyeblink geologically. The worlds oldest cities like Damascus and Jericho were already over 4000 years old before the mammoths finally disappeared. The pyramids were long built.
      And the passenger pigeon went extinct in 1914.

      1. Where Brand is particularly right is that most modern environmentalists are trying to preserve environments that were devestated by the massive extinctions caused by the early native Americans.
        Tundra isn’t natural, neither are the Northern Boreal Forests, but they’re the unnatural symptoms of extinction.

        1. After leaving my previous job 11 months ago, I’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $11600… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.

          Read all about it here….. Click here

          1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular AS office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than SDS AS regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. +

      3. Martha. The last known passenger pigeon. If you are ever in Cincinnati there is a memorial to her at the zoo.

      4. Woolly mammoths tearing out trees and trampling the ground = good. People clearing trees and having their cattle trample the ground = bad. Understand?

        1. but it would still be cool to see some woolly mammoths.

          1. I bet they taste good, too.

        2. It’s good that humans are stepping into the role of Mastadons in the south with selective forestry.
          But nobody wants to be up in the artic, turning tundra and taiga into steppe grasslands, so we may as well let mammoths and Yakutian horses do it.

          1. That sounds like a mammoth task.

    2. Environmentalists are always worried about invasive species, yet they never seem to realize how the balance of nature was achieved — by some species outcompeting others.

      1. We could be left with cockroaches outcompeting humans, and maybe it will be balanced or maybe it won’t; there won’t be anything around that has language or concepts, so it won’t matter.

  2. You try shit that is not rational until it is. Ken Kesey’s line, “If we don’t boil rocks and drink the water, how do you know it won’t make you drunk?” So that’s foolish, and young people specialize in it.

    And you think this is a good thing? We have a basic grasp of how science works, I can assure you that there’s no way you can boil rocks and get drunk off the liquid. Rocks are made of minerals, not grain alcohol. But sure, let’s hypothesize that we can form a drum circle and chant in a way that will attract flying unicorns that sprinkle magical dust over us, that’s just an alternative science.

    Young people do specialize in being foolish, and you’re even more foolish to believe we should follow their lead. They’re foolish because they’re ignorant, especially including being ignorant of the fact that they’re ignorant. There’s a reason for tradition, it’s what people have found out works. Sure, there’s no reason to follow tradition just because it’s tradition, but you damn well better investigate how it became a tradition before you go tearing it down. You see problems with the way things are so you want to tear down these problematic things, but what are you going to replace them with? Magical thinking?

    As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, some people look at the world and wonder why we have wars and poverty and other bad things. They don’t realize that’s the natural condition of Man and the better question is why, in some places and some times, we have peace and wealth and other good things. Instead of bitching about the problems of this modern world, maybe reflect on the fact that things could be much worse and be grateful things are as good as they are.

    But no, you’re worried that we are destroying our environment and want to restore “the balance of Nature” by re-introducing woolly mammoths. Are you going to re-introduce dinosaurs as well? You know Florida used to be underwater and Alaska used to have a temperate climate – are you opposed to global warming? Why do you think there was some point in the past where the Earth was just perfect the way it was and any change was a bad thing? The Earth has been constantly changing for billions of years, I suspect it will continue to change for billions of years more, long after Man has gone extinct. You’ve got to be pretty goddamn arrogant to think we really are as gods, we’re not. You’ve got enough problems trying to run your own life, what makes you think you’re equipped to run the whole damn planet?

    1. You took it too literally.

      1. Ditto. It’s a metaphor.

        1. I realize it’s a metaphor, but it symbolizes the way young and ignorant people approach trial and error investigations – “Hey, let’s try this, you never know what might happen!” Well, yeah, in a lot of things we’ve got a pretty good idea what might happen and most of them ain’t good and that’s why we don’t try them. Socialism, for example. We understand enough about human nature to know that the future of socialism looks more like Mad Max than it does a Coke commercial. People are greedy and selfish and violent animals and any system that depends on them being otherwise is doomed to failure – like trying to get alcohol out of rocks.

          1. “I realize it’s a metaphor, but it symbolizes the way young and ignorant people approach trial and error investigations…”

            That is true. But it’s also true that that pattern has been going on for as long as recorded history. Socrates was very dismayed with the younger folks of his generation.

            Every generation brings new ideas to the table. And most of the ideas are rubbish, and die a merciful death. But a few ideas will stick around and result in changes.

            1. They apparently either hate Myron Magnet or they hate The New Criterion. Let’s try it without the link, but you know where it comes from.

              And some really bad ideas will grow and flourish like cancer.

              But, though the traders and Tea Partiers didn’t quite understand it, the federal government long ago had turned from the shield of individual liberty into a vast engine of redistribution. That transformation could occur because the Framers’ Constitution was body-snatched by the doctrine of the “living constitution,” which—as Woodrow Wilson first formulated it—saw the Supreme Court sitting as a permanent Constitutional Convention, making up laws as it went along, heedless of the 1787 scheme’s checks. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal used Wilson’s doctrine as a license to remake America’s economy and society. Once the Supreme Court buckled to fdr’s threat to pack it and started voting his way, the justices allowed an utterly foreign governmental structure to devour the Framers’ republic from within, until it broke out of the shell as something altogether different.

              It’s now the government’s job to solve every problem in the world rather than to get the hell out of the way and let you solve your own problems for yourself.

              1. Interesting. I kept trying to publish this comment with the link to Myron Magnet’s piece in The New Criterion and it kept kicking me back to the article without publishing the comment. I remove the a=href, and the comment publishes. Wonder why that is?

                1. I’ll search it. Great quote. Thanks.

              2. “It’s now the government’s job to solve every problem in the world rather than to get the hell out of the way and let you solve your own problems for yourself.”

                It’s actually worse than that, given that even subgroups of individuals, whether they be States, local governments, or just neighbors, are often hamstrung by governmental overreach. The spirit of federalism needs to be resurrected at every level of society, starting, as you imply, with the individual.

              3. I have not read the article, but while I might agree with the identification of Wilson as the fountainhead for this type of Living Constitution analysis, does the article mention in any way, the changing social demographics of America that allowed Wilsonian Progressivism to take root in the first place? Specifically, the increased influx of largely Catholic Southern Europeans/Irish, and Lutheran Northern Europeans—both of them more collectivist in outlook and culture than those already in the US?

          2. It might be beneficial to look at Bruce Charlton’s idea of the “Clever Sillies,” to explain why people like myself, and I think Jerryskids here too, don’t react positively to the idea of some very bright person saying, “Hey, this is new and different; maybe we should try it?”

            Most new ideas don’t work. A few do, wonderfully, which is why we still have that evolutionary trait. But most visits by the Good Idea Fairy end up being worse on net than merely continuing on with what we were doing.

            1. One old idea doesn’t work, Socialism, but people keep trying to implement it.

            2. There’s a reason for tradition, it’s what people have found out works. Sure, there’s no reason to follow tradition just because it’s tradition, but you damn well better investigate how it became a tradition before you go tearing it down. You see problems with the way things are so you want to tear down these problematic things, but what are you going to replace them with? Magical thinking?

              Isn’t this basically a working definition of the conservatism?

            3. Except stifling innovation because some new ideas are bad just leads to stagnation. What you need is the discipline of the market to show which new ideas are profitable and which are not. Steve Jobs was a highly successful innovator and entrepreneur but plenty of his ideas were flops.

    2. Well said.

      While you can’t boil rocks and get drunk from the liquid, with some rocks you might get dead from the liquid.

      And as for stupid young people, there’s a reason why many cultures invented ways to send them away for a few years. Maybe instead of the mammoth we need to bring back the vision quest.

      1. You mean like “semester abroad?” Hah Hah

      2. El Salvador still sends their youth on journeys.

  3. Thanks so much for publishing this. It’s what I needed right now.

  4. Good read. An interesting perspective.

  5. Here’s a look at average GDP growth rates under the last six U.S. presidents:

    Jimmy Carter (D): 3.25%
    Ronald Reagan (R): 3.48%
    George H.W. Bush (R): 2.25%
    Bill Clinton (D): 3.88%
    George W. Bush (R): 2.2%
    Barack Obama (D): 1.62%
    Donald Trump (R): 0.95%

    https://www.benzinga.com/general/education/20/10/18076099/how-gdp-growth-under-trump-compares-to-clinton-obama-and-other-presidents

    Trump = Failure despite TRILLIONS in new government spending.

    1. Go away troll. We get it, you don’t believe Covid happened.

      This is a great article for a change, why don’t you talk about it?

      1. You’re the fucking troll and a self admitted conservative trolling a classic liberal site. You pimp for Trump 24/7 – so you should love Biden who has picked up Trump’s big spending, big government policies.

        Nick has always liked his trans-humanist types. Good for him but the article really breaks no new ground.

        1. Fuck off and die, turd. Your dog needs a place to piss.

        2. “self admitted conservative”
          I’m certainly no woke maniac like you. I imagine even Pol Pot would look like a conservative from where you’ve placed your Overton window.

          “trolling a classic liberal site”
          I’m not the one trolling about Trump and GDP in an unrelated article about the Whole Earth Catalogue founder.
          Also, I’m damn sure that you have no clue what “classical liberal” means. Maybe explain how you and Biden’s policies square with classical liberalism for the rest of us.

        3. You can mute Mother’s Lament now. Try it. It’s a wonderful relief to not have to see his comments.

          1. Didn’t I ask you to mute me, troll?
            Why are you still chasing me around?

      2. Why haven’t you muted him already?

        1. Buttplug’s one of my favorite lolcows to milk. I’m never muting him.

          1. If you feed stray cats, they hang around and start breeding.

            1. Who is Buttplug’s crazy cat lady dom handler?

          2. Am I an lolcow?

        2. How precious that Reason has finally given its readers what they wanted: the ability to silence opinions that make their brains hurt.

          1. I certainly don’t want you muted, Tony.
            I love how you let everyone see exactly what you are.

            1. High praise. Unfortunately, rather fortunately, none of us lets people see exactly what we are. The human brain is not built to make space stations, it’s built to convince your social peers to stroke your dick, figuratively and literally speaking.

              1. “The human brain is not built to make space stations”

                And yet the human brain has built space stations.
                Seems like you know as much about the cerebral cortex as you do petroleum distillation and food transport.

                1. Indeed, and yet it has built space stations. My response to facts like this is a sense of awe, not eradicating the undesirables, but to each his own.

    2. Oops! You made a mistake Mr. Buttplug. You copy / pasted the version that has been hacked by Russians. This part is the giveaway:

      George W. Bush (R): 2.2%
      Barack Obama (D): 1.62%

      There is no way — absolutely no possible way — Obama’s number was substantially worse than even George W. Bush’s. I know this because you spent 2009 to 2016 raving about the Obama economy, which you described as the best in this country’s history.

      #IMissObama

    3. Buttplug’s intelligence compared with an average person: 2.15%

      1. He’s actually the most knowledgeable economic analyst on this site.

        1. What about Tony and WokeKnight?

        2. No Mr Liberaltarian. You are the most knowledgeable. You’ve always been the most knowledgeable.

    4. Now do Biden. Talk about spending trillions for no gain.

      1. Biden hasn’t been disappointing only because I had very low expectations for him. The only good thing I can say so far is that he has not acted like a deranged sociopath like Trump did.

        The Biden bar is on the ground.

        Now if he signs the pot bill Democrats have promised to put on his desk I might give him a ‘D’ overall.

        1. ^ shorthand = no mean tweets

    5. The GDP was doing well enough that scumbags like you decided you had to use the Corona as a pretext to wreck it on purpose.

  6. “But maybe the deeper thing is that we get caught up in our kind of tragic sense of human damage, not only to each other but to the natural world. Most of the damage was done unintentionally. The idea of undoing that damage is potentially very freeing. I think it’s a frame changer, the way seeing photographs of the Earth from space changes your frame of how you think about things.”

    This reeks of the same human arrogance that eco-activists accuse others of. Alinsky tactics aside, judging the human impact on the natural world through biased human perception and desires is just plain stupid. To wit, most natural cycles span centuries to hundreds of millennia, and reveal constant change. Any human concept of a “right” way things are supposed to be is just a selfish, arbitrary delusion, perhaps politically useful but objectively meaningless.

    As for impacts, every living thing and species changes the planet. And we have a long way to go to reach catastrophe, compared to past villains like photosynthetic algae that dumped huge quantities of toxic oxygen into the atmosphere around 2 billion years ago, and cause the extinction of other life forms that could not survive in an oxidizing environment.

    1. Whether any particular direction is more or less desirable from an objective perspective is one thing, but it may be important for people to know that we can make choices about the kind of environment we want.

      Haven’t we brought species like Bighorn sheep and wolves back from the brink? Littering by throwing trash out your car window used to be socially acceptable like using racial slurs. Persuading people isn’t an insurmountable barrier to change.

      It may not be necessary for the government to inflict these changes on us, if we can persuade people to want change, and the idea that we can make changes if we want them seems liberating to me.

  7. In light of climate, individuals can do almost nothing useful. It’s we as a civilization. One of the byproducts of the photographs of the Earth from space is we got to think about humanity as a whole. Not only the planet as a whole but humanity as a whole. Well, what is humanity to do? Humanity is civilization and civilization bears a relationship to the natural world in a different way than individuals bear a relationship to the natural world.

    We’ve never dealt with that before. We’re dealing with it now in terms of COVID-19, which basically everybody is taking efforts to fix. Likewise, climate change is caused by everybody. It’s going to take efforts by everybody to fix. The we this time is the opposite of the individual. It is the largest-scale collective of humanity that we can imagine.

    That’s where you might have lost me.

    Climate change is millions of different problems with millions of different solutions–none of which need to be the complete solution. Those solutions involve more than a billion individuals making choices for themselves in their own unique circumstances. While it may be necessary for suburban soccer moms, farmers in the Amazon, Chinese manufacturers, and the newly emerging middle class of Africa to share certain values, the last thing we need is for them to have their activities coordinated on a global basis.

    Forcing people to make sacrifices for the benefit of other people, elsewhere in the world, whose circumstances, constraints, and solutions others may never be able to understand fully, isn’t the long term solution to climate change. That’s a self-defeating strategy if ever there was one. Forcing us to makes sacrifices for people we don’t know or understand is a surefire way to turn people everywhere against the shared values that are necessary in order to fully address climate change.

    A billion individuals–with shared values–making choices for themselves from their own unique perspectives in their own unique situations is the ultimate solution. If we save the world from climate change, it’ll be in spite of global solutions–not because of them. And individuals have a huge role to play. Musk is remaking the entire automotive industry through market driven demand so that green transportation is a viable option for more and more individuals, all over the world, at lower and lower price points. And that is just one example.

    1. Forcing people to make sacrifices for others is bad enough. Forcing people to make sacrifices because their lifestyle offends some arbitrary ideology is just plain evil, and is more likely to lead to not just resistance but outright conflict.

      1. People would hate pizza and beer if we forced it on them.

        1. Mormons hate beer.
          They want to force us not to drink it.

          1. Actually, I spend a lot of time in Utah in the summer, and you can buy beer there without too much trouble. The problem is getting cold, or finding a bottle opener–and I’m not kidding. Try to find a store in Utah that sells both cold beer in bottles and bottle openers. I dare you. It’s still one of the freest states in the country. Guns aren’t a problem, and you don’t have to wear a motorcycle helmet. Taxes are relatively low, and so is regulation. If the worst part about having so many Mormons around is that you need to pack your own bottle opener, then I wish California were full of Mormons.

    2. It’s also where he kind of loses himself. I mean, I’m not going to be too nitpicky… what’s the expression, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?

      But one does wonder what happened to boiling rocks and drinking the water? There’s no reason to believe that the choices millions of individuals make won’t lead to global solutions. We didn’t need a global solution to create the personal computer…

      1. I have been a fan of Stewart Brand and Whole Earth for a long time. Brand is brilliant, but he often goes overboard and loses himself a bit in looking for the next Big Idea.

    3. Adapting to changing climates is what sets human beings apart from every other animal. We’ll be fine if it gets a little warmer. Judging by the migration patterns in the USA since air conditioning was invented, we prefer warmer weather. The greatest threats to humanity have come from mass cooling events — the Ice Ages, the little Ice Age, the year without a summer 1816 after Mt. Tambora blew up, and 535, maybe the worst year in human history, after an even bigger volcanic explosion (or 2) caused crop failures and led to plagues and the downfall of the Roman and Mayan empires and started the Dark Ages.

      1. Actually, 536 was the worst year, after the volcanoes went off in 535:

        https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive

        “A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night—for 18 months. “For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year,” wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5°C to 2.5°C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record “a failure of bread from the years 536–539.” Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse, McCormick says.”

        1. So because humans have slightly warmed the planet we are now insulted from a repeat of that 536 climate change disaster?

          1. Cold is the enemy of life, far more than heat.
            There’s no solid evidence that humanity has any impact on global climate, but anybody who values life should choose to root for warmer rather than cooler.

  8. The thing about apple seeds is that they do not grow into the variety from which they came. Seeds from a macintosh do not grow into a macintosh. What Johnny Appleseed was doing was plant trees for others to later make cider from the apples. And that ain’t a bad thing.

    1. They also occasionally produce a new variety of apples that is useful and desirable. Which is why there are many distinctly American varieties (and used to be a lot more).

  9. Test. Damn site’s not letting me post a reply for some reason.

  10. That is in progress, and it’s being forced to be in progress because of climate change, which is, in a sense, the version of “hungry” that civilization is dealing with.

    Kind of. Modern Western civilization is desperate to be hungry about something. Which explains a lot of the current culture.

    1. “Modern Western civilization is desperate to be hungry about something.”

      Maybe it’s something to do with the unprecedented levels of obesity in America. Or that our most attractive super models enjoy a caloric intake along the lines of Auschwitz inmates.

      How do we explain that modern Chinese civilization is not desperate to be hungry about something? They lead the world in nuclear construction, electric vehicles, solar panels and hydro electric projects, all in accord with climate change prescriptions.

      1. I enjoy how you post drivel with nothing to back it up. You are aware that the overall environmental impact of manufacturing solar panels is worse than just about any benifite, and that China is constructing more coal power plants than any other country. How about the US says they will take the Chinese approch to carbon emissions and start building up more coal plants and start screaming recism anytime they get called out on it. Or just hamstring the press to only publish positive stories about the government. The last part is redundant ast the corrupt rapist in chief has a (D) next to his name so the press is already fawning over him

        1. Coal is only one of the resources that China is exploiting. They also are producing far more nuclear plants than the US, and more hydro electric project and solar panels. China is also manufacturing more electric vehicles than other countries. Chinese don’t want to be hungry and they are taking climate change seriously.

          ” How about the US says they will take the Chinese approch to carbon emissions”

          The US will likely follow the Chinese lead eventually. Although I don’t think coal burning plants will play as big a role as you apparently do, given the widely recognized problem of CO2 emissions.

          1. “…Chinese don’t want to be hungry and they are taking climate change seriously…”

            Dunno about that, but they’re good with propaganda that gullible shits like this swallow whole.

          2. If the USA follows China’s lead the environment will be trashed.

            1. Either way chances are that it will be trashed. US has a lot invested in burning fossil fuels. The ruling gerontocracy, in particular.

              1. There is a lot more to the environment that CO2 concentrations. China is way worse on actually releasing toxic waste into the environment. I think that’s a better thing to worry about, and easier to control, than CO2 emissions.

      2. How do we explain that modern Chinese civilization is not desperate to be hungry about something? They lead the world in nuclear construction, electric vehicles, solar panels and hydro electric projects, all in accord with climate change prescriptions.

        You clearly don’t know anything about Modern China. They are a very hungry civilization. that’s why they’re actually building stuff. And no, they’re not within 100,000 miles of “being in accordance with climate change prescriptions”.

    2. It’s youth with no moral anchor looking for meaning in their lives, imagining they are fighting for social justice or against the existential crisis of slightly nicer weather.

  11. They forgot to fortify the census

    https://electionwiz.com/2021/05/04/census-reveals-weird-anomaly-shows-millions-less-voted-in-2020-election-than-official-tally/?fbclid=IwAR2xYrMNTiwveBvx2eJC7IvKJaxV9mUWY79mj5d_cFVHzTssjP3MBrxVlyQ

    “Barnes asked, “Why are there five million more ballots counted in the presidential election than reported voting according to the Census data, which has almost always been accurate?” He continued, “Isn’t it amazing that it [under reporting] is almost exactly the number of questionable Biden ballots?”

    I have accepted that I’m stuck with Biden until he is giving speeches from a hospital bed. I just want people to go to jail. This shit is ridiculous.

    1. and I’m tired of hearing spineless conservatives saying “Aww shucks! Gee willikers! We’ll just have to do better next time! Derpy Derp!” If you never hold anyone accountable there won’t be a next time, morons.

      1. People don’t want to admit that 2020 was qualitatively different than past elections. Admitting that the social norm of a mostly honest election is false, brings the validity of other governance norms—the government won’t spy on you, your stated opinions won’t be held against you, the police will protect you from the Mob—all into question.

        Basically, people don’t want to admit that we started taking some big steps down a crumbling slippery slope, into the pit that is someplace like current Venezuela.

    2. Thanks for the link.

    3. Because the Census was taken before the mailed in election. 5 million people didn’t plan to vote or know much about the candidates, but those nice young Democrat activists went door to door and helped them fill out their ballots.

    4. 80 million votes for Joe Biden, his base was so enthusiastic they voted twice.

  12. ” They are a very hungry civilization. that’s why they’re actually building stuff. ”

    They are a growing economy. There’s a difference. According to various sources, 2020 saw a 3% growth in the Chinese economy, the same amount the US economy shrank. When did you last travel through China? You must have noticed the whole place resembles a construction site.

    “And no, they’re not within 100,000 miles of “being in accordance with climate change prescriptions”

    Perhaps so. In any case they lead the world in production of electric vehicles, nuclear power plants, hydro electric projects, solar panels, etc.

    1. And propaganda which gullible shits like this swallow whole.

    2. Communism is a proven wrecker of the environment.

      1. China is probably less communist now than many of the nations in the west. It’s been more directed towards capitalism since Deng Xiaoping took control decades previously. But please don’t let China’s taking the capitalist road lead you to believe that their environment is anything to envy. Air quality in the cities is horrendous and the deaths and suffering it causes are on par with Mao’s social engineering, the civil war, Japanese invasion, the Boxer rebellion, the war against the Hmong, the famines of the late 19th century and so on.

    3. Sounds like heaven. When are you moving there?

      1. It’s not heaven, they just take the threat of climate change seriously. Are you aware that they lead the world in electric vehicle production, nuclear and hydro construction, solar panels, etc? I am not moving there. And they wouldn’t want me if I tried.

        1. And coal plants. Don’t forget the hundreds of coal plants they’re building.

          1. I haven’t forgotten that. It’s an unfortunate fact that there is not a country on the planet that doesn’t rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels for it’s energy needs. China is no different. However, on the bright side, China leads the world in the production of electric vehicles, solar panels, nuclear and hydro construction etc.

            1. And in coal plants.

              1. Fossil fuels are an irresistible way for China to generate electricity. They have huge reserves of it and not much to speak of in gas or oil. Relying on the vagueries of the international markets is a non starter politically. They will be burning coal for some time to come and reaping economic benefits from it as they do so. I don’t know why you should not see the inevitability of a country, in this case China, developing and exploiting the resources within its borders.

                Does China’s burning coal harm the environment? Of course it does. But the government has to deliver fossil fueled economic growth to maintain its legitimacy and avoid a disgruntled populace. Climate concerns come second, or maybe even lower. But climate is a concern, don’t be mistaken. Evidence? China is the world’s leader in electric vehicle production, nuclear and hydro construction, solar panels etc.

                1. They make and sell PV panels because there is a market for it with a profit. They don’t have much oil so electric vehicles can make sense from a self-sustainability perspective. And there is a market for it abroad where they can make a profit. But they also make and buy “non new energy” vehicles, which makes up over 98% of their fleet.

                  1. “They make and sell PV panels because there is a market for it with a profit. ”

                    There is also a lot of sunlight falling on China. It can be exploited without being mined, refined or transported as are fossil fuels. Much the same is true of India, another nation that has quite recently seen dramatic increases in solar energy exploitation. I like the truly radical Indian concept of “One Sun, one World, one Grid.” This is true communism.

                    1. Not at night. Small scale solar allows individuals connected to unreliable grids or with no access to utility supplied electricity at all to have power (when the sun is shining). Which is better than no power.

                    2. “(when the sun is shining)”

                      The sun is always shining. It only appears to ‘go out’ because of the Earth’s rotation. One globe encompassing grid would allow those on one side (the night time side) of the globe to avail themselves of the energy falling on the opposite (day light) side. Sharing a common resource (in this case it’s humanity’s sharing of solar energy) is maybe the ultimate expression of communism.

                    3. Good luck with that.

                    4. Electricity has to be transported too. You think transmission lines are without environmental impact? Especially ones that can take it from where the sun is out to where it’s dark. Solar panels have to be manufactured and maintained. In terms of pollution, it’s probably better than coal, but worse than nuclear and possibly natural gas (depending on how much you want to worry about CO2).

                    5. “You think transmission lines are without environmental impact? ”

                      No. And it will probably cost trillions of dollars. But I agree that it will be less of a polluting impact than coal. Especially over the long term. We will have to wean China and India off coal to make a significant impact on CO2 emissions reduction.

                2. Clearly, China is meeting market demand generated by virtue-signaling eco-wokesters with political power

                  Also, markets are rational machines.

                3. “they just take the threat of climate change seriously”

                  “Fossil fuels are an irresistible way for China to generate electricity”

                  Mutually exclusive.

                  1. “Mutually exclusive.”

                    Welcome to the world. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Chinese could live their lives without electricity like the birds and beasts and fishes of the sea? I think so, too.

                    1. False equivalence.

            2. So France isn’t a country that relies on nuclear? I’m impressed that not having said a single true thing has stopped you from thinking you are correct

              1. That’s never stopped Tony, Chemjeff, SPB, Mizek…

              2. “So France isn’t a country that relies on nuclear?”

                You need gas to drive your Renault,

                In Iceland, a country that exploits geothermal to a huge degree, you still need gas to drive whatever cars they drive there. Probably German or Swedish.

            3. Takes a lot of coal to power the plants that goes into building electric vehicles also to power those electric vehicles. GM is investing a billion dollars to build EVs. If past performance is indicative of future results the government will end up bailing them out many times over. Check out GM’s commitment. If GM built women like they build cars they’ll all have parts missing too.

              1. “Takes a lot of coal to power the plants that goes into building electric vehicles also to power those electric vehicles. GM is investing a billion dollars to build EVs.”

                I think it’s probably fair to say the burning of fossil fuel is essentially unavoidable, even, paradoxically, for the construction of electric vehicles. How many times have you read in these pages that nuclear energy is carbon neutral? Well, news for you, it isn’t. Try mining, milling and processing uranium without fossil fuels.

                If you look closely enough at any human activity you’ll come across the burning of fossil fuels. Couple hundred years ago, it was the oil from Sperm Whales, as is immortalized in the tale of Moby Dick by Herman Melville. Couple hundred years from now, fossil fuels will be their sperm whale oil.

                1. Try mining silica quartz for PV cells without fossil fuels. Try removing the oxides to get silicon without coal.

                  1. Exactly my point. Try strip mining for uranium without fossil fuel powered equipment.

                    I know it’s difficult to wrap your mind around using fossil fuels to make possible the exploitation of other sources of energy, but that’s the way things will be for the foreseeable future. It’s unfortunate and paradoxical, but unavoidable.

        2. China –
          Electricity from fossil fuels – 62%
          Nuclear – 2%
          Hydro – 18%
          Renewables – 18%

          1. That and not all fossil fuels are the same. The US relies on natural gas where as China relies on coal.

            1. I remember one plank of Obama’s original presidential campaign was clean coal. Whatever happened to that?

              1. No matter how much your scrubbed it, it was always black.

                The coal, I mean.

                1. Harry Reid was about to disagree until you qualified your statement as referencing coal.

  13. ‘The Intellectual Johnny Appleseed of the Counterculture’

    “His current passion is Revive & Restore, a leading organization in the “de-extinction movement” that is using biotechnology to bring back plants and animals including the American Chestnut tree, the passenger pigeon, and the woolly mammoth.”

    The Lord is good to me
    And so I think the Lord
    For providing biotechnology
    To restore the wooly mammoth and the chestnut tree

    1. You are perhaps the only commenter in these threads who has not been accused of being a ‘sock’ of someone. Yet your name . . . seems to indicate . . . some sort of cloth-like foot apparel. Maybe in some weird foreign tongue.

      1. I’m Eddie’s sock. Whether I’m *technically* a sock or not is unclear since Eddie hasn’t been posting lately, so my personae haven’t been having debates with themselves or anything. I don’t even remember now, but I think I had some difficulty in logging in as Eddie – though they never told Eddie about being banned or anything. Now I’m so used to being Cal that I even prefer the name.

        1. I always enjoyed Eddie’s posts and hadn’t seen any recently.

          Now my world makes sense again.

    2. *golf clap*

      Well done.

  14. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1391454102098485249?s=19

    JUST IN – Melinda Gates met with divorce lawyers in 2019, say people familiar and documents reviewed by WSJ. One concern about her husband: Bill Gates dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who committed suicide in prison.

    1. Epstein did not kill himself, Windows 10 did.

      1. In about 5 years we will get a ‘like’ button.

    2. Bill Gates dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who committed suicide Ctrl-Alt-Delete in prison.

  15. https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1391449710376980483?s=19

    Much like socialism and communism (not unrelated), it doesn’t matter what propagandizing acolytes say Critical Race Theory is or is supposed to be. What matters is how it manifests in the real world and the end result of its implementation, which is death and destruction.

    They like to shield their awful behavior behind language that is hard to disagree with. This tricks many people into supporting their madness. The woke do this with everything (e.g. “Black Lives Matter).

    Ignore what they say. Watch what they do.

  16. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1391455909386375171?s=19

    Democrats approve of the CIA more than Republicans do by 9 points, and approve of FBI by *23 points more* than Republicans.

    Two defining features of the modern-day Democrat are reverence for institutions of authority (they also love the corporate press) and censorship support. [Graphic]

    1. Democrats approve of overthrowing governments but only if it’s the US.

  17. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1391518164459171840?s=19

    JUST IN – All four mainlines of the Colonial Pipeline System still offline after the Ransomware cyberattack. [Link]

  18. One of the glaring things about Reason in the last decade or so, is that they seem to think they are still counterculture (I mean, OMG, I wear a leather jacket just like Fonzie!), but in reality they are somewhere between Vox and Teen Vogue

    1. While I don’t share many of the other commenters’ ire for the authors here, I do enjoy some of the colorful terminology and nicknames they have developed for the writers. ‘Britches’, ‘The Jacket’, ‘Rico’ etc.

    2. Grown adults making their living peddling a political worldview that normal humans abandon by 10th grade.

      Never assume style is a choice. It’s mostly shame masquerading as something else.

      1. ” It’s mostly shame masquerading as something else.”

        Something else like food truck fetishism?

        1. I love food trucks. They are fun to design and even more fun to eat at. Why do you hate freedom?

          1. You would love China too. Automated food trucks run by KFC have been plying the streets of Shanghai for months now.

            Last month, Forbes reported that Neolix had started to work with Yum on driverless vehicles to serve food and specifically cited partnerships with KFC and Pizza Hut. It looks like the KFC trucks came first. Although we don’t have proper confirmation, the vehicles look identical to other Neolix self-driving prototypes that serve other purposes locally, such as disinfecting areas due to the pandemic.

            As for how the little food pods work, it looks like customers make a selection via screens and pay via a QR code and then a door opens to reveal their order. It’s not clear what stops someone from taking more than what they ordered, but surely there’s some sort of system for that. There isn’t anyone inside preparing food as it happens.

            It seems the spread of this sort of approach is inevitable, especially in a post-pandemic world. But whether the robo food trucks will catch on will ultimately be for the public to decide.

            I’m pretty sure these automated food trucks are electric, too. Since China is the world’s leading producer of electric vehicles.

            Cool food trucks do not equal freedom. China is pretty autocratic, authoritarian, even.

            1. Neolix was a terrible cook who couldn’t even make a proper coffee for Captain Janeway.

              But he could dodge bullets.

              Other than that, it’s a huge strawman argument you’ve built there. Don’t put it anywhere near an open flame.

              1. ” it’s a huge strawman argument you’ve built there”

                I agree that Shanghai’s food trucks are probably fun and attractive in design, and even more fun to eat at. If only for the novelty of it all. I just don’t think they make their customers any freer.

                I’ve never bought into this idea we see in Reason that a consumer with a choice of 500 types of breakfast cereal enjoys more freedom than the customer with only 400 breakfast cereals on the market.

                1. Yeah, who needs 23 types of deodorant or 18 types of sneakers or 10 types of toilet paper, right, comrade?

                  https://reason.com/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-dont-need-23-choices-of-d/

                  1. “Yeah, who needs 23 types of deodorant”

                    Commie. I need at least 25 types before I even begin to feel free.

            2. So the Kentucky Fried Chicken truck came before the Kentucky Fried Egg truck?

        2. Fetishes, I assume, are psychological hooks that got caught on one thing or another during puberty. Food trucks were more of a college thing for me.

      2. You have to reach the 10th grade to find out what is in the 10th grade. Keep pushing. We know you can do it.

      3. I love how Tony imagines his woke ideas and inner city education is somehow mainstream.

        1. I don’t know that being mainstream is necessarily a virtue, but, then again, who decides what counts as virtuous?

        2. It is sadly mainstream. All of those ‘idiot on the street’ interviews that Jay Leno did on the Tonight Show were accurate, unfortunately.

          “The best evidence we have suggests that, compared to the general public, Trump supporters score significantly better than the rest of the public—and Clinton supporters score significantly worse—on a standard verbal ability test. Likewise, Trump supporters score significantly better on most science knowledge questions than Clinton supporters or the general public.”

          Besides failing basic biology, woke idiots like Tony don’t know much about science in general. (Or even “Science!”)

          “less than half of 2016 Clinton supporters (49.6%) are able to answer correctly both of two related questions: whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth (EARTHSUN) and whether that takes a day, a month, or a year (SOLARREV). Remember these two questions are multiple choice! You would have a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly on the first part: whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa. Sadly, the general public didn’t do hugely better than Clinton supporters, with only 57.1% (compared to 49.6%) knowing that the earth goes around the sun and that it takes a year to do so.”

          Yeah. ‘Party of Science’, my ass.

          1. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/01/30/trump-supporters-verbal-ability/
            Source in case someone asks for a cite. I’m not making this up, unfortunately.

          2. The earth and sun each orbit the center of mass of the solar system, roughly speaking. I learned that on the IFuckingLoveScience for Sissy Boys YouTube channel.

            Days and years are just words we invented for accountants.

            1. Well, I’ve been told that Republicans believe that the Earth is flat, and Democrats believe that planet-ness is just a social construct, so, that’s just like your opinion, man.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-xI1384Ry4

              1. Republicans could be right about the shape of the earth, could know the deep mysteries of existence, but they’d still thought Donald Trump should be in charge of the nuclear arsenal, and that’s the relevant problem.

                1. You know his orange ass is retired, right?

                  I have a neighbor who persists on talking about how Trump is a [THREAT TO DEMOCRACY] while his preferred team has the White House and both houses of Congress secured. I guess they need something to rail against. Woo.

                  1. Yes, only a million Americans dead during his tenure, why not let bygones be bygones?

                    1. Tell me again how that was Trump’s fault and not governors like Coumo.

                    2. After you tell me how a guy can so shamelessly pass the buck while being president of the fucking United States, have his minions spooge their endless excuses all over his tits, and still be considered an alpha male in your culture.

    3. ” Reason in the last decade or so, is that they seem to think they are still counterculture”

      They all seriously think it’s still 1992, and the Moral Majority is ascendant and still means something.

  19. Intelligence is a gift, rich or poor is human destiny

    https://sinartechindojaya.detradingindo.co.id/

  20. But no, you’re worried that we are destroying our environment and want to restore “the balance of Nature” by re-introducing woolly mammoths. Are you going to re-introduce dinosaurs as well? You know Florida used to be underwater and Alaska used to have a temperate climate – are you opposed to global warming? Why do you think there was some point in the past where the Earth was just perfect the way it was and any change was a bad thing? The Earth has been constantly changing for billions of years, I suspect it will continue to change for billions of years more, long after Man has gone extinct. You’ve got to be pretty goddamn arrogant to think we really are as gods, we’re not. You’ve got enough problems trying to run your own life, what makes you think you’re
    https://wapexclusive.com ,equipped to run the whole damn planet?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.