Evolution & the future - Bret Weinstein & Jamie Wheal

Jamie Wheal is a leading expert on the neuro-physiology of human performance, author of Stealing Fire, and head of the Flow Genome Project.

Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist, and a member of the recently coined informal 'Intellectual Dark Web' network.

Rebel Wisdom is a platform for the biggest ideas around.

[OneLine]

From where I come from, people don't gang up on each others because they lack resources. They do it for other reasons, like hate or if there is someone uncooperative in the group. You can give people all the wealth you can, it won't change a thing, and in fact, it is the opposite that is true. When people are wealthy, there is no cost to gang up on others, since you are not forced to cooperate. It's a first world problem essentially for the most part. That is why competition is more ruthless, there is just no incentive to cooperation. You see the other program when there is a natural disaster, then people realize they are mortal and start caring. There is a price to pay for wealth, and it is one of them.

[dragons_red]

Just reject the program? Okay. What Weinstein is referring to, with rejecting the program, is something cold religion or if you don't care for that, morality. People have been trying to come up with ways to reject the program and stick to it for eons unsuccessfully. That's THE human struggle. I have great respect for the professor and his Insight on evolution among other things, but it cracks me up when these hard core science types start making proclamations about Humanity from a scientific point of view, that we've already known from psychological and religious points of you forever. If it were just that easy to reject the program, we would have done it already

[richardbrucebaxter]

Rejecting the evolutionary programme is not simple - for evolutionary reasons, this is typically the most difficult thing for an organism to do.

[susanl]

Yes. Thank you. This is the operative passage: "The fact that we have become an existential threat to ourselves slots in very nicely with the enemy we face together. We have seen the enemy and it is us. Awareness of that can trigger the kind of unity you're talking about. The problem is, that narrative, which I believe is true, that we have become an existential threat to ourselves, that narrative is in conflict with those who are most powerful in civilization who would like to keep it running as it is because it's feeding them pretty darn well.That story, even though it should unify us, it happens that there are a few holdouts and they are the most powerful people and they're selling a different story."

[terryeaster]

Brett is one of the top minds of our time. Hands down, debate over

[pomyao]

"My aircraft." Thanks for that.

[intrograted]

I can hear JBP's voice speaking so clearly throughout these comments. It's almost as if he's here. Lol. Oh, wait. On further reading it seems that Sam's tribe is here too. Gotta love that Bret can do that.

[savethefamily-savetheworld]

The answer is only found in the family. That's where we can begin to answer the problems with Society. .
The family is the archetypal route that paved the way for the development of advanced civilization..The family is encoded in religion. The concept of us being able to alter the encoded imprint of our destructive selves is what for me religion was designed to do.
The issues in today's world of mass immigration and multiculturalism is probably asking too much of our genetic tribal imprint

[plewin]

Up until WWII, Progressivism and Fascism were political twins – perhaps not identical twins, but twins. Both were overtly racist, embracing eugenics and its concepts of superior races. Both pursued concordant race-based population reduction: from Progressives we saw Planned Parenthood and its “Negro Project, ” and from Fascists concentration camps.

The first Progressive President, Woodrow Wilson, segregated the formerly integrated federal government. Progressives of that era (and ever since) have lauded large, dominant and domineering central government, a model diametrically opposed by our Constitution. Yet the second Progressive President, FDR, erected an ever more powerful “state” through his “New Deal” – much to the approval of Fascist leader Mussolini in Italy. Indeed, we all know how Fascists view government power and scope. So overall, FDR and the Fascists of his era were essentially sharing Collectivist “best practices.”

Unfortunately, from the standpoint of the Classic Progressive leaders, the end of WWII exposure of the National Socialists’ concentration camps forced eugenics out of fashion, at least in polite company. However, Collectivists of all stripes, including those of the Progressive branch, never lost their ardor for achieving an all-powerful global government, administered by an elite of superior human beings, lording over the inferior masses beneath. For their own good, of course. Even if they are too stupid to appreciate what their betters were doing for them – but then again, what else can you expect from “deplorables”?

So for the Progressive leaders, how to continue the mission, now that open eugenics was off of the table? Strategic salvation came in the form of what today is referred to as “Cultural Marxism” – the purposeful and anarchistic deconstruction of Western culture and norms, executed so as to pave the way to build a secular utopia upon the societal rubble. Its originators and proponents included Antonio Gramsci, the Communist theorist from Italy; Germans like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno (of the “Frankfurt School” that eventually set up shop at Columbia University); and “American” Saul Alinsky of “Rules for Radicals” notoriety. (Yes, Progressivism is a branch of Collectivism, which is international in scope and menace.)

The post-WWII Progressives – henceforth we’ll refer to them as “Neo-Progressives” – knew a good thing when they saw it, and have run with Cultural Marxism ever since. In doing so, they’ve shifted Progressivism’s emphasis from “White” racism to a sort of “egalitarian racism.” That is, Progressives now pretend to believe that all races are “equal, ” and that they are the champions of the “minority” and “underprivileged” races – Blacks and the so-called Hispanics “race” in particular. (It deserves mention that Progressives’ “advocacy” for ever-multiplying categories of gender and sexual proclivities is also part of its Cultural Marxism strategy.) Neo-Progressivism is egalitarian in the sense that any “race” but “White” is welcomed aboard, so long as it will be useful toward advancing the agenda.

Note that both the Classic Progressives and Neo-Progressives always have, and always will categorize people by group, particularly by race; and do so in a manner diametrically opposed to our founding principles, i.e., “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator…” The Neo-Progressive leadership – still to this day almost exclusively comprised of elite-class Whites – for public purposes portrays “Whites” as the privileged boogeyman.

Thus, Neo-Progressives appear to embrace the opposite of the “White Supremacy” that their Classical Progressive forefathers embraced. Yet all the while all Progressive leaders have embraced and pursued the same ultimate goal – that of a global, Godless utopia governed by a ruling elite of the “best and brightest” (i.e., them). While the White Supremacist “means to the ends” may have been flipped on its head – at least for public consumption – the ultimate goal has remained unaltered. Judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their individual character – and encouraging useful idiots to do likewise – and herding them into proverbial Collectivist cattle cars of the victimhood train, is politically useful for Neo-Progressives.

“Antifa” and “Black Lives Matter” are Neo-Progressive cadres; while the KKK types are Classical Progressive cadres (note that the KKK started as an arm of the Democrat Party, in many respects the Reconstruction era’s “Antifa”). The battles between them that we just witnessed in Charlottesville are not unlike what occurred in the 1930’s – two forms of Collectivism duking it out for dominance as the form that rules – only today it’s an intramural squabble between two forms of Progressivism. Back in the 1930’s it was Fascism vs. Communism duking it out – in Germany and Italy Fascism controlled through WWII, while Communism prevailed in the USSR. After WWII, Communism (and its adolescent sibling, Socialism) prevailed in the USSR, China and much of Europe. Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, before and after WWII, Progressivism continued its incremental but determined “fundamental transformation” advance through the United States of America.

Today’s street-level Neo-Progressives believe that they are “fighting” to achieve “social justice, ” while street-level Classic Progressives believe that they are “fighting” to achieve “White Supremacy.” Both cadres are useful idiots, unwittingly in service of their Progressive overlords, who are manipulating them to inflame and irreparably divide our country. Seeking to wrench us from e pluribus unum – and ultimately intending to achieve the Cultural Marxists’ dream of societal deconstruction.

After which, the street-level folks will be encouraged to lock-arms in solidarity, as they become indistinguishable equals, human widgets within Progressivism’s proletariat under the new global order.

[TrevKen]

I think we have already started solving the economic issue of oscillating between boom and bust. We could use a global currency like BitCoin that matches population and productivity and is fair cross boarder... and we have ideas emerging such as a Resource Based Economy. It's just that too many people benefit from boom-bust volatility. And the fatal cancery idea that we need perpetual growth.

[DaniABminus]

This needs to be discussed in length with Weinstein...interesting tidbit though...thank you!

[chriswhitelaw]

Big love to you guys - brilliant work. Are we reaching out to Dr Peterson to say there are people who want to help? Also, are you aware of the work being done on what is know as your second genome - the microbiome in you gut and the influence they have over us which apparently is bigger then we ever thought? There are 30 trillion human cells and 39 trillion bacterial cells, we are only 43% human and on a DNA level we are 1% - there are 20, 000 human genes and 2-20 million microbial genes. It's the next big thing in the medical world. I've just spent the last 12 month making an effort to feed all mine well to see if they do indeed change the way you think and feel - it has been utterly amazing and truly transformational. Most people on a standard diet, high in meat, dairy and processed food have a very diminished microbiome which make there immune system weak and make their bugs fearful of infection - fearful of others outside their group. Change your diet and this can change the world - maybe!

[philipbath]

What’s wrong with universal basic income as a means of letting people feel as if they are immersed in abundance.

[Mistersamweller]

So, we are that robot, on that mission? And Bret is saying "we just reject the programming?" Well, that's not much of a robot then. If we are free to obey or disobey the programming, then we aren't a robot.

I dunno, the whole analogy seems to be weak and this topic needs a lot more introspection into "what are we?" Bret is a bit idealistic "all we need to do is decide not to genocide." Really? That's it? I think it's a bit more complicated then that.

[halpippack]

Even if he is right, the message to 'reject your mission' will surely never sell to the wider population.

[todmann]

Bret won’t admit that he is taking a theistic view to counter the material reality he is aware of.

[rexsovereign]

One wonders whether Bret's understanding of human evolution from a strictly materialist POV could be remedied with a proper dose of psilocybin. Jordan Peterson remarked that Sam Harris should have upped his dosage of the stuff. I mean, how far can a materialist envision a future for humanity when their underlying premise is slated for extinction? "Architecturing the future" reeks of mechanistic thinking. What we need are psychonauts and visionaries familiar with deeper layers of consciousness.

[YuyiLeal]

I respect Bret a lot, and he is such a nice fellow, but his view is too reductionistic, because he doesn't take into account the spiritual aspect of human beings. So while the biological aspect is as he says, the spiritual evolution pulls us in the opposite way - towards realizing our union with the whole, and developing a higher state of consciousness where we actually want the best for everyone...basically developing all the virtues and sacrificing ourselves in the spirit of service. One of the ultimate examples would be Jesus, and I say this as a Hindu and Buddhist. But yeah...he's explaining only one side of the coin.

[MrSpicytacosauce]

Bret parts from so many axioms that are not coherent with his materialistic world view.

[TheAutistocrat]

We don't need to overcome our programming, that's pretty much impossible without genetic modification. What we need is wise rulers who know how to organize society in a way that human nature is able to express itself in a way that benefits the majority. I believe propertarianism is the answer because unlike evry other political ideology, I haven't been able to find anything it is wrong about.