Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT (worth repeating)

    A PAGAN, A CHRISTIAN, AN ARYAN, A WARRIOR, A MAN TRANSCENDENT

    (worth repeating)

    The Oath of Transcendent Man

    I am a pagan if 1) I accept the laws of nature as binding on all of existence; and 2) if I treat nature as sacred and to be contemplated, protected and improved; and 3) I treat the world as something to transform closer to an Eden in whatever ways I can before I die; and 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. And 6) if I leave open that synchronicity appears to exist now and then, and that it may be possible that there is a scientific explanation for it, other than just humans subject to similar stimuli producing similar intuitions and therefore similar ends.

    As far as I know this is all that is required of me to be a Pagan.

    I am a christian if I have adopted the teaching of christianity: 1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. 2) the extension of kinship love to non-kin. 3) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Christian.

    I am an Aryan if 1) I proudly display my excellences so that others seek to achieve or exceed them; 2) I seek competition to constantly test and improve myself so I do not weaken; 3) I swear to speak no insult and demand it; 4) I speak the truth and demand it; 5) I take nothing not paid for and demand it; 6) I grant sovereignty to my kin and demand it; 7) I insure my people regardless of condition, and demand it; and in doing so leave nothing but voluntary markets of cooperation between sovereign men; and to discipline, enserf, enslave, ostracize or kill those who do otherwise; 8) to not show fear or cowardice, abandon my brothers, or retreat, and 9) to die a good death in the service of my kin, my clan, my tribe and my people.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be an Aryan.

    I am a warrior in that 1) we will prepare for war so perfectly that none dare enter it against us. 2) Once we go to war, we do so with *joy*, with eagerness, and with passion, and without mercy, without constraint, and without remorse; And 3) before ending war, we shall defeat an enemy completely such that no other dares a condition of our enemy, and the memory of the slaughter lives a hundred generations.

    As far as I know, this is all that is required of me to be a Warrior.

    As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, as a Christian, as an Aryan, as a Warrior, then I have transcended the animal man, and earned my place among the saints, heroes, demigods, gods, in the memories, histories, and legends of man.

    And that is the objective of heroes. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 12:04:00 UTC

  • DEFLATION AND RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSCENDENCE (esp: Joel Davis H

    DEFLATION AND RECONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSCENDENCE

    (esp: Joel Davis Herbert Vogelsang John Derbyshire Nick Heywood Russell Moore )

    (this is the first meaningful and helpful conversation I have had in months and thank you very much for it. I hope you will stick with me for a bit as I work through it.)

    1) Again, to repeat, so that we understand what I *need* to do, by choosing a series of concepts I am trying to deflate *and scientifically reconstruct* cooperation: our moral intuitions and the *value* of morality.

    In other words I am converting from storry and intuition to algorithm and measurement. Just like all sciences have done. The difference is, that this one science has more impact on us than any other.

    Which is why everyone fears it.

    2) assumptions:

    (a) prior to consciousness we needed only to acquire resources, stay alive, stay with our ‘kind’ for protection, ‘alerts’, and reproduction, and feel dominance or submission in order to obtain access to resources and reproduction.

    (the reptilian brain phase) We developed the ability we call ‘sentience’.

    (b) the consequence of consciousness (modeling and self reflection) is a need for mindfulness. mindfulness was provided in our developmental eras by band(pack) and tribal(herd) life, where problems were relatively simple and all persons well known, and our status and position well understood, and the relationship between cause and consequence within our perception. This mindfulness was possible within the ‘tipping point’ of 150 people, or the approximate maximum product of two people over four possible generations.

    (the mammalian brain phase) We developed the ability to ‘wonder’. But we could perceive by observance and familiarity sufficiently to largely defend against ‘folly and deceit’.

    (c) As cooperation, language, the scale of cooperation, differentiation, specialization, and causality increased we developed a need to direct our minds that evolved for the purpose of tribal mindfulness to something within our ability to calculate and reason. We created various techniques by which to provide ‘mindfulness’ in the absence of constant empirical feedback.

    (The human-mammal brain phase) We developed the ability to tell stories. These stories provide ‘rough measures’ in modern terms so that group calculation was possible, and that fear of uncertainty was diminished, and that (worse) we could defend against ‘folly and deceit’.

    (d) just as there was a higher method of reason than literary analogy in aristotelian reason, and just as aristotelian reason was ‘incomplete’, there is a possible higher method of *mindfulness* than Stoicism because stoicism was incomplete.

    (the ‘complete’ human brain phase) We developed the ability to ‘magnify’, measure, and record, and thereby reduce the imperceptible to the perceptible and to create analogy to experience.

    We are not yet fully human. Or at least, few of us are. But we have the potential to complete the transition from beast to human – and it is within our grasp.

    While the mastery of fire and metal began our journey into transcendence, Aryans were the first peoples who attempted to fully transcend the beast and evolve into fully humans. And they did so by accidentally discovering deflationary truth. And then profiting from the transcendence (domestication) of the remaining human animals.

    We profited from transforming rocks, then animals, then plants, then the human animal. And the evidence is clear, that it is the most profitable industry every invented by man.

    3) So while I understand the need to hold onto animal spirits, it is clearly not true that we must, and the evidence is quite the opposite, that our function over the past six thousand years has been largely the eradication of animal spirits evolved during the mammalian and and the incremental replacement of them with measurement and calculation so that we provide extensions to our senses and reason sufficient to train our intuition, so that we are no longer dependent upon comforting falsehoods, and no longer vulnerable to ‘folly and deceit’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 09:56:00 UTC

  • YES YOU ARE A TEST SUBJECT 😉 The question is whether you are a voluntary one or

    YES YOU ARE A TEST SUBJECT 😉

    The question is whether you are a voluntary one or not. The second question is whether you are also a fellow researcher or not. And if not, if you are either intellectually honest or self deceptive or not.

    Again, this is what I do here:

    —“Facebook is quite literally my sketch pad. If I am thinking about a certain problem I do my research, then I look for opportunities to debate someone about it. Then I propose a ‘controversial’ or ‘provocative’ *prosecution* of whatever assumptions underlie the assumptions in the idea. The idea is to ‘taunt’ people into arguing with me, so that I can work through whatever I don’t see and feel that others do see and feel. I continue this process until I have deflated the topic into nothing but operational understanding of incentives and methods of argument. Then I try to make the argument iteratively – often dozens of times – until I can say it somewhat poetically: as close to an aphorism or ‘series’ as possible. That’s my work process. Really. That’s all there is to it.”—

    IN OTHER WORDS I USE FB TO CONDUCT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THROUGH DEFLATION BY ARGUMENTATION

    People cannot report truthfully.

    The way to get at what they ‘think’ and ‘understand’ and ‘value’ is to attack their sacred cows.

    People will defend them and I learn (a) what their real incentives are (what property in toto they defend), (b) how they make their arguments, (c) how to answer and explain those arguments.

    Now some people find this process ‘fun’ or ‘interesting’. Because they can play both researcher and test subject.

    Others find it insulting or aggravating.

    And the reason is generally one’s degree of intellectual honesty and openness. versus the opposite.

    But what some people object to is that they realize that they are ‘test subjects’, or that they are unable to play both researcher and test subject. Or that they discover that their pretense of intellectual honesty and intelligence is a fraud, and that they are just searching for excuses.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 21:20:00 UTC

  • WE AND OUR LIES OF SELF PROTECTION We all collect identities (“I feel, think, an

    WE AND OUR LIES OF SELF PROTECTION

    We all collect identities (“I feel, think, and act like a person who thinks feels and acts by these criteria”) both as tools, as goals in pursuit of self image, as standards of measurement, and as self deceptions in lieu of achievement – in order to lie to ourselves about our status.

    We all use identities for nothing other than the usually literary model of Transcendence > Monomyth > Archetype > Plot > Virtues > Assets (property-in-toto) > Status. In other words, role playing a character. When we know that the archetypes map to personality types.

    We can deflate all identities into attempts at acquisition both real and illusory. (acquisitionism)

    There is nothing that one can experience that we cannot communicate without deceit (pretence, fictionalism, lying).

    And attempts to say otherwise are attempts to preserve self deceptions.

    In other words, I have not yet found anything that cannot be converted into scientific language. I have only found people making attempts to preserve deceptions.

    This is what psychologist get paid for: what lie do we tell ourselves and how can we correct it by eliminating the trauma or feeling that prevents us from avoiding it.

    SO TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY PURSUE TRUTH AND WISDOM:

    Why is it you need to preserve the lies?

    Because the only answer is, that you are weak or cowardly.

    “In other words, LARPING”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:54:00 UTC

  • We all bring our genetic biases, class biases, cult biases, culture biases, and

    We all bring our genetic biases, class biases, cult biases, culture biases, and generational biases with us to the table. It’s a simple technical criticism that the method of argument Moldbug uses is ‘Critique’; that he employs it in the continental narrative structure; and that his answer is consistent with the libertine and technocratic.

    I can articulate the method of opposition or innovation, the structure of the argument, the moral presuppositions of the argument, the group evolutionary strategy in the argument, and the class of the argument for literally every group practicing in western civilization.

    Moldbug argues ‘like jews argue’ (critique: jewish hermeneutic criticism). Hoppe argues “like germans argue” (kantian rational moralism). I argue “like anglos argue” (anglo analytic law). If we had the french here I could show how they do it, or the italians, or the irish…. it doesn’t matter.

    We can’t escape who we are.

    I can tell what ‘cult’ you’re from, from your method of argument. Just as easily as I can tell your heritage by your facial features.

    There is nothing strange here other than some of us are highly particularist and able to do such things, and others are less so and not.

    It’s a skill. Like any other.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:40:00 UTC

  • (You say ‘eugenics’ like it’s a bad thing, and imply dysgenics is a good thing.)

    (You say ‘eugenics’ like it’s a bad thing, and imply dysgenics is a good thing.)

    Anyway,

    1) personality traits evolved as an intersection between gender strategy and prey drive. The prey drive consists of five physical systems. These systems are altered by gender and neotonic selection (success at extending immaturity).

    2) The personality traits which most influence lifetime success are intelligence, industriousness, and conscientiousness.

    3) Intelligence is categorizable a personality trait, appears to be the most important trait, appears to be largely a function of neoteny, size, and verbal ability.

    4) It’s controversial but I’ve talked to Lynn about it, and he’s adamant that we’ve lost 15pts of aggregate IQ in the past century, even if we’ve seen flynn effects from (a) ending developmental nutrition problems, and (b) the power of training in general (scientific) rules vs specific case rules. World IQ is dropping precipitously.

    5) the most important feature that determines the standard of living (and political stabiity) of a polity is IQ.

    Net is, 20th c was a disaster.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-24 21:37:00 UTC

  • ON MY CONVERSION TO RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY (answer one for Dagon) There are a cou

    ON MY CONVERSION TO RADICAL REVOLUTIONARY

    (answer one for Dagon)

    There are a couple of things that turned me into a revolutionary.

    The constant lying by leftist politicians via the media. The constant lying by the media. The fact that I was very well read by the time I got to university, and that I felt that most professors were lying or propagandizing. That when I went into the business world, I worked for three companies that lied aggressively to customers (all jewish fwiw). Then when I worked with at least moderately observant christians it was the opposite.

    But it was how I was treated in divorce from a woman who cheated on me, and child support – which I can understand for a year or so but not more so. And I certainly don’t think children or women have a right to previous standards of living. or community property. omg.

    Then how courts said I had to hire people by anything other than merit. And that it was illegal to try to discover people’s merit via testing. And then how women have excessive rights in the work place, and that there is no means of defense against it. And that between false unemployment claims, and false sexual harassment claims, and then the all out impossible requirement that CEO’s understand and are accountable for everything their employees do (the impossible), but employees, bureaucrats, (the irs), police, judges, and politicians are not accountable for anything they do.

    Then how the courts simply punish the hell out of poor white guys, homeowners, and minivan-mom-drivers who are easy targets, but leave us victims of all sorts of criminals because of costs of imprisoning them.

    Then how immigration was used as genocide against my people. I remember what life was like and how it changed, and I know the difference between homogenous and heterogeneous communities and what happens: a reduction in ‘precision’ which accumulates in a reduction of everything that makes a high trust polity possible.

    Then how my people were enslaved through fiat money and incrementally exterminated. It is one thing to use upward redistribution to increase the quality of a polity, and it is another to increase downward in redistribution to reduce the quality of the polity. At least the aryan method of upward redistribution produces transcendence in every possible method. But the jewish (levantine) method of downward redistribution produces regression and dysgenia.

    Then how every merger and acquisition lawyer and venture capitalist would tell me how to do something immoral in business – and that the better the law firm the more corrupting and immoral the legal advice. Compare that to the two ‘very christian’ female lawyers that would not help me defend against them by advocating feminist equalitarianism among share holders. I felt the world had gone mad.

    Then how during the divorce, when I was going in for cancer surgery, the court didn’t care and forced me to settle or delay my surgery until after a trial.

    Then how my ex-wife’s lawyer could use art and artifice through the courts to harass me in ways you cannot imagine to the point where I simply needed to leave the country in order to build a business.

    And how, during the recession why are landlord contracts given higher weight than other price contracts, when they have only debt service, and why is that debt service more important than other commitments when in fact, it’s all simply credit money (time). Why are creditors treated unequally, and not only unequally but the reverse of risk?

    The final blow was two fold 1) when obama criminalized me and thousands of others if we didn’t file a retroactive report on our overseas holdings. Holdings I had paid taxes on. When it was my only defense against the abuse of the courts by my ex-wife’s attorney to harass and blackmail me. And 2) when I had misunderstood a date of the sale of a business and thought the s-corp to c-corp change was done prior to the sale rather than after. While the IRS owed me a quarter of a million dollars refund because of the difference, they froze every asset I had on the globe and nearly destroyed by business and stranded me in a third world country without any money. Yet they told me I had no right of judicial defense unless I would go through a single court in person in california. I ask what was the maximum they could imagine I owed the IRS if I was wrong, and they said no more than 125k, (even though they owed me 250k), I said if they unfroze my assets or simply took 125k, I would send them the 125K, and then, we could correct the paperwork later. But no. So some lower middle class bimbo ex-bill collector can destroy my life without judicial review. And then disappeared for four weeks of government christmas holiday, leaving me no ability to act. Thankfully I had loan due from a small business of 50k, and that carried me for the three months it took to correct it. The truth is none of our irs collections make any difference. Our use of fiat money means that the timeliness of such payments is all but irrelevant. It’s all just power playing on the part of the govt and the bureaucracy.

    I left that experience with a lot less hair and an absolute determination to overthrow the current order and restore the constitution of natural law under which no discretionary action is possible without juridical defense, and where the citizen not the government is given the full benefit of the doubt.

    So instead of trying to simply produce the missing ‘bible of western civilization’: natural law, I developed a broader plan, and I’ve been working toward that plan, every single waking hour of every single day. And the opportunity to execute that plan is coming closer every day. And I am nothing if not painfully thorough, painfully disciplined, and painfully committed to that plan.

    So that incremental unjust tyranny is the reason I became a hostile revolutionary with endless conviction.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:36:00 UTC

  • ON CONVERSION FROM OPTIMISTIC LIBERTARIANISM TO PESSIMISTIC SOVEREIGNTY (answer

    ON CONVERSION FROM OPTIMISTIC LIBERTARIANISM TO PESSIMISTIC SOVEREIGNTY

    (answer two for dagon)

    The Anglo classical liberalism of the enlightenment was profoundly optimistic about both British future, their responsibility, and the nature of man. All the enlightenment thinkers were optimistic – other than the germans. They were cautious. They handled their caution by secularizing religion and retaining the conflation of christianity, where the anglo world had deflated (separated) religion(family and polity) and law(commerce and science) into their usual markets.

    But as the world wars hit us, we lost our convictions. The marxists, bolsheviks, and socialists were rallying our people against us with the promise of achievable wealth and equality, and inverting the social order in ways that the Church attempted but never could have imagined with promise of life after death, and at least the protection from the aristocracy by the church – and where the aristocracy would have exterminated more aggressively than Henry the 8th the monasteries, and thereby freed up vast capital held frozen by the backwardness of the church. (And where we will shortly have to exterminate the church-of-state we call secular anti-aristocratic-family socialism.)

    I am, by nature, a libertarian. I hate conflict. I like cooperation. I like people to be happy. I am overly generous by nature – which I should add, has not been good for me. My great joys have been creating successful companies and watching people prosper in them.

    But as I have learned through experience at all levels of society from my personal, to professional, to entrepreneurial, to financial, to economic, and to political – and now philosophical, I have come to understand a few very key issues.

    1) Our genes drive us so all political persuasion/discourse is meaningless.

    2) No one can be converted away from their genetic strategy. Many men can be because we form a hierarchy that is interdependent and so middle and lower men require middle and upper men to form an ‘army’. Women CAN be marginally converted to meritocracy, if all required to be married to bear children or vote. But otherwise vote anti-meritocratically (equalitarian) and in effect ‘marry the state’ thereby destroying the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies that we call the family: the smallest possible tribe in which men and women are both alphas.

    3) Majoritarian democracy forces the policy of persuasion which is meaningless, and therefore forces all of us to lie cheat in public policy rather than to use the houses of government as a means for exchange between peoples with very different interests.

    4) Aristocracy(meritocracy) is incompatible with democracy since there are always fewer competent than incompetent (Pareto rule). The end result of Democracy is authoritarian communism. As such the minority strategy of opposing the aristocracy via enfranchisement with the larger middle class was used by the larger lower classes against the middle and upper. And the end result is the destruction of western civilization by the combination of abrahamic religion and democratic equality.

    5) The Abrahamic program from its origin by the jews (resistance to the aristocracy), the christians (undermining the aristocracy), and the muslims (openly conquering the aristocracy) , to the marxists (openly revolting against the aristocracy by promise of more returns) to the postmoderns (openly revolting against the aristocracy by poisoning the informational commons and the basis for meritocracy:merit not only of self but of family) – this program has been intentionally composed in both the ancient (Constantine thru Justinian) and in the modern (marx thru Derrida) as a method of destroying the aristocracy.

    6) The destruction of the aristocracy in Greece, Persia, the Levant, North Africa, and India was complete, leaving only Europe and east Asia standing. The attempt by the marxists and postmoderns has succeeded in Germany, France, and Russia. It has succeeded in Canada and Australia. But because of our dependence on the martial class in America and Britain, it has had a greater difficulty here. So the problem is that (a) the prosecutions by the romans and the nazis was not severe and complete enough to save western civlization. What has been interesting is Putin’s prosecution of them, which is why (had he not flinched in Ukraine) he was and is setting the example for the west. Whereas china has no qualms at all about suppression. The fundamental problem most of the world faces, is that other than china we are not suppressing islam as we need to: totally. Which is why I want to suppress all abrahamism totally by suppressing all false speech in public.

    So as I have learned that discourse is fruitless I have ended my interest in voluntaryism in favor of natural law and markets in everything, which solve the problem of differences in interests by the competition between total positive market and total negative law.

    And as I have learned how the abrahamists have used the art of suggestion using overloading, conflation and fictionalism, against eugenic meritocracy, truth, and aristocracy, I have changed my focus on private property to the entire suite of capital (property in toto), and changed my bias toward unregulated speech, to demand for warranty of due diligence against false and immoral speech.

    This results in basically ‘Fascism of Markets including Truth and Morality in Actions, Display, and Speech – thereby making other than meritocracy impossible to survive.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:33:00 UTC

  • MARXIST AND CAPITALIST ERRORS (THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS NATURAL LAW NOT ECONOMICS

    MARXIST AND CAPITALIST ERRORS (THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS NATURAL LAW NOT ECONOMICS)

    Better if I list the ‘set’ of the most significant marxist errors.

    1) Labor Theory of Value vs Subjective theory of value

    2) Value of voluntarily organizing labor, vs value of labor in production

    3) Value of risk of extant capital vs value of risk of opportunity

    4) Prices and calculation without money and prices.

    5) Knowledge and Incentives with and without private property

    6) Oppression by Discretion vs Domestication by Market Means.

    7) Demonstrable superior benefit to working classes (reduced prices and increased consumption) than to middle and upper classes (capital increases).

    8) Tendencies of bureaucracies to maximize rents vs Tendencies of bureaucracies to dissipate.

    9) Greater susceptibilities of bureaucracies to corruption than markets.

    10) Demonstrated failure of all attempts at socialism and empirical evidence that the underlying causal problem is iq and trust (genetics).

    I mean, that’s JUST THE BEGINNING.

    Here is some of what’s wrong with capitalism.

    1) There are no unlimited ‘goods’, at some point one is destroying capital rather than decreasing prices. And most capitalist theory assumes endless goods – particularly consumption, just as most marxist theory assumes endless goods – particularly of human beings (a very expensive and toxic life form.)

    2) The assumption that all can survive in a competitive market when all cannot if for no other reason than every half standard deviation in IQ roughly doubles the cost of training and limits the possible scope of work, meaning that many people are increasingly dead weights on society no matter how moral their intentions.

    3) The assumption of the superiority of cities whereas it is fairly obvious that cities are IQ and ovary sinks that cause continuous damage to the gene pool (yeah, that one surprised me). The better method would have been to encourage people to return to the farm and live tax free, agrarian lives, and to increase taxes in the cities since all profitability is a function of density.

    4) The state is a horrible method of defense against abuse of markets, and bureaucracies and politicians exacerbate the problem by making privileges and rents available. For a market to function the people must have universal standing in court against companies for violations of common capital by externality, not just fraud, monetary coercion, and violence against people.

    5) The current keynesian economic models do not measure changes in the full set of capital, only largely changes in velocity of consumption. This means we are destroying genetic and cultural and institutional capital in exchange for short term consumption and downward redistribution of reproduction.

    6) We do not regulate the size of the population pool, especially the underclass, and actively immigrate underclasses reversing 4000 years of european evolution.

    7) A polity must produce sufficiently valuable market goods in order to organize a voluntary organization of production (capitalism). the problem is that the external market not the polity determines the minimum demand for goods, services, and information. As such, it is almost impossible for all but northern european and east asian economies to make use of democracy and capitalism, and socialism will always fail them, so they are all doomed unless they repair the size of their underclasses.

    That’s just a beginning. If I sit here and write about ‘evangelical capitalism’ all afternoon I’ll want to go shoot myself…..

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 12:45:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT Given the history of man’s

    THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

    Given the history of man’s cognitive development and that at each stage of our development the innovation has been in correcting a cognitive bias or error rather than providing an insight into the simplicity of the universe, it still appears more likely that quantum theory is simply incomplete (the ‘hidden variable’ question) and that we simply do not understand what is occurring. At present the most likely explanation is that particles per se, even as described as fields, consist of different levels of excitement and density of a single substance we do not yet understand, that CAN disentangle (unwind) faster than the speed of light even if it cannot ‘transmit’ (wind/unwind) faster than the speed of light. This is a fairly simple explanation that preserves all our existing observations, but requires us to imagine something even less biased by the evolutionary condition of our minds, than quantum theory and relativity and electromagnetic radiation(fields) and the excitement of gasses (steam) and evolution itself (adaptation) have been. The universe is simple. Our evolutionary cognitive biases given our need to act at human scale simply cannot yet imagine something ‘that simple’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 09:27:00 UTC