Revolution Now! with Peter Joseph | Ep #26 | July 24th 2021

Revolution Now! with Peter Joseph | Ep #26 | July 24th 2021

Show Video

Russell Ackoff: Data, information, knowledge and   understanding are all concerned with increasing  efficiency with which we pursue our ends.   But they don't tell us anything about the ends  that are being pursued. They're in a sense   value free. Wisdom makes the transition  between efficiency and effectiveness   because it evaluates the end  which we're pursuing efficiently.

The distinction is contained in a wonderful  statement by Peter Drucker, who once said,   "There's a big difference  between doing things right,   and doing the right thing." You see, we are very  largely devoted to doing the wrong thing, right.   That's very unfortunate because the righter,  you do the wrong thing, the wronger you become. When we do the right thing wrong, we make a  mistake which when detected allows us to improve.   So the distinction is absolutely critical.  And we are a society which are simply drowning   in the pursuit of the efficiency, concerned  with the pursuit of the wrong ends.

One simple and obvious example is our current  concern with the healthcare system. It isn't a   healthcare system. A moment's reflection will make  it apparent that it isn't a healthcare system.   What do the servers of the healthcare system get  paid for? They get paid for taking care of you   when you're sick or disabled. It's a sickness and  disability care system, not a healthcare system.

Now, if the income of the servers derives out of  taking care of you when you're sick and disabled,   you can be damn sure they're going  to keep you sick and disabled.   They're not going to keep you healthy.  If they did, they'd be out of business. Now what they say and what they  declare is irrelevant. It's what   they will do even if unconsciously,  because the system is so constructed   to focus on the maintenance  of sickness and disability. Peter Joseph: Good afternoon. Good evening.  

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Episode 26th  of the Revolution Now! Podcast. It is July 24th,   2021. My name is Peter Joseph. Sorry for the  delay in this episode. And in general as I've   had a lot of postponements these days, including  my upcoming lecture which was originally slated   for a few months ago. Unfortunately, and  from many angles, this has been a rather   complex and difficult year in terms of familial,  professional, and general health complications. In fact, 2020 was supposed to be everyone's worst  nightmare, right? Because of the COVID misery   lockdowns. But for some reason, 2021 has been far  more disheartening and frustrating in my world.  

And I hope that is not the case for the rest  of you nice folks out there. So it goes,   such as life. And speaking of the delayed  lecture, I'm not going to give an exact date   until it's a hundred percent with all the  auxiliary materials and elements developed.   But most likely at the end of August. And people keep asking about Culture in Decline.  Don't worry I'm still working on that first script   to be released before the end of the year.  I really actually am excited about that. I'd  

like to get into more playful educational  approaches as I think there's certainly a   place for that. And it's just a little bit more  lighthearted and doesn't have to be as dark as   the actual reality of things. Anyway,  enough of that. Let's get into it. The opening audio was an excerpt from a talk  given by systems theorist, Russell Ackoff broadly   touching upon two things worth considering.  Ackoff first reminds us that, especially in our   increasingly advanced technological age, our means  are only as good as our ends. More than ever we   live in an endless flow of data and information,  forming knowledge and understanding. And people  

locked into specialized vocations, embracing  specialized worldviews, largely a result of our   fragmented educational system combined with being  bound by scarcity-based competitive and hence   unintegrated fragmented economy- have pioneered  in specific fields with increased efficiency,   reinforcing their specialized approach, but not  properly understanding the merit of their ends   or realizing potential long-term negative  ends that could be highly consequential. A lack of expanded context in these  pursuits and hence a lack of wisdom.   We have compartmentalized scientific and  industrial actors, each doing their own thing   with little systemic recognition of the  larger order ramifications. Which once again,  

going back to the foundation of systems  science and a systems worldview- is expected. It's expected given the "analytical reductionism"  as it's termed that dominates the world today   in contrast to the need for "synthetic holism,"  as it's termed, which seeks larger order context.   Sorry for any jargon here, but it's an  important contrast that few seem to consider   when it comes to how we view the world.  Hence how we view our individual behaviors   and vocations; our incentives, and so forth. People today operate so myopically in their  pursuits, particularly their professional   pursuits, guided by the compartmentalized proxy  system of monetary reward and business. And  

hence they don't see the larger implications of  their actions or inventions. They're really not   trained to, in fact. The great difference between  systems thinking and the reductionist approach   is regarding the latter, we define and  characterize things by reducing things into parts.   We see an automobile and define it by the engine,  the steering wheel, the seats, the doors, and what   have you. That is analytical reductionism.  It's an analysis of reducing things down.

Synthetic holism is about putting the  automobile into a context. An automobile   inevitably is part of something larger, both in  conception and utility. Regarding conception,   an automobile could be classified as a car,  a truck, an SUV or some category. But more  

importantly in the sense of utility, it's part  of course, of a transportation infrastructure.   And once you take that kind of view, especially in  regard to utility, considering intent and purpose   of a transportation infrastructure, it may very  well be found out that the use of automobiles is   actually inferior to other forms of transportation  when accounting for efficiency and so forth. This is all very fundamental and I suspect most  listening have already given thought to this,   but it's worth noting that modern education  and the nature of our economy specifically   limit this manner of thinking. Limit our  ability to consider broader contexts. We   are still stuck in a largely abstracted void-based  individuated, highly reductionist way of thinking.   And the world you see around you in all of its  disjointedness and dysfunction is the result. So today we are advancing science and technology  without truly considering larger order contexts   and ramifications. Since we are in a proxy  commercial system, governed by money, income,  

and profit, that kind of thinking always remains  in the background. The primary incentive of   markets is to sell. The secondary incentive is  to have function with the goods or services. The   secondary incentive is always an afterthought,  assumed to be integral to the primary incentive.   But that's simply not true. Hence the nature of  Wall Street for example, where you have literally  

a widget that might as well be as meaningless as  a pet rock. And yet you have this vast dynamic   movement of money and exchange, all based  on nonsensical, non-utility instruments. Now I've covered this kind of stuff before.  I'm sorry if this sounds a little redundant   or repetitious, but I'm trying to show a  different angle. You know, we don't make things  

to have purpose. We make things to sell. And in  that distortion, we never consider the larger   order context and ramifications and long-term  consequences. And this is why technology is both   great; it's obviously pivotal to modern society  standard of living for whatever that's worth. And we could go on a big debate about what that  even means, given the fact that we actually are   in a trap of infinite growth, where people seem to  believe their standard of living will infinitely   increase. And that seems to be the motto,  which is wholly distorted, needless to say.   So there's a value system distortion there, which  I will not go into. But I will say we have become  

cogs in the machine of the capitalist system and  not the other way around. We are not in control.   And we have taken on values that support  it, not values that support sustainability. But the point here going back to at  Ackoff's introductory statement is we   are deeply void of wisdom when it comes to  our advancement of science and technology.  

It's frightening. Albert Einstein apparently once  said, "It has become appallingly obvious that our   technology has exceeded our humanity." Probably  an apocryphal quote, but the point is sound. Carl Sagan similarly often talked about a factor  in considering the potential for intelligent life   off of the earth. Reinforcing the  point that given our own behavior,   how many civilizations may have  existed prior, but no longer exist   because of the very destructive technological  pattern humanity appears to be on now?   Improving technological efficiency for the  wrong ends, eventually destroying civilization. Between our weapons of mass destruction and  environmental pollution and resource overshoot   crisis and beyond, much of our use of technology  has not been wise, to say the least. Our goals  

are simply too distorted. Locked into dangerous  habituated traditions. And fear-based loyalties,   pinging the most fearful, thoughtless and  impulsive areas of our brain and nervous system,   due fundamentally once again to the  social condition we have fostered   in our scarcity-based exploitative,  competitive, and dominance-driven   economy, that was born and evolved and emerged  from the neolithic revolution. And we have to   get out of this kind of system if we expect  any of these negative trajectories to change.

And one more example of all of this before we move  on in regard to our lack of wisdom in favor of   specialized, power-oriented, self preservation,  which is an explicit byproduct of the kind of   economy we have, the capitalist economy, has  to do with the energy industry. Years ago,   theorists were talking about something called  peak oil, meaning the depletion of conventional   hydrocarbon resources that would need at some  point to be replaced because of the scarcity.   The United States and other regions officially  peaked in conventional oil production in the   1970s, in concert with an emerging understanding  that began in the early '80s of just how   destructive the burning of hydrocarbons are, with  the release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.   And you would think that research  and investment given those two   aspects would have quickly moved toward renewables  long ago. But obviously that's not what happened. Instead we have experienced one of the most  common characteristics of the capitalist model   once again, market capture. Market capture,  and my use of the term is about industries or  

sectors of the economy. In this case, the  energy industry that are so homogeneous,   the rational shifts don't occur. At least  they don't in any respectable timely manner. In stark contrast to libertarian theory,  government is inherently underscored and   guided by commercial power. Once again, as  a integrated system between business and   regulation and policy. And hence no such industry  and the corporations that comprise it are going to  

wake up one day and change the source of their  profit and survival. Either it is fought as we   have seen with say bogus climate science funded  by oil companies. Or, or in addition to such a   transition move is so incredibly slow due to the  interest to shift market share incrementally,   keeping the power structure, the company,  or the cartels of companies relevant. And of course by the time true crises occur,  which we'd think transition would happen before,   it's usually too late. Point being all the money  that should have been invested in renewables   back then and all the money that continues  to not be invested in renewables right now,   has fostered non-conventional means of  hydrocarbon production through fracking,   extreme deep sea drilling, and other mechanisms.  Utilizing the efficiency of science and technology  

in the wrong direction. The same efficiency  and technology that mines have wasted,   trying to figure out how to pull more  hydrocarbons out of the earth should have   been applied to a huge litany of sustainable  renewable methods that are at our disposal. So keep that in mind as it's just one example of  the hindrances that are inherent to the system.   Institutions do not want to change. People speak  of creative disruption as if it is a natural   flowing corrective feature of market behavior. It  isn't at all. From the standpoint of institutional  

preservation, employment, income, and economic  growth, no profit seeking institution,   and generally no national economy  as a whole, on the face of the earth   has a proclivity for such change until  things get usually really, really bad. And that's why year after year, after  year of all the ecological conferences   and environmental meetings, not just about  climate destabilization, but all the other ones   have accomplished absolutely nothing.  Biodiversity, resource overshoot and so forth. And speaking of institutional paralysis and  the fortification of establishment coming from   many different areas. Let's now think about  the second part of Russell Ackoff's comment   when he talks about the healthcare system and  how we don't have a healthcare system, we have a   sickness and disability care system. And one of  the more interesting things about this comment   is the fact that he points out something that is  structurally rather clear, but intuitively quite   challenging in understanding, especially when we  think about ethics and agency. And that if people   are getting paid, if their livelihood depends on  others being sick and disabled and hence being   able to service the sick and disabled, we realized  that there was a kind of dark shadow incentive   that seeks to keep people sick and disabled  for the benefit of those servicing the problem.

And this could apply to anything. Now this is kind  of spooky complex territory and speculative in a   certain sense, which I'll get to when it comes to  dynamics. But first I want to introduce the term   I just mentioned, "shadow incentive," a term  I coined for the purpose of this discussion.  

The shadow incentive is the incentive  for self-preservation or gain,   which necessarily requires the acceptance  of others being exploited, taking advantage   of their relative suffering or lack of  ability. Structurally and non-speculatively   the shadow incentive is an undercurrent in all  market interaction as it's part of the game. A disabled person with only one leg works to  your advantage if you a two legged person find   yourself in a foot race with them. A person who  just got out of college who is $40,000 in debt,  

trying to make money to perhaps send back home  to an ailing mother is perfect for instance,   in their vulnerability to be  exploited by some company,   willing to accept lower wages and less  benefits than from other companies. And while one doesn't like to talk about this  fact, pretending that you can, in libertarian   philosophy, reduce all market trade down  to the abstraction of simply two people,   willfully acting for their own self-interest.  Hence the trade wouldn't exist. The entire engine   of market behavior to one degree or another is  built around this interplay of disadvantage.  

It's sought out. Which is why having  an economic system that naturally   creates class division and poverty and inequality,  that is based upon the pursuit of cost efficiency   and strategic competitive advantage in all types  of transactions, is a system that actually creates   its own dynamics, its own inequality and  hence disadvantage. Disadvantage that then   systematically exists in terms of the structure  to be exploited, keeping the machine going. I'm sorry, if that sounded rather convoluted.   Think about the gaming logic of outsourcing. For  example, some shoe company like Nike could pay  

minimum wage in the US to make shoes or they could  outsource to the Global South or other regions,   pay a whole lot less exploiting the disadvantaged  victims of multi-generational colonialism   that exist in destitute poverty  in places like the Global South.   If prior patterns had not existed that made  those regions of the Global South vulnerable,   such advantage naturally would not occur. Which  means indirectly the source of disadvantage behind   such future exploitation, at least tacitly is  accepted as positive by the future exploiters. No one would ever admit that, but this is what I  mean by a shadow incentive in terms of structure.   It is by the very nature of the systemic unfolding  of abuse, instability, imbalance, inequity,   deprivation, harm, and other generally considered  unwanted characteristics by your average, moral,   ethical fellow - are actually on  the system level positive forces.   Mobilizing features of market dynamics, largely  serving of course, the interests of the ownership   class that run these large businesses. While  also of course, more broadly assisting the  

need for constant cyclical consumption between  actors, which any kind of imbalance facilitates. So I hope you can see what I'm driving at here  as we're going to get a little more complicated   as second. And by the way, it isn't just  the labor system you see this dynamic.   More broadly, our entire economy is based upon  and fueled by the servicing of problems from a   consumer angle. The more we resolve problems,  the more inefficient things actually become   economically, as less money circulates,  less jobs are created or maintained.  

And the root necessary function of  growth is stalled, if not reversed. Servicing problems is a good thing.  Solving problems is a bad thing.   And remember, long ago upon the neolithic  revolution, which was the great shift once again,   that set modern society in motion, the simple  idea was to meet human needs. Get people shoes,   clothes, build domiciles for protection from  weather, clean food and water. And it makes   sense that I will grow some corn, you will make  some tools. We will trade in a networked effort  

to share our specialized skills and resources  and meet the needs of survival as a community   due to the relative scarcity, consequential  by the way, to the new agricultural paradigm.   But that essence of market  trade being a reciprocal   process of meeting actual needs turned around  and reversed in fact, once efficiency increased. Again, true technical efficiency is the  enemy of market efficiency. Rather than   work to erode the system, to free up time, to  work less, and make things cheaper if not free.  

The system consciousness spearheaded  by the resulting power structure, which   links class to control, locked in and said,  "No. This is what the structure is defined   as. The rules of the game are you have to  work to survive. Jobs are a prerequisite,   and hence you must have demand for jobs.  Hence demand for goods and services   to maintain and create those jobs. Distributing  purchasing power to keep the machine going."

So the entire focus reversed, and instead  of seeking out producers to fulfill demand,   demand is now sought to fulfill the needs of  producers to keep the power system and again,   the cyclical consumption system going. Hence,  of course, the dawn of advertising and the   consumer vanity materialist nightmare we endure  today. Which brings us to yet another level,   a psychological level of deficiency, of  disadvantage, of deprivation, which may   have nothing to do with something  physical or related to survival. And hence the adaptation of culture to have  irrational wants. Socially driven needs   born from wants, which has absolutely no  end. Someone who buys a $5,000 handbag   effectively has psychological problems groomed  by a sick culture. Whether they know it or not,  

whether you see it when talking to them, it is a  distortion because of the irrational nature of the   need to have it. The Veblen good as it's called.  Status driven, artificial cultural constructs   that have merged with the consumer economy for  the sake of social communication and identity.   They have generated a need  that requires satisfaction.   Oddly enough, in the same way that if you cut  yourself, you need something to sew it up or get   a bandage or what have you. Forging psychological  needs out of arbitrary wants. In fact,  

for the sake of social communication due to the  status class relationship, born from the economy,   at least on many levels it is. I'm  not saying it's entirely that way. Now back on point and sorry about the mild  tangents here, understanding the structural   role of the shadow incentive. Let's now  explore it more in terms of dynamics or   possible dynamics. And this is where things get a  bit more speculative and complicated. As expressed  

the shadow incentive is a different angle of  looking at the fact that our society needs   problems. Our economy needs problems to service  in order to generate economic activity. They   can be common, tangible problems like the need  to fix the plumbing in a house. Or they can be   psychological problems dealing with needs and  wants and neuroses, addictions, and all sorts   of other things that are common to our consumer  culture. There is nothing more beneficial to the   capitalist economy, especially in the contemporary  age, than a deeply emotionally insecure culture. So once again, the shadow incentive of  accepting, allowing for, or facilitating   asymmetry in people's abilities, access or  opportunity, assists either in the present time or   at a future time strategic, competitive,  exploitation for someone's advantage. It  

not only allows a preconditioned in the system  for agents to take advantage for their own gain,   but also assists the very survival of the system,  as it needs that asymmetry to work as touched upon   before. Given of course its structural foundation  and cyclical consumption and growth once again. Now returning to the context of the  healthcare system or lack thereof,   as Russell Ackoff commented upon. Part of the  exploitation in the shadow incentive has to   do with the lack of efficiency in keeping people  actually healthy. Given the fact that the entire   system is institutionally fragmented  and epistemologically fragmented,   meaning that the disciplines are  perceived as generally separate.   There is rarely any kind of holistic approach  taken to our appreciation of the human being.

And while we do have general practitioners, you're  still dealing with highly specialized fields,   such as an orthopedic versus an oncologist  versus a dentist versus a therapist and so   forth. But also once again, in the kind  of intellectual tradition of it all,   where there's no really feedback-based  holistic approach causality is deeply myopic. For example, there are numerous kinds of  influences that can create phenomenon that are not   readily apparent in a given discipline. Assumed  discipline; context- such as in mental health.  

You can have depression, anxiety come from places  that are not necessarily typical of the approach   of the psychiatric and traditional psychological  therapy community. There are actually biological   forces, hormone forces that do that, but in our  specialized world, you would typically not think   about that because it's too interdisciplinary  and the traditions of therapy are what they are.   So that lack of integration ensures  a certain level of inefficiency. Another example but from a different angle.  During COVID, I remember commentary about   the United States, which has roughly 40, over  40% of the population currently obese. And that   trend keeps growing and how obesity was clearly  linked to higher levels of fatality and suffering   if they got COVID. In that regional public  health understanding, did you see one news report  

that told people to stop going to McDonald's or  to stop eating bad things that would increase   their probability of obesity, which of course  increases your probability of heart disease and   cancers and so forth? Which as an aside,  when you think about the shadow incentive,   it becomes really spooky in that way. You  know, if you do have a whole subclass of   the population that's eating horrible, fast  food by tradition because it's plastered on   all the advertisements everywhere. And then all  those people eventually gets sick on average. And   then they have to go into the healthcare system,  generating millions of dollars worth of services: Suddenly you have a synergy between  keeping people sick and one side   and having to get them a little bit better or  servicing their illness specifically on the   other side. Boom, you have a positive feedback  loop in the economy, helping economic growth.  

That is the most spooky part of the shadow  incentive as I'll talk about a little bit later.   But no, you didn't see anybody talking  about general health during COVID   because that's not the way we think about  things. And hence, that's why we really don't   have a healthcare system because no one's actually  taking care of things or each other holistically. And I think everybody gets the point. I don't  want to go on any kind of prescriptive tangent   about what a true healthcare system would be. But  obviously it would require an environment that's  

fundamentally healthy on multiple levels, not to  mention education, understanding of nutrition,   and the reduction of say stress. One of the  most misunderstood attributes of our health.   Which fortunately is rising to the  surface a little bit in public awareness. And as a related aside, socioeconomic inequality  is one of the largest drivers of public and   biological health distortions that we know  of. It causes a kind of stress, which links to  

all sorts of disease factors. So if we're going  to take a healthcare system approach seriously,   well, what about the social system that by its  very structural design producing all of these   negative public health outcomes? Go back to the  work of Richard Wilkinson, if you want to review   such things. So I think you see my point  about the lack of holism or consideration. Now I wanted to give... Yes, a more simplified  example of a direct conscious engagement with   the shadow incentive, first dealing with direct  manipulation. Dishonesty in the purest sense.  

Imagine a car mechanic, you bring your car in and  needs a particular repair. The person fixes the   repair, but then deliberately messes with another  part making you come back later after a few months   when that part fails. So you can spend more money.  There's no objection to the lack of ethics there,   but what about passive neglect? What if  the mechanic doesn't willfully alter things   but chooses not to act on other things  they see, knowing that they will get   worse and will be better for them in the long run  financially when you finally bring the car back,   once again? That's certainly dishonest  in terms of ethics, but less severe. Now let's get even more subtle. The mechanic  has to replace a part and has the option to   use a superior replacement or an inferior one and  figures out that the margin of profit is better if   they use the inferior one, meaning there will be  less lifespan on the replacement part. And hence,  

you will have to come back a little bit sooner  to spend more money at their establishment.   This last example gets into what's called planned  obsolescence, which has been talked about before.   Planned obsolescence is the willful disregard  of efficiency for the sake of repeat purchases,   expressing the shadow incentive very explicitly.  But what you'll find is that there's a threshold  

of rationalization when a person or a  company doing inferior work or production   conduct themselves in such a way that they don't  see their own behavior or decisions as unethical. There is absolutely no argument that it has been  in the strategy of industry to time the expiration   of their goods. Planned obsolescence isn't some  conspiracy theory. It is annotated in certain   industrial design commercial approaches. But I  think the real damage isn't the intended, but   the kind of subconscious rationalization process  where people don't realize they're actually doing   something destructive or inefficient because  they justify it through other mechanisms   and hence they sleep perfectly fine at night.  That's what frightens me more than anything else.

Look at electronics and the outstanding waste we  have. E-waste largely attributed to certain small   component parts that were inefficiently designed,  probably for the sake of cost efficiency. But also   as these engineers should know, will shorten  the lifespan and probably increase purchases   in the cyclical consumption process. Little  batteries in the back of cell phones that are   not designed to be gotten to, that will void  your longterm warranty if you try to replace   them. So therefore people throw their phones  away when they could just change a simple little   battery that was probably poorly designed to  begin with. And so on and so on and so on. Now to finish this episode from the standpoint of  systems dynamics, something that truly bothers me   as a hypothesis, this is speculative and you  may not agree. This may completely be wrong.  

But something about the dynamics  that I touched upon earlier,   where across society different institutions  serve different functions in harming health,   in disturbing balance that effectively cause  problems. Where in feedback consequence,   other institutions of society kick in and at  cost, for the sake of cyclical consumption   and economic growth, try to help service  those problems that have been created. The example I used prior was fast food. If you  have a whole culture like in America, that eats a   great deal of extremely toxic food on a regular  basis, you are doing just good service to the   medical establishment that is in charge of dealing  with the heart disease and diabetes and cancer   that will arise from those poor health habits,  which are routinely reinforced. Think about  

all the other kinds of interplays. What about  putting a bunch of kids into debt, thousands and   thousands, tens of thousands of dollars into debt.  They are perfectly ripe to be exploited by the   time they get out of those educational facilities.  Hence once again, the shadow incentive. How many examples can you think of across  our society, where different institutions'   feedback with themselves to create this  perpetual interplay of sickness and disorder,   only to be serviced by other elements  of society almost as if it's one working   system? And the hypothesis I have, or the fear I  have, which I have no evidence to prove, is that   there's something happening in the subconscious  interplay that is much deeper than the subtle   rationalizations I've just touched upon that.  That we are purposefully in some distorted way,   collectively manifesting disorder for the sake  of turning around and servicing that disorder   simultaneously, as yet another psychological,  social psychology value system transference from   the social system, the economy  itself. I hope that makes sense. One of the core attributes of systems behavior is  that we produce outcomes that are not intended by   the essential parts. The question becomes:  the requirements of this system to work,  

market economics, market capitalism, which  has been described repeatedly on this podcast,   what if it's even deeper and how  has become entrenched in our actual   psychological behavior, even subconsciously? And  we continually engage in a kind of pursuit of   inefficiency and hence self-sabotage without  intending it, or perhaps even knowing it.   Leading to the consistent disorder we see.  The market system of economics doesn't care   what happens. It only cares about cyclical  consumption and growth and having something to do. And I know once again, it sounds spooky to  deify the system when it's really the result   of all of our collective behaviors. But our  collective behaviors also come from somewhere.  

And that's where the real problem of agency and  the dilemma of agency resides. So I leave you   with that spectrum of the shadow incentive.  I hope that's kind of helpful looking at all   this from a different angle, moving from the  consciously obvious to the spooky subconscious.   And yes, I know what I just posed as a  system level, subconscious reinforcement of   imbalance in feedback loops that are entirely  unconscious and driven by collective behavior is   absolutely unprovable as far as I know, and  completely hypothetical. I still think it's  

very interesting pondering and food for thought.  When we begin to come to terms more and more   with how we tend to serve the  system in our social psychology,   than working to serve our own health based  upon our actual intellectual understandings.   Which always seem to have a back seat to what  we're doing to help the economy and so forth.

All right, everybody, I appreciate your time  and patience. I'll talk to everyone soon.

2021-07-26 22:53

Show Video

Other news