"A lot of people look at me, and they think I’m extreme, and I’ll be the first person to say that: I’m extreme."

"However, the only reason that I am extreme is because I’m a product of an extreme society. We are actually, I would say, one of the most extreme societies that have ever existed on the face of the Earth. We are in a society of extreme disconnection and extreme destruction and disharmony. It’s all sold to us as absolutely normal. But it’s not. Right now, we’re going through the sixth extinction. It’s human-driven. Millions of species are going extinct because of our actions. That’s extreme."

Says Robin Greenfield, quoted in "He forages all his food but calls your diet ‘extreme’/Robin Greenfield seeks to challenge ideas about what counts as normal food" (WaPo)(gift link).

I see that he's in northern Wisconsin, and he eats a lot of "wild rice, acorns, wild pecans, black walnuts, hazelnuts, plums, fish and deer."

How do you eat acorns? We could forage a lot of calories from our own little yard if we knew how to eat acorns. Hint: It's a lot of work!

By the way, I remember Euell Gibbons. He was big enough, back in the 1970s, to be satirized on "The Carol Burnett Show": 

"Time Has Run Out for AI Risk Deniers/The recent spate of reports about the technology’s destructive power underline two prime directives: Be afraid, and regulate aggressively."

It's time to panic and legislate like hell, according to the headline at The Nation.

How can that heavy-handed fear mongering not make a reader skeptical? I would think The Nation would at least want to be cagier about what it thinks of its own readers. Maybe they didn't think anyone else would look, but I saw the headline on the list of headlines at Real Clear Politics. RCP, in its usual style, pairs headlines to attain a cheap type of balance. "Time Has Run Out for AI Risk Deniers" is paired with "Dangerous Ideology Behind the Vague AI Warnings" at The Free Press.

I'd like a sober, informative analysis of what's going on with AI, but instead I see how discourse about AI has gravitated into partisan propaganda. Everyone's supposed to already know that the right is for AI and the left is against. No wonder we need AI to think for us.

From the Nation article:

"In the life we lived that summer, we represented to ourselves what we wanted — and it was not the headlong pilgrimage after money and comfort and prestige."

Wrote Wendell Berry, in "The Long-Legged House," quoted in "Wendell Berry, Writer Who Extolled America’s Agrarian Past, Dies at 92/A Kentucky farmer, he railed against agribusiness and championed small family farms and the environment, winning widespread acclaim" (NYT gift link).

Returning to his home as a place to write for the rest of his life was a way to insure, to himself, that he would always be bound by the truth, Mr. Berry said in a phone interview in 2018 for this obituary. 

“It made a permanent connection between me and my native place, and with its landscape,” he said. “The landscape was there to check me if I was wrong. I could never go away and make up stuff at cocktail parties about the backwoods of Kentucky. I worked with people here in all walks of life and learned from them. It’s been a very rich experience.”

"Chance, fate—these are abstract ideas that usually raise abstract questions. Do people have story-like fates..."

"... or are they just subject to concatenations of occurrences? Do things happen 'for a reason,' or do we just make up stories after the fact to tie events together? Broadly speaking, there’s an ancient antagonism between the notion that life must make sense and the observation that it often doesn’t.... And yet, at times when fate is actually 'happening,' such questions recede. Instead, what stands out are the physical particulars of the here and now. In the hospital, after the accident, you know your life is changing; you sense your proximity to what the novelist Karl Ove Knausgaard calls 'the deep, slow-shifting layers of reality where fate is at work.' Somehow this abstract understanding exists alongside, or by means of, the objects in the waiting room—a paper cup from the water cooler, or a copy of People magazine."

Writes Joshua Rothman, in "Should You Believe in Fate? We’d be happier, perhaps, if we found meaning not through abstractions but through the physical things around us" (The New Yorker).

"What's the most disruptive thing that you could say in the most disruptive conversation that's ever been had?"

Joe Rogan asked Zach Bush, a doctor who has specialized in hospice care. It was Bush's idea that their conversation was going to be most disruptive conversation ever.

Bush states his truth succinctly —  "Everything is perfect" — and goes on at great and rather bizarre length: 

"Everything that's happening right now is actually a perfect manifestation of a maturation of a species. We don't actually have, you know, a poly crisis going on. We've got a hospice moment.

"And I’ve also gotten into this habit of doing songs that are about personal relationships and then I throw a verse about politics in there."

"That’s a trick that I’ve learned from other songwriters, because nobody wants to hear a whole song about politics or social comment. A blues song like 'Rough and Twisted,' you talk about women and everything, but then you throw in stuff that’s obviously political: 'The only club was called conspiracy.' 'What they wanted was tyranny.' So you find yourself using these tricks."

Said Mick Jagger, in an interview at "Mick Jagger Knows He May Have Played His Last Rolling Stones Show" (NYT).

ADDED: I like this part about philosophy: 

"They’re always having so many arguments, these philosophers, and always disagreeing with their masters. I was reading this book on Kant. They’re quite rude to each other and then they have to make up later, and I can’t understand what they’re really talking about. Was Kant a Christian? Was he an atheist?"

The interviewer, David Marchese, enthuses, "I think it’s cool that you’re reading Kant." And Mick responds coolly: "Well, it’s all vaguely fashionable."

"Antinatalism Explained."

I'm not endorsing this idea, and I can even see why one would want not merely to resist but to actively suppress it, but I would recommend courageously hearing out the argument. It's quite challenging, but why is it wrong?

Related: there's a big new movie out about the Shakers:

"I have given already given nine different arguments for my immortality. I’m fallible..."

"... maybe there’s a clunker or two in there. But surely at least one is a good argument! Therefore I am immortal."

From "Why I am immortal," by Hilarius Bookbinder, at Substack.

"I saw people who were downcast, who can take no more, who are at the end of their tether. Even a revolt is beyond them."

Said Joël Boueilh, chairman of the winemaking co-operative federation, commenting on protesters who want the French government to help the wine industry.

Quoted in "French wine industry is withering on the vine as drinkers go dry/A collapse in demand — particularly for the heavy reds produced across southern France — coupled with climate change means the end of a way of life for many" (London Times).

Boueilh adds: "France was the land of the good life where people spent a lot of time drinking and eating. But today society is changing. People may have a drink in a bar but they don’t open a bottle of wine when they sit down to eat at the table."

Is it necessarily a loss in devotion to "the good life" or did people change their conception of the good? But he didn't say "good," did he? He would have said "douceur": "« La France était le pays de la douceur de vivre, celui où l’on prenait son temps pour manger et boire ensemble autour d’une table. »

There might be other ways of being "good," but are there other ways of being "sweet"? And more important, there is a tradition of experiencing the sweetness in a particular way, with a bottle of wine on the table at meals. 

Ah! That's for France to decide! Boueilh represents the wine industry. Of course, he's going to dramatize the centrality of wine. If I buy into that, I'm just an American accepting the most easily available stereotype.

That is, it's the stuff that belongs in the new Dictionary of Received Ideas: The French: They think the good life is sitting around drinking wine all day. 

ADDED: I wanted more depth of meaning for the word "douceur," and got excellent help from Grok. 

"Schopenhauer was a lifelong bachelor who had few friends and many enemies, who preferred the company of dogs..."

"... to that of his fellow men and women, and whose own mother, Johanna Schopenhauer, broke off ties with him, telling him in a letter, 'I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.'... [H]e became even more so as he grew older, driven by the belief that solitude was the price of telling the rest of humankind two unbearable truths. First, that it is better never to have been born; second, for those of us unfortunate enough to exist, to expect nothing but suffering and sorrow.... It is curious to think that his beloved standard poodle, Atma, knew what men and women did not know: that his master believed in the care and concern for all living beings...."

Writes Robert Zaretsky, in "Compassionate Curmudgeon/Why we must root ourselves in the real world" (The American Scholar).

"'A book isn’t a bad website, and a typewriter isn’t a bad computer,' says Richard Polt, collector, professor of philosophy..."

"... and the author of a defiantly countercultural book, The Typewriter Revolution. 'A typewriter is a thing with its own individuality, integrity and beauty. It doesn’t push content at people. It draws words from them.' Like a bicycle, Polt argues, a typewriter is 'a self-contained machine that doesn’t depend on external sources of power' but works its magic through a combination of human energy and inspired design. This makes it a precious counterbalance to the relentless expansion of digital technology — using one, he argues, can 'strike a blow for self-reliance, privacy and coherence, against dependency, surveillance and disintegration.'"

From "Why collectors are falling for retro office equipment/This month Christie’s will take bids for the first mechanical calculator, made in 1642. What’s led to the increasing appreciation and value of old apparatus?" (London Times).

"What is novel about Against the Machine is Kingsnorth’s account of what is at stake in the 21st century: what he calls the 'unmaking of humanity.'"

"Human biology, as he sees it, is rooted in a few basic facts: We are born to sexed bodies on a planet with finite resources, endowed with minds capable of exercising creativity and seeking wisdom, and then we die. His book attempts to demonstrate that much of today’s scientific, economic, technological, and cultural activity is predicated on an effort, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, to overcome these realities. He offers several examples of ideas and innovations that he believes are part of this effort: biotech for billionaires seeking immortality; state-assisted suicide for the suffering; IVF and other results of 'the technologisation of sex'; hormone therapy that allows children to change their gender; plans to geoengineer the planet and to abandon it and colonize Mars; robot 'priests' that can preside over funerals.... Kingsnorth’s most contentious claims concern his insistence that technoculture and its products—large language models, genetic engineering, and so on—share a great deal in common with progressive ideas about sex, sexuality, and gender. They all, in his telling, attempt to use technology to overcome what were once hard natural limits.... [H]e rejects assertions that 'biology is a problem to be overcome' and that the 'body is a form of oppression.'..."

I'm reading "What a Cranky New Book About Progress Gets Right/Paul Kingsnorth argues that much of today’s culture is intent on eroding what it means to be human" (The Atlantic, gift link).

Nil admirari.

Nil admirari is today's Word of the Day in the Oxford English Dictionary. I ran across it because, writing the previous post, I looked up the word "sunder," after David Axelrod had accused Donald Trump of "sundering history." It's an odd word, but it's not the most apt word. Sundering has more to do with separating than demolition. And how do you do either to history?

But I was glad to get deflected into the OED, because I'm finding out about Nil admirari: "The attitude of indifference to the distractions of the outside world advocated by the Roman poet Horace. Also: a person adopting this attitude."

Etymology: "classical Latin nīl admīrārī, in nil admirari prope res est una..quae possit facere et servare beatum, ‘to wonder at nothing is just about the only way a man can become contented and remain so’ (Horace Epistles 1. 6. 1).

From the Wikipedia article about the term: "Nietzsche wrote that in this proposition the ancient philosopher 'sees the whole of philosophy,' opposing it to Schopenhauer's 'admirari id est philosophari' (to marvel is to philosophize)."

Here's the Horace:

"Why assume that our minds, in their sober 'default state,' are naturally designed to grasp reality as it really is? Smith-Ruiu asks."

"Why not 'explore all the modes of consciousness available to us'? What might they tell us about 'the relationship between mind and world?'... A specialist in the history and philosophy of science whose next book is a scholarly study of Leibniz, he stressed that he wrote 'On Drugs' stone sober and broke no laws to obtain the substances he ingested for his research.... On a dose 'far more than is recommended,' he experienced an intense 'interpersonal exchange' with Marilyn Monroe, who loomed from a poster on his hotel room wall, and, via YouTube clips... 'Mama Cass suddenly appeared to me as "Mama" in the fullest sense: the fount of my being and the origin of my world.' On yet another trip, he understood that he was no longer any kind of being at all."

From "Psychedelics Blew His Mind. He Wants Other Philosophers to Open Theirs. An intense exchange with Marilyn Monroe sounds silly. But in a new book, Justin Smith-Ruiu is dead serious about what we might learn from altered states" (NYT).

Here's the book: "On Drugs: Psychedelics, Philosophy, and the Nature of Reality" (commission earned).

It was all I hoped it would be....

Vegetarian is not enough.

Photo by Meade, which he describes as "City bus 3 blocks from Ag school dairy building."

It's an impressive and persuasive slogan, but one might also say: Because you consume vegetables, rodents, birds, snakes, and amphibians die.

But the calf is a lovable being, one could respond, speciesistly. Look at its sweet face!

Funky-looking and tentacular.

I'm fascinated by the mysteries of sportswriting, and these 2 sentences jumped out at me:

Even the way he plays, all funky-looking forehands and tentacular court coverage, is far from conventional, and at times polarizing. Away from forehands and backhands, he has always been a master of the dark arts, knowing how and when to work a crowd to his advantage, and being more than willing to turn a match into a circus if he thinks it will give him an edge.

That's written by Charlie Eccleshare, at the NYT, in "Daniil Medvedev, tennis’ walking Rorschach test, asks the U.S. Open what it sees."

"Tentacular" — a word I'd never noticed before. I see that H.G. Wells used it in "The War of the Worlds" (1898), to refer to the Martians with “long, tentacular appendages.” The use to describe the tennis player is close enough to the literal meaning. Apparently Medvedev was octopuslike.

But the word has appeared with a more attenuated connection to creatures with tentacles. Grok tells me that the philosopher Donna Haraway writes about "tentacular thinking" in the book "Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene" (2016). There's some notion of "multispecies, interconnected, and responsive" thought to be distinguished from "human-centered, linear, or hierarchical" thought. I'm told there's something called "tentacular empathy" and "tentacular relatings of kinship." Strangulating, and yet I get the sense we're supposed to love it.

Of course, the octopus is a mainstay of political cartoons. Here's one from 1877 that has some present-day resonance:

Lots more here, at "The Octopus in Political Cartoons/Russia, Germany and the United States have all been depicted as octopuses by their nemeses.

"The most extreme end of the promortalism movement is 'Efilism,'which takes its name from 'life' spelt backward..."

"... and argues that all sentient life should be extinguished to prevent suffering. Gary Mosher... one of its most prominent proponents... endorses violence towards women, even claiming he will murder any woman he gets pregnant who refuses an abortion. 'The end goal is for the truth [Efilism] to win, and once it does, we can finally begin the process of sterilising this planet of the disease of life,' he wrote in an online manifesto. But after the IVF clinic in Palm Springs was bombed, he distanced himself from the violence. 'The fact is that there’s people in the world who are lonely, and some that are crazy, and this, that and the other thing,' he said on [YouTube]. 'They have some reason to be despondent, and they have low investment in their existence, and those are dangerous people.'... [I]t is not hard to find members recommending various methods for killing oneself, or using the term 'CTB' — or catch the bus — for suicide...."

From "Inside the ‘strangest terrorist movement the US has ever seen’/Guy Bartkus tried to destroy an IVF clinic to save the embryos the pain of existence. Alarmingly for national security, his ‘promortalist’ philosophy does not die with him" (London Times).

"If a human being did not exist then the absence of bad would be good... but the absence of good would not be bad because nobody was deprived."

Said David Benatar, quoted in "Antinatalist philosopher: The Palm Springs bomber proves my point/We should stop having children, says David Benatar — whose beliefs were reflected in Guy Edward Bartkus’s manifesto written before he blew up an IVF clinic" (London Times).

He firmly rejected the notion that painful experiences offer perspective or meaning, or that life’s fleeting pleasures make its fundamental wretchedness worthwhile. He said nothing would be lost if babies stopped being born.... He writes in his book that “while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.” His advice to those who do exist is to do no harm to other human beings or animals, and to “get the joy you can and give the joy that you can give.”

"[Guy Edward] Bartkus was said to have identified with 'pro-mortalism,' a philosophy that claims death is preferable to being born in the first place."

"His extremist beliefs, which he recorded in manifestos, included being against bringing babies into the world without their consent to spare them from future suffering. The suspect attempted to live-stream the explosion, although authorities said the video failed to upload.... Bilal Essayli, the US attorney for Los Angeles, wrote on social media that Bartkus appeared to be 'anti pro-life.'"

From "Terrorist bombed fertility clinic ‘to spare babies suffering’/Guy Edward Bartkus was the only fatality in the explosion at a facility in Palm Springs, California" (London Times).

I don't think there is an organized "anti pro-life" movement (to be distinguished from the pro-choice opponents of the pro-life movement). Here's the L.A. Times article about Bartkus's manifesto:

"I feel I’ve lived my life well, but it’s a feeling. I’m just reasonably happy with what I’ve done."

"I would say if there is an objective point of view, then I’m totally irrelevant to it. If you look at the universe and the complexity of the universe, what I do with my day cannot be relevant."

Said Daniel Kahneman, on March 19, quoted in "There’s a Lesson to Learn From Daniel Kahneman’s Death" (NYT). On March 27th, he followed through with his plan to die by assisted suicide.

Another quote: "I have believed since I was a teenager that the miseries and indignities of the last years of life are superfluous, and I am acting on that belief. I am still active, enjoying many things in life (except the daily news) and will die a happy man. But my kidneys are on their last legs, the frequency of mental lapses is increasing, and I am 90 years old. It is time to go."

Kahneman won the Nobel Prize for his work in "behavioral" economics. You may know his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow."