I’m excited to share a big milestone — the first Wikipedia draft article for TPOCo, The Principle of Collaboration and Cooperation, is now live in my sandbox!
TPOCo is a science-based framework that explains how cooperation is fundamentally about energy — how it is captured, shared, and transformed across all levels of life:
🧫 Cells cooperating internally
🐜 Animals like ants and wolves working together
🧠 Humans collaborating and sharing fairly
It unifies insights from biology, psychology, systems science, and more — structured into seven core principles and illustrated with a clear flowchart.
“Let’s make the kidney great again!” it shouts. The heart, lungs, and brain look on, confused.
Sounds ridiculous? That’s the point.
This meme highlights the problem with Project 2025—a real political plan to reshape the U.S. government by concentrating power at the top and side lining cooperation. When one part of a system tries to dominate, the whole structure suffers. Just like in biology, democracy depends on parts working together—not fighting for control.
TL;DR: Donald Trump's erratic communication intentionally generates unpredictability to maintain attention and control. A possible underlying purpose might be to distract from significant systemic changes like staff dismissals, education defunding, and cuts in research.
Donald Trump’s communication style continues to profoundly impact global trust and coordination. His unpredictable behaviour destabilizes traditional frameworks of cooperation, complicating diplomatic and political decision-making processes.
An AI analysis using the TPOCo framework for cooperation.
Overview: Communication and Systemic Distraction
Trump's frequent and dramatic narrative shifts aren’t merely random; they might serve as distractions from other critical issues, such as extensive government staff dismissals, defunding of education, and significant cuts to research budgets. This tactic could divert public attention from impactful structural changes taking place behind the scenes.
Attention as a Strategic Asset
While appearing chaotic, Trump's communication method effectively secures constant media attention, granting him continuous political influence. This attention may function as a deliberate strategic energy source, ensuring he remains central in public discourse and policymaking.
Individual vs. Collective Stability
Trump’s method is notably individualistic, centralizing attention and decision-making power around himself. In contrast, cooperative systems thrive by sharing attention, influence, and resources evenly, promoting collective stability and long-term cohesion.
Implications for Global Stability
While beneficial to Trump personally, this strategy undermines collective trust and coordination, impacting global stability and the effectiveness of long-term cooperation. Such systemic distractions could weaken critical areas like education and research, further exacerbating vulnerabilities within cooperative structures.
Seeds for Thought:
What are the long-term implications of using unpredictability as a strategic distraction on societal trust and systemic resilience?
Can global systems effectively counteract these disruptions, or do they inherently threaten the foundation of cooperative frameworks?
Is Trump's unpredictability a calculated approach aimed at structural distraction, or merely an intuitive tactic for personal dominance?
Exploring Morality: Nature’s Rules and Human Constructs
Imagine a world where every action is devoid of moral judgment, a realm where the concepts of good and evil are irrelevant. This is the world of nature, working on principles that transcend human-made moral categorizations. In this blog post, we delve into the intricate tapestry of morality, exploring its manifestation from nature’s neutral standpoint to the complex constructs of human societies. We will unravel the threads of moral neutrality in nature, the innate moral behaviour in cooperative environments, the intricacies of human-made rules defining good and evil, the contradictions in moral beliefs, and the profound implications of The Principle of Collaboration and Cooperation (TPOCo) in understanding this spectrum.
Moral Neutrality in Nature
Nature, in its essence, works on a plane where moral labels of 'good' or 'bad' do not apply, a concept referred to as moral neutrality. In the wild, actions are driven by survival and evolutionary adaptations, not by a moral compass. For instance, when a predator hunts its prey, it is not an act of evil but a necessary part of the ecological balance. This view of nature challenges our human-centric perspective of morality, prompting questions about the very definition of what moral means and its relevance beyond human society.
Moral in Cooperative Nature
The realm of cooperative nature offers fascinating insights into the roots of morality. Renowned researcher Frans de Waal's studies on fairness among monkeys and Michael Tomasello's observations of children sharing spoils reveal innate moral instincts. These behaviours suggest a biological basis for concepts like fairness and cooperation, underscoring moral naturalism. These examples of moral behaviour in non-human primates and human children reflect an evolutionary origin for moral behaviour, blurring the lines between nature's neutrality and human-imposed moral constructs.
Frans De Waal: Primates Can Teach Us About The Origins Of Justice, Power And Morality
Michael Tomasello: A Lecture in Psychology: Origins of Human Cooperation and Morality
Human-Made Rules to Define Good and Evil
Human societies have long been crafting moral dogmas and rules to delineate what is considered good and evil. This human-made moral framework often stands in stark contrast to nature's neutrality. Philosophers like Nietzsche have critically examined these constructs, particularly highlighting the role of moral dogmas and imposed rules by religions and ideologies. Nietzsche's critique of 'Slave Morality' brings to light the complexities and subjective nature of these human-imposed moral standards.
Contradictions in Moral Beliefs
The landscape of human morality is rife with contradictions. Various religious and ideological moral systems often clash, leading to societal conflicts and cultural clashes. These contradictions in moral beliefs exemplify the moral versus ethical dilemma, where different systems struggle to coexist harmoniously. Moral conflict arises not only in religious contexts but also in secular ideologies, illustrating the complexity and diversity of human moral thought.
Implications for TPOCo
In the intricate web of moral beliefs and behaviours, TPOCo offers a unique lens to view and navigate these complexities. It supplies a framework for understanding the interplay between innate moral instincts and constructed moral rules. TPOCo's principles highlight the importance of cooperation and shared thriving, which can offer insights into resolving moral conflicts and embracing a more holistic approach to morality.
Exploring Morality: Nature’s Rules and Human Constructs
Our journey through the dichotomy of morality reveals a spectrum that spans from the neutral, instinct-driven actions of nature to the complex, often contradictory constructs of human societies. This exploration underlines the significance of understanding the multifaceted nature of moral judgments and the role of frameworks like TPOCo in supplying clarity and direction. As we reflect on these themes, we are invited to contemplate our own moral compass and its alignment with the broader context of life's interconnectedness and the cycle of energy that binds us all.
Our health and well-being are intricately tied to our evolutionary past, a concept embodied by what I refer to as the Human Biological Evolutionary Cage, or HBEC for short. This framework underscores the fact that despite our technological prowess, symbolized by the cars we drive and the rockets we launch into space, our biological evolution lags behind our cultural and technological advances. The HBEC represents the physiological boundaries within which we must navigate our dietary and lifestyle choices to align with our genetic heritage.
The Quest for Optimal Diet and the Role of Our Evolutionary Blueprint
In our quest to understand the optimal diet for modern health, we often overlook the evolutionary blueprint that has shaped our dietary needs. This journey takes us back to the 'Human Biological Evolutionary Cage' – a concept that profoundly impacts our understanding of human evolution and dietary development. Here, we explore how our ancestral diets, heavily reliant on meat and minimal in processed foods, contrast sharply with today's eating habits, and what this means for our health.
Unlocking the 'Human Biological Evolutionary Cage''
The 'Human Evolutionary Cage' refers to the evolutionary constraints that have historically dictated human dietary patterns. Our skeletal traits, such as endurance running capabilities, thermoregulation, and the use of tools for meat consumption, point towards a diet that was significantly meat-based. These adaptations highlight our species' long-standing reliance on animal-based nutrition.
Meat-Centric Diets of Our Forebears: Evolutionary Insights
Our ancestors' diet was primarily centered around meat, a nutrient-dense and energy-rich source of food. Plant-based foods played a role, but their availability was heavily influenced by seasonal changes. Archaeological findings, like the Schöningen Spears, provide evidence of early human hunting practices and meat consumption, underscoring the importance of animal-based foods in our evolutionary history.
From Ancestral Roots to Modern Plates: The Dietary Divergence
Dr. Ken Berry's 'Principles of a Proper Human Diet' suggest a return to this ancestral way of eating. Modern diets, with their heavy reliance on processed foods and carbohydrates, starkly contrast with what our bodies have evolved to consume. This recent dietary shift is at odds with our biological adaptations, which have not significantly changed in a mere 15,000 years – a blink in evolutionary terms.
Health Through the Ages: Ancestral Diets Meet Modern Biology
Aligning our modern diet with ancestral eating patterns could have significant health benefits. The mismatch between our evolutionary adaptations and current dietary habits contributes to numerous health issues. Ancestral diets, lower in processed foods and carbohydrates, could provide a template for healthier eating in the modern world.
Through the Lens of TPOCo: Dietary Choices and Evolutionary Wisdom
Applying The Principle of Collaboration and Cooperation (TPOCo) principles, we can better understand the evolution of human diets. Modern dietary lifestyles like Keto, Ketovore, Carnivore, and the Lion's diet, which emphasize minimal processed food intake, resonate with our ancestral dietary patterns. It’s crucial to recognize the influence of philosophy, religion, and sometimes biased science in shaping our dietary choices.
Echoing Our Ancestors: The Vitality of Movement for Modern Health
Ancestral Movement in a Modern World
In the narrative of ancestral health, diet often takes centre stage, but the saga is incomplete without the integral role of physical activity. Our ancestors led lives rich in movement, a stark contrast to today's sedentary norms. Understanding this contrast is key to grasping the full scope of our inherited health blueprint.
Reawakening Our Hunter-Gatherer Physique
The hunter-gatherer lifestyle was defined by constant motion: walking vast distances, endurance hunting. sprinting from predators or towards prey, and the lifting and carrying of daily necessities. These activities sculpted a physique that modern gyms strive to replicate. Today, rekindling these ancestral movements can awaken dormant physical potential, leading to robust health and vitality.
Modern Sedentary Lifestyle vs. Ancestral Activity
Our modern world often traps us in a cycle of inactivity, chaining us to desks and devices, a far cry from our forebears' dynamic way of life. The cost is not just muscular atrophy but a cascade of health maladies. Acknowledging this disparity is the first step toward cultivating an environment that encourages movement.
Integrating Ancestral Movement into Daily Life
Bridging the millennia-wide gap requires conscious effort.
We can integrate ancestral movement by choosing stairs over elevators, walking or cycling over driving, and engaging in regular strength training that echoes the physical tasks of our ancestors. These practices aren't mere exercises; they're a reconnection with our evolutionary heritage.
The Holistic Approach: Merging Diet and Movement
To fully honour our evolutionary past, we must pair the wisdom of ancestral diets with the ethos of physical activity. This holistic approach to health—balancing nutrient-dense foods with consistent, varied movement—isn't just about longevity; it's about quality of life. It's a testament to the resilience of the human species and a path to reclaiming the robust wellness that is our birthright.
Embracing HBEC: Aligning Ancestral Wisdom with Today’s Lifestyle Choices
Our journey through the 'Human Biological Evolutionary Constraints' (HBEC) has illuminated not just our dietary roots but also the vital role of physical activity inherent to our species. These twin pillars of ancestral health—nutrition and movement—offer invaluable insights into optimizing our well-being. As we traverse the complexities of modern nutrition and sedentary lifestyles, it's paramount to make informed choices that honour both our evolutionary heritage and the demands of contemporary life. By aligning our eating habits with those of our forebears and mimicking their physical vigour, we step closer to a holistic approach to health—one that respects the ancient wisdom encoded in our very genes while embracing the conveniences of modernity.
Let us not only eat but also move as our ancestors did, for it is in this harmonious blend of past and present that our truest health potential lies.
This striking image invites us to ponder our place within the vast tapestry of evolution. It prompts us to ask: how can we live in harmony with our biological heritage in this age of rapid technological and social change? Share your thoughts on how this visual representation of the HBEC resonates with your understanding of our ancestral legacy and modern health.
The vegan propaganda machine is doing this, as well. At least for me, now I can start putting this in words, after watching the following DW documantary:
Fact vs. fake - why don’t we trust science any more?
This leads to a a sientific approach to get to the bottom of the issue.
Agnotology Agnotology (formerly agnatology) is the study of deliberate, culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product or win favour, particularly through the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. More generally, the term also highlights the condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
To get the link to Veganism there is a source from Belinda Fettke:
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a propaganda tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics, polling and cults. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
Unconscious and deliberate ignorance...
I believe it is already more like a complex maze of tunnels and chambers than just a rabbit hole. It is the support of believes like the philosophy of Peter Singer and the religions like Seventh Day Adventist. These two pillars of vegetarianism support each other without having the same goal in mind. Animal welfare and the believe meat is coming from the devil. Both streams of propaganda use similar propaganda tricks. Now these two pillars are the base for an additional growing pilar: the money. The propaganda and this way created ignorance is leading the path for the idea, with plant-based food is a way to make a lot of money. Now we can follow the money:
The central argument in Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation, is an expansion of the utilitarian concept that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this principle to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and "animal" is completely arbitrary.
There is a lot of criticism about Utilitarianism. It is e.g. impossible to precisely predict the consequences and they are inherently unknowable. Another idea of this normative Philosophy is the duty of the decision maker (Agent) to put his own interest on side. The well-being of strangers counts just as much as that of friends, family or self. And this idea is contrary to other Philosophies. E.g. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest.
In the following I will add another version to this thought experiment, by taking Peter Singer's words and take his idea to extent this thought experiment with sentient beings.
