#both for their ecological importance and because they are simply themselves

[bloodborne-on-pc]

Concept: one of those religious calendars where it's like "The Wonders of God's World" or whatever, but instead of pictures of charismatic animals and serene landscapes, it's all parasites and natural disasters.

[findtechnologystudio]

The Future Of Games: Comprehending Video Game Boosting

The gaming field has taken a remarkable change lately, no more simply concerning pure enjoyment yet additionally affordable functionality. Within this new arena, a particular niche method has actually developed that is transforming the method players approach their beloved labels: game boosting.

Coming from newbies to experienced gamers, the principle of fortnite boost is actually both fascinating as well as questionable. This article is going to certainly not simply debunk this pc gaming subculture yet additionally explore its ramifications for the future of digital pc gaming.

The Importance of Boosting

Game boosting is the act helpful gamers improve with video game quicker than they could possibly by themselves. It's a kind of solution provided through professional gamers, a lot better called "boosters," that are hired to enhance yet another player's in-game stats or even advance via degrees. This relatively easy act has profound effects for the pc gaming area.

Boosting services may feature a series of tasks, including leveling up characters, obtaining rare items, or even accomplishing specific in-game accomplishments. While the strategy possesses its own critics that dispute that it undermines the feeling of video gaming, it has actually gained significant traction for a range of causes.

Explanations for Boosting's Increase

Opportunity is actually Amount of money: In a busy world, game opportunity is priceless. Boosting companies enable time-poor people to take pleasure in web content that might or else be out of range because of real-world time constraints.

One-upmanship: In the realm of multiplayer video games, some information can only be accessed by means of notable in-game feats. Boosting gives an alternative to grinding so gamers can easily still be competitive without the opportunity expenditure.

Development of E-Sports: Along with the growth of e-sports and also specialist games, there is actually a growing viewers of those that wish to experience reasonable play or even web content without the in some cases lengthy training called for.

Money making and also Purchases: Video games are actually significantly changing to a company style, with in-game acquisitions and memberships. Boosting suit this style, allowing gamers to spend genuine amount of money to obtain in-game benefits.

The Future Improvement

Looking ahead, dota 2 boost is likely to become more prevalent, especially along with the carried on growth of live-service video games as well as their associated digital economic conditions. This can trigger both even more sophisticated companies and also, potentially, an in-game economic condition landscape that incorporates video game boosting as component of the regular games ecological community.

For developers and also publishers, comprehending the job of game boosting might provide understandings into just how gamers value their opportunity and also the content they want to spend for. It could also offer a chance to design video game bodies that are actually extra accommodating to unique play types as well as player purposes, potentially lowering the requirement for exterior boosting services.

To conclude, while video game boosting presently exists in a quite grey location within the games neighborhood, it is positioned to mold the future of electronic pc gaming as well as is actually a part all video gaming aficionados need to understand. Whether it's consulted with visibility, disbelief, or policy, the video gaming garden our team're moving into is actually one where the standard concepts of game development and accomplishment are constantly being redefined.

[laleonawaterfall1]

Get the Lowdown on the Faerie Hike to La Leona Falls

As you ascend the slope, you'll hear the trickle of water more and more, building up your excitement as you approach the secret sparkle. La Leona Waterfall, a captivating series of streams that tumble over old rocks and into a tranquil pool below, appears out of nowhere from the forest. The sheer size of the waterfall will amaze even the most cynical tourist.

Embracing the Joy of Swimming:

Visitor attractions like the La Leona Waterfall hike encourage visitors to get in touch with nature. A tranquil haven of cold water at the base of the waterfall can be a welcome respite for hikers. In this tranquil setting, one may relax and connect with nature as they listen to the hypnotic sounds of the forest and see verdant flora.

Suggestions for a Smooth Travel Experience

The Will of God:

An opportunity for growth and learning, the La Leona Waterfall Hike is more than simply a walk in the park. People that embark on Amazonian treks do so with the assistance of experienced guides who are well-versed in the region. Because of their extensive knowledge of the native flora and animals, the trip becomes an experiential classroom, shedding light on the dynamic web of life in this habitat.

An Emphasis on Security:

Although being safe is of utmost importance, being adventurous and curious is of fundamental importance. At La Leona Eco Lodge, the guides will alert hikers to potential dangers, lend a hand when necessary, and offer sound advice to make sure everyone has a safe adventure. As a result of this dedication to safety, visitors may relax and enjoy themselves during the trip.

A Foot-Based Exploration of the La Leona Waterfall

Both the La Leona Waterfall Hike and the La Leona Eco Lodge share a dedication to responsible tourism, so guests of either may relax knowing that their stay will be just as eco-conscious as the other. Embracing sustainability, the eco resort and waterfall walk work together to protect Costa Rica's diverse ecosystems for the benefit of generations to come.

Reservation Details: La Leona Waterfall has a specialized webpage that will make your trip planning a snap. For further details, including package options and estimated hiking times, see the official website. Seize the opportunity to secure your place on this unforgettable adventure into the breathtaking Costa Rican wilderness without delay.

Things Required:

Come prepared for your La Leona Waterfall Hike if you want to make the most of it. Insect repellent, loose-fitting clothes, sturdy shoes, and an adventurous spirit are all recommended items to bring along, as stated on the website. Maintaining your hydration levels while on the road is easiest with a refillable water bottle.

Witness the Wonders of El Leona Eco Lodge Beyond the World of Hiking 

Ecology-Concerned Hotel Owners:

Green lodgings at La Leona Eco Lodge combine eco-friendliness with sustainable design to provide an unforgettable stay for eco-conscious travelers. The resort's serene environment is the perfect place to relax after an exciting climb to La Leona Waterfall.

Prospective Further Studies:

The environmental resort may be best known as the jumping off point for the La Leona Waterfall Hike, but that's far from all the exciting things to do there. See more of Costa Rica's interesting history and culture by taking part in cultural events, going bird watching, or hiking adjacent paths.

Thoughts for the Finish: An Authentic Reminiscence

Unforgettable adventures await on the La Leona Waterfall Hike Costa Rica, which goes beyond what the ordinary person would anticipate. You'll come away from the experience with a new appreciation for nature and a determination to do all in your power to protect it. The dedication to sustainability, the expertise of the guides, and the profound reverence for the natural world at La Leona Eco Lodge have made each hiker's step a monument to humanity's ability to coexist with the environment.

The La Leona Waterfall Hike is open to everyone who is looking for a spiritually rejuvenating experience, as well as ecotourists and hikers. Escape the hustle and bustle of the city and reestablish a connection with nature on this journey across the breathtaking landscapes of Costa Rica. Listen to the forest's call and buckle in for an adventure that will bring you face-to-face with La Leona's wonders.

[sacredbeans]

Our Life as a Multiverse

It felt essential to have a first contribution sharing my philosophy on the multitude of narratives out there in the big wide world, which in itself shapes my worldview, and positions me in matters that present themselves.

The title, multiverse, is an objection to the word 'universe', which to me implies generalisation. As if the way all of Earth's inhabitants experience life is, or should be, identical. I believe in something rather the opposite, meaning there is no one way to live (well) in this world, and feel a strong aversion to any one-size-fits-all approach. Our western beliefs are based on science, that which the eye can perceive or our instruments can measure, and the more we learn, the less magical this place seems to become. We try to organise the mystery that is life, and create polar opposites that can be placed along the x and y-axis.

I recently started a master programme in sustainable development, for which I moved to Sweden in my trusty home on wheels. We began the course by discussing how to define the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’, and whether they are essentially concepts created through practice and discourse. Personally, I do not believe most of the popular future pathways (green economy; renewable energy; technology based solutions; generally continuing growth while not looking into changing our lifestyles) are sufficient to solve our planetary troubles in a truly sustainable way. Other posts will be dedicated to what my wild imaginings might then be, but I would like to point you to a specific book that offers me consolation and inspiration. It is called ‘Pluriverse - A Post-Development Dictionary’ (Kothari et al., 2019) and starts out in a similar way to how I started this writing, which is what caused me to dig up the old draft that was the foetus of this post. Authors of the bundled essays offer brief introductions of alternative paths into a future that embraces ecological wisdom, social justice, and challenges the western standard of living that is used synonymously with the quality of life.

Living amongst people who share similar beliefs and values has been a nurturing experience for me - bodily, mentally and spiritually. And by no means have we steered away from challenging each other. On the contrary, safe and respectful spaces offer room for challenging conversation! I have gradually come to exist in what feels like a different dimension compared to a few years back. The "status quo" is something I have ventured from. It was ill-fitting, yet now I struggle to put into words why and how this has happened, and is happening. Because it is not simply a matter of adjusting a few habits: it is uprooting whatever currently gives you structure, then sprouting anew from the seed. Which might just be what our species needs.

I am still learning to dance the line between respecting the existence of different worldviews, and challenging any bias that comes with it. Both within myself and in others. Though I find it difficult, challenging is perhaps equally important as respecting different visions, because our values are constantly transforming. We are many souls sharing a single planet. The ability to understand, or at least respect, someone else’s core values is more likely to result in mutualistic symbiosis. If we would spend more time perceiving the world around us through engaging our senses, stripping away judgement and character roles as the old, well-worn clothes they are, we may find that the realities we experience aren't so different after all.

Perspective is an attitude. Calm acceptance follows when you learn to see life as it presents itself: a multiverse, perceived differently by every individual. You can continuously be amazed by everything life on Earth is capable of. Because the moment you think you understand her, she has shifted shape.

by NJ

[thorsvinur]

One of the benefits of Heathenry in the 21st century is that we have the ability to look back at and analyze (to a degree) the religious systems of pre-Christian Germanic societies from an objective viewpoint. This allows us to find the flaws in them both in themselves and how they related to their respective societies, such as rich assholes using theology and religious practice to justify and affirm their status and those of others, or using the promise of an eternal cosmic kegger to get guys to be okay with violently dying far away from their families, and to use those lessons to build better systems in the modern day.

It also allows us to adapt those systems to suit our modern world and address its problems whether social, ecological, etc. rather than trying to shove a square peg through a round hole, so to speak. When discussing ancient practices and religious systems it's important to be intellectually honest and let history speak for itself, but while it should be informed by them modern Heathenry doesn't need to and really shouldn't seek to be exactly like those ancient versions. In reality it simply can't because even now there's a lot of gap filling that comes from comparative analysis of other systems, and the apparent temporal; social and geographical variations in those practices means at best one could accurately reconstruct how some people were doing it.

Anyone who wants it to be exactly like those systems either hasn't read enough about them or is getting a heavily romanticized and probably outdated version of them.

[alexandriasbox]

Does Foraging Harm the Environment?

By Samuel T.

Our culture embraces, in the words of the ethnoecologist Kat Anderson, a "schizophrenic" approach to Nature: we destroy it for profit, or we idealize its beauty and preserve it untouched. Although these attitudes appear opposite, they go hand-in-hand; both reflect alienation from our environment. When we limit our discussion to the two extremes of human intervention in Nature, one of which is impossible and the other unsustainable, we deprive ourselves of any opportunity for responsible stewardship. But there is a scarcely explored middle ground between exploitation and protection, and it is here that many answers to our environmental troubles reside.

In spite of the environmental movement, our relationship with Nature continues to weaken, our ecosystems continue to sicken, and our insane consumerism grows more unquenchable. Environmentalism has fallen short in the most fundamental way, failing to appreciably change (or even address) the human relationship to the landscape. The dominant conception of Western environmentalism is one of detached appreciation. We need a new paradigm-- one of attachment and participation. We don't need more concerned intellectuals pondering the importance of nature from third-floor offices; we need people who know the land because they live and work there, who love the woods because it nourishes them. All of our abstract theorizing, meticulous computations, and predictive models mean nothing until we have practical applications for them. Only participation in Nature can produce the intimate knowledge necessary to guide us in establishing a sustainable lifestyle.

Yet there are those who somehow believe that foraging, the oldest and most sustainable occupation on Earth, destroys the environment. They would have us treat the woods as a museum, to be admired but never touched. The most dangerous falsehoods often sneak in unseen, holding hands with a truth they resemble. Such folks may call themselves preservationists, but their irrational fear of human interaction with the landscape is one of the greatest challenges to establishing a healthy pattern of interaction with the natural world. Strictly proscribed limits on the outdoor experience simply keep people indoors, breeding yet greater indifference to the environment.

There are times and places where collecting wild plants should be forbidden, to protect extremely rare or precarious populations. But we are seeing much more than this-- a total onslaught against harvesting wild plants in many areas, as authorities seek to forbid collection where there is simply no ecological basis for this prohibition. The influential and often outspoken anti-foraging faction presents no evidence that gathering food harms the environment. (The rare cases of overharvest are invariably perpetrated by commercial collectors.) Instead, it makes subtle appeals to covert elitism and taps into the long-standing prejudice against hunter-gatherers to support its agenda.

I am deeply offended that many parks bulldoze forests to build tennis courts, ball fields, and even golf courses-- destroying habitat and permanently displacing or killing millions of plants and animals-- but forbid the picking of dandelion, sorrel, and wild lettuce. A parking lot and hiking trail, standard at most Nature preserves, cause far more damage to the ecosystem than allowing plant gathering ever would. And as "Wildman" Steve Brill points out, so does lawnmowing.

This is perhaps an eerie vestige of the feudal system, where the wealthy claimed ownership of the forests and everything they produced as part of their subjugation of the peasantry. Social posturing has long been disguised with specious reasoning and make-believe morality. The real reason that golf is catered to and mushroom collecting forbidden is that one is pursued by the wealthy and one is associated with lower-class rural folks who do hard labor for a living.

[cienie-isengardu]

The Development of Law and Zoro relationship: Wano, Luffy & Zoro Means Troubles…

<Part I: Before Meeting>> <<Part II: Sabaody Archipelago, The First Meeting>> <<Part III: Punk Hazard: The Alliance (A)__(B)>>  <<Part IV: Dressrosa, The Breaking Point (The Plan Failed)__ (Saving Law)__(Protecting Law)__ (Birdcage, Pica and Doflamingo)__ (Aftermath)>> <<Part V: Zou, The Kindred Spirits (Traveling Together)__(Searching for Nakama)__ (Reunion)__ (Ninja-Pirate-Mink-Samurai Alliance)__(The Last Moments before War)>>  Part VI: Wano, Against Emperors (The Untold Journey)__(Luffy & Zoro Means Troubles…)__(...and Law Is Not Happy About That) 

Somehow the alliance got into Wano without enemy notice. There, Kinemon separated his allies into smaller teams, all with their own task at hand. Surprising, during the little flashback of that moment (chapter 909), Law was not seen when the samurai explained situation to Straw Hats:

Kinemon warned Straw Hats they “must pass yourselves off as locals and quietly, quietly go about your duties”. He gave pirates an individual roles:

➣ Zoro, as ronin, Usopp as street salesman and Robin, as geisha, were supposed to infiltrate capital and gather either informations or allies there

➣ Franky, as an apprentice, worked under carpenter who built Kaido’s mansion, in hopes to gain plans of enemy fortress, so the alliance could learn its arrangement before the raid.

➣ Law and Heart Pirates (as far as we were shown at that moment) stayed with samurais in the ruins of the Oden Castle in Kuri region and were stealing food and water from the enemy.

Chapter 918 notes Law was aware about Zoro’s role, however when and how he was informed is not clear. The lack of one of alliance leaders during the meeting between Kinemon and Straw Hats raises questions such as why Trafalgar wasn’t present and did samurai decide to keep knowledge about Zoro, Robin, Franky and Usopp and their tasks to themselves? On one hand, it makes sense. Secrecy was important to secure their plan as best as possible - a matter that will play a bigger role in the upcoming chapters; the less people knew what Straw Hats would be doing, the better chance to avoid information leak. But at the same time, if Law was informed about at least Zoro’s job, why not let him take part in the meeting? Unless he did learn about Zoro’s task after Pirate Hunter became an infamous wanted man, but about that more in a moment.

We may only wonder why Kinemon decided to keep Heart Pirates with himself, instead of sending them straight away undercover like Straw Hats. There are few reasons that could have influenced his decision:

➣ Law’s powers were useful for stealth and stealing. 

➣ The two Supernovas serving Kaido - Hawkins Basil and X-Drake - actually came from North Blue, the same as Trafalgar. How well they knew each other is up to debate, but since all three went to the Grand Line at the same time, it makes sense they at least had some basic knowledge about each other. Which may be a reason why Law stayed with Kinemon instead of playing a similar role to Zoro. 

➣ Another possibility is that Straw Hats could be simply better at pretending to be locals and/or had needed skills. In case of Zoro, the little details presented in manga and SBS suggest he grew up influenced by samurai culture due to his (still not explored) connection to the Shimetsuki clan.

Unfortunately, Zoro - working under the name of Zorojuurou - couldn’t continue his mission, because he killed a corrupt magistrate and most likely other samurais present at that time, thus became an outlaw. Since the knowledge about “murderous ronin” was spread in the whole country, it may explain why (how) Law learned about Zoro’s secret mission. 

Wandering through the wasteland, Zoro met Luffy who finally arrived in Wano.

Luffy barely got to Kaido’s country and he already befriended a local little girl, Tama, who due to poisoned water, fell ill. Straw Hat decided to take her to the nearest village, to seek help. On his way, he met Zoro who at the same time just saved Tsuru (another native person) from bad guys. Soon after that both got into a fight with Basil Hawkins and the Beast Pirates.

Once they managed to run away from pursuit and got into the relatively safe Okobore Town, Straw Hats were noticed by Bepo, Sachi and Penguin, who observed the area from a nearby mountain on which Oden Castle was built.The mentioned Heart Pirates were worried that Straw Hats could start some troubles (chapter 913).

In the end, Heart Pirates decided to not interfere… at least until they saw that Zoro and Luffy were heading into Bakura Town controlled by Kaido’s men and immediately notified Law (chapter 914).

↪ Law was chilling out lying on the ground. It seems he likes resting (or maybe napping?) in his free time, what was already seen before time-skip, when Trafalgar lied on Polar Tang’s deck, using Bepo as a pillow. Maybe Law has problems with irregular sleep (or lack therefore) and/or using Ope Ope no Mi exhausted him so much that, like Zoro, he needs to regenerate his energy by napping/lying down? 

↪ The same as Zoro, Law was surprised by Luffy’s presence in Wano but the similarity ends there. Zoro was delighted when he met Luffy and although he passed on the Kinemon’s warning, he wasn’t much bothered by how they together caused new trouble for the alliance. In contrast, Law wasn’t happy at all. He literally switched from chilling out into full stress/angry mode in less than a few seconds. 

↪ Law immediately and correctly assumed Luffy was going to wreck the havoc. It seems the previous experiences gained in Dressrosa have already borne fruit: Luffy and Zoro together, in enemy land, were bad news. 

↪ The most surprising thing about Law’s reaction is how he called both Luffy and Zoro as “those idiots”. Mainly because at first he was solely angry at Luffy and the prospect of him ruining the plan and then included Zoro as the potential danger. Which in perspective wasn't an irrational reaction and again, Dressrosa proved these two can’t be trusted with following any plan or common sense. Yet at the same time this sharp reaction gives the vibe that Law was for some reason angry at Roronoa (about that more soon). What contrasts with the good relationship they had during the previous arc. 

Law wanted to minimize potential damage done by Luffy and Zoro but was delayed by Bepo, who suddenly felt sick due to eating fish from a poisoned river (chapter 916).

↪ Law here was fully aware of poisoned food and water, he even warned his crew about it. Surprising, Zoro didn’t have any idea about the ecological situation of Wano and both men spent the same amount of time in this country. Either Zoro did not listen to the warning of others OR that matter comes after he left Kinemon’s hideout. In case of latter, it may suggest there was little to no contact between Zoro and other members of the alliance once he became a wanted man. To be fair, Kinemon himself got sick after eating poisoned food, so the revelation about poison could not be known before Straw Hats went undercover.

↪ Another little detail, Bepo felt sick after eating poisoned fish. Zoro, who ate poisoned meat most likely for days, got only some stomach ache, but nothing to stop him from fighting. Law’s tolerance for such poison is unknown, mainly because Ope Ope no Mi would help him remove the toxin from body and, in contrast to Zoro and Bepo, he has knowledge and common sense to not eat poisoned things.

↪ Also, apparently Law has a soft spot for Bepo, the only animal crewmember - another trait he shares with Zoro who himself has a soft spot for Chopper. Trafalgar let Bepo’s sickness delay him when the situation was dire, knowing full well leaving Luffy and Zoro unsupervised for too long was asking for big trouble.

Once his crew member noted that Basil Hawkins was heading to Bakura Town and there already was a fire, Law was pretty shocked by the disturbing change of events.

Despite the pledging of Bepo(?) to not leave him behind, Law finally rushed into town. He didn’t have a clue what was really happening there but attacked the just arrived Hawkins in order to eliminate the threat. As in, eliminate anyone who could recognize him or Straw Hats (chapter 917).

➽ Law actually tried to be sneaky and covered his head with special headgear/straw hat to hide his identity. What suggests he was aware that Basil may recognize him and Straw Hat Supernovas. At the same time, Law is, well, really bad at playing undercover. On Dressrosa he wore jacked with CORAZON on his back alluding to late Donquixote Rosinante but that fight was personal matter and most likely wanted Doffy to know what the fight was all about.  In Wano, he didn’t have that excuse; the fight with Kaido wasn’t his personal quest for vendetta. And yet Law’s idea of hiding his own identity was wearing a kimono with his Jolly Roger on it. Very smart. What may support the theory why Kinemon kept him with himself rather than sending undercover. Law is just bad at this gig and thinking more about it, I don’t remember any time when Trafalgar even bothered to try speak like people of Wano - something that Zoro and Luffy actually have adopted to some extent.  

To take down another Supernova, Law needed using Ope Ope no Mi. The characteristic power and tattoos very soon betrayed his true identity. Law planned to take down Basil, so the man couldn’t report to Kaido about the Heart-Straw Hat pirate alliance. At the same time, Law put faith in Roronoa who knew the plan that he “wouldn’t be stupid enough to let Holdem get crushed” (chapter 918). What implies that despite referring to Zoro as the “idiot” and general pessimistic attitude, Law still assumed Zoro’s presence would be enough to stop Luffy before the worst could happen.

➽ Once again, Law was addressing Zoro as “Roronoa”,instead by his name. Which departs from information published in SBS vol. 72 explaining what Law calls the various members of Straw Hat crew. Back then, Zoro and Nami were the only two allies he called by first name instead of surname or nickname:

In the case of Nami (whose surname was never revealed), it makes sense to use her given name yet Zoro was the only one male ally Law addressed in such a way. Even Luffy, who from a narrative standpoint is the closest person to Trafalgar, is constantly called Straw Hat-ya. Why the special approach to Zoro and why change it right now? The most likely reason for the switch of speaking pattern was Law’s anger (but about that more in next chapter). Anyway, an interesting detail, how Law’s way to call Zoro is related to his mood and/or stress level.

➽ Law proved to be good tactician, but at the same it seems he always assume the worst scenario to happen. Which I guess is one of the main reasons Trafalgar is always so stressed? In contrast, Zoro usually takes bad news calmly - he doesn’t like them, but he has a habit of leaving things to luck/fate instead of overthinking all possible solutions and outcomes. The difference in planning (or lack therefore) could make Zoro and Law clash with each other albeit so far, we saw little to nothing in that regard.

Sadly for Law, Zoro did not stop Luffy from beating Holdem. He wasn’t happy that Luffy did it, but didn’t regret it either. Law, on other hand, was angry and/or stressed by the situation, especially when Basil admitted he already met Straw Hats.

➽ Again, Law thought about Luffy and Zoro as “those idiots”. To be fair, he had a good reason to be angry because of course, Straw Hats wrecked havoc that was reported to Jack - the Beast Pirate responsible for poisoning Mink on Zou - and in result, exposed alliance presence in Wano.

The fight between Law and Basil was then unexpectedly stopped by a speeding cart of stolen food. Stolen by no one other than Zoro and befriended samurai Kiku. Roronoa was nice enough to call the fighting men to get out of their way… once again, Law was shocked by the turn of events. 

The fight between Law and Hawkins was stopped; Law didn’t manage to eliminate the enemy nor prevent information leakage about alliance presence in Wano. He almost was run over by a speeding cart with stolen food (another “crime” against Orochi & Kaido, which Straw Hats committed in his absence). No wonder why Law was so pissed of at Zoro.

About that more in next chapter: ...and Law Is Not Happy About That

[theredhairedmonkey]

Claudia—Just what’s so bad about Dark Magic anyway?

Ah, Claudia. Everyone’s favorite dorky Dark Mage. Even as she continues her journey to villainy, we can’t help but find her at least a little adorable.

She’s undoubtedly likable, which makes a lot of what she does even more unsettling. We’re used to villains like Viren, who are so obviously villains even if they have somewhat good intentions.

But Claudia? She seems to have a good heart and cares about people outside of simply what they can do for her. Even if she may not reciprocate Callum’s feelings, she’s still clearly fond of him.

In S2, she’s genuinely supportive of her brother, telling him that them being alive matters more than succeeding in their missions. She also comforts Ezran and even helps mend his relationship with Callum, reminding him just how lucky they are to have each other.

As I lay out here, Claudia very much resembles Callum in the earlier chapters; both are bookish nerds, adorably awkward, and with an affinity towards magic. And while Callum starts to move away from this resemblance, we can see why Claudia is so likable.

Claudia can be caring and sweet. That’s why it’s so tragic and painful to watch her continue to cross moral lines, to the point that she is now thoroughly antagonistic to Team Zym, with any hope of total redemption being slim at best.

Now, I can’t talk about Claudia without first talking about Dark Magic. You see, while Dark Magic is terrible, the show doesn’t explicitly lay out exactly why it’s terrible. It merely illustrates how it works, portrays people using it for a variety of reasons, and then lets the audience decide how it feels about it. This is all intentional—Aaron and Justin have expressly stated they didn’t want to push too hard on the point that Dark Magic is wrong, instead leaving it for fans to make up their own minds. As a result, some fans sincerely believe there’s nothing wrong with it.

And that’s why we have Claudia. Someone who is sweet and sincere, relatable enough that you picture being friends with.

Someone who also sees nothing wrong with Dark Magic, defends using it, and even tries to use it for supposedly good reasons.

Because there’s no explicit reason given for why Dark Magic is so uniquely evil, the onus is on us, the viewers, to figure this out on our own.

There have been several fan attempts at explaining why Dark Magic is so bad, but for me, at least, I always felt we were missing something.

It might be wrong because it requires Dark Mages to sacrifice innocent creatures. But then again, humans in the real world consume animals all the time.

The logical response to this is that unlike, for instance, eating, Dark Magic is not natural nor necessary. However, we do all sorts of unnatural things with animals as well. For instance, we’ve created animal glue, whale oil for lamps, and leather from cattle. We’ve used creatures as working animals as well as for their cells to develop cures and vaccines. Without arguing that Dark Magic is defensible, this just helps illustrate the larger point that there must be something else that makes Dark Magic worse than any of this.

Another argument I’ve heard is that it permanently destroys magical habitats. The reason why the Human Kingdoms are much less magical than Xadia is that Dark Mages have poached and pillaged all the creatures they could. This could all very well be true, but it’s also what human beings do on the regular in the real world; as a rule, wherever industrial civilization lays down its roots, animal extinctions follow, intentionally or not. If Dark Magic is supposed to be an indictment of the way our society works today and the ecological problems we’ve caused, then we deserve it.

But many of us (hopefully) are working to change that, even if it means making life harder for us. The solution to climate change ultimately comes in the form of learning to live sustainably and in harmony with the world around us. One day, we’ll find a balance to our way of life, but if we can, why can’t Dark Mages? Why can’t Dark Magic users learn to moderate and regulate their behavior the way we could, and sustainably find ways to use the same magic that elves and dragons take for granted?

It also doesn’t help that characters who hate Dark Magic the most are also hypocritical about it. Sol Regem argues that Dark Magic causes the death of innocent creatures…while threatening to burn down a city filled with innocent people. Perhaps he opposes Dark Magic, not for ethical or benevolent reasons, but because it shifts the balance of power too much in favor of these so-called “lesser beings.” So, we can’t take his assessment of Dark Magic with anything more than a grain of salt.

But, at the end of the day, Dark Magic is a bad thing. Even if we can’t place our finger on exactly why, we know there’s just something wrong with it.

And that’s where Claudia comes in.

She too doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with Dark Magic— Why should she? It’s no different than anything else humans do, it helps keep people alive, and keeps us from starving and being helpless. Whether you eat them or take their magic, they’re just a resource.

But over time, as she relies more on Dark Magic as her universal problem-solver, we see her cross more and more ethical boundaries.

In most of the first two seasons, Claudia’s uses of Dark Magic come entirely from whatever she happens to carry in her bag or little critters she finds here or there.

And, for the most part, she tries to do the right thing. Claudia understands how powerful Zym could one day become, and from her perspective, there is a risk that he could, in her words, reign “death and destruction down on all of us.”

Claudia honestly believes that finding the Dragon Prince and bringing the princes home is what’s best for Katolis. Initially, she believes that Rayla had kidnapped the boys, and later she still insists her actions are for the greater good.

She’s willing to cross certain lines, such as manipulating and betraying Callum and Ezran, but shows signs that she regrets doing so.

But she starts off at crossing these relatively smaller moral lines, before working her way to more reprehensible behaviors. By the end of S2, she crosses a line when she uses a living creature to cure Soren’s paralysis.

After this moment, we see that she’s willing to justify an ever-growing list of horrible actions without any regrets. Whether it’s overthrowing and imprisoning Ezran, wiping out Lux Aurea, or turning the entire army into mindless rage-fueled minions, and even possibly letting Viren’s illusion strike down Ezran.

By the time she resurrects Viren, most likely by using a poor unfortunate elf who stumbled upon her, she’s past the point of feeling remorse for what she feels she has to do.

And why?

She places all of her faith in Viren because he’s family. She values her family above all else, and finds that Dark Magic is an easy, reliable way to keep it all together.

As a result, her character’s arc helps show what’s fundamentally wrong with Dark Magic—because it’s such an easy fix to all her problems, Claudia is tempted to lean on Dark Magic in more unethical ways.

In Lord Acton’s famous maxim, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And Dark Magic is power incarnate.

Dark Magic is far more versatile than Primal Magic. Whereas Primal Magic lets a mage use spells by harmonizing with nature, Dark Magic is simply about harnessing power in its raw form.

It’s not merely a shortcut that lets you bypass having an Arcanum or a Primal Stone. Certain practices within Dark Magic are not possible elsewhere.

If Callum had mastered Sky Magic by the time Rayla goes to save Pyrrah, he could have made short work of Soren and his forces with his winged form, but actually freeing the dragon from its chains would have still been no easy task.

But with Dark Magic, all Callum needed was a spell. A single spell and the chains are turned into snakes. The soldiers are driven away, and the dragon is free.

You can’t do that with Primal Magic.

We haven’t seen a limit to what Dark Magic can do for you, provided you have the materials. It can swap souls.

Or take them.

It can provide safe passage across the Breach.

It could taint or even destroy sources of Primal Magic.

Dark Magic isn’t bad just because it relies on sacrificing creatures. It’s bad because it tempts users with the power to redesign and reorganize the fabric of the world around them, potentially at the expense of Primal Sources themselves.

Dark!Callum sums up this temptation perfectly:

“You can have unlimited power. And you can choose what to do with that power. You can make a real difference in the world!”

And sadly, it’s a temptation that Claudia falls for time and time again. Once Claudia wields this power, she’s tempted to abuse it, even if it just begins as an attempt to protect her loved ones. And the more she abuses it, the harder it is to stop.

She shows that the temptation to use Dark Magic and how it distorts the world is what makes the practice so terrible and so terrifying that it shouldn’t be used in any circumstance.

@batfamfan1(who gave me permission to bring up our conversation here) had argued that Claudia’s use of Dark Magic was different from Viren and Aaravos, because she at least uses Dark Magic for good (or what she sees as good). That is, she cures or protects her family.

However, I’d argue that it’s not as simple as that. Claudia indeed sacrifices a deer because she wanted to cure Soren, but had she ever considered what Soren wanted? There’s a reason why, for instance, doctors disclose all relevant facts and treatments to a patient and let them make an informed decision, even if the doctor believes only one of those treatments is the best option. It’s not just about a cure, it’s about the agency of the patient. This becomes even more important when it’s not a professional responsibility to a patient, but a duty to respect the free will of someone you love.

Claudia never respects Soren’s agency. Even when he’s come to terms with his condition, she has not. She wants to keep trying to find a cure even while he’s beginning to move on. And, when she does find a cure, she never tells him about it beforehand, never tells him what it would cost, and never tries to get his approval.

This is different from Rayla in 2x08 who, in spite of knowing it’s a bad idea to let Ezran leave on his own, lets him go. Or Callum, who, in spite of thinking that Rayla staying on the Spire is a bad idea, simply lays out all the relevant information to Rayla and lets her make the decision for herself.

This is because, when you love or care about someone, that has to include letting them make their own choices, even if you don’t agree.

Claudia never does this with Soren because, again, it’s not about him, but about her. She has a personal need, however tragic, to keep her family together and healthy.

She’ll do what she can to fill that need, even if she has to play goddess to do so.

For that reason, she isn’t using Dark Magic for someone else’s benefit but her own. Much like Viren, whose stated goal to defend humanity was really just a cover for his desire to be powerful, Claudia’s goal to protect her family is really about protecting her state of mind. To do that, she needs to become powerful as well.

Her inability to see just what’s wrong with Dark Magic, combined with her need to maintain this portrait of a healthy family alive, means she will always be tempted to try another Dark Magic spell that will simply cure everything and will never look back once she tries it.

This is different than, for instance, Callum. As I describe here, he’s seen the world that Rayla shows him and begins to see magic the way she does. It’s not a tool; it’s a phenomenon, a vibrance or a spirit to things.

He understands, at least in an unstated way, that there’s something fundamentally wrong about Dark Magic, because it threatens that vibrancy.

Interestingly, unlike Claudia, who sees it as an easy solution to everything, Callum is suspicious because it’s too easy:

“But that’s just it! Too easy! Even though I know it’s wrong.”

Because of this, Claudia’s character arc helps illuminate what’s wrong with Dark Magic, even if the show doesn’t go out of its way to tell us. It’s a temptation for people who want to be powerful, and it makes them just powerful enough to abuse it.

And before you know it, you’ve lost your way.

[severelynerdysheep]

gaytheiestbandkid

My last response below, because while I respect that you blocked me (though I have no clue why) the fact that you did you after making your own response that I then cant respond to via reblog is a tad iffy. And I at least feel that I should be able to post my own response anywhoo even if I cant do so directly. If not only cause I spent a heck of a time writing this “^^

“ done yet? if you have the idea that there’s a “carnist bias” in my post then you’ve got me all wrong. i wholeheartedly support taking down the animal agriculture industry.”

Well it certainly looks like you don't support the abolishment of the animal ag industry since you pay for it when its possible and practicable to avoid doing so. You literally called the social justice movement dedicated to taking down this industry along with every other form of animal exploitation a “cult” and you make a post filled with lies and misrepresentation about animal agriculture and plant based diets. As well as promoting as supporting the needless consumption of animal flesh/secretions as a “personal choice tho”. If that isn't bias then water isn't wet.

“ by means that actually work rather than putting a band-aid on a gushing arterial wound, by means that people can get on board with rather than moral absolutism.”

Any solution which doesn't include the avoidance of all forms of animal exploitation as far as possible an practicable as the very least that people with moral agency have a moral obligation to do. Any solution which spreads lies an misinformation about the form of injustice attempting to be abolished, any solution which places sole blame on capitalism, which absolutely doesn't work with animal exploitation since is would exists in any system. Is not a solution in any sense of the word.

By your logic its fine to support/inflict violence against women because having the basic requirement that people shouldn't inflict  violence/exploitation absent others as individuals is just a “band aid” for a gushing would in any social justice movement. Instead of holding said people who claim to oppose said injustice while inflicting it accountable as adult in control of their own actions. And yes being opposed to people needlessly exploiting, abusing/torturing and murdering other sentient beings of another species for their own personal pleasure is intrinsically an issue of rights and wrongs. Just like its an issue of rights and wrongs when victims are humans because all victims are sentient. If saying needless violence, exploitation and murder is wrong is moral absolutism. Then I would hope that the vast majority of people would happily sign up to stand on that hill.  

“ and your response to the “buying local” point is clearly emotion-based and disingenuous. the point was clearly about environmental impact, yet you made it about the poow suffewing animaws”

Fist of all, you simply said “the only way to truly have a low-impact diet “ So you could have been talking about either the ethical or environmental impact. Secondly, you seemed to have missed the whole of the part before I talked about the ethics (which is the most important issue, and its simply disgusting that you would joke around about that. Yes they are suffering and people like yourself are responsible) And I will link to the section where I explained why your “buy local” for the environment argument is wrong.

So locality means very little when it comes the the environmental impact of a food, with transport costs being just one small fraction of the overall footprint of a food item as It has been demonstrated that an average of 83% of a food product’s carbon footprint is caused during production. And transportation accounts for only 11% of the product’s greenhouse gas emissions. This means that choosing a plant-based option will always have a far lower impact than even the flesh of locally raised, exploited, abused/tortured and murdered animals, even when it is imported from abroad. Simply put, the idea that “buying local” in in any way comparable to (let alone better than) doing your best to avoid supporting the injustice that is animal agriculture as a consumer when it comes to either envionemtat impact is simply not based on facts.

“i don’t remember saying people should go out of their way to buy meat locally? only that they should buy locally in general if they claim to be making near-zero impact”

I mean in a post dedicated to spreading falsehoods about animal agriculture, I think its pretty safe to assume that you were trying to claim that a diet than including animal flesh/secretions that is entirely locally brought has a lower impact on the environment than a plant based diet which isn't fully local. Which isn't true. I’m happy to be corrected though, if you weren't saying that, and you recognise that even a fully local diet that includes animal flesh/secretions has a much bigger impact than a non local plant based diet.

“ by holding those in power rather than the everyday civilian accountable for massive-scale ecological destruction (telling me the 71% statistic is about fossil fuels in no way undermines the broader point of bringing it up.”

Your specific claim was “100 companies are responsible for over 70% of human-linked carbon emissions; as an everyday civilian, your carbon footprint is very nearly zero compared to that of big corporations, which are the real problem to begin with” This is a complete misunderstanding of the study and absolutely undermines the broader argument that you were trying to make. Since it in no way supports that argument. The study shows that 100 companies produced 71% of the fossil fuels which are then used by other industries and by consumers via their individual actions. 100 companies aren’t causing 71% of emissions, they’re producing 71% of fossil fuels. Those are completely different things. Completely different. Heck, the animal flesh industry (the industry exploded in this study) is responsible for as many GHG emissions as 70 of these companies combined. An industry which is exists entirely due to supply and demand. Individuals carbon footprints are included to make up both those 71% of fossil fuels as well as the GHG emissions from the animal flesh industry, let alone other animal ag/animal exploitation industries.

“ your pound-for-pound examination of food costs is yet another poorly-thought-out point without any nuance. 1) the low pound-for-pound costs of plant based foods are typically attributed to bulk prices and 2) you can’t ignore calorie density. someone unemployed or living paycheck to paycheck can feed themselves for longer on a $5 bag of chicken nuggets than on a bulk purchase of plant-based foods, many of which will go bad within the same time frame anyways.“

Again, this isn't true. I wasn't talking about pound just as in weight, I was talking about pound as in money. So say an average daily intake of 2500 calories is generally the cheapest when it comes to pounds (as in £) worldwide compared to the same amount of calories on a diet that included animal flesh and secretions. Which is one reason why the poorest population subsist on primarily plant based diets. This is because the cheapest items are the staple items such as the rice, pasta, potatoes, beans and lentils, tinned veg/fruit, oats, etc. All of which are staple items which are included in the diet of those who consume animal flesh anyway. For example, people can feed themselves for longer on pasta and tomato sauce, or rice and beans, than a bag of breaded chicken flesh. And the bag of breaded chicken flesh will go of sooner than the former foods. with the former being full meals as opposed to breaded chicken flesh which you would eat with something else.

Sure, bulk buying is a great way to shop if you can, but even if you aren't talking about bulk buying, a plant based diet is still the cheapest worldwide. As I explained in my original response. Not surprising then that double the percent of vegans are in the lowest come bracket compared to middle and higher incomes.

And your original claim was that many people cannot go plant based (or vegan) because vegan products are more expensive than their non vegan counterparts. Never mind that fact that you don't have to eat plant based meats, cheeses, ice cream etc.. of a plant based diet.

But lets use these plant based alternatives to compare to their non vegan counterparts for a sec:

~  At Asda you can buy 8 plant based burgers from their own brand frozen range much cheaper than Asda’s own brand frozen animal flesh burgers. 1.75p for 8 plant based burgers vs 2.00p for only 4 animal flesh burgers. And this is the same for pretty much every UK Food store brand.

~ Let’s look at cheese and look at its costs at Tesco, another popular supermarket. A 200g block of own brand Tesco cheese is exactly the same price as 200g of vegan cheese being sold.

Of course if you include these plant based products it will be more expensive than sticking to the staples, your diet will probably be closer to that of someone who doesn't eat a plant based diet. But if you stick to the staples then yes, its absolutely cheaper. And I did link to lot of sources of more information which it looks like you didn't check out unfortunately.  

!i’m hesitant to bring up this point because it really does get misused by non-vegans a lot, but the industries for plant-based foods aren’t the pinnacle of morality. many plant food industries– including those that vegans partake in far more than non-vegans, subject workers in developing areas to literal slave labor in downright horrible conditions.”

Can you tell me which specific industries vegans take part in more than non vegans which are ethically worse than the non vegan equivalent? Keeping in mind both that no vegan claims to be 100% cruelty free as a consumer, and that the diet of a non vegan includes far more plant crops (and therefore more crop labour/worker exploitation) than a vegans does. Nobody is saying that being vegan is the most you can do, its literally the least you can and should do. Its the baseline, the starting line, the very basic requirements for anyone who claims to have consideration for others. And really, I don't see what this has to do with any of the falsehoods made in the OP? It’s is a pretty big deflection it seems from any of the claims made in the OP.

“ there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. getting hung up on the specifics of what kinds of consumption are/aren’t ethical implies that absolutely everything we eat or use or otherwise consume is a product of exploitation, misses the point, and designates the public as the public enemy rather than the ones running the system.”

Are you trying to use the statement “there's no ethical consumption under capitalism” to justify the individual actions of consumers place all of the blame on capitalism? Because that is completely bananas.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

This fab article by WorkingClass Vegan

A great post on this very site by @mickibuddy here

Quick edit: @mohs-hardness-scale I saw you reblogged my response with a  response of you own, though I can only see the first part of your reply that says “its not my job to provide you with sources. Google exists” since your friend blocked me and deleted almost all notes on their post. I wonder why. But please feel free to repeat your response via reblog of this post So I can have the common curtesy of being able to respond. Or if you don't want a public dialogue my ask box is always open. 

[tinyshe]

Story at-a-glance

When vaccines that don’t provide robust immunity are overused, they allow viruses to mutate in potentially hazardous ways. COVID variants with measurably different behavior emerged in mid-December 2020, which coincides with the rollout of the first COVID shots

While variants were identified in various areas before the shots were introduced in those same regions, vaccine makers were conducting large-scale trials on thousands of people in those areas well before the shots became available to the public, and before variants were detected

The COVID shots do not prevent infection or transmission, hence the variants created inside vaccinated individuals will spread. This hypothesis was confirmed in a 2015 study, which found that “imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens”

Research shows fully vaccinated individuals who develop breakthrough infections with the Delta variant have the same viral loads as unvaccinated individuals infected with this virus, hence both groups can spread the infection to the same degree

Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show 74% of COVID-19 diagnoses in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated

Will mass injections against COVID-19 encourage the mutation of more dangerous versions of SARS-CoV-2? In the video above, WhatsHerFace questions why the U.K. government is procuring 6 million pounds’ worth of body bags, or “temporary body storage,” even as government officials announce that the current vaccination rate has “created a protective wall” against the infection.1

If that’s true, why are they expecting an “excess death scenario” requiring massive numbers of body bags? The procurement agreement will remain in effect for a period of four years. Does the U.K. government know something they’re not sharing with the public?

Have they peeked at the actual science and realized that mass vaccination during an active pandemic might encourage mutations that evade vaccine-induced defenses, or that the gene-modifying injections might render the vaccinated more susceptible to serious illness and death through a mechanism known as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) or the more descriptive term, paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE)?

Where Are the Variants Coming From, and Why Now?

WhatsHerFace highlights some of the answers given by health professionals on social media when asked why no problematic variants emerged during the first year, when no COVID injections were available, and only popped up after the mass injection campaign started.

According to one such answer, “Our surveillance sucked in the beginning and it takes time for variants to come about but once they come they become rampant.” Interestingly, as noted in a February 15, 2021, article in The Conversation,2 variants with “measurably different behavior” did not emerge until mid-December 2020, which just so happens to be the exact time at which the first COVID shots were rolled out.

Fact checkers have tried to debunk any connection between COVID shot rollouts and the emergence of variants by showing that variants were identified in various areas before the shots were introduced in those same regions. However, as noted by WhatsHerFace, vaccine makers were conducting large-scale trials in those areas well before the shots became available to the public.

For example, Pfizer enrolled more than 46,000 participants in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany and Turkey,3 and Oxford/AstraZeneca injected 23,000 participants in the U.K., Brazil and South Africa.

“Now this is very interesting,” WhatsHerFace says, “because you’ll actually find that each of the areas where variants first emerged just happen to be the same countries where the trials took place.”

The Backstory of the Delta Variant

The Delta variant (B.1.617.2) was initially identified in India December 1 and 11, 2020. While the COVID jabs were not rolled out in India until mid-January 2021, Phase 3 trials for Biotech’s Covaxin were initiated in Bharat, India, November 16, 2020. By December 22, 2020, 22,500 volunteers had received the jab.

On a side note, the Indian government released Covaxin to the public before Phase 3 trials were completed and in the absence of any safety or efficacy data. According to some vaccinologists, the emergence of potentially more problematic variants following mass vaccination rollouts during an active pandemic is precisely what you’d expect.

Dr. Geert Vanden Bosche,4 whose resume includes work with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, published an open letter5 to the World Health Organization, March 6, 2021.

In the letter, Bosche warned that implementing a global mass vaccination campaign during the height of the pandemic could create an “uncontrollable monster” where evolutionary pressure will force the emergence of new and potentially more dangerous mutations.

“There can be no doubt that continued mass vaccination campaigns will enable new, more infectious viral variants to become increasingly dominant and ultimately result in a dramatic incline in new cases despite enhanced vaccine coverage rates. There can be no doubt either that this situation will soon lead to complete resistance of circulating variants to the current vaccines,” Bossche wrote.6

‘Leaky’ Vaccines Promote Mutations

In short, when vaccines that don’t provide robust immunity are overused, they allow viruses to mutate in potentially hazardous ways. When you overuse an antibiotic that fails to eradicate the bacteria, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are allowed to flourish.

In the same way, overuse of a vaccine that doesn’t provide immunity can allow the virus to mutate inside vaccinated individuals into variants that evade vaccine-induced immunity.

And, as we already know, the COVID shots do not prevent infection or transmission, hence the variants created inside vaccinated individuals will spread, attacking both vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. This hypothesis was confirmed in a 2015 study7 in PLOS Biology, which found that “imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens.” As explained by the authors:8

“There is a theoretical expectation that some types of vaccines could prompt the evolution of more virulent (‘hotter’) pathogens. This idea follows from the notion that natural selection removes pathogen strains that are so ‘hot’ that they kill their hosts and, therefore, themselves.

Vaccines that let the hosts survive but do not prevent the spread of the pathogen relax this selection, allowing the evolution of hotter pathogens to occur. This type of vaccine is often called a leaky vaccine. When vaccines prevent transmission, as is the case for nearly all vaccines used in humans, this type of evolution towards increased virulence is blocked.

But when vaccines leak, allowing at least some pathogen transmission, they could create the ecological conditions that would allow hot strains to emerge and persist.

This theory proved highly controversial when it was first proposed over a decade ago, but here we report experiments with Marek’s disease virus in poultry that show that modern commercial leaky vaccines can have precisely this effect: they allow the onward transmission of strains otherwise too lethal to persist.

Thus, the use of leaky vaccines can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease.”

This research was reported in a number of mainstream media publications, including Live Science,9 Newsweek10 and National Geographic.11 Quanta Magazine also took a deep dive into it in May 2018, closing the article with the following observation:12

“… the most crucial need right now is for vaccine scientists to recognize the relevance of evolutionary biology to their field. Last month, when more than 1,000 vaccine scientists gathered in Washington, D.C., at the World Vaccine Congress, the issue of vaccine-induced evolution was not the focus of any scientific sessions.

Part of the problem, [disease ecologist Andrew] Read says, is that researchers are afraid: They’re nervous to talk about and call attention to potential evolutionary effects because they fear that doing so might fuel more fear and distrust of vaccines by the public …”

The COVID shots, which do not make you immune against the virus but rather only lessen symptoms of infection, are a perfect example of leaky vaccines that can allow the virus to mutate within the mildly ill host, who then transmits the mutated virus to others. In this way, the shots can fuel a never-ending chain of outbreaks.

NPR Highlights How Vaccines Drive Viral Evolution

In a February 9, 2021, article,13 NPR highlighted this risk, stating that “vaccines could drive the evolution of more COVID-19 mutants.” According to NPR science correspondent Richard Harris, “the virus is always mutating. And if one happens to produce a mutation that makes it less vulnerable to the vaccine, that virus could simply multiply in a vaccinated individual.”

Simply having a virus mutating inside you isn’t necessarily dangerous, however. The viral load also plays an important role in determining how potentially dangerous a vaccinated individual who carries a mutation might be. If your viral load is low, the risk of you transmitting the mutated virus to others is also low. If your viral load is high, then the risk of transmission increases accordingly.

When it comes to the Delta variant, there’s bad news for those who have received one or more COVID shots, as research14 shows fully vaccinated individuals who develop breakthrough infections with the Delta variant have the same viral loads as unvaccinated individuals who are infected with this virus. As reported by Reuters August 2, 2021:15

“Among people infected by the Delta variant of the coronavirus, fully vaccinated people with ‘breakthrough’ infections may be just as likely as unvaccinated people to spread the virus to others, new research suggests. The higher the amount of coronavirus in the nose and throat, the more likely the patient will infect others.

In one Wisconsin county, after Delta became predominant, researchers analyzed16 viral loads on nose-and-throat swab samples obtained when patients were first diagnosed. They found similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with levels often high enough to allow shedding of infectious virus.

‘A key assumption’ underlying current regulations aimed at slowing COVID-19 transmission ‘is that those who are vaccinated are at very low risk of spreading the virus to others,’ said study coauthor Katarina Grande of Public Health Madison & Dane County in Madison, Wisconsin.

The findings, however, indicate ‘that vaccinated people should take steps to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus to others,’ she added.”

Lambda Variant Shows Signs of Vaccine Resistance

The latest coronavirus on the block is Lambda, which was first identified in Peru. It’s now spreading through South America. Like the Delta variant, Lambda is more infectious than the original SARS-CoV-2 virus. Unlike Delta, it appears more resistant to vaccine-induced antibodies.

According to Reuters,17 three spike protein mutations “help it resist neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies.” While some claim the emergence of Delta and Lambda is justification for a third booster shot, Rockefeller University researchers point out that a third dose might raise the number of antibodies, but it won’t improve their ability to neutralize viruses.18,19

If a third dose can’t neutralize any of the variants any better than two doses, then we’re back at the beginning of this vicious cycle where imperfect neutralization drives additional mutation.

The Rockefeller University paper also highlights the superior protection offered by natural immunity, which is what you get after you’ve recovered from an infection. According to the authors, “memory antibodies selected over time by natural infection have greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination.”

Most of the identified cases of Covid-19 in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, in July (74%) were among fully vaccinated people. Most, but not all, had the Delta variant. Additionally, four of five hospitalized patients were fully vaccinated. Only one was not fully vaccinated. ~ Sharyl Attkisson

For transparency, one of the coauthors, Michel Nussenzweig, told Reuters that if an updated injection capable of protecting against one or more specific variants were to become available, “then that would be the choice."

I mention that, because the competing interest statement on that paper reveals the Rockefeller University “has filed a provisional patent application in connection with this work … (US patent 63/021,387). The patent has been licensed by Rockefeller University to Bristol Meyers Squib.”

An identical competing interest statement can also be found on other recent papers, including a preprint paper20 titled “Development of Potency, Breadth and Resilience to Viral Escape Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies.”

At the time of writing, I got nothing but error messages when trying to access the U.S. patent office to confirm what U.S. patent 63/021,387 might be, but based on the papers bearing this competing interest statement, it sounds like the Rockefeller University might be patenting a new COVID shot against variants.

First COVID Shots Appear Ineffective Against Newer Variants

At the same time that Moderna and Pfizer raise prices on their individual COVID shots by 10% and 25% respectively,21 evidence of their ineffectiveness continues to mount.

In a July 30, 2021, report,22 Sharyl Attkisson cited data23 from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which show that 74% of COVID-19 diagnoses in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, between July 6 through July 25, 2021, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.

“The report contradicts multiple false reports that have claimed the vaccines are ‘100% effective’ in preventing hospitalization,” Attkisson writes.24

“It also contradicts false reports that have implied vaccinated people are not spreading Covid-19. According to CDC, the fully vaccinated are showing just as high of a ‘viral load’ as unvaccinated people who get infected.

CDC published new data25 on the topic in its weekly report. It says that most of the identified cases of Covid-19 in a Barnstable County, Massachusetts, town, in July (74%) were among fully vaccinated people.

Most, but not all, had the Delta variant. Additionally, four of five hospitalized patients were fully vaccinated. Only one was not fully vaccinated. Today, CDC also acknowledged that Covid-19 viral load is ‘similarly high’ in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. That's a result, say officials, of the Delta variant.

From the start, virologists said that there would be natural variants to Covid-19. They also accurately predicted that effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines would wear down in a matter of months, not years. Now, CDC is confirming that the current Covid-19 vaccines are not working effectively against Covid-19.

In contrast, the millions of Americans who have fought off Covid-19 infections, either with or without symptoms, are proving to have greater and longer lasting immunity, so far, than those who have been vaccinated. That, too, was predicted by virologists.”

Americans are now told the Delta variant is a pandemic among the unvaccinated, even though the data doesn’t support this claim. The CDC appears to be trying to prop up this narrative by not reporting breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals unless they are hospitalized or die.

Even then, they acknowledge them only if they have a positive PCR test run at a cycle threshold (CT) below 28,26 whereas unvaccinated people are still tested at a CT of 40 or above. The higher the CT, the greater the chance of a false positive.

Israeli Data Show Waning Effectiveness of Pfizer Shot

Israel is now recommending a third booster shot for people over the age of 60, as data27 show the Pfizer injection is only 39% effective (relative risk reduction) against the Delta variant, down from 64% relative effectiveness two weeks earlier.

As of August 2, 2021, 66.9% of Israelis had received at least one dose of Pfizer’s injection; 62.2% had received two doses.28 A day earlier, August 1, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.29 Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

Alternative Treatments

In closing, remember there are several different treatment protocols for COVID-19 that appear just as effective for variants as for the original virus, including the following:

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’s I-MASS Prevention and At-Home Treatment protocol

The FLCCC’s I-MASK+ Prevention and Early Outpatient Treatment protocol

The FLCCC’s I-RECOVER management protocol for long-haul COVID-19 syndrome

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper30 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Levy believes nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be an invaluable strategy for combating spike protein toxicity31 because, in addition to being a powerful antiviral, it will also augment and speed up cellular healing, in part by improving oxygenation

[swordoforion]

Orion Digest №29 — The Imperative to Fight Against War and Oppression

The world faces a clear and present danger — the quest for greater power. That lofty goal of being raised above others, of being at the top, is one people have sought after for all of human history — and as a result, we have hardly ever gone a year without war, and the concept of being born in a comfortable life without struggling against disadvantage are left to chance. It’s not as if life has to be this way — everyone in the world has a need, and society in its most ideal would serve to use the resources around us to make those needs fulfilled. But even if ‘world peace’ is a goal everyone would like to promote, our world’s current power structure has proven time and time again to be incapable and incompetent at the simple task of achieving it.

World peace is by no means a push of a button, but compared to all we have done, it is relatively simple. We’ve evaporated cities, dug trenches that connect oceans, created vast cities and libraries from the forests and plains we were born into. I speak to you now over a vast, global system of communication accomplished through machines in the sky, available simultaneously wherever you are in the world. To understand that no one can win in the end by trying to create imbalance, by trying to push agendas onto others without effective communication, is a concept we try to teach to toddlers, yet it is something that the nations and factions of the world cannot bring themselves to grasp through the fog of the narrative they have built. Call it protection, call it a crusade, but in the end it’s greed and stubbornness.

Right now, across the world, people are at each other’s throats because the idea of coexisting is intolerable to them. The states of Israel and Palestine wage war against each other over ancient land, stolen and fought for over the course of thousands of years. The insistence upon Israel as a sovereign state rather than the integration of both into a state based on structure and not religious determination keeps the citizens of both nations in fear and anger — a bloodbath in the making all for allies to make a profit and meet a quota. Further east within Eurasia, the People’s Republic of China cracks down upon its citizens with violent force and censorship, undermining the basis of their argument by turning into the very monster secessionists make them out to be. Rather than hear out the claims of their citizens, they choose instead to use live fire, tear gas, and media silencing to solve issues — plugging a leak while creating ten more. Across the ocean, the United States finds itself unable to answer the problems of increasing gun violence, ecological destruction, public health risks, and the incompetence of its own justice system due to the idea that any give will allow the “other party” to gain ground, and thus we must fester in our national stalemate.

The list goes on and on, but the problem remains the same — the world powers as we know them now, whether economic or political, have lost touch with the people they represent, and are so lost in the world they know that they will never achieve world peace. Fighting and scheming around others for the good of their own citizens is their modus operandi, but they cannot see that even their own citizens are losing faith. Worse still, as they fight enemies abroad, they fight their constituents at home, until the question really becomes “who are they fighting for?” This conflict, these wars, this suppression of outcry and questioning loses any inherent sense of morality, and one thing becomes clear — modern government has become incompetent. Perhaps it always was, and the previous millennia were just a story of corrupted growth into what we are today.

So long as people suffer, as long as innocent civilians bleed and die and go hungry because of the conflict of factions and governments, we have a moral imperative to find a better way, and to achieve change as quickly and efficiently as possible. This question of how to build a better world is not just an abstract thought — it is a solution to a real and present danger, a ticking timebomb where every second costs lives. We’ve stumbled as an international society enough times throughout human history to know better, but those in power see a global society as a standoff where only the foolish put their gun down first, rather than a community where everyone has needs, and working together logically, we can distribute the resources and assistance to make sure all those needs are filled.

This isn’t a problem any one nation is responsible for — every nation contributes to it, and every nation must stand down or be made to stand down. So long has mistrust been the way of the world that it is hard to fathom ever letting our guard down, and surely, if one nation were to let themselves be open, another might come in and become opportunistic, unconvinced that every other nation would follow the first’s example. The first nation would then learn to not trust the others, and because of that shared belief that all others would take advantage in a moment of weakness, no one would step forward in the first place. So, if the current existing governments are not willing to sacrifice power for the sake of using it for the greater good of helping and healing the world, they should not be entrusted with it.

It is our imperative specifically to make and fight for change while others suffer, because complacency with unequal and unjust distribution of power and resources makes one yet another resource to add to the wealth of the corrupt. If you simply feel anger but continue along the same path, you will still have serviced that which you hate — another brick lain in the tower. There is no sense of neutrality — we must act together in the interest of ending bloodshed across the world. If ever there was a reason to fight, the growing death and poverty on Earth is absolute just cause. Our opponent is not any one person — it is instead this way of thinking, this system of war and mistrust constructed by fear, and the politics and economics that perpetrates it. It is a battle that must be fought not with guns and bombs but speeches and shields; protecting those in danger and calling with every voice on Earth to stop the train before it runs us all off the tracks.

Society is a construct that should always be for the benefit and ease of the citizens within it. It is a machine we created for the purpose of automating practices too confusing for each person to figure out all on their own. It has lost its purpose of it disadvantages and harms the people within it, and you do not keep using a broken machine, let alone worship it. You fix the machine, and if unfixable, you replace it. It doesn’t matter how old or big our nations and their governments are. It doesn’t matter how important decorated medals and positions may be. As long as just one person is unjustly hurt or unfairly treated, it is our duty to our human family to fight to our last breath until the problem is fixed, no matter how far we have to go, no matter how bold we must be.

- DKTC FL

[sciencespies]

Following The Scientific Consensus Is The ‘Least Wrong’ Line Of Thought

https://sciencespies.com/news/following-the-scientific-consensus-is-the-least-wrong-line-of-thought/

Following The Scientific Consensus Is The ‘Least Wrong’ Line Of Thought

There are two important and common words that, when used scientifically, have a very different meaning than how we use them in everyday language: theory and consensus. These two words, in our commonplace usage, have meanings that imply a large degree of uncertainty. A theory is merely a thought that anyone can put forward: an idea, a wild guess, or even baseless speculation all count as “theories” the way we talk about them in our daily lives, where ideas like gravitation and that the Earth is flat get lumped in with the same word: theory.

While most of us recognize the difference between a scientific and non-scientific use of the word theory, this line is even blurrier when it comes to the notion of a consensus. Consensus, when we use it commonly, simply means, “most people believe this thing,” but that doesn’t necessarily mean such a thing is correct or true. Consensus could apply just as equally to statements like “the Earth is warming” as it could to those like “ninjas are cooler than pirates.”

However, when a scientist talks about consensus, they are talking about something far more powerful: the least wrong approximation of reality supported by the full suite of evidence and the overwhelming majority of professionals in a particular field. Here’s how following the scientific consensus empowers all of us who do so, and imperils all who reject it.

If you decide to argue against the scientific consensus, you’ll have a very large suite of evidence … [+] to overturn, explain, and supersede. If you yourself are not an expert in the specific sub-field of science that you’re seeking to overturn, the odds are very much against your success, and if you’re not even using a shared scientific vocabulary, no one will even take your arguments seriously.

MacLeod / Union of Concerned Scientists

Theory: this is the starting point of it all. If we ever want to understand what it means to abide by or reckon with the scientific consensus on an issue, we have to go back to this definition: that of a theory.

I’m not talking about the colloquial definition, which is any proposed explanation for why some phenomenon occurred. (E.g., flat Earth theory.)

Nor am I talking about the mathematical definition: a self-consistent set of axioms or postulates that allow the construction of a framework. (E.g., string theory.)

I’m also not talking about a speculative extension to the mainstream, accepted theories that we have that don’t have adequate supporting evidence behind them. (E.g., supersymmetry theory.)

And finally, I’m not talking about an idea that was once viable, until it failed to explain key pieces of evidence, conflicting with a key measurement or observation. (E.g., Lamarckian evolution.)

Instead, when scientists most frequently talk about theories, they talk about the accepted theories that are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence: the starting point for modern science. General Relativity is our theory of gravity; the Standard Model is our theory of elementary particles; genetics and Darwinian evolution are our theory of how living organisms pass on their traits to future generations; etc. When scientists talk typically mention a theory, they’re discussing what’s already been robustly established and outlining the framework for all current and future discussions.

The Standard Model particles and their supersymmetric counterparts. This spectrum of particles is an … [+] inevitable consequence of unifying the four fundamental forces in the context of String Theory, but supersymmetry, string theory, and the presence of extra dimensions all remain speculative and without any observational evidence. They are not part of the scientific consensus.

Claire David

The novel phenomenon: ideas like “scientific consensus” never come up in a vacuum. Instead, they come up in discussions surrounding an issue because something new, important, or unexpected has been observed to occur.

We observe that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is rising, that the pH of the oceans, globally, are acidifying, and that extreme temperatures are being recorded more frequently all over the world.

We observe that an astrophysical cataclysm occurred some 130,000,000 light-years away, and that gravitational waves arrived ever-so-slightly before the very first electromagnetic signal did: by 1.7 seconds.

Or we observe the emergence of a novel disease in humans, the genetic sequence of which is similar to, but evolutionarily divergent from, other known disease-causing agents in the same family.

Although these may seem like wildly disparate examples from a variety of scientific fields — the climate change problem in the context of environmental and geological/atmospheric sciences, the astrophysical neutron star-neutron star merger observed in both gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation, and the origin of SARS-CoV-2 in the context of virology, disease ecology, and epidemiology — scientists take the same approach in every instance.

This figure shows the structure of the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2. Panel A shows the spike … [+] homotrimer in its open configuration, while panel B shows the cleavage sites on the spike protein.

Walls et al., Cell, 181 (2) (2020), pp. 281-292 e6

Identify the null hypothesis: this is an unspoken step that any scientist will recognize, but that simply doesn’t occur to most non-scientists. When we say “the null hypothesis,” what we mean is, “what explanation for this novel phenomenon would indicate that its emergence is already accounted for by the known laws, theories, and frameworks that are already in place to elucidate the Universe?”

The null hypothesis would mean that, sure, you’ve discovered a new phenomenon, but no new rules or outside influences need to be invoked to explain it.

The null hypothesis sometimes means, “things are behaving as they’ve always behaved, and what we’re observing is within the realm of natural variation.” Numerous announced discoveries that were later overturned occurred because of an unlikely fluctuation in the data that regressed to the mean when more data was taken. Ruling out the null hypothesis, however, can be an incredibly powerful achievement. In the case of the temperature of the Earth, going all the way back to the earliest global temperature records in the early 1880s, the null hypothesis is now ruled out at greater than 5-sigma confidence, with less than a 1-in-3.5 million chance of it being a fluke.

The best-fit amplitude of an annual modulation signal for a nuclear recoil with sodium iodide. The … [+] DAMA/LIBRA result shows a signal at extreme confidence, but the best attempt to replicate that has instead yielded a null result. The default assumption should be that the DAMA collaboration has an unaccounted for noise artifact.

J. Amaré et al./ANAIS-112 Collaboration, arXiv:2103.01175

So, we’ve found something’s new. Now what? Again, there’s an unspoken step that scientists take that’s rarely discussed. Scientists often ask themselves an important question, particularly when a novel phenomenon crosses the threshold of ambiguity and whose existence can now be considered non-controversial.

The Earth is warming, the oceans are acidifying, and the carbon dioxide concentrations have been rising, too.

The arrival time of gravitational waves and electromagnetic signals have been accurately measured and their origin point has been confirmed to be identical, and yet the gravitational waves still get there 1.7 seconds earlier, even though both should travel at the same speed: the speed of light.

And the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 did, in fact, emerge in humans in late 2019, even though the precise origin of how this virus found its way into the human population remains obscure.

What we typically do in this situation is resort to what some scientists also call “the null hypothesis” but which I prefer — to distinguish it from our earlier “nothing to see here” example — to call the default hypothesis: the idea that everything needed to explain this emergent phenomenon is already known, but that we just need to correctly identify the important contributors.

Light that’s polarized in a particular fashion from the Big Bang’s leftover glow would indicate … [+] primordial gravitational waves… and demonstrate that gravity is an inherently quantum force. But misattributing BICEP2’s claimed polarization signal to gravitational waves rather than its true cause — galactic dust emission — is now a classic example of confusing signal with noise.

BICEP2 collaboration

Identifying what matters: a lot of people have this misconception that science is wedded to what we’ve already established, and that scientists are incredibly resistant to new ideas.

This is not how it works at all, and although you can certainly find people — even a few scientists among them — who feel that way, the truth is far less exciting.

The reality is that what’s already been established, scientifically, provides us with an incredibly strong and versatile foundation to accommodate almost any new phenomenon we observe.

The default hypothesis, in practically any case we encounter, is that there is a completely mundane explanation for this novel phenomenon that only relies on correctly applying the science of what’s already known to the situation at hand. The default hypothesis is the least radical suggestion of all: that you might need to add an additional ingredient or component in order to get the full story out, but that when you do and you apply the underlying scientific rules correctly, you wind up fully explaining everything that you observe.

The global surface average temperature for the years where such records reliably and directly exist: … [+] 1880-2019 (at present). The zero line represents the long-term average temperature for the whole planet; blue and red bars show the difference above or below average for each year. The warming, on average, is by 0.07 C per decade, but has accelerated, warming at an average of 0.18 C since 1981.

NOAA / climate.gov

Recognizing alternatives for what they are: of course, sometimes there really are novel rules that come into play, and oftentimes our first clue that our current theoretical framework needs modification comes exactly in the form of a novel, unexplained observation. However, elevating the alternative explanation to the status of leading explanation requires something more: a demonstration that the default hypothesis is somehow insufficient.

This has happened numerous times throughout history, of course, and whenever it has, it’s led to a scientific revolution.

The fact that Mercury’s orbit around the Sun couldn’t be explained by Newtonian gravity led scientists to hypothesize an unseen, inner planetary companion to Mercury: Vulcan. Only when Vulcan failed to turn up was the alternative hypothesis — that Newtonian gravity needed to be superseded — explored and eventually validated.

The fact that the Earth is, geologically, billions of years old seemed incompatible with the Sun’s current power levels sustaining itself over billions of years. The mechanism of gravitational contraction could only sustain the Sun for tens of millions of years; it wasn’t until decades later that the secrets of nuclear physics would pave our way for understanding how the Sun worked.

And the fact that galaxies are zipping around inside galaxy clusters at speeds far too great to be consistent with the amount of matter present inside them led to the idea that some “dark” form of matter was present throughout our Universe. Only after decades of robust observations confirmed that there was no form of normal matter that could account for these motions — and additional observations (of individual galaxies) independently confirmed the cluster problem — was dark matter accepted into the mainstream.

After discovering Neptune by examining the orbital anomalies of Uranus, scientist Urbain Le Verrier … [+] turned his attention to the orbital anomalies of Mercury. He proposed an interior planet, Vulcan, as an explanation. Although Vulcan did not exist, it was Le Verrier’s calculations that helped lead Einstein to the eventual solution: General Relativity.

Wikimedia Commons user Reyk

However, these examples are exceptional; far more frequently, the default hypothesis is the one that carries the day. It’s important, as a scientist, to entertain the possibility of alternative explanations for any phenomenon you might have observed, but to relegate them to the status of both speculative and unproven until you establish the insufficiency of the default hypothesis. And that, perhaps unfortunately, is tremendously difficult to do.

The default hypothesis is that the Earth’s temperatures are warming, its climates are changing, and its oceans are acidifying because humanity has significantly modified the contents of our atmosphere, largely through the burning of fossil fuels for energy.

The default hypothesis is that gravitational waves arrive before electromagnetic waves because the light that’s generated from a neutron star merger must travel through matter — which slows down light — before arriving at our eyes, while the gravitational waves simply pass, unimpeded, right through that same matter.

And the default hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in humans through zoonotic spillover, before the superspreader event at the Wuhan market, likely through some form of animal agriculture, farming, or encroachment of human activity into previously wild territory.

Illustration of a fast gamma-ray burst, long thought to occur from the merger of neutron stars. The … [+] gas-rich environment surrounding them, as well as the matter from the neutron stars themselves, could delay the arrival of the signal, explaining the observed 1.7 second difference between the arrivals of the gravitational and electromagnetic signatures. This is the best evidence we have, observationally, that the speed of gravity must equal the speed of light: to approximately 1 part in 10^15 (a quadrillion).

ESO

Consensus. So, now let’s say we’ve done our homework. We’ve learned everything that humanity knows about this particular scientific issue, just like all the leading scientists in a particular discipline try to do. Now, the critical moment comes: we’re trying to synthesize together everything that we know and obtain a scientific consensus.

What does that mean?

A scientific consensus can only be achieved if:

a single framework explains all of the legacy puzzles as well as the novel phenomenon,

no unproven, evidence-free conjectures need to be true for the explanation to hold,

when the full suite of evidence is considered — scientifically admissible evidence, as opposed to speculation — there are no “dealbreaker” puzzles still left to solve,

and if the overwhelming majority of professionals actively working in the field all draw the same conclusion: that this one, favored, consensus picture is the best explanation for everything we’ve observed.

Any consensus we achieve is always provisional, of course; any one of the alternatives could always turn out to be true. But if you are to truly compete with a consensus opinion — the Standard Model, dark matter, cosmic inflation, Darwinian evolution, human-caused global climate change, the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, etc. — you have to identify where and how the consensus opinion breaks down, and to demonstrate where your preferred alternative not only succeeds where the consensus fails, but to demonstrate its success in every place where the current consensus also succeeds.

Tycho Brahe conducted some of the best observations of Mars prior to the invention of the telescope, … [+] and Kepler’s work largely leveraged that data. Here, Brahe’s observations of Mars’s orbit, particularly during retrograde episodes, provided an exquisite confirmation of Kepler’s elliptical orbit theory.

Wayne Pafko, 2000 / http://www.pafko.com/tycho/observe.html

Over the course of human history, what was once a consensus opinion among scientists has been found to be insufficient on one or more accounts. When this occurs, the “old consensus” doesn’t suddenly become wrong, but rather gets demoted to a mere approximation or special case of a more comprehensive framework: a new, superior scientific consensus. Our current consensus is not evidence of groupthink, but rather is the culmination of our modern scientific enterprise: the best approximation of reality that the full suite of evidence — in the context of our most successful scientific theories — can possibly put forth.

As in all things, many of today’s consensus positions will no doubt be found to be lacking in some key way, and will someday be regarded the same way we regard Newtonian gravity: revolutionary for its time, accurate and useful under certain conditions, but only an approximation of a deeper, more fundamental description of reality. That is not a flaw in the scientific method nor in our way of thinking today; that is the nature of science.

When we interrogate the Universe in just the right fashion, a deeper truth may yet be revealed. The key to advancing, however, is to understand the limitations of the current consensus position and to identify the criteria necessary to overthrow it. Unless that’s precisely what you’re doing when considering an alternative, you’re arguing against the common, rather than the scientific, meaning of consensus.

#News

[valhahazred]

I wrote a whole-ass essay on how ghosts work in my version of the Cthulhu Mythos. So if you’re planning on doing a Call of Cthulhu campaign inspired by the Ghostbusters crossover (like I am) or you just like ghosts, maybe you’ll find it interesting!

Souls

Before we examine ghosts and the many forms they take, we must first define the soul. Known as the “astral information shadow (AIS)” to those who take a more material view of the phenomenon, the soul is a parallel memory imprint stored within the akashic layers of subspace. Every part of a person is recorded from mental development to cessation of self and stored eternally in the akashic library. An astral conduit connects the individual and their soul self through the pineal eye and is responsible for the transmission of data.

The soul is the means through which Yog-Sothoth perceives the multiverse and through Yog-Sothoth the multiverse has a single shared “oversoul”.

Ghosts

The term “ghost” commonly refers to spirits in the image of a diseased person. To be more accurate, a ghost is the ectoplasmic manifestation of an astral information shadow projecting into physical space. The exact mechanism that changes an AIS from a passive recording to a self-aware entity is unknown. 

Most ghosts require a weak point in the fabric of reality to cross over, such as a convergence in astral currents, the gaps worn by other spirits and even the astral conduits of the living. A manifested ghost never fully leaves subspace, instead the ectoplasmic form serves as an avatar for the soul still within the akashic layers.

Ghosts may also be created or summoned by practitioners on the material plane through the use of various rituals and tools, such as the Silver Key or Essential Salts.

The form of a ghost is highly dependent on both their psychokinetic weight and on their own self-image. A ghost with neither will not be able to reproduce their living appearance with accuracy. Without frequent reinforcement a ghost's appearance will change over time, altering to fit their new perceptions and prone to subconscious self-caricature.

Most ghosts don't have any kind of conscious control over their forms but that is far from universal. A ghost that learns to control its own form can become a potent shapeshifter.

Non-human spirits

Humans are far from the only mortal beings to have a soul. Any ontological being of sufficient complexity to be of worth to Yog-Sothoth will have an information shadow and therefore have the potential to become ghosts.

It is also worth noting that many spectral entities were never “alive” in the first place. Countless individual consciousnesses and even entire species have been born out of nothing but random fluctuations in sub-dimensional energy states interacting with ectoplasm.

Ectoplasm

Ectoplasm is the matter of subspace, most frequently appearing in the material world as a thick slime, vaporous ooze or as a strangely coherent fog. Even solid ectoplasm has a strange plasticity to it.

It has a very weak interaction with gravity but can absorb phenomenal amounts of energy. This is the reason for the cold spots and battery drainage commonly reported in relation to spiritual activity. 

Contrary to popular belief, ectoplasm actually does interact with physical matter. When a ghost passes through a solid object it's actually moving “around” it by partially retreating back into subspace.

Auras

Ghosts are frequently luminous, as their ectoplasm releases their stored energy as light. However they are often accompanied by far more dangerous radiance, the Aura of the subspace realms they are projecting from.

Auras are also known as T(illingast) Radiation, after Crawford Tillinghast, the “mad” scientist who discovered how to harness them in the 1930s. Aura at first appears to be an intense ultraviolet light but rapidly expands into other, less definable colours with continued exposure. This is a result of the pineal eye opening, leading to increased subspatial perception. In high enough doses it can even cause a full awakening to the Beyond. 

Intense, long term exposure to T-rays has a more pronounced mutagenic effect and can lead to a horrible corruptive death as the body overloads on subspatial energy. Ghosts rarely emit enough T-rays to cause more than a slight sensitivity to further spiritual encounters but it is important to keep in mind nonetheless.

Sothic Energy

There is a paranormal energy field that suffuses subspace and extends into realspace through astral cords. It is known by many names; Sothic Energy, Psychokinetic Energy, Magic, Psi, and even simply as “Power”. Whatever you call it, it reacts to thought and through Sign and Ritual can be guided into creating all manner of esoteric effects. There is some speculation that the PKE field is an energy state of Yog-Sothoth, acting unconsciously but directed by the minds within it.

Whatever PKE’s properties, what is important to this discussion is that spirits can use this energy to form their ghostly bodies and project them back beyond the veil. Not all ghosts are created equally and the level of PKE they can manipulate varies across individuals. Because ghosts need so much PKE to manifest and hold their ectoplasmic forms together, they have an exponentially higher PKE field than a living being or even other forms of ectoplasmic entity. 

Those who study ghosts place them on a seven point Psychokinetic Energy Category scale. Class 1 to 3 are partial manifestations, capable of little more than intermittent visibility. Class 4 ghosts tend to be fully formed and have a limited ability to affect the material world. Class 5 and up can be very powerful, capable of manifesting at will and altering the world around them with all manner of psychokinetic effects.

Classifying spiritual entities

Terminology

Anchored – An entity that is tied to a single location within defined boundaries.

Animating – Entities capable of entering and moving physical objects.

Corporeal – A spirit with an unusually tangible form. Most ectoplasmic constructs are gaseous masses held together with PKE and thus easily disrupted by physical objects. This is not the case for Corporeal entities.

Ethereal – An intangible spirit with no ability to manipulate physical reality. These entities are stuck in the fringes of subspace and are not fully present. A potential witness usually needs to already have some sensitivity to subspace phenomenon to even glimpse an Ethereal spirit.

Free – Entities capable of moving without regard to physical or spiritual boundaries.

Full-torso – A humanoid ghost with a full body, including arms and legs. Most ghosts are indistinct below the chest.

Inhabiting – An entity bound to an object.

Possessor – An entity that can enter a living host and influence or control their actions.

Repeater – A haunt characterised by repeated behavior, often but not always a sign of a residual haunting.

Residual – Also known as stone tape hauntings and pseudo-ghosts, a residual spirit is one where past (or more rarely future) events have been burned into the psychic ether and repeat without change under the right circumstances. If the ghost can react to outside stimuli, it is instead an anchored-repeating entity.

Sarchromatic – An ectoplasmic entity emitting a high degree of auric radiation. Characterized by unrecognizable colours and a dizzying change in perception.

Shadow – a ghost that is composed of negatively charged ectoplasm. They appear in the material world as light sucking voids in vague silhouette.

Telekinetic – Entities capable of projecting their PKE at range and exerting force without ectoplasmic contact.

Vapour – A particularly ill-defined ectoplasmic form.

Common types of spirit

Aeiirii and Saiitii – Elemental spirits that not only animate and possess, they are able to infect solid physical matter in order to anchor themselves in our reality. The Aeiirii are limited by volume and density but the Saiitii are able to spread their influence much further, if not infinitely. They are only slightly visible when manifesting in this universal layer, appearing as faint blots of darkness and an oily sheen on infested matter. Once present only destruction by high energy matter (fire, plasma) can break their grasp on space-time.

Beyonders – A subspacial ecology that exists in the universal layers just beneath the subspace boundary in what is commonly referred to as “The Beyond”. The most common beyonders resemble jellyfish and long, many-winged insects.

Deadite – A warped and partially ectoplasmic host seized by certain strains of demonic possession.

Demon – A malevolent non-human spiritual being. Note that while many versions of Hell exist in the nightmare realms of Dream any “demon” born of them is likely to be as material as any small god of earth.

Devourers/Ectovores – Predatory Elementals that have developed a preference for the particular ectopattern and energies of ghosts. They normally dwell deep in the netherealms, carving twisted mazes their ghostly prey have difficulty escaping. Sometimes they can be drawn to the living world by particularly intense hauntings.

Doppelganger/Fetch – There is nothing stopping a soul from becoming self aware prior to cessation of the physical self, although it is significantly less common. When this occurs the ghost sometimes become resentful of their living selves and may even begin to sabotage them.

Elemental/Ectobion – Entities native to subspace. They are completely unrelated to human (or any other mortal) souls. They are not avatars and being “internal” to Yog-Sothoth makes them beneath its notice.

Faerie/Little People/Good Neighbors/etc. – The elemental beings native to Deep Dendo. They are sometimes also known as “the Voor” in certain occult circles although this is likely a misinterpretation of ancient Hyperborean lore.

Grudge – Revenge is a common motive for a spirit to return to the world of the living but some have been treated so poorly in life that they become particularly dark and violent ghosts. While Gruges can sometimes be laid to rest by the resolution of their vengeance, they are just as likely to continue their vendetta against any living person that catches their attention. The ectoplasm of a Grudge is curiously thick and dark, resembling tar.

Orbs – The faintest physical manifestation possible, orbs are shapeless blobs of low-energy ectoplasm and usually aren't even visible to the naked eye. Orbs encompass at least 99% of all spiritual activity but are still relatively rare. Most reports of Orb activity are mistaken, with illuminated dust particles and reflections being the most common sources.

Poltergeist – A psychokinetic energy vortex. Poltergeists have no agency or intelligence of their own but they can attach themselves to a human and act upon their subconscious thoughts. Poltergeists don't tend to last very long outside of subspace and burn out after a few months.

Projection – Some occult practitioners can transfer their consciousness into their astral selves and use it to travel through subspace and physical reality as a ghost would.

Shade – A ghost with a poor connection to its source life. They are usually free-roaming vapours of class 2 or 3 and are characterized by particularly aimless behavior.

Tulpa – An ectoplasmic entity that takes form through the interaction of the netherealms, the dreamworld and a disciplined psychokinetic or occult practitioner. Although Tulpa can appear human and even like a specific person, they are never the result of an active soul and cannot be classified as ghosts.

Visions – A very short lived ghost that usually appears to loved ones soon after the death of their physical selves.

[sal2724]

NATURE

         “Remember nature before nature forgets us! ~Saloni (Me)”

Before starting I want to say that I feel like I am back in school in some junior class where I have to write an essay on nature. But I promise, this blog will be nothing like that school essay!!!

So, Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the "natural environment" or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things that can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

Nature is actually everything around us. If we are not able to respect nature. Nature won’t respect us. Nature gives us everything we have.

The rise of technology and industry may have distanced us superficially from nature, but it has not changed our reliance on the natural world: most of what we use and consume on a daily basis remains the product of multitudes of interactions within nature, and many of those interactions are imperiled.

There is no question that Earth has been a giving planet. Everything humans have needed to survive, and thrive, was provided by the natural world around us: food, water, medicine, materials for shelter, and even natural cycles such as climate and nutrients. Scientists have come to term such gifts ‘ecosystem services’, however the recognition of such services goes back thousands of years, and perhaps even farther if one accepts the caves paintings at Lascaux as evidence. Yet we have so disconnected ourselves from the natural world that it is easy—and often convenient—to forget that nature remains as giving as ever, even as it vanishes bit-by-bit. The rise of technology and industry may have distanced us superficially from nature, but it has not changed our reliance on the natural world: most of what we use and consume on a daily basis remains the product of multitudes of interactions within nature, and many of those interactions are imperiled. Beyond such physical goods, the natural world provides less tangible, but just as important, gifts in terms of beauty, art, and spirituality.

To make you believe, I have some great examples:

Fresh water: There is no physical substance humans require more than freshwater: without water we can only survive a few hellish days. While pollution and overuse has threatened many of the world’s drinking water sources, nature has an old-fashioned solution, at least, to pollution. Healthy freshwater ecosystems—watersheds, wetlands, and forests—naturally clean pollution and toxins from water. Soils, microorganisms, and plant roots all play a role in filtering and recycling out pollutants with a price far cheaper than building a water filtration plant. According to research, the more biodiverse the ecosystem, the faster and more efficiently water is purified.

Pollination: Imagine trying to pollinate every apple blossom in an orchard: this is what nature does for us. Insects, birds, and even some mammals, pollinate the world’s plants, including much of human agriculture. Around 80% of the world’s plants require a different species to act as pollinator.

In agriculture, pollinators are required for everything from tomatoes to cocoa, and almonds to buckwheat, among hundreds of other crops. Globally, agricultural pollination has been estimated to be worth around $216 billion a year. However large such monetary estimates don’t include pollination for crops consumed by livestock, biofuels, ornamental flowers, or the massive importance of wild plant pollination.

Seed dispersal: Much like pollination, many of the world’s plants require other species to move their seeds from the parent plant to new sprouting ground. Seeds are dispersed by an incredibly wide-variety of players: birds, bats, rodents, megafauna like elephants and tapir, and even, researchers have recently discovered, fish. Seed dispersal is especially important for tropical forests where a majority of plants depend on animals to move.

Pest control: A recent study found that bats save US agriculture billions of dollars a year simply by doing what they do naturally: eating insects, many of which are potentially harmful to US crops.

Almost all agricultural pests have natural enemies, along with bats, these include birds, spiders, parasitic wasps and flies, fungi, and viral diseases. The loss, or even decline, of such pest-eating predators can have massive impacts on agriculture and ecosystems.

Soil health: The ground under our feet matters more than we often admit. Healthy fertile soil provides optimal homes for plants, while participating in a number of natural cycles: from recycling nutrients to purifying water. Although soil is renewable, it is also sensitive to overuse and degradation often due to industrial agriculture, pollution, and fertilizers. Natural vegetation and quality soil also mitigates excessive erosion, which can have dramatic impacts from loss of agricultural land to coastlines simply disappearing into the sea.

Medicine: Nature is our greatest medicine cabinet: to date it has provided humankind with a multitude of life-saving medicines from quinine to aspirin, and from morphine to numerous cancer and HIV-fighting drugs. There is no question that additionally important medications—perhaps even miracle cures—lie untapped in the world’s ecosystems. In fact, researchers estimate that less than 1% of the world’s known species have been fully examined for their medicinal value. However the ecosystems that have yielded some of the world’s most important and promising drugs—such as rainforests, peat swamps, and coral reefs—are also among the most endangered. Preserving ecosystems and species today may benefit, or even save, millions of lives tomorrow.

Fisheries: Humankind has turned to the rivers and seas for food for at least 40,000 years but probably even longer. Today, amid concern of a global fishery collapse, more than a billion people depend on fish as their primary source of protein, many of them among the global poor. Fisheries also provide livelihoods, both directly and indirectly, for around half a billion. Coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass ecosystems provide nurseries for the world’s fisheries, while the open ocean is used for migrating routes and hunting.

Even with the direct importance of the world’s fisheries for food, stewardship has been lacking, allowing many populations to drop precipitously and still permitting ecologically destructive fishing. While the world’s fisheries are primarily threatened by overfishing, including bycatch, marine pollution is also a major problem.

     Biodiversity and wildlife abundance: The argument to save the world’s wildlife has often come from an aesthetic point of view. Many conservationists have fought to save species simply because they like a particular species. This is often why more popularly known animals—tigers, elephants, rhinos—receive far more attention than less popular (although just as endangered) wildlife—for example, the redbelly egg frog, the smokey bat, or the bastard quiver tree. But beyond making the world a less lonely, less boring, and less beautiful place—admirable reasons in themselves—many of the services provided by biodiversity are similar to those provided by all of nature. Biodiversity produces food, fibers, wood products; it cleans water, controls agricultural pests, pollinates and dispersers the world plants; and provides recreation, such as birdwatching, gardening, diving, and ecotourism.

In the discussion of biodiversity, however, bioabundance is often ignored. A loss in bioabundance means that species are not just important for their diversity, but for their numbers. While Asian elephants may not go extinct any time soon, their depletion in forests means that the ecosystems lose the elephants’ special ecological talents such as spreading seeds and engineering micro-habitats. The drop in salmon populations in the US has caused the entire freshwater ecosystem to receive less nutrients every year (researchers estimate a nutrient-drop of over 90 percent); this means less food for people, less salmon for predators, and a less rich river overall. Declining nutrients also makes it impossible for the salmon to rebound to optimal populations, creating a vicious circle of bio-decline.

Climate regulation: The natural world helps regulate the Earth’s climate. Ecosystems such as rainforests, peatlands, and mangroves store significant amounts of carbon, while the ocean captures massive amounts of carbon through phytoplankton. While regulating greenhouse gases are imperative in the age of climate change, new research is showing that the world’s ecosystems may also play a role in weather. A recent study found that the Amazon rainforest acted as its own ‘bioreactor’, producing clouds and precipitation through the abundance of plant materials in the forest.

Economy: In the common tension viewed between the economy and the environment—e.g. do we clear-cut a forest or conserve it?—one fact is often neglected: the environment underpins the entire global economy. Without fertile soils, clean drinking water, healthy forests, and a stable climate, the world’s economy would face disaster. By imperiling our environment, we imperil the economy. According to research published in Science, the global worth of total ecosystem services could run between $40-60 trillion a year.

Health: Recent research has found what nature-lovers have long expected: spending time in a green space, such as a park, provides benefits for one’s mental and physical health. Exercising in a park, instead of inside a gym, has shown to provide mental health benefits as a greater sense of well-being. Walking for 20 minutes in a green space has been proven to help children with ADHD improve their concentration, even working as well, or better, than medication. People who live in more natural settings have better overall health, even when research has taken into account economic differences.

Art: Imagine poetry without flowers, painting without landscapes, or film without scenery. Imagine if Shakespeare had no rose to compare Juliet to, or if William Blake had no Tyger to set alight. Imagine if Van Gogh lacked crows to paint or Durer a rhinoceros to cut. What would the Jungle Book be without Baloo or the Wind in the Willows without Mr. Badger? Imagine My Antonia without the red grass of the American prairie or Wuthering Heights without the bleak moors. How would The Lord of the Rings film series appear without the stunning mountain ranges of New Zealand, or Lawrence of Arabia without the desert of North Africa? There is no question that the natural world has provided global arts with some of its greatest subjects. What we lose in nature, we also lose in art.

Spiritual: While some of what nature provides us is measurable, most of what nature gives us is simply beyond measure. Economic measurements are useful; but as with most of what happens in the world, economics is simply incapable of capturing true worth. Science is also a useful measurement regarding the importance of nature, but once again cannot measure what nature means—practically and aesthetically—to each individual.

Perhaps the most difficult gift of nature’s to measure is its ingrained connection to human spirituality. In most of the world’s religions the natural world is rightly revered. In Christianity, Earthly paradise existed in a garden, while Noah, the original conservationist, is commanded by God to save every species. Buddhists believe all life—from the smallest fly to the blue whale—is sacred and worthy of compassion. For Hindus every bit of the natural world is infused with divinity. Muslims believe the natural world was created by Allah and only given to humans as gift to be held in trust. Indigenous cultures worldwide celebrate the natural world as their ‘mother’.

But one need not be religious to understand the importance of nature to the human spirit: one only need spend time alone in a shadowy forest, sit on a forgotten beach, touch the spine of a living frog, or watch the quarter moon swing behind mountain silhouettes.

 ð Tbh, I was not in mood to write today. So they are not exactly my words. But I tried to gather as much information as I can from different places so that you guys can really feel the importance of nature by just reading this one blog.

[heedra]

i think a common misconception that both non-ecologists and sometimes ecologists themselves fall prey to is the idea that ecology is a ‘science’ in the sense of something like medicine or applied physics, where problems can have a solution engineered for them and solutions are empirical. ecology really isn’t like that. the big problems one faces in ecology and conservation are wicked problems- problems that deal with the places where animals and plants and natural processes and human disturbance and human injustices and human need all intertwine. problems where focusing on one of these factors to the exclusion of others will never work. problems that can’t be ‘solved’, because they are far too complex to be represented in an equation or synthesized in a lab. so much of being an ecologist is simply considering the weight of things, and trying do to so with thought, and care, and as much awareness as possible to the fact that we ourselves are human beings inside that system, our lenses foggy and imperfect and colored by our experiences, our biases, our privileges. a great deal of it is very much about thinking about interconnectedness. so i guess it rankles me to see folks treat the discipline like a stuffy, one-track-minded enemy of fun and discovery. esp when the significance humans apply to nature and the cultural relationships ppl have with it are considered very important parts of the puzzle by most ecologists!

[forbidden-sorcery]

In seeking to describe and understand our crisis, however, we will use civilization much more specifically and consistently. The term civilization comes from the Latin civitas, popularized in ancient Rome by the orator Cicero to describe the supposed implicit social contract to which all Roman citizens had agreed to as the basis of their coexistence. For Cicero, the civitas genuinely existed because people believed it existed: that they acted and thought in certain consistent ways in dealing with one another is all that civilization really was — it was, as we said at the outset, a way of life and a way of seeing. The civitas was thus not merely the city-state as a structure or as a population of citizens, but also the shared idea of the civic community, the mutually created and reinforced psychosocial construction of the city-state. Following Cicero, by civilization, therefore, we refer to both the material and the psychic: civilization is sets of thoughts and gestures reproduced daily as a whole form of life, one that has developed only very recently and abruptly in the course of human existence. This way of life is characterized by the growth and maintenance of cities, with a city defined for our purposes as an area of permanent human shelter with a dense and large population. By being permanent, a city’s population cannot move in concordance with local ecological cycles, meaning it has to subsist in spite of them, against them. By being a dense population, a city’s inhabitants exceed the carrying capacity of their landbase, meaning they must import nutrients from a surrounding rural area typically characterized by agriculture as well as shuttle their wastes elsewhere lest they choke on them. By being a large population, citizens exceed the numbers possible for face-to-face and intimate community and therefore exist among strangers, whom they necessarily treat as abstract persons, not kin.              Psychically, civilized persons routinely self-alienate their life activity, taking aspects of their lives, powers, and phenomenality and treating them as somehow alien or Absolute; they then reify this imagined entity and submit to it as somehow superior or inevitable. In other words, an abstract idea dreamed up by an individual and reinforced through communication with others around them comes to be half-consciously or unconsciously treated as a concrete force. It is thus that we create this phantasmagoria of “fixed ideas” that seem to dominate and dictate our lives: deities, nation-states, social roles, the economy, the nuclear family, and so forth. The young man who loves his country — which for him is a haze of ideals, his-tory, and ethnicity — enlists, fights, and dies for the empire for whom he is a mere statistic. The mother, hypnotized by the ideal image of the happy family, slaves for her abusive husband and ungracious children, and then blames her own inadequacies when her actual life does not align with this reification. In this reversal of the existentially-obvious state of affairs, these frozen concepts — which are merely abstractions, symbols, or models of actually-lived, sensual life — are delusorily treated as primary, more real and more powerful than the persons who in fact imagined and created them. Thus it is that, in civilization, people commonly believe themselves to be largely unable to create and live their lives on their own terms in free association with others, instead thinking and acting in these highly submissive and stiffened manners while surrounded by strangers with whom they tend to ritualistically and half-consciously reinforce these shared reifications — just as Cicero imagined in a positive light with his concept of the civitas. In this way, all civilizations, past and present, have been and continue to be founded on a high degree of (often subconscious or semiconscious) voluntary submission to authority.              A concrete example: the activity of subsistence — the creation of nourishment, shelter, medicine, and other essentials for survival from one’s habitat — which could be done through freely-chosen cooperation with others in a self-directed manner and in an unalienated relationship with the non-human world that supports us all, is instead highly mediated through the confining psychosocial infrastructure we call the economy. Because so many of us so often treat our social roles as workers and our abstraction of money as more real than our creative powers and ability to communicate and cooperate, enormous numbers of us submit to dangerous, toxic, humiliating, or simply tedious and unnecessary (Graeber) work, surrendering our agency to managers and investors who gain wealth off of our labor, in order to create commodities, goods and services that are detached from those who made them and then more or less passively consumed by others for the subsistence and recreation whose possibility for direct obtainment was prohibited by the time and effort spent working in the first place. Materially, to varying degrees, civilized persons are dispossessed of the means to create their lives on their own terms. Numerous features of the world into which we are born — nonhuman organisms, land, water, minerals — are always already forbidden to us, having been ideologically recreated as State or private property, meaning people become dependent not on the living world, but on these mediating civilized institutions for their subsistence.

Bellamy Fitzpatrick - An Invitation To Desertion