-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
We need more people like this on our side
- Thread starter null24
- Start date
Uber capitalists are not the/a solution, imo, nor would I claim any degree of affinity with them (sides, teams, etc).
Just because he does drugs and I do drugs doesn't mean we're on the "same side".
I think it's important to critically examine the issues beyond whether or not someone uses drugs.
Tim and I have very different "agendas" when it comes to psychedelics. He's a "nice" enough person, but his entire professional career is predicated on the advocacy of consumerism and capitalism. This is an issue that is becoming increasingly prominent as psychedelics become more and more chic, especially among the silicon valley and similar types.
Just because he does drugs and I do drugs doesn't mean we're on the "same side".
I think it's important to critically examine the issues beyond whether or not someone uses drugs.
Tim and I have very different "agendas" when it comes to psychedelics. He's a "nice" enough person, but his entire professional career is predicated on the advocacy of consumerism and capitalism. This is an issue that is becoming increasingly prominent as psychedelics become more and more chic, especially among the silicon valley and similar types.
Jaffster
Rising Star
If I won the lottery, I'd like to think that I'd be doing things like this.
it seems that this isn't an approved study though, it suggests that mushrooms are illegal but they're doing the study anyway? Doesn't sound like America to me.... I picture the DEA ramming their door down and arresting everybody.
Or have I been watching too many movies?
it seems that this isn't an approved study though, it suggests that mushrooms are illegal but they're doing the study anyway? Doesn't sound like America to me.... I picture the DEA ramming their door down and arresting everybody.
Or have I been watching too many movies?
I'm a little confused. Apologies if my language pit you off, Snozz, or anyone else. I meant "our side" in terms of supporting research into the practical use of psychedelics. I can speak nothing to his agenda whatsoever, I'm wholly unfamiliar with his work or what he does.
I had not read the entire article when I posted originally, but upon rereading I don't really see anything wrong with it. And it does seem to be supporting aboveground research not underground or anecdotal research.
Help me understand if I'm missing something.
As far as the lottery, I don't know if it's true but I recall hearing on a podcast or something somewhere that world poverty and hunger could be solved for a sum of $5 billion. Although the "red tape" and bureaucracy would make it impossible. Even so,it's funny to think that whoever wins this Powerball could literally save the world. But they'll probably end up spending it on hookers and cocaine.
I had not read the entire article when I posted originally, but upon rereading I don't really see anything wrong with it. And it does seem to be supporting aboveground research not underground or anecdotal research.
Help me understand if I'm missing something.
As far as the lottery, I don't know if it's true but I recall hearing on a podcast or something somewhere that world poverty and hunger could be solved for a sum of $5 billion. Although the "red tape" and bureaucracy would make it impossible. Even so,it's funny to think that whoever wins this Powerball could literally save the world. But they'll probably end up spending it on hookers and cocaine.
I'm reminded (only vaguely) of when Reset.me came into the picture. People were thrilled that "finally" there was a psychedelic news outlet. I was less than excited and gave pretty detailed reasoning as to why. Sure enough, as time went on, Reset posted a number of troubling, misleading, and outright incorrect articles. Since that time I've heard they've gotten better, but the overall bent is still problematic, promoting shamanic tourism, engaging in the romanticization of indigenous cultures through the use of noble savage imagery, etc.
I hope that's not too rambling of a preamble. Tim has deep pockets. That's what he does. The fact that he's throwing cash at psychedelic research is...fine. I mean, really, it is what it is. I'm sure Roland and the team are happy to have additional funding which isn't easy to come by in their arena. That said, imo, it's important to know who these people are before you start singing their praises (e.g. "we need more of these people").
Ferris was featured in the CNN article and video When Silicon Valley takes LSD/Can LSD make you a Billionaire. He's part of a crop of executive techies that are actively engaged in entrepreneurial ventures that are destroying ecological systems on this planet. These execs utilize psychedelic langauge/themes, attend burning man, and otherwise pay lip service to psychedelic values while engaging in horrific levels of environmental destruction through their various companies and financial ventures.
Money can't/won't fix the world. Privatization isn't a solution. The sharing economy is a fairy tale made up by the entrepreneurs and investors behind the machinery. It's not a bureaucratic issue, top-down systems (such as corporations and governments) are not designed to facilitate the autonomy and mutual aid most people are perfectly capable of engaging in to secure their own needs. If you examine most of the socioeconomic predicaments in the world, you can see they are a result of histories (and presents) of authoritarianism, colonialism, and other domineering systems that were forced on the populace in question. The people running corporations that actively participate in/sustain these systems of domination (such as Tim Ferriss) are responsible for that suffering.
I hope that makes sense. Even if he donated $100k to the Nexus to engage in research (and I've honestly talked with other mods in the past about making that pitch) it wouldn't change my feelings about what he does.
I hope that's not too rambling of a preamble. Tim has deep pockets. That's what he does. The fact that he's throwing cash at psychedelic research is...fine. I mean, really, it is what it is. I'm sure Roland and the team are happy to have additional funding which isn't easy to come by in their arena. That said, imo, it's important to know who these people are before you start singing their praises (e.g. "we need more of these people").
Ferris was featured in the CNN article and video When Silicon Valley takes LSD/Can LSD make you a Billionaire. He's part of a crop of executive techies that are actively engaged in entrepreneurial ventures that are destroying ecological systems on this planet. These execs utilize psychedelic langauge/themes, attend burning man, and otherwise pay lip service to psychedelic values while engaging in horrific levels of environmental destruction through their various companies and financial ventures.
Money can't/won't fix the world. Privatization isn't a solution. The sharing economy is a fairy tale made up by the entrepreneurs and investors behind the machinery. It's not a bureaucratic issue, top-down systems (such as corporations and governments) are not designed to facilitate the autonomy and mutual aid most people are perfectly capable of engaging in to secure their own needs. If you examine most of the socioeconomic predicaments in the world, you can see they are a result of histories (and presents) of authoritarianism, colonialism, and other domineering systems that were forced on the populace in question. The people running corporations that actively participate in/sustain these systems of domination (such as Tim Ferriss) are responsible for that suffering.
I hope that makes sense. Even if he donated $100k to the Nexus to engage in research (and I've honestly talked with other mods in the past about making that pitch) it wouldn't change my feelings about what he does.
Nathanial.Dread
Rising Star
I'm definitely with Snozz on this one. If the message you got from LSD was that it can make you into a more successful participant in neoliberal economic systems, you got the wrong message.
Blessings
~ND
Blessings
~ND
Thank you for going my research for me, Snozz. Your point is very well taken and understood.
While I do support the research into psychs, I I appreciate your viewpoint. These are considerations that I need to be more aware of and fold into my assessments and statements on the subject. I am admittedly somewhat willfully ignorant.
That said, I support the research being done on psychedelics as in this instance at Johns Hopkins. The sourcing of the huge piles of money is I'm sure difficult to say the least, and it would be even more so for facilities to turn down sources of it based upon ethical ideas such as those you expound. And those are ideals which I hold is my own.
I guess my ignorance as well as my idealism comes into full play here. I am by no means financially privileged, and would probably never be able to benefit clinically from the research being performed if it never leads to widespread aboveground use of psychedelics in therapies- unless it's covered by Obamacare. But the reasons I support it are for The cultural change that I (idealistically) envision as a result generations down the road once they are used in a legitimate fashion.
Ignorant, idealist, I have attached both of those labels here to myself. As always, my viewpoints are plastic and open to change and I look to the members of this community to enlighten me and bring to my attention things I overlook.
While I do support the research into psychs, I I appreciate your viewpoint. These are considerations that I need to be more aware of and fold into my assessments and statements on the subject. I am admittedly somewhat willfully ignorant.
That said, I support the research being done on psychedelics as in this instance at Johns Hopkins. The sourcing of the huge piles of money is I'm sure difficult to say the least, and it would be even more so for facilities to turn down sources of it based upon ethical ideas such as those you expound. And those are ideals which I hold is my own.
I guess my ignorance as well as my idealism comes into full play here. I am by no means financially privileged, and would probably never be able to benefit clinically from the research being performed if it never leads to widespread aboveground use of psychedelics in therapies- unless it's covered by Obamacare. But the reasons I support it are for The cultural change that I (idealistically) envision as a result generations down the road once they are used in a legitimate fashion.
Ignorant, idealist, I have attached both of those labels here to myself. As always, my viewpoints are plastic and open to change and I look to the members of this community to enlighten me and bring to my attention things I overlook.
Psybin
Rising Star
It's easy to nay-say those trying to make a difference from your armchair. Snozz, how would you propose funding be acquired for psychedelic research? You may not like money or capitalism, which is fine. But hey, if you're gonna cross the sea you're gonna need a boat. If you want to do airtight research on psychedelics, you need money. And money is really just a way to quantify resources in a standard way. You need resources to do something like conduct experiments or analyze data, no way around it.
Ferris may have his flaws, but at least he's done some pretty impressive and groundbreaking things, the latest of which may help many people one day if it comes to fruition. Just because someone has a different viewpoint about or resulting from the use of psychedelics doesn't make them any less or worse of a person. His inspirations are his own, and who are you to judge that? We all learn deeply personal lessons from our travels in hyperspace, and it's OK if they're not all the same. For you, it might be universal love. For him, it might be improving yourself to be the best you can at what you love to do. Plenty of people have spiritual experiences with entheogens and do not become anti-capitalist. To suggest there is a connection is not only ridiculous but offensive to the people who feel differently than you, whom you've painted with a broad brush. Your politics are just that - politics. Nothing more.
Ferris may have his flaws, but at least he's done some pretty impressive and groundbreaking things, the latest of which may help many people one day if it comes to fruition. Just because someone has a different viewpoint about or resulting from the use of psychedelics doesn't make them any less or worse of a person. His inspirations are his own, and who are you to judge that? We all learn deeply personal lessons from our travels in hyperspace, and it's OK if they're not all the same. For you, it might be universal love. For him, it might be improving yourself to be the best you can at what you love to do. Plenty of people have spiritual experiences with entheogens and do not become anti-capitalist. To suggest there is a connection is not only ridiculous but offensive to the people who feel differently than you, whom you've painted with a broad brush. Your politics are just that - politics. Nothing more.
KillaNoodles
Stand Up For It
---
From my armchair? Hardly :lol:Psybin said:
The critiques I've leveled are valid, regardless of whether or not I'm in my armchair, and I think I've shared quite a bit with this community that indicates I'm out of my armchair with some regularity. See that first link under "The Nexian" on the right of this page? You can start there, if you feel so inclined (but there's plenty more as well)
Funding mainstream psychedelic research isn't an interest of mine, so I'm not really concerned with submitting proposals (we have it hard enough scraping together funding for Nexus projects). I think there are fascinating things to learn from psychedelics in both laboratory and "real life" settings and think that lab research is simply one vein.Psybin said:
That said, sanctioned psychedlic research presents a massive potential for public well being. While we're talking theoretical proposals, here's one for you, treat it as any other public good should be treated and socialize the costs and the benefits. In this paradigm? Tax the rich (or defund the PIC and MIC) and use that money to pay for it. That said, in my ideal world (again, as long as we're in the realm of theoretical proposals, why not?), there wouldn't be a state to levy taxes, so I'm not interested in actually fleshing out such proposals.
There are a number of assumptions here that I simply don't agree with. Resources are being consolidated. The notion that there is any long-term future for industrial civilization run for the benefit of "society" doesn't hold water, imo. Justifying the destructive foundation(s) of the funding for psychedelic research on some supposed "need" to do such research is rather dubious, imo. As with extractive energy, if you can't do it without relying on processes that contaminate and destroy, don't do it.
Or consider iboga. Addicts in industrial societies hear of a wonder drug that will cure their addiction. Their demand fuels poaching and destruction. Soon, iboga is not affordable for people in Gabon and their local ecosystems are under attack. People here justify it because they are suffering. We're all suffering...the question is whether you put yourself before those whose suffering your non-suffering is/would-be predicated on.
Another human being who lives on this earth, who has to contend with the effects of his actions and the actions of others in similar positions. His "impressive and groundbreaking" work is leading to the destabilization of lower income workforces and contributing to ecocide. As someone who has to live with that, I feel perfectly fine sharing my judgements.
Except that what he "loves to do" has direct negative consequences on human and nonhuman life. Do you know what the environmental costs of just one of Facebook's data centers are? What about Uber on the whole (here we could examine social cost as well)? And that's not even a drop in the bucket. He's literally involved in projects that are socially and environmentally destructive.
If you see spirituality in that, far be it from me to define your world for you. Just know that I disagree vehemently.
tl;dr
Nathanial.Dread said:
On the whole, our society does a pretty good job of keeping us disconnected enough that this question seemingly never does arise in the mind of your average employee-consumer.Snozz said:
I do have agree I am pleased to see the Hopkins team getting large influxes of cash to keep moving us toward that phase 3 psilocybin research. :thumb_up:
True that. In the name of Lord Shiva, I'll punch an ecosystem in the face today. Destruction is creation.Jin said:capitalism cannot be stopped
the world is going down :twisted:
sure people can complain , but that ain't gonna change a single thing
its running on oil and nuclear electricity afterall:twisted: ,
good luck
ॐ नमः शिवाय
I just found out about that and i am incredibly happy. Not many "evil capitalists" are using their wealth to advance psychedelic research. Contributing 100,000$ - i would think that's nothing to sneeze at.
More importantly, Tim Ferris has gigantic reach not only amon common people but also a lot of influencers.
I don't know, i used to be against capitalism, but not anymore. I have respect for people who do what they believe in instead of whinning all the time about the misfortunes of the world. I love the work of Tim Ferris.
More importantly, Tim Ferris has gigantic reach not only amon common people but also a lot of influencers.
I don't know, i used to be against capitalism, but not anymore. I have respect for people who do what they believe in instead of whinning all the time about the misfortunes of the world. I love the work of Tim Ferris.
What's wrong with capitalism? My psychedelic experiences seem to center around evolution these days: Evolution of the species, of consciousness in general, of physics... Biological evolution is just genetic capitalism. Competition is the driving force of technological progress. I don't see what's so detestable about embracing capitalism since it goes hand in hand with evolution.
There's no reason it couldn't. Predators have the means to deplete the population of their prey to dangerous levels. If that phenomenon can exist then I don't see why, in principle, biological evolution couldn't drive a more powerful species to deplete more significant natural resources. Evolution simply hasn't had the means to destroy the earth until now. Is that a bad thing, i.e. is it unexpected? Maybe it's reasonable that human welfare and natural resources should oscillate like predator/prey populations.
(Is Earth a mother or is it prey? I'm not sentimental about the Earth, so my impulse is toward the latter)
I'm with Snozz on this I have nothing but contempt for corporate power at this point . It's a flawed system thats based on the worst of human traits and weaknesses. Not to mention its a system that's destroying the entire planet For what again ? This goes way beyond
Some filthy rich dude giving money to a good cause.
Some filthy rich dude giving money to a good cause.