Eco-primitivism: The downfall of civilization?

Ethan Gomez82 said:Beljki wrote an outstanding post. Truly top-tier, Pinker-level stuff. 👍

I think your Pinker guy is a bit of a shallow thinker.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Beljki wrote an outstanding post. Truly top-tier, Pinker-level stuff. 👍

Wait, I thought you were referring to Peter Singer. If that's the case, we're talking PETA levels of intensity here. I suppose in today's hyper-accelerated "arms race" of information, the only way to actually cut through the noise and grab someone's attention is to pivot toward something diametrically opposed to the current trend... It seems that contradictions, much like a sudden change in weather, are often what truly command our focus...

Melissa Stewart6 said:I think your Pinker guy is a bit of a shallow thinker.

I wouldn't go that far, though. You certainly need a specific set of "skills" to actually break into those high-brow intellectual circles with theories like his. Of course, when we talk about the true depth—or lack thereof—of his thought, we have to look at his role as a political operative for the Clinton administration. He’s essentially the resident pundit for the Clinton era (and quite a few eras since). All this business regarding "evolutionary psychology" and similar topics is really just window dressing; it's designed to appeal to certain demographics—young guys and what Bell calls "little boys"—who find themselves enamored by anything wrapped in the veneer of science, the raw brutality of animalistic competition, and things of that nature. Even Copeland has adopted that exact same posture.
I suspect even Bell understands the reality of what he does and how things truly play out with those old-school Klingons.

There was a time when being called an "official intellectual" carried a heavy sting of criticism, but nowadays, we’re told we’ve supposedly evolved past the days of the Red Corner (though, in truth, that's the only group we can actually compare ourselves to... alongside animals, given this obsession with "evolutionary psychology").

ironmarlin1 said:First off, that isn't actually a fact. Second, this whole idea of performing pseudo-intellectual acrobatics—the notion that you can simply step outside of society and "observe" it as if you aren't inherently part of its fabric—is pure delusion. It’s as if this person somehow stumbled, quite by accident and without any preconceived notions, into some remote tribe on the other side of the country just to "describe the people" and was suddenly struck by the sheer novelty of the facts they found. You seem to have conveniently omitted the "fact" of the observer themselves. And let’s be honest, he brought his own biases along like a loaded shotgun. I mean, we have so many wars, massacres, and tribalistic conflicts happening right here and now that we really need an "anthropologist" to come along and explain to us that, yes, other people are also fighting, too. You are completely ignoring the underlying intention of this "describer"—these tepid, lukewarm facts are nothing more than a mask for his own perspective.

As far as I’m concerned, the whole thing really just boils down to religious apologetics at its core. 😳

Even though Williams was an atheist.

Honestly, this Williams fellow seems to be nothing more than a complete and utter fool. Regarding what’s been cited here—I should probably clarify that I’m distancing myself from whatever vague, sweeping grand theories are being tossed around. I don't spend my time wading through the nonsensical ramblings of various self-proclaimed philosophers or theologians, nor am I someone who keeps up with the likes of Steven Pinker. I simply have no interest in consuming that kind of fluff. It all kicks off from this fundamentally flawed starting point—this idea that certain things are somehow "unnatural." It’s a slippery slope of logic: they argue that if mega-violence is considered a natural part of the human condition, then any concerted effort to reduce it must, by extension, be an affront to nature itself.

Where exactly did he say that?

It’s the same old story, really—once again, within this tiny little fragment of an argument, we find ourselves staring down the barrel of a logical fallacy. It all stems from a fundamental, deep-seated misunderstanding of nature and the mechanics of evolution itself. Instead of grappling with reality, there's this constant, wearying retreat into these hollow conceptual abstractions and flights of fancy, typical of a philosophical mind that has become quite frankly degenerate and regressive in its outlook. 🧐 😛

So, what you're doing here is essentially accusing someone of performing these elaborate conceptual acrobatics just to manufacture a position that they never actually voiced—and, frankly, one they would never even consider holding.

People aren't nearly as simple as we like to pretend they are. We are driven by a messy web of competing impulses, and depending on what’s most vital for survival or passing on our genetic legacy at any given moment, certain drives take the driver's seat while others are pushed firmly into the backseat. It’s this incredible capacity for adaptation that defines the human species; it's precisely why we’ve managed to spread ourselves across every corner of the globe, thriving in environments that would crush almost anything else. And this isn't just some slow-motion drama playing out over millions of years through evolutionary epochs—it happens in real-time, right under our noses. You see it when the landscape shifts: even a slight tremor in economic stability or a sudden dip in social security can instantly recalibrate everything. Suddenly, you notice shifts in the types of men women find attractive, or subtle pivots in the political spectrum and the very fabric of how we interact with one another. Everything is interconnected, reacting to the pressures of the moment.

"Humans aren't such complex creatures," you claim, and then immediately pivot to describing the micro-economics of cigarette trading in a high school courtyard. "Humans aren't such complex creatures," you say, before delivering the most vulgar, reductive, and utterly banal concept imaginable—evolutionary psychology.

Organized communities have simply proven more effective than tribal ones, which necessitates a higher degree of impulse control and the suppression of certain drives in favor of others; that’s just how history unfolded. I don't see any "transcendence" in any of this—honestly, it's a rather silly term. Of course, it's never perfect, which is why we still require the oversight of a repressive legal system.

"Impulse control." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
"The male." (Humans aren't such complex creatures)
Well, Sigmund Freud did speak about the role of "impulse control," but you seem to be interpreting that through a strictly Victorian lens. In the modern era, people are essentially paralyzed by their own inertia, yet here you are lecturing us on the luxury of "controlling one's impulses."

Furthermore, nothing is being "erased"; rather, the circle of "us-ness" is simply expanding.

And now we're bringing in Peter Singer. (Humans aren't such complex creatures)

It isn't that our tribe was just a literal tribe; it evolved through new instruments of control and homogenization, such as religion, race, the nation-state, and other mechanisms. It is only with globalization that the need for universal human rights and equality emerged, and that is the phase we find ourselves in now.

We aren't.

In reality, none of this is a simple erasure; instead, there are multi-layered tendencies, conflicts, and micro-conflicts at play. People coalesce into "tribes" based on various foundations within broader frameworks; some exhibit a stronger in-group mentality than others, all heavily dependent on levels of social, economic, and general security, as well as the degree of trust in government institutions and so on. To truly form a global tribe, we'd probably need an alien invasion, since such unity is best forged against the backdrop of an "other."

Someone who prefers the Steven Pinker version of humanity over Thomas Mann (or Bernard Williams, for that matter) talking about "multi-layered tendencies" and a "global tribe."

Spare me the grand philosophies, the talk of transcendence, and all that nonsense—it's just a way for a murky gray mass of people with inflated verbal intelligence to swirl around abstractions while lacking any actual mathematical rigor or grasp of the facts.

Williams actually noted that Pinker introduces a sort of psychology of transcendence. And you, quite clearly, are a disciple of those idiotic movements.
What on earth does a Lebesgue integral have to do with the "expansion of the circle of us-ness"? Honestly, if someone from my math department thinks they have better insights into "social movements" than anyone else, they are truly delusional. Have you even seen Sam Peckinpah's *Straw Dogs*, the one about the mathematician?

Look, buddy, it’s just one idiot talking to another; if they actually had anything worthwhile to contribute, they’d be occupied with something far more substantive and concrete. The most successful thing about these simpletons today is how they manage to stay small-time, acting as mere sidekicks to serious science—if they aren't outright trying to wedge a spoke into a wheel of a machine they can't even begin to comprehend. They borrow from it, they steal from it, and then they try to spin their own brand of nonsense to cater to their little niche audience 😳 Honestly, though, there's an evolutionary explanation for all this—even a useless beta male without any real comparative advantages has to find a way to land a date, and he always finds some wide-eyed coed charmed by a messy, pseudo-philosophical disarray and empty verbal posturing. It’s essentially just a slightly more eloquent version of a cult leader, a guru, or a New Age charlatan 🕺

"Serious science"? Since you clearly consider yourself such an expert on facts, do you have an explanation for this compulsive need to constantly praise STEM and "serious science"? Especially when we're already dealing with the fact that you can't even objectively observe yourself. And you'd "just describe" things? I suppose that must be some sort of "impulse" you haven't quite learned to master yet.
Alpha and beta males. ("It's not that simple")
He just wants chicks. ("It's not that simple")
Have you ever considered that modeling everything after the animal kingdom is just a symptom of our specific era? Namely, the animalistic era:

The rest of your post is completely incoherent, but fine, I'll be polite and won't comment on why 😁

No, the rest of the post is perfectly coherent, and there’s actually an evolutionary reason why you won't touch it. It’s because you're a coward who doesn't want to rock the boat. You know how the informant system worked in those old communist states, where faceless bureaucrats would just look the other way regarding certain phenomena? "You must have imagined it all." (We'll just frame that as urban entertainment, shall we?)
Now, some psychologists do study the sources of illusions, which is a somewhat noble pursuit. But when someone refuses to even "look" at certain things, you know you're dealing with something vital. Isn't that right, in the interest of "politeness" for the gentleman bluemason3?

Is it coherent to say that Harvey Weinstein was a serial rapist, given that it was only recently exposed? Before that, was it all just "incoherent gossip"? And that happened in "developed" America. So how much worse must it be here? But no, bluemason3 is busy imitating Robert Copal... Look, Copal knows how to project an aura of scientific authority, but you almost seem to believe your own rhetoric. You're like that "little guy" being bewitched by some "beta male." Besides, what purpose do all those "business schools" or "economics departments" serve otherwise?

Even the word "complexity" is just another way of oversimplifying things. The second someone starts whining about how everything is too complex to grasp, you know they’re just gearing up to shove some reductionist theory down your throat.

ruggedraven36 said:Even the word "complexity" is just another way of oversimplifying things. The second someone starts whining about how everything is too complex to grasp, you know they’re just gearing up to shove some reductionist theory down your throat.

Exactly... It reminds me of how interrogators used to play those psychological games during questioning: "Look, officer, it isn't really black and white, you see..." I'm not suggesting things have fundamentally changed since then, but we all recognize the function of that kind of rhetoric. It's like when someone tries to lecture us on the "nuance" and "intricacies" of the world to suggest our own perception is flawed... as if they need to recalibrate our moral compass.
It strikes me as the classic defense mechanism of someone caught with their pants down. They look you in the eye and say, "Don't be so simplistic; things aren't always black and white," precisely at the moment when they are most clearly black and white...

Ethan Gomez82 said:Beljki wrote an outstanding post. Truly top-tier, Pinker-level stuff. 👍

Give me a break... seriously... when Schumacher went back to Germany after World War II to act as an economic advisor for the military administration in the American occupation zone—driving through those wrecked-out cities—he just muttered... "A desert..."

So, yeah—the end result of a high-tech civilization at that point in time and space was basically a desert... and even long after that, the threat of turning into one remained.

He also said this...
"We have to hunt for a technological revolution that gives us the inventions and machines capable of reversing the destructive trends currently threatening us. "

You see the same thing playing out today—just look at kids stuck in front of computer screens and smartphones all day long.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Nietzsche basically targeted everyone—his critics, his fans, you name it—and honestly, it’s impossible to put them in one camp. But hey, it's not that surprising when you look at the contradictions scattered all over his work, his quotes... even his own damn life.
He’s managed to grab a massive amount of attention from Christian philosophers and theologians—people totally obsessed with his whole "holy YES to life" thing... regardless of how anti-Christian he actually is, or maybe even because of it.
Thomas Mann? For sure... he saw something prophetic in Friedrich Nietzsche that would lead to a "new humanism"... definitely within art.
Mann was always a critic—basically pointing out how "instinctual" power and reason are constantly at odds, with one just being shoved down the other's throat.

The link from René Guénon to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Julius Evola is straight-up direct.

Even John Zerzan—who kind of reminds me of... Unabomber Some people's views are basically the only thing keeping us from total collapse—they’re the last line of defense against these ideologies. Nowadays, you’ve got fanatics practically knocking on your door, threatening death or physical violence just because you own books that don't fit their radical-progressive agenda. I've dealt with this shit personally. These are heavy times, man. Even back in the day, the communists were out there persecuting Ralph Waldo Emerson. Just look how far things have gone since then...

I don't even know what to say about those attacks you're bringing up—honestly, I've seen you harping on about them in other threads too...

It’s actually pretty wild how backwards this works—it’s like the whole far-right movement is basically being fueled by the exact opposite of what you'd expect. Those damn evolutionary theories about biological racism—absolute garbage. Steven Pinker basically paved the way for all those "evolutionary psychology" hacks with his buddies—total joke. They'll probably twist evolutionary theory to back up their racist nonsense long before they ever touch anything by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Thomas Mann. We’ve got an example right here on the forum from a user like Alyosha—someone who lives and breathes these kinds of theories. But honestly, you don't even need examples—it's pretty obvious what's going on just by looking at them. (If that isn't clear to you, I've got my doubts about you.)

Honestly, I get the feeling most evolutionary psychologists are playing around with "nitroglycerin" without even realizing how volatile it is... or maybe they know exactly what they're doing and they just don't give a damn.

As for Alyosha—this is exactly where we split ways.

Then again—social constructivists can be absolute lunatics too.

Look, I’m telling you—this isn't even about race or right-wing politics. The people who claim they're out there "hunting racists"—which, let's be honest, sounds way too noble a title for a job that probably just serves as a front for something else—have plenty of those types right in their own ranks. And it's not even Black Americans they're primarily targeting. These days, being anti-Islam is basically a requirement in those "progressive" circles. For years, you'd see these Government agencies obsessing over civil rights for Black Americans, yet they never once breathed a word about Muslims.
But look, I honestly think it’s just a massive PR stunt designed to mask fat wallets and radical ideologies behind these shiny, virtuous ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality and the rest of that usual checklist... It’s the classic playbook—blacklisting certain authors while white-listing these "ideals" that everyone pretends are real, even though they’re actually just perfect breeding grounds for all sorts of agendas. To me, someone who spends all day preaching about progress and equality while simultaneously tormenting people and issuing death threats is way more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for crime. Honestly, you don't need a PhD to see through that.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."" There's some deep logic there, even if it sounds totally insane at first glance.

I get it... unfortunately, it's just a permanent abuse of science to grab university chairs, secure research grants, and control the media.

I once sat in on a seminar by Puljak—which had nothing to do with his actual work—and, man, he's basically the first thing you think of when you hear him speak... I mean, he knows how to hold an audience and he isn't boring, but... yeah, no thanks.

It happens all the time. People take stuff from a scientific field—and let’s be honest, evolutionary psychology is primarily just that, a science—and they dump it straight into the messy world of political and ideological nonsense. It’s a disaster. You end up with these totally warped interpretations of research that was actually meant to be purely academic.

It happens all the time, regardless of which political side you're on. People take something that isn't even a proven fact—just some unverified claim—and try to turn it into a fundamental law of nature. Then, they use those "laws" to dictate how everyone should behave morally. It’s a mess. Even evolutionary psychologists aren't safe from this. They end up wading straight into the murky swamps of political ideology, especially when they write those pop-science books meant for the general public. It's easy to lose your way there.

ironmarlin1 said:

Unless, of course, we’re actually calling for a return to the Khmer Rouge or some other brand of idiotic neo-primitivist nonsense—the kind of regressive garbage that usually succeeds at nothing more than dragging society back an entire century.

bluemason3 cares about the weight of centuries...

How exactly does he envision "societies" being pushed "forward"... if we’re talking strictly in terms of "evolutionary progress"? In biology, there exists this sort of... The concept of an "arms race" is such a heavy, suffocating term, isn't it? It’s that relentless, spiraling momentum where everyone is constantly looking over their shoulder, convinced that the only way to stay safe is to build something bigger, louder, and more terrifying than whatever the guy next door is tinkering with in his garage. It reminds me of those old stories about prestige and power—where you aren't just building a tool, you're building a monument to your own anxiety. It’s this exhausting cycle of escalation that never actually leads to stability; it just leads to a world where everyone is sitting on a powder keg, waiting for someone to trip. Biologists have their own way of labeling this phenomenon—this idea that the stronger party is inherently the more advanced one. If we look at the Khmer Rouge, whom history remembers with such visceral dread, and try to measure our own "progress" against them, where exactly does that leave us? Are we truly more evolved, or just better equipped? It strikes me that we might simply be an upgraded iteration, having refined and polished the very methods they utilized. In fact, perhaps the only reason we remember them so vividly is due to the cold, evolutionary logic of an arms race; we internalize their brutality to ensure we aren't caught off guard again. We didn't just defeat them, though—we rebranded the conquest. We stepped into the vacuum they left behind and framed our dominance as these noble "peacekeeping missions," which, when viewed through the cynical lens of a global arms race, looks suspiciously like merely perfecting the art of subjugation.

Actually, it's pretty hard to say how the evolutionary mechanisms described in modern or extended evolutionary synthesis necessarily lead to "progress"... simple adaptation to an environment doesn't automatically mean that.

So, someone or something has to define what "progress" even means... Is it a higher GDP? More output with less labor input (people who, instead of digging canals, could be designing space stations right now... yeah, sure, let's go with that)... or maybe a healthier society where more people actually get a chance to contribute to defining and building that "healthier" state.

Gerald Jackson48 said:It happens all the time. People take stuff from a scientific field—and let’s be honest, evolutionary psychology is primarily just that, a science—and they dump it straight into the messy world of political and ideological nonsense. It’s a disaster. You end up with these totally warped interpretations of research that was actually meant to be purely academic.

It happens all the time, regardless of which political side you're on. People take something that isn't even a proven fact—just some unverified claim—and try to turn it into a fundamental law of nature. Then, they use those "laws" to dictate how everyone should behave morally. It’s a mess. Even evolutionary psychologists aren't safe from this. They end up wading straight into the murky swamps of political ideology, especially when they write those pop-science books meant for the general public. It's easy to lose your way there.

👍

Facts... that's why I have so much respect for the folks who actually say, "Hey, give people the chance, the space, and the resources" to figure out what works best for them.
And honestly, when it comes to guys like Schumacher, it’s more than just theoretical debate.

So-called developing nations still have plenty of tight-knit communities where there's an actual shot at this kind of "collective entrepreneurship."

In the developed West, that kind of thing is barely even a glimmer on the horizon, though it hasn't totally died out yet.

I actually posted my own critique about Greta Thunberg over on Politics... all this social energy could be better spent tackling social polarization, or just hitting "like" and tweeting at world leaders to finally "listen to the scientists."

Instead of millions of local grassroots movements, we just get this endless cycle of yelling at global institutions...

Lisa Jackson7 said:Actually, it's pretty hard to say how the evolutionary mechanisms described in modern or extended evolutionary synthesis necessarily lead to "progress"... simple adaptation to an environment doesn't automatically mean that.

So, someone or something has to define what "progress" even means... Is it a higher GDP? More output with less labor input (people who, instead of digging canals, could be designing space stations right now... yeah, sure, let's go with that)... or maybe a healthier society where more people actually get a chance to contribute to defining and building that "healthier" state.

Evolutionary mechanisms don't drive progress; they function solely to preserve the specific configurations that managed to survive. "Progress" is a cultural phenomenon and its definition is incredibly fuzzy. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, nor does it hold a universal meaning.

It’s an inescapable biological reality, really—this deep-seated drive for men to be drawn to younger women (and let’s be clear, this isn't just about the shady matchmaking schemes you see the Government running), and honestly, it’s a major reason why we succeed:


Even here, Pinker is leaning heavily into evolutionary theory. Now, don't get me wrong; when you look at this photo, Pinker is acting as the evolutionary psychologist, and while the fellow to his right might not seem particularly charming—much like how he tries to convince us—he’s simply there to facilitate the science and the observation. People flock to these kinds of lectures specifically to be studied through a scientific lens.

It’s not all about throwing parties, either. Sometimes you're just there to give a friend some solid advice when they're going through it.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-steven-pinker

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the whole concept of detoxing. You know, that feeling when you just need to hit the reset button on your system? It’s funny how we talk about it like it's some mystical ritual, but sometimes it feels more like just trying to clear out the mental cobwebs after a long stretch of chaos. I remember back when I was living in Chicago, I used to try all sorts of things—teas, juice cleanses, you name it. Most of them were a total bust, honestly. Just left me feeling hangry and staring blankly at my laptop screen during work hours. But there’s something to be said for taking a step back, stepping away from the noise, and just letting your body catch up with itself. It’s less about a specific product and more about that quiet moment of recalibration. Does anyone else find that their "reset" usually involves something totally unexpected, like a sudden urge to go for a long hike or finally cleaning out that junk drawer in the kitchen? kaže:
You know, it’s true, but when you really stop to think about it, Western medicine doesn't even attempt—let alone succeed—at synthesizing a compound that could actually tackle addiction. It’s honestly unheard of in the medical establishment here in the States. I was reading this article the other day about how much we rely on quick fixes, and it hit me: we're missing the mark entirely on something this fundamental.

So, I was thinking about how Ibogaine actually has the potential to cure addiction. Now, look, I don't know the exact success rate or the specific percentages involved—and honestly, that’s not really the point I'm trying to make here. It's just an interesting thought to chew on.

You know, I was thinking about this earlier—it’s wild how much we overlook the wisdom held by people who have lived in harmony with nature for centuries. Take Ibogaine, for instance. It wasn't some high-tech breakthrough cooked up in a sterile lab in Silicon Valley; it was actually discovered through the deep, ancestral knowledge of tribal shamans out in Africa. It makes you wonder how many other incredible things we've "invented" that were actually just sitting there waiting to be rediscovered from ancient traditions.

It kind of makes you think, doesn't it? It suggests they aren't quite as primitive as we usually assume they are.

It’s not that they’re primitive; it’s just that they’re actually in sync with nature.

So, I was thinking about what people are actually using LSD for these days. It seems like there’s all this talk about using it for things like ADHD or other neurodivergent stuff. Then you’ve got marijuana—which definitely has its hallucinogenic side to it, but it also has some genuinely therapeutic qualities if you're looking at it that way. Honestly, though, it feels like most of what we see today is just driven by big lobby groups and everyone obsessing over exact milligram dosages. It's all becoming such a science of micro-adjustments and corporate interests.

So, regarding those folks who call everyone else "primitive"... honestly, I think there's a funny way to look at it. Imagine if the Flat Earth theorists actually managed to build their own rocket. They’d launch it, the whole thing would probably just sputter out, hit some turbulence, and crash right back down to the ground. Then, they’d just point at the wreckage and say, "See? Told you! It's flat!" Meanwhile, the globe believers would just send a satellite up into orbit to prove us all wrong. It’s kind of a hilarious cycle when you think about it.

You know, if you dig through some of those old records and ancient texts, you’ll find plenty of mentions suggesting the Earth has a very specific shape. But back then, it’s like people didn't feel the need to go out and launch massive rockets just to prove it to everyone else. It wasn't like announcing the shape of the world was going to magically change its geometry or somehow mess with our daily lives down here on the ground. People just lived their lives.

ironmarlin1 said:It’s an inescapable biological reality, really—this deep-seated drive for men to be drawn to younger women (and let’s be clear, this isn't just about the shady matchmaking schemes you see the Government running), and honestly, it’s a major reason why we succeed:


Even here, Pinker is leaning heavily into evolutionary theory. Now, don't get me wrong; when you look at this photo, Pinker is acting as the evolutionary psychologist, and while the fellow to his right might not seem particularly charming—much like how he tries to convince us—he’s simply there to facilitate the science and the observation. People flock to these kinds of lectures specifically to be studied through a scientific lens.

Wait, hold on... who is that gentleman on the left? Isn't that Jeffrey Epstein?😁

James Lee77 said:It’s not all about throwing parties, either. Sometimes you're just there to give a friend some solid advice when they're going through it.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-steven-pinker

Well, I guess I’m not the only one who saw it that way...
What a strange society we live in.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Evolutionary mechanisms don't drive progress; they function solely to preserve the specific configurations that managed to survive. "Progress" is a cultural phenomenon and its definition is incredibly fuzzy. It doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, nor does it hold a universal meaning.

I think I wrote this once before:

"Biological progress, or evolution, is essentially just the accumulation of potential to survive whatever the future throws at you."

Raymond Thomas7 said:Well, I guess I’m not the only one who saw it that way...
What a strange society we live in.

I went back and reread some of your posts from six years ago. It’s a shame you don’t write much anymore; there was a certain quality to them. I suspect this post might never even cross your radar, though. If it does, I’d be curious to know if there’s anything new regarding the topics we used to dive into. It feels like everything else remains largely unchanged, but I haven't been following closely—mostly because my English isn't quite where I'd like it to be.

I’ve been spending quite a bit of my recent free time absolutely mesmerized by various translations of a few pieces by Stephen Spender. Since we were discussing this earlier, I felt compelled to share a passage from his poem, Creative Chaos:

Now I can only foresee—as I come to understand more—
That these very fears give rise to their own opposites.
Our peace breeds war.
One becomes a savage when fleeing
The Crystal of civilization.