In my effort to understand our world and my place in it, I seek reliable and well-founded information. It is necessary to account for bias that is ubiquitous from all reporters of such information (we all are biased in favor of our own understanding), and Plato's observation that all he knew is that he knew nothing is a very good mechanism for rejecting our intrinsic biases. Anton Petrov posts daily on Odysee and I find his forthright exposition of the new research his wide ranging interest in science from a layman's perspective reveals well supported by the foundation of humility Plato shared.
The most recent post of Anton's I have watched discusses a group of Archaea known as Asgardia that are some of the most ancient forms of life on Earth, and their interactions with other bacteria as mediated by viruses. He cites the recent (June, 2022) Nature article linked below, and points out that ~7% of our genome is derived from viruses, which hints at how features of eukaryotes like chloroplasts and mitochondria, likely once separate species, became incorporated into complex multicellular life.
"Asgard archaea are globally distributed prokaryotic microbes proposed to be closely related to eukaryotes1,2. Their genomic composition indicates that they are descendants of the archaeal cell that gave rise to the first eukaryotic common ancestor3. Asgard biodiversity has expanded greatly in recent years due to the recovery of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from a range of marine and terrestrial aquatic sediments4. The recovery of these Asgard MAGs has resulted in predictions about their metabolic abilities and evolutionary histories. Recently, an anaerobic slow-growing Asgard, Lokiarchaeota, has been cultured and appears to have syntrophic dependencies with bacteria, a finding that supports previous omics-based predictions5. Interactions between bacteria and Asgards are thought to have led to the formation of the first mitochondria-containing eukaryotic cell5,6 and it is also hypothesized that interactions with viruses contributed to the origin of complex cellular life7. This observation is based on the nucleus-like cytoplasmic viral factories of some nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses (NCLDVs)8 and jumbo bacteriophages9,10 that allow for replication within the host cytoplasm and the decoupling of transcription and translation7. Additionally, representatives from the Mimiviridae family possess mRNA capping pathways homologous to those present in eukaryotes11. Putative viral proteins have been identified within Lokiarchaeota genomes12, suggesting a role of viruses in the exchange of genetic information and the evolution of Asgards."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-022-01150-8
This is an extremely fascinating aspect of biology, well illustrating the almost inconceivable complexity of biochemistry and genetics, with specific and extreme import to understanding ourselves, and our place in life on Earth. I hope you find it as interesting and edifying as I do.
What if it is the other way around?
you heard of exosomes?
or do you know prof dr hamer and his germanic medicine? could really interest you :)
I have heard of exosomes. They don't leave their DNA as fossils in our genes, because they don't have DNA.
Not sure what you mean by 'the other way around'.
Thanks!
your dna is not solid, it never was
Other than mutations, the DNA I was born with is the DNA I will die with [Edit: or the deliberate imposition of genetic therapy]. I do not know what you mean by 'solid' in this context.
geneticists have already admitted that they have disproved themselves - or what is epigenetics? - but they just forgot to tell the virologists...
I disagree that the existence of epigenetics disproves genetics. Biology is incomprehensibly complex, and both genetics and epigenetics are aspects of that complexity. The ability of bacteria to transfer DNA between them does not disprove sexual reproduction. Both happen.
sounds like nihilism
I noticed your response, @woelfchen. Good stuff! I'm familiar with Dr Hamer. No doubt you're acquainted with the doctors I mentioned in my reply to @valued-customer. I have some additional excellent sources you may be interested in. I'm sure you have some valuable resources, yourself. I'm up for sharing...
hey :)
Hello to you,
no matter which theory one follows, it is always the case that individuals put their worldview into the rejection or acceptance of a theory.
Some biologists say that the number of viruses in organic bodies is so high that you have to write a superscript after the number. Millions or even more viruses are said to be harboured by our bodies. Against this background, the question arises that if I have "recognised", say, one or five per cent of the viruses, what about the other 95 %? What I do not know or have not identified, I cannot treat. Now, those unknown viruses, are they all deadly or severe damaging, or mild influencing? When does the moment come, when an unknown must also be seen as deadly, if not, when it is "found so"? I see no logic here... because, after all, it remains neutral until its determined not to be neutral?
One would have to think this through to the "end" and I only ever come to the conclusion that a final knowledge of all viruses is simply impossible. If you add the mutation theory, then it would be a race to the bottom that as soon as a virus was genetically identified, it could in turn have already changed and, moreover, you would have to be able to determine patient zero for every so-called outbreak. An impossibility from my point of view.
I do not agree with the world view that life is a battle and a competition alone. The theory of competition cannot exist without the theory of cooperation. The way in which what is considered harmful interacts with what is considered useful, and how exactly the processes unfold, are largely beyond human knowledge, because the unknowns cannot be included in the calculations. That's how I see it, anyway.
Greetings to you.
I absolutely agree. I also think that there are trillions, or even more viruses (individual particles, not species) in every human corpus. The vast majority of them are probably simply incidentally present, and have no infectious or pathogenic interaction with our bodies, because we ate something or breathed them in. Viruses aren't all pathogens. They're not alive. They don't eat or breathe, grow, or have any ability to reproduce themselves except as they are able to hijack life. It's actually likely in my estimation that some viruses are able to interact with non-living chemical processes to reproduce, but that's highly speculative, and just reflects the complexity of the universe.
It's just that some mechanisms exist that reproduce themselves, like a pantograph enables an image or item to be reproduced. The pantograph isn't alive, and the user isn't a pathogen.
I also agree with this. I point out that life is an act of war because it helps me to dispel insuperable and irrational speculation regarding spirituality. It is clearly demonstrable that fungi and plants cooperate in the sharing of essential nutrients in ecosystems, for example. There is a network in the soil of mycelial hyphae and plant roots that trade sugar for various resources.
If a combatant has no allies, they are likely to lose, however.
All that being said, all life is one living thing, and each extant cell today is connected to that primordial life that originally became able to reproduce by an unbroken chain of living cells, each the daughter of it's parent. Every bacteria, tree, and person is so connected to that original cell. There is only one organism on Earth, it is immortal, and we are all part of it.
Be well.
The question is, why do you want to dispel them? If you delete the word "irrational" before the word "speculations" and instead of "speculations" speak of "worldviews", the tone of the statement changes, no?
The rejection of the spiritual on the basis of an assumed irrationality involves an exclusion up to the point of offending all those who perhaps do not want to prove such a thing, but do want to accept it in the certainty that they are reaching the limits of their understanding. If the rejection remains mutual, both world views lose meaning and do not contribute to finding peace in the mind.
It would be easier for me not to see a contradiction in what you say in the following, which for me still exists in your elaboration.
I believe life is sacred, and humanity specially so. I have spiritual beliefs and understanding, but there is little empirical evidence I could point to in support of such belief. Because of the limitations on scientific evidence, spiritual beliefs are difficult to rectify with supporting evidence that reasonable people can agree on, and such disagreements as arise from that circumstance are all too common and prevent agreements on matters that can be supported by evidence. It is not my intention to dismiss spirituality itself as irrational and insuperable, but spiritual beliefs occasionally drive people to reject reasonable and fact based understanding because of the strongly held nature of spiritual beliefs.
I note my belief life is sacred exceeds the limits of my actual understanding, which is a very small realm because we are quite limited in our ability to perceive reality, at least. If I can only reach agreement with that subset of people that completely agree with my spiritual beliefs, I will forever be in disagreement with all of humanity.
We can all agree on some very general and reasonable things, that people of utterly disparate spiritual beliefs can all work to achieve for our mutual benefit, despite that various spiritual traditions cannot be reconciled and today prevent people from working together, such as Hindus and Muslims in Kashmir. I seek to foster agreement on things that reasonable people can agree on evidence for, and can work together towards mutual goals based on such agreement, rather than splintering our number and preventing us from surmounting our mutual challenges by supporting each other.
Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!
Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).
You may also include @stemsocial as a beneficiary of the rewards of this post to get a stronger support.
That phrase is attributed to Socrates :)
Interesting post. Note that depending on your audience you will be questioned from time to time if your claims about biology are "too mainstream" or contradict hypotheses like that our DNA comes from reptilians on the moon.
You are correct, and my recollection is again shown to be faulty. I appreciate the correction.
Gasp! And here I thought that all terrestrial life is directly descended from the primordial living cell through an unbroken chain of living cells that show strong evidence of their mutual relation in shared genetic components.
Thanks!
Dear @valued-customer!
That theory doesn't seem to get the attention of East Asians yet.
Scientists in Japan and China are currently focused on catching up with the military and aerospace fields in general among American advanced technologies.
Perhaps they, like you, are not interested in defining modern science through Plato's philosophical perspective.
They are only interested in catching up with American science, military, and industrial technology.
Thank you for article!😃
The most devastating weapons have yet to be devised, and they are all going to be biological, rather than electromechanical devices. I await weaponized wasps, ground crickets, and ants. Nightmare fuel.
Thanks!
Aw, you've been reading the same zombie novels as I am! Those ideas are in there, seriously! Good to see you still on this platform, my old friend. Been a long while!
No doubt the scientist wizards are attempting to weaponize everything. Their most potent weapon is and likely will continue to be FEAR.
Rule #9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing, itself.
— Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
As for viruses, my favourite source is still Dr Stephan Lanka, one of the pioneers in the field of virology. Read all you can on this guy, if you haven't already. I promise you it is mindblowing material!
https://abruptearthchanges.com/2017/11/17/dr-stefan-lanka-the-history-of-the-infection-theory/
Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andrew Kaufman are top notch, also. Amazingly insightful and surprisingly very hopeful and positive stuff!
https://truthcomestolight.com/a-follow-up-to-the-virus-challenge-dr-tom-cowan-with-dr-andrew-kaufman-mike-stone-mike-donio/
I would say it is a matter of interpretation and ultimately it remains unfounded how people influence their reality.
The assumption that one has to deal with hostile, parasitic, deadly influences on the biological level often coincides with the assumption that one also has to deal with or gets such influences on the social level among humans. The age-old dispute between materialism and spirituality.
In the meantime, I am not surprised that the events of the last two years have revealed two opposing camps that have been pitted against each other time and again in human history. It is also called materialism and determinism versus spirit (a non-materially tangible intelligence) and fuzziness. I assume you know about this.
Now, in turn, we see that the opposing camps are splitting within themselves again, but not really, I think. One who accepts the virus theory as infallible and set must at the same time accept that there is or can be such a thing as biological warfare.
But then how does one even come to terms with the contradiction according to which, for example, on the one hand one considers the "protective measures" taken to be suitable (distance, masks, lockdowns) and on the other rejects them? One possible answer would be that one only wants to do such things voluntarily, but does not want to see them as a national exertion.
The question arises for me that if someone who follows the virus theory and the resulting consequences believes in the superiority of what is technologically feasible and would have to assume that there can and should be effective vaccinations and treatments against viruses and is not in favour of the measures because one believes that the means and vaccinations have another purpose, such as deliberate killing.
Now, such a thing cannot be proven and certainly not when it is said so directly. You would have to accuse the person who gives you the treatment of being a killer, and how can you accuse someone who is convinced that he acted in good faith and with his best conscience? One does not argue with the government directly, one has to argue with colleagues, friends, family etc.
That is precisely the infamous argument that ordinary people on both sides oppose, that one would be a murderer without even one of these camps ever having harboured an intention to murder. That is perfidious, I think.
I think I have substantively addressed most of what you say here in another response, but your division of people into only two camps.
Virus isn't a synonym for pathogen. Just because some viruses are pathogens doesn't mean that all viruses must be prevented, and I think it's reasonably likely that some viruses are extremely beneficial, perhaps even essential to human health.
I don't think there are technologically feasible protective measures available today to prevent viral transmission, and that includes the mechanism of vaccination. Certainly it is impossible for masks to work to prevent viral transmission without quite extreme protocols in addition to masks, and it isn't possible to undertake such protocols and maintain society.
No study has ever shown masks to prevent viral transmission in practice. Lots of studies have shown that masks do a lot of harm. Masks are quite hazardous, causing build up of pathogens, and causing people wearing them to breathe far higher levels of CO2. Masks are actually killing people by both of these mechanisms today, and there are other harms masks do as well.
So, I do not agree that there are only two camps regarding covid, or actually on any issue whatsoever. I consider that to far oversimplify reality. I neither think SARS2 doesn't exist or that jabs or masks are beneficial. I am in neither camp, and I am not alone.
It seems you were responding to the author, though the reply turned up in my reply section. So I'll be brief. I think the intent is to cause perpetual division, exponential might be more accurate. That way how could any groups possibly ever manage to unite in challenge to the constant orchestrated chaos? One hopes that humans improve their understanding of how their own amazing, incredibly complex bodies operate.
Why do you think anatomy and basic healing and self care, real remedies, aren't taught alongside math and "science," and the basics at school? This would remedy much of the suffering we endure, not to mention the economic winfall any society that undertook this mission could expect.
But then spirituality has been essentially wiped in favour of a purely physical experience led by the sickness model. We have become increasingly weakened over the generations, intentionally so, in order to bring us in alignment with the weak specimens at the top of the pyramid scheme. Threat eliminated!
Society is now largely dependent from cradle to grave on the white lab coats, big pharma and subject to the illusory control of all the other corrupted industries and authorities that perform their assigned functions as part of the global cartel.
Yes, I accidentally replied to your comment :) So thank you for answering me nevertheless. I will do, too.
I see the thing as a pendulum movement, where the end of the movement before the pendulum swings back is an extreme.
At the time of the Rennaissance, the natural sciences defied the clergy, who spread throughout Europe and beyond as knowledgeable about the human soul and its well-being, and it seemed to be time that a movement was formed here that we now call the Enlightenment.
Now, it seems, the baby has been thrown out with the bath water here too and the soul, consciousness, has been eliminated from the considerations of the natural sciences. At least one pretends that this is the case.
However, I think that you cannot simply erase two thousand years of Christianity and monotheism and that what is deeply rooted in educated Christians exists very strongly and has continued to work quietly for all the centuries since the Renaissance. It's not that the clergy has been cold-cocked or crippled, the people who thought they knew what was best for humanity before just think the same now, they've just swapped the black priestly frock for the white lab coat.
The conflicts of the last two years makes this very clear. "Contact guilt", for example, is a deeply Christian concept (where it was branded as a "sin" and not out of insight that every human being is fallible). Blaming others for an illness that affects you is typical misunderstood Christianity. The concept of guilt and atonement, of shame and branding of the guilty is also found in the Creed, for example. Or the Lord's Prayer.
Extreme, for example, are atheists who stiffly claim that they do not believe in God, but do not realise that the denial of God is his affirmation. Deeply engraved in our Christian culture is the creation myth that the earth and man were "made". Those who believe in this omnipotence must necessarily assume and presume their own superpotence, that life is controllable, manageable and predictable. You only have to do it "right" and you don't know everything "yet", but you are "close".
Where people see themselves as rational and pure materialists and bring facts and objectivity into the field to ridicule the superstitious or esoteric, they are actually talking about themselves, because they do not know that the belief in total feasibility in the natural sciences is just the same thing, only in a different colour. New wine in old bottles.
My thesis is therefore that the "West" or Occident is far less enlightened than is commonly thought and that the accusation of superstition by those who do not believe in the concept of sin, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, should be referred back to such natural scientists or adherents of natural science who are convinced of the objectivity and infallibility of modern science.
I certainly agree regarding fear, and nothing has proved to me what you say about it more than my own experiences.
I do not agree that viruses aren't real and actual.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/settling-the-virus-debate-challenge
But, my reasons have nothing to do with the above challenge, exosomes, or terrain theory, nor even the fraudulent and egregious criminal imposition of medical tyranny since the Covid psyop started in China with outrageous videos of hapless victims gushing blood from their various orifices and falling dead in the street.
Biology is simply so complex that it is impossible viruses have not arisen.
Life is an act of war. Every blade of grass is striving with every one of it's neighbors for it's very life. Every leaf, root, and stem in the beautiful, fractal forest is strategically placed to take light, and that taking blocks something else. In the PNW rainforest the climax forest is almost exclusively hemlock, because as a seedling it can endure light deprivation at the bottom of the well of shadows. Doug Fir grows faster, straighter, and far taller than Hemlock. Sitka Spruce is more shade tolerant than Doug Fir, but cannot match Hemlock. When it's seemingly greater brethren finally fall to the forest floor, the lowly Hemlock that has been waiting, draped in moss, wretched and wracked, barely alive, perhaps for centuries in their shadow, is far ahead of any new seedlings that may sprout in the suddenly sunny soil.
It has husbanded it's resources, carefully spending it's hoarded nutrients and scant sugar on a hopeful twig here, a few needles there, patient as death itself while awaiting the opportunity only death can provide. No other tree can survive that deprivation and denial for decades as can Hemlock. In the deep old growth where the canopy stretches across the sky, no other seedlings lurk in it's shadow. The only woody stems you can find are Hemlock seedlings in a full canopied old growth forest.
Life is extremely competitive. In time every niche is filled. There are plants like the Indian Pipe, white, pink, and purple, never green, because they don't bother with photosynthesis in the shadows of giants. They are strictly parasitic on the roots of those that can reach the light. There are Redwoods and Doug Firs as white as snow, completely parasitic, all the sugars they need donated by their community through their interconnected roots, but they are a rare sport, and not separate species breeding true, and so cannot compete with the shaggy Hemlocks once they comprise the whole of the forest.
Certainly life is predatory, and the lower on the food chain you go the more hideous the methods of killing and eating you find. Vertebrates rarely eat their prey alive, and never just by dissolving them in acid and absorbing the nutrients. So I am confident in germ theory and there is certainly ample evidence for pestilential creatures at the microscopic scale. I am also familiar with parasitism, having myself often experienced vermin sucking my blood.
And these are relatively massive and mind-bogglingly complex creatures compared to viruses. Where there is a gap in defenses, some living thing will slip through to feed, to wage life, and where the gaps are too small for even microscopic vermin a variety of parasitic genes, prions, and viruses must insert themselves and reproduce, even if they can't feed in some horrific tortuous way.
Life is very reliable, even when it's not alive. You can count on it making you suffer somehow.
Because of that I am sure viruses exist in plethora, even disregarding mountains of evidence, such as our own DNA replete with more remnants of viruses than our sexy Neanderthal lover-cousins have left traces of in us.
I am glad we are here, and I hope you are well and hale, my friend.
Thanks for that awesome reply, @valued-customer. I wrote several paragraphs in response last night and then left to research - to double check my info, lol - and closed the damn Hive window and lost everything!
Anyhoo, I think viruses have been hijacked by mainstream acedemia/science/pharma/media cartels, and added to their collective fear arsenal. In fact on land sea and air, viruses are necessary and prolific - and good!!
Viruses are part of what keeps us operating effectively, working in harmony with the essential parasites and good bacteria, which somehow all got the rap of alien intruders, instead of part of our essential infrastructure.
Inside our bodies is an ecosystem, not unlike that found in the unadulterated version of nature. Sure, we're out of balance, but that's down to our horrible diet, poison in our food, water, chemtrails in the air, the plastics in our food packaging, etc.
Did you know ocean going vessels are allowed to dump billions of tons of garbage in the ocean - every year? Who is the worst of the filthy offenders? Executives at the highest echelons of the world's most powerful biz, the good ole USA Inc, and affiliated corporations, get off looking squeaky clean, while ensuring the masses are kept sufficiently misinformed, only by virtue of massive PR budgets!
https://abetterfootprint.com/does-the-us-dump-garbage-in-the-ocean/
"Recent studies show that the US dumps the highest number of water bottles in the ocean. In fact, studies show that the US contributes as much as 242 million tons of trash in the ocean every year."
Have you ever heard of phage therapy? And, do you know what happens in germ free animals? I was shocked to see the net has been scrubbed of material I found on that subject just two years ago, which is very telling.
I agree strongly with this, yet there are harmful parasites, predators, and viruses, and if we don't keep functioning immune systems these will eventually kill us. Something eventually kills us all, however, and I reckon the best defense is to prepare to die fighting.
Regarding corporations, I note that the actions of individual persons are their personal responsibility, and claiming to act on behalf of some legal fiction does not absolve anyone of their personal responsibility for their actions. This is why I think such institutions are the Antichrist, because they obfuscate our personal responsibility for our acts by the pretense that it is the institution acting.
Agreements cannot act, and all institutions are nothing more than agreements. In this context only people act, and regardless of their agreements they remain responsible personally for their actions. Whoever ordered ocean dumping, and whoever carried out such order, are personally responsible for ocean dumping, and that culpability is negated under color of law by other institutions that have no rightful authority to do so.
Crimes are crimes, and their committers criminals, even if they escape prosecution and penalization.
It is my fervent hope that the present evolution of technology to decentralization of the means of production will eliminate all such deception soon, and our children will inherit a better world as a result.
sounds like more philosophy
still doesnt make viruses alive or even existential at all
No, my belief doesn't make anything. However, what everything is sources my beliefs, so the incomprehensible complexity of life shows that opportunities, such as for parasitic mechanisms like viruses to hijack cellular machinery to reproduce, which is what viruses do, are eventually taken advantage of. Life is incredibly ancient, shown to have begun before ~4bya. In that time it is not credible to state that such mechanisms haven't arisen to take advantage of the available niche.
It's comparable to stating that if the government issues EBT cards no one will claim them. The nature of biological mechanisms, their literally inconceivable complexity, makes such parasitic mechanisms inevitable in time, and there's been far more time for such mechanisms to arise than is necessary to make such event certain.
In favorable conditions bacteria can reproduce asexually every ~20 minutes. Each reproductive event has a small chance of going slightly awry, which occasionally produces mutations. You can do the math regarding how many mutations that generates in 4B years, but with any plausible degree of error in replication that is more mutations than there are possible species on Earth. That many opportunities for relatively short chunks of RNA or DNA that happen to encode instructions to replicate statistically guarantees they have arisen.
It's not a list of genetic code of viruses, or the tiny subset that cause disease in people. It's not much of a philosophy, and certainly not nihilism. It's just acknowledging that things happen when opportunities to happen arise, and the extraordinary complexity of biology has created so many opportunities for self-replicating parasitic mechanisms to arise it's just inconceivable they have not. Taking that statistical certainty in view of the easily reproducible evidence in our own DNA of relic fossil viral DNA that is stated to exist by entire industries of specialists that have specific expertise in the field and agree on that evidence - even without the voluminous other evidence of viruses that exists - is enough to convince me viruses are real.
YMMV
Edit: I want to emphasize the word 'industries'. I'm not talking about AN industry, but a plethora of them, many of which depend on completely different kinds of products based on using the viral form to create economic returns. From vaccines to CRISPR, from bioweapons to food additives, mechanisms found in viruses are used to produce products that make money. I don't know what you call a philosophy that simply looks at what exists and acknowledges that it exists, but that's the philosophy I ascribe to.
If bacteria, viruses, parasites were really as threatening as I interpret them to be on the basis of your statements, how could the many species have existed at all in the course of their existence on this earth? Why don't people die in immense numbers all the time? How can it be that people grow old?
From my point of view, the assumption that humans are capable of biological warfare is due to the belief in the total feasibility and specific targeting of what is intended.
But it is also said that each organism's biome is distinctly different from every other organism's, according to another theory. What some researchers seek to identify as "hostile", "parasitic", "killing", others want to find out as "beneficial", "interacting" and "making healthy".
Some years ago I read a scientific paper on the subject of tapeworms in the organism, which until then had always been considered enemies of the organism and which were now considered to have their benefits. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I found it. The organism is far more than its DNA, the so-called building blocks of life, if you take it as the ultimate realisation that all life is the same, is in strong conflict with what is happening at the higher levels of the organism.
Similar to physics, where there have been or are efforts to establish an all unifying theory, I see this in biology, where the all unifying theory is genetics.
Ultimately, this leads to the long-standing dispute between pure materialism, according to which all living things can be explained and manipulated on the basis of their individual parts, and what people call consciousness or spirituality, according to which there is an intelligence at work that opposes materialism.
The "truth" will have to be assumed somewhere in the middle, I think, without being able to pin it down.
Placebo research and how one's mind influences one's body and vice versa are the great unknowns that materialistically attuned minds are reluctant to engage with because it offers them too much fuzziness and uncertainty.
For example, it is still not really known why anaesthesia works the way it does and there has been research into this where patients have been operated on by surgeons in hospital using only hypnosis and felt no pain at all during the operation. This raises the interesting question of how much the body/mind does its own to become insensitive to pain and how much is externally supplied and ultimately you can't really tell the two apart.
Dear my honorable senior @valued-customer!
Perhaps they will have a hard time understanding your profound prophecies!
From your point of view, a genius, East Asian scientists would be seen as technologists imitating American technology.
They do not know the way of thinking to understand the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle as the thought of science.
Perhaps, They will only study science and technology at the command of the state and overlords.
Because the overlords promised to give them enormous wealth, power, honor, and beauty in return.
East Asian scientists are an elite aristocratic group that obeys the orders of overlords.
If they knew that low-class people like me have these kinds of conversations with foreigners like you, I'd probably be jailed.😅
Best keep our discussions on the down low, then. I am a simple carpenter. I work with my hands, sweating in the sun and cursing the rain when it pours. I hardly prophecy genius, but you are very kind to praise me so.
Congratulations @valued-customer! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):
Your next target is to reach 46000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!