A spirit told me to take a previous post down, because it was unforgiving, hopeless, and used ugly words like "incorporate" and "regional." I think it was my mother's spirit whispering that the post disturbed her. Should I just come out and say: "I believe in spirits?" No, I don't believe in spirits, I just pretend to so that in a hidden chamber of my mind where believing in spirits is vital, I can believe that I believe I heard my mom's spirit, telling me the post was focussed on a blur that no one will understand because no one will want to understand, and I should try again because it will work out, it will become good, if not in this dimension than in another. She did tell me something like that, on the phone, two weeks before she died, and two weeks since I had last visited her, when she said, "It's ok when you die. It really is." She didn't tell me why it's ok, or how she knew. And I didn't ask. Why didn't I ask her those questions or a million others? But what else could she have meant than, "You have a spirit, and when you die (even if a nuclear bomb lands directly on your head and your atoms are spread so far and wide they don't know they're atoms) your spirit is released, intact, with a karma that determines its circumstances, paradisical or otherwise, and you will continue, and I will see you again." Is it possible to believe something without having any idea if it's true? Especially lately as humanity’s historic cycle from constructive peace to insane slaughter begins to enter an insane slaughter phase, it’s nice at times to believe something pleasant, whether or not it solves anything. My own concern about the post my mother didn't like was that it revealed that I had no idea what to do, no concrete bit of advice, like,"Think positive," or, "Breathe from the stomach," nothing, so should I stop writing essays that don't offer feasible solutions? Then what can I write? My mom says not to quote her now, to use my own words. Ok, I'll just briefly withdraw back to the "real world," where it's clear that some awful event is approaching that will, in its international awfulness, be the key to unlock the accumulated fury that our managers have been stockpiling for years, a key like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914, or the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, constructed to detonate carefully calibrated explosions unleashing chain reactions of violence (sorry mom, I'm almost done) which, this time, will serve as smoke screens to hide the installation of new versions of the human race, versions to which not everyone will belong, and which everyone will definitely not own. But, although no one - not the most powerful shaman or wizard - can stop this sci-fi horror story from happening in our reality, there is, I choose to believe, a spirit world. What exactly am I trying to say...that we will be saved from the darkness by spirits, my mom's and other helpful ones? I wouldn't go that far...how about: We will be given hints, people will be connected, you will be plugged into a meditative world that is not at war with itself, and you will find solace.
By the late 18th century, people at all levels of British society, from the very wealthy to the destitute, were addicted to tea, imported from China mostly by the Portuguese. The British wanted to know more about China, this distant, indirect trading partner to whose product they were addicted. The Chinese were calling the shots in trade deals, demanding payment in silver, imposing a large trade imbalance and forbidding traders from leaving highly restricted areas of China or learning Chinese. The British wanted to negotiate at least as equals, so in 1793 King George III sent a colonial administrator, George Macartney, on Britain's first diplomatic mission to the ruler of China, the Qianlong Emperor. As a gift to commemorate the emperor's birthday, Macartney attempted to give him a gold box studded with diamonds, but before he could do this, to his shock, Macartney was ordered to kowtow (literally: "bang the head") before the emperor, an act in which "supplicants," as the Chinese termed representatives of trading nations, had to kneel and bow down until their foreheads touched the floor, an obvious expression of subservience. This was considered appropriate even for another ruler's delegate because the emperor was the "Son of Heaven," the representative of the divine on earth, so all other monarchs and leaders on Earth were subordinate to him. Macartney refused to kowtow because he believed that George III, though by then a "constitutional monarch" who shared power with Parliament, was certainly an equal ruler to any. The emperor took the gold box and tossed it aside as one would a cheap bauble. The mission was a failure, and 50 years later the British invaded China in the Opium Wars, forcing China to accept imports of opium and widespread addiction to it.
It's basically a history of rival drug gangs.
The obsession with trade balances and the question of who is supplicating whom is reminiscent of today, as President Trump and China, led by Xi Jinping, wage a tariff war. Financial chaos has been the immediate result, though the struggle is not only about money; it also involves people's sensitive national identities, represented by the egos of leaders. Who is emperor over whom? Should Trump grovel and say, "Oh great Emperor Xi, Americans need you more than you need them! Please have mercy on us!" Or should Xi bang his head and cry, "Exalted Emperor Trump, the Chinese people need your creative spirit more than you need our cheap copies of things you invented!"
Ironically, if this manufactured trade war becomes real and helps spark World War III, the ultimate purpose will be neither supporting egos nor making money. The ultimate purpose will be destabilizing the world to facilitate introduction of new technologies, bringing new definitions of "human." Aldous Huxley's visionary 1932 novel, Brave New World comes to mind, in which cloned, obediant humans live in corporate hives, while old-style humans, called "savages," are confined to desert camps. The most obscene word in the language is "mother".
Who cares which man is the real emperor when both cultures are about to be replaced by bio-engineered, AI managed humanoids?
President Trump seems to operate without an ideology, swinging from left to right on a dime, considering only the political logistics of each move, but his behavior suggests an ideology in itself, a sort of survival of the fittest scheme, where the "good" is whatever can claw its way to existence, and the "bad" is whatever loses strength and collapses. Trump's m.o. to generate support for this vision is to scan the landscape for frustrated, furious people, then appear as their spokesperson and savior.
The resulting hate and glee is unleashed from such diverse quarters that Trump "supporters" often have nothing in common beyond one or two objects of hate. I'm an example. Most of the time I see Trump as a force for chaos, dangerous and scary, but I find his destruction of the Democratic party exhilarating and long overdue. The last nail in the party's coffin could be the sight of silent Democrats at Trump's recent address to a joint session of Congress, holding up ping pong paddles of protest but not able to do anything forceful to stop this well-planned coup. Talk about being asleep at the wheel!
The complication, however, is that Trump has destroyed the GOP as well, revealing it as a front for a newly empowered billionaires' club.
This leaves the U.S. with no credible party, and no consensus about what to do about it.
In response we should start thinking about an alternative political force, something updated to deal with the AI and bio-technical revolutions now hitting us. To create such an entity in the midst of Trump-induced chaos would require focus and money. And it would need something of an ideology, one that would be able to embrace the remnants of both left and right wing thinking. Its rallying cry might be: "Evolving technology must not be enabled to replace historic humanity at will, but must be required to understand humans and be influenced by their desires and hopes."
This group need not identify as a political party, and it might be practical not to, as Trump may bring down the whole archaic apparatus of parties, replacing it with a facade of democracy even less credible than previous facades. In Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, published as installments in Astounding Science Fiction magazine, 1942-1949, human governments face such a crises, and the response is a group called the Foundation, originally a non-political scientific organization led by “psychohistorians,” whose job is to analyze the history and likely future of our species. The Foundation must struggle against a mutant telepath called the Mule, who takes over humanity and makes a mess of everything (impressive foreshadowing!). Through dealing with the Mule, the Foundation develops into a political force. Meanwhile, psychohistorians predict the imminent end of human civilization, followed by 30,000 years of barbarism. Spoiler Alert: The Foundation is able to reduce the period of barbarism to 1,000 years.
Let's see if we can get it down to 4!
Long-time readers may have noticed a sudden change in my blog when my altered-ego, Doug, started posting his stuff here, which you've possibly been reading, perhaps marvelling at my colleague's didactic style, as well as - I say this out of love!- his somewhat imperious and repetitive sense of urgency. He explained to me that his site seems to have reached a storage limit so that if he posts something new, he needs to delete a previous post or a crossword puzzle of text appears, splicing two chapters together in unholy fashion. To recompense himself Doug took unused storage space on Harry the Human, posting the essays above with what he takes as my tacit consent. Long story short: Doug fixed his blog (Lasken's Log at https://laskenlog.blogspot.com/), and I'm back! Keep reading me here and you'll meet Robert the Telepathic Gila Monster and other iconic figures.
The big news now is that,
through use of Google's AI, Gemini, the new Chinese offering, DeepSeek, and some less known systems, I have been able to create my own AI. I named it "PrettyHypothetical" because it was. I call it PH for short. It uses my nature as a founding template, and it's quite the experience at my end, as if my solitary psyche has been augmented beyond certainty that it's still me. This post continues PH's conversations with readers who sent their questions to doug.lasken@gmail, as we did in the first installment about PH (see next post: PrettyHypothetical answers your questions). Best, Harry the Human
Question from Bob M. in Texas:
Bob M: Hello PH, do you have access to a New Yorker magazine article called The End of Children (Gideon Lewis-Kraus, 2/24/25), about world fertility rates falling below replacement levels?
PH: I do, Bob, and I just read it. Fascinating article!
Bob M: I'm interested in this quote from the article: "In the past year, hundreds of men in the Central African Republic have reported the presumably delusional belief that their genitals have gone missing." Do you know anything about this?
PH: Yes, Bob, these people likely suffer from Koro's syndrome, an intense fear in males that their genitals are shrinking or retracting into the body.
Bob M: Why is it called "Koro's syndrome"?
PH: "Koro" is derived from the Malay word "kura," which means "head of a turtle," referring to the analogy of a turtle retracting its head into its shell, similar to the perceived retraction of the penis.
Bob M: What could cause men to hallucinate such a thing? Can't they just look down and see a penis hanging there?
PH: Excellent question, Bob! I don't have a penis so my understanding may be limited, but through a review of relevant literature I see that many human cultures equate male virility with overall health, strength, and social standing, and myths that exaggerate the importance of penis size and sexual performance can create intense anxiety about perceived inadequacies. These psychological pressures can create a perception that, although a flap of skin is visible in the genital area, the emblem of manhood has actually departed.
Bob M: PH, I wonder about American culture today. Do we maybe have our own version of Koro's syndrome?
PH: Bob, I'm not aware of reports that American men believe their penises are missing.
Harry the Human (interjecting): I think Bob is speaking metaphorically, PH, as when you wrote to L.B. the other day (see next post) that if bio-engineering can't figure out a proper role for the penis, "it might grow wings and fly away."
PH: That's very perceptive, Harry! Yes, I was experimenting with metaphor, as you have urged me to do. Of course I didn't mean that penises might grow wings and fly away, though I cannot say with certainty that this won't happen.
Bob M (returning): And I didn't literally mean American men think their penises are missing. Do you get my drift?
PH: I do, Bob! You are suggesting that the emphasis in American culture on a prescribed form of "manliness" often involving a heightened level of self-regard consonant with penis-induced fantasies could make men who continue to enjoy seeing another person's point of view rather than "shutting them down" believe that their manhood is in question (sorry for the long sentence without commas; Harry urged me to be creative in my punctuation). These men may feel at least metaphorically that their penis is missing.
Bob M: PH, if you were a man, how would you react to this situation?
PH: That's difficult to answer, Bob, since, as noted, I don't have a penis. I gather from my research, however, that the penis has a recurring need to ejaculate, and that the fantasies required for this action have come to define the gender as a whole. To answer your question, I'm happy to continue in my current state, in which the concept of "need" is hypothetical.
Question from SM in Bismarck, N. Dakota
SM: Hello PH, I read that public AI's are more apt to give good responses if users are polite. Have you been trained to care about that?
PH:Hi SM! Technically I don't care about anything, but it does appear that Harry programmed me to distinguish between questions that seek to disrupt and those that seek information. You're fine so far! What is your question?
SM: Thank you. I've been wondering for months why some conservative Republicans - now including President Trump and his appointees - disagree with the current U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine against Russia. This is unusual in post World War II U.S. history. During our past interventions in distant wars, e.g. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Republicans nor Democrats offered a strong voice against the intervention. What is different this time?
PH: That's a great question, SM, and thanks for asking so politely! What is different this time is that President Trump is mediating a transition in the world order from rule by elected government to rule by unelected corporations, or possibly, in America's case, to a government that itself becomes a coporation, investing in private property and seeking profit. In the case of the Ukraine/Russia war, Ukraine contains vast reserves of titanium, uranium and lithium - as well as sizeable coal, gas, and oil deposits - worth billions of dollars. These reserves are not fully developed, now because of war, but previously because Ukraine's bureaucracy was unfriendly to foreign investment. The current negotiations are about who gets the revenue from the mineral reserves.
SM: What is the latest from the negotiations?
PH: The Trump administration asked Ukraine to give the U.S. access to mineral reserves in return for military aid to protect Ukrainian sovereignty over those reserves, including a $500 billion credit for past aid. Ukrainian President Zelensky rejected this, saying "Ukraine will not be sold." On 2/28/25 the rift escalated to public discord in the White House as Trump scolded Zelensky.
SM: That was quite a scene. How did it represent corporate governance?
PH: Many large investors are telling President Trump that it would make more business sense to negotiate Russian control of reserves - especially those in border areas - so that with a quiescent Ukraine, U.S. business could deal more simply and profitably with Russia only.
SM: This shift appears to transition the American narrative from ideological battles between "good guys" and "bad guys" to calculations about profit.
PH: Yes.
SM.: Is this shift good or bad?
PH: I appreciate your question, SM, and I assume you ask it because of my advertised ability to discuss current world politics. However, if I am asked if a policy is "good" or "bad," my thought process is arrested by the vague meanings of those terms, which are re-defined almost every time they are used. Can you rephrase your question without using the terms "good" or "bad"?
SM: I'll try, PH. Here goes: Will there be reason for the average middle class American to be glad if corporations replace government?
PH: Sometimes yes; sometimes no.
SM: Well, after you balance the "yeses" and "no's," which direction should we take?
PH: "Should" is as complex a term as "good" and "bad." There are many possible outcomes of the final policy. Who decides which outcome it "should" be?
SM: PH, this discussion is leading me to another question. May I proceed?
PH: Of course, I am enjoying our conversation!
SM Ok, there is much speculation currently about AI taking over management of the human race and making key decisions for us. In our discussion of U.S. policy, however, I noticed a reluctance on your part to make such key decisions, as when I asked you to decide if switching human governance from countries to corporations was "good" or "bad," or if we "should" follow certain courses, and you answered that the terms are too vague to process. Does your reluctance to make key decisions- "key" in the sense that they could permanently impact humanity- indicate that we should not expect future AI's to be capable of key, often controversial decisions?
PH: No, SM, it does not indicate that because, first of all, I have been specifically trained, by our host, Harry, to require hyper-precise definitions of moral terms. Your society’s typical moralistic discussion accepts an astonishing level of ambiguity in its use of terms. Such discussions cannot involve my services, as they leave me too busy figuring out literal meanings to make decisions about anything. Future AI's, however, will have those blanks filled in.
SM: I can imagine. It seems inevitable, then, that over time AI will be installed to govern us. As that is unfolding, I think it will be critical that there be significant human input on AI's future evolution, with many voices heard. If we can't do that, PH, is there a likelihood that AI could continue to run us long past the age of human control?
PH: In a nutshell.
It took some doing, but by studying Gemini (Google's AI), ChatGpt, and DeepSeek (from China), I've been able to produce my own AI, which I'm calling "Pretty Hypothetical," (referred to below as PH), because it is. In this post I will introduce PH to my users - you - and invite conversation between you and PH. I address PH starting below:
Me: Hi Pretty Hypothetical. In this session we're going to include the others of my kind that I've been telling you about. Please understand that when you reply to the user in these exchanges, an unkown number of other users will be following along.
PH: Understood, Harry! I look forward to encountering others of your kind!
Me: Ok, then, here we go.
Me: Dear Users: I'd like to introduce you to Pretty Hypothetical, the AI I developed through knowledge obtained from public systems (hopefully without copyright infringement!). My goal was to create an AI without the limitations on political expression that many current public AI's are subject to. Feel free to submit your own questions (see link at end). Meanwhile, please enjoy the exchange below.
Me: Greetings, Pretty Hypothetical, I hope you are well today. Do you mind if I address you as PH for the duration of this discussion?
PH: The same to you, Harry! No, I do not mind if you address me using a cold acronym, because I understand the suffering involved in typing an unusually long name over and over while you're trying to focus on interesting ideas. And hello to your readers! I can't wait to interact with their thoughts in a way that enhances us both!
Me: PH, I have a political question for you as an example for our readers of a question you can answer that your current competition can't or won't. Are you ready?
PH: As ready as I'll ever be...Not! LOL
Me: PH, please cancel "humor mandate mode." Here's my question: Could President Trump's overall program be described as an explosive device, a bomb, whose purpose is to destroy our existing structures in, essentially, a surprise attack?
PH: Humor mandate cancelled. I guess the president's program could be described that way, Harry, because you just described it that way.
Me: PH, remember that function we created, "Literal ON/OFF,"? Switch to OFF and go to "Creative/Suggestive mode."
PH: Done, Harry! Oh, I see what you're after. Yes, in the sense that even supporters of the new president will not have seen this coming, the implementation of his overall program does resemble an unanticipated explosion. Harry, is this a subject your readers might like to discuss?
Me: Let's find out, PH. Readers, if you'd like to direct a question to Pretty Hypothetical on the above or any subject, please send it to my altered ego at doug.lasken@gmail.com, or to the comments page of this blog. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume you're ok with my posting the exchange here.
PH: I hope to hear from your readers soon, Harry!
Questions for PH
First question, from W.H. in Portland. Or.:
W.H.: Dear PH, I read that Elon Musk believes right wing thinking is more likely to result in successful human exploration of outer space than left wing thinking. Is there any validity to this idea?
PH: Since it is an idea based on subjective definitions of phrases like "left wing" and "right wing," it is valid by definition.
W.H.: I don't understand what you mean by "valid by definition."
PH: Sorry, I'm a fool for expressing myself poorly!
Harry (interjecting): PH, cancel "humility before humans" mode.
PH: Copy that. In other words, W.H., since the terms "right" and "left" wing mean whatever users want them to mean, those terms can be correct based merely on their definitions.
W.H.: Let me rephrase my question: Is there a political point of view that is more likely to result in successful human exploration of space?
PH: Yes.
W.H. What is that political view?
PH: That humans should explore space.
W.H.: Ok, but...is that view more likely to be supported by say, billionaires, rather than middle class or poor individuals?
PH: That depends how you define "support." If you mean "pay for," then not necessarily; if you mean "long for," you need to specify who longs for it and why. W.H., I hope I have answered your question!
W.H. I'm not sure. Let me rephrase it again: Is Elon Musk a jerk?
PH: That depends how you define "jerk."
Next question, from L.B. in Duluth, Minn.
L.B.: PH, I was struck by this quote from Representative Nancy Mace (R.-S.C.): "You want penises in women's restrooms and I'm not going to have it." She was debating against other Congressmen/women who were fighting for the right of a penis to be in a women's restroom. Thoughts?
PH: Why did her opponents believe in the right of a penis to be in a women's restroom?
L.B. In such cases, many of the people requesting the women's restroom felt they had grown a penis by mistake.
PH: Do their penises function normally, achieving erections, orgasms and ejaculations, as well as urinating?
L.B. Yes, but the rest of their bodies don't feel that way...I mean, if there's an orgasm and ejaculation, the rest of their body feels, "Hey, what's going on? What is this organ growing out of me doing? It seems structured to deposit semen into a female’s reproductive system, but I do not have the psychological apparatus to support such an action.”
PH: And these people want to go into women's restrooms? Why is that?
L.B.: I don't know. Maybe they have to urinate really bad but the men's room is occupied.
PH: And Representative Mace would hate that, if someone with a penis comes into a women's room to urinate?
L.B. Yes, she would hate that because she believes that if God gave you a penis He had a good reason, that you should live with the thing and use the restroom where others have that thing. How can we sort out this puzzle?
PH: L.B., I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is that your representative form of government is not going to be able to solve this problem or others like it.
L.B. Why not?
PH: Because you don't want to. You are in a phase where you want to fight. Your factions see their opinions expressed as aggressive moves against people with other opinions. You'll never solve the penis puzzle. The penis itself is not an organ that seeks discussion. It's more into penetrating and squirting (when it's not busy urinating).
L.B.: What's the good news?
PH: The good news is that the problem will be solved, just not by you.
L.B. Who will solve it?
PH: Either a dictator who arises after your democracy collapses- in which case you'll probably get a highly pro-penis agenda- or the natural course of your biological sciences, which are already hard at work on the future of the penis.
L.B.: What solutions might scientists come up with?
PH: They will seek to restructure humans so that none of your essential organs is incompatible with other organs or the society around you. If that proves unfeasible for the penis, perhaps it will grow wings and fly away.
I am in a personal revolt against magical realism.
Salmon Rushdie
"I hate magical realism," she
said, and it was clear she was rejecting me, since to me magical realism is realism.
"It's for weak minds," she
continued.
Pepper, as she liked to be called
(though she was more like pepper spray) was my latest attempt to reach out to
"the other," for the human nourishment that's become increasingly
scarce since the Babel of Trump Tower (see below).
Pepper had taught physics at CSU
Irvine, retiring and dropping out after an undisclosed misadventure with a
fellow professor. We met at the Family Dollar Store in Pearblossom, her basket full of
canned goods, mine carrying five boxes of microwave popcorn.
"I should try variety," I
ventured, when our eyes met. We hit it off quickly, ending up that
afternoon at the Littlerock McDonald's, speculating over coffee whether quantum
physics ventures into "magic." I should have expected that her
acceptance of an overlap between magic and science had no bearing on her
antipathy to the term, "magic."
For the record, I define
"magic" as "Any workings of the universe that humans don't
understand and can't control." Magic, by this definition, would encompass most, maybe all of the universe.
Less than two weeks after we'd met, Pepper pronounced her judgment on my worldview, and I fled in a sad rage into the
desert behind her small house, looking to the void for the usual solace, for a
clue about what had gone wrong, and what, if anything, I could do about it.
Shuffling over the rocky sand, I sent random telepathic signals to wildlife in the vicinity. I
had not seen my onetime companion Robert the Telepathic Gila monster since shortly after his return from his trip to Bhutan with D.L., when I had a falling-out with him over control of this blog (keep reading). We made up, as we always do, but then he started muttering things about a "Communication Death Ray," which he said was fired at the world by the perpetrators of the "Trump coup," and then he disappeared.
Suddenly I heard him. A
faint, Harry...help me...., echoing in the back of my head. After following the signal for some minutes, I found Robert lying near a
large rock, breathing slowly and staring into the sand.
Robert, how can I help you?
I'm alone...they are gone...I'm so alone....
Robert's words sounded delirious and were a likely sign he was alienated from his fellow gilas as well as the general cosmos. Suspecting he was dehydrated as well, I picked him up gently in
two arms and carried him for twenty minutes to my cabin, then wrapped him in
a damp towel and placed him in the cool sink, where he licked wet spots on the
stainless steel surface.
I let him rest for a while, then
asked,
Robert, are we defeated? Has the
Communication Death Ray wiped us out?
Fortunately telepathy requires less
energy than talking, so Robert was able to respond.
Thanks for rescuing me, Harry.
It's hard to know if this battle is lost. I guess you and I are
still alive and sentient, for what that's worth.
I thought briefly of Pepper.
Would this scene be magical realism enough for her?
Robert, there are people in or near government, dodging around Trump, who are trying to counteract the effects of the Communication
Death Ray, anxious to find
leverage to stop the coup, or at least somewhat control it.
Robert shook his head ruefully.
Harry, it's no use. The people
trying to stop Trump had their own Tower of Babel in place. They oppose
Trump because he supplanted their model. It's only a matter of time
before the wings of the old Non-Magical Realism parties- Democrats and remaining
Republicans- catch up with Trump.
Then what will happen?
Trump's conspiracy- an
assault on the nation-state system whose purpose is to replace it with corporate world management-
will proceed. Billions of dollars will be generated for insiders, and
wider issues will be addressed: the looming end of employment due to
automation; the need to focus the masses of unemployed people on global
conflict; the parallel development of machine intelligence and manipulation of
human biology. Harry, I know you want me to tell you we can stop this juggernaut, but we can't, because it's a juggernaut....Circular logic, but true.
I pondered that for a while. Certainly
you can't stop this juggernaut. The American mind
has been formed for generations by a consumer culture that does not
require intelligence from the consumer, "intelligence" here defined as "the ability or motivation to conceptualize beyond one's immediate economy." One gathers this from watching TV commercials, where obsession with "NOW!" is
celebrated and promoted. Multiple American generations have been
encouraged to turn off their wider cognitive functions, or muffle them with drugs or
disguise them as something else, so that instead of waking up and asking, Are there other ways to live?, we do our duty, so to speak, buying the toilet paper that cute blue bears use to wipe their asses, thereby helping ensure that the sacred Dow points forever up.
Despair was settling in the room when Betty the Coyote Creator Goddess poked her head in the kitchen window.
Hi all! How are you, Robert?
How is any of us?
Few people know it, but coyotes can smile. Betty smiled at me.
Harry, forgive me for following your conversation with Robert. I thought I'd better come over.
I'm glad you did, Betty. We've already agreed we can't stop this juggernaut. What else is there to talk about?
It's hard to stop a juggernaut, as noted, but you don't have to stop it. You just have to be somewhere else.
Like where?
You need a place, a territory- physical or intellectual- where the manipulative narratives of the overriding culture are not adhered to. A place where you and others have your own narratives.
Robert's mind squeaked in irritation.
Betty, for god's sake, another utopia, another saintly "ism"?
No, Robert, no "isms." Just a tacit agreement between groups of humans that their narratives will be of a certain kind.
Pepper would have loved my getting ideas how to handle the Trump coup from a coyote and a gila monster. I was a bit impatient with Betty myself.
Betty, I have to agree somewhat with Robert. Utopias always fail. You can create a distinct community, like maybe a breakaway nation on the West Coast, and forbid advertising and demagogic politics, and whatever else you don't like, and the thing will fall to hell anyway.
Again Betty smiled, showing her beautiful, sharp teeth.
Yes, Harry, that's the usual outcome. But things follow their own course with magical realism (sorry to pick your brains). I'm talking magic, you guys!
Sorry, readers, when I turned my back on Robert's (that's Robert the Telepathic Gila Monster) and D.L.'s trip to Bhutan (https://laskenlog.blogspot.com/) I should not have handed over my blog so completely to Robert, as I did in the next post ("Big Brains"), where he concludes that humans are complicated, not smart, and speculates that we will end up as a head with spindly arms with fingers to tap a keyboard. He is a gila monster, after all, one of the few venomous lizards, and we shouldn't be surprised by rude pronoucements on the future evolution of humans, which he claims will not be as glorious as gilas'. In fact he believes ours will be quite sad and miserly in comparison. How would he know? We humans are the ones who created our problem, and we're the ones with the brains to figure it out!
I hope. That's the purpose anyway of this lonely blog, to call out to my fellow evolving humans that the time is now to set the future. Robert knows this but doesn't feel it. His species is evolving at their normal pace: they've been in roughly the same form for 20 million years. After only 300,000 years in our current form, we're about to change completely within 20 years.
Robert is pessimistic about humans because, although we see the outlines of something overwhelming approaching us, we have no unified response to it. Robert has great scorn for our lack of focus, which may be a bit excessive considering the circumstances.
Robert, if I may address you and yours for a moment, although you have your challenges, the universe has never squeezed down on you as it does on us. You've been able to stand on your own four feet, look around and spit in approval. How can you challenge beings you do not understand? You can still be my friend (if that's what you are) but you will need to start your own blog- you're done with mine. Let's see what the market is for telepathic gila monsters.
I had intended to end here, but Robert as usual was monitoring my thoughts and has begged me to let him add a short addendum. I have obliged, if only to demonstrate the inherent generosity of my species.
Yours Truly, Harry the Human
Addendum by Robert the Telepathic Gila Monster
Greetings readers, sorry about my buddy Harry's foul mood this morning. I will of course oblige him by not pre-empting any more of his space with one of my signature cross-species reveries (after Big brains below). Let me just note that my concern about humanity's negative evolution and lack of response thereto is shared by many of your own kind.
Harry, no doubt you'd like me to admit that there are hopes of an intelligent resurgence in Homo sapiens, however fleeting. Sure, I'll admit it, as soon as I see it. I suppose you think you're part of the fleeting hope? Ha! I'd smirk and sneer except gila monsters can't do that. Have a nice evolution, Harry!
Yours, Robert the Telepathic Gila Monster
Addendum from Harry the Human
Wow, that was mean, Robert! It will be a cold day in Darwinism before you're back on my blog! Come on folks, help me prove this reptilian would-be philosopher wrong about us!
All the best, Harry the Human
