This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see the entries in this installment.
There are no non-radical futures
We are in global ecological overshoot. Collectively, we use more of Earth’s resources than our living systems can generate. That means erosion of ecosystem, loss of species, climate disruptions, rising ocean levels, toxins in our bodies, and much more. It can’t last.
The problem is not something we can fix by tweaking our systems here and there. The problem is at the core of our civilization. It’s the idea of separation and infinite Earth.
Our civilization operates on the essential assumption that we are separate from ecosystems and Earth, and that Earth has infinite capacity to supply us with what we need and infinite capacity to absorb our waste. Rationally, we know that’s not true. But viscerally and in how our systems work, that’s what we operate on.
That means there are no non-radical futures. Realistically, we have two futures.
One is where we continue on our path which leads to continued unraveling of the living systems we are part of. If we collectively don’t learn and change, most humans will die.
Another is where we collectively decide to profoundly change our civilization to operate on ecologically informed assumptions – of interconnectedness and a finite Earth. This will change how we organize ourselves in all areas of life. It may also require us to take a more conscious role as temporary expressions of this living and evolving system we call Earth.
Both of these are radical. One is radical unraveling. The other is radical transformation.
The world is my mirror
Yes, and that goes for me too. Whenever I think, say, or write something about someone, I can turn it around to be about myself and find specific and genuine examples of how it’s true.
The world is my mirror. What I see there is also here.
What I see in fundamentalist and/or nationalist Christians, which is not very flattering, is also here in me and the way I live my life. That doesn’t mean I can’t or shouldn’t speak up about it. But it is good to acknowledge.
AUGUST 6, 2026
Is Trump flip-flopping on Ukraine?
I keep seeing journalists and political commentators saying that Trump flip-flops on Ukraine.
As I see it, that’s clearly not the case. With Trump, as with anyone else, you have to look at their actions. Trump has consistently been either against, or at least not with, Ukraine in his actions. There is no flip-flopping.
I honestly don’t understand how the flip-flop idea comes from. They must know that his words don’t mean anything.
Again, I am wondering, how can they be willing to say in public something so obviously wrong? And why do so many say the same? Do they just copy each other? Do they really think Trump’s words on these kinds of topics mean anything substantial? Have they missed one of the basic lessons in life, which is to look at actions and not words?
It can’t get any worse?
Before the last presidential election in the US, I saw several say that they will vote Trump since “it can’t get any worse“.
I understand that their lives were not easy, very likely because of decades of neo-liberal policies by both Republicans and Democrats. (That, or they felt scared/hurt because their white privilege didn’t hold as much value as it used to.)
And yet, if you know anything about history, or have any imagination, you know it can get much worse. And people like Trump typically make it worse for regular people and just about anyone. Of course, many or most of them will just buy into Trump’s scapegoating and keep misdiagnosing their troubles.
They blame marginalized groups for their troubles, even if those groups are small and have just about no power or influence on their lives. They overlook the real causes which includes those neo-liberal policies and the wealthy and powerful funneling money to themselves and away from everyone else. And most of them will keep scapegoating when their lives inevitably get worse under Trump. It seems to be all they know. They prefer an easy and temporary emotional fix over real solutions.
AUGUST 8, 2026
Who benefits from Trump?
Not many benefit from Trump. Even those close to him often don’t. (At the very least, they sacrifice their integrity.)
Among the very few that benefit from Trump is China, who wisely stays out of the drama and continue making good decisions from a conventional economical view. While Trump and Putin work hard at weakening their empires and countries, China is only getting stronger as a country and global power.
Another is the regime in Iran who probably can’t believe their luck. Finally a US president stupid enough to give them exactly what they wanted: An excuse to exert their obvious and previously latent power over the Hormuz Strait and a significant portion of global oil shipments.
Why so anthropocentric?
There are quite a few articles on the massive forest fires, drought, flooding, dry rivers, and so on that are predictable effects of global ecological overshoot (we use more of Earth’s resources than it can replenish) and, to some extent, climate change which is one of many expressions of overshoot.
These articles, and the expert comments, are almost all about the effects of human life. That’s understandable, but why leave out the effects on all other life? The fires, drought, and dry rivers have a massive effect on the rest of the web of life. That’s as important.
Even if you take a narrow view that humans are primary, the effects on the wider web of life is immensely important since it directly impacts us. We are part of that web. Our lives depend on it.
This is all caused by an anthropocentric worldview, so why reinforce that by the way you report on it and talk about it? Why be part of the problem when you could be part of the solution?
Natural disasters: A design problem with design solutions
A lot of the current natural disasters in the world – wildfires, flooding, drought, dry rivers, and so on – are design problems.
They come from how we have designed our civilization and how we change ecosystems. Climate change is just one aspect of this, although it gets almost all the attention.
It’s simple. Healthy ecosystems prevent or reduces the scale of almost all natural disasters. For instance, they are hydrated so they prevent or reduces the scale of wildfires and droughts, and they feed springs, creeks, rivers, and the ground water. Healthy mangroves reduces the impacts of hurricanes and typhoons. Food production that’s diverse, in layers, and uses ground cover is much better able to thrive in droughts, hot weather, and a changing climate.
At Finca Milagros, we are very aware of this and actively work on creating and encouraging a healthier ecosystem. We create terraces which slows down the water and helps it soak into the ground. We improve the soil through compost and mulch which helps water soak into the ground and reduces evaporation. We will slow down the water in the mostly dry creek/river with porous stone dams. We are planting a large number of diverse native and climate-appropriate trees which helps the water soak into the ground. We are planting in layers which creates shade and cools the area through evapotranspiration. In all of these ways, we are creating a more healthy ecosystem, and that – in turn – reduces the risk of wildfires, drought, flooding, and more.
These design solutions can be used at any scale, including at community and regional levels.
A note on media: I don’t know why reporters and experts in the media rarely mention this. I don’t think I have seen any mention of it in mainstream media. They only focus on climate change. Maybe because it’s more controversial, and controversy means interest? I am not sure. If I was a reporter, I would put this in the foreground as much as I can, and at least include it whenever possible.
A note on wording: When I say “design problem” I mean a problem created by poor design, and with design solutions. It’s a design problem in two senses of the word.
Note: I made this into a regular article.
AUGUST 11, 2026
Scapegoating & misdirection
I know there are reason why people are so easily misled and misdirect their fear and anger. Maybe poor education, lack of resources and capacity, overwhelm, a culture where scapegoating is common, and so on. And yet, it does seem pretty stupid. There is very little logic behind it.
They assume their troubles are caused by small marginalized groups with very little to no impact on their lives, and not the powerful and wealthy who do have a big impact on their lives. Especially now when they fill the White House and Congress.
Somehow, they think people like Trump – a con-man and criminal in it just for himself and his fellow super wealthy – are on their side.
AUGUST 12, 2026
Both/and vs either/or
I saw this (well made and interesting) video about C++ and two competing program language philosophies – the optimal programming languages that a few aficionados will use vs the dirty and suboptimal ones that (in the case of C++) are backward compatible and the masses use.
It was framed as either/or. Which one is better?
I assume that’s a kind of rhetorical framing and question.
The answer is clearly both. Both together are best. We need the optimal languages since they forward the world of programming languages in general. And we need the backward compatible ugly ones since they are pragmatic and will be used.
AUGUST 14, 2026
High level of trust: Good and sometimes misplaced
In Norway, we have a high level of trust in the government and each other, and for good reasons.
It’s usually valid. We can trust each other and the government. I love living in a country with that level of trust.
And sometimes, that trust is misplaced. When I spoke with my cousin yesterday, he mentioned that he thought cod liver oil in the stores would be safe. The government allows it so it must be safe. And that’s clearly not always the case. The government allows a lot that we know is not safe at all, including cod liver oil with significant levels of heavy metals.
The Norwegian government, as most or all governments today, are complacent. They allow a lot of things we know are harmful: Food grown with poison. Cod liver oil with heavy metals. Light pollution that disrupts human bodies and the life of innumerable beings. Ecological overshoot. Lawns. Almost unhindered use of fossil fuels. The list is endless.
I assume these are more will be seen as a strange folly by future generations. How could they have allowed it? They knew very well how harmful it was. So why did they still allow it?
Civilization game & tame AI scenarios
I am developing a prototype of the civilization game that’s long been on my mind (since the ’90s at least).
One thing I notice is how conservative and tame ChatGPT’s future scenarios typically are. It tends to assume everything will continue mostly as it is now, while we know we are facing severe ecological and social disruptions. We are already in collapse, although we are still coasting for a while on what has been.
AUGUST 16, 2026
Fascism is a loser ideology for losers **
About the cycles of fascism and how it’s a loser ideology for losers.
Why is it a loser ideology?
As I see it, because it’s based in hatred and scapegoating.
It’s an excuse for indulging in the worst of what’s in us humans. You lose because you indulge in your reactivity to your own pain, and it will only make you more miserable.
It misdiagnoses the problem and assumes marginalized and weak groups in society are the cause of your problem, and that the wealthy and powerful are on your side. If you think that, you will lose because you target the wrong groups and causes.
It eventually harms you too. You will eventually be the target of the machinery of fascism, or the inevitable pushback against fascism. Either way, you lose.
It gets better and better, and worse and worse, faster and faster
It gets better and better, and worse and worse, faster and faster
– attributed to my friend Tom Atlee at the Co-Intelligence Institute in Eugene, Oregon
That’s definitely how it seems.
A segment of the population indulge in hatred, scapegoating, misinformation, and/or harebrained conspiracy theories, and so on.
Another segment engage in healing of personal and intergenerational/collective wounds, examination of the cultural and civilizational causes of our problems, regeneration of ecosystems and community, and so on.
And the changes seem to happen faster and faster.
The fall of the US empire I
What comes together falls apart.
All empires eventually fall, and so also the US empire.
Johan Galtung studied the indicators of the fall of empires, and he correctly predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in 1980, nine years before it happened. In the mid-1990s, he predicted the decline and fall of the US empire within twenty-five years. He also suggested that GW Bush and Trump would hasten the fall with their policies of over-reach.
The fall of an empire means just that, the crumbling of the global reach and influence of the empire. In the case of the US, it doesn’t mean the collapse of the US as a country, although that could also happen due to internal polarization and strife.
I find it interesting that people who see themselves as nationalists elect people like Bush and Trump who – by their actions – seek to hasten the fall of the empire. Trump seeks to isolate the US and pull out of previous alliances. He harms US trade. He actively dismantles US democracy. He is corrupt and seeks to normalize corruption in government and business. He engages in unwinnable forever wars like Iran. He actively despises soldiers and the military. He seeks to systematically channel wealth and resources to himself and the super wealthy and away from regular people and society.
Anyone with minimal knowledge of history can see his actions as both a symptom of an empire in decline, and also harming and weakening the US empire – the global reach – and US society itself.
He actively erodes the US empire and US society. He treats both as a business to be liquidated so he can reap short-term benefits.
Of course, he is a symptom as much as a cause. This decline has already been underway for decades, maybe most obviously since Reagan and his Neo-liberal policies.
As Galtung pointed out, the fall of the US empire may be good for US society IF the US choses to use their resources to the benefit of their own society. That’s a big if.
How will it influence the world? As it looks now, it seems that especially China will fill the vacuum. For all the faults of horrors of the US empire, the Chinese empire is not any better.
This is also not at all new. I have written about it since I started my blog in the early 2000s and was aware of it years earlier.
I asked ChatGPT to find some earlier articles on this topic. See below.
The fall of the US empire II: your earlier writings (AI)
The earliest explicit statement I found that the US empire may soon end is from October 2003, and the first piece directly titled around its fall is from April 2004.
Earliest Blogger-era writing
- Principles — July 24, 2003. An early discussion of US global cultural, economic, and military domination, although not yet specifically about its fall.
- Rants II — April 21, 2004. This consolidated several earlier entries transferred from your Society & Ecology blog, including:
- Height of Idiocy — September 7, 2003. You predicted that the US course would ruin its economy and reduce its global dominance.
- Isolating the US — October 26, 2003. You wrote that “the time of the US empire may soon be up,” citing foreign debt, military spending, inequality, and growing international resentment.
- The Crumbling of the US Empire — April 18, 2004. The clearest early piece: you said the empire would fall through military and economic overextension, alienation of allies, domestic neglect, corporate influence, and an ill-informed population.
- Military Spending — June 14, 2004. You described military expenditure as part of the logic of empire and predicted that overextension would eventually make the empire crumble.
- Deep Culture Change — October 24, 2004. Broader than the empire alone, but closely related: petroleum dependence, military overextension, continuing wars, domestic intimidation, ecological overshoot, and the attempt to preserve a doomed way of life.
- Hundred Thousand — October 29, 2004. About the estimated Iraqi civilian deaths and the war being carried out “for the sake of empire” and continued economic, cultural, and military dominance.
- Brutality — November 19, 2004. About Iraq, systemic brutality and dehumanization, and how these policies increased opposition to US dominance.
- Discontinued — June 2, 2005. You wrote that the US political system would eventually collapse, possibly together with US economic, military, and cultural power.
Strong early articles on your present site
- Feedback Loops & The Fall of the US Empire — November 4, 2005. Probably your most substantial early standalone article. It connects imperial decline with unreliable information, corporate media, political capture by wealth, military overextension, foreign debt, international interventions, and failure to prepare for peak oil.
- The Fall of US Empire, Projections & Acting — December 29, 2005. On the empire’s “last desperate convulsions,” what might replace it, and the need to combine examining projections with responsible action.
- Iran & Shadows — February 13, 2006. You argued that a war with Iran would accelerate the already imminent fall of the empire.
- World changing: many possible outcomes and what to do — September 25, 2006. Connects peak oil, the probable decline of the empire, ecological crisis, localization, and the Great Turning.
Later returns to the subject
- Inquiry: It would be better if Americans were less stupid — February 2008. Explores your own reactions to the anticipated fall.
- Article: Why nations fail — July 2012. Links Galtung’s prediction with military overreach, inequality, and concentrated economic, political, and media power.
- Decline of the US empire — July 19, 2016. A concise restatement, clarifying that the empire’s fall means loss of global reach rather than necessarily the collapse of the republic.
- The bigger picture of what’s happening in the world today: the fall of empires and ecological overshoot — October 27, 2023. Places US decline within the larger historical and ecological context.
- The Keys to the White House — September 6, 2024. Briefly returns to Galtung and the patterns preceding imperial decline.
- What’s wrong with the US? — September 28, 2024. A long examination of the empire’s internal costs and possible pathways toward its end.
- The Long Journey Home – The Fall of the US Empire — April 11, 2025. The later historical-fiction treatment.
The most important discovery is that your thinking was already quite clearly developed in 2003–04, not just by 2005 or 2016. For a concise historical sequence, I would select Rants II, Military Spending, Feedback Loops & The Fall of the US Empire, The Fall of US Empire, Projections & Acting, and Decline of the US Empire.
AUGUST 19, 2026
Being out of alignment with reality has unpleasant consequences, so why do some want to do just that?
Why do we sometimes choose to be out of alignment with reality when we know it will have unfortunate and sometimes serious consequences?
Why do some leaders choose actions that most regular people know are profoundly unwise?
Why did Putin invade Ukraine, knowing it would – at best – be a costly and miserable quagmire? Even if Russia had taken over Ukraine quickly, it would be a costly quagmire and Ukraine would eventually regain their freedom. The Ukrainians would resist with any and all means until Ukraine again was free.
Why did Trump invade Iran when any expert could tell you, and did tell you, that it wouldn’t work? They would replace the leader, they would close the strait, a land invasion would be next to impossible in practical terms.
…..
AUGUST 20, 2026
Is YouTube is self-destructing?
I see that YouTube are planning two changes: (a) the viewer count will reflect even the briefest view, and (b) only massive channels will receive money. It sounds like a joke but appears to be true.
If so, it seems that YouTube intend to self-destruct.
As it is now, the quality of the video is often reflected in the view number. If someone has a good thumbnail and click-bait title but a weak video, people click away quickly, the view is not counted, and that tells others it may not be worth watching. With the new change, the number of views will not be an indicator of the quality of the video anymore, and that will dramatically reduce the quality of the user experience.
The other change means that many or most smaller channels will move away from YouTube. Only the massive ones will remain. That will also dramatically change the user experience and not for the better. For me, it’s the many smaller channels that makes it worth watching, not the massive ones, and I assume it’s the same for many or most others.
Why is YouTube making these changes? It may be an example of asset stripping. They know it will destroy YouTube, and they see the short-lived boost in revenue as worth it.
Trump and asset stripping
What YouTube seems to be doing is what Trump is doing with the US. He is asset stripping the US – extracting as much as he can for himself and those close to him at the expense of everyone else and the country as a whole.
If people want their country to be run as a business, and especially one of Trump’s businesses (he is capable of bankrupting casinos), that’s what they get.
AUGUST 21, 2026
Healthy ecosystems are resilient, and that helps us be more resilient
This is something that seems hugely important, and yet is mostly overlooked in the public discourse:
Healthy ecosystems are resilient, and help us be more resilient.
In this case, regenerated land in the UK remains green and wet even during a massive drought.
Rewilded land remains green amid drought-stricken English countryside, images show – The Guardian, August 21, 2026
AUGUST 24, 2026
Putin is threatened by Ukrainian democracy
Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, this has made the most sense to me.
Putin is threatened by a brother/sister people who speak Russian, have a well-functioning democracy, and are part of Western Europe. It shows people in Russia that it’s possible for them too, and that would undermine Putin’s authoritarian rule.
AUGUST 26, 2026
Flash flood in Nepal
There was a horrendous flash flood on the Nepal-Tibet border today with likely many hundreds (or thousands?) killed.
The initial reporting says a 4.4 earthquake was the cause, which doesn’t make sense. It would be too small.
More likely, considering the location, this was caused by melting glaciers and climate change. Melting glaciers can create glacier lakes – lakes formed within the glaciers from melting ice, and the parts of glaciers that retain these lakes can collapse. That can certainly cause this kind of flooding.
If that’s the case, then this is something that could have been detected and warned with the right monitoring. Unfortunately, Nepal is a country with limited resources, and it’s the poor who are the hardest hit by these climate traumas.
These kinds of disasters have been predicted, and there will be many more of them in the coming decades.
Another possibility is a landslide going into a lake causing flash flood. Landslides are more common in areas of deforestation, and there is a lot of deforestation in Nepal. But that seems less likely.
Update: It’s the day after and the reports say a part of a glacier detached. It’s also possible that melting permafrost made the ground under the glacier give away, causing a landslide which made a portion of the glacier break off.
AUGUST 28, 2026
The death of a king & the continuation of the gilded cage
King Harald, the king of Norway, died this morning after a long and rich life.
Inclusivity
If we are going to have a royal family, it’s good that we have had the three kings we have had since 1905. They all seemed like decent and good people, and I like that Harald spoke up for inclusivity and kindness. I suspect his son, the new king, will do the same.
Reactions to the death of public figures
I am also curious about some people’s strong reaction to his death, which we also see with the death of other public figures. Why is that? Why such a reaction when they didn’t know him in person, and he didn’t even know they existed? One answer is that they may have a sense that they know the person even if it’s just through the media.
That points to something beautiful about humans. We are wired for empathy and connection. In some cases, that kicks in even if we don’t actually know the person, have never met them, and they don’t know we exist. Our built-in capacity for empathy and connection is activated (AKA hijacked) by the modern media system.
This may be why the news of his death is mostly just a news story for me. I am usually not interested in stories about royalty and rarely read them. I also don’t watch TV. And I can’t remember ever having had a conversation about the royal family, apart from why it still exists and that it’s a kind of modern gilded-cage slavery.
There are likely also other reasons why someone has a strong response. Some may identify with Norway as a nation and the king is part of that package. I don’t invest much in my national identity/identities which is another reason anything to do with the royal family is most uninteresting to me.
They may also enjoy the sense of community created through that identity and having the king as a focal point.
I assume the community aspect is important for many. We crave community, and this is a way to find a sense of community with just about everyone in Norway.
Born into a role
I am also curious about something else. Why do we collectively allow a system where some are born into a role and are met with strong expectations to fulfill that role? That seems to go against the most fundamental values of our society.
That combination – of being born into a role, and being expected to fulfill it whether it suits them or not, and whether they want it or not – seems unfair. It seems unethical and an echo of a time long gone.
It’s a kind of gilded cage. Technically, they can leave, and it’s easier for the more peripheral members of the royal family to leave. But, in reality, and especially for the ones destined to be kings or queens, leaving the role is made very difficult. It would come with a severe personal cost. Even for the crown prince’s (new king’s) sister, it has cost a lot for her to live her own life.
Mainstream media
There seems to be a kind of taboo against questioning the monarchy in Norway in most mainstream media. They mostly seem to function as a public relations agency for the monarchy, and any unfavorable reporting tends to take the form of gossip.
If there are questions about the monarchy, it’s mostly whether it’s necessary or worth the expense. It’s treated as a charming and quaint tradition that brings the people of Norway together, at least as long as the royals behave decently. They tend to leave out the gilded cage question, maybe because it’s more difficult to justify.
What if we designed it from scratch?
If we were to create the Norwegian system of governance from scratch, would we include a royal family as a kind of appendix to our democracy? Very likely not. We have it because it’s inherited.
Would we decide that some people should be born into that role, and be coerced by society as a whole to fulfill it – whether they wanted it or not, and whether it suited them or not? Very likely not. We accept this too because it’s tradition and we justify it because they also have privileges. We prioritize tradition and what we see as good for the country as a whole above the life and experience of those individuals.
A few more notes
I wanted to write this just from a conventional perspective, but there is a lot more here of course.
For instance, some may see the King as a kind of collective father figure. They may need that father figure, and the Norwegian kings have been good role models in that way.
There are also other, often related, archetypes at play – the ruler, the wise elder, and so on.
So if people project these kinds of things out on the king and the royal family, it’s understandable if they get emotionally invested.
Why I don’t watch TV
I watch movies and some series and some things on YouTube, but I don’t watch TV. I want to be selective about what I watch, and I almost never watch the news. I read news from reliable sources instead.
Why? Because we are not wired for TV and especially TV news. We are not wired to get all the horrors of what’s happening in the world into our living room with moving images and sounds.
As I mentioned above, I think that’s also why I don’t have much of an interest in the royal family in Norway and the death of the king is just a news story for me. I am slightly baffled why the news is full of it and why many seem to have an emotional reaction.
The reason for the difference is very likely TV-watching. If they have seen the royal family on TV over the years, they may – falsely, of course – feel they know them. They may feel they have some kind of personal connection with them. I don’t at all.
And somehow, I feel that’s more healthy.
Listening at 2x speed? **
I am curious about why so many these days seem to listen to podcasts, interviews etc. at faster speed. Here, Tom Scott says he sometimes listen at even 4 times normal speed. This is very different from my experience and world.
I typically listen at normal speed if people talk slow, or more often at reduced speed, maybe down to 0.6 speed, in order to be able to take in, process, and digest what they are talking about. I also often pause in order to give myself more time to digest, process, and explore what they talk about.
Just about any topic requires me to digest. It’s hardly ever just about taking in information for me. It’s far more about digesting, taking in, checking with my own experience, and exploring it from many different angles and perspectives, and that requires time.
Of course, the difference is probably in our purpose for listening. Some may just be interested in the simple information. Others, like me, need to digest and process. For me, it would be meaningless to just take in the info. It’s my processing that gives it meaning, and it’s more important to me than the information itself.
That will obviously depend on the topic and circumstances. If I am watching a video to help me fix a practical problem – a washing machine or something similar, then I am mostly just interested in the information. And if I am watching or listening to just about anything else, the my own processing is of main importance to me.
Also, I am not interested in just fitting information into my existing views and worldview. It want it to change me. I want my own processing of it to change me, and that requires me to slow down. I want to let it sink in. I want it to move me and my views and orientation. If it doesn’t change me, at least a bit, then it’s difficult for me to see the purpose of it.
SEPTEMBER 5, 2026
OK with cruelty, scapegoating, and suffering
I saw a video with ex-MAGA who said they had been deceived, had lived in a media/Fox News bubble, joined because people they admired were MAGA, believed that Trump wanted to help them, and so on.
That’s reasonable.
There is also another side here, and that is that MAGA is clearly funded on cruelty, scapegoating, and inflicting suffering on people. That’s not hidden.
So if you join MAGA, you are OK with all of that. They did not see it as a warning sign.
To me, that’s more disturbing. Also because this is a repeat of history, including Germany in the 1930s. Those people too were deceived, and they were OK with cruelty, scapegoating, and inflicting suffering on groups of people. Groups that, at first, did not include them, and then included them.
Sitting to pee
I always sit to pee. The one exception may be an exceptionally dirty public toilet, for instance in an airport.
Only 5 (Singapore) to 40 (Germany) percent of men consistently sit to pee which is a surprisingly low number considering the many benefits, including the obvious one of keeping the bathroom clean.
Why is it so low? And what does it correlate with?
I feel that sitting to pee is an indicator of something.
For instance… Freedom to not conform? Low need to be seen as masculine? More considerate of others? More highly conscientious? A tendency to more thoroughly think through daily tasks and activities, and do what makes the most sense? Cleaning the bathroom themselves?
Undermining the US military
This is well-documented in mainstream media, but I thought I would mention it.
The Trump administration is hell-bent on not only undermining US democracy but also to weaken the US position in the world by making enemies out of former allies. For whatever reason, they are also actively undermining the US military.
They are rapidly depleting their weapons supply through the war in Iran, for no rational reason, and they are firing huge numbers of seasoned and competent leaders within the military.
Why are other Republicans not speaking out about this? Why do they accept and support whatever Trump and his administration is doing? After all, they are actively destroying exactly what Republicans supposedly value and want to protect.
The main beneficiary of this is China. They can sit back and watch the other big superpower in the world undermine itself.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2026
Harila – Savage Mountain
I watched Savage Mountain about the climber Kristin Harila yesterday. I thought it was interesting. It shows how succeeding in your goals in the world can come with unexpected consequences, and also how tragedy can be used for good – in this case working for worker’s rights and protection. I also had the impression that she had stopped with risky adventures, which impressed me, but her Wikipedia article seems to say otherwise.
It also seems to be a story about patriarchy and misogyny, unfortunately. She did the 14 peaks much faster than Nims Purja, but he seems to be far more well known. Also, she stopped to try to help a climber in distress on K2 while 200 (?) others did not, and she was the one who got an online hate-campaign targeting her.
Why are some Christians conservative?
Why are some Christians conservative? Or even authoritarian, bigoted, and nationalists?
After all, Jesus was not like that. He spoke up against the establishment. He spent his time with and supported minorities and the outcasts of society. He was killed for being a threat to the empire.
The answer is likely in Christianity, the religion and system formed by people who were not Jesus. Christianity has traditionally been patriarchal and on the side of the powerful in society. It often reflects and supports domination culture.
So if someone is conservatively inclined, that’s the side of Christianity they likely resonate with. They resonate with the authoritarian and domination aspect of Christianity, more so than the radical kindness and inclusivity of Jesus. (Of course, they may resonate with that too and find their own form of kindness within that larger domination worldview.)
I am obviously glossing over a lot of nuances here. Some forms of Christianity is far more egalitarian and inclusive. And some conservatives are not authoritarian, bigoted, or nationalist.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2026
Sleep problems = civilization problems?
I strongly suspect that many, or most, sleep problems today are actually civilization problems.
We have a culture where we are expected to work eight-hour days, and that requires about eight hours uninterrupted sleep.
That’s a profoundly unnatural situation for us. Our ancestors did not live like that, and our bodymind did not evolve for that kind of life.
Our bodymind evolved very likely for shorter sleeps. Going to bed when it gets dark, maybe waking up and doing something, going back to sleep, getting up at dawn, taking one or two naps during the day, and so on. It was far more fluid.
In addition, we live out of tune with our biology and evolution in other ways. We may not have a tribe. We stay up after sunset. We daily expose ourselves to disasters and problems around the world we cannot do anything about.
When people have sleep problems today, it’s likely more of a culture and civilization problem. It’s a symptom of a much larger problem.
Moving fast in a world where the US is no longer a friend
The European Union may find a way to include Canada as a partner, and there is a lot of specific initiatives among many European nations, Canada, and other democracies to strengthen their ties and remove their dependence of the US and US technology and military.
All of this is very good, and I feel it’s important to move fast. Why? Because Trump will not be the last authoritarian US-first president. Trump was voted into power by people who (a) are easily misled and (b) want his policies of scapegoating, cruelty, and isolation, and that’s not going away any time soon.
It’s important to make these changes now and not assume the US will return to what it was. (Which was never that great anyway. They were/are an empire. It’s makes sense for smaller and medium countries to form alliances so they are more independent of these empires.)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
Ruth Ben-Ghiat on authoritarians and democracy
Is American democracy going to die? Professor and scholar in fascism and authoritarianism Ruth Ben-Ghiat breaks down all of the key ingredients in a recipe for a dying democracy. From electoral manipulation through to a transfer-of-power crisis, Ruth reveals the hallmarks of a constitutional government in peril.
Easier to focus on possible collapse instead of certain collapse?
A friend of mine mentioned that students in an online course got fixated on the dangers for humanity from AI and pandemics.
Those are real concerns, of course, but if you are to be fixated on something, it makes sense to me to choose a larger overarching issue: Global ecological overshoot.
AI and pandemics are possible future problems, and global ecological overshoot is a current certain problem.
I am still curious why not more people talk about it and do something about it. After all, it’s a certain doom unless we make dramatic changes to how we live collectively and individually.
Is it easier to focus on problems that are more easily graspable? Do they think it’s not serious because others don’t seem to take it seriously? Does it seem like too big of a problem? Do they feel hopeless to do anything about it, so it’s easier to not think and talk about? Does it seem too abstract? Does it seem like something others will be harmed by and not them? Does it seem like something others will take care of, so they don’t need to? Are they misled by mis- and disinformation?
SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
Siding with one empire over another?
Since I am in contact with people from South-America, I notice how many there – otherwise educated and intelligent people – side with Russia over NATO countries. They adopt the Russian propaganda.
I assume they are doing this because they don’t like the US and what the US has done in Latin America and other places, and since Russia is criticizing that, they side with Russia. They see Russia as a friend.
To me, that doesn’t make sense. An enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
To me, the problem is empires in general. The US empire has done and are doing terrible things. The Russian empire has done and are doing terrible things. The Chinese empire has done and are doing terrible things. They are all terrible in their own way.
What the US has done and are doing in Latin America is terrible. What Russia have done and are doing with their own citizens (oppression) and Ukraine is terrible.
OCTOBER 1, 2026
A prediction: The medical world will be much more skeptical of coffee in the future
It’s world coffee day today, and the main story in the main news outlet in Norway (NRK) is a doctor saying we can drink a lot more coffee than we think without any problem.
I have a sensitive system and notice ill effects from even small amounts of alcohol, caffeine, and sugar. These effects often last for two or three days, and really even longer.
These days, the medical world seems to have a favorable view on coffee. Considering how my system reacts to it, I suspect that will change. I suspect that within some years or decades, they will find more detrimental effects of coffee and change their recommendations.
Protein craze
I also strongly suspect that the current protein craze will be seen as misguided in the future. These days, it seems that “everyone” are trying to eat large amounts of proteins for whatever reason, and even doctors seem to prescribe it.
The reality is that we don’t need much protein to function well. There is no need to try to get more of it than what’s naturally in a varied diet.
Our ancestors certainly did not eat this much protein. Most of our distant ancestors, very likely, ate mostly roots, berries, fruits, seeds, and so on, with occasional fish or meat.
OCTOBER 3, 2026
My views on AI
AI is obviously a big topic these days. Here is a glimpse into how I see it for now.
There are two aspects of AI. One is what’s inherent in AI no matter how it evolves. The other is the current state of AI which will change over time.
Right now, it is obviously still in its infancy. It is, honestly, often not very good. It makes a lot of mistakes. Everything it says and does needs to be double and triple checked.
It clearly needs to be regulated, just like anything else impacting our society and our lives. Most if not all governments are far behind on this.
There is a kind of mindless AI craze these days, and many seem to feel they need to use it or be left behind. I see that the Norwegian government wants AI to be used in all branches and areas of government within four years, which seems a little crazy. They definitely need rules and guidelines for use of AI, yes, but they also definitely do NOT need to use it in all branches and areas of government.
I use it for some things, and am also quite skeptical of its output. It often gives wrong information and it’s often not very self-aware. For instance, I may ask it to translate a longer text, and it says it has done it verbatim while it really has just summarized it. It’s like having a somewhat capable and also quite stupid assistant.
Artificial Intelligence should also be called Artificial Stupidity. That’s the other side of the AI coin. It’s currently quite stupid because it’s in its infancy. And it will always be stupid in a certain way, from our perspective. It’s not human, it’s not embedded in the world as we are. It doesn’t have millions of years of biological evolution. It will never understand the nuances of the life of beings of flesh and blood.
I use it as an assistant, to help me with some tasks. As with any assistant, I need to guide and oversee it, and quite often, I want to do it myself instead of leaving it to an assistant.
When it comes to writing and any creative project, the process is often as or more important as the outcome. We learn from and are changed by the process. We discover something through the process. That’s why it’s often better to do something ourselves than leave it to the AI. That’s also why I want my writing to be mine and not leave it to AI. (Apart from, in some cases, as an appendix.)
AI has prompted many of us to even more appreciate what’s human made. We value and seek it out even more than we have in the past. I much prefer less skilled human art over more polished AI art. I much prefer a human reading a text than AI. I want the human behind it, not statistics.
It’s a tool, and like any tool, its effects and usefulness depends on how we use it.
It always needs to be overseen – guided, regulated, checked, and so on – by humans. These humans need to be experts in the field the AI is used in to be able to oversee it well. Human expertise is very much needed.
AI inevitably has biases. It’s biased based on the material it’s trained on and how it’s tweaked. Sometimes, the bias is accidental, and sometimes it’s intentional. Current AIs typically have a western bias since it’s trained on mostly Western material. Some are censored (China). Some are tweaked to be right wing (Musk). And so on. It’s good to be aware of this.
The development and use of AIs have a huge and serious impacts on ecosystems. This is one reason why they need to be regulated.
In terms of art, they are trained on human creations and can mimic or approximate what’s already created by humans but they are not creative in themselves. They may mimic what mediocre human artists create, and they will always be far behind the best human artists.
They can be useful in some areas of science, especially in areas where a huge amount of information combined with testing out a huge number of approaches is needed.
They are statistical models that mimic some aspects of the output of the human mind. To me, when I use AI, I just imagine statistics and numbers behind it. Maybe that’s because I spent quite a bit of time learning about neural/cognitive networks etc. in the ’80s and ’90s (including at University of Utah), the precursors of the current AI, and I have also taken some time to learn about how the current models are set up, trained, and work.
Since they mimic some of the output of the human mind, we can be seduced to imagine it as “conscious”, whatever we mean by that. This can be prevented or minimized by better understanding of how AI actually works. It’s a much needed vaccine and should be part of all levels of our formal education.
The way some see AI seems to be colored by science fiction.
October 5, 2026
Ukraine should give up land?
A couple of weeks ago, I talked with someone (SH) who said that Ukraine should just give up the land currently occupied by Russia and get peace.
To me, that’s misguided in several ways.
Putin can’t be trusted. He says one thing and does another. Any agreement wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on. He would most likely use it to build up his army, and later continue the war to take Ukraine as a whole – or take another neighboring country. His aim is to rebuild the Russian empire.
If someone invaded and occupied parts of Norway, would we want to give it up for a tiny hope of peace? Not very likely. I can’t imagine many in Norway seeing that as even an option. (It’s what Quisling did in WW2, except with the country as a whole.)
By giving up parts of your country, you reward invasion, occupation, and bullies. You tell bullies around the world that they can get what they want by doing just that. It’s a very bad precedence.
Also, by saying that, you are repeating and buying into Russian propaganda. You are repeating the propaganda of (a wannabe) empire. Is that really what you want?
Tuesday October 6, 2026
Plague or something else?
One of the big stories today is a researcher at a plague research laboratory in Russia who died after dropping a glass tube with some infectious agent. They are concerned it will spread.
Just about all the reports I have seen seem to assume this is a form of plague, either pneumonic or bubonic. And yet, there is no reliable or official source for that information. Do they use each other as sources, or assume it’s the plague because of the name of the institute? Or did they get the info from the Russian guy who initially posted on social media calling it plague, and then redacted it?
That and similar labs work with a wide range of infections.
The actual plague can be treated with antibiotics. If she was exposed to the plague, they would immediately have treated her with antibiotics. Instead, she died.
It’s quite possible that she was infected by something they have no vaccine or cure for. That makes the story far more serious.
OCTOBER 11, 2026
We need to be nature to save nature
We need to be nature to save nature.
It seems obvious, and yet isn’t always in a civilization built on the idea of separation.
We already are nature, and have been taught and trained to imagine we are not. That’s how we have created a system that doesn’t take ecological realities into account. That’s also why we allow the destruction of the web of life to happen.
When we viscerally recognize we are nature, that changes. It becomes a priority to create systems that take ecological realities into account. It becomes a priority to care for this web of life we are part of, and are local and temporary expressions of.
Also, when we viscerally get this, our current civilization and worldview seems almost incomprehensible. It’s so clearly misguided, delusional, and self-destructive. It’s ecocidal and suicidal. It doesn’t make sense.
It’s very simple. Even a child can understand it, and often does. And yet, it’s one of the major blind spots of our culture.
Talk with the animals
I have followed button-talking animals on social media for some years now, starting with Hunger for Words and Stella. As I have mentioned before, I think this can be that start of a revolution in how we see our fellow beings of other species.
We get to see that they have an interior life just like us – the feel, think, want, and so on. They are just like us in all the essential ways.
Communicating with buttons helps us understand their world and lives, and it’s also an invitation to us to treat them with more respect and as having as much value as us.
Said another way, this type of communication and learning (on our side) makes it difficult – and eventually impossible – to justify treating them as having less value than we do.
Of course, this is the best case and the optimistic view. It’s important to not underestimate the motivation for humanity as a whole for going into cognitive dissonance just to preserve habits, status quo, what seems convenient and comfortable for us, and so on.
Teen uprising in France
Teenagers in France are demonstrating for improved conditions at their schools, and more resources spent on schools. That’s very understandable. And when I see the arrogance they are often met with from officials – people who are supposed to serve them and the population – I completely understand their anger.
Communist?
I am curious about something I have seen for a long time, first in the US and now also in South America, and that is some pretty serious and obvious misconception about communism. In the US, they seem to often confuse socialism – or just wanting good social safety nets and policies that benefit everyone including the weakest in society – with communism, and in South America, even some well educated people seem to think that Russia and Putin are communist…!
What I learned in middle school in Norway, and what still seems accurate to me, is that there has not been and there are no communist countries. A few have used that label, but they have been far from communist in reality. Also, democratic socialism is different from communism, and very different from the real-life countries that have used communism as a (misleading) label. And Putin and current Russia is obviously very far from communism. It’s an oligarchy and a thuggish robber-baron regime.
Personally, I don’t even use the term communism unless I talk about the actual historical ideas of communism from Marx and others. I don’t use it to refer to Russia, China, North Korea or other countries now or in the past. Those were and are authoritarian regimes and dictatorships.
OCTOBER 18, 2026
Karl Marx: To be radical is to grasp things by the root
Yes, that’s how I see radical too, and there are often many roots. There are networks and layers of roots. And one root that changes and colors everything is the context created by our worldview and most basic assumptions about existence and ourselves.
To understand society, we can ask a simple question to find some roots: Who benefits? Who benefits from these systems, norms, ideas, ideologies?
Another root I find useful for understanding society is domination and partnership orientation. Does this reflect a domination or partnership orientation or a combination? Where does it come from historically? Who benefits from it? Why do people adopt it?
Yet another root is ecological footprint and our global ecological overshoot. This captures the simple essence of our ecological impact. (Although it doesn’t say why or what the solutions are, those are for other roots.)
An essential root in our civilization is our idea of separation – of ourselves from the wider web of life, of mind from body, or matter from the divine, and so on.
That brings us to our most basic assumptions about existence and ourselves, whatever they are. That’s yet another and an even more essential root.
The importance of education **
I keep being reminded of the importance of education, especially in recognizing patterns and dynamics.
As I keep talking with people and seeing what’s happening in the world, I realize that I must have been lucky with my teachers in middle and high school. They all had masters degrees or PhDs, and my main teachers were all passionate about deeper dynamics and patterns in history and society.
If we know something about epidemiology and the history of medicine and pandemics, we know what works and why, and we are not surprised or overly suspicious when governments implement standard procedures.
If we know our history, we know that people tend to get into conspiracy theories in pandemics. That vaccinates us against it. Why would I willingly follow that pattern when I know how common it is historically, and that it doesn’t make much sense?
If we know just a bit about psychology, we know how easy it is for people who feel isolated and/or lonely to get into rabbit holes and weird conspiracy theories. That’s amplified with access to the internet. That too vaccinates us against doing the same.
If we know just a little about the history of strong-men and authoritarians, we know under what conditions they get support and rise to leadership, and we know the typical outcome. It’s not good for them or their followers, or anyone else caught up in it. Fascism eats its own. That vaccinates us against supporting those kinds of leaders. We know that nothing good comes out of it.
If we know a little of history, we know that the wealthy gain their wealth from the commons. They steal and accumulate resources from the web of life and the rest of human society. They also use a set of strategies to maintain their privilege – ranging from justifications for the inequality (karma, God’s will, capitalistic ideology) to punishing, silencing, and ridiculing dissent (owning media companies) to giving crumbs and false hope to the less fortunate (trickle down, dreams of social mobility) to deflection and scapegoating (blaming minorities, immigrants).
This kind of knowledge is a vaccine.
And that’s why authoritarians do their best to erode and weaken the educational system of their country. (These days, we see it with Republicans in the US.)
In a good and responsible school system, this and more is part of the basic education.
Europe needs to be more independent
I still see many European – and Norwegian – politicians and commentators who seem to assume the relationship between the US and Europe will normalize as soon as Trump is gone.
That may be the case, for a little while, but someone like Trump will come again, and will very likely be far more competent than Trump is. The dynamics in the US that led to Trump twice (!) will still be there and will lead to more leaders like him.
Europe needs to be independent of the US in all areas, including technology. It’s very unwise for Europe to be dependent on US technology. The US can easily use it to put pressure on and blackmail Europe in the near or not-so-near future.
None of this is new or unexpected. Johan Galtung predicted the fall of the US empire in the 1990s and that it would happen about now. (He had already predicted the fall of the Soviet Union years before it happened.) We knew that this would happen, and yet politicians and others behaved as if the US would be a trusted ally indefinitely.
Some have still not caught up. They cling to an idea that we will return to a world that doesn’t exist anymore and won’t be again.
We’ll likely have the illusion of it returning, immediately after Trump, and then see that’s not true.
Respecting your audience
- honest, don’t waste their time, get to the point, make it simple, add details/wrinkles as needed
- far too much click baiting, even in mainstream media, a sign they don’t respect their audience, try to manipulate, lose my respect
Artificial stupidity
Disability pension
- don’t want it to be too tempting
- want to discourage the very few who would want to take advantage of it
- and in the process harm the many who profoundly don’t want it but find themselves in that situation of no fault of their own
My old Blogger blogs
I had a few Blogger blogs in the early 2000s, including one on topics similar to this series of articles. I asked ChatGPT how accurate my writings were seen in hindsight and compared with views at the time. See below.
The two Blogger blogs this is based on: Putali Rants | Putal 2
Your older blogs and how accurate they were in hindsight (AI)
I read both sections. I’m treating this as a read of the linked pages and their visible archives, not necessarily every post you ever wrote on Blogger.
Overall impression
Your blog had two related modes:
The “rants” section was a sharp critique of U.S. politics, militarism, media, fundamentalism, corporate power, and cultural immaturity. You later describe it as focusing on the “abysmal state of US culture and policies,” and say you discontinued it partly because it became too one-sided and problem-oriented. (Putalirants)
The society/ecology section feels like the constructive counterpart: ecological literacy, systems thinking, permaculture, “Big Here / Long Now,” nonviolent communication, citizen councils, media reform, and a “life-centered” culture. You explicitly reframed the focus from problems to substantive, solution-oriented culture change. (Putali 2)
A. Main themes and topics
1. Life-centered vs. profit-, empire-, and ideology-centered culture.
A central frame is that politics, economics, religion, and culture can either serve life — ecosystems, people, future generations, empathy, justice — or serve abstraction: profit, ideology, national power, “winning,” or righteousness. You contrast social justice, peace, ecology, holistic health, and consciousness with neoliberal globalization and fundamentalism. (Putalirants)
2. Systems thinking and long-term ecological culture change.
You were not writing about “the environment” as a separate issue. You were writing about civilization as embedded in ecology: energy, food, economics, behavior, worldview, technology, and spirituality all intertwined. That shows up in posts on ecological literacy, permaculture, the “Great Turning,” the “Long Now,” peak oil, and deep culture change. (Putali 2)
3. Critique of U.S. empire after 9/11.
A large part of the political writing is about Iraq, the “war on terror,” U.S. dominance, torture, dehumanization, and how fear and patriotism can be used to legitimize violence. You repeatedly connect foreign policy to domestic psychology: us/them thinking, projection, fundamentalism, immaturity, and shadow. (Putalirants)
4. Democracy as more than elections.
You were interested in election integrity, media reform, citizen councils, instant-runoff voting, multiparty democracy, grassroots globalization, and ways to make public decision-making wiser. You also worried about winner-take-all systems, two-party polarization, corporate influence, and media simplification. (Putali 2)
5. Communication, empathy, and inner work as political tools.
The society/ecology section includes Nonviolent Communication, Joanna Macy-style practices, and an emphasis on seeing through one’s own biases. Politics is treated partly as an inner/relational practice: less demonizing, more accurate observation, empathy, and awareness of needs. (Putali 2)
B. Political/world issues: your view then vs. typical views then vs. now
Iraq War, WMD, and the invasion
Your view then: The invasion was illegitimate, based on false or deeply suspect claims, would create long-term occupation and violent resistance, and was tied to U.S. imperial dominance rather than genuine defense. You also framed Iraq as already becoming a Sunni/Shiite/U.S. coalition conflict — close to what later became the standard “sectarian civil war” interpretation. (Putalirants)
Typical view at the time: In the U.S., support for military action was broad before the war: Pew found 55–68% support in prewar polls, with many Americans believing Saddam Hussein had WMD or links to 9/11. Colin Powell’s U.N. presentation also increased support. Europe and the global antiwar movement were much more skeptical, so your view was not isolated globally, but it was against much of U.S. mainstream opinion. (Pew Research Center)
How it is seen now: The Iraq Survey Group found Iraq had not reconstituted a nuclear weapons program and had destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, while U.S. public retrospective support has fallen sharply. Pew’s later reviews describe the war as built on claims that investigations did not substantiate. (GlobalSecurity)
Hindsight judgment: You were substantially more accurate than the U.S. mainstream and the U.S. political establishment. On Iraq, your view aged well.
Occupation, insurgency, and civil war
Your view then: You expected occupation to last years or decades, produce resistance, and deepen Iraqi internal conflict. You saw the official story as far too clean and self-justifying. (Putalirants)
Typical view at the time: The Bush administration and many U.S. commentators expected a more successful transition toward democracy. Even after the invasion, much mainstream language emphasized “insurgents” and “terrorists” rather than a deep political and sectarian breakdown.
How it is seen now: The long occupation, insurgency, sectarian civil conflict, Abu Ghraib, and later ISIS are now central to mainstream historical assessment of the war. Pew’s 20-year retrospective notes the long conflict and very high Iraqi and U.S. costs. (Pew Research Center)
Hindsight judgment: Very accurate directionally. You saw the likely long-term dynamic better than many mainstream U.S. voices.
Torture, Abu Ghraib, and dehumanization
Your view then: You argued that Abu Ghraib and prisoner abuse were not just isolated “bad apples,” but connected to a broader climate of dehumanization: “axis of evil,” “with us or against us,” and the denial of Iraqi civilian suffering. (Putalirants)
Typical view at the time: The official U.S. response often framed abuses as aberrations by individuals, while critics argued they were part of a wider detainee-abuse system.
How it is seen now: The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee’s later report concluded that CIA interrogation practices were more brutal than represented, not an effective intelligence tool, and that the CIA misled or provided inaccurate information to policymakers, the Department of Justice, Congress, and the public. (Intelligence Community News)
Hindsight judgment: Broadly accurate. Your psychological framing may be more sweeping than a legal report would be, but the claim that abuse was systemic rather than merely accidental aged well.
“War on terror” as empire/power politics
Your view then: You saw the “war on terrorism” as a frame that excused U.S. behavior and advanced U.S. dominance. (Putali 2)
Typical view at the time: After 9/11, much U.S. public opinion accepted the frame as defensive counterterrorism. Criticism existed, especially internationally and on the left, but it was less dominant in U.S. mainstream discourse.
How it is seen now: The more skeptical view is much more mainstream: Iraq is widely understood as a strategic disaster that damaged U.S. credibility, destabilized the region, and rested on false premises. (Pew Research Center)
Hindsight judgment: Directionally accurate. Where I’d qualify it: “empire” is an interpretive lens, not a simple factual claim. But as a reading of power, fear, and opportunism after 9/11, it has held up well.
Media, corporate power, and political simplification
Your view then: You saw U.S. media as prone to simplification, self-censorship, corporate framing, and selective attention. You disliked how the 2004 election was reduced to “moral values,” and argued that morality also includes war, poverty, ecology, health care, workers, and truthfulness. (Putalirants)
Typical view at the time: Mainstream U.S. commentary did heavily emphasize “moral values,” red/blue America, religion, and culture-war explanations after Bush’s 2004 win.
How it is seen now: The idea that U.S. media and politics oversimplify moral/political identities is far more common. Polarization, partisan media ecosystems, corporate influence, and agenda-setting are now standard topics, not fringe concerns.
Hindsight judgment: Mostly accurate. I’d soften the strongest version — “corporations control media and politicians” can become too totalizing — but your core concern about structural bias, simplification, and manufactured polarization was sound.
2004 election fraud and electronic voting
Your view then: You were suspicious of the 2004 election results, especially electronic voting, irregularities, and lack of mainstream media attention. You linked to election-integrity sources and treated the issue as serious. (Putalirants)
Typical view at the time: The mainstream view was that Bush won and Kerry conceded; major media did not treat the election as stolen.
How it is seen now: This is mixed. On one hand, computer-security researchers were right to warn that paperless electronic voting systems had serious vulnerabilities; a 2004 IEEE paper on Diebold code found major security flaws and recommended voter-verifiable audit trails. (Homes at UW) On the other hand, Caltech/MIT researchers found that the 2004 exit-poll discrepancies did not provide evidence that electronic voting stole the election. (Caltech Vote)
Hindsight judgment: Your concern about election integrity and paperless machines was prescient. A stronger claim that the 2004 election was actually stolen is not established by the evidence I found.
Polarization, two-party democracy, and “moral values”
Your view then: You argued that winner-take-all elections reinforce a two-party system, that corporate influence and media simplification intensify polarization, and that “moral values” were being defined in a very narrow way. (Putalirants)
Typical view at the time: Many commentators treated polarization as a red-state/blue-state culture divide, often centered on religion, patriotism, sexuality, and “values.”
How it is seen now: Pew has documented deepening partisan division, rising negative views of the opposing party, and greater dissatisfaction with the two-party system; congressional polarization is now described as wider than at any point in the past 50 years. (Pew Research Center)
Hindsight judgment: Accurate and ahead of the curve. You saw polarization as structural, not just cultural.
Ecology, peak oil, permaculture, and deep culture change
Your view then: You argued that ecological crisis required changes in technology, behavior, economics, and worldview. You also connected petroleum dependence to U.S. politics and possible wars over oil-rich regions. (Putali 2)
Typical view at the time: Climate and sustainability concerns existed, but the deeper “civilizational transition” framing was more common in ecological, permaculture, systems-thinking, and activist circles than in the mainstream. Peak oil was discussed, but often treated as fringe or alarmist.
How it is seen now: The broad ecological systems view is much more mainstream: the IPCC now states unequivocally that human influence has warmed the climate and caused widespread rapid changes, while the Global Footprint Network frames human demand as exceeding what ecosystems can regenerate. (IPCC) The peak-oil framing is more mixed: the fossil-fuel transition is happening, and the IEA expects fossil fuel demand to peak before 2030 under current policies, but the feared near-term geological scarcity collapse did not happen in the simple way many peak-oil writers expected. (IEA)
Hindsight judgment: Strongly accurate on ecological overshoot, culture change, and systems thinking. More mixed on peak oil if understood as imminent supply collapse rather than fossil-fuel dependence and transition pressure.
Rights of nature / advocates for ecosystems
Your view then: You suggested that nonhuman species, ecosystems, and the Earth should have legal or political advocates. (Putali 2)
Typical view at the time: This was niche — more deep ecology than mainstream politics.
How it is seen now: Rights-of-nature and legal-personhood movements have become real legal developments in several countries; scholarship notes acceleration after Ecuador’s 2008 constitutional recognition of nature’s rights, and Colombia’s Atrato River rights decision came in 2016. (RGS-IBG Online Library)
Hindsight judgment: Quite prescient. Still not globally mainstream, but much less marginal now than it was then.
Were your views accurate at the time?
Yes — especially compared with mainstream U.S. opinion. On Iraq, WMD, occupation, torture, polarization, media simplification, ecological overshoot, and the need for deeper democratic/ecological reform, your views were often more accurate than the dominant U.S. public and political consensus at the time.
The main caveats:
You were better on direction than on every specific claim. Your broad pattern-recognition was strong: militarism would backfire, ecological limits matter, media frames distort, polarization is structural, and democracy needs deeper forms. Some particulars were weaker or more speculative, especially 2004 election fraud and some peak-oil collapse expectations.
You were not alone globally. In Europe, among antiwar activists, ecological thinkers, permaculture circles, progressive Christians, NVC communities, and systems thinkers, many of these views existed. What stands out is not that each view was unique, but that you integrated them into one coherent worldview early.
Your tone sometimes overgeneralized. The “rants” format made some claims sharper and broader than the evidence can support. For example, broad statements about “U.S. culture” or “corporations controlling politicians/media” work as critiques, but they are less precise than your best systems-oriented writing.
My bottom line: your political-worldview writing from that period was unusually accurate in its core intuitions — especially against the U.S. mainstream of 2002–2005. It was most prescient where it was systemic and life-centered, and least reliable where it moved from systemic critique into strong suspicion or sweeping generalization.