Generative Energy #33: Optimizing The Environment With Ray Peat

[Dan W]

I haven't listened to this one yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

YouTube version:

(or watch directly on youtube where the pinned comment has clickable links to different topics)

Play the audio from a web page:
#33: Optimizing The Environment With Raymond Peat

Subscribe in a podcasts app:
Use iTunes: Generative Energy Podcast by Danny Roddy on iTunes
Or enter the feed URL directly into your app: http://www.generativeenergy.com/main?format=RSS


And Danny's linkpile for this episode:

• Subscribe on YouTube
• Ray Peat's Website
• One-to-One Coaching & Live Streams (Patreon)
• Instagram
• Twitter
• Website

 

[burtlancast]

Thanks.

After listening to it, it's now clear Ray wears communist blinders.
That's alright though: nobody will ever confuse him for a politician.

 

[Blossom]

Thanks @Dan Wich! Listening the podcast renewed my interest in the possibility of raising goats.

 

[Regina]

Thanks @Dan Wich! Listening the podcast renewed my interest in the possibility of raising goats.

 

[sladerunner69]

Ray has written about stalin in a positive light? Interesting, I think Dr. Peat is too nice and gentle for political philosophy. Most of his ideas seem to be bridging on a libertarian, conservative stance, but then he likes to outwards embrace socialists and Marxists. I don't think he has enough real-world experience to see why Marxism is so deeply flawed, or perhaps he is unwilling to accept the right wing assertation that food stamps make people lazy (this is true according to studies)

Similar is this notion that societies in the temperate climates had competition and so were able to defeat societies from warm climates which had people with high metabolic rates. He claims societies in the equatorial regions had better nutrition and metabolisms and were thus peaceful and communal. This is simply false, you can actually draw a very substantial correlation between societies near the equator and tribal war. These regions like Africa and central america never advanced as far because they were preoccupied so heavily with warfare. Societies in the temperate zones developed organization structures and hierarchies of power (which Peat claims are authoritarian and violent) in order to survive harsh winters and bad harvests. This shaped their nations and strengthened their people, creating cultures more based on self reliance and rugged individualism. European and east Asian societies developed faster because of the seasonal shifts which brought competition which made them strong (Peat cannot accept this because he is too gentle and kind). Yes Darwin did believe that everything british was superior, but this was simply an observation that he himself was somewhat hesitate to assert. He did not finally admit this until his final book, after studying biology for decades. Pear is hypocritical to call this "psychotic" because Darwin was, ultimately, using empirical evidence to reach his conclusion that everything from Britain was best. It is what he had observed and made conclusions based on those observations, not on rationalistic thought, which Peat is supposedly against but actually using here to defeat Darwin's arguments.

Also when speaking of politics it is clear that Peat does not like to delve into details and numbers. He prefers broad ideas and conceptualizing, which is a habit of leftist academics. Talk about why socialism is so great in theory, but never give precise examples because the data typically denounces the merits of the welfare state...

 

[Such_Saturation]

 

[Herbie]

Ray has written about stalin in a positive light? Interesting, I think Dr. Peat is too nice and gentle for political philosophy. Most of his ideas seem to be bridging on a libertarian, conservative stance, but then he likes to outwards embrace socialists and Marxists. I don't think he has enough real-world experience to see why Marxism is so deeply flawed, or perhaps he is unwilling to accept the right wing assertation that food stamps make people lazy (this is true according to studies)

In Russian films Come And See 1985 and Siberiada 1979 and in those films you can see how people lived in community's where they cooperated in relative peace before the war and then industrialisation destroyed it, the younger people of today in the west never lived this life so we don't know anything else but the current system.

Was the pressure of global capitalism responsible for what happened to the people of Russia in Lenin and Stalins time?

 

[barefooter]

Ray has written about stalin in a positive light? Interesting, I think Dr. Peat is too nice and gentle for political philosophy. Most of his ideas seem to be bridging on a libertarian, conservative stance, but then he likes to outwards embrace socialists and Marxists. I don't think he has enough real-world experience to see why Marxism is so deeply flawed, or perhaps he is unwilling to accept the right wing assertation that food stamps make people lazy (this is true according to studies)

I think Peat is an absolute genius, but it is very important to be mindful of his biases and blind spots, because he is such an intellectual, and has seemingly lived a secluded life of study. I think a lot of intellectuals are drawn towards socialism, and even communism, because you can theorize about it in an office, and it makes a lot of sense and theoretically leads to good outcomes for the masses. The problem is that central planning on a large scale simply doesn't work, because you can't have a minority of people planning the existence of a majority of people.

Capitalism has it's pitfalls too, but I think it's main strength is in decentralization. Many people focus on the competition aspect, but I like to focus on the aspect of decentralization of ideas. Instead of ideas originating from a small interior core of selected people, ideas are allowed to emerge on the fringes by radicals with innovative minds. It allows people to innovate without permission. I believe decentralization and permissionless innovation are hallmarks of a healthy society. I have round-about arrived at these conclusions by working in the tech industry a good portion of my life, and seeing how open protocols, platforms, and software allows innovation at the edges and thus better outcomes. The thing about decentralization though, is that you can't sit in an ornate office at the top of government and plan it, because the prosperous outcomes arrive as an emergent property of permissionless innovation. This is what keeps many intellectuals from seeing it's merits, because you cannot sequester yourself and write a thesis on something which cannot be predicted.

I think a mix of capitalism and socialism would likely be very good for a society. Capitalism to allow for innovation at the fringes rather than just the center, and socialism to account for the things capitalism doesn't care about (tragedy of the commons, people's health, environmental health, etc.)

 

[ilikecats]

He maybe has some communist sympathies but didn’t he say at the end of the video that one of the first steps to creating a better society is getting rid of the government? Lol not very communist. I think he’s being misrepresented here... but I think hed prefer a socialist government like the Netherlands to the U.S. government. The Netherlands seem peaty AF. My metabolic rates increasing just thinking about that legal red light district lol

 

[Badger]

Can DL mp3 file here: https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...original/generativeenergy33.mp3?download=true

I haven't listened to this one yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

YouTube version:

(or watch directly on youtube where the pinned comment has clickable links to different topics)

Play the audio from a web page:
#33: Optimizing The Environment With Raymond Peat

Subscribe in a podcasts app:
Use iTunes: Generative Energy Podcast by Danny Roddy on iTunes
Or enter the feed URL directly into your app: http://www.generativeenergy.com/main?format=RSS


And Danny's linkpile for this episode:

• Subscribe on YouTube
• Ray Peat's Website
• One-to-One Coaching & Live Streams (Patreon)
• Instagram
• Twitter
• Website

 

[sladerunner69]

In Russian films Come And See 1985 and Siberiada 1979 and in those films you can see how people lived in community's where they cooperated in relative peace before the war and then industrialisation destroyed it, the younger people of today in the west never lived this life so we don't know anything else but the current system.

Was the pressure of global capitalism responsible for what happened to the people of Russia in Lenin and Stalins time?

Industrialization destroying the good simple agricultural lives of small villages is nothing new or unique to Russia, it began in western Europe in the middle ages and happened all over the world. Pol Pot tried to revert to that kind of society by banning books and machines. The flaw with that view, in my opinion, is that those cooperative little villages were actually not very good places to live at all. High risk of disease, very few amenities, boredom, daily monotonous labour. The most rewarding things about those towns are their virtue and morales, and not much else about them was pleasant.

 

[Herbie]

Industrialization destroying the good simple agricultural lives of small villages is nothing new or unique to Russia, it began in western Europe in the middle ages and happened all over the world. Pol Pot tried to revert to that kind of society by banning books and machines. The flaw with that view, in my opinion, is that those cooperative little villages were actually not very good places to live at all. High risk of disease, very few amenities, boredom, daily monotonous labour. The most rewarding things about those towns are their virtue and morales, and not much else about them was pleasant.

Yeah Ive seen Brave Heart…

I was referring to the time of Lenin and Stalin in an attempt to understand Ray Peats point of view instead of making an arrogant assumption that the man lacks "real world" experience whatever that means.

I mentioned that the films showcase people cooperating in relative peace. its got nothing to do with hygiene, amenities, boredom and monotonous labour as if these things have been solved by war, industrial revolution and capitalism. I don't think religion has anything to do with humans having the ability to cooperate in a communist society.

Its the ultimate question of today which no ones knows.

 

[sladerunner69]

I think Peat is an absolute genius, but it is very important to be mindful of his biases and blind spots, because he is such an intellectual, and has seemingly lived a secluded life of study. I think a lot of intellectuals are drawn towards socialism, and even communism, because you can theorize about it in an office, and it makes a lot of sense and theoretically leads to good outcomes for the masses. The problem is that central planning on a large scale simply doesn't work, because you can't have a minority of people planning the existence of a majority of people.

Capitalism has it's pitfalls too, but I think it's main strength is in decentralization. Many people focus on the competition aspect, but I like to focus on the aspect of decentralization of ideas. Instead of ideas originating from a small interior core of selected people, ideas are allowed to emerge on the fringes by radicals with innovative minds. It allows people to innovate without permission. I believe decentralization and permissionless innovation are hallmarks of a healthy society. I have round-about arrived at these conclusions by working in the tech industry a good portion of my life, and seeing how open protocols, platforms, and software allows innovation at the edges and thus better outcomes. The thing about decentralization though, is that you can't sit in an ornate office at the top of government and plan it, because the prosperous outcomes arrive as an emergent property of permissionless innovation. This is what keeps many intellectuals from seeing it's merits, because you cannot sequester yourself and write a thesis on something which cannot be predicted.

I think a mix of capitalism and socialism would likely be very good for a society. Capitalism to allow for innovation at the fringes rather than just the center, and socialism to account for the things capitalism doesn't care about (tragedy of the commons, people's health, environmental health, etc.)

Well said, you make some interesting points. I do agree that a competitive free market mixed with effective regulations makes for the best economy. I actually have been thinking that competition is perhaps the central facet of what makes a society superior in terms of progress and ideas. You actually pointed out the greatest advantage which you described as more independent ideas from the fringes making their way into the center. However I would assert that this conept is actually one of the merits of competition, it is competition and diversity of ideas. Central Planners champion their own ideas, where as a competitive marketplace rewards the most effective ideas. The socialist component, in my view, would best be implemented in promoting further competition. As Peat explained in this podcast, the government far too often stifles and crushes competition. This is usually done through regulations and licensing, as I see it, but also happens on a larger scale through pay to play politics. The massive money and donations must come out of political campaings, that is certain. And the wealthy should be taxed to a higher degree, I would say. In general the government should be much smaller, and be designed to benefit the working class and not the corporations. This is my view and many other's view on the center-right, and Peat seems to share that view but instead somehow embraces Marxist ideologies???

Peat has definitely lived a highly secluded life, reading and pondering the day away in his office. Apparently he never was a well known professor and has not led many classes or functions or academic organizations, and in the setting of a Portland College I don't think he would talk with many people who were politically right of center. Modern academics tend to skimp on data and numbers anyways, which are needed to engage in politics and often paint a picture that is harsh and realistic. Political thought requires a sharp intellect and curious mind, as well as a balanced temper. It also requires one more thing, which many academics are lacking, and that is a tough and resolute character, which is absolutely vital in making utilitarian choices (best for society not the individual). This will often require an effective politician to come off arrogant, mean-spirited, and cold as he marginalizes a group of persons in the name of the greater the good.

 

[sladerunner69]

Yeah Ive seen Brave Heart…

I was referring to the time of Lenin and Stalin in an attempt to understand Ray Peats point of view instead of making an arrogant assumption that the man lacks "real world" experience whatever that means.

I mentioned that the films showcase people cooperating in relative peace. its got nothing to do with hygiene, amenities, boredom and monotonous labour as if these things have been solved by war, industrial revolution and capitalism. I don't think religion has anything to do with humans having the ability to cooperate in a communist society.

Its the ultimate question of today which no ones knows.

As I just explained, Peat does seem to lack "Real-world" experience in the form of human interaction, challenges, debate, which would is essential for political science. I would not consider this an "assumption" when it is based on observations which I stated in my other post. I have a great deal of respect for the man, he is a peerless genius, and I have followed his nutrition advice for over 5 years. That said, the man has been an academic his entire life. I have never read or heard him talk about his experience in business, general medicine, recreation, politics. The closest thing to "fun" I have heard him talk about is painting, and actually few people would agree that landscapes and portraits are fun. Once he also mentioned resistance training at the gym, but that he was uncomfortable doing intense exercise so he uses very light weights like a 5 lb dumbbell. My point is that Peat is a kind, humble, non-aggressive, passive intellectual who is considerably out of touch with median society. Karl Marx was known to be the same way. He was an unemployed ex-professor who was funded by Engels and read volumes and volumes of books, but had no "Real-world" experience to write about. He simply gained all of his knowledge from the London Library and the flaws of his political theories are central to that. Every single country that embraced Marxism has failed, both economically and socially.

 

[Herbie]

As I just explained, Peat does seem to lack "Real-world" experience in the form of human interaction, challenges, debate, which would is essential for political science. I would not consider this an "assumption" when it is based on observations which I stated in my other post. I have a great deal of respect for the man, he is a peerless genius, and I have followed his nutrition advice for over 5 years. That said, the man has been an academic his entire life. I have never read or heard him talk about his experience in business, general medicine, recreation, politics. The closest thing to this I have heard him talk about is his paintings, and very few people would consider landscape and portait painting to be interactive or dynamic. Once he also mentioned resistance training at the gym, but that he was uncomfortable doing intense exercise so he uses very light weights like a 5 lb dumbbell. My point is that Peat is a kind, humble, non-aggressive, passive intellectual who is considerably out of touch with median society. Karl Marx was known to be the same way. He was an unemployed ex-professor who was funded by Engels and read volumes and volumes of books, but had no "Real-world" experience to write about. He simply gained all of his knowledge from the London Library and the flaws of his political theories are central to that. Every single country that embraced Marxism has failed, both economically and socially.

It's an assumption because it's not measurable and who is anyone to judge what real world experience means.

Your justifying your respect for him now and comparing him to others.

 

[burtlancast]

I believe the greatest irony in Peat admiring Marx is that Marx himself was a heavy authoritarian, denounced as such by others socialists like Bakunin.

Which prompted both Marx and Engels to expel Bakunin's faction under obviously a completely bogus motive from the International movement. (Bakunin was (in Marx's view) expelled for supposedly maintaining a secret organisation within the international) .

“The instinct of liberty is lacking in him [Marx]; he remains from head to foot, an authoritarian”.

"for the Marxists, anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved."

Bakunin is remembered as a major figure in the history of anarchism and as an opponent of Marxism, especially of Marx's idea of dictatorship of the proletariat, and for his predictions that Marxist regimes would be one-party dictatorships over the proletariat, not of the proletariat itself.

This is the guy (Marx) Ray admires so much.

 

[Jman]

I don't think he has enough real-world experience

yeah at 81 years old, I doubt he would have much real world experience.

Peat has definitely lived a highly secluded life, reading and pondering the day away in his office.

Anyone who has listened and read a lot of Ray Peat would know that your just guessing right now.

and has not led many classes or functions or academic organizations,

Eugene Register-Guard - Google News Archive Search

 

[jaguar43]

I think Peat is an absolute genius, but it is very important to be mindful of his biases and blind spots, because he is such an intellectual, and has seemingly lived a secluded life of study. I think a lot of intellectuals are drawn towards socialism, and even communism, because you can theorize about it in an office, and it makes a lot of sense and theoretically leads to good outcomes for the masses. The problem is that central planning on a large scale simply doesn't work, because you can't have a minority of people planning the existence of a majority of people.

Wow, a lot of misinformation right here. Did you even listen to the interview ? it's strange how the apologist for capitalism think of abstract reasons as to why people believe in socialism and communism. Before it was authoritarianism, now it's the limits of intellectual and a secluded life. I think people who argue against socialism and communism are the truly secluded. Impoverishment of millions of Americans, the authoritarian class system, elitism and corporatism everywhere, Imperialistic wars, a failing healthcare system. I guess these "things" just don't exist.

If you think Mr, Peat has lived a secluded life of study I think you should go read his "about ray peat" on his website and listen to some of his interviews. By no means of the imagination has he lived a secluded life.

Capitalism has it's pitfalls too, but I think it's main strength is in decentralization. Many people focus on the competition aspect, but I like to focus on the aspect of decentralization of ideas. Instead of ideas originating from a small interior core of selected people, ideas are allowed to emerge on the fringes by radicals with innovative minds. It allows people to innovate without permission. I believe decentralization and permissionless innovation are hallmarks of a healthy society. I have round-about arrived at these conclusions by working in the tech industry a good portion of my life, and seeing how open protocols, platforms, and software allows innovation at the edges and thus better outcomes. The thing about decentralization though, is that you can't sit in an ornate office at the top of government and plan it, because the prosperous outcomes arrive as an emergent property of permissionless innovation. This is what keeps many intellectuals from seeing it's merits, because you cannot sequester yourself and write a thesis on something which cannot be predicted.

I find it funny that you use words like decentralization and innovation since that's pretty much code word for free market and competition. What is even funnier is how you explain the caricature of the socialist economy. Its the typical party line in U.S politics, so by no means should people take that to heart.

This is the typical argument for privatized healthcare. If government runs healthcare, then innovation diminishes. But we have seen with privatize healthcare not only a zero gain in innovation within the healthcare industry. But a decrease in health of the American population. This is a straight fact. Innovation is not done in the for-profit firms or corporations.

Apparently the ability to take a picture on your phone and use the internet on a plane is "innovation". That may help the tech industry with their work but has that lead to any real change that transform society. In fact people have discuss the problem of the scarcity of revolutionary scientific work. Here is a video discussing the implications.

I think a mix of capitalism and socialism would likely be very good for a society. Capitalism to allow for innovation at the fringes rather than just the center, and socialism to account for the things capitalism doesn't care about (tragedy of the commons, people's health, environmental health, etc.

Thats pretty much apologetic language for capitalism. Peat is right on his critique of capitalism and that it's harming to humans and the planet.

 

[Jman]

Man I really shouldn't be engaging in this online forum stuff, its definitely unhealthy. But Im really bored right now . So anyways, @sladerunner69 did you just try and portray ray as like somehow weak because he doesn't like lifting weights ?

Once he also mentioned resistance training at the gym, but that he was uncomfortable doing intense exercise so he uses very light weights like a 5 lb dumbbell

lol like why would anyone ever bring that up in a political discussion.
It seems like your trying to paint this strange imaginary image of Ray, just because what he is saying is causing you some dissonance in your conservative views.

 

[Kartoffel]

Peat has definitely lived a highly secluded life, reading and pondering the day away in his office.

Yes, except when he's founding and running schools in Mexico trying to avoid getting shot by CIA agents, or travelling to the Soviet Union in order to talk directly to the scientists other Americans don't even wanna write about