I think that’s either the name of a song or a movie, but I’ve never wanted to pursue it.

I don’t think I’ve ever heretofore argued with anyone else’s blog  (except to question two of their blog layouts for which I think they quit following me), but to risk that outcome I want to respond to an earlier post by insanitybytes https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/no-feminism/>  

You may want to read it all, for there are some refreshing points of view, but I had trouble with this paragraph:

I love women and seek to improve the quality of our lives, but as much as I love women there is one other group that loves us even more, and that is men. There is a huge deception woven into feminism that seeks to deny that, but it is simple and irrefutable biology. Individual men may claim to hate us, some men’s evil actions may lead us to believe we are hated, but biology wins the game every time. Men as a species are tied to us in a kind of symbiosis that forces them to seek us out, to protect us, to strive to create a better world for us.    <https://insanitybytes2.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/no-feminism/>

I’m biting my sarcastic tongue.  What say ye?….But 2014?  How did I happen to read this so many years later?

______________

OOPS

Regarding my suspicious mind, I’m wondering about that article I referred you to earlier regarding the dangers of our current dwindling world population.  How much of it was a “pitch” to conservatives?  Certainly it was blind to the positive effects of reduced world population on climate change (see several articles),   and although not acknowledging the inferred possible ramifications on legal abortions, it primarily grieved over its negative effects on the economy.  Maybe AI will come to the rescue of the economy?  [But what of the work force?]  “If technology does allow humanity to overcome the baby bust, it will fit the historical pattern. Unexpected  productivity advances meant that demographic time-bombs, such as the mass starvation predicted by Thomas Malthus in the 18th century failed to detonate.  Fewer babies means less human genius?   “But that might be a problem human genius [AI?] can fix.”  I trust that money wasn’t involved in the production of that article.  As suggested, I can imagine the observations left out about the issue.  WHY am I so suspicious?  Upon re-reading this paragraph I seem to have made it confusing to read.  In short, an article regretting worldwide loss of population lacked acknowledgement that such loss is  a bonus for climate change efforts, and may contribute to support for forced reproduction.

YES, I have continued in my tendency to be suspicious and in fact the extent of my distrust of other people’s motivations–and perhaps mine–may be responsible for my unwillingness to watch all of a site my daughter referred me to.  It was/is a lovely site involvng moving images and meditation, but as I found myself going under I became suspicious of what message I was subliminally opening myself  to…(In my new AI-induced paranoid ideation “they” could  remove the subliminal messaging before it was submitted in Court.)  Is it still against the law?  (I think I remember that they stopped it at drive-in theaters. What I have to look forward to is increased grounds for justified suspicion, along with the expansion of content screeners.  (At this point in my writing– for some reason– a Google definition of ECTOPIC PREGNANCY  just popped up on my screen)….O Dear, do the content screeners now have my number?  Just kinda joking…

READING this week:  I’d become curious when reading various research articles about scientist’s response to weird observations.  Following dismissive responses to otherwise very weird findings, scientists have had an increasing tendency  to conclude that the findings may have only been “due to esp.” So imagine my surprise this week when I spied a book which had slid into the back of my bookshelf, behind my other books.  I bent way down and back and unearthed it:  Philosophy and Psychical Research, a production of the Muirhead Library of Philosophy, general editor H. D. Lewis and editor of the current volume Shivesh C. Thakur,  1976.  Honestly, I don’t know if even at the height of my acumen I could have understood much of the discussion, but at this point much passes me by.  I was surprised by some wondering as to what extent various of the more recent (after Rhine, at Duke University)  experiments opened the door to possible involvement of  clairvoyance,  precognition, retrocognition,  and psychokinesis.  My takeaway is that we know esp exists, can’t account for it in this materialistic world, so we’ll just let it lay there unsolved, along with many other things [like physics, for example?]  And there was a discussion as to whether the ability/abilities might be inherited as in evolution.

WHY WOULD…Anyone pay $450,ooo for a handbag?  Would that please God and get you through the eye of the needle? Or  impress others or yourself?  Give you more power over others and make your place in the elite more secure?  Of one thing I’m certain:  You are not reading this column.  (The Economist June 3rd 2023 p. 52)  I shouldn’t judge or assume–perhaps you donated an equal amount to starving low-lifers abroad such as the families who have had to sell their daughters as child brides to keep the family from starving. Due to their fluctuating national economy, however, the most the family can currently get for sacrificing a daughter has dropped to $300.

IMAGE: