Optimizing The Environment

00:00 Hello everyone, I’m Danny Roddy of DannyRoddy.com and today I’m talking with Painter philosopher biologist Raymond Pete. In this hour-long episode we’ll talk about a Vernadskyan view of evolution, fostering an environment for human potential, and implications for a self-regulating, self-ordering society, and so much more. In addition to thanking Ray for talking with me today, I’d like to thank my patrons for making this show and all of the content I produced possible. If you would like to become a patron, please go to patreon.com slash Danny Roddy. Ray’s newsletter is available by email now, it’s $28 for a total of six newsletters delivered bi-monthly, and you can subscribe by sending $28 to raypeatsnewsletter at gmail.com. As always, please do your own research and come to your own conclusions, and in the spirit of William Blake, 01:02 the true method of knowledge is experiment. Without further ado, here is the show. I loved your quote without a realistic view of where you are, you can’t expect to go anywhere, and I thought of not only optimizing the environment, but also thinking about how you formed as an individual in your early life to now, because a lot of times I’ll be talking to somebody and they’ll say something like, oh my health problem started a year ago, or it started two years ago, and then you’ll talk to them more and you’ll realize things have been happening like their whole life and unravel this relationship with stress, and so going through your work, I highlighted aeromorphosis from the evolution of the biosphere, just like the general idea of energy inducing complexity, and thinking that that was just like something that is probably pretty important to nail down, and then I highlighted La Chatea’s principle of restoration and disturbed equilibrium. Going into Saba’s view of hormonal imprinting, and I know you probably have your own 02:06 view on that, but that was just like my point of reference for that idea. From there, going into the precautionary principle of modifying the environment, and also looking at your past, and trying to like, I don’t know, erase the imprints to maintain a good sense of euphoria, and I love that quote by Jose Ortega Gase, who says that I am myself plus my circumstances. Yeah, Pavlov, everyone seems to end up at that point realizing that you can’t separate self as something separate from your circumstances. In your newsletter, you were just talking about progesterone being this main substance guiding the development of the individual. Yeah, the thing that holds you together while you respond in an energetically directional way, the progesterone prevents the energy from disintegrating you. It’s one of the 03:14 most powerful stabilizers. Carbon dioxide has a similar structurally stabilizing effect, and then that creates the unified system, which can respond in a unified and directional way. If something’s interfering with the general energy production or the steroids, that’s when I’m just going to read what you had written. So Lauchet’s principle that a system adjusts in ways which restore a disturbed equilibrium is behind this idea. Every part of the flow can be seen as a disequilibrium, and the complexification of the structure tends to absorb the disturbing energy. So the more energy, the more complex. When that’s interfered with, that’s when the health problems start to form or the structure becomes imperfect. Say the last part again, when the what? Disturbing the complexification of the structure and the development of the person. We’re always having a flow of energy. That flow itself is disturbing the equilibrium, 04:19 and it’s tending to absorb energy and turn it into structure. Anytime you flow energy through a system, it is creative and creates structure. And the particularities of the structure that forms under that response to Lauchatelier’s principle, structure is always going to form, but it has the option to take on different shapes according to the shape of the stress that you’re putting on the system. There’s a new young physicist who, I don’t know if he’s still at MIT, but he was working there, Jeremy England, who has been demonstrating basically the fact that the universe isn’t controlled by the second law of thermodynamics. He says that if you start with a random clump of atoms and shine light on it long enough, it shouldn’t be surprising that you 05:25 end up with a plant. That is something that ever since Lauchatelier and Bernadski, basically it’s restating what Bernadski said, that the sun generates large-brained animals, basically. And in Jeremy England’s phrase, if you create a plant by shining light on random atoms, if you shine enough, bright enough light, you’ll eventually get large-brained mammals, because the ordering principle of a directed flow of energy is going to create a complexity. And whatever the surrounding conditions are, where you’re disturbing the equilibrium, it’s going to conform to those boundary conditions, so it will take a shape responding to everything in the environment. But it’s the flow of energy which is responsible for the growing 06:27 complexity. Ray, I had sent you an older quote that you had that said, I came to see literary periods or styles, classical, realist, romantic, surrealist, etc., as reflections of a society’s energy and structure. And that got me thinking of so many people are saying things like, I would like to shape the world in this type of point of view, or I would like this system, and given that quote and this idea behind energy, complexifying forest, and this general rule of nature, I was thinking that it was possible that people were talking about these things out of context. And then it made me feel like the realization that how much of this is even within my control and how much of it should I even worry about if the Earth’s metabolism or the universe’s metabolism is guiding the direction of everything. Does that make any sense? 07:30 Yeah, the natural tendency of things to have dinosaurs grow up to a huge size and then mammals come in and grow bigger brains, those are basically guided just by the surrounding competitive innovations of matter. The Sun and the internal energy of the Earth are supplying the streaming energy and then the shape, particular shape that things take is a reflection of who else is around absorbing that energy. So plants come up and if the Earth is warm, the plants will make not only carbohydrates, but will make saturated fats and the expanding brains of the contemporary animals. Eating those plants with saturated fats will thrive, integrating the saturated fats into their brain. But if for some reason the big brain move into a cold climate 08:36 and eat plants that are defending against freezing, they’ll start ingesting polyunsaturated fats into their brain and their brains will suffer and be limited in proportion to how much of the cold climate polyunsaturated fats get into their brains. So that creates accelerated aging and lots of other problems. So if everyone had stayed foot, we might have just been on a straight line to a very happy big brain population eating nice tropical oily fruits. But besides the going off into very unhospitable environments at the poles, under those tense circumstances, people started exploiting each other instead of having more or less egalitarian situation of the tribes in a very favorable climate. They started getting competitive 09:45 and creating control situations where some people would work as slaves so that a few people could have a better life. And the authoritarian warlike sadistic cultures reflect the distorting power of scarcity, natural scarcity and natural competition. Then if those populations survive, they tend to conquer and become dominant. And as they become a unified authoritarian civilization in the temperate zones, then they will in various ways create ideologies that justify what they’re doing, ideologies of basically caste systems, slavery and competition. And you’ll come up with the idea of competition and survival of the fittest. And then applying those ideas, various forms of 10:46 education and advertising and indoctrination will expand and and complexify those authoritarian, exploitative processes. So it’s just like altered the course of human history by singing the praises of competition and things like that. Making an institution out of competition. I reread Stephen Jay Gould’s Krapotkin was no crackpot and I’ve just been reading more about cooperation in general. And I was curious, I think a lot of people have like a knee-jerk reaction to it that they think it’s like a utopian hell when you say something like cooperation. And so I was curious if you thought, my friend Eric Lapine, he translated an article from a gentleman named Ruin Olguin. And a phrase that stuck out to me was, he asked the question of how do we reconcile the greatest individual liberty possible while preserving the greatest equality within a community? And he called this like a fundamental political paradox. Now I was curious if one, if you actually 11:48 thought it was a paradox and what does cooperation even look like on a grand scale? I think it’s just a matter of being able to step back from the culture in one of these authoritarian societies. When someone steps back on questions, they tend to get kicked out and have to go look for some other tribe to belong to because the authoritarians don’t tolerate questioning and opposition. They indoctrinate everyone that competition is good, but they do everything to eliminate competition. So the ideology of the United States has been competitive free enterprise, they used to say. And the basic business in reality has been the elimination of competition using government whenever possible to eliminate the competition, but also forming organizations, non-competitive, anti-competitive systems 12:54 Ray, I know you’ve written favorably about Stalin, Lenin, Marx, and I guess the general idea of communism. And I was curious if you thought those terms or people’s ideas were being misrepresented or perverted in some way just because in the limited amount of news that I introduced into my life, you hear terms like cultural Marxism or talking about Stalin and these people as being just the worst people on the planet. I was curious on your thoughts on that. About 65 years ago, I saw a book called Communism and Christianity and I don’t have any idea who wrote it, but it was observing that Marx’s basic ideas apparently came from Christian ethics. And if you take Christian ethics seriously, then you start thinking like Marx or at least the anarchists or communitarians of the 19th century, you think if those ethics are valid, 13:54 what can we do to observe them? Can you get into more of the ethics? I feel like people play semantics a lot of times here and it’s like what do these specific words mean? Or I guess just if you could explore that a little bit more. Well, if you look at the do under others ethic and then you look without Darwinian bias, Darwin believes that everything English was superior, that English plants even would displace the species when they were transplanted the way the superior Englishmen would displace other races of people because of the natural superiority of everything English. If you can get away from that fairly psychotic view of biology and actually look at the behavior of squirrels or mice, any birds in general, they all are 14:55 aware of their surroundings and are inclined to be altruistic and benevolent, not destructive and aggressive. Aggression is a very peculiar and unusual part of the behavior in most species. When their intelligence is allowed to act, they make it obvious that they are experiencing empathy even with different species, but especially with their own species. Ray, just to play devil’s advocate, sometimes people say that when we try to intervene or at least the complex apparatus of the US government tries to intervene in situations like using welfare to help people, it becomes a nightmare situation. Do you think that’s accurate or what do you think? I think that is just a story that has been invented to put down the do gooders. There have been people who were supported by big corporations and or governments to write popular stories to make movies to illustrate that. 16:02 Ronald Reagan got his ideology from some of these political fictions that promoted that idea, anti-Dickens approach to society. I was watching not too long ago an interesting conversation between Webster Tarpley and I forget the libertarian person, but Webster was explaining how if you cut the food stamps, you basically have a genocide on your hands and you’d have a bunch of Americans that were destitute. It’s just the idea of the government being the problem, but if you get rid of the government programs, you’re immediately in this worse position if you do that. Well, if you do that, a bunch of corporations will disappear and rich people will be desperate to find a new way to undo that because the corporations are constantly being 17:03 defended by government power. Police and armies are there to make the corporate ruling class stable and secure and they talk about the welfare keeping people from starving, but it’s the government that is keeping them poor that creates the starvation by following the rules of whatever the corporations want to write into the economic system. Every aspect of the culture has been designed to favor corporate exploitation and the poverty expands in proportion to the power of corporations over government, so the story that people need welfare to prevent starvation, that’s very downstream part of the story. First, you create the starvation and then you decide whether to alleviate it slightly. I’ve been reading a little bit about structural violence and James Gilligan in his 1997 paper defines structural violence as the increased rates of 18:06 death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them. Gilligan largely describes these excess deaths as non-natural and attributes them to stress, shame, discrimination, and the denigration that results from lower status. Do you think that’s a worthwhile concept and kind of fits into what we’re talking about? Just the rules regarding corporations and labor unions, for example, the unions have very restrictive things that they can do collectively. Corporations now have absolutely no restrictions. They can spend whatever they want controlling political information. Just the organizational rules that are built into the system, removing those would make a tremendous difference. The whole structure, any structure we can see is there for the purpose of exploitation and the alleviation of the suffering is just a 19:12 way of preventing historical uprisings here and there. If people were to rise up and be opposed to the systems that were all privy to, is violence something that’s sometimes necessary or is it always vile? Well, when Martin Luther King said that white people are being exploited and sent to kill foreigners for the good of the corporate class, that was very antagonistic to the military and corporate factions and led to his being killed. Anytime someone suggests even moderate approaches to changing the system, they suffer violence. They don’t have to propose violence. He was absolutely against violence from either side, but no matter how much you advocate non-violence, you’re going to experience it if you do anything that threatens the system. Stepping back just a little bit, can we talk about hormonal imprinting? I don’t know if you’ve ever 20:16 actually talked about it on an interview, but I could be wrong. The basic idea behind a cellular protein being a protein in a cell that binds to certain substances while they have an effect on other cells? Chaba who has done so much research on hormonal imprinting has the explanation that he has some evidence for showing that the receptor is created specifically for what the cell is experiencing. That reminds me of a paper that I saw when I was in a developmental biology seminar. Someone had accidentally put in this Xerox of a study from the 30s in which they presented a protein to a culture of bacteria and then removed the protein, washed the bacteria, treated them with an enzyme to break down the protein, washed them again, had very clean bacteria, 21:21 and then cultured them and large amounts of that same protein kept appearing in the culture, very strongly showing that the bacteria had learned to copy a foreign protein. After I mentioned that and went back to make a Xerox for myself, the article had disappeared from the box where our seminar papers were. Someone cleansed the document box. These systems are imposed on us and we’re all being actively harmed all the time. I’m saying his name wrong. What was it? Saba? He mentioned serotonin frequently. Serotonin is being this type of switch back to the primitive metabolism and that having a very profound effect on our perception of ourselves, of the world, of possibilities, and things like that. 22:24 Just your general thinking of erasing these imprints and maintaining, and I had to look up what euphoria meant exactly, but it’s just like maintaining a good feeling, right? Yeah, and it consists of a balance in which structure is at least maintained by the flow of energy and it’s only in that state where you can advance to increase your structure and perfection. If you are far from the euphoric condition, it means you’re basically degenerating, structurally aging, deteriorating, and maintaining the euphoric state is therapeutic. That’s what happens when you eat progesterone, take active thyroid T3, or pregnant alone, or sugar, or breathe the right amount of carbon dioxide. Everything that doesn’t cause injury and does cause energy or stability is going to lead you towards a greater stability. Thyroid, pregnant alone, DHEA, 23:28 progesterone, testosterone, cholesterol, vitamin D, sugar all support that functionality. Besides those things are, is there anything that you’re very concerned with, EMF, or the general air quality, or water quality, and I mean, or all of those things? Yeah, the estrogenic toxins in the water are a major thing, but the corruption of the food supply is probably the most important for the most people. The miseducation of people to think that vegetable oil is better than butterfat, and to think that complex carbohydrates, for some reason, are good or sugars are bad. It’s sort of a perversion of the government intervention to help poor people survive in the Great Depression. They said here are beans and grains that are very 24:29 cheap and the recipes to make them palatable and so on, but by the 1970s they were saying even middle-class people should eat these for various reasons, supposedly for your actual health. One of my favorite quotes from you is when somebody was asking you about trauma and you said, nothing is stored. It’s like the past are all present in the same room, and we periodically have a different perspective on them. When the present balance of stuff, toxicants, euphoria, etc., is good, you can think and feel what you want to about things. We were talking earlier about the general, like everybody is being harmed actively by our culture and society, and thank goodness nothing horribly traumatic has ever happened to me in my lifetime, but I do know that incorporating some of the things you talk about has allowed me to gain some kind of stability in my life, which was definitely missing in my teens and 20s. For example, girls were a constant 25:30 source of pain, and if a girl didn’t message me back or call me back, I would just be torn up for months about it. I was curious if somebody had a very, very traumatic childhood or some kind of event in their life. Is there any therapy or a thing that you thought was especially useful for those very serious traumas? I think even the big traumas are processed in the same way. Everyone is massively traumatized by being born into Europe or America, and having a deformed body part or an emotional, intense experience, those are fairly minor compared to the big framework that is institutionalized traumatism. Look at Gabor Mate, how well he turned out after surviving Nazism. He’s incredible. I was just watching an interview with him and 26:33 then something he had about a critique on capitalism, and I don’t know of anybody that is as articulate as him about these topics. It’s just mind-blowing. Yeah, he wasn’t harmed permanently by terrible experiences. Everyone who survived had the possibility of realizing those same forces are around us all the time, and we have to constantly overcome them. In Ernest Shatchel’s book, Metamorphosis on the Development of Affect Perception, Attention, and Memory, he says, the drive to seek out and explore the new is the strongest in childhood of animals and men. It’s the period of exploratory play. As they mature when we see in higher mammals and in most men a slackening of the ceasing of curiosity, fascination, playful exploration, excitement, enthusiasm, the open world has now turned into a variety of objects with signal qualities or into objects of use to which certain adaptive responses are given. Ray, not to put you on 27:36 a spot, but I think of you as a good example of somebody who’s been able to maintain the excitement because compared to you, I feel like I’m so ridiculously unproductive, and so I just feel like you’re a good example of that. Do you see it similarly to how Ernest stated? Yeah, exactly. I think it’s the language culture, the language burying the story that they are trying to indoctrinate us with that turns adults away from exploration and innovation. The reason I got interested in studying linguistics was from puberty. I started experimenting with language and the actual machine of my consciousness and what language was doing to that apparatus, and for about 65 or more years I’ve been experimenting with how to separate myself 28:37 from the English language in particular, but from language in general, and to see the processes of consciousness, and that’s the sort of thing that Kropotkin couldn’t avoid seeing when he studied nature. If you really watch animals, you see that they are behaving more intelligently than most of the people we read about in the news or see on television. I’ve watched ants a lot, and each ant is an individual and very communicative if you watch their body language, birds the same. Each bird is an individual and they remember people, I assume they remember other species, but they are very tuned in to our body language and to each other, and people create the illusion that communication happens through words and language where the basic communication is being 29:38 aware of where you are, and the language most often is a way of making people less conscious rather than actually communicating something of use. It tends to reinforce those patterns that are indoctrinated and suppress the urge to explore. This is one of the reasons that for yourself you do the sculpting and painting and music, and those are activities to turn off the language, right? And just paying attention to sleep and what your consciousness machine is doing for you. For Pavlov, the cortex of the brain was like an interface between everything happening in the world and everything happening inside your body, and it’s a constant adjustment of your inner workings and the outside possibilities. And if you step out of the language system, 30:47 anytime you step out of the language culture, you come in contact with your cerebral cortex, which is an interaction between your kidneys and pancreas and intestine and heart, and consoles everything and everything around you, and possibilities of what’s to come, and selected parts of your past experience, but you select the part of your past that you think will be useful for what is to come. Days that you do more arts and less reading, do you notice that it has an effect on your dream? Oh yeah, everything affects the dreams, the hormones, the amount of sugar. If someone wasn’t dreaming at all or was having overly intense nightmarish dreams, would that be a basic feature of hypothyroidism? Yeah, the deep sleep doesn’t necessarily involve dreams. If something is disturbing you, then you’ll try to work it out 31:50 in the dreams, just the same way you work things out in reality. And when the dream catches some emotional energy, if you can remember that and become conscious with it, the dream can make the emotional energy available to you during the day to work out parts of the reality that need to work on. Silly question, but is the dreaming part of the innate animal intelligence, as opposed to, I don’t know, the cultural caricature that we’re all kind of looking through during the daytime? Yeah, the animal intelligence is always there offering itself, and our daily cultural consciousness is distracting us from watching. I see it like a set of projectors that are working with resources from inner body senses and stored images. The body is projecting possibilities, trying to bring them to your attention for you to work on 32:53 consciously. But ordinarily, the consciousness that tries to handle those intrinsic body deliveries to your awareness, the consciousness tends to stop the process or deform it. So I think a kind of passive attitude towards watching what your body is trying to do is similar to watching what ants or birds or other animals are trying to express. Treat your body as if it was a bit of nature and watch what it’s trying to tell you to do. It’s so funny that you mentioned a passive approach to the body. Just thinking back in my own experience, it always seemed like I had this aggressive salt the earth approach to like whatever I would do, or just the idea that every problem was a nail and that I was the hammer just to be as aggressive as possible with every single problem I thought I had. You can have a tremendous amount of energy in the passivity, but it’s passivity in relation to the fictional character, like the role society tells us to 33:59 play. It’s like a fictional role in a melodrama. If you detach yourself from that cultural self, then the passivity actually gains energy that you can appreciate the full intensity of the problem you’re confronting. Besides the arts, is there anything else you can think of that fosters those kinds of feelings? I don’t know, avoiding the news or doing anything else like meditation or anything? Being around people who are open to consideration of actual parts of reality, I think that’s a very powerful part of our nervous system is how we feel ourselves resonate with other people. The way Jeremy England says shining light on a random clump of atoms will produce an organism. If you have a random clump of people, the natural process of resonance is going to create interesting things. So anything that you can do by yourself 35:04 happens more intensely. There’s more freedom to become yourself when you can resonate with other people. For example, people have put brain cells isolated from a brain, put them in a culture dish and feed them for a few days. They start vibrating together. They learn to act like a brain. And if you put people together without pressure and demands from the outside, they will come up with solutions. That would be sort of an ideology that you can expect more intelligent solutions to come out of a group of people than any individual trying to impose an ideology. In regards to what you said about the group people, I know Tolstoy said that everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. At least in regards to politics, it seems like the people thinking about changing it are kind of in a constant state of spinning their wheels and sometimes just making the person sick. Do you think like focusing on yourself and 36:10 trying to correct whatever you can given enough that the person has enough energy will create a ripple effect in society? Or is that not how you see it? I think so. The culture has taught people that their self that they need to concentrate on is this fictional role, like their caste position, social position. And I think realizing that that culture that tells you who you are is also killing you. I think that’s an essential starting point that you want to be able to get together with other people who are aware of the hostile nature of our bigger society. So it’s essential to have a group in some capacity to put the ideas into action? I think so. And the traditional ways of organizing are now being monitored so carefully that they can shoot them down the moment they start to take effect. So I think the wariness of the culture 37:16 is the most infectious thing that can precede organization if the recognition that medicine is mostly harming people and that the foods are leading to an early diseased death. That sort of suspicion of the system and rejection of the system I think is what can spread and precede the actual search for what to do next. The ultimate goal should be something on the order of gathering culture, not hunting and gathering, but having such a fruitful environment that we can just pick what we need, have milk goats or milk cows and fruit trees. So abundant, that seems like the immediate way to satisfy your needs rather than going off and stealing someone’s hoard of soybeans or whatever. And you said in Gavin’s article that you thought deleting medicine, 38:21 the legal system, and then the education were three things that would move in a good direction, you thought? Yeah, the government and the corporations are enforcing those things. Ivan Illich studied them in good detail how medicine and schooling are enslaving people and harming them. I think one of the elements of schooling that he said was the worst aspect was the compulsory need to be taught, so disengaging somebody’s autonomy and ability to learn by themselves. A lot of the things that you’ve said. Yeah, the whole education system structurally, the way they define excellence has been a big part of the mental enslavement. When I first went to college, my second year, I came across a professor who was, for a little state college, he was unusual. At the time, I took literature from him. He was teaching five different departmental subjects, and I saw a letter he received from a dean at Harvard 39:28 inviting him to come there to teach literature, but he enjoyed teaching comparative religion, contemporary philosophy, German literature, English literature, and occasional other subjects. He was an excellent teacher in everything he taught, but he didn’t want to be limited to an English department. One of my friends in Mexico, at the time, he was teaching anthropology at Blake College. He was teaching at, I think, 11 different universities in half a dozen different subjects, Latin, forensic medicine, history, various branches of history, all sorts of anthropology and archaeology, geography, and considered outstanding in every field. The fact is that when you can teach a subject other than what you’ve been taught, especially, you’re going to teach 40:30 that subject probably better than someone who has drilled in it for 10 years. I would regularly encounter people in San Francisco that studied medicine, and not that I have any idea what I’m talking about, but I could never have a normal conversation with them, and I’m passionate about the subject, so you think I might be able to, but wasn’t it, wasn’t Marx the person that thought that there are many different aspects of a person, and that you weren’t just one thing? Yeah, and Gabor Maté was an English major. I think he’s a good example before he studied medicine and taught high school English. If you know one subject to a pretty saturated degree and then approach another one, you learn the essential way to get at that subject, and someone who is teaching in the five departments can make each one more valuable than someone who teaches a single subject all their life. They are more equipped to teach 41:32 those subjects with their systems thinking. Before we wrap things up, do you want to talk a little bit about ontogeny, anticipates phylogeny, and pedomorphism, and juvenileization, and just go over that a little bit? I don’t know why, but it’s a constant source of interest to me. I think it’s that same thing. Le Chatelier and Bernadski, the energy available to flow through the system is extremely intense in the first processes away from the ovum. The oxygen, carbon dioxide, and glucose are generously available. Your demand is small because you’re only a few cells big, so you can suck up the environment at a terrific rate a thousand times faster than when you get bigger, and so the environment is just pretty ideal until you 42:35 get up to about the size of a peanut, and then the environmental limitations start being felt. So the aeromorphosis processes where flowing energy generates complexity, that energy is right. Zooming through your processing system, producing a huge head and eyes, then you start running into what your mother didn’t eat, and finding the need to specialize and limit your development. So you start out inventing a future species, trying out what the simple flow of energy does to your cells, and it expands you as a knowing being, and then as you run into the limits, you start adapting to those limits, and the worst, your mother’s condition is the more 43:35 you become prematurely adultified. Can this be thought of as puberty being a major landmark in aging and the reproductive years of the organism being a slow decline ultimately to death, and then pre-puberty being, I don’t know, a time where the organism is more evolved physiologically? Yeah, I think at six months of gestation is when we’re at our peak, and the environment, the present atmosphere, for example, limits the amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen that you can use and the amount of glucose that your mother can deliver. So at six months of gestation, I think is forever the most pedomorphic, and then that tapers off. It sets up a pattern of tapering off and predicting how much of a crocodile or primate you’re going to be. If you were very 44:37 early deprived, you’re going to be an eating machine more than an experiencing machine. And women are semi more resistant to these negative effects because of the progesterone? Yeah, progesterone keeps the progesterone oxygen and carbon dioxide towards an ideal for as long as you can supply all of those things together. Because women naturally have more progesterone than men. And in your newest newsletter, you talked about progesterone being responsible for this temporal long range thinking. Do you see women as having a special unique place in society? In 1946, I think it was that I read Ashley Montague on the Biological Superiority of Women sometime in the late 40s. I’ve been conscious of that ever since. And I thought of myself as a feminist until the Gloria Steinem CIA brand of feminism came on the scene. 45:43 I was shocked. I saw like the video of her talking about her CIA operative days. And I wonder how many so-called feminists are aware of that. And how this institution was using feminism in some way to their advantage, you know? Yeah, to expand the labor market to lower wages was a basic function. And some people are saying to destroy the basic nuclear family, do you think that’s right? Yeah, make everyone cheap labor. That’s the basic purpose. And to as peacefully as possible dispose of the excess population that isn’t needed to run the factories. And so with automation, the population excess is going to be a higher and higher percentage of existing people. And so fewer and fewer people will have authorization to live. 46:45 And you think that getting into feminism is reasonable, but this idea is just misdirected towards the ruling class and the intelligence agencies. Women want to be as bad as men. Condoleezza Rice, our secretary of state. We’ve had three terrible women secretaries of state. That was so ironic. People were pointing out that women tend to gravitate to these more nurturing professions. And the critics were like, no, they shouldn’t go to those professions. They should want to be CEOs. And it’s like, well, CEOs, like some of the worst people you can think of. Why do you want to aspire to be like them? Okay, right. And on a weird note, the quote I was thinking of was nature never appeals to intelligence until habit and instinct are useless by HG wills. And that was in your language and criticism of science newsletter. What are you working on right 47:47 now? You sent me your sleep and aging newsletter, which was fantastic. I think I’ll do something related to autism that has been coming up in my thinking increasingly. And autism is something that everyone is periodically inclined to the lack of that resonance among individuals that is a natural property of life as the death culture imposes itself. It shows up in more and more visible things that are like autism or are diagnosed as autism. The deprivation of sugar, carbon dioxide, progesterone, thyroid, and possibility of life opportunities. I had swiped a reference that you had sent somebody. It was the Dr. Cannell’s Sciences War on Medicine. And he was kind of invoking an old school approach versus not more science and RCTs, but to act on the observation that vitamin D was deficient in autism. 48:52 Many things are deficient. Breastfeeding is deficient. Prenatal happiness is deficient. Security of both father and mother before conception is deficient. Our culture is creating deficiencies of everything good. And autism is an increasingly epidemic expression of deprivation. Interesting way of looking at it. Ray, thank you so much. I sincerely appreciate it. Okay, thank you. All right, take care. Bye. That’s going to conclude this week’s episode. I’d like to give a huge thank you to Ray for talking with me today along with my patrons for their support of the show and all the content I produce from the bottom of my heart. Thank you to all the patrons. And if I didn’t have patrons, I couldn’t do any of this. So I sincerely appreciate it. Thank you so 49:52 much. I say this every single time, but I have an amazing listenership. So hit that like button or subscribe because I try to release content as much as possible. I’m sure as most of you know, I’m writing a book right now, so I’m doing things a little bit less often. This episode is really fun for me. It’s always fun to do topics that aren’t necessarily in my wheelhouse per se. So talking to Ray about these concepts was fun and entertaining and a gigantic learning experience. So I sincerely appreciate it. So if you have any comments or constructive criticisms, always open to that too. I sincerely appreciate it, guys. I hope you guys are all well. Take care and I’ll talk to you guys soon.