Nature is as much about the evolved connections between species as the actual species themselves. EcoSYSTEMS. 🌎

Thatcher’s claim, that there’s no such thing as society, although wildly wrong in 1987, is starting to smell a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy

“This idea, that nature is a constant competition for life, is nonsense.”

Don’t threaten me with a good time

Fully-funded PhD position on the cultural evolution of environmental management! Link evolution, ecology and behavioral science in the ACE Lab timwaring.info Details: forms.gle/gZWK9BpwYfoG... @culturalevolsoc.bsky.social @alexmesoudi.com @hyperadapthyrax.bsky.social @michael.muthukrishna.com

The number of resilient, purely individualistic societies so far discovered is zero.

Not a novel observation, but the economic system we've adopted was developed by men like Musk to benefit men like Musk. That anyone else has benefitted at all is largely thanks to efforts to constrain that system.

What are the risks of extreme wealth? Join us on 6 March, 6.30pm for a panel discussion with Fernanda Balata, @ingridrobeyns.bsky.social, @garyseconomics.bsky.social, @deschuttero.bsky.social and Tania Burchardt as they explore the viability of an extreme wealth line. Register here:

Resilient societies have mechanisms to constrain sociopaths’ ambitions. Decades of neoliberalism have empowered rapacious sociopaths to the point that they can openly destroy what few constraints remain, and take all community resources. This is precisely the dynamic of late-stage cancer.

Is this a surprise? Didn’t Trump publicly say that “we’ll fix it so you won’t have to vote anymore” while campaigning?

Nice. Now do culture.

One of the hallmarks of cancer is immune system evasion.

Colleagues and I argue that the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) should not allow more carbon offsetting to address scope 3 emissions. Real solutions demand more ambition.

Important piece on the role of Ockham's razor in the modern world of scientific modeling in @pnas.org. Conclusion: Complex models can be quite useful, and parsimony and complexity can complement each other in helping us to gain new insights! doi.org/10.1073/pnas...

Could there be any stronger indicator of an attempted transition to full-blown kleptocracy?

It’s been a tough few weeks. My 10yo daughter was diagnosed with a very rare, aggressive cancer called interdigitating dendritic cell sarcoma (IDCS). I’m reaching out to identify clinicians/patients who have encountered pediatric IDCS or other (non-LCH) dendritic or histiocytic sarcomas cases.

The neoliberal dream of fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch was always the destruction of US democracy and the elimination of government (except for its repressive organs police, courts, prisons, military ofc), and now he has won. What now? A 🧵. 1/ t.co/FKxxmLyfce

I seem to remember this guy talking about how we need his EVs and rooftop solar to deal with climate change. Isn’t this contrary to his business interests?

Any thoughts on the new administration’s real strategic aims with their tariffs? Presumably they realise the costs to the US consumer; why do they want that?

Explain it to me like I’m ten years old: how can a company expect to successfully sue other companies for not buying their services?

Compelling and moving story. Thanks, @garyseconomics.bsky.social.

I appreciate a distaste for bureaucrazy. I also note that every known resilient complex system is full of complex regulation mechanisms.

Do ideologues ever appreciate systemic complexity?

There are now much more efficient ways to review and share research findings. Society would be richer if this industry were regulated out of existence.

"[A] democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." - FDR (1938)

Vet friend at a conference is trying to focus and this dolphin has other ideas

The supreme irony of Germany offering sanctuary and opportunities to scientists unable to work in fascist USA is knocking on the door.

If the purpose of the economy is to exploit and extract and generate as much inequality as possible, marketising everything does indeed seem to be optimal.

First thing that comes to mind is the fire brigades scene from Gangs of New York, in which competition between providers takes precedence over fighting the fire. Those were amateur brigades. Should be much better when big money is at stake, right?

Does anyone understand why this is so common? Why do senior managers in academia so often insist on paying Drs and Profs their going salaries to do what could be done by people whose time is much cheaper?

How will this make more money for meta? User-level rather than just feed-level optimisation for engagement?

Among my many favourite things about living where cities were built for people and horses is that I don’t need to own a car. Having ‘needed’ one for 15 years in Australia, it’s hard to overstate the reduction in stress, costs, danger and inconvenience that comes from never having to drive.

I’m just a guy, standing in front of an army of EV enthusiasts, asking them to give performance numbers in mass specific units.

Anyone else old enough to remember when the IT revolution was going to decouple economic growth from ecological impact?

A human is composed of ~37 trillion cells, each descended from unicellular organisms that, over evolutionary time, learned the benefits of cooperation. Even the staunchest libertarian is themselves an elaborately regulated community four orders of magnitude larger than the global human population.

The surplus-accumulating, autocatalytic mode of human society that emerged ~10k years ago is an historical oddity representing ~3% of our species’ existence. To me, artefacts that bridge the ocean of time and connect us with earlier human experiences are precious.

Current focus on decarbonisation addresses sociometabolic pathways and not rate. Ecological impact depends on rate, not just pathways. Rate depends on *mass* of total capital stock - society’s ’body mass’. How can we sustainably reduce rate without having simply to abandon infrastructure?

Could it be that we need rules to actually reduce publication rates and incentivise quality over quantity? How would that work?

Starting to see self-promotional posts that start with ‘Humbled to…’. Bluesky is growing up so fast.

Can we extend this to all children under 85?

US election seems to have kicked the Twitter exodus over a tipping point! Welcome to Zion, where the discourse is still warm.

Too real

“This year the Riksbank awarded its prize to a treatment of early modern institutions so selective it functions as a bedtime story for capitalists.”

Holy shit the government-backed weather machines are everywhere

😬 👍👍

Fun little read