Dr. Joseph Graves: How the Societal Construct of Race Keeps the World Divided | Dr. Joseph L. Graves

“Social constructs”…. suuuuuuuuure buddy….

I got a neat idea: We're different AND we can be nice to each other. How's that?

Kalergi plan

I don't think a massive dog standing next to a chihuahua is a "made up idea"

Hi Matt. I really enjoy your work on this podcast and the many subjects you tackle. I especially appreciate the perspective you continually bring to the topic at hand. I appreciate the input provided by Dr. Graves. We need to see more people like Dr. Graves, in mass media (including the internet), not less. As I see it, race is an excuse to marginalize people. We marginalize people (in many more ways than race alone) to justify hoarding the natural resources of earth. These natural resources I speak of are both the natural elements found in the environment and the labor and creativity found in the intellect and ingenuity of humans. We lived in an equilibrium with our environment for eons. It seems as though only recently have we started to hoard resources, depriving many, both human and other life forms on our home world of the resources necessary to sustain life. Today, we call this hoarding, profit. To be clear, the very nature of “profit” is to exploit people in seeking compensations for a product or service based upon a supposed concept of supply and demand; a crafty logic that only holds water in contemporary human societies. Further, I don’t mean that profit, in and of itself, is a problem. There are certainly circumstances where profit may be reasonable. However, when considering that the whole bounty of natural resources, which used to be available to anyone with the will and effort to collect and process it for their personal sustenance, is the birthright of all life on our planet, profit exacted from those seeking the sustenance to live is problematic and exploitative. In my thinking as long as the profit motive is the primary motivation for human endeavor, no amount of AI influence will organically create a pleasing and fulfilling human experience and certainly no state of abundance for all. The creators of the AI, with the enduring motivation to make money (collect surplus wealth) will ultimately create a dystopic experience for all life on earth and likely their efforts will end with either annihilation of humanity, or at a minimum, a crash of human civilization, which may have happened many times over. In our profit driven world we (societally) only do things that make money, not sense. I ask myself, do I want to live in Mad Max world or Star Trek world? I agree with you, Matt, I suspect the only way out of the mess we are currently suffering is for the failure of technology (electricity) and a subsequent return to the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. I’ll tell you what, life will be tougher but it will surely will be a lot more interesting and likely more fulfilling. Finally, I think it would do us well if we looked into the possible reasons that humanity, seemingly, survived for hundreds of thousand of years without the benefit of an exploitive society such as the kind we currently abide.

I disgree and as different and difficult as it is, we should watch things we dont necessarily agree with to gather more knowledge and understanding about how others think.. much respect to Matt a gracious and respectful host.

Very different talk but great, he is well spoken and great to listen to. I didn't know much of the details he mentioned about of how the animal kingdom is basically is divided into two main groups were all the others are stemming from. It is in fact the first starting point of how all ecosystems, where humanity is a part of, came to be, and it determines greatly of what is to come, let alone of how we look at it, and are going to look at it in the future. I share his worry about AI because what you see nowadays people rely on it too much, automatically believing what it comes up with, without doubt, while in fact all that AI is doing now, is creating answers based on what info there is roaming around on the internet. That is dangerous. It reminds me of movie "I Robot" from 2004. Also here, keeping in mind with all that is discussed, is that an open mind is so so important, especially when it comes to science because it will determine the road humanity will take in the future, preventing settings things aside that don't fit into our way of thinking and more so governing things, which is dangerous for the planet. About when the first humans arrived . . . well, that is still a debate. Personally I do think that humans evolved several times on earth independently at different places and in different time periods alike. As Mayans say, we live in the period of the 5th sun, and 4 came before it.

This is an awesome conversation, loved every second of it

Good day sir. Thanks Matt and crew ☮️❤️

If you have been noticing how performative everything is, that is because none of it matters. A.I. is in control and the "leaders" are just going through the motions, thus the nonsense we endure today. But that is just my feeling from my observations and I could be wrong. The question asked that he is stating 96% of scientists agree about anthropogenic climate change was only sent to around 4000 scientists, half did not bother to respond and those that did were asked the question; "Is it possible that human activities could impact the climate". The sun, the ionosphere and the Parker instability have more of an impact. Remember, it was not that long ago that models of the solar system did not take into account the gravitation pull of the planets! Just because it has been done in the past does not mean it is a good thing or still fits the original purpose. "There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program" as the quote goes.