If people cannot change the commodities society depends on, then protest alone will never produce lasting change.
Protest is good at signaling pain.
It is not designed to reroute capital.
That’s not a moral judgment. It’s a structural one.
Modern power does not primarily respond to outrage. It responds to demand signals, procurement contracts, financing structures, and commodity dependency. As long as the same materials flow through the same systems, the same outcomes repeat, regardless of who is in office or what slogans trend.
This is why so many movements burn hot and fade.
They change language, but not inputs.
They change narratives, but not supply chains.
They raise awareness, but leave money flowing exactly where it always has.
Real change begins when money moves differently.
Jobs follow commodities.
Communities follow jobs.
Political behavior follows economic reality.
My work focuses on building that missing middle layer, where social intention becomes economic participation. Through platforms like nowweevolve.com and thebioeconomyfoundation.org, I’m working on redirecting consumer demand, public funding, and private capital toward regenerative materials and domestic production systems that create real work, especially in rural communities.
This isn’t anti-protest. It’s post-protest.
If we want durable change, we have to give people a way to participate economically in the solution. Not just speak, but buy, build, fund, and work their way into a different system.
Social change scales when money flow changes.
Everything else is commentary.
Race and IQ. I recently got dinner at a hole-in-the-wall asian spot with a geneticist named Razib Khan. Over noodles, and with a concerned glance over his shoulder, he admitted that the science is clear: race is absolutely tied to IQ. Jews are the smartest. Pretty much everyone on the continent of Africa is at the bottom.
This fact alone is controversial, but we have to be able to talk about it, and here’s why:
I nodded, and asked: How many generations does this take to change?
Razib: As little as three generations. For example, the Egyptians used to be the smartest, but a century of inbreeding knocked them to the bottom. Incest drops IQ by 10 points in the first generation. After that the effect weakens.
This is huge. At first glance, the controversial statement seems like a slamdunk for racists the world over. But dig into the details, and you find out 3 generations is enough to change things—this means that race and IQ are not inherently linked as far as we know, they’re just linked in today’s world, because of today’s policies and systems.
Knowing this could actually help us target where we need to focus our interventions for the next three decades. Let’s get us all up!
If I were King of the World. If I were King of the World and could change one thing (These are weird rules because a king obviously can change more than one thing, but I make the rules, so there.), I would
Ban Advertisement with the Exception of Word of Mouth.
Here are some benefits:
What do you think?
Is having children selfish or selfless? Controversial question/interesting discussion time!
Is having children a selfish or a selfless act?
I'll put my thoughts in comments - would love to hear yours :)
What's good about Trump? I don't follow (American national) politics a ton, but I know Trump is an incredibly divisive figure who just got convicted of 34 felony counts, while still being favored as the Republican candidate for the next presidential race.
What's good about him, what he's done, and his policies? For example, less death in foreign wars—even the biased ChatGPT admits:
Trump's foreign policy led to fewer foreign deaths due to a reduction in large-scale military engagements, and his administration did not initiate new large-scale wars or military interventions—a significant departure from previous administrations that engaged in extensive military campaigns, such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
When it comes "the global warming debate," there are often third ways that are ignored. Often the framing is global warming
and climate deniers
or something like that.
but it seems like there are obviously multiple perspectives here, and these two black and white boxes keep us from really seeing potential solutions.
Bjorn Lomborg for example believes in man-made climate change, but also doesn’t like the alarmism. Although he cherry picks data like he accuses others of, he also I think rightfully points out lots of flaws in the arguments that help us identify solutions. Much of the hurricane damage increase over time is because we’re building bigger and more expensive houses in hurricane alleys; for this problem, we can stop building there; everybody stopping flying altogether until 2100 delays increases the increase by a few weeks, so stopping flying isn’t the solution. Often the solutions are smaller, more local, less sexy: want less polar bears to die? Increase regulation on poaching. (Polar bear populations are up over the past decade because of this, apparently). I would love to identify and popularize these solutions, so they are spoken in the same breath as global warming
rather than it being all gloom and doom and end of the world.
There are real tricky questions about what we’re trying to preserve and for whom, as well. If all we care about are humans and climate migration, then building infrastructure in places like Haiti and even evolving to coal power would be more helpful.
What do you think are the biggest planetary potentials? I want to think of it in a bunch of ways, but one is through the lens of things we want to improve, eg:
1) What are the biggest problems/threats/embarrassments? and another is
2) What are the greatest potentials? I'll post some examples in the comments
A podcast about more joy. I’m entertaining the idea of rebooting my podcast and having a season of episodes that explore different ways of being that lead to experiencing more joy.
I’m particularly interested in hearing about ways that people don’t often associate with feeling joy. For instance, I had a recent experience where I got to express my anger, take up space, and be more vocal. It’s not a thing I would normally do because I’ve been conditioned to keep things in and be more soft-spoken. But having had that experience, I felt a greater sense of freedom and aliveness. It freed me to speak up in other situations which led me to feel more joy.
I also want to explore what it’s like to lead with joy, to prioritize joy.
(I have it in my body to prioritize being responsible.)
What other angles/perspectives might be worth exploring?
Do you have any experiences/stories you’d like to share on the show?