An Introduction. My name is Eric Stevens 

I want to be clear about who I am and why I am here.

I recently published my book, Evolution Mine: Genesis.
You can read it for free here:
https://nowweevolve.com/view-the-book

I made it free on purpose. The idea matters more than the money.

For the last 15 years, I have been working inside the systems most people only argue about from the outside. Global trade. Manufacturing. Supply chains. Policy. Commodities. Labor. Capital flow.

I helped Vietnam enter the World Trade Organization in 2007, ironically on my birthday. I have worked with governments, factories, military-adjacent systems, and private industry. I have seen how decisions made far from communities quietly reshape jobs, materials, and power at the local level.

Most of my life was spent in Los Angeles. I recently moved to Dallas, where the political and cultural polarization is impossible to ignore. The fights feel louder. The solutions feel thinner.

I am a father of six. I am married to an incredible Salvadoran woman. I am politically independent, not because I avoid responsibility, but because I do not believe any single ideology owns the truth.

What I am building is not a movement in the emotional sense. It is an economic one.

Our society talks about systems as if they are beliefs. They are not. Systems are built on inputs. Commodities. Materials. Energy. Logistics. Whoever controls those controls everything downstream.

That insight sits at the center of everything I do.

Through these platforms, I am working on one integrated effort:

Now We Evolve
https://nowweevolve.com

The Bioeconomy Foundation
https://thebioeconomyfoundation.org

American Fiber Group
https://theamericanfibergroup.com

Together, they focus on one question most debates avoid.

What happens if we change the materials the economy depends on?

Hemp and bamboo are not symbols. They are commodities. They grow locally. They scale horizontally. They support regional processing. They anchor manufacturing close to communities. They change money flow, job creation, and who holds power.

This work is not anti-capitalist or pro-corporate. It is pro-reality.

If you want different outcomes, you do not argue harder. You replace the inputs.

That is what I am here to discuss.
Not outrage. Not slogans.
Industrial math, material systems, and practical paths forward.

If that resonates, you are in the right place.

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.

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.

Relational Tech Project. Just found out about this initiative and (without having had more than a skim so far) was reminded of my recently created UpTrust account, so this will be my first post. Hi to all who may see this!

https://relationaltechproject.org/

"We can build what we need

Many of us wish our neighborhoods were more connected. We want to live in neighborhoods where we learn from the creativity, care, and skills of our neighbors — and share our gifts too.

We've been told a perfect app or platform would help us, but that hasn't panned out. The hard truth is that no one is coming to save us.

The good news: we can build what we need!"

Creative thinking vs winning an argument. Creative thinking needs to be taught and valued as highly as smart thinking, right thinking, and ethical thinking.  

I wonder if we've been trained - consciously and unconsciously - to converse in formats that can be intimidating and arguable ... inviting responses that are judging, which can then be judged back and forth:  smart or stupid, right or wrong, ethical or corrupt ... that binary thing we do.  I propose that this creates anxiety and intimidates creative brainstorming, mutually respectful musing, generous listening, genuine questioning, seeking connection and curious questions?  

I can be as guilty as the next person - fishing for affirmation by winning a point in conversation ...   

#DeepTakes

Trump, Stargate, and Vaccines for Cancer. I'm cringing reading articles and seeing videos showing Trump, Sam Altman, and Larry Ellison speaking about using A.I. to develop vaccines for cancer.

I have something I call "The Farmer's Market rule." I spoke about this on the Vendy podcast with Jordan. It is a metaphor for working with coaches, facilitators, and wellbeing practitioners.

When I go to the farmers market, I don't just look at the food people are selling.. I also look at the people selling the food.

I ask myself, "Do I want to look like this person who is selling me this food?"

I do the same for facilitators, trainers, and Wellbeing practitioners: "Does this person live in a way I want to embody more fully in my life?"

I would not go to Altman, Trump, or Ellison for Wellbeing guidance + wisdom. Maybe for advice and wisdom in other domains and themes.

We really need leaders who are embodying Wellbeing to lead our planetary and national wellbeing initiatives. I cringe when I see people who I judge as disembodied pioneering these explorations. It feels like a recipe for disaster with the possibility to cause a lot of harm to a lot of people.

What's your view on EMFs? What do you belief about EMFs? I keep hearing seemingly reputable people warning about them. My husband says the argument isn’t scientifically sound. If you think EMFs are harmful, why, and how do you reduce exposure? I use wireless headphones a lot- my phone not so much.

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.

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.

I want a new archetype for libertarian well-being activist. Maybe it’s an old archetype and some German philosophers have been talking abt it for centuries…

My climbing gym is called Crux; the original location is moving because the rent is too high, and the landlord won’t work with the climbing gym…

The gym is in a part of the city that used be considered south, but now is centralish. I think all of austin loses when we lose places like this. We lose our character and our well being.

I want the landlord to be the libertarian well-being activist. My mom does this for the Relateful Studio. I didn’t ask and no one makes her; hardly anyone knows and she doesn’t get any tax benefits; we still pay her a good bit each month but it’s under market. She’s doing exactly what she wants to be doing with her money and investments: supporting her son’s vision.

The climbing gym landlord isn’t a bad guy, probably. Maybe he has loads of debt; maybe he has a wound from childhood that he’s trying to heal, but
Is the climbing gym landlord doing exactly what he wants?

I want endosymbiosis activists; where what they do is good for the whole and them, and they sacrifice neither. I want this to be a meme, that people strive to be. I want them to brag about it in their hearts, and try to remain undiscovered. I once heard that in Judaism the best mitzvahs are the ones no one knows you did.

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.

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.