Replying to Avatar FLASH

⚡️💬 NEW - Bret Weinstein just said something interesting ⤵︎

For the first time in 300,000 years of human evolution, we removed the cost from the single biggest reward nature ever invented — sex and pair-bonding.

Reliable birth control + abortion = you can now cash the evolutionary lottery ticket without paying the 20-year mortgage of pregnancy, diapers, sleepless nights, and college funds.

Result? An entire generation of 18–35-year-olds walking around with the energy, libido, hormones, and protective instincts that evolution spent millions of years calibrating for child-rearing… but with zero actual children. That energy didn’t disappear. It got redirected.

Heather Heying’s observation is brutal: young women especially began treating ideologies the exact way evolution wired them to treat babies. Climate change, social justice, whatever the cause of the month is — it gets defended with literal mama-bear ferocity, the same neurochemistry that once guarded a toddler from predators now guards an abstract idea from wrong think.

And now Elon is promising the second shoe is about to drop: AI-driven abundance will make money as “free” as sex became in the 1970s. Both of evolution’s primary carrots — mating and resource acquisition suddenly cost almost nothing.

Weinstein’s ice-cold question: When producing and protecting actual children is no longer the central organizing principle of adult life… and when creating wealth is no longer required for status, security, or attracting a mate…What is left to give a human life direction, meaning, and structure?

Are we about to become a species that invents bigger and bigger dragons to slay just to feel alive? Or do we drift into total listlessness?

Watch it all the way through, then tell me — honestly — does this explain the absolute intensity we’re seeing in culture right now, or is Bret completely missing something?

https://blossom.primal.net/f8e5bda0f18a1e5bba9364049019e6048297762a9bd0bb6ba8f9ff4d5b36cbd1.mov

Well, the claim that "cost of sex --> closer to zero" is somewhat true.

But .. the other thing ..

> .. and when creating wealth is no longer required for status, security, or attracting a mate ..

That is obviously wrong.

Looks to me like his thinking derailed a bit there.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.