I think Nikola Tesla is one of the most fascinating people of the last hundred years. Many of his inventions he intended to give away for the betterment of mankind. He was never driven by money, though he obviously needed money to live, to build his lab and other inventions. He was cheated many times, especially by the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. It's a tragic story that never ceases repeating.
Nobody has considered that it was just real obsession: the line between genius and loon being a very thin one, could be this was the loon side encroaching on the genius!
I love this quote from you: "As UAP/UFOs are the current zeitgeist, perhaps what is being witnessed it actually Tesla technology."
You're exactly right on the money! I've done some work here on this, but to really dive into this, I suggest Alex's work because he's come to the same conclusion you have:
Alex's work on "public science" and "classified science" shows that there's really two types of sciences and two types of realities out here. I write about this on my substack as well. And to your last point, with Tesla and his power of visualization, that's something that we all can tap into as well.
Here are some works on the topics that you described:
Will there be a Part 2? I'd be interested in why so few of his innovations actually came to pass; there seems to have been some government resistance to some of his ideas, perhaps to protect existing industries. I've always been curious to know what actually happened there.
By the way, love your logo—for those who don't know, it's the symbol from the classic 1960s British TV series The Prisoner, which should be seen by all critical thinkers just as they must read Orwell and Huxley. Patrick MacGoohan played "Number Six" and there is a song by Roy Harper from 1969 called "MacGoohan's Blues." All worth checking out.
Loved that show..(the black and white original version!….yes, I may actually be that old….) however frustrating it was! But I agree that the ending left me extremely unsatisfied.
I look forward to it. I wasn't aware there had been a remake of The Prisoner but it doesn't surprise me it would be inferior to the original. Almost all remakes are.
I would hardly discount the entire series based on its enigmatic and somewhat self-indulgent closing episode. Director/writer/actor Patrick MacGoohan has said in interviews that what he initially presented to ITV was just a six-episode series but was told it had to be expanded in order to get funding from the studio. MacGoohan felt his best work was in those first six episodes and many film critics tend to agree. However, a case could be made that the ending, baffling as it is to audiences, is appropriate given that much about the Village and its administration was never intended to be fully revealed. That was part of the mysterious appeal of the series, which like Brave New World or 1984 functions as an allegory for ALL systems of totalitarianism, rather than giving us the pat conclusion that, "Oh, it was the Russians all along," or, "Oh, it was MI5 all along." The conclusion of The Prisoner could certainly have been greatly improved, but not by giving us a "tell all" story that wraps everything up in a neat box—that would have gone against the spirit of the entire series. To concede some of your point, remember it was the period of British psychedelia so that undoubtedly influenced MacGoohan in this, what should have been named "Free For All," (the title of an earlier episode) not altogether for the better. Just as not all the psychedelic music produced during that era was the greatest. Still, The Prisoner remains a television masterpiece in my critical opinion.
I hear you, but cannot agree. I don't care who was at fault, nor how much of the blame McGoohan himself deserves. I didn't need a real perpetrator like Russia or MI5 to be revealed, nor any 'pat' conclusion, but I did need the story to ultimately make some kind of sense. I don't think that is too much to ask. Orwell did not provide a pat explanation, but 1984 did make sense, in its own horrifying way. Brave New World was fine, too. The Prisoner was just a mess. You can make excuses and shift the blame, but viewers end up cheated nonetheless. The Prisoner makes Lost look like a masterpiece by comparison.
McGoohan successfully used The Prisoner to satirize the spy culture of the 1960s so popular in big screen films like the 007 series as well as his own prior series Secret Agent, which had become highly formulaic and predictable, like today's cultural fixation with mystery series. The Prisoner makes sense on many levels, just not the obvious ones audiences had already been trained to expect from mainstream fare by the '60s. Perhaps a little more study of dystopian novels and of the function of satire and allegory would help you make sense of it? I don't find it lacking sense at all and I've watched the series repeatedly—and published essays on it—throughout my life. (One such essay is in my book Words from the Dead: Relevant Readings in the Covid Age, Ekstasis Editions, 2022) Like all great art, like poetry, it demands more of the audience than a casual viewing because it transcends mere distraction or entertainment.
Sounds like he had synaesthesia, where one sense is perceived as another. But he trained himself because it caused him distress, and came up with incredible answers.
In order to have a better understanding of our world and to have at least a chance at gaining an insight into our future, we must understand some simple facts pertaining to the basis of our modern high tech civilization. How, and thanks to what technology, can we feed 8 billion people? How can 1 billion of us live so decently, surrounded by all the bells and whistles this civilization has to offer? Is this going to last forever? Can it last forever…?
Let’s start with a basic fact of life: we live off of what we pull out of the ground. Literally. From potatoes to microchips, everything we touch, eat, use and burn comes from under the ground. Plants take up nutrients like nitrates, potassium and phosphorus from the soil and turn them into edible food. Drilling rigs bore holes thousands of feet deep to bring up oil and natural gas to the surface. Excavators tear up the ground and haul rocks to a truck, which carries them into a refinery or a smelter. There they magically turn into clean metal sheets and slabs, Portland cement, glass or silicon monocrystals. Machines, equipment, building materials, consumer goods are then get built and manufactured from these raw materials.
Everything we touch, eat, wear, use then throw away has its origins under our feet. No exceptions.
Up until fairly recently, for the last 3 million years of our existence as primates on Earth at least, we depended on what Nature had to offer. What plants took up with their roots and converted into food with their leaves. We ate their fruits and the animals feeding on them. All this was part of a natural circulation, where dust became plants, plants became us, and we became dust. All the organisms supporting this endless cycle were there long before us, from bacteria to bees, from grass to grazing herds. Nothing needed to be “solved”, “saved” or “tackled”. It just worked, for millions and millions of years. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked.
Then came the idea to tore up the land, kill all its inhabitants and propagate the seeds of a single plant species to feed no one else but us. We even had a name for this radical new technology: grain agriculture. We did this for a couple of millennia in boom and bust cycles as we depleted Nature then collapsed, predictably. Then came someone called Thomas Malthus who has realized the prime reason behind: we have a limited area where we can do agriculture, while people have an unlimited propensity to procreate (not least because a child could help to grow more food than he or she ate). You can call this an inconvenient truth, a sword of Damocles hanging over pre-industrial Britain, but what most people did instead is to call this “Malthusian thinking”, bragging how his views have been discredited by “progress”. His name has become a convenient thought stopper. Limits, however, did not disappear because of our denial.
Aug 8, 2023·edited Aug 8, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
The irony of you posting this comment on an article about the very man whose free energy technology (if unleashed rather than suppressed, that is) would make your argument moot for the most part. Maybe not entirely, of course, but largely so, and at least much more nuanced.
Hmmm.. let's think about what would happen to the global population and planet if we had free energy.
I'm thinking there is no such thing as free energy (there is some obscure physics law that governs this) but even if there was ... it most definitely would need to be suppressed.
Of course it wouldn't though cuz humans would be too stupid to work out where that would lead us - as a species
Cynicism aside, I think the truth is more nuanced than that.
Free energy is suppressed because it is a direct challenge to the oligarchs's power over the masses. And since the oligarchs are responsible for a grossly outsized share of planetary destruction and ecocide, and abundance is the one thing that their destructive system (capitalism) absolutely cannot survive, I believe that even with all of the risks, free energy would still on balance be a net benefit for the Earth and all of its inhabitants.
As for population, keep in mind that in general the richer a society becomes, and the more empowered women become, the lower the birthrates, at least in the long run. Abundance begets wealth and empowerment. And if you really, really want to be cynical, if a "behavioral sink" were to occur from too much abundance, like in the infamous mouse utopia experiments, the net result would be negative population growth.
Today we think we can switch from ripping coal and oil out of the Earth and just rip out lithium and copper instead. But ‘renewable’ rape does not change the fundamental raping going on. An electric bulldozer rips up the earth as much as a diesel one. Luckily (?) we physically cannot sustain this civilization on renewable energy alone, but an even bigger problem is if we could.
As Dr. Tom Murphy says in his essential physics textbook, “if energy became essentially unlimited by some technology, I shudder to think what it would mean for the rest of the planet.”
There is no law of nature that says that we HAVE to keep growing and growing for the sake of growth to ruin, thus there is no reason why we will HAVE to keep raping the Earth either. That's a law of capitalism, NOT nature, and it is NOT the only way to have a civilization. But you are probably far too cynical to even consider the idea of a steady-state economy, and you will probably post an article from Fail Gail the Actuary "debunking" it (and yes, I have already read that dubious article).
NE, both Tesla and his counterpart Thomas Edison had connections to/or with occult interests. Its possible some of those things with Tesla visions you listed were aspects of this (willing to conceed some of this could be medical, but there were other things he got into that seemed to broach the forbidden side). These things possibly contributed to derailing Tesla. Brilliant but he got sidetracked and seemed to lack self control over the things he pursued as it consumed him when it was clear things were not working.
Tesla was a genius, I doubt that is disputed. But the massive modern power grid might have been supplanted with Edison’s smaller direct-current power stations, localized power grids and electomagnetic-radiation-free localized transmission. All I’m saying.
“The core challenge facing DC distribution networks lies with the need for standards and open grid architectures that can help integrate the increasing diversity of resources being plugged into distribution grids. At the medium voltage level, DC advocates claim efficiency gains as high as 46.5% at the facility level—if all available DC products linked to lighting, computers, wiring, and power generation are integrated. To date, however, these theoretical savings have yet to be fully realized in commercial deployments.”
Aug 7, 2023·edited Aug 7, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
Malthusianism limits population growth / overshoot to considerations about being able to feed everyone...Rare is it, indeed, to find someone who considers Too Many People a Quality of Life issue...15 Minute Cities (fed on Vat Goo) will evolve into Termite Mound Cities - ever upwards...To handle the stress of being constantly crowded you can withdraw into your own little space, develop stress-caused disease, or lash out violently (There are many openings in the state's *control / security forces*, especially for bullies and sexually disfunctionals)...
Quality Of Life should be central to any considerations about population overshoot...Ways of feeding the extra billions will most likely be invented but there are no solutions to being stressed by overcrowding - excpt: "Desotry the Cities, Take back The Land !"
Murray Bookchin wrote a book with a suggestive title "Urbanisation Without Cities"...
An interesting 1975 article (1975), online, by James W Prescott:
One of your best, with the range of comments (and therefore your audience) reflecting an amazing cross-sections of often conflicting ideas. Well done! Let me add my two bits worth (With the forced demise of cash, in a digital currency world this will have a very different meaning).
1. Math isn't real, it's a mental construct living only in the human mind. Like Alice's Looking-Glass world. I have taught some kids who "don't get math" (How bad our education system and teachers must be to make kids who are "learning sponges" think they can't learn! Of course by design). They think math is some incredibly complex "religion" they just don't get, when actually it is just like any other game they love to play. It is not real, it has its own rules, and it's fun - just like the games kids like to play. If we accept it's not real, we can step thru the Looking Glass and create all kinds of models of reality that can solve all kinds of interesting problems. As long as we remember when we step back into the "real" world math isn't real, it is very useful. I generally come at teaching math from that perspective and since all kids love games, they get it. Try it with any kids that "don't get math".
2. While I love to see Malthusians talk about the "limited" Earth, they generally hand wave over exactly how "big" or "small" is the Earth. As an example, if the Earth's resources run out in ten million years that's a lot different to mankind than if they run out next week. Unless you define that, Malthusism is junk. When Malthusians have tried in the past, their results have been spectacularly bad.
It is not without small irony that your article on Tesla shows both the brilliance of human constructs and how that brilliance destroys Malthusism.
I bet he'd turn in his grave if he knew they named the garbage contraption auto after him
Yes!
He'd be spinning so fast we could attach electrodes and power many worthy pursuits that he would likely have appreciated very much!
I think Nikola Tesla is one of the most fascinating people of the last hundred years. Many of his inventions he intended to give away for the betterment of mankind. He was never driven by money, though he obviously needed money to live, to build his lab and other inventions. He was cheated many times, especially by the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. It's a tragic story that never ceases repeating.
One of the greats! 3 6 9
Still trying to work out exactly what he meant by that.
I’m guessing it’s their properties. If we remember the quote, “we didn’t invent math, we discovered it,” essentially MATH is all around us.
When we look at the properties of 3,6, and 9, we can see 3+3=6, 3x3=9, 9-6=3, and so forth.
If we start applying this principle to physics and other avenues of science and reality, who knows what we’d be able to find out 🙏🏾
There was a movie in which the writers posited a unique idea (Lucy, Scarlett Johansonn) from memory:
“There are no numbers. Mathematics were invented by humans in an effort to understand the world around them.”
Not to diminish the importance thereof.
Where would we be without.
Nobody has considered that it was just real obsession: the line between genius and loon being a very thin one, could be this was the loon side encroaching on the genius!
Frequency ratios. More than that I can't make a call about LOL. His thought pattern was a tad beyond my pay grade.
I love this quote from you: "As UAP/UFOs are the current zeitgeist, perhaps what is being witnessed it actually Tesla technology."
You're exactly right on the money! I've done some work here on this, but to really dive into this, I suggest Alex's work because he's come to the same conclusion you have:
https://thewisdomtradition.substack.com/p/the-secret-history-of-the-20th-history
Alex's work on "public science" and "classified science" shows that there's really two types of sciences and two types of realities out here. I write about this on my substack as well. And to your last point, with Tesla and his power of visualization, that's something that we all can tap into as well.
Here are some works on the topics that you described:
Tesla's work and our new way of living: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-esoteric-philosophy-is-vital-967
How to use Visualization to be productive: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/maximizing-your-productivity
The Power of Visualization: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/subtle-yet-mighty-the-power-of-visualization
Will there be a Part 2? I'd be interested in why so few of his innovations actually came to pass; there seems to have been some government resistance to some of his ideas, perhaps to protect existing industries. I've always been curious to know what actually happened there.
By the way, love your logo—for those who don't know, it's the symbol from the classic 1960s British TV series The Prisoner, which should be seen by all critical thinkers just as they must read Orwell and Huxley. Patrick MacGoohan played "Number Six" and there is a song by Roy Harper from 1969 called "MacGoohan's Blues." All worth checking out.
I'll add part 2 to my list! And yes everyone should watch the Prisoner (but only the original)
Loved that show..(the black and white original version!….yes, I may actually be that old….) however frustrating it was! But I agree that the ending left me extremely unsatisfied.
I look forward to it. I wasn't aware there had been a remake of The Prisoner but it doesn't surprise me it would be inferior to the original. Almost all remakes are.
I hate The Prisoner with a passion. The ending was an outrage.
I would hardly discount the entire series based on its enigmatic and somewhat self-indulgent closing episode. Director/writer/actor Patrick MacGoohan has said in interviews that what he initially presented to ITV was just a six-episode series but was told it had to be expanded in order to get funding from the studio. MacGoohan felt his best work was in those first six episodes and many film critics tend to agree. However, a case could be made that the ending, baffling as it is to audiences, is appropriate given that much about the Village and its administration was never intended to be fully revealed. That was part of the mysterious appeal of the series, which like Brave New World or 1984 functions as an allegory for ALL systems of totalitarianism, rather than giving us the pat conclusion that, "Oh, it was the Russians all along," or, "Oh, it was MI5 all along." The conclusion of The Prisoner could certainly have been greatly improved, but not by giving us a "tell all" story that wraps everything up in a neat box—that would have gone against the spirit of the entire series. To concede some of your point, remember it was the period of British psychedelia so that undoubtedly influenced MacGoohan in this, what should have been named "Free For All," (the title of an earlier episode) not altogether for the better. Just as not all the psychedelic music produced during that era was the greatest. Still, The Prisoner remains a television masterpiece in my critical opinion.
I hear you, but cannot agree. I don't care who was at fault, nor how much of the blame McGoohan himself deserves. I didn't need a real perpetrator like Russia or MI5 to be revealed, nor any 'pat' conclusion, but I did need the story to ultimately make some kind of sense. I don't think that is too much to ask. Orwell did not provide a pat explanation, but 1984 did make sense, in its own horrifying way. Brave New World was fine, too. The Prisoner was just a mess. You can make excuses and shift the blame, but viewers end up cheated nonetheless. The Prisoner makes Lost look like a masterpiece by comparison.
I will carry this grudge to my grave!
McGoohan successfully used The Prisoner to satirize the spy culture of the 1960s so popular in big screen films like the 007 series as well as his own prior series Secret Agent, which had become highly formulaic and predictable, like today's cultural fixation with mystery series. The Prisoner makes sense on many levels, just not the obvious ones audiences had already been trained to expect from mainstream fare by the '60s. Perhaps a little more study of dystopian novels and of the function of satire and allegory would help you make sense of it? I don't find it lacking sense at all and I've watched the series repeatedly—and published essays on it—throughout my life. (One such essay is in my book Words from the Dead: Relevant Readings in the Covid Age, Ekstasis Editions, 2022) Like all great art, like poetry, it demands more of the audience than a casual viewing because it transcends mere distraction or entertainment.
Do you have your essays somewhere online?
Sounds like he had synaesthesia, where one sense is perceived as another. But he trained himself because it caused him distress, and came up with incredible answers.
Born in modern-day Croatia, yes, but ethnically Serb.
A Mirage of Abundance
In order to have a better understanding of our world and to have at least a chance at gaining an insight into our future, we must understand some simple facts pertaining to the basis of our modern high tech civilization. How, and thanks to what technology, can we feed 8 billion people? How can 1 billion of us live so decently, surrounded by all the bells and whistles this civilization has to offer? Is this going to last forever? Can it last forever…?
Let’s start with a basic fact of life: we live off of what we pull out of the ground. Literally. From potatoes to microchips, everything we touch, eat, use and burn comes from under the ground. Plants take up nutrients like nitrates, potassium and phosphorus from the soil and turn them into edible food. Drilling rigs bore holes thousands of feet deep to bring up oil and natural gas to the surface. Excavators tear up the ground and haul rocks to a truck, which carries them into a refinery or a smelter. There they magically turn into clean metal sheets and slabs, Portland cement, glass or silicon monocrystals. Machines, equipment, building materials, consumer goods are then get built and manufactured from these raw materials.
Everything we touch, eat, wear, use then throw away has its origins under our feet. No exceptions.
Up until fairly recently, for the last 3 million years of our existence as primates on Earth at least, we depended on what Nature had to offer. What plants took up with their roots and converted into food with their leaves. We ate their fruits and the animals feeding on them. All this was part of a natural circulation, where dust became plants, plants became us, and we became dust. All the organisms supporting this endless cycle were there long before us, from bacteria to bees, from grass to grazing herds. Nothing needed to be “solved”, “saved” or “tackled”. It just worked, for millions and millions of years. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked.
Then came the idea to tore up the land, kill all its inhabitants and propagate the seeds of a single plant species to feed no one else but us. We even had a name for this radical new technology: grain agriculture. We did this for a couple of millennia in boom and bust cycles as we depleted Nature then collapsed, predictably. Then came someone called Thomas Malthus who has realized the prime reason behind: we have a limited area where we can do agriculture, while people have an unlimited propensity to procreate (not least because a child could help to grow more food than he or she ate). You can call this an inconvenient truth, a sword of Damocles hanging over pre-industrial Britain, but what most people did instead is to call this “Malthusian thinking”, bragging how his views have been discredited by “progress”. His name has become a convenient thought stopper. Limits, however, did not disappear because of our denial.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/a-mirage-of-abundance
What limits?! Are you a Malthusian, or what?!
The irony of you posting this comment on an article about the very man whose free energy technology (if unleashed rather than suppressed, that is) would make your argument moot for the most part. Maybe not entirely, of course, but largely so, and at least much more nuanced.
Hmmm.. let's think about what would happen to the global population and planet if we had free energy.
I'm thinking there is no such thing as free energy (there is some obscure physics law that governs this) but even if there was ... it most definitely would need to be suppressed.
Of course it wouldn't though cuz humans would be too stupid to work out where that would lead us - as a species
Cynicism aside, I think the truth is more nuanced than that.
Free energy is suppressed because it is a direct challenge to the oligarchs's power over the masses. And since the oligarchs are responsible for a grossly outsized share of planetary destruction and ecocide, and abundance is the one thing that their destructive system (capitalism) absolutely cannot survive, I believe that even with all of the risks, free energy would still on balance be a net benefit for the Earth and all of its inhabitants.
As for population, keep in mind that in general the richer a society becomes, and the more empowered women become, the lower the birthrates, at least in the long run. Abundance begets wealth and empowerment. And if you really, really want to be cynical, if a "behavioral sink" were to occur from too much abundance, like in the infamous mouse utopia experiments, the net result would be negative population growth.
Today we think we can switch from ripping coal and oil out of the Earth and just rip out lithium and copper instead. But ‘renewable’ rape does not change the fundamental raping going on. An electric bulldozer rips up the earth as much as a diesel one. Luckily (?) we physically cannot sustain this civilization on renewable energy alone, but an even bigger problem is if we could.
As Dr. Tom Murphy says in his essential physics textbook, “if energy became essentially unlimited by some technology, I shudder to think what it would mean for the rest of the planet.”
https://indi.ca/why-renewables-wont-end-environmental-destruction/
There is no law of nature that says that we HAVE to keep growing and growing for the sake of growth to ruin, thus there is no reason why we will HAVE to keep raping the Earth either. That's a law of capitalism, NOT nature, and it is NOT the only way to have a civilization. But you are probably far too cynical to even consider the idea of a steady-state economy, and you will probably post an article from Fail Gail the Actuary "debunking" it (and yes, I have already read that dubious article).
(Mic drop)
Well ... we would all starve... so yes... there is an alternative
You might be interested in this ... or not https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect
NE, both Tesla and his counterpart Thomas Edison had connections to/or with occult interests. Its possible some of those things with Tesla visions you listed were aspects of this (willing to conceed some of this could be medical, but there were other things he got into that seemed to broach the forbidden side). These things possibly contributed to derailing Tesla. Brilliant but he got sidetracked and seemed to lack self control over the things he pursued as it consumed him when it was clear things were not working.
May have been born in Croatia but he was a Serb.
Does this mean anything?
https://ethw.org/Milestones:Rotating_Fields_and_Early_Induction_Motors,_1885-1888
Tesla was a genius, I doubt that is disputed. But the massive modern power grid might have been supplanted with Edison’s smaller direct-current power stations, localized power grids and electomagnetic-radiation-free localized transmission. All I’m saying.
I lied. Something to add, check this out:
“The core challenge facing DC distribution networks lies with the need for standards and open grid architectures that can help integrate the increasing diversity of resources being plugged into distribution grids. At the medium voltage level, DC advocates claim efficiency gains as high as 46.5% at the facility level—if all available DC products linked to lighting, computers, wiring, and power generation are integrated. To date, however, these theoretical savings have yet to be fully realized in commercial deployments.”
https://www.tdworld.com/transmission-reliability/article/20971865/why-thomas-edison-was-both-rightand-wrongabout-direct-current-distribution-networks
Malthusianism limits population growth / overshoot to considerations about being able to feed everyone...Rare is it, indeed, to find someone who considers Too Many People a Quality of Life issue...15 Minute Cities (fed on Vat Goo) will evolve into Termite Mound Cities - ever upwards...To handle the stress of being constantly crowded you can withdraw into your own little space, develop stress-caused disease, or lash out violently (There are many openings in the state's *control / security forces*, especially for bullies and sexually disfunctionals)...
Quality Of Life should be central to any considerations about population overshoot...Ways of feeding the extra billions will most likely be invented but there are no solutions to being stressed by overcrowding - excpt: "Desotry the Cities, Take back The Land !"
Murray Bookchin wrote a book with a suggestive title "Urbanisation Without Cities"...
An interesting 1975 article (1975), online, by James W Prescott:
Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence...
Amen to that!
I want a vaxxed and boosted person to go stand next to a functioning Tesla coil. Then we'll find out if the Stew Peters types are nut jobs or not!
One of your best, with the range of comments (and therefore your audience) reflecting an amazing cross-sections of often conflicting ideas. Well done! Let me add my two bits worth (With the forced demise of cash, in a digital currency world this will have a very different meaning).
1. Math isn't real, it's a mental construct living only in the human mind. Like Alice's Looking-Glass world. I have taught some kids who "don't get math" (How bad our education system and teachers must be to make kids who are "learning sponges" think they can't learn! Of course by design). They think math is some incredibly complex "religion" they just don't get, when actually it is just like any other game they love to play. It is not real, it has its own rules, and it's fun - just like the games kids like to play. If we accept it's not real, we can step thru the Looking Glass and create all kinds of models of reality that can solve all kinds of interesting problems. As long as we remember when we step back into the "real" world math isn't real, it is very useful. I generally come at teaching math from that perspective and since all kids love games, they get it. Try it with any kids that "don't get math".
2. While I love to see Malthusians talk about the "limited" Earth, they generally hand wave over exactly how "big" or "small" is the Earth. As an example, if the Earth's resources run out in ten million years that's a lot different to mankind than if they run out next week. Unless you define that, Malthusism is junk. When Malthusians have tried in the past, their results have been spectacularly bad.
It is not without small irony that your article on Tesla shows both the brilliance of human constructs and how that brilliance destroys Malthusism.
Great job!
NE - Edison and his crony capitalist's screwed Tesla. Trboyevic and Terbo should have sued Musk for his disgracing the family name.
I have often wondered why they didn't