I met this incredible woman over a decade ago, when she was in a very difficult spot, suffering from constant pain, almost unable to move or care for herself. She was preparing to die. In the years since, I’ve seen the light in her grow stronger and stronger.
One of the best TS episodes of the year. I'm so happy for Mee Ok's journey, which I would undoubtedly qualify as shamanic, ever since I first heard of her a decade ago on this same podcast.
This woman has an incredible book out that might be of interest for those who want to deepen their knowledge of plants from a more scientific perspective - lots of surprising takes by scientists. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0063073854
I was looking forward to this podcast but it turned out to be fluff. Plants turning sunlight into energy isn’t intelligence, it’s a basic, natural, chemical process. Plants and psychedelics don’t give us wisdom. They alter our brains, which in turn alter our perceptions. The plants may open the gate, but what follows comes from us. I’m glad your guest has gotten much better from her condition, no matter what helped her.
I'm just a few minutes into the conversation, but I have to write already. I've been been saying that "ban inheritance" for decades.
And as she says, you get quite a blowback from people for it.
It would not only level the playing field but mentally it would be good for the heirs, too. I've never seen any heir-to-be who is looking to a substantial amount and was not psychologically damaged by that in some way. I suppose there are some, who aren't affected negatively, however I've never met anyone.
What I found out is, that it's much easier talk to people about banning inheritance without getting an almost instinctively negative immediate response, if you meet them halfway.
What makes this idea repellent to a lot of people I think is, that they want the best and most for their children, even if they don't have any.
Therefore I started to take their desire seriously and modified the idea to something like: don't ban inheritance, but limit it. For example: nobody should inherit more than the average annual income of the country they live in.
Not that even this will happen any time, but if you think about inheritance the same, you might get into a more satisfying conversation with others
As someone who has a negative response (maybe instinctual? who knows haha), it's off-putting the level of assured-ness you have in this idea that the people who wouldn't want it (most of us) are either selfish or ignorant. It's an interesting idea, and I'm willing to admit that maybe (I'm skeptical) it works out great. But it is drastic and it's a departure from cultural norms around property. It's an idealized utopian idea, which doesn't mean it won't work, but it should be a red-flag worth checking yourself on. Even if it worked out in it's simplest form as expected, there would be a huge number of secondary effects, and that's not to say anything about how it seems like it would be fairly trivial to circumvent with businesses/LLC's (after all, marriage contract in some ways originated similarly to LLC for protection of assets). Also, I think there's an irony or tension at least from this "tangentialist" perspective that people would want the state to assume nearly all of one's wealth, break up family stability, and make everyone more reliant on the centralized state. I also strongly question your comment that implies that nearly everyone is affected negatively by inheritance. For the super-rich, sure, but I think the controversial piece at the heart of this is that you're including the middle class as well.
I have a lot more thoughts (like the US immigrant story), but I'm not sure we will really convince each other. Hope I didn't come off as hostile.
Unfortunately I am not having the time right now to answer properly. For the time being I'd like to propose to agree to disagree.
Just one thing: I admit that it's a very utopian idea and that it would be horrible to impose it on people right now, if most people would be against it.
So let me rephrase: if I would be world president I would strongly propose it, but not impose it. And then let my successors deal with the mess once this elephant is in the room.
I was in a brief Twitter exchange with Paul Graham recently. He's one of those Silicon Valley billionaires, but he's very smart and (I thought) not motivated primarily by money. I was arguing that proper tax rates would make billionaires a thing of the past. He actually argued that if we capped wealth at half a billion dollars, the smartest people would lose motivation to succeed. I couldn't believe an intelligent person could believe such a thing!
Hey Chris, I wonder if he would be willing to chat with you about this. It seems like a situation where Twitter is the worst place for a good exchange of ideas (both with the micro-blogging nature, but also the social dynamics for both of you). As you said, he's a smart guy, and through Y-Combinator he a really unique perspective on the investment that makes technological progress happen. For example it seems like a good amount of startup investment comes from very rich people spreading chips on a craps table trying to be uber rich (obviously we all agree on whether that is a good use of their energy and attention). I don't know if Graham should be so easily dismissed.
I invited him to come on a while ago to talk about his essays, but he declined. I really don't think the idea that the second half-billion is where the motivation lies is defensible, but maybe he'd surprise me with a solid argument I haven't considered. Maybe.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to good judgment.
A good counter argument to him would be that between WW2 and the collapse of the Warsaw pact German CEOs by far did not make that money as it's been in the anglophone countries and as they are making now. I mean something in the figures of millions instead of hundred of millions.
And yet Germany was a huge economic power. Which would not have been possible according to him.
Just finished the intro and excited to listen, but I just wanted to pop in and correct Chris about many of us under 50 not knowing the Supertramp song. He played it in this episode: https://chrisryanphd.com/400-simon-rex-nervous-rex-podcast/
I only bring this up because hearing the song today brought me back to sitting on a balcony in Pushkar where I heard it last time, and that flashback felt very Tangential in the best way.
They talked about a book called, The Wizard of the Upper Amazon. Not sure if that’s the one you’re thinking of. They talked about a few books, I think.
Such a great episode! Thank you!
One of the best TS episodes of the year. I'm so happy for Mee Ok's journey, which I would undoubtedly qualify as shamanic, ever since I first heard of her a decade ago on this same podcast.
This woman has an incredible book out that might be of interest for those who want to deepen their knowledge of plants from a more scientific perspective - lots of surprising takes by scientists. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0063073854
That book looks amazing. Thanks for the tip.
this is where i first learned about it. it's a great listen https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1197965368/light-eaters
Fascinating episode. It’s interesting to hear about Mee OK’s shamanic journey. Has anyone here tried Ayahuasca? How does it compare to mushrooms?
I was looking forward to this podcast but it turned out to be fluff. Plants turning sunlight into energy isn’t intelligence, it’s a basic, natural, chemical process. Plants and psychedelics don’t give us wisdom. They alter our brains, which in turn alter our perceptions. The plants may open the gate, but what follows comes from us. I’m glad your guest has gotten much better from her condition, no matter what helped her.
I'm just a few minutes into the conversation, but I have to write already. I've been been saying that "ban inheritance" for decades.
And as she says, you get quite a blowback from people for it.
It would not only level the playing field but mentally it would be good for the heirs, too. I've never seen any heir-to-be who is looking to a substantial amount and was not psychologically damaged by that in some way. I suppose there are some, who aren't affected negatively, however I've never met anyone.
What I found out is, that it's much easier talk to people about banning inheritance without getting an almost instinctively negative immediate response, if you meet them halfway.
What makes this idea repellent to a lot of people I think is, that they want the best and most for their children, even if they don't have any.
Therefore I started to take their desire seriously and modified the idea to something like: don't ban inheritance, but limit it. For example: nobody should inherit more than the average annual income of the country they live in.
Not that even this will happen any time, but if you think about inheritance the same, you might get into a more satisfying conversation with others
As someone who has a negative response (maybe instinctual? who knows haha), it's off-putting the level of assured-ness you have in this idea that the people who wouldn't want it (most of us) are either selfish or ignorant. It's an interesting idea, and I'm willing to admit that maybe (I'm skeptical) it works out great. But it is drastic and it's a departure from cultural norms around property. It's an idealized utopian idea, which doesn't mean it won't work, but it should be a red-flag worth checking yourself on. Even if it worked out in it's simplest form as expected, there would be a huge number of secondary effects, and that's not to say anything about how it seems like it would be fairly trivial to circumvent with businesses/LLC's (after all, marriage contract in some ways originated similarly to LLC for protection of assets). Also, I think there's an irony or tension at least from this "tangentialist" perspective that people would want the state to assume nearly all of one's wealth, break up family stability, and make everyone more reliant on the centralized state. I also strongly question your comment that implies that nearly everyone is affected negatively by inheritance. For the super-rich, sure, but I think the controversial piece at the heart of this is that you're including the middle class as well.
I have a lot more thoughts (like the US immigrant story), but I'm not sure we will really convince each other. Hope I didn't come off as hostile.
Thanks for your response.
It didn't come across as hostile.
Unfortunately I am not having the time right now to answer properly. For the time being I'd like to propose to agree to disagree.
Just one thing: I admit that it's a very utopian idea and that it would be horrible to impose it on people right now, if most people would be against it.
So let me rephrase: if I would be world president I would strongly propose it, but not impose it. And then let my successors deal with the mess once this elephant is in the room.
I was in a brief Twitter exchange with Paul Graham recently. He's one of those Silicon Valley billionaires, but he's very smart and (I thought) not motivated primarily by money. I was arguing that proper tax rates would make billionaires a thing of the past. He actually argued that if we capped wealth at half a billion dollars, the smartest people would lose motivation to succeed. I couldn't believe an intelligent person could believe such a thing!
Hey Chris, I wonder if he would be willing to chat with you about this. It seems like a situation where Twitter is the worst place for a good exchange of ideas (both with the micro-blogging nature, but also the social dynamics for both of you). As you said, he's a smart guy, and through Y-Combinator he a really unique perspective on the investment that makes technological progress happen. For example it seems like a good amount of startup investment comes from very rich people spreading chips on a craps table trying to be uber rich (obviously we all agree on whether that is a good use of their energy and attention). I don't know if Graham should be so easily dismissed.
Just my 2c.
I invited him to come on a while ago to talk about his essays, but he declined. I really don't think the idea that the second half-billion is where the motivation lies is defensible, but maybe he'd surprise me with a solid argument I haven't considered. Maybe.
Intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to good judgment.
A good counter argument to him would be that between WW2 and the collapse of the Warsaw pact German CEOs by far did not make that money as it's been in the anglophone countries and as they are making now. I mean something in the figures of millions instead of hundred of millions.
And yet Germany was a huge economic power. Which would not have been possible according to him.
The short story they mention is The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin (1973)
Is Mee Ok the host of the old Philosophy of Health podcast? I enjoyed that
Yes she is :)
Just finished the intro and excited to listen, but I just wanted to pop in and correct Chris about many of us under 50 not knowing the Supertramp song. He played it in this episode: https://chrisryanphd.com/400-simon-rex-nervous-rex-podcast/
I only bring this up because hearing the song today brought me back to sitting on a balcony in Pushkar where I heard it last time, and that flashback felt very Tangential in the best way.
Cheers
Anyone catch the name of the book mentioned in this podcast? Mee Ok introduced it to Chris some time ago.
They talked about a book called, The Wizard of the Upper Amazon. Not sure if that’s the one you’re thinking of. They talked about a few books, I think.
Yeah there was another. Might have been a poem. Will have to re-listen. Thanks anyway!
Perhaps this…
https://open.substack.com/pub/chrisryan/p/441-wmtbg-the-ones-who-walk-away-98c?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yes, this! Thank you.
Maybe it was her mention of Auden's poem? https://english.emory.edu/classes/paintings&poems/auden.html