Trump signed a new law legalizing research into psychedelic drugs for medical purposes to help war veterans. Both RFK Jr and Joe Rogan were there. Kind of ironic that it happens now. For a number of reasons...
The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Microsoft Bing, Gemini, ChatGPT or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
Trump signed a new law legalizing research into psychedelic drugs for medical purposes to help war veterans. Both RFK Jr and Joe Rogan were there. Kind of ironic that it happens now. For a number of reasons...
| - Do you play red or blue? |
Ron Unz is a far right alt-media personality (und so weiter), but the article linked below is quite interesting. About half of it is a summary of a recent piece by longtime GOP strategist Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, arguing that Trump is losing the electorate even on his central campaign promise: putting an end to illegal immigration. The Greenland shenaningans were even less popular.
Unz then points out that America´s most important pod caster, Joe Rogan, seems to be fed up with Trump. More people follow the Joe Rogan Show than read newspaper or watch CNN. Rogan (who usually sounds like a somewhat left-leaning independent) may have played a role in Trump´s re-election, since he interviewed Trump on his show. Could Rogan´s criticism lose Trump the midterms?
Unz wonders aloud whether Trump might be going literally insane. He isn´t the only one. And yes, it´s Trump´s bizarre craving for the Nobel peace prize which triggered those reactions (same on my end). The article also references some less important people on the far right who are fed up with the Donald.
As I said, interesting.
I´m sure these are just rumors, right? I mean, I´m sure "Eyes Wide Shut" can´t be about...you know...people with eyes wide shut, or something.
If you know, you know. Muh-hah-hah-hah!
How long does it take for a domesticated species of plant to turn wild again? Does this have any bearing on the question of when agriculture began?
Excellent and deep question — let’s tackle it in two parts:
This process is called feralization — when a domesticated species reverts to a wild or semi-wild state after escaping cultivation or human management.
In some cases, feralization can begin within a few generations (e.g., 5–50 years), especially in annual plants that reproduce quickly.
Traits that are lost or reduced during domestication — like seed shattering, seed dormancy, or thorn production — can re-evolve under natural selection if beneficial in the wild.
Full reversion to a wild-type genome is rare, but feral plants often show:
Increased seed dispersal
Decreased yield
Resumption of natural defenses (e.g., toxins or spines)
📌 Example: Weedy rice (Oryza sativa f. spontanea), which evolved from domesticated rice and re-developed wild traits in only a few centuries (possibly faster in some regions).
Yes — feralization complicates the archaeological record of agriculture in important ways:
Early farming was likely intermittent, small-scale, and low-intensity.
If agriculture was abandoned for even a few decades or centuries, domesticated crops could go feral and vanish from the landscape and archaeological visibility.
This means that early domestication events could have occurred thousands of years before the earliest definitive archaeological evidence.
Modern archaeology sees domestication as a gradual, multi-generational process, not a single moment.
Some species show pre-domestication cultivation — early humans planted them before the genetic signs of full domestication appear.
If early farming societies collapsed or moved, their plants may have reverted — making it seem like agriculture started “later” than it actually did.
🧬 Genetic evidence shows that domestication traits (like non-shattering ears in wheat or barley) accumulated slowly, and can be lost under feral conditions.
✅ Domesticated plants can revert toward wild forms surprisingly quickly (within decades to centuries), depending on the species and environment.
🧠 This means that early, failed, or abandoned attempts at agriculture may have left no clear trace in the archaeological record.
📆 As a result, the true origins of agriculture may be older and more complex than previously thought, with cycles of cultivation, abandonment, and re-domestication.
Would you like examples of specific plants (like wheat, barley, or maize) and how quickly they can feralize or re-domesticate?
Great — let’s explore how wheat, barley, maize, and rice behave when feralized (i.e., revert from domestication) or re-domesticated, and what that tells us about the timing and complexity of agriculture’s origins.
Non-shattering spikelets (seeds stay on the stalk, making harvesting easier)
Larger grains
Softer seed coats
Under wild conditions, non-shattering becomes a disadvantage (seeds don’t disperse).
Studies show that feral wheat lines can evolve partial shattering again within ~20–50 generations (500–1,000 years).
However, wheat is less weedy and does not easily naturalize without human help.
Wheat domestication was slow, taking 1,000–2,000+ years, and could reverse partially if early agriculture was abandoned.
Like wheat: non-shattering spikes, larger grains
Shorter dormancy, more uniform germination
Weedy barley populations (H. vulgare f. spontaneum) are common near fields.
Barley can hybridize with wild relatives, rapidly reintroducing wild traits like:
Seed dormancy
Rough awns (barbs)
Shattering
📌 Some barley reverts to near-wild form within <500 years when left uncultivated.
Barley is more plastic than wheat, showing frequent gene flow with wild forms. This makes archaeological dating of “fully domesticated” barley complicated.
Derived from teosinte (wild grass from Mexico)
Maize has:
Larger cobs
Multiple rows of kernels
Non-shattering seeds (fully dependent on humans to spread)
Maize is highly domesticated and does not easily revert.
However, teosinte-maize hybrids can arise spontaneously if maize is grown near wild relatives.
Some “wild maize” types in Mexico are likely re-wilded hybrids, but they don’t fully return to teosinte.
Maize is an outlier — it’s so altered that it can’t survive as-is in the wild. But gene flow with teosinte can blur the archaeological record.
Shorter seed dormancy
Non-shattering grains
Compact panicles (grain heads)
Reduced awns
Rice rapidly feralizes — a major modern problem known as weedy rice or red rice.
This happens through:
Escape from fields
Hybridization with wild rice (O. rufipogon)
Traits like seed shattering, dormancy, and red pericarps reappear in <10 generations.
📌 Weedy rice is genetically part-domesticated but behaves wild — showing how quickly selection pressure can undo human cultivation traits.
Rice demonstrates how fast domesticated traits can be lost in just decades. This has serious implications for interpreting early rice domestication in East and Southeast Asia.
| Plant | Speed of Feralization | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Wheat | Slow–moderate (centuries) | Stable once fully domesticated; partial reversions |
| Barley | Fast–moderate (decades–centuries) | Hybridizes easily; common weedy forms |
| Maize | Rare, via hybridization only | Cannot survive without human aid, but gene flow with teosinte confuses the picture |
| Rice | Fast (within decades) | Weedy forms arise quickly; feral rice is a major modern issue |
These examples show that:
Domestication is reversible, especially in early stages.
Many early agricultural episodes could disappear from the archaeological record within centuries, due to feralization.
Therefore, true beginnings of agriculture may predate the first archaeobotanical evidence by millennia.
Would you like a diagram or timeline showing how these crops evolved across time and geography?
Derek Lambert and Richard Price on Joe Rogan Show, when? Reconciliation between Derek and Wes Huff, when? If you know, you know!
There could be some context missing here, but...yeah, I suppose you could say that the resurrection of Christ is easier to believe than the Big Bang!
The resurrection contradicts the laws of *nature* but not the laws of *logic*. Modern science frequently contradicts both. So either the universe is insane or...there´s something wrong with certain scientific theories. Or the minds of certain scientists.
Emerson Green on the Christian apologetic claim "Nobody dies for a lie". Here promoted by none other than Mel Gibson! Unfortunately, people die for lies all of the time. Including self-conscious ones. Personally, I don´t think the apostles died for something they knew was a lie, but the claim that *nobody* would do this is gullible in the extreme. The opposite is also the case: true believers in other religions may chose to die for *their* beliefs based on allegedly supernatural events. Say a Hindu who believes that one of his gods (or his deceased guru!) have actually appeared to him...
Joe Rogan talks to outdoorsman Steven Rinella who cracks a tale (or tall tale) about a crazy Canadian hippie in Alaska who claimed to be the Biblical character John the Baptist?! The hippie turned out to be a parasite and petty thief, but ultimately met his doom in a small cabin during the unforbidding Arctic winter. Apparently, he lacked the proper Essene survival skills. Anyhow...
Rinella´s friend evidently gave the hippie a classical "sky burial". He just threw his corpse outside and the next day it was gone, presumably consumed by some hungry denizen of the Alaskan hinterland.
I admit that this story didn´t move me as much as I expected, but perhaps I´ve been hardened by too much consumption of Tantric material from the happy generations of Tibet...
A disturbing perspective on the LA fires. Maybe we can´t do anything at all to stop them? From Joe Rogan Show.
There was a peculiar rumor back in 2016 that Hillary Clinton had a body double. Vox Day goes even further. After having claimed that there are six Bidens, he now says there is a fake Trump, as well! Or is Vox just trolling us?
I don´t rule anything out during crazy year 2024, but...naaah. Highly unlikely for a variety of reasons. One of them being Trump´s ego (the real Trump). Another being that both campaigns leak like sieves, so how likely is it that a doppelgänger could be kept secret for long?
On the other hand, I suppose a double could come in handy during the next assassination attempt...
Some months ago, writer and explorer Graham Hancock debated an archeologist with the peculiar moniker "Flint Dibble" at Joe Rogan Show. Dibble declared victory and the debate have been given almost mythological proportions by Skeptics (compare Huxley-Wilberforce).
Above is Graham Hancock´s response to Dibble´s points about ship wrecks, Stone Age ship farers, the supposed lack of evidence for metallurgy in Greenland ice cores, the legends of the conquista, and "White supremacy".
I admit I´m more skeptical to Hancock´s speculations than I was around, say, 2018. But he does defend his case ably here. So maybe the Skeptics (TM) spoke to soon, after all...
The latest Atlantis drama. Mainline archeologist Flint Dibble (that *can´t* be his real name!) recently declared total victory over pro-Atlantis writer and documentary film maker Graham Hancock after a debate between the two on Joe Rogan Show.
The YouTube clip above is from the channel "DeDunking", which is more on the Hancock side. It´s almost an hour long, but could be worth watching if alternative history is your thing.
It seems everyone is talking about Terrence Howard! Sicilian wonderboy Metatron believes that Howard´s problem isn´t really with mathematics, per se, but with a weird inability to grasp language. Also, his "Terryology" is a monist philosophy and a conspiracy theory.
While I disagree with the Metatron on his blanket denial of conspiracy theories, he probably does have a point that Howard has a "Truther mindset" (my term), this being the deeper drive behind the actor´s new theory of everything...
Terrence Howard´s weird speculations are making the rounds at the World Wide Web...
"Professor" Dave takes on the weird ramblings of actor Terrence Howard (who claims that 1 x 1 = 2). Entertaining, after a fashion. Especially since Dave (the skeptic) doesn´t come across as particularly smart or balanced either.
Note the bizarre purge mentality at the end: Professor Dave claims that Howard is mentally ill, but then goes on to recommend that he´d be systematically bullied?! Dave is a "science educator" with a mostly high school audience...
Dude.
Jordan Peterson makes many good points here. On Joe Rogan Show, of course. Maybe Peterson can still save the world somehow!