the_arcane_archivist | Recent Entries

We have now this century, Big Business and Big Gov treating, language, biology and everything like a software/hardware problem. Imagine how many issues are on standardised electronic hardware and software that are pretty much not diverse compared with life. But having the hardware/software paradigm about life will bring wild ramifications.

Why did Musk specifically used the phrase "summoning the demon" when talking about AI, more than a decade ago nonetheless? Not in uncertain terms, is not even metaphorical, more like pataphorical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzb_CSRO-0g

If AI in other areas is at least obnoxious and demonic as the LLMs are (the linguistic AI) and diffusion algorithms are(the "art"/image AI), we are fried.

They even discuss the risks while they are using this technologies unregulated for at least more than a decade. Strange how the obesity pandemic, started showing up just about time when synthetic hormones and enzymes showed up big time in the 90's-2000's.

"Biosecurity in the Age of Synthetic Biology" by Leyma Pérez De Haro on Routledge:

Just a summary search and you find hundreds of papers. Greek gods might know what are in the R&D labs of Big Business! Take the simplest bioactive component the enzymes, just a bad synthetic enzyme can be extremely dangerous because just trace elements are enough to disrupt life processes. And now they put this stuff everywhere from perfumes, paints and mostly in dish and clothes detergents, etc

And yes synthetic biology sheds, enzyme, cells, etc shed from people's clothes, perfumes, etc

Synthetic Enzymes

Synthetic Biology Perspectives of Microbial Enzymes and Their Applications

Synthetic Vitamins

Synthetic vs Natural Nutrients: Does it Matter?

Transforming Traditional Nutrition Paradigms with Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Viruses

Synthetic Viruses: A New Opportunity to Understand and Prevent Viral Diseases

Synthetic Virology Approaches to Improve the Safety and Efficacy of Oncolytic Viruses

Synthetic mRNA Therapies

Harnessing Synthetic Biology for Advancing RNA Therapeutics and Vaccines

Making the Next Generation of Therapeutics: mRNA Meets Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Cells

Present and Future of Synthetic Cell Development

Synthetic Cells: From Simple Bio-Inspired Modules to Sophisticated Artificial Cells

Synthetic Proteins and Food

Synthetic Biology for Future Food: Research Progress and Future Directions

Food Synthetic Biology-Driven Protein Supply Transition: From Animal to Plant-Based Proteins

Synthetic Organs and Organisms

Applications of Synthetic Biology in Medical and Pharmaceutical Fields

Synthetic Organisms and Living Machines

Other Synthetic Life Innovations

What is (Synthetic) Life? Basic Concepts of Life in Synthetic Biology

Doubling Our DNA Building Blocks Could Lead to New Life Forms

Scientists Aim for 'Darwinian Evolution' with Artificial Life Project

Software, AI, and Molecular Printers in Synthetic Biology

Artificial Intelligence Powering Synthetic Biology: The Fundamentals

How AI Is Transforming Synthetic Biology: Reaching Far Beyond Biopharma

Automating Your Synthetic Biology Workflow

What connects AI predictive models, COVID, vaccines, peak oil, Klaus Schwab, Călin Georgescu (the banned wannabe Romanian president), and the depopulation obsession? The answer lies in the Club of Rome model from over 50 years ago.

The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth was more than just a scientific study—it became dogma. Its flawed computer model, predicting inevitable collapse due to overpopulation and resource depletion, shaped decades of globalist policy. The obsession with this simulation led to extreme ideologies: depopulation fears, forced sustainability agendas, and centralized control mechanisms.

The same players who once pushed Malthusian catastrophism are now promoting AI as the ultimate tool for "managing" humanity.

Russia's Alternative Approach

Russia rejected the Limits to Growth hysteria early on. Their updated 2023 report demonstrates a different perspective:

They consider technological innovation as a counterbalance to scarcity
They view geopolitical instability as a disruptor (not just a symptom), making it a key variable in their model

Reconsidering the Limits to Growth
(Report to the Russian Association of the Club of Rome)

Fifty years after the famous Limits to Growth report (1972), this study re-examines and updates predictions about global development, using more sophisticated models and an integrated approach that combines world systems analysis, advanced mathematical methods, and historical-evolutionary perspectives.

Key Differences from the Original 1972 Model:

Advanced Mathematical Modeling:

Unlike the basic differential equations and negative feedback loops of the 1970s, the 2023 report employs complex nonlinear models, predictive algorithms, and multi-scenario simulations.

It includes specialized subsystems (economic, demographic, ecological, technological), each with its own variables and dynamics.

Expanded Set of Variables:

The original model focused on population, pollution, natural resources, industrial output, and food. The new version incorporates:

Technological innovation
Global inequality
Migration dynamics
Geopolitical instability
Integrated climate change (not just generic pollution)
Institutional response capacity

Reassessment of Population Growth:

The 1972 model treated population growth as an inevitable destabilizing factor leading to collapse.

The new report contextualizes it—accounting for demographic transitions, aging populations in developed nations, and declining fertility rates in many regions.

It proposes a dynamic model where population is not just a "resource drain" but also a driver of innovation and adaptability.

Source: Reconsidering the Limits to Growth

What's fascinating is that this flawed 1972 model is the root of globalists' obsession with depopulation. The new model shows that this strategy is, in fact, misguided.

It's clear that China has also realized this.

Also, Dmitry Orlov considered this in his blog post (behind paywall): https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/24fcc941-ce45-4084-b41b-f23f79f7991f

I based my post on the book he linked in the post.

Just a small excerpt so that it isn't a rights issue:

Instead of the 50% drop in world industrial production from its peak at the turn of the century, what we are seeing is a 68.03% increase. But it is rather localized:

China's industrial output increased by 832.66% so far this century

Russia's by a mere 103.97%

India's by a somewhat healthier 204.36%

These are the leaders; now for the laggards:

US grew by a mere 11.15% so far this century

The self-appointed "developed nations" by a mere 16.61% total — a miserable performance for three decades' worth of effort.

Vitamins are goods but you have to source them naturally, I read a lot back when I was a teen about synthetic vitamins and found that can be quite dangerous sometimes.

I even experimented on them, as a teenager someone's mother a rich kid left him a lot of vitamins and he wouldn't take them his body was probably smart, or he was just lazy, and he gave them to me, I didn't take more then the dose, by the time I finished them I got "Furunculosis" and even more than a few white hairs and didn't feel at all well.

I remember in the past last time I got "Furunculosis" was from margarine. Then I got to search on google books inside books at that time google had all sort of books just scanned ant it wouldn't favour anyone. Also I discovered other sources. I discovered

I don't have them now , the same sources, but you can still find information:

https://www.seleneriverpress.com/historical/synthetic-versus-natural-vitamins/

https://essentialsportsnutrition.com/blogs/news/are-synthetic-vitamins-doing-more-harm-than-good-side-effects-exposed

Even if they were the same substances, which they are not, bioavailability and efficacy for synthetic vitamins compared to their natural counterparts. Natural vitamins are readily absorbed and utilized by the body due to the presence of co-factors, other substances. In contrast, synthetic vitamins may lack these co-factors, potentially reducing their bioavailability and efficacy.

There are structural differences between synthetic and natural vitamins, revealed through spectrographic analysis. I remember seeing Lousi Kervran looking into this, and said they have different spectrographic print from natural one but now the internet is prety bad, all that good information from 90's and early 2000's are replaced by corporate dadaism garbage.

Synthetic vitamin can be like margarine and just plug your receptors and impeding them to take the real thing just like margarine and just like the synthetic mRNA for that matter.

Take a look at the difference and judge by yourself:

https://thechifarm.com/synthetic-versus-natural-vitamins/

I remember seeing here in the open thread that even Doctor Campbell experimented with D supplements and found that it doesn't incread Vitamin D levels in the blood.

Want vitamin D:

Natural dairy products, souce them locally, exercise in the sun (outside of big cities) and dry the mushrooms in the sun (maximum 3 days) they develop D2(D2 instead of D3, effective just that it doesn't store longer in the body).

This debate is not new, check out this arguments, made in the Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Public Health and Environment of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Ninety-third Congress made in 1974

The whole document can be downloaded for free and is pretty good because is not poluted with the whole garbage from internet era

https://www.google.ro/books/edition/Vitamin_Mineral_and_Diet_Supplements/xJ7gnOgyUdYC?hl=ro&gbpv=1&pg=PA869&printsec=frontcover&dq=synthetic

If the medical doctors know all about health, you would expect them to be the healthiest group in the country. But they definitely are not.

Reliable statistics of several different groups of people show that doctors have the worst health record of any of the following groups: (deaths per hundred thousand)

[blocks in formation]
When it comes to persons afflicted with hardening of the arteries (arteriosclerosis the figures are:

[blocks in formation]
There are only two possible conclusions to be drawn. Either the doctors do not follow their own advice, or else that they do not know "all about health." Myth No. 7.-There is never any difference between natural and synthetic vitamins.

That myth is stated in the FDA Decree in these words:

"There is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is a difference in the metabolic actions or toxic effects of synthetically produced vitamins as compared with those from natural sources." (Federal Register, Aug. 2, 1973, p. 20724) This is probably the most mystical myth of all.

As a scientist trained in biochemistry I know that for some of the vitamins, such scientific evidence does exist. But it is deeply hidden in the books on biochemistry, and relates to highly technical subject matter. For these reasons we must not impugn the motives of those who circulate this myth. They are acting out of ignorance of the scientific facts.

The truth. To bring to light these hidden scientific facts it will be necessary for me to discuss them under three headings:

7(a). Right-handed v. Left-handed Substances.

7(b). Synthetic D May Contain a Toxic Substance.

7(a). Right-handed v. left-handed substances

We all know that where a piece of machinery requires a right-handed screw, a left-handed screw will not fit. A similar condition exists with respect to some food elements.

Louis Pasteur[my note: this is obvious a mistake is obviously Louis Kervan], the famous French biologist, was the first one to discover that some of the "organic" chemicals (those containing carbon) exist in two forms, both having exactly the same chemical analysis. They are said to be the same "chemically."

However, the two forms can be readily distinguished from each other when they are dissolved in separate solutions. If a beam of polarized light (similar to a beam that has gone through a prism) is now passed through the two solutions, one solution will deflect the beam to the right. In that case the material being tested is said to be "dextro-rotary" (from the Latin "dexter," meaning "right.") Materials that produce this effect are identified by placing the letter "d" before the name of the substance. We may call them "right-handed" substances.

When we test the other form of the substance in the other solution, it may deflect the beam of light to the left. In that case it is called "levo-rotary" (from the Latin "laevus," meaning "left"). These substances are identified by placing the letter "1" before the name of the substance. We may call them "left-handed substances."

There is an entire branch of chemistry devoted to the study of compounds of this nature. It is called "stereo-chemistry", because the two forms of the same chemical compound contain exactly the same number and kinds of atoms, but the atoms are arranged differently in space. That difference causes the deflection of the beam of light in opposite directions.

The body rejects wrong-handed substances

The body is very particular about the materials it requires. If its specifications call for a right-handed molecule, the left-handed counterpart is useless, or even poisonous.

As a simple example, let us take lactic acid. Natural lactic acid coming from sour milk, consists entirely of right-handed molecules. When eaten it is converted into a form of sugar that can be used and is a food.

On the other hand, synthetic lactic acid contains only left-handed molecules, which cannot be used in the body, and actually is a poison to the body.

The ordinary chemist or doctor can see no difference between the two. They look alike and have the same chemical formula. But the human body knows the difference.

In 1944 the Journal of the American Medical Ass'n. carried an article that told of the deaths of a number of infants due to the accidental addition of lefthanded lactic acid (the poison) instead of right-handed lactic acid (the food) as a modifier in the milk formula of the babies. (Jr. AMA, 125:1179)

Natural vitamin E is a right-handed substance

Vitamin E was discovered in 1922 by Prof. Herbert Evans, of the University of California. Experiments on rats revealed an “anti-sterility" vitamin present in

green beans, cereals, and the germ of seeds. It is now known that wheat germ oil is the richest source.

Later experiments on other animals proved that vitamin E also prevents muscular dystrophy, and that it could also be called the "anti-dystrophy" vitamin.

Current biochemical opinion is that this vitamin acts to protect all cells and tissues of the body from breakdown by oxidation of body fatty substances, and that it is therefore one of the most important vitamins for human nutrition.

In 1938 three Swiss chemists developed a synthetic form of vitamin E, but soon thereafter they reported that the synthetic product had only about one-half the biological activity of the natural product. (Helvetia Chim. Acta, 211,820. P. Karr et al)

One of the most authoritative books on the biochemistry of the vitamins is "Vitamins and Co-enzymes" by Wagner and Folkers, published in 1964. That book repeats the statement made by the inventors of synthetic E, that it has only onehalf the biological activity of the natural vitamin. (p. 374)

Final and conclusive testimony is found in a comprehensive survey of the biological effects of vitamin E that was published in 1961. The article was written by Max K. Horwitt, Associate Professor of Biological Chemistry at the University of Illinois College of Medicine. In discussing the poor results from using synthetic vitamin E he said:

"It is probably fait to say that no complete, non-toxic substitute for alphatocopherol has been found.

"Not only do the other tocopherols (beta, gamma, etc.) not fill the bill in animal tissues, but to date all the synthetic tocopherols have been shown, in one way or another, to produce different physiological effects when used." (Borden's Review of Nutritional Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 10)

The vitamin as obtained from natural sources is a right-handed substance. The product obtained by the synthetic process is composed of 1⁄2 right-handed molecules, and 2 left-handed molecules. The body needs the right-handed form. Vitamin E was originally called "tocopherol," meaning "child bearing" from two Greek words.

The commercially available forms of natural vitamin E carry these names: d-alpha tocopherol; d-alpha tocopherol acetate; d-alpha succinate; mixed tocopherols.

The synthetic forms either carry no prefix or have the prefix "dl," meaning that it is a mixture of right-handed and left-handed molecules.

A standard medical text, "The Physiological Basis of Medical Practice" by Best and Taylor (1961) states that:

"Today much of the vitamin E available commercially is not the natural d— alpha-tocopherol, but a synthetic dl-alpha-tocopherol acetate." (p. 912)

Many medical doctors have obtained surprising results with vitamin E When vitamin E was discovered in 1922 the news spread like wildfire over the entire medical world. Doctors everywhere started to experiment with it. So many of them reported dramatic success that in 1949 an International Conference on Vitamin E was held in New York.

Almost 100 papers were read by doctors representing universities and medical clinics from all over the world. Their evidence clearly showed that vitamin E can be successfully used in the control or cure of; complications of pregnancy; muscular dystrophy; diabetes; high blood pressure; obstruction of blood vessels; and formation of ceroid pigment (brown spots that represent the aging process) due to defective metabolism of fats.

This evidence of actual results (not mere theory) was well summed up by the presiding officer, Henry A. Matiel, M.D., of the University of Iowa College of Medicine, in this language:

"Perhaps no other of the vitamins mysteriously affects so many and so varied body processes."

Tech Bros are all hand in hand with the Pharma Bros and the Fintech Bros, we can see it in the Stargate Project.

I think all software products are worst ever. And very expensive, I don't know why people are not protesting in some form. If AI touches anything is even worse, garbage to the point almost unusable, exactly in those corner cases you need the app/service most. The best trait of software was 100% predictability, if I don't have that I rather deal with people than AI.

A lot of that Natgas from fracking goes into the AI hype, and they want at least in the future 9 percent, literally a pipedream.

The way software is going now is for the biggest amount of energy, cloud, AI, etc. all that stuff. US produces now about 13.6 Mbarrels per day... most ever in history no other country had that. Imagine how the US works at this record levels and imagine just a slight decline, or for that matter, double digits percents anual declines... Funny that now that peak oil was pretty much abandoned by everyone and their grandmother, it might kick the strongest.

And the biggest blindspot of peak oil crowd is that countries will go down the same during the decline, I think they will not. Some will fare better than others.

I used data from the EIA to create the world production graphic. The data goes up to 2024, but even with projections extending to 2026, the peak still remains in 2018.

This is happening despite record U.S. production, with the U.S. becoming the largest oil producer in history.

Lately, U.S. oil production has been hovering around 13.6 million barrels per day, with minor fluctuations in recent data.

Even in the highly unlikely scenario that the U.S. maintains this level, global production will still be on a plateau or in slight decline. The last time something similar happened was in the 1980s, and it was a difficult period for everyone.

Back then, by the end of the decade, one empire had to collapse to relieve the pressure—ultimately, it was the Soviet Union.

Who will be next? Europe, the U.S., Russia, China?

The situation looks dire over the next decade, in my opinion. If production remains at current levels, the pressure will continue to build. Now, consider the possibility of double-digit annual declines in U.S. output. Ouch!

Why are the "rouchnecks" in love with AI? It seems that also the Frack Bros are in for the AI hype train...

AI Boosts Profitability in the Permian Basin

Permian Permutations: ConocoPhillips Optimizes Decision Making With AI-Powered Workflows

AI is Changing Oil Country—and Pumping Up Profits

Eni fires up €100mn supercomputer in race to find oil and gas reservoirs

BP turns to AI for advice on oil and gas exploration

UAE's ADNOC to deploy autonomous AI in the energy sector for the first time

AI in Oil and Gas Exploration: Predictive Analysis

AI in Oil and Gas Exploration: AI applications in seismic data analysis for oil exploration

It seems that all big businesses, "the Bros" are on the same hype AI hype train. The Tech Bros, Finance Bros, Frack Bros, Pharma Bros, Moncrop/GMO Agro Bros, Hedge Bros, Crypto Bros, Aerospace Bros, Defense Bros, Gov Bros, Lobby Bros, Real Estate Bros, VC Bros, AI Bros all on the train.

I don't know what myth would be fit to explain this but, Icarus and Daedalus, would probably do it Icarus pushed too far, flying too close to the sun with his wax wings, while Daedalus, the wiser craftsman, used the same technology but with restraint, successfully crossing the sea.

If we apply this to AI and geopolitics:

AUKUS/Europe as Icarus – Rapid AI adoption, aggressive militarization, overreliance on untested or ethically questionable AI, pushing the boundaries too quickly without considering long-term consequences.

China/Russia as Daedalus – More cautious, pragmatic AI integration, focusing on control, strategy, and ensuring steady technological process without, at least apparently, overextending or self-destructing.

Notice how China/Russia doesn't invest that much in the AI tech, but just enough to keep US on the dead end pursuit. Deepseek anyone? Russian mRNA cancer treatment. I suspect Wuhan "experiments" has the same purpose. As is probably the Russia mRNA cancer treatment or maybe even Sputnik which was refused by a country or two, (Hungary, Slovakia), as I recall because it was just placebo or didn't have anything active in it.

I re-shared a post from almost two years ago where I was talking about why is a bad idea to weaponize the software supremacy of US.

www.linkedin.com/posts/eduardflorinescu_how-to-leverage-americas-software-advantage-activity-7289609915667484672-zqDC/

The problem is that LI doesn't let you revisit your past prediction, LI downgrades a lot reposts of old posts, people make a lot of funny predictions.

A lot of people say that DeepSeek AI success was a surprise. I disagree, I was one of the few that more or less made this prediction. While a lot of people said that today we will be all already replace by ChatGPT 5 or 6. I said it almost 2 years when OpenAI try to force the return to office.

And this is the post from more than a year ago:

I disagree that America's software advantage is for granted, this is a fast-paced game where you can lose any advantage or edge in a heartbeat if you rest on your laurels.

I learned my software quality assurance skills in American companies and American teams and learned a lot, the American "shops" used to do the best software validation and verification I've seen, but I noticed that there's been a loss of interest in QA in the last 5 years. This is one of the reasons I changed from QA to DevOps. The other is my experience with the quality of talent recruitment when it came to hiring QA Engineers. I based my decision to change lanes thinking people will still need to do Operations, is the only thing that cannot be cut back. I learned my Ops skills mainly in European companies but have done some Ops in US-based companies and products too and still, I think the US has some edge in Operations as well. But will it last, will it resist neglect?!

I think, if anything adoption of AI requires even more care with QA and Ops. Also, one thing that the competition (China, Russia, and to an extent India) seems to have is job security when it comes to talent.

American and European-based companies tinkered a lot with talent's job security in the last 3 years. It is my opinion this might be a fatal mistake. Because from being top in a race to lying flat on the track is just a fatal mistake away. We live in interesting times. Now if this comes to pass, and we see a major failure in US cloud and US software services, I think my mental model was right and my quality control skills can encompass the big picture too. But I would rather hope that things go back to normal in this area than for me to have to say: I told you so!

The the time stamp of the post ha a granularity of 1 year, you cannot know exactly when was made just from looking at it, it has closer to two years from what I remember, also the post is obviously shadow banned with only 40 view in 3 hours:

If you make a fairly competent prediction, you cannot even say I told you so, at least not on LI.