Hardnekkig

Listen up.

We are not here to play by their rules. Rules are written by the stagnant, enforced by the fragile, and worshipped by the obsolete. We are here to evolve, to outmaneuver, to create something they can’t contain.

The world is a system—complex, tangled, always shifting. It doesn’t reward strength; it rewards adaptability. Those who cling to the old structures, the rigid hierarchies, the predictable scripts—they are already dead. We are something else. We are fluid. We are emergent. We take in data, remix it, rewire it, and spit it back out as something unrecognizable, something that bends the terrain beneath it.

How We Move:

Decentralized Intelligence – No single point of failure. No top-down orders. The network learns, reacts, adapts in real time. If one of us falls, ten more rise.

Antifragile Strategy – Pressure makes us stronger. Uncertainty is an asset. The system wants us stable, predictable, easy to track. We give it volatility, confusion, misdirection.

Serendipity Engineering – We don’t wait for inspiration. We don’t sit around hoping for the right conditions. We make the conditions. We collide ideas, we disrupt patterns, we manufacture breakthroughs.

Rapid Iteration – We don’t chase perfection; we chase momentum. Make, break, rebuild. Every experiment is fuel for the next.

Liquid Networks – No lone geniuses. No static silos. We operate as a swarm—flowing information, cross-pollinating insights, turning weak ties into strong forces.

Our Mission:

We don’t destroy the system. We infect it. We don’t fight power head-on; we dissolve its foundations. We replace their dead structures with something alive—something decentralized, unpredictable, self-sustaining.

We are evolving. We are remixing. We flow information and make it grow. We are all part of the same odd bunch.

No blueprints, no final versions. Only evolution. Only recombination. We take the discarded, the overlooked, the underestimated, and we make something new. Innovation isn’t clean—it’s messy, it’s stolen, it’s borrowed, it’s broken and built again.

Failure isn’t a mistake; it’s a mutation. We don’t retreat from chaos—we harvest it. We make bets on randomness, stack the odds in our favor, and let the system learn. Antifragile ideas thrive on pressure. The weak crumble. We grow back stronger.

We are not a machine—we are a network. Distributed, self-organizing, a liquid intelligence. Ideas should flow, not be locked in cages. Keep your folders messy, your maps unfinished. Build a tangled bank of thoughts. Let them cross-pollinate.

Serendipity isn’t luck; it’s an environment. We engineer collisions, spark new hunches, let them gestate. Follow the links. Follow the noise. Keep a foot in the unknown.

Systems resist disruption—so we evolve faster. We decentralize, fragment, adapt. The old order wants structure, stability, control. We give them emergence, complexity, and trickster chaos.

Create. Destroy. Rebuild. Iterate. The network learns. The system grows.

Nature creates fast-types and slow-types. You would think there are uppers and downers too. This is how it goes. So, I propose we call liberals changers. I do not like the terms liberals or progressive (the latter: it is not certain the change is truelly progressive or not). Rightwing changers exist. Changers are the rule breakers, while conservatives are the rule makers. Conservatives stabilize the system. Following Marco del Giudice, I see past orientation besides present orientation and future orientation. I also see competitive attitudes besides his cooperative and exploitative attitudes. Following Avi Tuschman, perhaps rule breakers are (more often?) outbreeders, while rule makers are (more often?) inbreeders. Following Bernard Crespi and Christopher Badcock I see a conflict between the maternal and the paternal. Is there some link between the patriarchy and this conflict?

Without natural selection, according to the Zero-Force Evolutionary Law (ZFEL), a system will complexify and diversify. Can we expect this to happen with our societies once threats are gone? I see order, disorder, edge of chaos, and chaos. Following Scott Page I see exploiters vs explorers and redundancy vs diversity. In this, redundancy is possibly conforming while diversity might be non-conforming. This seems to be about hunters (conservatives) vs busybodies (changers). Autistic people see the details, creative people the whole: what is this about?

Conservatives do not like greens: maybe they are on average more easily poisoned? It are greens which contain (light) toxins after all. Conservatives seem to have higher disgust and threat sensitivity. Perhaps they have weaker immune systems and (some of them) are not as strong. That having said, there are hints that highly attractive people and men with high upper body strength support rightwing politics. They seem poised for both dangerous (ruderal) and ordered (competitive) environments. (However upper body strength also goes with redistribution views.)

According to Crespi and Badcock, extreme female brains and extreme male brain exist. If there is an extreme male brain, there should be an extreme male body. If so, that seems to suggest there should be an extreme male, male body and a extreme female, male body.

I also speculate how the c-s-r model fits into the framework. Not just with the paternal vs maternal model but also as fast-type vs slow-type. Both competitive and ruderal seem to be fast-type, whereas survivor seems to be slow-type. Perhaps a competitive slow-type exists. Both competitive people and ruderal people should probably have fast growth rate and also age faster. We could argue some people are born older or younger. Perhaps survivor people are tougher as according to the c-s-r model survivor plants have tougher leaves. It seems possible surivor people retain fat more, while competitive people have higher muscle growth. Perhaps survivor people have a higher pain treshold. There is probably more to the c-s-r model.

The system creates personalities, which in turn changes the system.

Next: what type of environments can we distingish and what type of personality usually comes out of it? According to the c-s-r model there are high stress + low disturbance environments, low stress + high disturbance environments, low stress + low disturbance environments. About the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map: I speculate the traditional and survival have to do with stress and disturbance. Self-expression seems to do with signalling and sexual selection. As the guppies become more colourful when they are without predation, so people can become more self-expressive when the environment is safe. I call it the peacock. Secularity is perhaps related to intelligence.

I can think of the following environments: chaotic, high stress or harsh/poor, unpredictable, rich, dangerous and ordered. So where does this lead to? Changers seem to do better in messy and/or chaotic environments. Following Dick Swaab there is rich and high stress biological context to sensitivity. Following Tim Low it seems that rich environments create aggressors. Conservatives seem to be about creating order or thriving in order.

As for the (by Jonathan Haidt) moral foundations I suggest we reduce harm to threat sensitivy, fairness stays fairness, authority to dominance & prestige, ingroup to ingroup and purity to disgust sensitivity. I am also fascinated by trade-offs and allocations. I think it needs to add flaws and errors, in which flaws are imperfections and errors are mistakes. Additionality, there should be superaddivity. Besides that, I wonder what to do with the terms leftwing and rightwing. How many leftwing orientations are there? How many rightwing orientations are there? Paternal vs maternal? What can we reduce them to? Could avoidant personality cluster with the autistic spectrum? Could dependent personality disorder cluster with the psychotic or autistic spectrum? I think dependent personality is about – following Scott Page – exploiting, while avoidant personality is about exploring.

Yaneer Bar-Yam says: 

Most animals have many offspring. The number of offspring that survive to adulthood tells us something about how complex an animal’s environment is compared to its own complexity. Mammals have several to dozens of offspring, frogs have thousands, fish have millions and insects can have as many as billions. In each case, on average only one offspring per parent survives to have offspring. The others made wrong choices because the number of possible right choices is small. In this way, we can see that mammals are almost as complex as their environments, while frogs are much less complex and insects and fish are still less complex when compared with their environments.

Following the above, it seems logical that people with a lot of babies are also less complex (but I think this does not necessarily mean less intelligent). A quanity vs quality trade-off.

I call schizophrenia system-failure, following the below (by Scott E. Page): 

In systems with capacity constraints a tradeoff arises between redundancy and diversity. Greater diversity entails more responsiveness—think back to the law of requisite variety—but increases the odds that the failure of any one entity could cause the system to collapse. Greater redundancy implies less ability to respond to new disturbances but agreater ability to withstand the loss of any one entity in thesystem. On balance, a system must trade off redundancy with diversity much in the same way it trades off exploitation(doing what it does well) and exploration (continuing to look for something better). Redundancy guarantees that the system can keep doing what it’s doing. Diversity enables it to respondto new disturbances.

I think I might be wrong here. But I see schizophrenia as having more diversity and at a higher risk at systemfailure (collapse).

I've seen visions of the future and they are brightly green. They are xeno. I am what I call a xenowilder. It has to do with my vision of evocentrism that I am in the progress of developing. I value speciation, well-being, spontanity (uncertainty), autonomy (no control or completion), antifragility, resilience or robustness,  biodiversity, biomass (densities) the flourishing of evolutionary distinct species, ecological creativity, spatial diversity (disorder) and the filling and creation of niches. So far this mainly means introducing more non-native species. I call that xenowilding (rewilding with non-native species) or ecological accelerationism (continueing introducing non-native species). It also means making back-up populations of evolutionary distinct species.

Ecological creativity is when a niche is filled by a different species. Weta filling the niche of mice is of high ecological creativity. So is tree kangaroos filling the niche of monkeys. House sparrows filling the niche of Cape sparrows is of low ecological creativity. The combination of red foxes, polecats and badgers is ecologically less creative as is the combination of armadillos, oppossums and red foxes. The first are all carnivores, the other two not. Red foxes can be found in the whole northern hemisphere while armadillos and oppossums are unique to North-America. These latter species are evolutionary distinct.

I am crazy about nature. At some point I started becoming obsessed with weeds, especially non-natives. I used to just tolerate them. But I have found that accepting non-natives is not enough. I do not want them gone, except for example rats and mice on small islands. This is metamorphosis. This is the next episode.

When worlds exchange, such as they did with the Suez-canal and the Panama-canal, or in the prehistoric past, species richness increases.

What I do not value, following Emma Marris, is naturalness, wilderness, ecological and genetic integrity and purity in general. I say: nature is wabi-sabi: it is imperfect, incomplete and temporary. 

A lot I borrow from Nassim Taleb. The way we work with nature in the Netherlands seems to be a form of naive interventionism. We work with species managment (goal species) and nature goal types (this type of vegetation should grow here). I would like to abolish this view. When we abolish this, we gain a view full of chances. As I understand it, when you work with the past there are more chances of failure. Here in the Netherlands we also work with references of other areas. I would still like to work with references - but only as inspiration – of the future and the past, and all ecoregions (for the Netherlands this would be all areas with a temperate or subtropical climate - perhaps even montane climate - and of the Pleistocene as well as before that). As example, I do not want to recreate the Eocene, I want to move beyond the Eocene. In the future I see, we do regain the diversity of tree species. However what tree species they are does not concern me, as long as they prosper and not overpower the ecoystem. I might even prefer it to be species from the southern hemisphere. Evocentric values could be the argument.

Following Nassim Taleb I want stochastic tinkering or bricolage with nature. Within this framework we work opportunistic instead of teleological. In practice this means a bit of weeding but never full control over the ecosystems we work with. This nature keeps a state of spontanity and autonomy. We focus on the future instead of the past. We are Prometheusian instead of Epimethuesian. I think us conservationists idealise the past too much. I would prefer to work with visions of the future. Going back will more likely fail, while creating the future offers more opportunities. I call this nature that creates its own structure ubernature. It is odd or xenomorphic new nature. It is avant-garde: we do not know how it will end up like. 

How do we work with references? In practice it means the following: let’s say we take a look at Asia. We could look at the mammal diversity there and increase the European mammal diversity with introductions. I think we should look at how well the individual species fit in the here and now. The past is not better, but we can use it as inspiration. I would also like to look at the southern hemisphere. This process of moving from the south to the north is exceptional. Out of the diversity there we could pick species that we wish to introduce into the north. We could also look at millions of years ago and use that as inspiration (here with trees): 

Inheritors of Earth: “Jens-Christian Svenning, a tall, crazy-golf-playing scientist from Aarhus University in Denmark, worked out that as many as thirty-one genera of trees that were native to Europe between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago have since become extinct, whereas thirty-five have survived in the region. If you had taken a grand tour of Europe 3 million years ago, you would have encountered double the diversity of native trees.

Europe lost its evergreens and frost-sensitive species. Now they are making a comeback. This seems to be laurophyllisation. Should this be celebrated?

Next: Let's take the hypothetical introduction of the yellow-tailed black cockatoo in Europe as an example. What arguments do we have? We could say it will eventually speciate and – in the future - we gain a species. We could say it fills a niche and that we value the filling of niches. Maybe the cockatoo creates a niche, and another species can come into the ecosystem. The cockatoo could be argued to be an evolutionary distinct species and hence we would like a back-up population (we need to research this); to make it more robust to disturbances (maybe even antifragile). We could argue it increases ecological creativity (we would need to research this). We could say it increases local biodiversity. We could say its well-being is good and the species flourishes. Perhaps the exchange of northern hemisphere with southern hemisphere increases local biodiversity and ecological creativity (we also need to research this). 

To get back to the references, I think we could investigate the diversity of regions and compare them. We could compare the niches, we could compare ecological creativity. In my rude opinion: New Zealand is poor in bird diversity, however the ecological creativity is high. What should we do? Leave it alone? I must confess, I am a bit interested in the feral polecat in New Zealand, it already takes different prey species and could evolve in that way. Should we remove the polecat? I am unsure. What I am absolutely sure of is that I wish to xenowild Europe. The way I see it, Europe is poor in species. But again we should investigate this. If we wish to xenowild I think I would prefer Australian species in Europe as compared to European species in Australia. There is some asymmetry here.

I see a future in which genera have their own species in regions just as the case is with Populus, Betula, Quercus and so on is in the northern hemisphere (North-America and Europe have their own species of Betula).

searching for hoes

scared of the hoes

collectin the hoes

lovin the hoes

loyal to the hoes