The Ethics of Living Forever Debate (Part II)

[0:34:02-0:36:58] Now they delve into a discussion of exactly what AI is and means. I do think artificial intelligence will force us into asking more questions about ourselves, but that does not mean these series of 0s and 1s are the same as the organic creatures we are. It is already apparent that AI assists us in so many ways today, from the computers in our pockets to the surgeries completed with robots. There is no doubt that these machines will help us learn more so much faster and efficiently than ever before. However, I do not think this will change fundamental human nature or replace us in any meaningful way like so many people seem to fear.

[0:36:58-0:39:37] Alright, so Tucker then says, “If the Industrial Revolution, the steam-powered loom in England gave rise to Marxism in the first and second world wars and Vietnam and Korea and every other conflict for a hundred years, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. You know, technological change causes displacement, the fall of religions, the fall of empires, the murder of millions. So what will AI do?” Wow. This sounds like a Marxist professor talking about how awful the Industrial Revolution was for all of humanity rather than focusing on how many millions of lives new technology and innovation saved. To hear this sentiment coming from someone “on the right” is doubly astonishing. Truly, there is not much difference between the religious right and the atheist left when a morality of death is at the center of each. And then Tucker jumps to autonomy and AI somehow taking free will away from humans. That is quite the jump, in my opinion, since nothing can stop a man from using his own mind and, therefore, his free will to make decisions.

[0:39:37-0:43:47] “I don’t really have any reasons for saying no, other than my animal sense tells me, ‘No.’ […] That was my ‘instinct’ speaking, which I regard as a kind of coequal with my rational sense.” Ayn Rand sums up perfectly that

An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121)

So, another thing that separates us from any other animals is our need to learn what will allow us to survive. It is not automatic. If you are having a “gut feeling” about something, it means that your subconscious has some kind of answer that you are not yet consciously aware of yet or your emotions are sending out signals of danger but that is not knowledge. And Bryan’s admittance of his own depression taking over his life means that he lacked the desire to live and was making decisions counter to life. That has nothing to do with his own mind being wrong or untrustworthy but everything to do with how he was interpreting his situation. It made sense to him at the moment to go for that brownie to bring momentary pleasure in the face of the utter sense of hopelessness he felt. That is not irrational per se, but it is not the best way to live or find genuine happiness and he learned to overcome that hole he put himself in.

[0:43:47-0:44:35] Amazing. Tucker says, “And it does strike me, if you’re looking back into history that this is the only period, post-war, post-World War II where you’ve had a society at scale that assumes that there’s nothing beyond itself. […] Why did every previous generation assume that there was a God, but we don’t?”

First of all, not all people have believed in religion, and many were forced into whatever religion controlled their region for the majority of human history. You’d be killed if you thought otherwise. And while it’s true that there is a growing number of atheists in this world, Christianity and Islam still reign supreme. We are seeing this atrophying in religion because of all the newest science and technology that has been created. There are many answers we now have that we simply did not have before. Creation myths were the best way for homo sapiens to explain how things happened and that is why religion was the first stepping stone toward philosophy in explaining our world and how it works. The more we care to learn about things like our appendixes, the more we understand that everything can be explained in this world and not in some divine, unknowable realm.

To which Bryan replies that it doesn’t really matter whether we believe in god or not, “we already agree on don’t die—all of us do.” Now, I have explained in a previous video that this is simply not true. Those depressed or terminally ill people out there no longer believe in “don’t die.” It is a choice people have to make daily. I just think Bryan Johnson’s premise is wrong, and Tucker sniffs this out with him by continuing to bring back the idea of self-harm.

[0:44:35-0:46:54] This is yet another idea that I have discussed before, and it boggles my mind every time I come across it. Tucker says, “There’s no meaning without a power beyond ourself, is there? I mean there is only this sort of, like, shallow, silly, or sense meaning that we attach to various things, like sex or living longer or feeling good or whatever, but there’s no meaning beyond our physical, momentary experience. Whereas a person who acknowledges a power beyond himself attaches ultimate moral meaning to events. […] No God, no meaning.” I simply cannot fathom a person who does not look at their spouse for who they are and love them for their values and physical form. How could you feel anything higher than what is right in front of you? I plan on worshipping, yes, worshipping my baby when she arrives because of the potential she has and the perfection that she already is. To me, that does feel spiritual, but it does not need to ascend to some higher plane to be real and intense. It almost feels like Christians live with this foggy window between them and reality, unable to feel spiritually for the things that are the here and now. Even an insect who lives for a day has no clue that his life is tiny, momentary, fleeting; he survives by his instincts and lives with every fiber of his being for that brief time, as if he would live forever in such a manner. Humans do not live like bugs, though; we produce and make marks all over the future of our race. We leave ripples in our wake and our names can be carried on past our lives. Why do you need anything more?

And, of course, Bryan Johnson comes back with the biological “squirtings” idea that that’s where our meaning comes from, rather than understanding that human beings get meaning from the values they achieve throughout their lives. It is a process that requires action, not just chemical integrations, though we do rewire our brains with every experience we have. And it is true that we do live and experience in a particular body where mind and body are inextricably intertwined. But the body without the mind is nonexistent; we are more than those chemical processes our body goes through. We must use our rational minds to survive, which is why we need a code of morality in the first place. In my opinion, you cannot “engineer” meaning for an individual human being. They must figure out what that is for themselves through their own personal experiences and physical nature in space.

[0:46:54-0:50:18] Rightly, Tucker points out that we still need a code of morality to Bryan. But then he goes and says something silly: “If I feel like killing you because it pleases me, how can we oppose that?” As Dostoyevsky believed (and as I’ve addressed before), he thought that people without religion would murder each other left and right. I, among many others out there, are “good without god.” We are living our lives in peace as atheists. How is that possible? Because there is such a thing as a secular moral code to live by. Let me shout again, “Objectivism!” Reality is the only thing I “follow” to come up with my code. Would killing another person make me feel good? No. Would I end up in prison for life for it? Yes. Would it lead to my rational happiness to be trapped in a cage for the rest of my life or be haunted by the flashbacks of committing such a heinous crime? No. So why do it? If Tucker took one psychology class, then he would, hopefully, understand that people do seemingly “crazy” things for typically obvious reasons. There are all kinds of reality-based reasons that people harm each other; they don’t require a mysterious demon on their back to harm themselves or another for money, fame, revenge, justice, you name it—there’s almost always a reason for the action taken.

And then Tucker dares to say that we can’t say murder is “wrong” without god and Bryan Johnson just goes along with it. Ayn Rand discusses crime in particular as:

A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime—and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime. (Ayn Rand, “Political Crimes,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 176)

So it is wrong to kill someone because they have a right to their own life. Though, this can be teetering on the brink of a trolley problem if the killing is given without the proper context. I don’t have the space to look at the law in depth here, but that is why we have a court system in the first place—to determine if a killing (or any other crime) was in self-defense or not. Killing in self-defense to protect your own life is not morally wrong; it’s what becomes necessary for your own survival, so it can neither be right nor wrong. Ayn Rand has always said that “morality ends where a gun begins” (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 133). A moral system can only be followed when a man has a choice; that choice is simply robbed from him whenever another threatens to kill him and vice versa.

Unfortunately, both men lack the clear answer that Ayn Rand has provided, and which Tucker believes remains “unsolved.”

[0:50:18-0:54:31] This was another doozy when Tucker asks, “Without God, how can we say, and why would we say, that life is better than death? I mean, the religious person, the Christian, says life is better than death because God creates life.” At no point did I grow up thinking that death was better than life. I am baffled that a Christian honestly wonders why life is better than death. Only if you truly believe in this blissful afterlife that you have no proof exists could you see death as anything other than horrifying and an enemy to mankind. Life is much more exciting, first of all, than oblivion and more than what I imagine would be a dull place after the high wears off in the afterlife. You can only feel the highest of highs on earth and develop a greater understanding when you have lost a value and felt the lowest of the lows. Death is simply a negation of life, the absence of life. I do not want to be a void; I want to live. And the world is beautiful to me on its face, not because someone divine created it. Nature creates its own wondrous patterns, and it excites me to learn about them, and as humans have learned, every species has evolved with these attributes due to some advantage for their survival. We have this beautiful and still very mysterious mind, and I gaze in spiritual wonder at its beauty with no need to have a sole creator of the entire world. Yet, I believe that I go to that same spiritual realm of emotion that a Christian does but completely devoid of god.

[0:54:31-1:00:34] Oh, boy, Tucker says, “You would not disagree if I said, ‘Here’s what we know: We know that AI is likely to spawn some improvements, also certain to kill millions of people.’ Millions will die because of this, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it—the chaos alone, right, will cause that.” Why not just blow it all up essentially? Wow, his answer is like a mix of utilitarianism and nihilism and a Luddite mentality. First of all, the lawsuits brought against Elon Musk and his “self-driving” Teslas, as far as I am aware, are all due to user error and not because of the algorithm itself. People are the ones still harming themselves when they don’t use their brains or follow directions. AI is much safer and helps to keep us safer than we’ve ever been before. There is no guarantee, as Bryan is saying, that artificial intelligence will kill millions. There already has been no such apocalyptic scenario as he fears. If anything, more people have survived a surgery that a doctor’s shaking hand would have botched years ago that a robot did without a single error. Heck, I had LASIK done with the help of AI and lasers to fix my nearsightedness, and that was the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a miracle.

Bryan Johnson is able to make somewhat of an argument similar to mine to Tucker that humans are more fallible than AI is, which does seem to be the case thus far. And I’m thankful that at least Bryan was able to say that he does not “accept the premise” of AI killing millions in the future.

[1:00:34-1:07:40] “We don’t have any idea what we’re talking about, and we can’t anticipate the future. We’re limited in our foresight, in our knowledge, and particularly in our wisdom.” And then he comes up with this example of no robot ever being able to tell him why his wife is mad at him and Bryan Johnson says that we can use AI to tell us that answer. To which Tucker says that this is too “mechanistic,” and ignores “the most important universe, which is the spiritual universe.” I shouted here, “Objectivism!” Tucker claims again that we are controlled morally by “spiritual forces, unseen forces” and that he doesn’t see any “evidence” in what Bryan is saying. And Bryan Johnson agrees that this is a very spiritual moment for all of us on this planet and that AI is “neutral” and that we give it meaning, which I agree with. Bryan says he wants to eliminate “the causes of death.” To which Tucker retorts, “But until we can account for why we do it to ourselves, we’re probably not gonna change it. And I think the most obvious explanation is we’re being acted on by demons, whose—and this is how every religion that I’m aware of has described it, correctly, in my opinion—acted on by demons, whose goal is to destroy and kill people and they’re a counterbalance? by God. But, if you don’t agree with that, then you need to substitute another explanation in its place in order to proceed in the hope that we can change.” One more time, I scream: “Objectivism!” There is a battle between “good and evil” as Tucker mentions, but it is not in an unseen realm, it is between individual human beings. It is happening every second of every day, and that is why civilization has emerged to manage those fights through our military, courts, and police, aka our government on a global scale, and with the help of philosophy and psychology and other sciences on an individual scale.

Finally, Bryan Johnson says, “I’m with you; what I heard you say is there’s more to reality than we can see, there’s forces which we can’t identify, and we should address those. We’re on the same page, after the same thing.” Neither man can seem to prove what “forces” are acting on us to determine our actions or our code of morality. Objectivism would say that human beings with free will are driven by their minds to survive, to live, to be happy. That’s it. There is nothing more than that as a species. To live “healthy, wealthy, and wise,” as John Clarke and more famously Benjamin Franklin said, is to live happily on this earth. That should be our only goal, our only mission in life.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

The Ethics of Living Forever Debate (Part I)

A friend brought this interview between Tucker Carlson and Bryan Johnson to my attention, and once the two gentlemen started delving into the “ethics of living forever,” I found myself shouting at the screen, “Objectivism!” I could not help myself, and I needed an outlet to vent. So seeing as I have an audience on the internet who is willing to listen to me, I am going to share the interview, along with my commentary scattered throughout. I will list the time stamps for the Carlson interview in the description box below if you are curious about rewatching certain parts of the interview. This is the first time I’ve made content like this, so let me know down in the comments section if you liked it.

Alright, time to get this interview started! The first ten minutes or so consist of just some background on who Bryan Johnson is, in case you have never heard of him or his work before. Tucker Carlson, of course, is the famous former FOX News host, who now has his own video podcast show called The Tucker Carlson Encounter.

[0:00:00-0:09:21] “By the way, I’m not endorsing any of this.” Carlson will repeat this phrase because he does not agree with Bryan’s anti-aging methods. Hold this in mind as we get deeper into the interview.

[0:09:21-0:09:59] Tucker begins by attacking Project Blueprint with the skepticism one would find among Democrats who distrust “rich people.” He says the rich feed off the blood of children and that clearly does alarm Tucker, even though he is a millionaire himself. You may feel like this is an obvious concern people have brought up, but later on in the video, it will become more apparent that this method really rubs Tucker the wrong way.

[0:09:59-0:11:14] So, Bryan Johnson says, “You are the product” and to someone who is as religious as you will see Tucker is, this freaks him out. So his response is so telling: “I never asked what the appendix is. […] I really made an effort to not focus on those things because it seems like a lot of self-focus, and it seems like a short trip from there to, say, narcissism, which is, obviously, death.” Wow. You know, as I was listening to this interview, I learned a lot more about how Christians view this world that I could not have even fathomed before, having left my Protestant upbringing by eleven. It seems impossible for me to believe that people would avoid asking what is wrong when their body malfunctions. I spend all day reading and writing and consuming videos to discover the truth of things, to understand my body and this world, all day long. So to outright reject thinking about your own appendix because that seems selfish to a Christian is downright medieval thinking. It’s frightening to hear, honestly. Throughout this interview, pay attention to how concerned and brainwashed Tucker Carlson is in his faith and its utter obsession with their notion of selfishness. He is constantly equating what should be the “virtue of selfishness” as Rand calls it, or the ego and the self-esteem that follows, with narcissism, death, and the devil. Okay, let’s move on.

[0:11:14-0:12:28] Now, Bryan Johnson reveals his upbringing in Mormonism (which he didn’t actually leave until his thirties). And now, much like Descartes, he lost his trust in everything, most unfortunately, the trust in his mind. This is just as corrupt as thinking that god is in control of your life, by believing that only the chemical “squirtings” in your body are in control of your life and not your rational mind. He also places death as the centerpiece of his newfound philosophical system. The enemy is death, and it must be defeated. Now, I must say here that I also feel that my greatest enemy here on earth is death, but the philosophy of Objectivism is not based on that premise, rather one of happiness as the end goal. Objectivists are moving toward a positive and not focused with fear on constantly running away from a negative.

[0:12:28-0:15:07] Tucker says, “You grew up in a world—a Mormon world—that believed and taught you that it had already solved the question of death through Jesus.” This was probably the biggest shock to me while watching this video podcast. I suppose having left the religion so early that Christians, in general, believe that the resurrection of Jesus was actually him “conquering” death (the devil) and allowing us all to have eternal life in heaven. I just have never believed that anyone had “solved death” before. It certainly does not feel solved when you are watching your own mother die so young from the horrible jaws of cancer. That feels like a “devilish act” that she should have been saved from, no? At least Bryan Johnson has the guts to tell Tucker Carlson that he would like evidence of such a thing existing and that the speed at which artificial intelligence is growing may be our single way out of dying. I agree that the idea of “age escape velocity” is much more plausible at this point than the idea of there being any sort of afterlife. Tucker says that what Bryan Johnson is doing “to that extent” is “virtuous.” But just wait.

[0:15:07-0:15:34] “I just wonder if—as someone who grew up in a religious community—if part of you, maybe deep inside, fears that when you start to say things like, ‘We can defeat death,’ that you won’t be smoked down by the God of the universe.” Again, wow. Tucker Carlson truly lives his life in fear, like a child worried about getting coal on Christmas from Santa Claus. It boggles my mind that adults can still carry this same childlike mentality into their middle and old age. Bryan’s reply of “not in the least bit” was refreshing to hear but not the Harris-like cackle from Tucker. This man thinks that Bryan is a fool, and it does not come from a good place in his soul as he responds with, “Well, you’re either very brave or very foolish.”

[0:15:34-0:16:56] Take note that Tucker Carlson will increasingly howl in laughter more, like Harris, when he gets uncomfortable. Tucker then asks, “Aren’t you saying I’m God?” To which Bryan responds with an odd response of, “I’m saying that the universe speaks in irony.” What? Here is where I started shouting, “Objectivism!” The universe, as Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, says, is

the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe…

Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside of the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside of the universe” has no referent. The universe is everything. “Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”: there is no “out there.” (Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 2)

So “the universe” does not have a consciousness like me or you. It is simply everything in existence. Therefore, it cannot be “ironic” since that is a man-made term. It just is. There is a process to the natural world, but that is also not ironic. So, if Bryan Johnson or Tucker Carlson had cared to ever read more than some smatterings of Ayn Rand’s fiction, then they would have better answers than from a Christian or a hippie perspective, as revealed throughout this interview.

[0:16:56-0:17:35] This is shocking. “You know, many people though history have reached similar conclusions but not with similar technology to affect those conclusions, right? […] But, you know, history laughs at those people, and the story of history is men addled with hubris being humiliated. [Notice the slight, cynical smile here]. And so, I mean, I would say that there is a great deal of evidence that you will be crushed and humiliated for saying that.” Wow, wow, wow. This is a medieval mind telling you and me to just watch your loved one suffer and die with a pitiful clasp of the hands and the sigh of resignation that it must have been their time. If I love my mother, then I will fight death for her. I will understand the kind of cancer she got and how she could have avoided such outcomes, if any. I would feel an anger in my soul that I could not save her. I would advocate for the scientists of today (since I will admit my strengths lie more in the arts than the sciences) to find the cure for all diseases. I will never give up the control I have in my power to fight death. History is created by the intellectual minority.

Just as a man’s actions are preceded and determined by some form of idea in his mind, so a society’s existential conditions are preceded and determined by the ascendancy of a certain philosophy among those whose job is to deal with ideas. The events of any given period of history are the result of the thinking of the preceding period. The nineteenth century—with its political freedom, science, industry, business, trade, all the necessary conditions of material progress—was the result and the last achievement of the intellectual power released by the Renaissance. The men engaged in those activities were still riding on the remnants of an Aristotelian influence in philosophy, particularly on an Aristotelian epistemology (more implicitly than explicitly). (Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 28)

Would you rather, Tucker, have men of the mind engage in experiments that are not always successful or would you like to live like the isolated African tribes that still exist today, dying from things that we have been preventing for hundreds of years at this point? Would you rather cheer on the scholar and the businessman, like Bryan Johnson, who take these ideas from the realm of ideas to reality? I thought you advocated for capitalism, but you sound more and more like the anti-colonial left here.

[0:17:35-0:19:22] Poor Bryan starts to allow the naysayers to get to him by saying, “I think it’s likely inevitable that I will die the most ironic death.” And there goes the Tucker cackle with such joy. He says, “Yes, that is so true. By the way, that’s the message of the New Testament; I mean that’s the Sermon on the Mount. It’s the irony book.” At this point, I’m fuming. I have seen so many comments under Bryan Johnson’s own videos saying such nihilistic things as “Well, it would be hilariously ironic if you got hit by a truck right now.” As if people want to “trolley problem” their own existence when they make comments like this. But who bases their values, their moral system on accidents? What about the choices you make on a daily basis that may have put you in those situations in the first place? I think it is cruel and a sign of depression to think this way. That it is not worth trying to stay alive because accidents happen, not to mention that most accidents are not fatal. We have all fallen off our bike while learning to ride one, and how many children out of that were run over by a truck? I mean, really, this is, to me, a nihilistic and liberal mindset at its core. If Bryan Johnson knew about Ayn Rand, then he would never kowtow before these ridiculous premises. “Okay, now I like you a lot. I think that’s just a wonderful thing to say. That is wisdom.” What?! I am so sick to my stomach hearing this in 2024 and not 1424.

[0:19:22-0:22:33] “This is when homo sapiens realized that they reached a technological threshold, where the only objective of existence was to continue to exist at the basic level. So this is “Don’t Die.” Again, in this Descartes way of viewing the world, the objective of existence does not really make sense. Ayn Rand says that “existence exists.” It is here metaphysical and the first pillar of Objectivism (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124). It is just reality itself. So the question naturally becomes, Well, the objective of existence for whom? Bryan says, “homo sapiens.” But we require so much more than existing, that’s not living. A depressed person, as Tucker points out, who is simply existing is not going to wish to live long and has the ability to consciously off themselves, unlike any other species. We want to be happy, and that can only be achieved by living according to the laws of nature, reality. I think Tucker, being as religious as he is, realizes that there is something hollow about just not dying when he believes we have souls and, apparently, demons too.

[0:22:33-0:22:53] Bryan Johnson does not have any answers as to why people harm themselves without Ayn Rand’s help. Instead, he says that “The solution that I’ve come up with is I endeavor to build an algorithm that could take better care of me than I can myself.” Which completely negates human free will and a need for any sort of moral code in that case. I do not think an algorithm can make men happy. Again, working from Descartes-like premises, Bryan Johnson does not trust anything around him, including his mind. He thinks people act “insane,” even though we know from a legal perspective that proving actual insanity, a total divorce from reality, at the time of committing a crime, is extremely rare. Just like the trolley problems, we cannot base the actions of humanity off rare states of psychosis. People make decisions every day to eat poorly or not exercise. They must learn about what they are doing to their bodies and then use their willpower to fight against the temptations, just as Bryan Johnson has done himself, without acknowledging all that his mind has actually done toward the betterment of his life. I think this utter blindness he is experiencing in his middle age comes back to his long journey with Mormonism. He simply has not read enough outside of the religion that shaped his thinking and neither has Tucker Carlson as they run around like headless chickens without an answer as to why people still harm themselves. Again, allow me to yell, “Read Ayn Rand!”

[0:22:53-0:24:23] Tucker just said, “I think there clearly are demonic forces, I think there are evil spirits that are doing this to people.” Again, I never thought that Christians actually believed that demons were still picking on humans in today’s modern world. But, apparently, Tucker Carlson has shown me that evil spirits are still very much guiding people’s moral compasses. I feel like I am a medieval monk copying out scripture right after the Black Death has struck all of Europe listening to this interview.

[0:24:23-0:25:10] This is just rich. I have definitely heard Christians say this before, and I have already made some content on this. But Tucker asks, “Like where’s that moral framework coming from if there’s no God? I don’t get that.” Objectivism! Okay, to further elaborate, the entire point of having a philosophy like Objectivism is to provide that secular moral code for man. It frees us from the notion that morality has to come from god or some higher power that is not truly human. Of course, Ayn Rand believed that we must still have a moral code; otherwise, anarchy or dictatorship would ensue as it did in both world wars and that would not lead to happy lives, only more death and destruction than ever before. What is so sad to see is that neither of these middle-aged men can understand where morality comes from when the answer has been so clearly shared with the world since at least when Atlas Shrugged was initially published in 1957. (By the way, Tucker was born in 1969 and Bryan in 1977, which means that they both were born with the advantage of having her knowledge disseminated out there since birth).

[0:25:10-0:27:08] Bryan then says, “Right now, we play capitalism and make money and earn–” and Tucker cuts him off with, “I’m with you there, that’s obviously a hollow, stupid dead end and it’s not actually even working” and then proceeds to maniacally laugh again. This is the man who is one of the top voices of the Republican Party and he just dismissed capitalism as a “hollow, stupid dead end?” Why doesn’t he just stand up and make out with Marx right now? To this entire answer, I will scream, “Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal!” Here’s just a taste of the book’s answer:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice. (Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20)

[0:27:08-0:27:33] Again, they circle back around to spit on the mind. Then Tucker states, “The root of wisdom is knowing not to trust yourself.” I had to think for a while where he even got this premise. It sounds very Eastern, very mystical, though I’m sure Christianity contributes to some of this attitude as well. This debate is a very old one in philosophy between the “mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle.” Ayn Rand addresses this by explaining:

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 138)

Both men are preaching a “Morality of Death” here and not of life. They are agreeing so much because their premises are the same—selfishness is the ultimate evil.

[0:27:33-0:29:32] Then Tucker drops another revealing sentiment that many Christians seem to share: “I mean the accumulated sadness of life is hard to take.” Look, I grew up with enough childhood trauma for a lifetime, but does that mean that I would rather not exist? No. I have always accepted the anxiety and grief that came with my struggles, but there was still laughter and love in my life to get me through those tough times. There were many times I vowed that I desired to keep feeling than feel nothing at all because the feelings themselves could not kill me. I mean, if everyone living in this place called heaven were to be there in eternal bliss, then they would end up being simply numb to their bliss. Their afterlife would then have no meaning if they just existed up there in this kind of stasis. No, I prefer to live and breathe with the understanding that loss and grief are a part of life but so is laughter and joy.

[0:29:32-0:31:40] “All of life is an invitation to humility. […] that is the root of wisdom and the root of happiness.” What?! Humility is certainly a part of Christianity where a follower of Christ must kneel down and obey and not question the laws of nature. I cannot and will not accept that mentality. Humility, or in another way, the idea of selflessness, is not at the root of happiness or wisdom. Happiness comes from the values you accumulate in your life and feels like this stable state of being because you followed reality and its rules. And wisdom comes from not obeying the laws of the bible but having the courage and pride, the self-esteem, to go searching for truth.

[0:31:40-0:34:02] Okay, then Bryan Johnson offers up this thought experiment to Tucker Carlson, who swiftly rejects it and says, “Of course I would say no, I’m not getting bossed around by a machine. Sorry. And I also don’t think that any philosophy that doesn’t include God can improve my spiritual health, because, like, what does that even mean?” Objectivism! Ahhh, this is so frustrating to be yelling at a screen with no one to hear me. There is a philosophy that does not include god and makes a heck of a lot more sense than any other system of ideas I have ever read about, even after getting my bachelor’s in philosophy. Tucker is so far gone that there is no way of changing this man’s mind at his age, unfortunately. I think that Bryan’s theory is definitely going to be appealing to the younger crowd, even if he needs a better philosophy backing his desire for this “giving birth to superintelligence.”

Well, my dear watchers and listeners, I didn’t realize before just how much I had to interject into this interview. So I have decided to split this into two parts. Please watch out for Part II soon.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Objectivists Divide Over Trump

As early as middle school and certainly by high school, I noticed I’d have these gut feelings and anger well up inside of me when certain teachers taught. But at that time, I couldn’t always put my finger on why. I’d often overhear Michael Savage’s voice on the radio while my dad was cooking dinner, explaining current events. Then I remember listening attentively to my dad’s interpretation of what my teachers said at the dinner table. Finally, after discovering Ayn Rand and her work, I had answers to all my gut feelings. I found the individual, the “I” that was me, and the liberal ideology that possessed many of my teachers.

Objectivism gave me the oxygen I needed amidst the barrage of confusion, trolley problems, anti-reality, magical, supernatural, illogical thinking washing over me from all sides of my higher education. She showed me that life doesn’t have to be complicated, with one tragedy inevitably following another because man has original sin. She revealed that focusing on reality and the truth will allow me to create the life I want to live, one that increases my happiness.

I truly wish that Ayn Rand was still alive today because I’m having that same gut feeling again without the answers and it is all over: Donald Trump. There is this growing rift between what seems to be the scholars at the Ayn Rand Institute and other outside Objectivists. The scholars seem to hate Trump while the outsiders tend to love him. It’s like watching my parents divorce all over again. Most of my close family and friends love Trump. But every time I listen to another ARI podcast or see a post on X from someone heavily involved in ARI, all I hear are negatives about him and my stomach squirms.

I should note, however, that endorsing a specific political candidate does not make you an Objectivist or not. It is when you agree with her four basic pillars of Objectivism and its overall goal that makes you one, so really this should not give people a reason to drop a philosophical label that they want to carry.

If Ayn Rand was here today, I believe that she would surprise the people at ARI and give a clarifying answer as to why Trump is not Hitler but now an American icon. I say this with the deep conviction that the only person left on this earth to have spent the most time with her when she was alive and named him her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, stated at the end of a video in 2020 that “I wanna add one sentence: I am voting for Trump. That’s it. Okay. […] I’m not arguing, but I heard somebody say, ‘No Objectivist would vote for Trump.’ And I’m still steaming over that, so I’m tryin’ to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.” Please read the comments to this video that I’ll link below to read who may have been the one to say that if you’re curious. I will not be bringing in any ARI-related people’s names into this video. However, I believe that ARI cut the end of this video section off. Now, I understand that they as a nonprofit cannot and will not endorse a particular candidate, but they could have left Peikoff’s commentary in. To me, it is a huge slap in the face to the creator of the Institute itself. He’s not old and losing his mind, like Biden.

Not to mention that Peikoff is the very man who wrote the DIM Hypothesis, which sends out the warning call about our country falling into religious totalitarianism and, yet, he does not view Trump as that exact type of threat that the Democrats are pointing to. That should tell Objectivists something. Trump has never seemed that religious, which is precisely why he chose Pence as his vice president back in 2016 in order to win the vote of the evangelical Christians. Now, if this was all about Pence running, who talked about god every time he opened his mouth, then I’d be more worried.

I think that Ayn Rand is much more conservative, at least morally, than many modern-day Objectivist intellectuals are acknowledging. Remember her scenes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, where the male lead is always sexually dominant over the submissive female? Remember how she said that no woman would even want to be president because she wouldn’t have a man to look up to? Remember how she had a distaste for feminists even back then? Rand certainly has articles or statements about the border and immigration and abortion that are considered anti-conservative stances today, and she makes that known, but to talk about those topics constantly as if those political policies made up the entire system is foolish. The same goes for placing a spotlight on sexism and racism. Ayn Rand wrote one essay on the topic and moved on. She is not like the tribal leftists of today who are making those topics the central theme of their entire lives, a religion. Conservatives do not want the propaganda shoved down their throats anymore.

In a recent ARI podcast, the hosts do not call this a right or left issue but a pro-Enlightenment versus an anti-Enlightenment one. While I believe that is true, I also can see how the right tends to be more pro-reality than the anti-reality liberals in this day and age. As long as the religious right is able to keep their god in the sky and not affect those of us on earth, I see no real threat from that side. Whereas, the liberals are actively attempting to change our language, utterly obscuring it with made-up terms and pulling statistics out of nothing in order to alter what is right in front of them: reality. For example, they refuse to acknowledge that a child with XY chromosomes is a man and XX chromosomes is a woman. They refuse to admit that communism in any form will never work based simply on human nature. They refuse to see that the nuclear family is the best way to raise children. I do not get these ideas from god but from observing other people and animals. Nature guided Darwin just as well back then as today. There are natural laws set in place, and the only way to ever attain true happiness is to adhere to those laws. That’s why we exercise, eat a healthy diet, brush our teeth to avoid decay. Therefore, I see the left as a much larger threat than the right.

Sure, when you just watch the news, you see tribalistic and often idiotic things said from both sides, but they are anchors breaking real time news with very little time to think or a long time to elaborate, that’s how you get sound bites. There has always been this kind of “yellow journalism” or bickering in politics—that’s just the nature of the game. But if you talk to the men and women who are not in the spotlight, they all are bringing more than just “tribalistic views” to the table. I have seen people talking about what our founding fathers wanted for this country and others who still take the time to reread the Declaration of Independence—true patriots are to be found in this country and they hate to see the American culture damaged by anti-reality groups. It is these patriots who are bringing their morals with them to vote for Trump—you will just not hear it on the news. I think many scholars are simplifying the real cultural issues at stake here, perhaps because they are surrounded by an echo chamber of their friends and not out in the middle of the noise like I am. There is a way of life that many Americans feel they must protect. I’ve seen the “trad wives” on social media and the conservative men who just want to live out in the prairie in peace—without any news or politicians in sight. There is a culture of family first still left in America, of parents responsibly shaping the next generation, which is being incessantly chiseled away at by the left. That is the threat. Trump may be their antidote to the “woke virus.”

ARI always points out that we can’t be proponents of a negative, such as atheism. And yet, all I’ve heard are negatives on the state of the world and the people running it from the Institute lately. What happened to that moral spirit that Ayn Rand could conjure up and lighten an entire room with? Unfortunately, one thing that scholars do to language is beat it to death and then suck out every last ounce of emotion left for the reader or listener. It is also very easy to stay morally “pure” as a scholar in their tower while a presidential candidate is meant to represent the voice of an entire nation. Trump must be open to hearing and helping all different kinds of people.

Yes, I think the first election cycle around, he was on the defensive and his method was to resort to childish name-calling. I don’t think his speeches were focused enough and they did sound very pragmatic, as if he had no philosophical stance. However, even an older man can learn. I, along with the world, have watched Trump learn, mature, and grow into the leader we see today. That was proven on July 13, 2024, when the twenty-year-old loner, who probably was just severely depressed and not particularly politically motivated, got up on that roof and took a shot at the former president.

If that were me up on that stage I would have screamed, peed myself, and cried running off with my Secret Service agents (and, yes, I will grant you that I am a woman who is currently pregnant), but still I would have been petrified. Instead, here we see a man raise himself up with a sense of defiance and anger written all over his face. This was not a “marketing moment” as someone (who shall not be named) said about him. This was the face of a man asking openly, “How dare you try to extinguish my life? A life that I have made and poured all my values into it. I will fight, fight, fight for my right to live.” He was a man in those first shocking moments, not just a presidential candidate. And I do believe that Ayn Rand would have seen that heroic picture of the blood on his face and the flag waving proudly behind him with a tear in her eye. I do not believe that she would have skeptically rolled her eyes, called him a narcissist, and yawned about how he is so lost in himself that he knew this would become a historic picture moment for himself. It’s that kind of attempt at character assassination that makes my gut hurt (and, again, not just because I’m pregnant).

In the days following, Trump has not taken the time to even digest what happened, but the look on his face at the Republican National Convention was different. Being directly shot at and nearly killed, and acknowledging that fact, changes a man. You could see it on his face. There is trauma there. But the liberals will call him “weak” and “elderly looking” and “tired.” No, he is a man with growing pains, a man beginning to understand that people believe in him, a man who cannot let them down no matter what.

Trump is coming out as more moderate too these days. Supposedly, he has left abortion out of his conservative party stance. Now, perhaps this, again, shows that he is a pragmatist or “has no ideas,” but he may also just be listening to the middle of his base. Trump wants to unify the American people together, as long as we are all moving in the right direction, toward reality and not away from it. One president is not going to be able to turn all of America into Galt’s Gulch overnight. That’s a fantasy.

Go with me for a moment on a trip to the future. Perhaps borders are still needed right now until we all become one global country, essentially. I see it already happening with all our translation apps and social media since I can easily communicate now with people from all over the world regardless of the language barrier. Foreign nations have been for a while now learning English as their second language, and I foresee that everyone will because it is a mongrel language anyway, with many of its roots coming from other cultures.

The news is international at this point and there will be no stopping it now. The longer we have the Internet, the more integrated everyone will be on this planet. Someday, I think we will all simply become the human race with the individual as truly the smallest minority. Cultures will become a thing that historians study and people engage in just for fun and entertainment. The further along science gets to answering our deepest questions, the more religion will atrophy, and nations will become less and less dissimilar.

A free market working on an international scale would bring all of us up and perhaps Bryan Johnson’s message of “Don’t Die” might finally be the only mission we all have. But until then, there are terrorists and criminals and even cultural differences that still make borders something that every nation desires. Until new generations are raised in similar environments, we cannot have the free-for-all that we in the West, at least, desire. Religion (the kind found on both the right and the left) has, can, and does still kill.

This brings me closer to one of my final points: I think it’s absolutely offensive that people are calling it “an act of god” that Trump survived when a rally attendant was shot to death just behind him and two others severely injured. Was Corey’s life less worthy of living? Would his daughters rather have kept their dad alive or Trump? Did god ignore Corey to shine his light on Trump? No, this was pure luck.

Let’s say I took Pascal’s wager seriously, which allow me to remind my audience is “the argument that it is in one’s own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.” Let’s say I was wrong. Then I’d be banished to hell, along with all the other wonderful people who have walked this earth and questioned and maintained their goodness, like Ayn Rand herself and, yes, even Donald Trump.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxhzlWsl0o&ab_channel=AdamSmasher; https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100308948#:~:text=Pascal’s%20wager%20the%20argument%20that,any%20advantage%20in%20believing%20otherwise.; https://www.radiohalloffame.com/michael-savage; https://theobjectivestandard.com/2016/11/ayn-rands-intellectual-development/;
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump/images-videos; https://courses.aynrand.org/people/leonard-peikoff/; https://aynrand.org/novels/; https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-ideal-from-the-ayn-rand-institute/id1515023771; https://www.vox.com/culture/360711/trump-fist-pump-photo-explained-expert-media-savvy-politics; https://abc7.com/live-updates/rnc-2024-donald-trump-makes-appearance-on-day-1-of-the-republican-national-convention-in-milwaukee/15060290/; https://x.com/bryan_johnson/status/1788256385224024236; https://conflictedcollegechristians.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/pascals-wager/

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Don’t Die

I recently read Bryan Johnson’s free e-book, Don’t Die, where he lays out his philosophy behind his Blueprint protocol. Unfortunately, I found his core message, “to fire the brain,” to go directly against the Objectivist philosophy of which I ascribe to. Objectivism holds that

Man’s essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man’s mind is his basic means of survival—his only means of gaining knowledge . . . .

In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival” (“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 16).

Our brain is running the entire show, and it is a part of our entire body. You cannot sever one from the other (see “mind-body dichotomy” in the Ayn Rand Lexicon). In fact, your brain functions better when you are sleeping, eating, and exercising right. I think Bryan Johnson needs to clarify what he means when he discusses how our, perhaps, lazy, or depressed, or what have you personality wants to commit self-harm. But that is more of a psychological issue and not a physical one that the mind and body are failing to perform. Therapy is probably where most people need to start.

In his latest YouTube video, entitled “Watch These 39 Minutes If You Want To Live To 200+,” Bryan Johnson is giving a talk to an audience and toward the very end he says, “We do align on this one objective [don’t die]. […] You step one step above, we’re gonna become tribal.” Basically, he’s claiming that all people can agree on “don’t die.” However, if he knew Ayn Rand’s philosophy, then he would see that he’s wrong. Even in his discussion of “Evening Bryan,” who is the self-harm part of him, he is admitting that sometimes psychologically we are not fighting to live.

What I am saying is that not all people genuinely want to live or be alive or actively not die. Look at smokers or alcoholics or drug addicts—they all know that they are killing themselves and yet they continue to do harm with substances. In Rand’s fiction, there are numerous “villains,” who are deemed such because they are for death as opposed to life. They seek to take down society with them. It’s similar to school shooters who are so depressed that their own “life goal” is to cause pain to others and take them with him into the void. People are not in agreement over “don’t die.” In fact, as I’ve said on this channel before, people are constantly making that decision every single day they continue to live: live or die, live or die, eat the apple or eat the cake for lunch, smoke this cigarette or quit today, live or die, live or die, feed my baby or skip feeding them, continue my college education or kill my roommate, live or die, live or die. It’s a constant hum in the background of our lives, whether we consciously acknowledge it or not.

Bryan Johnson seems to be a bit naïve about people in general, possibly from having been part of the Morman faith for so long before leaving it. That’s why I always advocate reading classic or literary fiction as a way to peer into someone’s mind for an honest depiction of the human mind.

Even I can remember the days in school when I was hiding from my struggles at home and homework kept my mind off the pain. And so, I would do my homework into the wee hours of the night from middle school up through college at the expense of my health. Internally, I was in survival mode, and I would have rather died than put the work down. On the outside, I may have looked happy and normal, albeit tired. But on the inside, I was combusting, full of fireworks and fury. My whole soul would put sleep on hold, taking my health hostage. I needed help. I needed therapy. Only now am I able to fix what I had broken, slowly, very slowly. But it is not my mind that needed firing, it was my emotions. But, of course, you can’t fire your emotions—they are there to serve as red flags to protect you. Listen to them! And go seek the help you need in order to continue to make healthy decisions to live a long, beautiful life.

***

Links: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/125228–thomas-vanhuyse/anatomie/objecten#/RP-P-1903-A-23532,2; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/DONT-DIE-by-Zero; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; http://aynrandlexicon.com/; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkS1Eww5jTc&ab_channel=BryanJohnson

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Trying Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint Protocol for Thirty Days

After reading some longevity books, such as Chip Walter’s Immortality, Inc., and Kris Verburgh’s The Longevity Code, I ran across Bryan Johnson’s YouTube channel and his “Blueprint Protocol” website. And being a person already with OCD tendencies, his complete and spelled-out diet that slowed aging down sounded like the key to all my eating woes. My “woes” being that I never knew what the healthiest lunch to eat was, and I found myself eating too much processed food for dinner.

Breakfasts felt like the only thing I had “figured out” since I had been eating plain Chobani Greek yogurt with fresh blueberries, KIND cinnamon granola, chia seeds, and honey for years during the weekdays, with little desire for change. My weekend breakfasts always consisted of porridge, frozen wild blueberries, and some honey on top. Both meals were accompanied by a cup (or two) of black tea with milk and honey.

For lunch, I had switched over the years from sandwiches to frozen meals to soups to avocado rice cakes to toast. With each iteration, I thought I was making healthier choices, but something always came up: too much sodium, too little nutritional value, too much fat, and on and on.

For dinner, before I remarried, it was pretty clean with the typical meat, carbs, and vegetable sides with a little dessert to finish off the meal. However, once I joined my (new and lovely) Midwestern family who love their carbs and easy-to-prepare, processed meals, I felt my healthier dinners taking more of a back seat. I gained a few pounds, though my tastebuds were quite happy at the time. However, I wanted to make my more balanced dinners take center stage once again with the treats saved for more special occasions.

So, I decided to commit to thirty days strictly following Bryan Johnson’s diet. I will provide the link to his Blueprint Recipe Guide below. Now, I was never planning to take any of his supplements because I was not sure if they were proven to work yet or what effect they would have on me without a doctor supervising. I was also not committed to fasting, though I normally stopped eating around five at night until after the gym the next day, which is a minimal form of fasting already.

The grocery day was intense. My whole cart was full of what my husband called “rabbit food” and the resulting price tag stung a bit too. For a month of groceries just for myself, I ended up spending $343.97 at Hy-Vee and $93.40 at Amazon for the cocoa flavanols, black lentils, Ceylon cinnamon, and nori. So, I spent a total of $437.27 for all the initial ingredients (and those are Midwest prices). That’s like buying a meal for $5 every day for a month, which doesn’t seem so bad, but it is definitely more than I am used to spending on myself a month. I will also say that Hy-Vee is not a health food store, so I could not find things like “Japanese sweet potatoes,” so I just opted for your regular sweet potato for all the meals that called for it. But I really did try to find exactly the same ingredients as were called for in the guide. (And as a bit of an aside for anyone trying to do this protocol too, by the end of the month, I had about half a bottle left of a 1.5-liter bottle of Bertolli extra virgin olive oil. I also had, by the end of the month, about half a bottle left of a 1.4-liter bottle of POM Wonderful pomegranate juice. And what I kept needing to buy more bags of over the month was frozen broccoli and cauliflower, so fair warning about that).

I switched around his breakfast and lunch because I was used to having my sweeter meal of the day first. So, it all began with “Nutty Pudding” at about eight in the morning. I am attaching pictures of all my meals to the video version of this if you would like to see how my creations turned out. I will say that the first week of doing this was overwhelming because there are so many individual ingredients in each meal. But once you memorize the measurements and run to grab all the ingredients from around the kitchen to have next to you, then it doesn’t take that much time. I probably cut my speed in half by the time the month was almost up. But back to breakfast… My concoction looked small, purple, and pitiful in my bowl. However, it was filling, and I was never hungry enough to snack on anything in between breakfast, lunch, or dinner. That was one of the most surprising things is how satiated I felt on this protocol. I will say that as a female, I cut all the ingredients Bryan Johnson had in half, which is why my “Nutty Pudding” probably looked pathetic. So, for example, instead of two tablespoons of chia seeds, I only added one.

As far as the taste is concerned, it was sweet, nutty, but thin when placed in the blender. I soon stopped using the blender and just ate the soupy substance with all the chunky bits intact, so at least I felt like I was eating something for breakfast. It did not taste bad, but I did start to miss my old breakfast pretty early on.

I will say that the worst part of this protocol was having to take the olive oil “shot” apart from my breakfast. I didn’t know what to expect at first, so I just went all in and, boy, was that disgusting and peppery as heck. After that first try, I would hold my nose shut and down it and then quickly take a bite of my “Nutty Pudding,” swallow, and only then release my nose. I did that for thirty days…thirty days…yes.

Next, I had my lunch at around noon. It was the “Super Veggie,” which consists of mostly cauliflower, broccoli, and lentils with a few mushrooms and lots of spices. To avoid the same slop for breakfast, I skipped the blender with this meal. This was the next step up for my lunches health wise, and I didn’t mind eating it every day. It was tasty and filling, but I am glad I split this meal in half because any more and I wouldn’t be able to finish it. And, thankfully, the olive oil was nicely hidden among the veggies, so that I didn’t have to gag on it by itself.

Finally, the recipe guide has a list of ten other meal options to rotate through. So, to fill up the month with each, I spent three days on the same meal. I will say that I didn’t succeed in making the meals look like the pictures in the guide at all. Most of them became something like veggie bowls with everything mixed together anyway, and I enjoyed eating them that way. I ate each meal usually by five each night because I was always hungry again by then.

For simplicity, I went in order of what the guide had, and I did also add half a chicken breast (or sometimes other meat we had, like pork or steak) to each meal. I am not a vegetarian and even Bryan Johnson says, “My diet is vegan, by choice, not by necessity, feel free to add meat to any dish.” So, I did.

The first three nights were the “Buddha Bowl,” which tasted good and had a surprising tanginess to it. Thankfully, the olive oil was tucked away in each of these meals too. The next nights were the “Roasted Veggie Lettuce Wraps,” which I could not manage to wrap successfully, but it tasted fairly good as well. I was a bit worried about those jalapenos, but if you cut out the seeds and pith, then they are not too spicy. Next was the “Blood Orange + Fennel Salad,” which, let me tell you, was the second most disgusting thing I swallowed while on this protocol. However, the second night instead of eating it all raw, I roasted it in the oven and ate the pomegranate and orange pieces separately as a dessert after dinner, which made the whole meal a lot better, in my opinion. That’s another thing I should touch on. I usually don’t like salads, so I often will steam, sauté, or roast my vegetables to make them more palatable. Next, there was the “Roasted Beets + Green Lentils + Wilted Chard” meal, which tasted good, though it looked like I had committed some heinous crime for the next several days. Thanks, beets… Moving on to what was probably my favorite was the “Roasted Cabbage Steaks + Sweet Potato Mash.” I could not believe how tasty that cabbage was, but it must have been the combination of roasting and spices (like the chipotle, paprika, and onion powder). The potatoes, on the other hand, seemed to be lacking the depth they needed, like real butter and milk. And then I had the “Sweet Potato + Mushroom Toast,” which, surprisingly, I was not getting tired of sweet potatoes by this point (perhaps because that was one of the few carb items I could eat). That tasted all right, though the mushrooms and nori really made it taste like salty fish, which I am not a huge fan of. Then, there was the “Chickpea Curry Over Greens,” which just became a cooked veggie bowl for me, but you can’t go wrong with curry or chickpeas. There was the “Beet Poke,” which I again cooked down to be less like rabbit food and it tasted pretty good, even though I’m not a huge beet fan. Then, I had the “Collard Green Wraps + Red Pepper Dip,” which I knew by this time that my wrapping skills were nonexistent, and I refused to eat anymore raw veggies, so that turned into another veggie bowl, which was, again, fine. Finally, I ended the experiment with the “Roasted Bok Choy + Japanese Sweet Potato” meal, which was probably my second favorite meal. It was very savory and flavorful.

Phew! So those were all the meals I tried for a month. I even bought groceries to try for a second month; however, by that second week, I started feeling the horrible nausea of…morning sickness. Yup, I found out at six weeks that I was pregnant. I’d like to think that this protocol made the baby stick around this time, but I did conceive just before starting this challenge, so my husband scoffs at the idea and would like to start eating with me again.

Thankfully, I just started my second trimester, and all is going well, but I could not make this video until now because everything I had just eaten made me want to throw up at just the thought of it. Saying “olive oil” still makes my skin crawl. And this is where I must say something about Bryan Johnson and to my audience.

Bryan Johnson is at a point of his life where I would say he is settled enough to focus on his health…and he is also not a woman. Yes, he has a video where he has a woman try his diet, but she is already young, fit, healthy, and not pregnant. She also said that she would not continue the diet as strictly in her life after the experiment was over. I must say that there are times in life, namely early on, where school, growing your career and your family will put you in survival mode. There will be sleepless nights; there will be stress; there will be times when your own body is seemingly possessed by a demon (aka your baby), and you will throw up and turn your nose up at the very things that are good for you. I have now been intuitively eating, just listening to my own body and what it wants. Have I been craving Annie’s Shells and White Cheddar mac and cheese and sweet, cold, juicy watermelon for the past few weeks? Heck, yes. Am I avoiding those needs? No. Now, I will say that if I was craving ice cream, then I would try to substitute mashed frozen bananas or frozen grapes or other cold fruits instead. Or, if I’m craving chocolate, then I’ll go for the 70 percent dark chocolate and not milk chocolate bars. If you can swap for healthier things, then you are doing enough. I think, especially for women, our hormones dictate much of when, where, and how we want to eat. Maybe when my life slows or settles down enough, say fifty or after menopause, then maybe I can get back to that longevity-driven diet, but, for now, I have to give myself the grace to just get by while I am growing this new life inside of me.

Please don’t think that this is the one and only diet out there to live longer. I have some great cookbooks that use similar ingredients but have more options in case kale or sweet potatoes are wearing you out, like Rebecca Katz and Mat Edelson’s The Healthy Mind Cookbook.

Overall, this was a doable protocol for thirty days, and even though I love order and making my food prep mindlessly, I can’t envision myself now pregnant and then with a child eating this way. I need to feed my family and sometimes survival mode will happen, and I think we all should be okay with that. Besides, doctors are working on longevity solutions that don’t solely depend on our diets, like anti-aging pills. Just do the best you can where you are in life right now, and, hopefully, you’ll reach the “longevity escape velocity” happy, healthy, and still sane.

***

Links: https://medium.com/future-literacy/one-meal-23-hr-fast-100-nutrition-18187a2f5b; https://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Inc-Renegade-Scientists-Cheating/dp/1426219806; https://www.amazon.com/Longevity-Code-Secrets-Living-Science/dp/1615194975/ref=monarch_sidesheet; https://www.youtube.com/@BryanJohnson; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/Recipe-Guide-by-Zero; https://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Mind-Cookbook-Big-Flavor-Function/dp/1607742977

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Common Sayings Reevaluated

1. Christians say, “I asked Jesus into my heart,” “I was born again,” or “I was saved,” or else we probably were not.
2. Christians don’t say hello, we “greet one another with a hug and a holy kiss.”
3. When Christians say goodbye, we declare, “Have a Jesus-filled day!”
4. To a complete stranger, a “good Christian” won’t hesitate to announce, “Jesus loves you, and so do I!”
5. Whether affectionately or with pity, you may never be sure, Christians often say, “Bless your heart,” which is always pronounced with thick southern sweetness. Go ahead and say it again. You know you want to: “Bless your heart.”
6. For grins or groans, now throw this in: “God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.” (But, you know, that’s not in the Bible, right?)
7. When the pastor preaches a powerful message and the choir’s songs are especially pleasing to the ear, Christians exclaim at the close of the service, “We had church!”
8. Wait just a minute. We don’t say, “The pastor preached a powerful message.” No, Christians say, “The pastor was Holy Ghost-filled and the Word of the Lord was anointed.”
9. Christians don’t have good days, we “get the victory!” And a great day is a “mountaintop experience.” Can someone say “Amen?”
10. Christians don’t have bad days, either! No, we’re “under attack from the devil, as Satan roams like a roaring lion to destroy us.”
11. Christians don’t ever say, “Have a good day!” We say, “Have a blessed day.”
12. Christians don’t have parties, we have “fellowship” and dinner parties are “pot blessings.”
13. Christian[s] don’t get depressed; we have “a spirit of heaviness.”
14. An enthusiastic Christian is “on fire for God!”
15. Christians don’t have discussions, we “share.”
16. Similarly, Christians don’t gossip, we “share prayer requests.”
17. Christians don’t tell stories, we “give a testimony” or a “praise report.”
18. When a Christian does not know how to respond to someone who is hurting, we utter, “Well, I’ll be praying for you.” After that comes, “God is in control.” Next, we say, “All things work together for good.” Should I keep ‘em coming? “If God closes a door, he’ll open a window,” and another favorite: “God allows everything for a purpose.”
19. Christians don’t make decisions, we are “led by the Spirit.”
20. Christians RSVP with phrases such as, “I’ll be there if it’s God’s will,” or “Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.”
21. When a Christian makes a mistake, we say, “I’m forgiven, not perfect.”
22. Christians know that a really terrible lie is “belched from the pit of hell.”
23. Christians don’t insult or say rude things to a brother or sister in the Lord. No, we “speak the truth in love.” However, if someone should mistakenly feel judged or rebuked, we say, “Hey, I’m just keepin’ it real.”
24. If a Christian meets someone who is stressed or anxious, we know they simply need to “let go and let God.”
25. Last but not least, Christians don’t die, we “go home to the be with the Lord.”		1. Objectivists say, “I asked the love of my life into my heart,” “I was born to be selfish and happy,” or “I was drowning in altruism,” or else we probably were not.
2. Objectivists don’t say hello, we “greet one another with a bow of the head with respect for each other’s individuality.”
3. When Objectivists say goodbye, we declare, “Have an ego-filled day!”
4. To a complete stranger, a “good Objectivist” won’t hesitate to announce, “Your reason loves you, and so do I!”
5. Whether affectionately or with pity, you may never be sure, Objectivists often say, “A is A,” which is always pronounced with thick southern sweetness. Go ahead and say it again. You know you want to: “A is A.”
6. For grins or groans, now throw this in: “You work in mysterious ways when you are not thinking rationally.” (But, you know, that’s not in Atlas Shrugged, right?)
7. When the Ayn Rand Institute podcaster preaches a powerful message and our internal choir’s songs are especially pleasing to the ear, Objectivists exclaim at the close of the episode, “We had logic!”
8. Wait just a minute. We don’t say, “The ARI podcaster preached a powerful message.” No, Objectivists say, “The podcaster was Reason-filled and the Word of the Self was anointed.”
9. Objectivists don’t have good days, we “feel a sense of life!” And a great day is a “benevolent universe experience.” Can someone say “Amen” like Peikoff?
10. Objectivists don’t have bad days, either! No, we’re “under attack from the whim-worshippers, as tribalists roam like a roaring lion to destroy us.”
11. Objectivists don’t ever say, “Have a good day!” We say, “Have a virtuous day.”
12. Objectivists don’t have parties, we have “OCON” and dinner parties are “pots of gold.”
13. Objectivists don’t get depressed; we have “a spirit of moral judgment.”
14. An enthusiastic Objectivist is “on fire for heroes!”
15. Objectivists don’t have discussions, we “debate.”
16. Similarly, Objectivists don’t gossip, we “share our honest opinions.”
17. Objectivists don’t tell stories, we “give a philosophical argument” or “praise Rand’s work.”
18. When an Objectivist does not know how to respond to someone who is hurting, we utter, “Well, I’ll be thinking of you.” After that comes, “You are in control.” Next, we say, “All things can be handled if you adapt.” Should I keep ‘em coming? “If an opportunity closes its door, a new one will open,” and another favorite: “Don’t leave your life to chance.”
19. Objectivists make decisions, we are “led by objective knowledge.”
20. Objectivists RSVP with phrases such as, “I’ll be there if it brings value to my life,” or “If I’m willing and the second-handers don’t rise.”
21. When an Objectivist makes a mistake, we say, “I’m perfect, just not omniscient, sorry.”
22. Objectivists know that a really terrible lie is “belched from the pit of delusion.”
23. Objectivists don’t insult or say rude things to a brother or sister in the community. No, we “speak the truth in love and the good.” However, if someone should mistakenly feel judged or rebuked, we say, “Hey, I’m just keepin’ it rational.”
24. If an Objectivist meets someone who is stressed or anxious, we know they simply need to “make a plan and execute.”
25. Last but not least, Objectivists don’t die, “it’s the world that will end.” [But, also, DON’T DIE—thank you, Bryan Johnson.]

***

Links: https://www.learnreligions.com/cliches-christians-say-700635; http://www.aynrandlexicon.com; https://medium.com/future-literacy/one-meal-23-hr-fast-100-nutrition-18187a2f5b

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.