Posts by Julia

Quote from Cassius

the images theory was a more general outgrowth of atomism, meant to explain the way the senses work, rather than focused on excusing hallucinations

There are several types of “images”: There is what the physical eyes can see. There is what the mind's eye can see upon making the conscious choice to do so (what we now call imagination). There is what the mind's eye can see without making the conscious choice to do so (what we now call intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, etc). And finally there are dreams. Because Ancient Greeks might have involuntarily seen pictures seen in their mind's eye, which they knew are not real (pseudo-hallucinations), there was a requirement to explain where those came from: they didn't come from the mind (because they were involuntary), they didn't come from reality. So they must have been "floating around" because their "particles are very fine and smooth" and happened to get themselves attached to the mind's eye by chance.

Thank you TauPhi

I know the Bicameral Mind; it has some truth to it, and gets quite close to reality in many regards, but some aspects are left out or are somewhat wrong (which is to say: just like almost every publication, the Bicameral Mind shouldn't be seen as an absolute, but merely as one step closer towards how things really are. One of the few pieces of writing which tend to describe absolute truths is my Things I Forgot While Shopping list ). If you want to extend your reading surrounding such topics, I'd recommend the Dialogic Self as well as reading a bit about dissociative minds, such as seen in (Partial) Dissociative Identity (which is very different from, and in fact could be seen as a polar opposite of schizophrenia). One thing I especially reject is the characterisation as bicameral minds being non-consciousness; rather, they should be characterised as being largely, but not fully non-introspective.

This episode discusses how “images” enter the mind; it does a good job at to deciphering what our dear poet meant, however it falls a bit short in taking into account something I now consider a fact (until sufficient proof convinces me I'm wrong, in which case I shall happily change my mind):

In some ways, ancient minds worked considerably different from ours.

On one hand, there's computer-assisted archeology to back this up; here's a pop-sci TED talk which does a very good job at explaining it. Please do watch it to understand this post. On the other hand, there's what we can extrapolate from people who grew up among animals (“feral children”): they will not only behave like the animals they grew up with (in terms of locomotion, facial and vocal expression, food, social behaviours, …), but will also (as far as can be told) think how the animals think to a large degree, and in either case will be unable to “become normal” after a certain age (unable to acquire speech, to use tools, …). Then there's what we can extrapolate from people who grew up in various shades of isolation (criminal neglect, human trafficking, …): During the respective critical period many behaviours can be instilled into them, making them extremely complacent, highly dissociative, or otherwise “useful” to their offenders. And finally, there is what we can extrapolate from solitary confinement (isolation of adults): Otherwise healthy humans will start to develop odd idiosyncratic behaviours, such as naming objects and speaking to them as if they were human, speaking out loud to imaginary friends or memories of friends (in psychology, this is called a fictive heterodialogue); if they have a TV, they might consider recurring TV actors / show hosts to be their friends; with increasing sensory isolation, pseudo-hallucinations (hallucinations which are recognised as being unreal) will begin to appear.

I can assert the truth in Martin Buber's statement that “The human self forms in encountering another self“, as I know even the extension to be true: Without another self, one's self dissolves. We need another self to define our boundaries, and we need interactions, more specifically, we need conscious reactions (mechanical/mindless reactions won't do) to define our content (what the self is filled with; our values and ultimately our identity; the who-I-am as opposed to the where-I-begin/end). In such a situation, drawing on fictive heterodialogues helps slow this dissolution immensely. The more progressed it is, the more malleable we become – no matter whether out of our own will, out of someone else's will, or out of our subconscious drive to adapt and survive. The older we are, the lesser these effects will be, but I'm quite certain they never fully vanish. Without the non-stop reality testing provided through social interaction (next time you speak to a friend, casually sprinkle in a most outlandish statement to see it in action), with increasing time/intensity, our thoughts can go off in all kinds of directions. We know this effect to be true not just for individuals, but for relatively isolated groups of people, too, as is illustrated in the Salem Witch Trials, the people of the Easter Island who (possibly) caused their own extinction by logging trees for cultish purposes, or the North Sentinelese, who collectively fear foreign humans very, very much; what they all have in common, is that the “hive mind” of those groups of people is isolated and cannot readily interact with outside “hive minds” to do a reality test, leaving the entire group prone to diverge further and further what is real – even to their own peril. We can find similar reasons (isolation, …) for other irrational convictions (such as cargo cults), in groupthink phenomena, and in modern-day algorithmic filter bubbles.[1]

Now, to circle back: All of this shows the immense plasticity of the human mind and the overwriting influence of culture on it, and while Ancient Greeks did not live in utter isolation, their groups (eg minor islands) were sometimes much more isolated compared to the ubiquitous global communication of today. Together with the statistical computer-linguistic proof (→ TED talk referenced above) it is therefore fair to think of Lucretius' explanation of “images” like that: Epicurus' model tried to explain the “images” without having as introspective a mind as we have (but he already had much more introspection than Homer); the “images” would therefore have felt more like pseudo-hallucinations to him, which explains why they were of such importance to begin with, and why they required such careful, detailed explanation: to clarify that they're not messages sent to us from Olympian Gods, or muses. At the same time, they couldn't have come from “his own mind", because they felt distinctly foreign (like nightmarish fever dreams do), possibly even ego-dystonic at times, and he didn't necessarily conjure them up consciously, rather they might have happened to him in a subconscious manner.

Quick thought 1: This might also be why the geometricians were so happy to adopt the idea of a plane of ideal forms – they might have experienced such a plane, when pseudo-hallucinating geometric shapes after having spent all week drawing figures in the sand…

Quick thought 2: The introspective mind being a new development then might be why, personally, I feel as though their writings are somehow clearer, fresher, less cluttered – without two millennia of introspective cultural baggage, were their minds less tainted from the many layers of paint that are glossed over our selves, having grown up in modern society?

[1] Footnote: The lack of reality testing in the relatively isolated filter bubbles are the explosives at the core of the bombs that are so-called “social networks”; dangerous, but not by itself. The fuse to light it up is to be found in the imperative to generate an income, hence grow the user-base and absorb as much user-attention as possible (to sell ads) – this is achieved by designing apps such that they bypass the evolutionarily new, thinking parts of our brains, and instead speak more directly to our evolutionarily older, more primitive, instinct-driven, emotion-based brains.[2] It is these "back brains" which do irrational things such as scroll through Facebook at 3am on a week day or get hooked on five hours of video footage from the deep oceans. The two characteristics are biologically related: by designing an app which gets people hooked, they have to design an app which bypasses the rational, thinking brain, and by bypassing that, the users stop reality-testing what they just saw. Without reality testing what they saw, they are easily drawn into the parallel world of a filter bubble, which is algorithmically isolated, and thus self-sustaining. Ultimately, this leads to a fragmentation of society along the lines of these filter bubbles, hence to the inability if the society's “hive mind” to form a consensus (the “hive mind” is fragmented), which in turn can more easily lead to civil unrest (the same effect – trying to reach a society-wide consensus without all social groups having a say in it – is what brought about the French revolution).

[2] Footnote to Footnote: We all know this "back brain" effect: When our neighbour rings our bell in the middle of the night yelling "Fire!", we'll get out immediately – our "back brain" acted instinctively to save our life. Only once we're out on the street does our "front brain" realise: "I cannot see any fire. There's no smoke. No smoke alarms went off, either. My neighbours eyes look suspiciously red and glassy. He's known to be a junkie. This was a false alarm, and, darn it, I forget my keys!" We also know it as an “auto pilot“ effect, which can be specially intense when we're too tired to engage in conscious thought or when we're in a particularly stressful event (such as immediately after an accident).

Quote from Cassius

I ran Cyanogen on my cell phone

Those who don't have (and don't want to build) the technical skills required to make any of this themselves are, as of today, probably be best served with /e/OS. I've never used it myself, but from what I hear and what I can tell, it provides a complete “everything just works out of the box” experience.

A bit of background as to what /e/OS or Cyanogen even are: There is the Android Open Source Project, or AOSP. When a manufacturer produces a phone, they take the AOSP and add vendor- and device-specific modifications; the result is colloquially called a ROM. Unlike with desktop operating systems, where the same DVD can install on any computer, ROMs need to be device-specific to function. Because nobody else produces a ROM for a specific device, costumers are effectively forced to buy a new product when the old one stops receiving updates – which is entirely a choice of the manufacturer, who simply stops making updated ROMs.

This annoyed many people, so they started making their own ROMs. One of those was Cyanogen, which is now called LineageOS. It is the most popular, and gets modified further to give rise to yet more variants (derivatives). To use an analogy: “There's the car model XYZ, but derived from that there exist the XYZ Racing and the XYZ Double Cab.“ The most important LineageOS derivatives are: Lineage For MicroG, /e/OS, iodéOS, and DivestOS. Besides those, there are two more major ROMs based directly on AOSP (like Lineage itself): CalyxOS and GrapheneOS. For those who have (or want to build) some technical skills, GrapheneOS is probably the most interesting choice (if I bought a new phone today, I'd probably install Graphene, but in reality I still run LineageOS).

Because installation ROMs are device-specific, not every device is supported; so when intending to do this, it is important to check the ROM website and purchase a supported model – and in either case, listen to Cassius, when he said:

Quote from Cassius

I favor free open source software whenever possible

On Healthy Smartphone Use

I use a watch, wall calendar, pocket-sized day planner, a paper journal and a calculator. The haptic interaction helps; and studies have consistently shown that handwriting (as opposed to typing) helps in processing/retaining information. However, I'm just not going to also carry a GPS, torch, camera, … with me everywhere I go. For things to remain sane and sound, I use my smartphone like this:

• any and all notifications off by default
• selectively re-enable certain, specific notifications
• always buy a model with notification LED – this prevents the compulsion of checking the screen all the time (if it were important, it would blink – like good old answering machines)
• habituated myself to place it with the screen facing down, such that I don't see even the LED unless I myself decide to pick it up (eg to use it, to leave the house, charge it, …)
• no email on phone (I read mail once a day, max. If that is too slow, people ought to call me)
• no social media (just 1-to-1 messaging)
• F-Droid app store to replace most commonly used apps, with ones that are ad-free, and not as intrusive as others, because they don't rely on user-interaction to sell ads
• I use special apps to access online video (→ Newpipe) and streaming music (→ InnerTune), because they allow me to hide comments, don't have ads, and don't recommend more content (but allow me to save what I specifically searched for and let me access my playlists)
• automatic silent mode (do not disturb) at night (only repeat callers and especially marked contacts can get through)
• segregate certain apps into the Work profile
• only install what's really needed; eg: I don't have banking on my phone. I do that at home, in my office. No news apps, either.
• Don't save bookmarks, auto-delete tabs after closing the browser, …
• If having a compulsive-use issue, DetoxDroid (available through F-Droid) can help curb and extinguish bad habits

There are some companies which sell phones with modified Android versions pre-installed, usually advertised for added privacy or security, but in my opinion they also help in positively changing how one uses technology, because certain function are off by default, et cetera. (Effectively, I use something virtually identical to those, except I went through the technical hassle of re-installing and modifying it all myself; that takes time, and I might not want to do it again, in which case I'd also buy one of the pre-installed modified ones.)

If using cloud services (for synchronised contacts, calendars, backup functions, …), those are also offered by companies other than Big Tech, including those which sell pre-modified phones. (It is worth remembering the Big Tech services are free of charge, because we ourselves are the product. They don't sell services to us, they sell us as a service to 3rd parties (who pay for our data and ads, which in turn implies the more we interact with the service, the more of our life they absorb, the more ad revenue they get – this is why it is all designed to be so addictive and absorbing)).

Caveat: With such modified phones, a few apps might not work; especially banking-related ones. Google and the banks artificially (as in: without having genuine legal reasons) prevent this on a technical basis. That said, compatibility was never a problem for me personally, and I did use two banking apps in the past.

Quote from Julia

We can easily carry our belongings in a 3rd rate backpack for weeks and weeks, if we have to — sore shoulders aren't fatal.

(Somehow I couldn't edit my post, so this is a bit of a PS:) I do realise this was an overly sweeping generalisation. I wrote that much more for rhetoric than for face value, so please consider it a dramatic introduction to the sentence following it.

During the very first moments of a blackout there might (or might not…) still be SMS (technically a repurposed control channel of the cellular towers) or even mobile data. Many towers have small buffer batteries; but they only last a couple of minutes, there'd be data congestion once everyone is suddenly using it, and eventually the backbone network will shutdown anyway. OK, so what's the point then? Here's my thought: I always know quite exactly where my cell phone is, anyway. So when the power would go out, the very first and indeed immediate thing I would do is text a friend who lives 200km (125mi) away, in another city but still in the same “grid district” (same high-voltage distribution network). She would do the same. If we get each other's text, we can be among the first to know with certainty it is a wide-spread (hence probably longer) thing. So while everyone else is getting cozy lighting candles, we'd get a move on, grab our gear, and leave the city perimeter. Under ideal conditions, we could clear the city by the time the first emergency radio broadcast is transmitted (potentially causing an initial flare of chaos). But we might both be sleeping. Or only one text might get through (in which case the other one would still benefit; still a win!). Or none might get through at all (in which case, at least we both saved five minutes worth of candle wax! ).

You might be able to adapt the underlying idea? Maybe there are (somewhat) younger friends who don't live too far away? Or maybe there are other folks, who would be similarly stranded? There is usually strength in numbers, and sometimes discussing things ahead of time can maximise the benefit

Quote from Pacatus

How much water do you estimate you need to stock for a month per person?

This is a good question – the problem is, there can't be a “One size fits all” answer. We all have different bodies, we live in different climates and locations, and we have different levels of (expected/projected) activity. It also depends on the way in which food is meant to be prepared:

I've chosen rations, which are small, lightweight and airtight, and will soak up liquids, when preparing them, and I know from experience this reduces my need for additional drinking considerably. Compared to, let's say, using pasta as a staple, that saves on water. I also won't need water to do away with what my body turns those rations into and overall, I know from experience that I can go with really quite little water for a long time – except during summertime exertions. That said, if water is so scares as to make things harder as they would be already, that misses the point.

It is also worth considering geography and location: Not every area has natural springs to begin with; some are contaminated. Only some cities, where it is geographically feasible, have karstic springs (springs, where water doesn't just freely flow out, but which provide enough pressure to feed the city's veins without pumping). If the water supply was stagnant for a while, it'll be disinfected during the first few days, which means the water will be chlorinated at first. IF the water supply was stagnant, the sewage system was so, too. Especially if it rains, whatever foul substance was still in the pipes will be washed to the river the wastewater treatment plant drains into. Depending on geography, this could even contaminate groundwater and loop back to the freshwater supply, albeit dilute, of course. (Real example: In 2019, on the fourth day of a seven day blackout, the inhabitants of Caracas, Venezuela started drinking from the Guaire River, the heavily contaminated sewage river flowing through the city.)

I wrote to my city's water provider (the actual staff, not the politicians), and they were kind enough to give me a short "true" or "false" on my analysis of what would happen to my city in that case. The result is that, quite miraculously, most of the city would continue to have running water, which is collected in a (geographically) much higher region, and drained such, that even if the sewage plants fail, there won't be any issue at all (in terms of thirsty humans; tons of dead fish and whatnot, of course). I had downloaded and read the supply maps before, so I could ask to-the-point questions, and they seemed to appreciate my interest; however, ymmv. I hope your supplier won't consider such information a state secret, either

There are filters you can screw onto taps, to get drinkable water from the initially funky tap water (you might also want to boil it, but that implies having lots of fuel). Filters are also important when using natural springs, and especially with creeks or rivers (because you can never knows what lies around in the riverbed just a mile upstream -- the water might look clean, but could be contaminated with bacteria or other baddies just the same). Besides filters, there are small chlorine pills which can disinfect the contents of a canister.

Now, with all of that said, you'll know to take my approach with a grain of salt and to adapt it to your situation: I keep around 30l of water at home, in 1,5l plastic bottles, bundles of six. If I have used this up and there's still no drinkable water, I expect the city has already become quite uninhabitable for a single woman (by then, there'd be general chaos all over, and the unprepared would be starved and thirsty, ergo primal…). That's why I also have a canister and chlorine pills, for when I can drive to the countryside before that (ideal). If roads are jammed or barricaded (whether by stranded cars, highwayman or authorities), I'd be walking. However, it's not really possible to carry much more than a mere day's worth of water, which brings us back to filters. That sounds complicated, and it sort of is. However, after air, water is the second most vital ingredient to human life. It is better to have water, than to have a fancy radio, the most high-tech backpack or the sharpest knife anyone has ever forged. We can easily carry our belongings in a 3rd rate backpack for weeks and weeks, if we have to — sore shoulders aren't fatal. Which is to say: It is worth remembering what really matters, and not get lost in high-gloss gear catalogues (which I'm definitely prone to myself).

I'm afraid this wasn't as clear cut as “X litres per person, and half that for kids!”, but I hope by sketching my thought process, you might have a useful blueprint to draw your own conclusions

Quote from Martin

Nuclear power stations cannot black-start.

This is misleading in two ways: Firstly, nuclear plants will separate themselves from a failing grid, and keep themselves running; and example of this is the Northeastern 2003 blackout. Secondly, even if the plant would shut itself down, it could easily be jump started using any other plant.

Quote from Martin

nuclear power is a dead end

Actually, many states and companies are investing in new generation models (molten salt, dual fluid, small modular reactors, …). Most states who can afford it are building or least planning new reactors to replace old ones. As a result, the number of decommissioned and newly built nuclear power plants was roughly stable over the past two decades. If it were so obviously a dead end, it would be unlikely to persist like that.

Quote from Martin

unreliable under unusual conditions

Every power plant is unreliable under unusual conditions: Draught, no water in the dam. No sun, no solar power. To little wind, no wind power. Too much wind, no wind power. Water levels too low to cool nuclear plant, no nuclear power.

Now, let's talk about usual conditions: Harvesting weather cannot supply enough power to reliably satisfy demand; the increase in redispatch events shows this nicely. On top, it is a very expensive endeavour, unless unusual geography can be used (Hoover dam, Swiss hydropower network) or unusual weather can be used (solar plants in deserts). On the other hand, nuclear power is cheap (just look at the merit order), reliable, and easily regulated to match demand (minimal redispatches).

Quote from Martin

E.g. in the summer of 2022, more than half of the French nuclear power plants were temporarily off the grid, and France had to buy considerable amounts of electricity from Germany

Let's reframe this: Even with a heat-wave, a drought, scheduled shutdowns and unscheduled shutdowns – even with, at it's worst, less than half the plants left operational, France only needed a little help from their friends to get by just fine. Such an excellent illustration of the immense reserves in capacity those nuclear plants have!

The power France bought from Germany cannot have been more than the capacity of the transnational lines, which is 5 GW. Meanwhile, France has 24 nuclear plants, and the three largest can produce more than 5GW – each. Germany is relying on imports since shutting down their plants, and relying on exports because weather-harvesting plants are too unpredictable. That's right: Germany routinely pays its neighbours to take surplus power because its grid would otherwise melt (too much power), and then pays its neighbours again to get power, because the grid would otherwise freeze (too little power).

Keep in mind that a grid must be in balance during every single second of the year, during every supply-demand situation. This either implies controlling demand (rolling blackouts, prohibiting certain applications such as heat pumps or charging stations, limiting construction, shutting off industry), or it implies controllable supply. The weather is not controllable, and therefore doesn't offer controllable supply. Hydrogen is hugely inefficient, and pumped hydro is realistically at maximum capacity. I support using existing surfaces for solar panels, and using windy, sparsely inhabited areas for wind (if the soil erosion, dead birds/insects and microplastics they cause aren't a worry). I do mind placing gigantic wind turbines in windless nature preserves. I'd rather have a small and quiet nuclear power plant.

Quote from Martin

provided predominantly by gas power stations

I don't mind gas power stations. They're an excellent addition to a smart mix of power sources. At the same time, I do mind needlessly shipping LNG across the globe, because it is very wasteful and regasification is often very damaging to the environment.

I don't think we'll find agreement on the topic itself; so I suggest we agree on “Time will tell, and until then, let's agree to disagree.” I will read your reply, but I won't reply in-turn to keep in line with the “no contemporary politics” rule; I feel like I've already overstepped the mark on that.

Well, when considering what I wrote above as more of a “dealing with disaster” thread, I'd only want add that I keep important documents (either the originals or notarised copies) in a safe deposit box at a bank, which cannot open their safe nor the individual boxes without power. This way, a rogue bank employee who wants to taking advantage of “The cameras are out!” still needs considerable brute force.

Everything else is basically just an odd amalgamation of “camping for grown-ups” and military survival manuals (because they know what they're doing, and how to explain it; because if I ever need this, I won't want to leaf through verbose explanations artfully augmented by colourful illustrations, which expect me to have fancy equipment readily available; I'll want something minimal, because I cannot carry a heavy pack; I'll want to remember evasion, because I cannot physically defend myself well; I'll want something down to earth, that's been tried and tested).

I think it's important to keep in mind that, when done voluntarily and at one's own pace, preparing can be educational, crafty and creative. Preserving food in autumn – that's just another way of cooking. Mapping natural springs in the vicinity – that's just another way of going for a hike.

Realising that it isn't preparing that is bleak, dark and gloomy – rather, that it was facing up to being unprepared which made me so uncomfortable – was the key moment me

Quote from Martin

From my reading of the past, I got the impression that the North American power grid is more vulnerable than the European. California should have particular difficulties to restart when a long black-out happens.

I disagree. The US has many nuclear power plants, and overall is supplied mostly from large fossil fuel plants or large dams, like the Hoover dam. Each of those can black-start to begin with, and their giant synchronous generators aren't easily swayed by demand fluctuations, allowing them to act as inertia buffers to add section after section of the grid – remember that 60 Hz need to be kept at all times, with a very low margin of error. In France or Switzerland, the situation is similar. As far as I know, the Californian grid suffered shortages in total supply and things like that; that's different from black-start capability, however.

In Germany, what little nuclear power remained is practically dismantled, coal plants are scheduled to be dismantled soon. This leaves only gas turbines as a source of power with black-start capability. However, their supply pipelines need a grid to function properly (compressor stations, etc). Even if they had gas to run on, by comparison with coal or even nuclear, they don't have a gigantic flywheel to powerfully stabilize the grid frequency, and their individual power output is quite low. This would make black-starting the grid a painstaking effort, with very small sections added, slowly, one by one, because the other sources of power do not have black-start capability to begin with, for instance because they do not have inverter/rectifiers capable of stand-alone operation (cannot function independent of an external 50 Hz frequency source).

Don't confuse the horsepower or the mileage you can get out of an engine with your ability to start it

But discussing grid architecture really wasn't what I was aiming at; my executive summary should remain: Anything can happen for any number of reasons, which is why we all prepare for all kinds of things all the time. It's why we have a piggy bank. It's why we bring our phone on a hike. It's why we have insurance. So there shouldn't be anything weird about preparing a bit to ensure what's most natural and necessary. I'd even go so far as to flip it: The odd and peculiar thing is that most people nowadays aren't preparing to ensure their food and shelter anymore.

Admin Edit - This thread was split off from the Solar Flare Discussion Started HERE.

Quote from Kalosyni

I am attempting to assess the probability of whether or not a strong CME might hit Earth and affect technology, the electrical grid, and of course the internet.

At first glance it may seem like a "dooms-day" scenario, but as I've been reading that there is as high as a 25 percent probability of something really strong occuring (have to go back and find the source on that statistic).

For myself, it seems relevant to the Epicurean understanding of the nature of things...and also it lends itself to remembering to consider self-sufficiency (although I am no prepper, but possibly this may turn me into becoming one ).

I've been down this trail of thoughts – let me give you my travel notes, as they might simplify your journey through this rabbit hole

Why blackouts can happen anytime, anywhere:

• There is no advance warning: Back in 2006, when the European grid was still in quite good condition, one operator negligence in northern Germany split the entire grid into three segments (an automatic fail-safe procedure), in the course patches of brownouts were caused, scattered across the continent – within seconds. This is how fast cascading effects happen in a grid. They're practically immediate. Luckily, only 2,5% of the population lost power.
• Man-made trouble #1: In Europe, maps of the grid lines are public, including which lines feed which area. This allows people to attack the grid, which they actually do. These attacks cause longer-than-usual brownouts (= local blackouts), lasting around 7-21 days, depending on the damage.
• Man-made trouble #2: In Europe, maps of which grid junction is key to the overall, wide-spread stability, and at which time-of-day they are most needed are also public. If one of those towers was burnt down at the right time, it could cause an actual blackout (= a grid shutdown in a large, continuous area).
• Man-made trouble #3: In case of major armed conflict, it is reasonable to assume both sides would try to knock out the grid of their opponent. This can be done by detonating zero-fallout nuclear-powered electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) bombs in the atmosphere. Europe has no effective defense against the Russian hypersonic missiles, which are now proven to exist, because they are being used (albeit armed conventionally) in Ukraine.
• At the same time, major European grid operators have been forced by government regulation to dismantle their capacity for black-starting the grid. That means: If the power goes out, it stays out. Not indefinitely, of course, but for up to three weeks in the areas with the weakest grid (which is basically synonymous to Germany). As far as I know, this problem does not exist in North America.

OK, so we've established that it can happen, that it can happen at any time, and that there's no advance warning. Why does it matter? We've all sat in the dark at some point, it's not the end of the world, surely? Let's think about what happens when the power goes out for longer:

• No water. The pumps are electric, and very few have backup generators. Some regions are supplied from karstic springs, but regulatory substations should have their fail-safe default be set to “shutdown” in case of power loss (to avoid bursting the supply pipes). Normally, operators are able to adjust that manually, but they'll probably stay with their families, when things get bad.
• No petrol. Gas stations use electric pumps. No gas means no cars / trucks, which means no supply. Jams everywhere from broken-down cars. Infrastructure staff stuck and stranded.
• In Europe, only a handful of hospitals have backup power for more than a week. Most have 24-48h, some none at all. Most have no backup water or backup heating. Pharmacies, aged-care homes usually have no backups at all.
• No civilian communication. No way to call an ambulance, the police or firefighters. No firefighters and no water might equate to burning cities.
• Factory farms need to shutdown (slaughter and burn their livestock), because without power they cannot milk cows (fatal mastitis), ventilate the coops (suffocation), or do anything, really. Food shortages are quite possible.
• Stores have no windows, cash registers need power. They might close, but get raided.

To summarize: It only takes one idiot to download the grid map, read the time tables, and blow up the right junction at the right time to transport me into a fully-fledged post-apocalyptic movie scenario. Now, that's not a recipe for a calm mind, is it? Things might be better in the North America (eg, probably no public grid maps, and would be much faster at black starting the grid, because the infrastructure to do that is in place, lower population density, et cetera), but regardless, things like the Northeast blackout of 2003 do happen – and who is to say this can't happen for longer?

Clearly, to worry avoidably is an unnecessary pain. To relieve me of it, some years ago, I've decided to always keep the basics stocked to last for a month: Water, water filters, food, shelter, first-aid, basic tools such as a knife, torch, flint, fire extinguisher, a compass and a water-proof, physical map with nearby springs marked, batteries, a radio, this and that. It didn't cost me a fortune, and stashes away quite nicely. Once every summer, I check it all and I simply eat (and restock) the emergency rations as they expire on a rolling basis. They're not exactly haute cuisine, but not much worse than stale vending machine crackers

Does this absolutely ensure my safety and survival to 100%? No, of course not – but no such guarantees are possible, anyway: I might get run over by a bus tomorrow. What it does do, however, is calm my mind and give me the confidence to shrug and say: “Everything's going to be fine.” Being prepared doesn't have to be an all-consuming lifestyle. We don't need to sleep in a camouflage nightdress (unless it brings us pleasure). But I firmly believe every home should have the basics (or the tried and tested assurance that state actors can and will reliably provide them), because as humans, we're bound to think ahead, we're evolutionary worry-machines, especially when what's natural and necessary is concerned. After all, that's how we survived for millennia, and spread to even the most hostile terrain, even though, compared to other animals, our bodies aren't very powerful, are quite sensitive, and do require continuous and high-quality nutrition. Now, with all of that said, I hope I've hit the ball quite nicely, so please allow me to bring this full-circle, back to home base:

There's a first-aid kit in every school, just in case, to not be negligent. Then why shouldn't there be food and shelter in every home, just in case, to not be negligent? We don't fret about crafting scissors, running or even chemistry class. So let's not fret about natural disasters, wars, or diseases. We don't watch the school play and wonder how many rusty nails went into building the stage decoration – and we shouldn't watch the beauty of the night sky and wonder how it might kill us. Instead:

Let's just buy a first-aid kit.

^{(And learn to use it.)}

Admin Edit: This post below covers both the existence of solar flares and the issue of dealing with electric grid disruptions. I have copied this post to a new section where we can deal with the electric grid disruptions in the context of self-sufficiency of varying kinds. So let's discuss the self-sufficiency issues of the electric grid there, and focus on the "prediction and existence of the problem" issues here in this thread.

Quote from DavidN

The current solar maximum is also one of the strongest yet recorded.

(I'm not an astrophysicist, neither by formal training nor by actual expertise, so this question is genuine – I'm actually wondering:) Aren't we, however, in a grand solar minimum (a negative interference of the two solar cycles, both the slow and fast one) from circa 2020-2053 (33 years for three 11-year-cycles), which would make the late-middle of that period the coldest (late-middle because the Earth doesn't react immediately)?

The Dalton minimum is an example of what I mean by “grand solar minimum”:

Quote from Kalosyni

I am attempting to assess the probability of whether or not a strong CME might hit Earth and affect technology, the electrical grid, and of course the internet.

At first glance it may seem like a "dooms-day" scenario, but as I've been reading that there is as high as a 25 percent probability of something really strong occuring (have to go back and find the source on that statistic).

For myself, it seems relevant to the Epicurean understanding of the nature of things...and also it lends itself to remembering to consider self-sufficiency (although I am no prepper, but possibly this may turn me into becoming one ).

I've been down this trail of thoughts – let me give you my travel notes, as they might simplify your journey through this rabbit hole

Why blackouts can happen anytime, anywhere:

• There is no advance warning: Back in 2006, when the European grid was still in quite good condition, one operator negligence in northern Germany split the entire grid into three segments (an automatic fail-safe procedure), in the course patches of brownouts were caused, scattered across the continent – within seconds. This is how fast cascading effects happen in a grid. They're practically immediate. Luckily, only 2,5% of the population lost power.
• Man-made trouble #1: In Europe, maps of the grid lines are public, including which lines feed which area. This allows people to attack the grid, which they actually do. These attacks cause longer-than-usual brownouts (= local blackouts), lasting around 7-21 days, depending on the damage.
• Man-made trouble #2: In Europe, maps of which grid junction is key to the overall, wide-spread stability, and at which time-of-day they are most needed are also public. If one of those towers was burnt down at the right time, it could cause an actual blackout (= a grid shutdown in a large, continuous area).
• Man-made trouble #3: In case of major armed conflict, it is reasonable to assume both sides would try to knock out the grid of their opponent. This can be done by detonating zero-fallout nuclear-powered electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) bombs in the atmosphere. Europe has no effective defense against the Russian hypersonic missiles, which are now proven to exist, because they are being used (albeit armed conventionally) in Ukraine.
• At the same time, major European grid operators have been forced by government regulation to dismantle their capacity for black-starting the grid. That means: If the power goes out, it stays out. Not indefinitely, of course, but for up to three weeks in the areas with the weakest grid (which is basically synonymous to Germany). As far as I know, this problem does not exist in North America.

OK, so we've established that it can happen, that it can happen at any time, and that there's no advance warning. Why does it matter? We've all sat in the dark at some point, it's not the end of the world, surely? Let's think about what happens when the power goes out for longer:

• No water. The pumps are electric, and very few have backup generators. Some regions are supplied from karstic springs, but regulatory substations should have their fail-safe default be set to “shutdown” in case of power loss (to avoid bursting the supply pipes). Normally, operators are able to adjust that manually, but they'll probably stay with their families, when things get bad.
• No petrol. Gas stations use electric pumps. No gas means no cars / trucks, which means no supply. Jams everywhere from broken-down cars. Infrastructure staff stuck and stranded.
• In Europe, only a handful of hospitals have backup power for more than a week. Most have 24-48h, some none at all. Most have no backup water or backup heating. Pharmacies, aged-care homes usually have no backups at all.
• No civilian communication. No way to call an ambulance, the police or firefighters. No firefighters and no water might equate to burning cities.
• Factory farms need to shutdown (slaughter and burn their livestock), because without power they cannot milk cows (fatal mastitis), ventilate the coops (suffocation), or do anything, really. Food shortages are quite possible.
• Stores have no windows, cash registers need power. They might close, but get raided.

To summarize: It only takes one idiot to download the grid map, read the time tables, and blow up the right junction at the right time to transport me into a fully-fledged post-apocalyptic movie scenario. Now, that's not a recipe for a calm mind, is it? Things might be better in the North America (eg, probably no public grid maps, and would be much faster at black starting the grid, because the infrastructure to do that is in place, lower population density, et cetera), but regardless, things like the Northeast blackout of 2003 do happen – and who is to say this can't happen for longer?

Clearly, to worry avoidably is an unnecessary pain. To relieve me of it, some years ago, I've decided to always keep the basics stocked to last for a month: Water, water filters, food, shelter, first-aid, basic tools such as a knife, torch, flint, fire extinguisher, a compass and a water-proof, physical map with nearby springs marked, batteries, a radio, this and that. It didn't cost me a fortune, and stashes away quite nicely. Once every summer, I check it all and I simply eat (and restock) the emergency rations as they expire on a rolling basis. They're not exactly haute cuisine, but not much worse than stale vending machine crackers

Does this absolutely ensure my safety and survival to 100%? No, of course not – but no such guarantees are possible, anyway: I might get run over by a bus tomorrow. What it does do, however, is calm my mind and give me the confidence to shrug and say: “Everything's going to be fine.” Being prepared doesn't have to be an all-consuming lifestyle. We don't need to sleep in a camouflage nightdress (unless it brings us pleasure). But I firmly believe every home should have the basics (or the tried and tested assurance that state actors can and will reliably provide them), because as humans, we're bound to think ahead, we're evolutionary worry-machines, especially when what's natural and necessary is concerned. After all, that's how we survived for millennia, and spread to even the most hostile terrain, even though, compared to other animals, our bodies aren't very powerful, are quite sensitive, and do require continuous and high-quality nutrition. Now, with all of that said, I hope I've hit the ball quite nicely, so please allow me to bring this full-circle, back to home base:

There's a first-aid kit in every school, just in case, to not be negligent. Then why shouldn't there be food and shelter in every home, just in case, to not be negligent? We don't fret about crafting scissors, running or even chemistry class. So let's not fret about natural disasters, wars, or diseases. We don't watch the school play and wonder how many rusty nails went into building the stage decoration – and we shouldn't watch the beauty of the night sky and wonder how it might kill us. Instead:

Let's just buy a first-aid kit.

^{(And learn to use it.)}

Today I am forwarding a question from someone else, and I hope we can collectively answer it.

Hello friendly strangers! My name is Dusty The Donkey I'm the light grey one in the middle of the picture, and I wonder very much if you might help me with some self-reflection, please?

You see, yesterday was World Donkey Day, which gave me pause to think about myself. I started to wonder: Are the frequently uttered allegations of me being a Stoic really true? After all, I very much feel like an Epicurean! So I observed myself, to see what my senses and conclusions tell me! Here's the proof I have collected so far:

• I'm epically curious! Whenever there's something new in my vicinity, I will spot it, prod it, explore it with all my senses – and quite probably end up playing with it! Even though I'm all grown up and an adult (as you can tell from the picture) I still love to play just the same.
• I'm a thinker! The humans say I'm just as smart as dogs or dolphins (they can't quite decide, and I haven't met a dolphin yet, so I don't know either! Dolphins are fish, right? ), and they're certain I'm much smarter than horses! When I observe something I can't make heads or tails of – I'll simply observe it some more! I usually get it after a while, but until then, I sometimes remain very still and quiet, so I can focus and think better. Maybe that's why people call me stoic? They mistake me thinking ahead for being stubborn!
• I'm not brave for the sake of it – but I am fierce when threatened, and will defend my friends and myself, if need be. Of course, I'll call for help from friendly dogs, humans and other donkeys as soon as possible, and to warn everyone else to hide and protect themselves somewhere for the time being (Fox alarm! Chickens, coop yourselves up!)
• I like all the pleasures, active and inactive. I don't even mind work – when it's worth it! For example, in dry landscapes, I'll dig for water (I observe and think, so I know where to dig!), and when humans ask me for help, I'm usually quite willing, because from experience I know they aaalways have some sort of a scheme that ends with me getting food for free – plus, it does appear to make them very happy and thankful, and what's more pleasurable than seeing your friends smile?! Sometimes, me and my friends play tag or just go for a stroll, and of course, who doesn't enjoy lazing around on the fields on a sunny day
• I do appreciate luxury whenever it's there, but I'm also satisfied with some water, hay, and the sun shining nice and warm.
• Though the songbirds complain about my timbre sometimes, I like to express my feelings and don't hold back when communicating them vocally. After all, it's no harm and feels good, so what could be better than that!
• I like company! I am very sad, whenever one of my friends is absent, be that a donkey, a human, or someone else, and when they return, I will rush to greet them. I value staying in touch, and am quite empathic and communicative – chances are, I will know what's up before you even tell me! I like to talk, cuddle, laugh and cry together – community really is important to me.
• And I'm quite egalitarian. At first glance, It might seem easiest to only get along with others of your own kind – but sometimes it actually isn't, and so I happily consort with humans, sheep, goats, horses, chickens, cats, even friendly dogs – as long as they're nice and behave themselves, anyone is welcome to be my friend and if we were close once, I will easily remember you for a long time, sometimes for decades!

(Donkeys have always been among my favourite animals. Everyone knows they exist, but few people in modern Western society still know what they're really like in person – they're truly incredible! This post aims to serve two purposes: 1. I hope it's a little amusing and 2. it might challenge preconceived notions, which in turn could help to see the principles of Epicureanism reflected in other animals, and thus make nature herself a strong, ever-present reminder about how to live well and wisely (Picture License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 2.0, “Donkey Bomb” by Michael Lanos, County Wicklow, Ireland, 2019))

Thank you

Quote from Cassius

[…] I find [that Vox Stoica link] to be very inaccurate as to Epicurus but very typical of Stoic interpretations […]

While I do agree with you, I cannot help but have sympathies for the creator of this “overview and explanation” (as he calls it), because those very inaccuracies were what made Epicureanism appealing to me then – they made it seem like I might find even more quasi-Stoic material down this road, which, due to the high Google rank of this site (and its sister sites, like newepicurean.com, the podcast, et cetera) thankfully I did not. Now, the more that I relearn and have a chance to get my head set back straight, the less those inaccuracies are appealing. To put it differently, those inaccurate representations helped lure me astray from the path of a Stoic – “lure”, because if I would have been conscious of what awaits me, that notion would inevitably have elicited a dry, cold chuckle accompanied by a dismissive hand gesture.

You see, to succeed within the setting I found myself in, to be victimized dreadfully for the majority of my existence, yet remain dead set on someday emerging the victor, I was hell-bent on being harder than the life I had to lead; if I wasn't already as empty inside as Stoicism is, I certainly wanted to be, so we were quite the match, and its theistic, platonic aspects, moronic bordering on malicious as they are, served as an anchor in a microcosm characterised by arbitrariness and powerlessness in the face of pain. Mind you, hedonic calculus did not fail me at all, but, being surrounded by Western culture, it lead me straight to Stoicism:

As a child, I knew to endure and prevail, such that someday I will get to see the bright side of life. Thus, I chose to toughen up to make it. I wanted to hold nothing dear to my heart, so nobody can pull its strings. I wanted to be a robot, because robots are strong and don't have feelings. I wanted to be like those steely heroes of popular culture, who succeed against all odds. I learned to keep to myself, to keep my mouth shut, to go through the motions, no matter what, no questions asked. When faced with suicidal ideation, I knew that was for cowards -- but Stoics are brave. When faced with illegal transgressions of my rights as a human or my boundaries as a person, I knew that was unjust – and when plagued by the emotional need for justice to be restored, I trusted in fate; everyone else would only let me down, anyway. During all this time, during many years, I needed a reason to fulfill my duties, to keep up discipline, to exceed expectations. However, the burden to perform at that level under such circumstances for so long would have been too much for me, being an isolated minor; would have been too much for me to see through in terms of the delayed gratification implied by my innate hedonic calculus. By instead embracing fate and the pursuit of virtue as a goal in itself, the gratification became immediate. That Stoic delusion allowed me to short-circuit my wires enough to keep me going, to keep me on track. For years and years, my mantra was: “Just one more day. I can do it one more day.” And so I did, again and again and again.

Eventually, my life did change, and suddenly, everything was great! Only…after so many years, the first half of what hedonic calculus had meant for me – "toughen up” – was all that remained in my psyche. I had forgotten the remainder – “in order to enjoy the bright side”. This was not an immediate problem: I had the guide rails of society, exams to pass, rent to pay, and so I simply kept performing. When things happened to get too easy, I made them harder for myself. Adversity was all I knew, so too much normal life, too little stress, too much freedom made me tense and uneasy, like a captive animal being warily suspicious of the wild. Granted, I was still dead inside, but things were going objectively well for me. I thought this is it, I thought I had made it.

A few years down that road, I happened to date someone kind and caring, who wasn't quite satisfied with my universal four-season answer to the question of how I feel: “I'm fine.” In an effort to embrace the challenge and perform well, I learned, ever so slowly, to recognise and name feelings. Thus, “good“ and “bad“ became the first words I relearned after having so thoroughly been drowned in the anaesthetic of Stoic mentality. While certainly well-intentioned, this unsupervised visit to the recovery room soon lead me to unravel in anguish as the numbness subsided. My career came to an unscheduled full stop, and I found myself with nothing to do – nothing to fulfill – such that, without an external definition of the mould and pattern I portrayed, the emptiness that was I imploded in on itself.

I never recovered. Years of experts, their diagnostics, evaluations and reports. Countless hours spent with therapists – trauma therapists, behavioral therapists, occupational therapists, even speech therapists as my childhood impairments resurfaced. When before nighttime meant pitch-black empty darkness, as I began to dream again, it meant nightmares. When before daytime meant robotically functioning with vigilant readiness, as I began to reconstitute as an actual person, it meant PTSD. This prescription drug, that prescription drug. Sports. Art. Music. Travel. I never recovered.

So I gave up. I gave in; in to the tempting bait that if Stoicism propped me up once, it would prop me up twice – and who needs feelings, anyway?!

Having grown up around military installations, I reached for biographies of members of the special forces, who quite universally embody many aspects of modern Stoicism, and, it seemed to me, did on a continuous basis what I failed to do: They did their duty, they functioned, performed. Consuming that material was repugnant and agreeable at the same time – it was repulsive, yet soothing – it was anaesthetic, but also analgesic. I went ahead, getting simultaneously worse and better, getting more capable and less human with each step again. The solid ground of empty spaces – my familiar territory. So I soon looked for an audiobook version of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations – you know – to listen to at breakfast, lunch and dinner, to listen to in bed, to rush things a little.

Now you will understand why it is that I have sympathies for the poor Stoic soul, who so duteously recorded that marvelously inaccurate “overview and explanation” of Epicureanism – who knows what might have happened to me, had he labelled his accidental signpost to The Garden more accurately. What I still failed to set forth is how, at long last, Epicureanism manages to expertly stitch together those two disjointed, ostensibly mutually exclusive perspectives visible in the fractured kaleidoscope of my mind: feelings and functioning.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it does so by expressly making the case for pleasure; by expressly stating the full equation of hedonic calculus, unapologetically, unreservedly including the second half of it: Do unpleasant things for more pleasure in return – and do pleasant things as ends in themselves. The wisdom of a child. Such a simple truth, yet so very hard to recapture once escaped. Pleasure, being a feeling, is inherently axiomatic and readily operationalized; “happiness”, “flourishing”, “meaningfulness” are all vague, veiled, and nebulous, cannot be readily translated into action, aren't workable principles.

Having gained some self-awareness in therapy, I knew for a long time that I no longer delayed gratification; I didn't know how to anymore. Instead of embracing a task, I'd force myself through it. Instead of preparing a reward, I'd self-sooth meanwhile or recover later. Having gained some self-awareness in therapy, I knew for a long time that I no longer played; I didn't know how to anymore. Instead of playing cards, I engineered my success in them. Instead of simply enjoying a walk in nature, I exercised mindfulness. Instead of spontaneous humour, I crafted jokes. These peculiarities were know, yet during all those years, nobody had ever mentioned pleasure to me.

I recently went for a walk. Was I mindfully present in the moment? Possibly. Did I remain meditatively aware, yet amicably indifferent of my thoughts and impulses? Perhaps. What I do know with certainty is that It was pleasurable. A rich pleasure is what it was, plain and simple. I recently went for a walk for the first time in three decades.

I recently made myself happy. Did I follow one of the prescribed behaviours? Possibly. Did I use any of the self-regulation techniques I had been taught? Perhaps. What I do know with certainty is that it was pleasurable. A rich pleasure is what it was, not self-care, not self-compassion. I recently made myself happy for the first time in three decades.

Elated by the revelation of pleasure, that forgotten concept I was much estranged from, I tried to do things for a reward afterwards, to delay gratification, et voilà, that too worked again, because I was reasonably happy to begin with – happy, not stressed, pressured or tense –, and could anticipate pleasure in return – pleasure, not soothing or recovery.

Next, I realised there were compelling answers to all the big questions – Where do we come from? Where do we go? What about existential dread? Why struggle? Why not live in a box? Is life suffering? If so, why not end it? If it isn't, why not end it? What's the point? – which were rooted in observation, in proper reasoning. Finally, here it was: a philosophy that is firmly based on what is perceptible, sensible, and true. That was quite an unexpected game changer, and with it everything just fell into place.

Soon after, I ended therapy, quit prescription drugs, and resumed what I set out to do as a child: to see the bright side of life. Now that I finally have a drop-in replacement for the motivational void left behind by the evaporated dictates of virtue ethics and coercion, now that I finally have an answer to the question of “Why? What for?”, now that I have a sensible reason to act virtuously, to have discipline, now that I can finally get out of bed in the morning and start a task with ease again, now that I am regaining control of my life, I am regaining agency, and at last, for the first time in three decades, I am genuinely empowered and free.

I am recovering.
I can feel it.

Hello to Cassius, the entire podcast team, and everybody else,

I live in Western Europe, and found this happy garden at the end of a long and painful path of trial and tribulation, which wasted much precious time in confusion. May my past experience be the fertile ground in which to root my exploration of this newfound land, and may my appreciation for the pursuit of pleasure be deeper for the time by which it was delayed.

The most recent junctions, which led me to where I am today – which is to say, led me to my eventual arrival at Epicurus and his philosophy though listening to Lucretius today and during those past few days in Athens, which led me to finding you, my fellow Epicurean friends – is a most curious and unexpected of reversals: as I dove ever deeper into Stoicism to fortify my body and mind in preparation for my next attempt at victory in the battle that was my life, I, by chance, came across a summary[1] contrasting Epicureanism with Stoicism. From there, I eventually came across a post[2], again contrasting Epicureanism with Stoicism – and that's when I finally understood: Fate no longer improvises with me, I do not longer live in violent times, nor do I continue to depend on impulsive and changeable people, but looking forward, I may well expect to be able to spin a long thread, and therefore, my staunch stoic stance serves me not. That's when I understood that Stoicism might have helped me to weather the storms, fateful and inevitable as they were, but it will not help me chart a course, now that the skies are clear and the sun is out, nor will it help me steer my ship through the ocean of life, now that the sails are set and the winds are favourable!

More than merely being certain that Epicureanism will offer me a reliable guide for what time remains, I also feel this to be so – and take pleasure in the discovery.

Julia

———

1. “Epicureanism Vs Stoicism | Overview and Explanation” by Vox Stoica
2. Nietzsche - On Stoicism And Porcupine Skins