amenoum.org blog blog_entry 0 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718446 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5718446 /authors/Amenoum.html#credits

B . L O G

[ 2024.06.09 ] Cold-hearted fever
MESSAGE 003F: BEGIN
Log author: by Amenoum
Log date: 2024.06.09
Our body uses heat to fight pathogens, but not heat alone, as heat alone is not enough. Elevated heat increases chemical reactions which enhances induced oxygen deprivation, acidity, increase in digestive enzymes, toxicity and nutrient deprivation. All this is used to subdue pathogens, although it affects the body as well. To increase body temperature, the part of the brain measuring and controlling body temperature sends a false reading to the body. The body parts are informed that the temperature is lower than normal so the body starts shaking (and we may even feel cold) to increase the temperature. That's how fever starts. That's one interpretation. In the other, the brain is not deceiving the body, rather the brain simply sets the thermostat to new value and the body obeys. But if there's no deception, why do we feel cold? Deception may be here not to confuse the body or ourselves but to confuse the pathogen. This deception is probably reflected in one kind of hysteresis - where the temperature effect on pathogens is delayed. The hysteresis is particularly effective against pathogens operating on short-term interests as it decreases their awareness of immune response, imprinting on them an illusion of control and invincibility. Deception is probably very common, in both, pathogens and immune systems. The only difference may be in how conscious it is. What is interesting about fever is that it is not localized - it affects the whole body. This is not the case in a typical inflammation, where the immune response is localized. There are several possible reasons for a non-localized response:
  • inability to locate the pathogen,
  • global pathogen presence (metastasis) or effect, which itself may require a prior relatively prolonged deception of the immune system,
  • lack of highly targeting mechanisms that would be effective against the pathogen,
  • corruption of the immune system.
A global response is a risk but worth trying if the risk is lower for the cells of the body than it is for the pathogen. The self-regulation correlated with immune systems is present on Earth surface and probably deep below it as well. Animals on Earth (including people) are dying with rising temperatures, combined with increasing acidity (in the oceans, rainwater, soil), increasingly anoxic conditions, toxicity and nutrient deprivation (hunger). And there is a strong hysteresis in the system, eg. most of heat is buffered in the oceans and a lot of response is baked in (eg. ice melt, sea level rise) - scheduled to occur gradually over time with occasional regime shifts and accelerations due to positive feedback effects. We all know who the pathogen is here, but the buffering of heat in the oceans tells us explicitly that the pathogen is not in the ocean. Earthquakes would be a signal of fever and I do argue, in my works, that these are on the increase. Established science claims that apparent increase in earthquakes is not real - it is the effect of increase in seismometry and reporting. But that's probably an imprinted illusion, as part of the deception in the Earth's immune system. Humans still refuse to admit that Earth is alive (that's probably what defines a pathogen - inability to discriminate between a living being and a resource for exploitation) which means they still don't realize they're being deceived. So the news today are full of people dying of high temperature and heat waves, but no, it's not the heat alone that's killing them, just like the heat alone is not killing any pathogen. This reductionism, or fixation to a single factor (temperature, CO2, etc.) is also typical for a pathogen. But this is just the beginning. At some point humans will have to acknowledge (for real, not in empty words) that the exploitation of holism is in the long-term suicidal for any reductionism. Are humans inherently destructive? J. Bendell is his book Breaking together (which I highly recommend) argues that humans are not inherently destructive. He argues that in human history people were often acting as a part of Earth's immune system - helping it thrive, not as a pathogen - helping it die. He claims that it is the monetary system in place which is forcing people to be destructive and he claims that this system has been forced on them by the elite. This system is based on debts to private banks, which requires unlimited growth of the economy in order not to collapse. He neglects the fact that people evolve - people of today are not the same as people of yesterday. Just like healthy cells become corrupt and turn into cancer cells, people, over time, got corrupt and became cancer. It is with this corruption that they've installed a system that ensures their unlimited growth. The system in place is thus coupled with people in place. Yes, there's inequality but the majority wants growth, no matter how much they have. The majority of people want or even need such system in place. They might say otherwise but try to remove the things provided to them by this system and see what happens. In case of polarized people (the majority), nothing nice. But that's the other problem Bendell is not immune to - treatment of the whole of humanity as single species. He provides examples where people today work quite nicely supporting or even enhancing the ecosystem, rather then being destructive. He seems to believe that if the current monetary system is removed or transformed accordingly, the majority of humanity would behave in such way. Most likely, however, that's not true. People today who effectively are a part of Earth's immune system chose to be that way. Some chose to be that way once they've realized that being a part of the installed monetary system implies destruction of the planet. But most people don't even want to know anything about it. By now they do know very well about the destruction, but they just don't want to be aware of it. This is why they happily chose censorship of uncomfortable truths over change. They will only change their behavior by force. Either by an authoritarian regime or nature, or a combination of both. And with each shift of climate to a new regime, the systems in power will shift even more toward authoritarian regimes. Since the elite has the power to outsource their problems, it is the people, not the elite, who will be forced to change their lifestyle for the worse (through increasing taxes, high inflation, etc.). This will be highly correlated with increasing rebellion and destabilization of systems, which will ultimately fully collapse. Removal of the system by force, however, will not remove corruption present in majority of people and, without it, they will probably quickly install another one, which may be different in the beginning, but will over time corrupt (probably more quickly than the previous one). In other words, transformation of systems must be coupled with transformation of people in order to represent a permanent and real change, rather than a short-term illusion. Transformation is correlated with the climax of trauma. The bigger the trauma the higher is the probability for more permanent transformation. But the bigger the trauma the higher is the possibility for death as well. A major extinction may be interpreted then as a filter, or a natural selection for survival of those fit for transformation. In that context, one could say that some of us are or will be the chosen ones. It is my belief that, the sooner you choose to live differently, the greater is the probability you are or will be the chosen one.
MESSAGE 003F: END