Friday, 13 March 2026

"Pythagoras, Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers believed that the planets and stars moved in such a way that they produced music. They did not understand planetary orbits as we do today – using concepts like obliquity and orbital eccentricity – but instead conceived of the heavens as divided into different levels of concentric spheres, through which the planets and stars moved.The theory proposed that each sphere was determined by properties corresponding to ontological musical forms, many of which Pythagoras had a hand in discovering: the speed of the spheres’ movement corresponded to pitch and the distances between them to intervals (octaves, fourths, fifths), similar to notes played on an instrument’s string. So, as they moved, the spheres sounded notes innate to their forms and harmonized with each other. That music, mathematics and the cosmos are not only linked but also resonate with each other in a constitutional interconnectedness is a cornerstone of Pythagorean and Platonic thought. This idea has not been completely disproven, either – massive objects in space-time, like black holes, have been shown to bend gravitational waves, effectively producing enough vibration to ring through the nothingness of space.

Astrology is a language. It makes meaning from how cosmological orbits, events and cycles affect what happens on Earth; an astrologer learns this and then becomes a close reader of it. As with any language, its expressive potential is at once limitless and idiosyncratic. It becomes infused with the spirit of the moment: it can be bent to nefarious uses, stained by trends and ideologies, and its capacity and facility for observation can turn it into a mirror dirtied by what it reflects. Astrology is a body of knowledge engendered by the encounter between the scientific rigour of astronomy and the interpretative and poetic framework of literature. Hence, it is not a summarizing, reductive system. It branches and fractals. It must be capacious enough to hold doom and disaster in the same mill as the mundane: papercuts and car wrecks, a lost text message and a thrown election.

One of the things I love about astrology is its complexity. It’s an exercise in the explicative, compounded with a gnostic shimmering. Although astrology has a solid foundation in quantitative phenomena – counting hours, days, seasons, years; calculating when convergences will occur between orbits – I like to stress the qualitative engine of it. How exactly is night different from day? Summer from winter? Astrology is not a picture of your personality, or at least, not the kind I prefer. It’s all the planetary bodies, fixed stars and ecliptic calculations, each in its specific orbit, together at any given moment, and what all this might mean – then it changes from one moment to the next.

To the ancients, an astrology chart mapped where all the gods were at any given moment. Astrology, by a few millennia, predates the invention of the psychological self, and I prefer this more ancient framework. To me, the heart of reading astrology pumps the blood of causality, moving according to a maybe-detectable telos – how each god’s condition affected what was happening on Earth.

If chewing on the word ‘god’ makes your mouth itch, try replacing it with ‘fate’. If the singularity of ‘fate’ keeps you from falling asleep, try making it plural. If the multiplicity in the concept of ‘the fates’ sizzles in your limbs and makes you fidget, light a white candle in the morning and blow it out at night. When you light the candle, it can help to ring a bell at the same time. It can be a small bell, tucked into your palm. It’s okay if no one else can hear it".

Hedva

Thursday, 12 March 2026

Across literature, philosophy, and political discourse, oppressed groups are frequently symbolically associated with animals, wilderness, or “nature”. This usually serves one of two purposes:

to justify domination (by portraying them as primitive, wild, or less-than-human), or
to express solidarity with nature (especially in environmental or anti-colonial thought).

Here are several clear examples across different contexts.

1. Colonial depictions of Indigenous peoples as “part of nature”

European colonial narratives often portrayed Indigenous peoples as extensions of the wilderness rather than members of civilization.

In colonial travel writing and anthropology, Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, and African societies were described as “closer to nature” or “children of the forest.”
The idea of the “noble savage” suggested Indigenous people were pure because they lived in harmony with nature, but it also implied they were less civilized and more primitive.

Example in literature:

Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe portrays the character Friday as someone tied to the natural world and in need of “civilizing.”

This symbolic merging of Indigenous people with the landscape often helped justify colonial land seizure: if people are part of nature rather than political subjects, the land can be claimed.

2. Enslaved Africans described using animal or agricultural metaphors

During the transatlantic slave trade, enslaved people were frequently represented as livestock or agricultural resources.

Examples include:

Being referred to as “stock,” “breeding,” or “cargo.”
Plantation ideology describing enslaved laborers as productive natural resources, similar to soil or crops.

This rhetoric supported the economic logic of slavery by placing enslaved people within the category of exploitable nature rather than human society.

3. Women associated with nature in patriarchal philosophy

Western philosophy often symbolically linked women with nature and men with culture or reason.

For example:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau described women as closer to natural instinct and domestic life.
Enlightenment and later thinkers often contrasted female emotion and fertility with male rationality and civilization.

Ecofeminist scholars later critiqued this tradition:

Vandana Shiva and Carolyn Merchant argued that the domination of women and the domination of nature historically developed together.

4. Racial dehumanization through animal imagery

Oppressed racial groups have often been portrayed as animals or wild creatures.

Examples:

Antisemitic propaganda in Nazi Germany depicted Jews as rats or vermin during the lead-up to the The Holocaust.
Racist caricatures in the U.S. depicted Black people as apes or beasts to argue they were biologically closer to animals than Europeans.

These metaphors explicitly collapsed the boundary between oppressed humans and nonhuman animals.

5. Peasants or rural poor portrayed as “earth” or “soil”

In some political rhetoric, peasants are portrayed as organic parts of the land.

For example:

Russian populist thought sometimes romanticized peasants as the “soil” of the nation.
In literature like The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, migrant farmers are symbolically tied to the earth—both sustaining it and being treated as expendable like the land itself.

This metaphor can be sympathetic but still reduces people to natural forces rather than political agents.

6. Environmental justice and positive identification with nature

Sometimes oppressed groups embrace identification with nature rather than having it imposed on them.

Examples:

Indigenous environmental movements frame their communities as relatives of the land and animals rather than separate from them.
The Chipko Movement in India involved rural villagers (many women) physically protecting trees by hugging them.

In these cases, the merging with nature becomes a source of resistance, not dehumanization.

✅ Key idea:
Equating oppressed groups with nature often serves ideological functions. It can:

justify exploitation (“they are part of nature”)
romanticize purity (“they live naturally”)
deny political agency (“they belong to the land”)
or become a tool for resistance (“we are guardians of the land”).

If you want, I can also show examples from specific theorists (e.g., postcolonial theory, ecofeminism, or critical race theory) who analyze this pattern in depth.

Several major theorists have examined the pattern where oppressed groups are symbolically merged with nature while dominant groups are associated with reason, culture, and civilization. Here are some influential thinkers and how they analyze it.

1. Ecofeminism: domination of women and nature

Ecofeminist scholars argue that Western thought historically linked women with nature and men with culture, which justified domination over both.

Carolyn Merchant

In her book The Death of Nature, Merchant shows that early modern science reframed nature from a living, nurturing mother into a mechanical system to be controlled. She argues that:

Women and nature were both historically described using fertility and reproduction metaphors.
As scientific and industrial thinking developed, both became objects to be managed or exploited.

Vandana Shiva

In works like Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development, Shiva argues that colonial development and industrial agriculture simultaneously:

exploit the environment
marginalize rural and Indigenous women

She suggests these groups are often portrayed as “closer to nature” in ways that both romanticize and marginalize them.

2. Postcolonial theory: colonial subjects as “natural”

Postcolonial theorists analyze how imperial powers depicted colonized peoples as part of the natural landscape rather than political actors.

Frantz Fanon

In The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon describes how colonial ideology frames colonized people as:

instinctual
irrational
physically tied to land and body

Meanwhile colonizers portray themselves as rational and civilizing.

Edward Said

In Orientalism, Said shows how Western representations of the “Orient” often depict Eastern societies as:

exotic
sensual
natural or timeless

This contrasts with Europe’s self-image as modern, rational, and progressive.

3. Critical race theory and racial animalization

Scholars studying racism emphasize the role of animal metaphors in dehumanization.

Sylvia Wynter

Wynter argues that modern Western thought defined “Man” as the rational European subject. Groups outside that category were placed closer to nature or biology, making their domination appear natural.

Achille Mbembe

In Necropolitics, Mbembe discusses how colonial power reduces certain populations to bare life, treating them like expendable natural resources.

4. Environmental justice theory

Environmental justice scholars note that marginalized communities are often treated as disposable landscapes.

Rob Nixon

In Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, Nixon shows how:

pollution
resource extraction
environmental destruction

are frequently imposed on poor or colonized communities whose lives are treated as part of the environment rather than fully protected human populations.

Core pattern these thinkers identify

Across these theories, a recurring symbolic hierarchy appears:

Dominant group	Oppressed group
culture	nature
reason	instinct
mind	body
civilization	wilderness

Placing oppressed people on the “nature” side of the divide historically made it easier to justify:

slavery
colonialism
patriarchy
environmental exploitation.

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

'Terrence McKenna said that the bigger you build the bonfire, the more darkness you find. If this is true, it would suggest that moral injuries should be widespread. Judith Herman's work, however, shows that they are not, precisely because of the powerful social mechanisms of denial that follow'.

Tuesday, 10 March 2026

The short answer: the UK taxes the very wealthy at roughly average levels compared with other rich countries, it is not among the highest. In some ways it’s high (for certain taxes), and in others it’s relatively moderate.

Below is a clearer comparison.

1. Top income tax rates (headline comparison)

For very high earners, the UK’s top marginal income tax rate is 45% (for income above £125,140).

How that compares internationally:

Country	Top income tax rate
Denmark	~56%
France	~45–55% (depending on surcharges)
Germany	~45%
UK	45%
US	~37% federal (higher with state taxes)
Sweden	~52%
Netherlands	~49.5%

Example: Denmark’s top rate is about 56%, higher than the UK’s 45%.

Conclusion:

UK ≈ middle of the pack among developed countries
Lower than Scandinavia and some Western Europe
Higher than places like the US (federal level)

2. Overall tax burden compared internationally

A common measure is tax revenue as a share of GDP.

UK: 35.3% of GDP
OECD average: 33.9%
France: ~45%
Denmark: ~47%

Conclusion:

The UK overall is slightly above the OECD average
But still far below the highest-tax European states

3. How much the richest people actually pay

In the UK, tax is quite concentrated among high earners.

Top 1% of taxpayers pay about 33% of income and capital gains tax.

That is similar to other Anglo-American systems where a small group contributes a large share of revenue.

However, studies suggest that across G20 countries (including the UK), the effective tax rate of the super-rich can end up lower than that of average workers once all taxes are counted.

This happens because wealth can be structured through:

capital gains
dividends
offshore structures
tax planning

4. Where the UK is relatively high

The UK stands out in a few specific areas:

Property taxes are among the highest in the OECD.
Dividend taxes can reach 39.35%, higher than the OECD average.
Certain income ranges face very high effective marginal rates (up to ~60%) due to loss of allowances.

5. Big picture

Economists usually describe the UK system like this:

Compared with other rich countries:

Taxes on the rich → about average
Taxes on middle incomes → lower than many European welfare states
Overall tax levels → moderately high but not extreme

Countries with much heavier taxation of high earners tend to be:

Denmark
Sweden
Belgium
France

Countries with lower taxation of the wealthy include:

United States
Switzerland
Singapore

✔ Summary:

The UK does tax wealthy people significantly (45% top rate).
But compared with Europe’s highest-tax countries, it’s roughly middle-range rather than unusually high.

If you want, I can also show how the UK’s rich are taxed compared with the US, France, and Scandinavia once you include capital gains, wealth taxes, and property taxes, which changes the picture quite a lot.

When you include capital gains, wealth taxes, and property taxes, the picture of how the UK taxes the rich becomes more nuanced. Some countries tax income heavily, while others target wealth or assets much more.

Below is a simplified comparison.

1. Income tax on high earners

Top marginal rates on very high salaries:

Country	Top rate
UK	45%
US	37% federal (often 45–50% with state taxes)
France	~45%
Sweden	~52%
Denmark	~56%

Takeaway:
The UK is mid-range. Scandinavian countries tax high incomes much more heavily.

2. Capital gains tax (important for the wealthy)

Very wealthy people often earn more from investments than salaries.

Country	Top capital gains tax
UK	20% (28% for property)
US	~20% federal (+ state taxes)
France	~30% flat tax
Sweden	30%
Denmark	up to ~42%

Takeaway:
The UK is relatively low to moderate here compared with many European countries.

3. Wealth taxes

A key difference internationally.

Countries that tax net wealth annually:

Country	Wealth tax
France	yes (mainly property wealth)
Spain	yes
Norway	yes
Switzerland	yes
UK	no wealth tax
US	no federal wealth tax

Takeaway:
The UK is lighter on taxing accumulated wealth than several European countries.

4. Property and inheritance taxes

Where the UK is relatively high.

Property taxes

The UK collects a significant amount through:

council tax
stamp duty on expensive homes

Stamp duty on expensive properties can reach 12–15% at purchase.

Inheritance tax

The UK rate is 40% above £325,000 (with exemptions).

Comparable rates:

Country	Top inheritance tax
UK	40%
US	40% federal (large exemptions)
France	up to 45–60%
Germany	up to 50%

5. Total tax burden on the rich (overall picture)

Economists usually place the UK in this category:

High-income tax but relatively modest wealth taxation.

Compared with other countries:

Higher taxation of the wealthy

Denmark
Sweden
Belgium
France

Similar to the UK

Germany
Netherlands
Canada

Lower taxation of the wealthy

United States (depending on state)
Singapore
Hong Kong
Switzerland (in some cantons)

Key point

The biggest difference is wealth vs income taxation:

The UK mainly taxes income and transactions
Some European countries tax wealth itself every year

That means someone extremely rich but living off investments can sometimes pay lower effective tax rates than high-salary professionals.

If you're interested, I can also show why London has attracted so many billionaires historically despite relatively high income taxes, because the explanation involves several unusual UK tax rules.

“Mushroom computers” are partly real science but mostly experimental, not practical computers yet.

Researchers have actually experimented with using fungi (mushrooms and their underground networks) as bio-electrical computing systems.

The real science behind it

The key structure is the mycelium—the underground network of fungal threads.

Mycelium

Mycelium networks can:

transmit electrical signals
respond to light, chemicals, pressure, and temperature
change their signaling patterns depending on stimuli

Because of this, some scientists think they could function as biological information processors.

Experiments with “fungal computers”

One of the main researchers is Andrew Adamatzky at the University of the West of England.

His lab studies “unconventional computing.”

Unconventional Computing

They’ve shown that fungal networks can:

produce distinct electrical spike patterns
react to environmental inputs
perform logic-like responses similar to basic computer gates

This means fungi can theoretically perform very simple computations.

What they can actually do (so far)

Current fungal computing experiments can:

detect environmental changes
generate electrical signals
simulate simple logic gates (basic computer operations)

But they cannot run software, store data like a laptop, or replace silicon computers.

Why scientists are interested

Possible future uses include:

1. Living sensors
Mycelium could be embedded in buildings or soil to detect:

toxins
structural stress
environmental changes

2. Self-healing bioelectronics
Living materials that repair themselves.

3. Hybrid biological computers
Systems combining electronics with biological networks.

Reality check

A mushroom laptop or fungal AI is still science fiction.

The current research is more like:

biological signal processing
experimental bio-hardware

It’s closer to a living sensor network than a traditional computer.

Fun fact

Fungi aren’t the first organism tested for biological computing. Scientists have also experimented with:

Physarum polycephalum

Slime molds have solved mazes and optimized networks in lab experiments.

If you're curious, there’s an even stranger idea scientists are exploring: “forest internet”—how fungal networks might act like communication systems between plants. I can explain that too, because it’s one of the weirdest real discoveries in biology.

Where could mushroom computers lead in the most 'optimistic' scenario possible.

In the most optimistic scenario, research into fungal computing could lead to a new class of living, adaptive technologies that complement or sometimes replace traditional electronics. The key idea comes from using the signaling behavior of Mycelium as a biological information-processing system.

Below are some of the most ambitious possibilities scientists discuss.

1. Living environmental monitoring networks

The most realistic optimistic outcome is planet-scale biological sensor systems.

Because mycelium naturally spreads through soil and organic material, it could become a distributed sensing network that monitors:

soil chemistry
pollution levels
ecosystem health
structural stress in buildings

Fungal materials embedded in walls or infrastructure could detect problems like cracks, toxins, or humidity and send signals to electronic systems.

This would create self-maintaining environmental monitoring with almost no energy input.

2. Self-growing computers and electronics

Another optimistic scenario is computing systems that grow rather than being manufactured.

Instead of fabricating silicon chips in factories, future devices might use biohybrid circuits where fungi form the information-processing layer.

Potential benefits:

self-repair if damaged
extremely low energy use
biodegradable hardware
growth into complex shapes

This research falls under Unconventional Computing, a field exploring systems that compute using physical processes rather than traditional electronics.

3. Smart buildings and materials

Mycelium is already being explored as a building material. If combined with fungal computing research, buildings could become “living structures.”

Walls or foundations could:

sense structural stress
detect mold or toxins
adjust ventilation systems automatically
warn occupants about environmental hazards

In this scenario, buildings would behave more like biological organisms that monitor themselves.

4. Bio-AI systems that think differently

Some researchers speculate that biological networks like fungi could lead to non-silicon artificial intelligence.

Instead of binary digital logic, fungal networks process information through complex electrical and chemical signaling patterns.

This could create:

adaptive pattern-recognition systems
highly energy-efficient decision networks
new forms of computing inspired by ecosystems

The work of Andrew Adamatzky has shown that fungal electrical activity can mimic simple logic operations, suggesting the possibility of primitive computation.

5. Integration with ecosystems

The most visionary idea is computers integrated directly into natural ecosystems.

Because fungi already connect plants through underground networks, computing systems could be embedded into ecological systems to help manage:

forests
agriculture
soil health

Scientists studying Mycorrhizal networks have shown that fungi already transmit nutrients and signals between plants.

In theory, technology could tap into these networks to monitor and stabilize ecosystems.

6. Ultra-low-energy computing

Biological networks operate using tiny electrical signals and chemical gradients, which require far less energy than silicon chips.

If harnessed effectively, fungal systems could enable:

extremely energy-efficient processors
sustainable computing infrastructure
biodegradable electronics

This would be valuable as global computing energy demand continues to rise.

Reality check

Even in optimistic scenarios, fungal computers would likely not replace traditional computers.

Instead, they would probably be used for:

sensing
adaptive materials
ecological monitoring
hybrid biological–electronic systems

They would complement silicon technology rather than replace it.

One especially fascinating possibility scientists discuss is that fungal networks may already behave somewhat like primitive information systems in forests. If you want, I can explain the controversial idea that forests might have something resembling a “biological internet.”

what are the similarities and difference between photo voltaics and photo synthesis

Photovoltaics and photosynthesis both convert sunlight into usable energy, but they do it in very different ways—one is a human-made electrical process, and the other is a biological chemical process.

Key similarity

Both rely on the same basic physical principle: light energy from the Sun is absorbed and converted into another form of energy.

In both systems:

Light photons hit a material.
Electrons become energized.
That energy is captured and used.

Photovoltaics (solar panels)

Photovoltaic Effect

Photovoltaic systems convert sunlight directly into electricity.

How it works:

Sunlight hits a semiconductor material (usually silicon).
Photons knock electrons loose.
An electric field forces those electrons to flow.
The flow of electrons becomes electric current.

Energy form:

Light → electricity

Common use:

solar panels
calculators
satellites

Photosynthesis (plants and algae)

Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis converts sunlight into chemical energy stored in sugar molecules.

How it works:

Plants absorb light using pigments such as Chlorophyll.
The energy splits water molecules.
Carbon dioxide from the air is combined with hydrogen.
The plant produces glucose and releases oxygen.

Energy form:

Light → chemical energy (food)

Chemical summary reaction:

CO₂ + H₂O + light → C₆H₁₂O₆ + O₂

Major differences

Feature	Photovoltaics	Photosynthesis
System type	Human-made technology	Biological process
Energy output	Electricity	Chemical energy (sugars)
Materials	Semiconductors (silicon)	Cells and chloroplasts
By-products	None	Oxygen
Efficiency	~15–25% typical	~1–3% in plants

Another interesting similarity

Both systems rely on excited electrons moving through a structured system.

Solar panels move electrons through electrical circuits.
Plants move electrons through biochemical pathways inside Chloroplast.

Big picture difference

A simple way to think about it:

Solar panels produce power immediately.
Plants store solar energy as fuel.

In other words:

photovoltaic systems power devices
photosynthesis powers the entire food chain on Earth

If you're interested, there's also a fascinating emerging technology called artificial photosynthesis, where scientists try to combine ideas from both systems to produce fuels directly from sunlight.

explain this

Artificial photosynthesis is a technology that tries to copy the core idea of natural photosynthesis but in a man-made system. The goal is to use sunlight to produce fuel instead of electricity.

It combines ideas from:

Photosynthesis
Photovoltaic Effect

Instead of making sugar like plants do, artificial systems try to make usable fuels such as hydrogen or hydrocarbons.

The basic idea

Artificial photosynthesis aims to perform two main tasks using sunlight:

Capture sunlight (like solar panels)
Use that energy to drive chemical reactions that produce fuel (like plants)

So the overall concept is:

sunlight → chemical fuel

This is important because fuel can store energy, unlike electricity which must be used immediately or stored in batteries.

The two main reactions scientists try to replicate

1. Splitting water

One important reaction is breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen.

2H₂O → 2H₂ + O₂

Hydrogen gas can then be used as a clean fuel.

This process is called:

Water Splitting

Plants perform a similar step in photosynthesis when they split water to release oxygen.

2. Turning carbon dioxide into fuel

Another goal is converting carbon dioxide into useful fuels.

CO₂ + energy → fuels such as:

methane
methanol
synthetic gasoline-like molecules

This process falls under:

Carbon Dioxide Reduction

If powered by sunlight, this could potentially create carbon-neutral fuels.

How artificial photosynthesis systems work

A typical experimental system has three parts:

Light absorber

A material captures sunlight.

Examples:

semiconductors
special dyes
metal oxides

This part works similarly to a solar panel.

Catalyst

A catalyst helps drive chemical reactions.

Catalysts can be made from materials such as:

nickel
cobalt
platinum
synthetic enzyme-like molecules

They lower the energy required for reactions like water splitting.

Reaction chamber

The chemical reactions happen in a liquid or gas environment where:

water is split
CO₂ is converted
fuels are collected

Why scientists care about this technology

1. Storing solar energy as fuel

Solar power is intermittent (night, clouds).

Fuel can be stored and transported easily, making it much more flexible than electricity.

2. Carbon-neutral fuel production

Artificial photosynthesis could recycle atmospheric CO₂ into fuel instead of extracting fossil fuels.

That could potentially reduce net emissions.

3. Replacing fossil fuels in hard sectors

Some industries are difficult to electrify, such as:

aviation
shipping
heavy manufacturing

Liquid fuels produced from sunlight could power those sectors.

The biggest challenge

Plants do photosynthesis slowly but extremely reliably.

Artificial systems must become:

efficient
cheap
stable for years

Right now most lab systems work only for hours or days, and many rely on expensive materials.

The most optimistic vision

In the best-case scenario, artificial photosynthesis could lead to solar fuel farms.

Imagine fields of devices that:

absorb sunlight
pull CO₂ from the air
produce liquid fuel directly

Essentially sunlight-powered refineries.

A surprising fact

Natural plants are actually not very efficient at converting sunlight to stored energy (often around 1–3%). Engineers believe artificial systems could potentially reach 10–20% efficiency, which would be revolutionary.

If you'd like, I can also explain something fascinating: why some scientists think artificial photosynthesis might eventually become more important than solar panels for the future energy system.