Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

Higgenbotham wrote: Sun Apr 19, 2026 2:29 pm This post will pull together a lot of separate discussions and it's almost inevitable I will forget something.

There was something Arthur Demarest said, paraphrasing, that at the peak of a civilization great projects will be seen just before the collapse. Marc Widdowson said, paraphrasing, that when a particular type of civilization develops for the first time (agricultural, industrial, etc.) the collapse into the dark age will be especially bad. I'm not looking for the exact quotes and hope this is accurate.

Another thing that's come to my mind regarding bubbles is that the shorter the time to the fulfillment of the promise of the bubble, the shorter and less severe the preceding collapse. Looking at 1929, the high flyers were RCA (televisions) and GM (automobiles). RCA started developing the television in 1929. By the time the 1960s rolled around, there was a television in almost every living room and the interstate highway system covered the nation. The promise of the 1920s bubble was quite realistic; nonetheless, the Dow lost 89% from its peak in 1929 to its 1932 low. Going back to 1720, the promise of the South Sea Bubble was goods from every corner of the world. They got quite ahead of themselves and that bubble collapsed something like 98% and there was a long depression. Then there were the Romans. They had an industrial civilization coming into form as has been discussed. More and more evidence of this is being found. They were about 14 centuries ahead of themselves and everything collapsed to essentially zero. That seems to be the category we are in now with the promise of artificial intelligence and the Internet. I think most would say that it's not a promise, that we are doing it now. That's probably what the Romans were saying too.

The Austrian economists might say the longer interest rates stay down and the longer and more money printing takes place, the further the entrepreneurs have to reach into the future to find projects to work on. It's greater manipulation and fraud in the present context but in a few hundred years it may become a new reality as a new information age gets its footing somewhere in the world. At which point, people will probably have forgotten about what happened here and Nvidia will not even be a historical footnote.

19:22
Keep in mind these individuals the job of the CEO now is it
19:29
used to be to underpromise and over deliver. Now it's to overpromise and underdeliver and create a vision that
19:34
creates cheap capital so you can pull the future forward.

19:46
So their job is to predict a very exciting future.

20:43
The key attribute of an innovator right now is storytelling. And that is to make sure the promise is way
20:50
ahead of the performance such you can access cheap capital and pull the future forward.

Intelligentsia
Human Intelligence Sharply Declining
The benchmarks are not looking good, folks.
By Noor Al-Sibai

Published Mar 16, 2025 6:45 AM EDT

No, it's not just you — people really are, per a number of surveys, way less intelligent than they used to be.

No, it’s not just you — people really are less smart than they used to be.

As the Financial Times reports, assessments show that people across age groups are having trouble concentrating and losing reasoning, problem-solving, and information-processing skills — all facets of the hard-to-pin-down metric that “intelligence” is supposed to measure.

These results, the FT reports, are gleaned from benchmarking tests that track cognitive skills in teens and young adults. From the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future study documenting concentration difficulties of 18-year-old Americans to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that measures the learning skills of 15-year-olds around the world, years of research suggest that young people are struggling with reduced attention spans and weakening critical thinking skills.

Australia sues US giant 3M over 'forever chemicals' in firefighting foam

Australia is suing 3M over its alleged use of 'forever chemicals' in firefighting foam

The Australian government is suing US manufacturing giant 3M for AU$2bn in damages (US$1.4bn; £1.1bn) over its alleged use of toxic "forever chemicals" in firefighting foam that contaminated dozens of defence bases across the country.

It is the largest legal claim ever brought by the government, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said, as it seeks to recoup the "substantial costs" in dealing with the chemicals - known as PFAS - at 28 locations.

It claims 3M withheld and misrepresented details about the foam and its environmental impact, assuring them it was safe, despite knowing otherwise.

In response, 3M said it has never made PFAS in Australia and stopped selling the foam there 20 years ago.

In announcing the legal action on Thursday, Rowland said the government was committed to holding 3M and 3M Australia to account "for the economic and environmental harms associated with PFAS contamination".

institutional downspiral
malign merit, circle the drain

the simple fact is that aptitude tests work. IQ tests work. they measure real, meaningful variables that are highly predictive of success at a great many tasks. people are, of course, free to dislike this fact to the fullest content of their hearts, but a fact it will remain.

and being increasingly stupid about it is not helping anyone, least of all those it was intended to.

back in 2020, the university of california system decided to phase out the SAT/ACT and in 2021, a lawsuit made it permanent.




this certainly increased the “diversity” of students, but perhaps not in the manner that had been hoped. i cannot speak to whatever they were aiming at, but “massive diversity of preparedness and capability” is what they got. in these days of grade inflation, AI, and social promotion, it (entirely predictably) filled the UC system with kids who had no business being there and we, flattly, unprepared for and unable to catch up to the work.

it’s so bad the faculty are revolting because STEM students cannot manage middle school math. here’s the letter signed by 686 faculty as of this writing: LINK

it does not mince words:

The "Revolving Door"
The movement of high-level officials between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies is a primary indicator of capture:
Commissioners: Nine of the last ten FDA commissioners (covering nearly 40 years of leadership) went on to work for or advise pharmaceutical companies after leaving the agency.
Medical Reviewers: A 2018 study found that 11 of 16 FDA reviewers who worked on specific drug approvals later took positions at the very companies they had recently regulated.
Lobbying Transition: A recent 2025 report highlighted a director from the FDA's Office of Compounding Quality who transitioned to a lobbyist role for Novo Nordisk within six months of leaving the agency.

www.statnews.com
+2
3. Financial Dependency (User Fees)
A significant portion of the FDA's budget is paid directly by the companies it regulates through the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA):
Budget Share: As of 2024–2026, approximately 45% of the total FDA budget—and up to 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activities—comes from industry user fees.
Client vs. Regulator: Critics, including groups like Public Citizen, argue this structure shifts the agency's mindset to treat pharmaceutical companies as "clients" to be pleased rather than entities requiring aggressive oversight.

Association of Health Care Journalists
+3
4. Recent Enforcement & Policy Shifts (2024–2026)
While the FDA has increased some enforcement actions—such as a 45% increase in unannounced foreign inspections in 2025—roughly 90% of foreign inspections remain pre-announced, a practice critics say allows facilities to hide non-compliance. Furthermore, new initiatives like the national priority voucher (2026) aim to cut approval times to under 60 days, raising concerns about whether speed is being prioritized over thorough safety review.

The FDA Group
+1

When a government official leaves their regulatory post to take a job in the industry they once oversaw—or vice versa—it is specifically known as the "revolving door" phenomenon. This practice is a primary driver of agency capture.

Investopedia
+1
Agency capture occurs when a regulatory body, created to protect the public interest, instead becomes an advocate for the commercial interests of the very industries it is supposed to be regulating.

CFA Institute Research and Policy Center
+1
How the "Revolving Door" Drives Agency Capture
Conflict of Interest: Officials may go easy on the companies they regulate in hopes of securing a lucrative executive, lobbying, or advisory position with those same firms once they leave government.
Regulatory Blindness: Because former industry insiders often staff regulatory agencies, they may rely heavily on their former peers for policy direction, unintentionally viewing problems strictly from a corporate perspective.
Information Asymmetry: Regulated companies possess specialized knowledge and resources that agencies lack. Officials who intend to return to the private sector rely on this relationship to maintain smooth working relations.

Georgetown Law
+4
The Consequences
When this cycle results in agency capture, the government fails to effectively enforce safety standards, curb monopolies, or protect consumers from financial risk. Instead, rules are often tailored to favor large established firms, making it difficult for new competitors to enter the market.

Georgetown Law
+3
Real-World Dynamics
The Theory: The phenomenon was first thoroughly detailed in the 1970s by economist George Stigler. Stigler posited that regulatory powers are heavily sought after by industries to restrict competition and protect their own bottom line.
The Debate: While the revolving door is heavily criticized for creating ethical compromises, defenders of the practice argue that having individuals with deep industry experience is essential for creating competent, technically accurate regulations.

UR Scholarship Repository
+5

GRAS stands for Generally Recognized As Safe. Designated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these are substances intentionally added to food that qualified experts consider safe under their intended conditions of use. Because of this designation, these ingredients are exempt from standard pre-market FDA approval laws.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (.gov)
+1
Substances that fall under the GRAS designation encompass hundreds of everyday food ingredients, preservatives, and processing aids. They generally fall into the following categories:

ScienceDirect.com
+2
Basic Staples & Natural Ingredients: Common foods that have been used safely for generations, such as salt (sodium chloride), sugar (sucrose), vinegar, spices, water, and yeast.
Vitamins & Minerals: Supplements and fortification agents like ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) and potassium iodide.
Preservatives & Acids: Fruit and beverage acids used to control pH and prevent spoilage, including citric acid, malic acid, and sodium benzoate.
Leavening & Anti-Caking Agents: Ingredients that help baked goods rise or keep powdered foods free-flowing, such as baking soda, calcium carbonate, and silicon dioxide.
Stabilizers & Thickeners: Ingredients that produce a uniform texture and improve mouth-feel, including pectin, guar gum, and xanthan gum.
Microorganisms & Enzymes: Microbial-derived ingredients and enzymes used in fermenting or processing food (e.g., rennet in cheese-making).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (.gov)
+7
The FDA categorizes these substances in the Code of Federal Regulations. The listing for specific affirmed substances can be verified in 21 CFR Part 184 Subpart B, while the original GRAS List of substances can be found in Title 21, CFR Part 182.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (.gov)
+2
However, many manufacturers self-declare GRAS substances without formally notifying the FDA, relying instead on their own panels of experts. Organizations like the Environmental Working Group provide additional information and criticism regarding these hidden or self-declared food chemicals.

EWG
+2
If you are researching a specific ingredient, please let me know:
The name of the substance or food additive
What type of product you found it in
I can help verify its GRAS status for you!

As conflicting as the choices to Congress may have seemed, the Food Additives Amendment (FAA) of 1958 was fairly successful in addressing all of these concerns. The creators of the FAA were successful as a result of some perceptive assumptions:
•
Why test all ingredients with equal rigor when:
◦
some have been safely consumed for decades or, as in the case of some natural products, hundreds or even thousands of years; and
◦
some ingredients are consumed in very small amounts, while others are eaten in large quantities.
•
Why couldn’t some analogies be made with chemically similar ingredients, known to be safe?
•
Does it require a government agency to determine that something is safe?

Congress responded with the concept of GRAS as something legally distinct from a food additive and wrote it into the 1958 Amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA §201(s) Definitions).

The term “food additive” means any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food … if such substance is not generally recognized among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety, as having been adequately shown through scientific procedures (or, in the case of a substance used in food prior to January 1, 1958, through either scientific procedures or experience based on common use in food) to be safe under the conditions of its intended use ….

These definitions set wholly new standards:
•
It changed the meaning of the term “food additive” from a food technology term to one of legal status by defining the term as a substance not generally recognised as safe.7
•
It created an entirely new class of substances, those that are generally recognised as safe (later to be known by the acronym GRAS), which by exclusion from the food additive definition, avoids the pre-market approval process.8
•
Relative to a GRAS finding:

It defined who can determine what is GRAS (i.e., experts); and
The process by which these experts may determine something is GRAS
1.
through scientific procedures; or
2.
for those substances used prior to January 1, 1958 the option of either scientific procedures or through common use in food prior to January 1, 1958.
•
It abolished the safety per se concept with the statement “… safe under the conditions of intended use …”