There is : the aspirant is overwhelmed with delusions of grandeur, or planning to become the Bill Gates of FE. , as they play their games of and .
The is like those fantasies that organized suppression can be avoided or outmaneuvered. The people in this category are almost all men, and men comprise more than 90% of the FE field today, which is one of its pitfalls. The people at this level of awareness believe that they can defeat the GCs in battle, expose them, and other adolescent ideas. I call them the , and when they arrive with their armor and weapons, the only outcome that you can guarantee is that when those weapons get used, they will be used on or the Young Warriors will use them on . The GCs will view the resulting carnage with amusement and marvel at how easy the organized suppression game is, when their targets do almost all of the GCs’ work for them. The only warriors of any potential benefit to an FE effort have abandoned coercion and adopted persuasion, usually because they have experienced enough battles and discovered the complete futility of coercion.
Advances in racket technology and conditioning methods over the last decade have dramatically altered men's professional tennis. For much of the twentieth century, there were two basic styles of top-level tennis. The "offensive"  style is based on the serve and the net game and is ideally suited to slick, or "fast," surfaces like grass and cement. The "defensive," or "baseline," style is built around foot speed, consistency, and ground strokes accurate enough to hit effective passing shots against a serve-and-volleyer; this style is most effective on "slow" surfaces like clay and Har-True composite. John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg are probably the modern era's greatest exponents of the offensive and defensive styles, respectively.
Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg are contemporary examples of the classic offensive style. Serve-and-volleyers are often tall  and tall Americans like Pete Sampras and Todd Martin and David Wheaton are also offensive players. Michael Chang is a pure exponent of the defensive tour's Western Europeans and South Americans, many of whom grew up exclusively on clay and now stick primarily to the overseas clay-court circuits. Americans Jimmy Arias, Aaron Krickstein, and Jim Courier all play a power-baseline game. So does just about every new young male player on the tour. But its most famous and effective post Lendl avatar is Andre Agassi, who on 1995's hard-court circuit was simply kicking everyone's ass .
It's 1:30 p.m. Joyce has broken Brakus's serve once and is up 3-1 in the first set and is receiving. Brakus is in the multi-brand clothes of somebody without an endorsement contract. He's well over six feet tall, and, as with many large male college stars, his game is built around his serve . With the score at 0-15, his first serve is flat and 118 miles per hour and way out of Joyce's backhand, which is a two-hander and hard to lunge effectively with, but Joyce lunges plenty effectively and sends the ball back down the line to the Canadian's forehand, deep in the court and with such flat pace that Brakus has to stutter-step a little and backpedal to get set up–clearly, he's used to playing guys for whom 118 mumps out wide would be an outright ace or at least produce such a weak return that he could move up easily and put the ball away–and Brakus now sends the ball back up the line, high over the net, loopy with topspin–not all that bad a shot, considering the fierceness of the return, and a topspin shot that'd back most of the tennis players up and put them on the defensive, but Michael Joyce, whose level of tennis is such that he moves in on balls hit with topspin and hits them on the rise  moves in and takes the ball on the rise and hits a backhand cross so tightly angled that nobody alive could get to it. This is kind of a typical Joyce-Brakus point. The match is carnage of a particularly high-level sort: It's like watching an extremely large and powerful predator get torn to pieces by an even larger and more powerful predator. Brakus looks pissed off after Joyce's winner and makes some berating-himself-type noises, but the anger seems kind of pro forma–it's not like there's anything Brakus could have done much better, not given what he and the seventy-ninth-best player in the world have in their respective arsenals.
Monkeys, apes, and humans have many traits in common, and one is that members of "out-groups" are fair game. Chimpanzees are the only non-human animals today that form ranked hunting parties, and they are also the only ones that form hunting parties to . Distinct from the killer ape hypothesis, which posits that humans are instinctually violent, the chimpanzee violence hypothesis proposes that chimps only engage in warfare when it makes economic sense: when the benefits of eliminating rivals outweigh the risks/costs. Macaque wars and revolutions appear spontaneously, but chimp wars have calculation behind them, which befits a chimp’s advanced cognitive abilities; they plan murderous raids and carry them out. It is quite probable that the advancing toolset of protohumans was used for coalitionary killing when perceived benefits exceeded assessed risks/costs. Just as with , these traits probably also existed in our last common ancestor. Other animals also engage in intra-species violence, which includes spiders when key resources are scarce and contested, and when ant colonies have power imbalances, they can trigger invasion and extermination by the larger colony. But human and chimpanzee warfare is uniquely organized and calculating.
A may even displace as humanity’s ancestors, relegating them to a side-branch that went extinct. These are still the early days of investigating human ancestry, and rapidly and dramatically changing ideas about the evolutionary path to humanity will continue. That is partly because the fossil sparseness has only been recently expanded by numerous teams digging around Africa, with dreams of the ultimate find haunting their sleep. Darwin speculated that humans evolved in Africa, but in the early 20th century, Asia was considered the likeliest evolutionary home of humans. In 1921, an , and in 1924 an . Africa became the focus of investigating the human line and accelerated with the work of what became the , which began with checkered but ultimately triumphant career.
From their , monkeys , and between 35 and 29 mya, according to molecular clock studies, some African monkeys , and , a controversial transitional fruit-eating monkey, appeared about 25 mya. most famous find was a skull in 1948. The primary differences between apes and monkeys are that apes are larger, lost their tails (not having as much need for balancing on tree limbs), and they have a stiffer spine and larger brain. Apes began the descent from canopy to ground. Simians will eat fruit if they can, but some developed thicker tooth enamel. That change meant that they no longer subsisted on soft fruit and leaves, but were eating coarser vegetation, which was a consequence of living in a cooler, dryer world. No Miocene apes were as adapted to leaf eating as today’s apes and leaf-eating monkeys. As with , a prominent speculation today is that those monkeys/apes changed their diets and left the trees as they lost the competitive game with other canopy-dwellers. split from the line that became great apes about 22 mya and became masters of tree-living, with their swinging mode of locomotion.
Could this essay's first half be considered an indulgence of my childhood fascination with nature? That argument could have merit, but I have always been a "big picture" kind of thinker, even as a teenager. I am writing this essay primarily to help manifest FE technology in the public sphere and help remedy the deficiencies in all previous attempts that I was part of, witnessed, heard of, or read about. The biggest problem, by far, was that those trying to bring FE technology to the public had virtually no support from the very public that they sought to help. My journey's most important lesson was that , and an egocentric humanity living in scarcity and fear is almost effortlessly manipulated by the social managers. John Q. Public is only interested in FE technology to the extent that he can immediately profit from it. Otherwise, he goes back to watching his favorite TV show. It took many years of disillusionment for that to finally become clear to me. While this essay and all of my writings are provided for free to humanity and anybody can read them, I intend to only reach a very tiny fraction of humanity with my writings, but that tiny fraction will be sufficient for my plan to succeed. The readers that I seek have a formidable task ahead of them, but nothing less is required for my approach to have any hope of bearing fruit. This essay and my other writings are intended as a course in (also called "big picture") thinking. Studying the details deeply enough to avoid misleading superficial understandings is also a key goal. I am an accountant by profession, but one of the world's leading paleobiologists surprisingly read an early draft of this essay and informed me that it was one of the best efforts that he ever saw on the journey of life on Earth. There was nobody on Earth whose opinion I would have respected more than his, so I do not think that I am asking readers of this essay's first half to humor me. Every sentient being on Earth should know the rudiments of what this essay's first half covers.
What is fire? That may seem too-elementary a question, but understanding what it is and where it came from is vitally important for understanding the human journey. The first fires were the quick release of stored sunlight energy that life forms, plants in that instance, had used to build themselves as they made their “decisions,” and it was from vegetation that recently died and was dry enough to burn. The energy was released from burning so fast that it became far hotter (because the molecules were violently "pushed" by the reaction that also released photons) than the biological process of making animals warm-blooded. Hot enough in fact that the released photons' (energetic enough) so that human eyes could see them, in a phenomenon called flames. Flames are visible side-effects of that intense energy release. The rapid movement of the molecules as they rocketed due to that great release of energy is the motion that powers the industrial age. Those rocketing molecules move pistons in automobile engines and , and are behind the damaging explosions of bombs and the propulsive explosions of rockets. For more than one million years, all human fires were made by burning vegetation, and wood in particular. What was fire doing? Energy stored by plants, trees in particular, was violently released by controlled fires for human-serving purposes of warmth, light, food preparation (to obtain more energy from food) and protection from predation, and it also became the heart of social gatherings. Humans have stared into fires for a million years or more.