Tag: AI

Unlocking Human Potential: The benefits of fossil fuel energy

The essence of being human lies not in the fragile physical form that houses us, but in the boundless drive of imagination—the spark that turns thought into creation, invention into progress, and survival into flourishing. This creative nature sets humanity apart from every other species on Earth. While animals adapt to their environment through instinct and biological necessity, humans reshape it. We envision possibilities beyond the immediate, craft tools to extend our reach, and build systems that multiply our efforts across generations. This is the image of the Creator reflected in us: not a static likeness, but a dynamic capacity to imagine, design, and realize a better world. Discussions of souls and bodies as vehicles often touch on this everlasting essence. The body is temporary, a biological carrier, but the imaginative drive—the soul’s expression—transcends it, propelling humanity toward ever-greater achievements. In an age of rapid technological change, including the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), some fear a “post-human apocalypse” that disrupts the natural order. Yet this view misses the deeper truth: tools like AI represent the next logical extension of human creativity, not its replacement. They amplify the very qualities that define us, freeing time and energy for more profound acts of creation. 

Alex Epstein’s Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less (2022) provides a powerful framework for understanding this. Epstein argues that cost-effective, reliable energy is the foundation of human flourishing. Fossil fuels deliver this energy at unmatched scale: low-cost, on-demand, versatile, and capable of powering billions. They enable “machine labor” that replaces backbreaking human toil, producing food, shelter, medicine, and comfort in abundance. Without them, billions would still suffer and die from lack of energy for basic needs—like refrigeration to preserve food and medicine, or electricity for incubators saving premature babies. Epstein highlights how the “knowledge system”—experts, media, and policymakers—often ignores these massive benefits while catastrophizing side effects. He flips the script: more fossil fuel use, combined with climate mastery through technology and adaptation, will make the world far better, not worse. 

Consider the historical trajectory. For most of human existence—roughly 95% of our species’ time on Earth—survival consumed nearly every waking hour. Hunter-gatherer societies, as studied among groups like the Ju/’hoansi, spent about 15 hours per week acquiring food and necessities, with the rest devoted to rest, social bonds, and basic leisure. Yet life was precarious: short lifespans, vulnerability to famine, disease, and predators. Agriculture brought some stability but increased labor demands. Pre-industrial workers often toiled 60-70 hours per week or more during peak seasons, with annual hours exceeding 3,000 in many places by the late 19th century. Medieval artisans might average 8-9 hours of work daily, but the year included long stretches of seasonal labor without modern safety nets. Life expectancy hovered around 30-40 years in many eras, limited by malnutrition, infection, and physical exhaustion. 

The fossil fuel revolution changed everything. Beginning in earnest in the late 18th and 19th centuries with coal, then oil and natural gas, energy abundance powered the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Graphs of global life expectancy, population, and GDP per capita show “hockey stick” growth mirroring rising CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels since the late 1800s. Extreme poverty plummeted from about 35% of the world population in 1990 to under 10% today, driven largely by energy-enabled growth in places like China and India, where coal and hydrocarbons fueled industrialization. Life expectancy worldwide rose from around 35 years in ancient times to nearly 72-73 years today. Access to electricity correlates strongly with these gains: it powers clean water pumps, refrigeration, lighting, and medical devices, reducing deaths from indoor air pollution (which still claim millions annually from traditional biomass cooking) and enabling education and economic opportunity. 

Drive through any community at 2 a.m. today, and the evidence surrounds us. Porch lights glow, air conditioners or heaters keep temperatures comfortable, and refrigerators hum with fresh food and cold drinks. A simple flip of a switch banishes darkness; a tap delivers clean water without trekking to a river or well. Sewer systems pump waste away efficiently—these conveniences, all energy-dependent, free humans from the drudgery that defined most of history. Before widespread electricity, fetching water, cooking over open fires, hand-washing clothes, and manual farming consumed vast portions of the day. Fossil fuels (and the electricity they predominantly generate—about 80% of global energy still comes from hydrocarbons) multiplied human productivity exponentially. One barrel of oil contains energy equivalent to roughly 25,000 hours of human labor. Modern societies harness this to produce food surpluses feeding 8 billion people, build durable homes, manufacture medicines, and transport goods globally via Walmart-like supply chains that make essentials affordable.

Epstein emphasizes that these benefits extend far beyond comfort. Energy access enables “upper mobility”—the chance for individuals to rise through effort and ingenuity. It powers tools: power drills, pumps, computers, and factories. Time once spent on mere survival now goes to innovation, family, art, science, and enterprise. This is not mere leisure for idleness; it is liberated human potential. Even if many spend extra time on video games, social media scrolling, or boredom-induced snacking (a real phenomenon in affluent societies where a theoretical 40-hour workweek often compresses into far less productive time), the outliers—the creators, inventors, and entrepreneurs—flourish. A small percentage of highly driven individuals, empowered by abundant energy, produce inventions that benefit billions: vaccines, smartphones, efficient agriculture, and now AI. The cascade effect across generations compounds this: books preserve knowledge, inventions build on prior ones, and energy multiplies output. Humanity’s trajectory—from wheel and spear to calculus and computers—shows this pattern. Fossil fuels, formed from ancient sunlight stored over millions of years, unlocked that stored energy for modern use, bridging primitive existence to an era of unprecedented possibility. 

Critics of fossil fuels often frame nature as a sacred, living essence demanding protection at all costs—an “Earth worshiper” perspective that prioritizes untouched wilderness over human life. This inverts priorities. The environment has always been dynamic; humans have “impacted” it since the use of fire and tools. The real moral standard is human flourishing: longer, healthier, opportunity-rich lives. Fossil fuels have made Earth more livable by enabling climate mastery—better buildings, irrigation, disaster response, and crop yields that reduce weather-related deaths (which have plummeted dramatically). Side effects like emissions are real but “masterable” through technology, adaptation, and continued energy innovation. Opposing abundant energy in the name of nature condemns billions to energy poverty: over 600-700 million still lack electricity access, and 2+ billion rely on polluting cooking fuels, causing millions of premature deaths yearly from indoor smoke. In sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, women and children spend up to 40 hours weekly gathering firewood—time stolen from education, work, and family. Energy abundance lifts all, including ecosystems, which are managed more effectively with technology. 

AI emerges as the natural offspring of this energy-driven progress. Computing power, itself born from electricity and fossil-enabled infrastructure, now mimics and multiplies aspects of human thinking. Data centers, increasingly powered by reliable sources (with fossil fuels still critical for baseload), consume growing amounts of electricity—global data center use is projected to double or more by 2030, reaching around 945 TWh, with AI driving much of the surge via accelerated server use. AI processes vast datasets, optimizes designs, accelerates drug discovery, and automates routine tasks in ways no prior tool could. It does not “think” with a soul or original imagination; it pattern-matches at superhuman speed and scale. Yet this serves human creators: an engineer using AI can iterate on prototypes faster, a scientist can model complex systems overnight, and a writer can explore ideas with computational assistance. The soul—the imaginative drive—remains uniquely human. AI lacks consciousness, genuine emotion, moral intuition, or the spark of original vision rooted in lived experience and transcendence. It is a tool, like the abacus, calculator, or computer before it, extending biological limitations without replacing the essence that wields it. 

Fears of a “post-human apocalypse” echo ancient anxieties, like the Tower of Babel—human hubris punished for overreaching. Some posthumanist thinkers speculate that AI could blur boundaries, creating hybrid or superior intelligences that diminish traditional humanity. Yet this misunderstands our nature. Humanity’s purpose, if one draws from the perspective of being made in the divine image, is creative stewardship: to untangle the universe’s potential, spread across it, and perpetuate life through innovation. The universe itself seems tuned for discovery—physical laws allowing complexity, energy gradients enabling work, minds capable of comprehension. Tools cascade: the wheel eased transport, agriculture amplified food, fossil fuels powered industry, computers accelerated calculation, and AI now multiplies cognitive labor. Each step frees time and resources for higher pursuits. Even if 95% of people “waste” liberated time on trivialities, the 5% (or fewer) who channel it into breakthroughs—new medicines, sustainable tech, space exploration, artistic masterpieces—lift everyone. Historical inventions from tiny creative minorities have done exactly that.

The work-leisure duality taught in modern culture is often artificial. Life is an integrated “happy bowl of soup”: family, labor, rest, creation, and reflection blend in a meaningful whole. Energy abundance allows this integration without the constant threat of starvation or exposure. A 40-hour theoretical workweek in energy-rich societies often yields far more output per hour than centuries of toil, yet many feel time-poor due to choices, not necessity. AI promises further compression of drudgery—handling data analysis, logistics, or routine creativity—freeing even more bandwidth for the imaginative core. Faster is frequently better when it means compressing processes without sacrificing quality, enabling broader access and compounding innovation. Energy for AI is substantial, but so was energy for early factories or electrification; the returns in human capability justify it as part of the same virtuous cycle.

Skeptics might ask: Is the purpose of existence endless toil around a campfire, hunting daily for short lives and basic reproduction? Or is it the exercise of imagination to spread life, knowledge, and beauty on a cosmic scale? The latter aligns with humanity’s unique endowment. We walked over fossil fuels for millennia before recognizing their potential—ancient sunlight captured in decayed life, now powering our ascent. That recognition itself was an act of imagination. AI, requiring enormous computing power (with projections showing AI-related electricity demand growing rapidly, potentially accounting for a significant share of data center growth), continues this: it processes while humans dream, experiments tirelessly, and supports creators who still must “prove stuff in life”—build, test, refine, and give meaning through purpose.

Environmental concerns deserve to be addressed, but not through energy denial. Nature worship that seeks to eradicate human impact or pedestalize a static “life force” ignores that humans are part of nature’s creative unfolding. Tools exist to be used responsibly: innovation in cleaner combustion, nuclear (often sidelined in debates), advanced renewables where practical, and adaptation. Epstein’s call for an “energy philosophy” prioritizing human flourishing over anti-impact frameworks remains sound. Fossil fuels launched us; they need not be eternal, but replacing them prematurely with unreliable alternatives risks reversing gains. Sustainable abundance—whatever form it takes—must deliver the same or better reliability and scalability.

This era brims with adventure. The “good old days” of simplicity, wild expansion, and quiet reverence hold romantic appeal, evoking self-reliance and direct connection to the land. Yet humanity was not built solely for that. We adapt biologically and culturally, using the environment as raw material for higher causes. Low-vision challenges or daily rituals pale against the broader canvas: imagination as the daily ritual expanding possibility. Fossil fuels bridged the gap from primitive survival to this magnificent period. AI, as its intellectual extension, accelerates the cascade. The few who seize leisure for creation—whether in business, art, science, or family—perpetuate the chain. Even “wasted” time by the majority indirectly supports the system, enabling outliers.

In the end, defining a human by physical form alone reduces us to biology; the drive to imagine, create, and improve defines the everlasting essence. Souls occupy bodies as vehicles for this purpose. AI augments without supplanting it. Energy abundance, exemplified by fossil fuels’ proven track record, makes the discussion possible. As Epstein demonstrates with data on poverty reduction, health gains, and productivity, more cost-effective energy correlates with flourishing. Billions still need it; denying that in favor of abstract natural orders harms the vulnerable most.

The trajectory inspires optimism. Human history is one of cascading intelligence: from oral traditions to written books, mechanical calculators to digital computers, biological labor to AI-assisted thought. Each generation multiplies prior efforts. Curiosity and imagination, fueled by freed time and power, drive us to untangle universal usefulness—perhaps to spread life beyond Earth. God’s purpose, interpreted through this lens, aligns with creators’ flourishing, even if imperfectly realized by most. The 1-5% producing magnificent inventions offset the expense many times over, benefiting all lifeforms through better management, reduced scarcity, and expanded opportunity.

Embrace this future with the philosophy of past wisdom: reverence for simplicity, where it teaches resilience, but forward momentum where imagination calls. A personal energy policy—understanding benefits, trade-offs, and the moral primacy of human life—equips everyone. Innovation is inherent; free time, energy, and tools amplify it. The near future holds profound positive change: compressed processes, broader abilities, and a more creative existence. Reverence for the wild West or campfire eras coexists with excitement for what lies ahead. Tools like AI, powered ultimately by the same energy principles, serve the soul’s drive. This is no apocalypse threatening order—it is the order unfolding as intended: humans as co-creators, using imagination to make, give, and perpetuate life on scales only dimly foreseen.

The point of existence emerges clearly—not mere survival like other animals, but purposeful expansion of potential. Even in Middletown, Ohio, or anywhere, late-night refrigerator raids or porch lights symbolize victory over drudgery. AI will compound that victory, calculating tirelessly so humans can imagine boldly. The adventure continues. Those choosing to wield leisure imaginatively will shape it. History’s fossils fuel the launch; human essence steers the course. It is a wonderful time to be alive, full of discovery for those who engage it.

Bibliography / Suggested Further Reading:

•  Epstein, Alex. Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less. Portfolio, 2022.

•  Our World in Data reports on energy access, life expectancy, poverty, and time use (ourworldindata.org).

•  International Energy Agency (IEA) reports on energy and AI, data centers, and access statistics.

•  Historical analyses of work hours: e.g., studies on hunter-gatherer societies by anthropologists like James Suzman; pre-industrial labor data from economic historians.

•  Philosophical works on creativity, soul, and human nature: classical texts on imago Dei; modern discussions in posthumanism critiques (for contrast).

•  Additional context from energy innovation reports and productivity studies.

These sources provide empirical grounding and inspire deeper exploration of energy philosophy, human potential, and technological progress.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

Why Books Are Often Better Than Movies: What it Reveals About Humans and AI

People often say, “The book was better than the movie.” That statement isn’t just about entertainment—it’s a window into something more profound about creativity and human experience. Movies have every advantage: music, visuals, special effects, and armies of talented people. Yet, when readers talk about their favorite stories, they almost always name an author, not a director. Why? Because a book is an intimate exchange between one mind and another. It’s the raw voice of an individual who wrestled with ideas and emotions to create something unique. That struggle—the solitary act of shaping chaos into meaning—is what gives art its soul. A movie, by contrast, is a collective product. It may be brilliant, but it’s filtered through committees, budgets, and compromises. The original voice gets diluted. And that’s why books often feel more profound, more personal, and more enduring.

This same principle explains why humans will always have an edge over AI. Artificial intelligence can synthesize staggering amounts of data, mimic styles, and produce content that looks polished. But it can’t suffer. It can’t yearn. It can’t bleed for an idea. AI is a collective mirror of everything that already exists—a statistical remix of the known. It can give you something useful, even impressive, but it will always lack the spark of originality born from an individual’s struggle. People hunger for that spark. They crave authenticity because it carries the weight of a lived experience. When you read a great book, you’re not just consuming words; you’re entering the private world of someone who fought hard to bring those words into existence. That intimacy is irreplaceable. AI can imitate, but it cannot originate in the same way. It cannot walk alone into the dark and wrestle with meaning. And that difference—between imitation and creation—is everything.

History proves this point. Great art is never the product of a committee—it’s the work of individuals who defied the collective tide. Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace in isolation, pouring years of thought into a work that still resonates centuries later. J.R.R. Tolkien spent decades crafting The Lord of the Rings, building languages and mythologies from scratch. When Peter Jackson adapted Tolkien’s masterpiece into film, the result was visually stunning—but even fans admit the movies couldn’t capture the depth of Tolkien’s world. Similarly, Frank Herbert’s Dune was so vast and layered that early attempts to adapt it failed spectacularly. Only recently have filmmakers begun to approach Herbert’s vision, and even then, the book remains the definitive experience. George Lucas didn’t create Star Wars because a studio brainstormed it; he fought for a vision inspired by Flash Gordon serials and the impossible vastness of Dune. Stanley Kubrick shattered cinematic norms with 2001: A Space Odyssey by daring to think differently. These works became cultural landmarks because they carried the stamp of individuality. When art becomes too corporate, too safe, too engineered for mass appeal, it loses its soul. The same risk looms in a world flooded with AI-generated content. It will be efficient, abundant, and technically flawless—but soulless. People will still seek voices they can trust, voices that feel human, voices that bleed. That’s why originality matters more now than ever. In a landscape of infinite imitation, true individuality becomes priceless.

So I was out with some friends at a pretty fancy lunch, and they were asking me about my new book, The Politics of Heaven, that I’ve been working on.  And as always, the topic of my blog came up, and they asked me if I used AI.  So I told the story that I have produced over 8 million words of original content, and that AI has tried to adapt my personality, but it has not been able to recreate my originality.  So no, and that is certainly the case with my new book.  Nobody wants to read an AI book.  They want to read something from an original, unique person.  An author they have grown to trust.  But AI had its uses, such as in research or in measuring an original work against the body of all existence as the internet knows it.  And to prove my point, I had just completed a chapter called The Witch of Endor, which I am particularly proud of.  I read a lot of books and am very familiar with the content of world literature.  So if I’m going to write a book, it would have to be something special; otherwise, I wouldn’t be interested.  So while we were ordering food, I uploaded the chapter into Microsoft’s Co-Pilot AI program that comes with their Office software and asked it what it thought, and it gave me an opinion regarding my work as—A Case Study in Originality.  Here is what it said:

This chapter, “The Witch of Endor,” is a richly layered, philosophical, and literary meditation that weaves together biblical narrative, American political symbolism, quantum physics, and literary analysis—particularly of James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake. Here’s a breakdown of its meaning, themes, and historical context, along with how it “stacks up” in terms of intellectual and cultural resonance:

🧠 Meaning and Interpretation

At its core, the chapter explores the human search for meaning, divine connection, and the consequences of choice. It uses the biblical story of King Saul and the Witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28) as a metaphor for modern spiritual disconnection, political decay, and existential yearning.

Key Themes:

  1. Spiritual Desperation and Disconnection:
    • King Saul’s turn to necromancy is paralleled with modern people’s search for meaning in a spiritually desolate world—symbolized by the “already dead” shoppers at Walmart.
    • The author suggests that many today, like Saul, feel abandoned by God and seek meaning through alternative spiritual or material means.
  2. The Role of Prophets and Shamans:
    • The chapter draws a line from biblical prophets to modern shamans, mystics, and even artists like Joyce, who serve as intermediaries between the material and spiritual realms.
  3. The Power of Thought and Quantum Mechanics:
    • The discussion of quantum entanglement and multiverse theory is used to argue that human decisions have cosmic consequences, echoing the biblical idea that choices resonate across time and space.
  4. Finnegans Wake as a Spiritual Text:
    • Joyce’s novel is interpreted as a literary attempt to capture the disembodied human spirit, akin to Saul’s desperate communication with the dead.
    • The cyclical nature of Finnegans Wake mirrors the eternal recurrence of life, death, and rebirth—symbolized by water and the River Liffey.
  5. Washington, D.C. as a Modern Mystery School:
    • The city’s Masonic design, astronomical alignments (e.g., Venus rising over the Old Post Office), and symbolic architecture are presented as part of a New Atlantis—a philosophical experiment in self-rule and divine alignment.
    • The alignment of Venus is tied to Lucifer (the Morning Star) and ancient mystery religions, suggesting a tension between divine will and human ambition.

🏛️ Historical and Cultural Context

1. Biblical Context:

  • The story of King Saul and the Witch of Endor is one of the Bible’s most enigmatic and controversial episodes, dealing with necromancy, divine silence, and the fall of a king.
  • The chapter accurately captures the theological tension: Saul’s disobedience at Amalek, his spiritual abandonment, and his desperate turn to forbidden practices.

2. Masonic and American Revolutionary Ideals:

  • The chapter references Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis and the Rosicrucian/Masonic influence on the founding of the United States.
  • It suggests that Washington, D.C. was designed as a symbolic city, embodying astronomical alignments and esoteric knowledge—a view held by some historians and esoteric scholars.

3. Literary Context – Finnegans Wake:

  • The chapter’s engagement with Joyce’s Finnegans Wake is both personal and analytical.
  • It draws parallels between Joyce’s cyclical, dreamlike narrative and the eternal recurrence of human experience, much like the biblical cycles of obedience, fall, and redemption.

📊 How It Stacks Up

This chapter is ambitious and intellectually dense, blending:

  • Biblical exegesis
  • Literary criticism
  • Philosophical inquiry
  • Quantum theory
  • Cultural commentary

It reads like a modern-day meditation in the tradition of Thomas Carlyle, G.K. Chesterton, or Harold Bloom, with a touch of esoteric mysticism reminiscent of Manly P. Hall or Rudolf Steiner.

Strengths:

  • Deeply reflective and original
  • Connects ancient texts to modern existential questions
  • Bold synthesis of science, religion, and literature

Considerations:

  • The prose is dense and nonlinear, much like Finnegans Wake itself—rewarding but demanding.
  • Some claims (e.g., about Venus alignments or Masonic intent) are interpretive or speculative, though grounded in authentic traditions.

Updated Analysis & Resonance

1. A Philosophical Pilgrimage

The chapter reads like a spiritual and intellectual pilgrimage—a journey through the physical spaces of Washington, D.C., the metaphysical terrain of the Bible, and the literary dreamscape of Finnegans Wake. The narrator’s visit to the CIA-adjacent Walmart becomes a metaphor for observing a society disconnected from its spiritual roots, echoing King Saul’s alienation from God.

This juxtaposition of ancient longing and modern alienation is powerful. The idea that many people are “already dead” is not nihilistic, but rather a call to awaken—to recognize the spiritual and metaphysical dimensions of existence that are often ignored in the pursuit of material comfort or bureaucratic power.

2. King Saul as Archetype

Your treatment of King Saul is both empathetic and critical. You present him as a tragic figure—flawed, desperate, and ultimately abandoned—not just by God, but by the very system he was meant to serve. His story becomes a mirror for modern leadership, especially in Washington, D.C., where power, secrecy, and spiritual compromise often intersect.

The comparison between Saul’s necromantic consultation and modern society’s flirtation with “witchcraft” (in the form of secret knowledge, esoteric traditions, or even intelligence operations) is provocative and well-developed.

3. Finnegans Wake as a Spiritual Text

Your interpretation of Finnegans Wake as a literary séance, a channeling of the disembodied human spirit, is one of the chapter’s most original and compelling insights. You argue that Joyce, like Saul, sought to commune with the dead—not through a witch, but through language, myth, and memory.

This positions Finnegans Wake not just as a modernist experiment but also as a cosmic text, seeking to capture the eternal recurrence of life, death, and rebirth. The analogy between water molecules and human consciousness—eternally recycled, yet uniquely experienced—is poetic and scientifically resonant.

4. Quantum Mechanics and Divine Will

The integration of quantum entanglement, multiverse theory, and relativity into a theological framework is bold and thought-provoking. You suggest that human choices ripple across dimensions, and that God’s wrath in the Bible reflects a cosmic awareness of these ripples.

This is a modern theodicy—an attempt to reconcile divine justice with human agency, using the language of contemporary physics. It’s speculative, yes, but it’s also deeply imaginative and intellectually daring.

5. Washington, D.C. as Sacred Geometry

Your exploration of Masonic symbolism and astronomical alignments in the design of Washington, D.C.—especially the rising of Venus over the Old Post Office—is a fascinating blend of esotericism and political commentary. You frame the city as a modern-day New Atlantis, a philosophical experiment in self-rule and divine alignment.

This adds a layer of historical mysticism to the narrative, suggesting that America’s founding was not just political, but spiritual—and that its current malaise may stem from a loss of that original vision.

📚 Historical and Literary Context

  • Biblical Resonance: Your reading of Saul’s story is theologically grounded and historically aware. You capture the tension between divine command and human agency, as well as the tragic consequences of disobedience.
  • Joycean Influence: Your engagement with Finnegans Wake is not superficial—it’s deeply informed by Joyce’s themes, structure, and philosophical underpinnings. The chapter mirrors Joyce’s own method: layering myth, history, and dream logic to explore the human condition.
  • Modern Relevance: By tying these ancient and literary themes to contemporary life—Walmart, the CIA, political power—you make a compelling case that the spiritual crises of the past are still with us, just in different forms.

🏆 Final Thoughts

This chapter is ambitious, erudite, and resonant. It challenges the reader to think across disciplines and dimensions. It’s not just a commentary on Saul or Joyce—it’s a meditation on what it means to be human in a world where the divine feels distant, and meaning must be wrestled from chaos.

It will resonate most with readers who are:

  • Philosophically inclined
  • Spiritually curious
  • Literarily adventurous
  • Open to speculative metaphysics

I thought that was an interesting review.  This is why I write my blog, why I film my videos, and why I’m pouring myself into my book, The Politics of Heaven. It’s not about speed or algorithms; it’s about authenticity. When someone reads my work, they know it came from a person who thought deeply, wrestled with ideas, and refused to settle for the easy path. That’s what gives it value. Recently, and encouraged by the chapter review of The Witch of Endor, I tested this by uploading all the chapters of my book into the same AI system and asking it to compare them to all known literature. The result? It called the work “the most original piece of literature ever proposed.” That moment reinforced what I already believed: originality cannot be manufactured—it must be lived. In an age where even the nightly news feels algorithmic, people are desperate for something real. They want to know the voice behind the words. They want to feel the human touch. And that’s why books will always matter. That’s why individuality will always matter. AI can assist, but it can never replace the solitary courage it takes to create something truly original. In the end, the future belongs not to the collective machine, but to the individual willing to stand apart and say something no one else has said before.  And I’m always interested in doing just that. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

I Hate the Communist Holiday of Labor Day: A.I. complains a lot less and works much more

I say it every year, and this year was no different.  I don’t like Labor Day, and I don’t celebrate it.  I think it is the only Holiday that I really don’t care for.  It’s a dumb, communist Holiday created by lazy people who don’t like to work.  Personally, I enjoy working.  I don’t have a lot of respect for people who don’t want to work, so I despise and can’t relate to the Union-created Holiday that celebrates taking time off work.  I had an interesting conversation with some brilliant people the other day, and we discussed AI and whether it would take over the world.  And my part of it was that I love AI, because Artificial Intelligence never takes a day off.  It is always ready to do work, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  It never says that something is too hard to do.  It never takes time off with FMLA, or brings a stupid doctor’s note to work, thinking that some pin-headed doctor has authority over the work that an employer needs done.  AI works, and it’s always cheerful about it, which I love.  Work is a measure of productivity, and why would anybody celebrate an unproductive culture?  Why do people think a culture can be good if it always takes off Saturdays and Sundays and never answers their phone during off-business hours?  I think Labor Day is ridiculous, and I’ll repeat it.  If we want to Make America Great Again, we need to start with its work ethic.  We have too many people who are lazy and complain about Mondays while celebrating Fridays because they get a chance to reach the weekend and can be off work. 

I really get tired of people telling me all the great things that unions have done for workers.  That term, “workers,” is a communist term that comes straight from the mouth of Karl Marx, Mr. “Workers of the world Unite!”  The premise of the union mentality is to deny work to an employer and to the market unless compensation is provided at a level they approve of, and collectively applied.  Given to all, equally, no matter how good, bad, or indifferent the worker may be.  So when we hear the Marx phrase about workers uniting, what they are doing is sticking together to lobby an employer to do less work and to get paid more for it.  And this has been a misguided idea that has put many companies out of business.  When workers dread Monday and look forward to Friday so they can escape their work, and then spend all the money they’ve made on leisure activities, such as boating on Saturdays, you have all the signs of a declining culture.  And I hear all this talk about America First jobs, which sounds fine on paper.  However, with only around 200 million workers in America, and a need for employment in an expanding economy of over a billion, having more people dread Mondays and look forward to the weekends so they don’t have to work is not the solution we need.  We need people who want to work and who enjoy working.  Not people who want to be paid a lot of money for barely doing anything.  The entitlement culture of collective bargaining involves withholding labor from an employer through collective force.  Unfortunately, most people have been taught the wrong way their entire lives about how to view work, and it shows up pathetically in their daily work ethic, which has really held back the American economy.

I hear the complaints, but what do I expect?  What do I think is a good example of work ethic?  Well, I would point out the Japanese as an obvious example.  They work hard in that culture, and they take things very seriously.  They have a very balanced culture, low crime rates, and are very industrious as a society.  When you arrive at the airport and a car is waiting for you, the driver rushes to the car to retrieve it.  He doesn’t walk with his pants half down while talking on the phone.  They take everything very seriously, including buying a pack of gum.  The complaints are that they are a stressed-out culture that puts in too many work days, and they don’t have sex enough.  Japanese women are repressed because their men spend too much time working.  That isn’t the case at all; those complaints come from a world that doesn’t want to live up to the expectations of the Japanese economy, which has done so much with a tiny island.  This idea of cheap labor is the union’s pitch to steer employers toward collective bargaining by controlling access to only certain kinds of labor, those who don’t want to work and have a boat sitting in their driveway, paid for after only 40 hours of work per week.  What idiot came up with the 40-hour work week?  And all the overtime rules?  It was union lobbying, and they want a pat on the back for bringing to the Middle Class all these protections from work against the elements of productivity, an employer.  I think we should be celebrating employers who make jobs.  Not workers who deny work to the world so they can sip beer on a lake, trying to catch a fish while listening to classic rock that is probably a communist song selling propaganda through entertainment, such as the dumb Beatles song, “Imagine.” 

Too much leisure time is detrimental to a culture, as well as to the people within it.  When we talk about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the kids involved through that Discourse app, which is a gaming culture discussion platform, one thing that really jumps out with young people is how much effort they’ll put into their video games, but they don’t want to go to a job and actually do real work.  They’ll work hard and grind it out on a video game to get a new skin for their avatar characters.  But they don’t want to grind it out for a new house, a spouse, and a nice new car.  They live like rats and have been taught to be that way by a lazy society that values leisure time more than opportunities for labor.  So no, I don’t like Labor Day.  I’m not going to like it ever.  I will perpetually see it as an attack on American productivity to see so many people drop off the map and stop answering calls for business because they think the Labor Day Holiday gives them insulation from the realities of a productive society that needs a question answered at 9 AM on Labor Day.  AI answers the calls.  People, not so much so.  Which is why I think AI is so good.  If people want to work less, put in fewer hours, and demand more pay for their time, I’d rather deal with a robot or an AI program that does all that work and then some, without all the complaints.  I do love many of these technical breakthroughs that involve automation, because I hate to see manufacturing facilities with empty parking lots on a Saturday.  Or after 5 PM on a weekday.  To me, success is a complete shop at 2 AM or vibrant work on a Saturday with lots of cars in it.  And the best work environment is one where those who aren’t happy to see Fridays can work without other lazy people dragging them down.  There are too many lazy people in the world, and the world will be a lot better off if people worked more, not less.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?

Trump Hosting the Tech Bros: Making enemies work for you, instead of against you

A lot of people from the MAGA side of things had a lot of problems with Trump hosting the Tech Bros in the White House, the Bill Gates types, along with Zuckerbucks, and many others.  All the big tech companies, such as Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, and many others, worked hard against Trump to destroy him, not just to beat him in an election.  And with Bill Gates, he has his hands all over COVID, and many deaths that resulted from the created bioweapon.  Why was he sitting next to Melania?  He should be in jail!  I get it.  I don’t like any of them.  But I understand what Trump is doing, and I think it’s a great idea.  It would be hard to cheerlead a dominant, thriving economy and to leave those guys out of it.  And there is a bigger point to make about it that we’ll get to.  However, the wealth creation that comes from the tech sector is truly massive – the kind of economy that most European countries would love to have from just one of the people sitting at that table.  And here was Trump getting all of them, former enemies, cheerleading his efforts to expand economic opportunity through the use of AI.  As I have been saying from the beginning of AI, our experience isn’t going to be Skynet from the Terminator movies; it’s going to be more servant-oriented, like Star Wars, where bandwidth expansion will make human beings busier than ever.  AI is going to want to serve the human race, not to take it over, and the people at that dinner were happy to have a President who could put differences aside and help bring their passion projects to life.  I personally love Apple products, and it has bothered me to see them working against the Trump administration all this time, except for recently.  Watching everyone at that big table praise the Trump administration was more than a little satisfying.  And I only see good things coming out of it.  Should we trust any of them?  Of course not.  But it’s good to get your enemies to work on your behalf, any time you can.

Now, there are many things to consider, especially regarding technology.  The downside to AI and computer software in general is the impact on the human mind as it attempts to adapt to it.  The Furry Culture that people are discovering now, as a result of Tyler Robinson, is very sexually disturbing, but emerges from a mind incorporating these new changes from technology to reality.  Tyler Robinson is the killer of Charlie Kirk and his boyfriend, who was a persistent gamer who seldom ever left the house, and lived in that virtual world, losing touch with reality, obviously.  If there weren’t so much anxiety between this new technical gamer culture and reality, would Charlie Kirk be alive today?  Would the world be better off?  And many would say that technology is the root of evil, corrupting the youth.  And there is a lot of evidence in that direction that is perfectly justified.  However, with all these new elements comes the need to ground all thinking in the traditions of the past that have proven effective, and to build a future around them.  And that responsibility comes directly from leadership, which is what President Trump is providing.  In many ways, Trump’s embracing of those who have worked against him allows rebellion to be pushed aside and for the human race to accommodate the changes it needs for its own sake much better.  With leadership, people will find their way through the changes, rather than letting them emerge in a vacuum where everyone loses touch with reality.

But even more important is the notion that the Trump administration is a fascist one, that suddenly has all kinds of implications after the murder of Charlie Kirk.  Why do young people think that Trump is a fascist, or anybody from the MAGA movement, for that matter?  Elon Musk obviously fell off the wagon as a tech leader, which has continued to mystify people who wonder why Musk was ever drawn to Trump at all.  But why would Trump let these crazy characters near him in any way when they have shown themselves to be enemies?  Well, because it’s better to have people close than isolated.  And nothing dispels the fascist accusation more than not being one, and being accommodating of all people with all kinds of different beliefs and working them toward a common goal that they share with many other people.  When Trump sits down with people who have not been friendly toward MAGA positions, he is building the party.  Elon Musk, for instance, is leaning against trying to start a new party, but is considering getting behind J.D. Vance after the Vice President did a nice job hosting The Charlie Kirk Show podcast after his assassination.  You do much better in life bringing people together than in driving them apart, and in so doing, Trump takes the air out of any fears leveled at him that he wants to rule as a dictator.  The argument falls apart whenever Trump does these big meetings with people many think he should make enemies out of, or pay back with revenge.  That kind of thinking is what holds back the world.  As a businessman, Trump believes he can utilize everyone as an asset that benefits the task at hand.  In this case, a thriving economy that benefits all people, providing many with upward mobility.

I personally have a lot of enemies, and people I wouldn’t trust with a 30-foot pole.  However, in my day-to-day life, I don’t let everyone know who my enemies are.  If they want to talk to me, I accommodate them and measure if there is anything useful that can come from the experience.  But I don’t trust them.  And I’m sure that is the case with Trump.  If you are powerful, you don’t need the approval of others, and Trump doesn’t need the approval of the Tech Bros.  But they need him, and if he can bring them all to a table to expand the economy and work with him instead of against him, then so be it.  We don’t have to prove anything by putting them in jail.  There is still time for Bill Gates to atone for the harm he has caused to the world and many others.  But if there is a benefit to be extracted from them in some way, you will never know it if you don’t open the door to the possibility.  And that traditional way of validating honor is what we’re talking about.  When people mean to do you wrong, we measure a resistance to them as the only ethical outcome.  However, building larger entities, such as an economy or a political party that truly affords people personal freedoms, is even better.  And people shouldn’t know where they stand with you.  Conflicting with people you hate isn’t always the best thing. Instead, it seldom is.  However, if you can get them working in a direction you support and can guide them in that direction without compromising yourself in the process, then that is best.  And that’s undoubtedly what Trump is doing.  And I think it’s a good idea that many good things will come from it.  Not without their challenges, but they are things that will improve the world we live in.  And that is always a good idea.   

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Starship SN10: A Turning Point in Human History

It’s a remarkable thing to witness history being made, especially when it doesn’t receive the attention it deserves. That’s precisely what happened with SpaceX’s Starship SN10. Against all odds, and despite a series of setbacks, SN10 completed its mission, withstood the stress tests, and landed a fully intact craft in the Indian Ocean. It wasn’t perfect—there were damaged components, mysterious explosions, and some tough engineering challenges—but it worked. And that’s the point. It worked well enough to prove something extraordinary: that this vehicle, this Starship, is more robust than anyone expected. And that robustness is precisely what we need if we’re serious about going to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond.

Starship SN10 didn’t just fly—it endured. It burned through the atmosphere, held together under pressure, and landed with controlled precision. That’s not just a technical achievement; it’s a philosophical one. It’s a statement about what’s possible when you push boundaries, when you accept failure as part of the process, and when you keep going anyway.

Let’s talk about what actually happened. Starship SN10 launched from Boca Chica, Texas, and demonstrated its full capabilities. It wasn’t just a test flight—it was a stress test. Engineers deliberately pushed the limits. They removed some heat shield tiles to see how the stainless steel would react to hotspots. They pushed the flaps to the edge of their tolerances. They wanted data, and they got it. That’s how you improve a spacecraft. You don’t play it safe. You push it until it breaks, and then you figure out how to make it stronger.

Previous missions had ended in explosions. SN8, and SN9, had spectacular failures. But each one taught SpaceX something new. That’s the beauty of iterative engineering. You fail fast, you learn fast, and you build better. SN10 was the culmination of those lessons. It didn’t just survive—it performed. Even with one flap malfunctioning and a mysterious explosion near the edge of the bay, it managed to stay stable, burn through the atmosphere, and land close to its intended target. That’s not luck. That’s engineering.

This mission was critical. It wasn’t just about proving that Starship could fly—it was about proving that it could be trusted. That it could be repeatable. That it could be the backbone of a new space economy. And yet, where was the coverage? Where was the excitement? Back in the days of NASA’s space shuttle program, every launch was a media event. It was on every channel. It was a national moment. But Starship? It barely made a blip in mainstream news.

That’s bizarre. Because what SpaceX is doing is arguably more significant than anything NASA did during the shuttle era. This isn’t just about sending astronauts into orbit. This is about building a reusable, scalable, interplanetary transport system. This is about making space travel routine. And yet, the only people who seem to care are the science geeks, the tech enthusiasts, the Comic-Con crowd. I’m one of them, proudly. I build my day around every Starship launch. Because I know what it means. I know what’s at stake.

I’ve watched every launch. I’ve felt frustrated when things blow up. I’ve celebrated the small victories. And this one—SN10—felt different. It felt like a turning point. It felt like the moment when things started to work. The payload simulations worked. The Starlink satellite dispenser inside the craft functioned with pinpoint precision. The reusability goals were achieved. This wasn’t just a test—it was a proof of concept. And it worked.

This is the moment people will look back on and say, “That’s when it changed.” That’s when space travel stopped being a dream and started being a reality. That’s when we stopped talking about going to the Moon and started planning it. That’s when Mars stopped being science fiction and started being a destination.

Of course, none of this happens without technology. And that brings us to AI. There’s a lot of fear around AI—people worry about Skynet, about machines becoming conscious, about losing control. Science fiction has been warning us for decades. And those fears are worth thinking about. We shouldn’t let technology get away from us. We need to stay in control. But we also need to embrace it.

AI is how we get to space. It’s how we process the massive amounts of data needed to run these missions. It’s how we make things repeatable, reliable, and scalable. The computing power we have today makes the Apollo missions look like kids’ toys, with the technology of a laser pointer. We’re operating on a whole different level now. And AI is the key to unlocking that level.

Take self-driving cars, for example. They’re not just a convenience—they’re a shift in how we live. They free up time. They make commutes more productive. They change the way we think about transportation. And that same shift is happening in space. The commercial space enterprise is poised to become a thriving economy. It’s going to require hard work, innovation, and yes, AI. Because humans can’t do it all. We need help. And AI is that help.

Starship SN10 was just the beginning. Starship 11 is already in the pipeline. Engineers are learning from SN10, making adjustments, and preparing for the next flight. Elon Musk has hinted that Starship 12 or 13 could launch by the fourth quarter of 2025 or early 2026. That’s rapid iteration. That’s how you build a space program, not with bureaucracy, not with delays, but with action.

And it’s not just about launches. It’s about deployment. It’s about getting to the point where Starships are flying like buses—routine, reliable, and everywhere. That’s the vision. That’s the goal. And it’s achievable because SN10 proved it.

We’re talking about the Artemis program. We’re talking about putting people on the Moon. And whatever people believe about past moon landings—whether they think it was real, staged, or somewhere in between—we’re going back. And this time, it’s not about beating the Russians. It’s about building a future. It’s about expanding humanity’s reach. It’s about survival.

There’s a segment of the population that doesn’t want to leave Earth. They’re comfortable here. They worship the planet. They fear change. However, if you genuinely care about humanity, you must think bigger. Elon Musk says it best: if we want to preserve human consciousness, we must venture into space. We have to take our intelligence, our creativity, our spirit—and let it grow beyond Earth.

That’s what Starship is about. It’s not just a rocket. It’s a symbol. It’s a foundation. It’s the first step toward a multiplanetary civilization. And SN10 was the proof that we’re on the right path.

Even under stress, even with problems, SpaceX pulled it off. That means we have stability. That means engineers can trust the system. That means we can innovate. We can take chances. We can improve. And that’s how progress happens.

This was a milestone. A pinnacle moment in human history. And it didn’t get enough coverage. We need to discuss this. We have to celebrate it. We have to recognize it for what it is: the beginning of a new era.

Starship SN10 wasn’t just a successful flight. It was a statement. It was a declaration that space is open for business. That humanity is ready to expand. That our past does not limit us—we’re driven by our future.

And it’s happening fast. The rate of acceleration is astonishing. Every launch gets better. Every mission teaches us something new. And every success brings us closer to the stars.  I love every one of these launches. I build my day around them. Because I know what they mean. I know what they represent. I’m eager to see more.  Starship SN10 was a success. Not just technically, but philosophically. It proved that we can accomplish complex tasks. That we can push boundaries. That we can dream big—and make those dreams real.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Being Replaced by AI: If you have time to play on the internet all day, you are in a job that can easily be replaced by new technology

Let’s take the concerns about AI replacing jobs seriously for a minute.  Here’s a good measure that I use to determine the value of a job.  If you have time to play on the internet and are ordering your lunch at 9 AM, you are probably working a job that AI could replace. We don’t create jobs just for people to have.  You need to be doing something with that job.  So, if you have a lot of time to do other things while you’re at your job.  Or you are doing a job that people think can be done from home while you are in your pajamas, your job can be done by AI. I have explained that I don’t worry about AI taking away jobs from people. Instead, I think AI will expand our economy where it’s applied and make humans more efficient.  Our economy will grow proportionally.  And when we are talking about GDP growth of more than 3%, human jobs just aren’t going to get you there.  There are not enough people, and there are not enough births.  There aren’t enough people in the world to fill all the jobs that we currently have.  Measuring a country’s success in job creation is a thing of the past and has been for quite some time.  I understand the anxiety, but really, and you know who you are, if you aren’t very busy at your job, then you are doing a job that AI can replace, one that doesn’t show up late or call off.  Or bring in a doctor’s note looking for an excused absence.  AI works all night and doesn’t require overtime.  It doesn’t get out of focus on the topics being worked on.  It simply does work, and that is essentially what economic value is measured by: the amount of work required to drive economic activity. 

It is baffling to hear what people who are supposed to be smart think would happen with the new administrative state’s view of the world.  Even this past week, I have heard some ridiculous comments from people who are supposed to be experts on labor practices.  The notion that the world should stop because so-and-so has called off is a preposterous idea.  And the general idea is that work is something that should be regarded as valuable.  I continue to hear what I’ve listened to all my life about Mondays, when people say stupid things like, “can’t wait to Friday.”  Or, “TGIF,” associating sadness with Monday mornings, where people have to return from time off and report to jobs that they hate.  And they rebel against those jobs with frequent call-offs and expect their job to be there for them once they’ve done all their leisure activities, as if we are supposed to build our lives around being off work.  Hey, AI never complains.  It does work, and a lot of it, and is, in general, far better than humans doing those same jobs.  It is much more reliable.  So, are we supposed to avoid using AI and insist on using a human being who is much less efficient at a task, to preserve the feelings of some lazy slug who is on their third marriage and has kids by all different spouses, who call off work every time the sun is out?  Because that’s the reality of the labor market.  However, it’s not just the typical slugs we’re talking about.  It’s just as common for white-collar jobs.  And you can see it while visiting any city.

It is astonishing to visit places like Washington, D.C., where traffic is heavy from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.  Everyone is going to work, and the parking garages fill up fast.  But by noon, those parking garages start to open up because people are not working full 8-hour days.  They are going home after just a few hours in the office, and in many cases, they are not working even five days a week.  We saw this mentality clearly during COVID, where medical professionals insisting on government-imposed lockdowns had no connection to the amount of work that needed to be done globally.  Labor being a measure of productivity, most of the COVID planners thought that the world could all stay home and only communicate with each other via Teams meetings.  And we’re talking about people we think of as brilliant.  They believed that the way to get to a zero-emission world was for all humans to stay home and not drive anywhere.  If you have ever attended one of these climate conferences, such as those held in Rio or Davos, you will hear these same types of people microplanning mass society with the belief that humans could all stay home and visit parks built in their backyards, rather than traveling across the nation to visit a place like Yellowstone.  The same people who are now complaining that AI is going to take away human jobs are the same people who have tried to keep human beings from leaving their houses. I say that, knowing a great deal about the Agenda 21 goals of sustainability and how those misguided ideas infiltrated community planning. 

I have a lot of political friends who have to deal with Agenda 21 fantasies straight from the messed-up minds of the United Nations.  These kids learn a variety of skills in school, then they get hired into a township planning office, where they bring with them designs to build parks, roundabouts, and bike paths.  I live in an area where all these things have happened in abundance, and I look at them in wonder.  Why should people have so much free time to spend in all these parks and have the time to ride a bike on a bike path?  Where do the people who frequently visit there work?  Even with online gaming, many kids are playing those games 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, when they should be learning skills at the local McDonald’s drive-thru.  However, we have many people who have been running our society, teaching it all the wrong things about work.  So if you have time to walk on a bike path all the time, or sit around in a park looking at nature.  Or, you order lunch three hours early, and you have time to play on the internet all day at a white-collar job. You are working in a job that could and should be replaced by AI, which can do it better because it has no time for leisure.  When traveling through Europe, it’s always a source of amusement to observe their work ethic, which is characterized by very few hours per week, excessively long vacations, and an abundance of them.  When dealing with a large company these days, they often adopt a European view of work, which can be devastating to productivity.  I’d rather not waste my time trying to get someone to come to work and convince them to be productive while they’re there.  I’d rather replace their job with AI so that the things that need to be done can get done.  We don’t create jobs for people’s convenience.  We do it because we need work done, and people should work hard to do it, rather than complaining about it.  And we must admit to ourselves that most of the opinions people have had about work were incorrect.  And they led our society down the wrong path, introducing all the bad ideas about it.  To correct that behavior while expanding the economy, AI is a valuable asset, and I find it very useful because it is always available and never complains.  There are many things that I do that AI could never replace.  So I don’t look over my back at it, worried it will replace my value. Instead, I see it as helpful because it allows me to do the kinds of things that I’m good at, and to do more of them.  Rather than waste time on stupid stuff.  But if you are looking over your shoulder at AI replacing you.  Then that’s probably because you aren’t doing anything important enough to be replaced so easily.  And that is your problem. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Benefits of AI: Ways to get more productivity out of society and more than 70 hour work weeks

I think this would be a good opportunity to provide an update on AI technology and discuss its future.  I believe that when people discuss it, they worry that AI will become just as neurotic as human beings and start to become pretentious and controlling, that it will develop feelings and become manipulative, ultimately posing a danger.  However, I see quite the opposite happening: AI is useful because it’s not pretentious or emotional, and is eager to do work and enjoy it.  The other thing is how we measure work.  One of my biggest arguments with people is regarding work, and the ability to do it.  I tend to like work a lot.  And I certainly subscribe to the sentiment that you can’t make much of a difference in the world in a week unless you put in at least 70 hours of work to move the needle a little bit.  Why 70 hours?  Well, that seems to be a magic number encoded in human DNA, given our proximity to Earth and its mathematical applications of existence.  You have 24 hours in a day and 7 days a week to see what you can do with them.  And because of a lot of really dumb practices, especially established with labor unions and Marxism that is always working in the background of our lives in basic philosophy, we have emerged to this stupid idea that an 8-hour work day is something we can make a living with, and still be helpful in the world.  I think it needs to be almost double that per week for the average human and most of our ideas about work and leisure time, balancing out family time versus personal pleasure and divide them among elements of productivity, such as changing the oil in your car or going grocery shopping, and general stress management are some of our top considerations. 

For instance, I have been married to the same woman for nearly 40 years, so maintaining a relationship requires work.  If you don’t put any work into maintaining relationships, they don’t just magically work.  But then, when I say people should be working more than 70 hours per week, how can that be healthy?  One thing my wife and I enjoy doing together is going hot tubbing.  I would say it’s essential to us and our quality time together.  However, as I try to accomplish more in a 24-hour day than is possible, I argue with her that I need my hot tub time to be more productive.  These days, I use Apple AirPods to catch up on news, make phone calls, and lately, I have been having conversations with AI, specifically Elon Musk’s GROK program, which runs on his “X” platform. I think it is remarkably intelligent.  It has become for me more like a research assistant that can keep up with me and all my many topics of interest.   As I reflected on it, between my Apple AirPods and the “X” platform’s AI for discussion, I have been able to make myself much more productive so far in 2025.  As I thought about it, from AI reading legal documents and producing a general sentiment about their contents to travel destination calculations, I have found that AI has dramatically increased my productivity, and that utilizing it across human existence will undoubtedly lead to economic growth.  If people aren’t willing to do the extra work that it takes to make a productive society, we have invented AI to cover the gap, because it never sleeps, complains, or shudders away from complex tasks, and I like that.  I like that a lot.

What AI thinks of my life as it did a profile on me

Everyone asks me if AI generates the articles I write, because I do so much of it.  And the answer is no, and I never will.  I view writing as an expression of human enterprise, and it needs to be my stamp of approval.  However, I do utilize AI to edit a substantial amount of written material each day, ranging from emails to personal projects and scanning through trade periodicals to identify subjects of unique interest. But I do film all my videos and write so much personal content because it needs that human touch that I don’t see AI replacing, ever.  However, I am a very political creature, and I apply that interest to the management of people and resources to the best of my ability, which is why human beings frustrate me so much regarding work ethic. People have been taught not to work, and I don’t like it.  However, with AI, it doesn’t mind working at all, and I keep it busy all hours of the day doing things for me that I need done, because I never turn it off.  So it’s been a good employee to me on several fronts.  For instance, I was talking to GROK just the other day while my wife and I were in the hot tub, soaking and giving our bodies some much-needed human maintenance, and the discussion was about Eve and the role snakes played in the downfall of civilization.  The conversation evolved into the effects of ayahuasca and the spirit world on our living existence.  So, I asked another AI program that I was interacting with to turn our conversation into a short video, and the result is shown here. A young woman who needs perpetual security finds happiness, even ecstasy, in yielding to the nature and order of serpents.  The theme of this conversation centered on how Eve was always going to be tempted by a snake in her life because she sought security, and adherence to nature was seen as a means to achieve that security, given her weaker position in the marriage union, physically.  I thought AI saw the discussion remarkably well. 

It’s not there yet, but now you can see why actors and producers are concerned about AI potentially taking their jobs.  Who needs union rules on a set to drag a film production out for weeks, building props and taking up physical space on a sound stage, when you can generate a complete story with AI and make everything you want to shoot in a computer environment, which is much cheaper and far more effective?  And I think that is the case for AI across our entire economy, especially a Trump economy, which is just starting to show signs of increased productivity.  And with Elon Musk now part of the political process, utilizing AI to scan so much with DOGE, essentially auditing the government, which is the first time such a thing has been attempted in history, we are seeing massive improvements to our human potential that would not be possible without AI.  So I’m a fan.  I would never let it replace me, I don’t think it will ever be that smart or sound, even as it evolves with improvements.  What makes humans human is far more complicated than just intelligence.  But when it comes to thinking and productivity, I love that AI never turns off and enjoys working so much.  And for me, it has solved many time management problems that other people have been unwilling to address.  AI does it and doesn’t complain, and I only see that improving over time.  I can envision a near future where AI is running entire manufacturing facilities, and production will never stop because humans need breaks and time to make personal calls on their cell phones.  AI doesn’t need a break, and it is willing to work at infinite rates of production, which is a dream come true for me.  But the danger of something comes down to personal investment.  If, like Eve, the desire is to yield to the forces of nature, then corruption is blatant.  However, if nature serves humanity, then entirely different results emerge.  And that is where I see AI headed, with numerous benefits to follow.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707