Comments on THE Interview

Thanks Roy. There is so much to unpack here. Certainly all humans have been labouring to prove themselves using artificial defences of anger, egocentricity and alienation, and it is true that they are now redundant and we can legitimately let them go now that we have the real defence for ourselves, but importantly, it needs to be recognised that in the absence of that real defence, those artificial defences have been absolutely legimate. It turns out that despite all the destruction and madness, humanity has been on “the correct path” - because that has been the cost of continuing the search for knowledge to ultimately find the real defence for our behaviour. It is only now that we can return to the loving cooperative life that we have all secretly longed for.

    Thankyou for your thoughts Glenn. We would just like to address three points you raise.     The first is that understanding of the human condition does not set up a new “hierachy”, let alone a “pseudo scientific form of fascism.” This understanding establishes the absolute worth of every human, so that accusation is clearly absurd. As is explained in our FAQ 1.28 ‘Is this emphasis on deferring to the more innocent just another form of elitism?’, “no longer does humanity have to rely on dogmatic assertions that ‘all men are created equal’ purely on the basis that it is a ‘self-evident’ truth, as the United States’ Declaration of Independence asserts, because we can now explain, understand and know that the equality of goodness of all humans is a fundamental truth. We can now understand why each individual, gender, age, race, country, civilisation and culture is equally good and worthy, and that no one is superior or inferior, and that everyone deserves the ‘rights’ of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Indeed, through this understanding, the whole concept of good and bad, basically of guilt, disappears from our conceptualisation of ourselves.”     The second goes to the “scientific legitimacy” of the ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation being put forward. We suggest that you can know that Jeremy Griffith has at last got to the bottom of the human condition and found the redeeming explanation of it, because as he explains in paragraph 73 of FREEDOM, the ultimate test of any hypothesis is how accountable it is of our own lives – as the greatest of all physicists, Albert Einstein, once said that ‘truth is what stands the test of experience’. And so you can know that this is the breakthrough explanation of the human condition because once you understand the explanation and begin to apply it, you will discover it is so able to make sense of human behaviour it makes it transparent. This transparency of ourselves and our world—for example, the exposure of all our falseness—that this understanding of the human condition brings, is the ultimate ‘test of experience’ that confirms that the understanding being presented here is the long-sought explanation of the human condition. In this particular scientific study—the biological analysis of the human condition—we humans are the subjects, which means we can experience, feel and know the truthfulness or otherwise of the explanations being put forward. And so, fantastic a claim as it may seem, you will find that what is being presented here is the long-sought-after, desperately needed, psychosis-addressing-and-resolving, human race-transforming explanation of the human condition. We recommend FAQ 1.10 which outlines ‘What scientific evidence is there for this explanation’ and you can see the commendations Jeremy’s work has received from extremely eminent scientists and thinkers.     Lastly, it is important to mention that Jeremy Griffith’s work doesn’t contradict a belief in God or Religion. It simply brings biological understanding to all those pre-scientific concepts. People may like to explore our FAQs about religion, in particular FAQ 6.2 ‘What is God’ and FAQ 6.3 ‘Does this undermine religion/God’.

Well, you have come to the right place Tina. Understanding the human condition has been the missing piece of the puzzle, and so life has largely remained a mystery. But with Jeremy Griffith’s insight into the source of the human condition, that all changes. The following comment from Sanjoy Pal, an architect in India, who founded the WTM Kokota Centre, makes this point: "No matter how much I learned from these inspirational sources as well as others, the puzzle of all puzzles, the fundamental nature of humans, eluded me—until I stumbled on THE Interview of Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith. Jeremy’s interview was amazing and astonishingly insightful, as all the missing pieces of the great jigsaw puzzle of human nature fell into their proper places, just like connecting all the dots and providing the solution. In a nutshell, all humans are fundamentally good and not bad or evil according to the non-abstract biological explanation of Jeremy Griffith which is based on evidence and scientific first principle.”

Thank you for your question Godwin. The fundamental ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation is very simple and not beyond the most basic of educations, however the very nature of the human condition means explanation of it can be initially difficult to access as it has been the most terrifying of subjects to face because it is the issue of whether we are fundamentally good or bad as a species, and we have necessarily lived in almost total denial of it. We suggest looking at Video/Freedom Essay 1 titled ‘Your block to the most wonderful of all gifts’ where Jeremy Griffith explains this initial ‘deaf effect’ and how to overcome it.

Yes Nathalie, Jeremy Griffith’s work doesn’t ignore, exclude or contradict a belief in God, or religion. In fact, it brings biological understanding to all those pre-scientific concepts. Moreover, although this is science, it is based on a ‘Godly’ nature in the sense of recognising, like all the great religions do, that we humans once lived in a pre-human-condition-afflicted state of original innocence where we were perfectly instinctively orientated to the cooperative, selfless, loving, ‘Godly’ ideals of life; ‘God’ being explained as being the personification of integrative meaning of life; see Freedom Essay 23. We also think you might find our FAQs about religion of interest, especially FAQs ‘What is God’ and ‘Does this understanding undermine religion’.

    Scepticism is natural James, but please do have a listen. It is explained that all the crises you list are symptoms of an underlying, deep insecurity in humans caused by the human condition, so if we solve that condition we resolve its symptoms. That is the premise for the extraordinary claims being made about this interview. Moreover, to solve that insecurity, we needed to answer the essential question of why, when the ideals are to be loving and selfless, are we so competitive and selfish? It is this question of questions that Jeremy Griffith has solved with his instincts vs intellect explanation. To quote FAQ 1.6 ‘Why does understanding solve everything’: “So, in a world fast going crazy from the effects of the human condition, this is the now desperately needed reconciling understanding that brings about a new world for humans FREE of the agony of the human condition. This is the understanding that ends human suffering at its source, and unites the human race.”     To approach it in a different way: the explanation of the human condition unravels and makes sense of the whole seemingly impenetrable and insoluble confusion of human life — and does so in such a simple way — it appears ‘self obvious’ or evident. It brings to mind Thomas Huxley’s famous response to Darwin’s idea of natural selection: ‘How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that!’ As with any new scientific breakthrough in history, it takes time for people to absorb and realise this is the universal solution to all the problems we face but once it catches on — through people recognising the importance of it—the infectious enthusiasm and selfless love it liberates will spread like wildfire and this is starting to happen! You can see this growing appreciation and support for the WTM with outstanding commendations from thought leaders and WTM Centres popping up all over the world.

Exactly! As THE Interview explains, the human condition has been the most terrifying of subjects because it is the issue of whether we are fundamentally good or bad as a species. So much so we have necessarily lived in almost total denial of it and got on with the noble but corrupting task of searching for knowledge. Now that knowledge is found, and our fundamental goodness is biologically established, we can finally start talking the truth about our upset condition - all the things that are ‘out there, but you don’t recognize!’

It was spectacular

    There is a lot to digest here Joe. If the human condition hadn’t been solved, then what you are saying is correct, the world would just keep returning to the same problems. That is because all the crises that the world faces, such as war and greed, but also environmental destruction, drug and mental-health epidemics etc are merely symptoms of a deeper problem and will not fundamentally change until we end the underlying insecurity that is driving it all. However, we are suggesting that Jeremy Griffith’s explanation of the human condition in THE Interview does end that underlying insecurity, which is why it is being heralded as the most important and extraordinary breakthrough.     Removing this underlying insecurity required finding the clarifying difference between the way the intellect and instincts work. And with our goodness biologically established all our insecurity and subsequent anger, egocentricity and alienation, is made redundant; we no longer have to behave insecurely and selfishly and can legitimately return to a cooperative, peaceful way of living, and all the terrible problems besetting the world will be able to be fixed, almost overnight!

    What is presented is not supposition, but a rational, evidenced, fully accountable, explanation of the human condition. And you can know that Jeremy Griffith has at last got to the bottom of the human condition and found the redeeming explanation of it, because as he explains in paragraph 73 of FREEDOM, the ultimate test of any hypothesis is how accountable it is of our own lives – as the greatest of all physicists, Albert Einstein, once said that ‘truth is what stands the test of experience’. And so you can know that this is the breakthrough explanation of the human condition because once you understand the explanation and begin to apply it, you will discover it is so able to make sense of human behaviour it makes it transparent. This transparency of ourselves and our world—for example, the exposure of all our falseness—that this understanding of the human condition brings, is the ultimate ‘test of experience’ that confirms that the understanding being presented here is the long-sought explanation of the human condition. In this particular scientific study—the biological analysis of the human condition—we humans are the subjects, which means we can experience, feel and know the truthfulness or otherwise of the explanations being put forward. And so, fantastic a claim as it may seem, you will find that what is being presented here is the long-sought-after, desperately needed, psychosis-addressing-and-resolving, human race-transforming explanation of the human condition.     And, as is explained in FAQ 1.10: “the scientific basis for the confirming and clarifying difference between instincts and intellect is not in contest—in fact, natural selection and the discovery of DNA, and our understanding of the nervous system and how it is able to remember events and by so doing make sense of experience, are among the most important and respected elements of scientific knowledge we have—it just needed a human-condition-confronting-not-avoiding, holistic-not-mechanistic approach to recognise and acknowledge the significance of that difference.” Furthermore, “Throughout FREEDOM it is demonstrated how the ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation demystifies not just the human condition, but all aspects of human behaviour. It quickly becomes clear that not only are the facts and logic underlying the ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation established and unarguable, the theory also has an extraordinary ‘explanatory power’, which is one of the essential qualities of a scientific theory.”     Our website also contains many endorsements from eminent scientists, such as Professor Scott Churchill, the then Chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Dallas, writing that “I have recommended his [Griffith’s] more recent work to my students precisely for his razor-sharp clarifications of positions of contemporary authors like Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Wright. Griffith manages to summarize book-length expositions of these oftentimes obtuse and varying perspectives on human evolution with clarity and brilliance” (Expert Report, 2007).

Thanks for your interest Afsun. We are respectful of everyone’s beliefs, but we do suggest that while religions contained extraordinary truth about human life, it was all from a pre-scientific view, and that ultimately we needed to find the scientific explanation for why when the universal ideals are to be loving, cooperative and selfless are we so angry, competitive and selfish. Answering this question required finding the clarifying difference between the way the intellect and instincts work, and that clarifying difference means we can now understand that we had to defy our instincts, which is why this great breakthrough is described as ‘redeeming’. It follows that by finding the good reason we had to defy our instincts, we can reconcile ourselves with them, because all our defensive behaviours (our anger, egocentricity and alienation) are now redundant. We no longer need them because we have the real defense for why we had to defy our instincts. We recommend reading FAQ 6.3 ‘Does this undermine religion?’ where it is explained that, “The great founding prophets of religion actually looked forward to the arrival of the reconciling understanding of the human condition—which means supporters of religion shouldn’t see Jeremy’s scientific demystification of religious teachings as blasphemy, but as religious fulfillment!”

Hi Sandra, Jeremy Griffith’s work opens up a new way of thinking so it takes a little time to fully absorb this new paradigm – and the human condition does present the ultimate paradox! The biological ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation of the human condition allows us to understand the real merits and liabilities of both the left and right wing. His work identifies that the problem of the right-wing is its destructiveness, however, through its support of egocentricity and selfishness, it does encourage the search for knowledge to continue. However the left wing’s insistence on ideal behaviour had the effect of oppressing and thus regressing, not ‘progressing’, the all-important search for knowledge. Most importantly, this understanding brings a profound understanding to both sides which ultimately will bring an end to the whole ugly business of politics. This is fully explained in our FAQs about politics.

Don’t tout it as a fix all end all ..but a beautiful beginning to our evolution in thinking, by understanding our minds metrics.

    Thank you for your comment Rob. In THE Interview Jeremy Griffith explains the key biological distinction between our selfless behaviour and cooperation seen in the animal and plant kingdom, is that humans have genuinely selfless instincts. Part 3 especially evidences humans suffer from the conscious-mind-based, psychologically troubled human condition not the genetic-opportunism-based, animal condition. While other animals and plants appear to be cooperating this type of behaviour is actually a subtle form of selfishness, driven by the genetically selfish strategies of reciprocity (or kin selection). The organism is cooperating for a benefit—‘if you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’—it is reciprocal so it’s ultimately still selfish. This is fully explained in chapter 4 of Jeremy’s definitive book FREEDOM and Freedom Essay 25 ‘The truthful biology: the real story of the development of life, including humans’ provides a summary of this biology.     To the extent that selfless behaviour is discernible amongst other animals, Jeremy recognises the extraordinary cooperativeness of bonobos. As he reveals in THE Interview they demonstrate the nurturing based love-indoctrination process that we humans went through. And in FREEDOM Jeremy explains that every species would try to develop as much love-indoctrinated integration as their circumstances permit, which can be seen in animals like dolphins and elephants, but how their physical and environmental situations have limited them from achieving that, meaning they still remain in the genetically selfish ‘animal condition’. One brilliant aspect of Jeremy’s work is his identification of this love-indoctrination process which explains and how humans biologically overcame this genetic limitation which produced our genuinely all-loving, altruistic instincts. FAQ 5.2 ‘How did we acquire our moral soul’ summarises this explanation, using the example of the bonobos who have developed this ‘love-indoctrination’ process to a lesser degree.     It is worth mentioning that in THE Interview “lower animals” is used once in a quote by Charles Darwin where Jeremy is discussing our selfless instinctive self or soul. To quote: “...we humans have cooperative, selfless and loving moral instincts, the voice or expression of which we call our conscience—which is the complete opposite of competitive, selfish and aggressive instincts. As Charles Darwin said, ‘The moral sense…affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (The Descent of Man, 1871, ch.4).” We hope you find this reply helpful Rob and thanks again for commenting.

This person should just be quite. Animals are animals. We are talking about people and what happened when they gained a conscious mind. Animals dont drive or talk. They are living on there instincts, which are good, but not with a conscious mind. Then the animal would act more like humans,and you wouldn’t be defending the animal.

It’s wonderful to have your interest Michelle. The study of the human condition is the realm of inquiry where science and religion overlap, so in explaining the human condition religion is demystified and explained by bringing biological understanding to pre-scientific concepts. For instance Jeremy Griffith explains in this interview Adam and Eve is a pre-scientific metaphor for the emergence of consciousness and its clash with our pre-established, cooperative loving instincts, resulting in humans becoming psychologically upset or ‘sinful’ or ‘evil’. Jeremy’s work represents a reconciliation of science and religion, which is explained in FAQ 1.15 ‘If this is a biological explanation why are there religious references?’. While religions contained extraordinary truth about human life, it was all from a pre-scientific view. Ultimately we needed to find the scientific explanation for why when the universal ideals are to be loving, cooperative and selfless are we so angry, competitive and selfish. Answering this question required finding the clarifying difference between the way the intellect and instincts work, and that is the great biological breakthrough Jeremy presents here in THE Interview and his book FREEDOM.

Hi Erik, thank you for your thoughts. Biologist Jeremy Griffith explains in this interview that all humans are born with all-loving moral instincts, not savage animal instincts, but now variously suffer from a psychosis due to the human condition caused by the conscious mind’s necessary search for knowledge. So he reveals the clash between our instinct and intellect is the source of our psychosis which produces our corrupted behaviour and need for power rather than religions, education or dictatorships. In terms of the bee hive working “as one as we only dream of doing” you may find Jeremy’s Freedom Essay 25 titled ‘The truthful biology: the real story of the development of life, including humans’ most interesting. Jeremy explains the distinction between our selfless behaviour and that of ants and bees, with their behaviour being driven by reciprocity. Ants and bees are not actually being unconditionally selfless, truly altruistic when serving their colony because, when doing so, they are fostering the queen who reproduces their genes, which means their apparent selfless behaviour is, in fact, just a subtle form of selfishness: they are helping the queen to selfishly reproduce their genes. So it’s actually ultimately still selfish. This essay, and THE Interview, also explain how our selflessness developed through the nurturing love-indoctrination process that produced genuinely altruistic instincts in humans (summarised in FAQ 5.2 ‘How did we acquire our moral soul’).

Ab fab… thanks … i’m turning 84 next year & so relieved you are able to bring out the “real story”

Thank you Suresh, that is very interesting and a good confirmation of the ‘instinct vs intellect’ clash. Of course, while religions contain all manner of truths about human life, it is all from a pre-scientific view. Ultimately we needed to find the scientific explanation for why when the universal ideals are to be loving, cooperative and selfless are we so angry, competitive and selfish. Answering this question required finding the clarifying difference between the way the intellect and instincts work, and that is the great biological breakthrough Jeremy presents in THE Interview and his book FREEDOM. We suggest FAQ 1.13 ‘Is this original or new?’ which explains the unique significance of Jeremy Griffith’s work.

Hi Richard, as Jeremy explains in chapter 9.9 of his book FREEDOM: “Although this new world for humans, which the World Transformation Movement has been established to facilitate, will, as has been stated, have a slow beginning because humans initially find it difficult even taking in or ‘hearing’ discussion about the human condition, once the WTM is discovered, word of it and what it offers every human and the world will spread like wildfire.’” And so even though we haven’t yet reached the tipping point we are well on our way as you can see from the excitement and relief in our daily ecstatic responses to THE Interview! Also, you can see the rapidly growing appreciation and support for Jeremy’s work with outstanding commendations from thought leaders and WTM Centres all over the world!

    Yes! The question of whether we are fundamentally good or bad has been the most terrifying of all subjects to face, and so we have necessarily lived in almost total denial of it, which means our minds can initially struggle to hear and absorb discussion about it - the whole subject is “heavy”. We suggest enough of the explanation was getting through for you to recognise that it is “interesting”. Wonderfully, this ‘deaf effect’ can be overcome with patient perseverance and everyone can access this most wonderful of all gifts of understanding the human condition!     Our FAQ 1.3 presents a very brief summary of the key ‘instinct vs intellect’ concept. Essentially, when we humans developed a conscious mind some 2 million years ago, a battle unavoidably developed between it and our already established cooperative instincts. The result of this conflict between our instinct and intellect was that we became psychologically defensive, angry, alienated and egocentric – the upset state we refer to as the human condition. But now that we can explain and understand this conflict, all those insecure, defensive behaviours are obsoleted, brought to an end, and we free ourselves from the human condition.

    There is a lot to absorb here Lynda, so we recommend you take your time, and suggest that you will begin to see that the ‘instinct vs intellect’ clash is at the heart of all humanity’s angry, egocentric and alienated behaviour. Of course, if humans started to become psychologically upset when this clash first began to be felt some 2 million years ago, then it follows that we will by now be extremely upset, and also that our society will have evolved over that time to not only reflect that upset, but also to cater for it. For example, with regard to politics, or more specifically, democracy, as Jeremy Griffith writes in chapter 3.9 of FREEDOM, under democracy “the proper balance is sought between the need to maintain a degree of selfless, loving, soulful, cooperative ‘ideal’ behaviour for society to function, and the need for there to be sufficient freedom from the imposition of the expectation of such ‘ideal’ behaviour, for people to be able to carry on the corrupting search for knowledge.” And we can now understand that while the corrupting search for liberating knowledge was underway religion played a significant role as both the custodian of the ideal state and as a means of solace for those exhausted by the corrupting journey. So we can see that politics and religion are not the cause of our problems, but are simply manifestations of it. We recommend our FAQs on Politics and our FAQs on Religion.     With regard to the common accusation that men “are the reason the world is a horror for so many”, at the heart of this explanation is the revelation that all our astonishingly selfish and brutal behaviour, especially on the part of men, has been an unavoidable consequence of humans’ necessary search for self-knowledge. Now we have understanding of our human-condition-psychosis which is shared by all humans, women are finally able to reason and see that what men have been doing on this planet has been actually the most meaningful and heroic job of all. This insight finally allows a real reconciliation between men and women. As molecular biologist Dr Anna Fitzgerald says in her commendation of Jeremy’s work: “because Griffith’s work establishes the equal worth or goodness of all humans we can now understand the different roles that men and women have traditionally played in the human journey and this is actually the unlocking point, this is what brings about deep empathy for each other, it heals the divide.” You can watch/read this Video/Freedom Essay 9 titled ‘This is the real liberation of women’.

    Not quite. Once our conscious intellect emerged, it inevitably came into conflict with our older instinctive orientations, and that clash created all the insecurity, anger, ego and alienation we now call the human condition.     What finally resolves it isn’t “discipline”; it’s understanding. Once the intellect finally receives the reconciling explanation it has always needed, the misinterpretation of the instinctive criticism stops. The defensive mindset evaporates. Anger, egocentricity and alienation become redundant and simply fall away. In other words, we’re not “fixed” by discipline or external control, but by the liberating power of finally understanding ourselves.

    Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael argues that humanity’s troubles come from the destructive cultural “story” of modern civilisation — the so-called “Taker” mindset — and that we should return to a more ecologically integrated, tribal way of living. It’s a thought-provoking cultural critique, but it doesn’t address the deeper question of why humans became psychologically troubled and destructive in the first place.     Ultimately we needed to find the scientific explanation for why, when the universal ideals are to be loving, cooperative and selfless, we are so angry, competitive and selfish. Answering this question required identifying the clarifying difference between how the intellect and instincts work, and that is the great biological breakthrough Jeremy presents in THE Interview and his book FREEDOM. We suggest FAQ 1.13, ‘Is this original or new?’, which explains the unique significance of Jeremy Griffith’s work.

    Thanks Herb. Yes, all of us that recognise the extraordinary significance of these insights have to help nurse them into the wider world. As with any new scientific breakthrough in history it will take time to gain mainstream acceptance, however, once this information gets a foothold through enough people developing a deep appreciation and desire to support it, the selfless love and energy that will generate will solve our problems very quickly because, as THE Interview explains, instead of being selfishly preoccupied with power, fame, fortune and glory, all our energies will be freed to truly work together and focus on doing whatever it takes to end the suffering in all the corners of the world.     You can rest assured that we here are totally devoted to getting this world-saving understanding out, and even though we haven’t yet reached the tipping point we are well on our way as you can see from the excitement and relief in our daily ecstatic responses to THE Interview! Also, on our homepage, you can see the rapidly growing appreciation and support for Jeremy’s work with outstanding commendations from thought leaders and WTM Centres all over the world!     And everyone can help share this information – for some ideas, see our How To Help page.

    When considering comments such as these, it needs to be emphasised that the subject of the human condition that biologist Jeremy Griffith’s treatise addresses is the most important but also the most difficult and thus contentious of all subjects for humans to address because it deals with the ultimate confronting issue of ‘self’. When the renowned Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson wrote, ‘There is no grail more elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012, p.1), he was making this point that while ‘understanding the human condition’ is the most ‘precious’ ‘grail’ of science, it is also the most ‘elusive’ ‘grail’ because the subject is the most difficult of all subjects for humans to engage with. It therefore has to be expected that Jeremy’s treatise on the human condition can cause hostile unfair attacks on it.     The truth is that psychology and the social sciences (indeed all science) has been hopelessly lost and confused, and hasn’t been able to confront the human condition, let alone solve it. And that is where the human race has been stalled, waiting in an increasingly distressed state for the real explanation for our psychologically troubled human condition that will finally make sense of the riddle of human life. That is, until now—because that human-mind-liberating, psychosis-relieving REAL explanation has at last been delivered with Jeremy Griffith’s ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation.     And you can know that Jeremy Griffith has at last got to the bottom of the human condition and found the redeeming explanation of it, because as he explains in paragraph 73 of FREEDOM, the ultimate test of any hypothesis is how accountable it is of our own lives – as the greatest of all physicists, Albert Einstein, once said that ‘truth is what stands the test of experience’. And so you can know that this is the breakthrough explanation of the human condition because once you understand the explanation and begin to apply it, you will discover it is so able to make sense of human behaviour it makes it transparent. This transparency of ourselves and our world—for example, the exposure of all our falseness—that this understanding of the human condition brings, is the ultimate ‘test of experience’ that confirms that the understanding being presented here is the long-sought explanation of the human condition. In this particular scientific study—the biological analysis of the human condition—we humans are the subjects, which means we can experience, feel and know the truthfulness or otherwise of the explanations being put forward. And so, fantastic a claim as it may seem, you will find that what is being presented here is the long-sought-after, desperately needed, psychosis-addressing-and-resolving, human race-transforming explanation of the human condition.

Thanks for your comment Antony. We suggest that now we have Jeremy Griffith’s instinct vs intellect explanation of the human condition we can understand the real reason why we are so destructive, greedy and oppressive. Which means we can now explain that the more innocent or sheltered ‘races’ (ethnic groups), like the Australian Aborigines, have not been as exposed to humanity’s heroic battle to find knowledge as less sheltered races, and so they aren’t as psychologically upset as those less sheltered races. So yes, more sheltered races have more affinity with our instinctive soulful, “collaborative” way of living and “nature” and are therefore not as brutal and competitive as more upset races. However, all humans are now part of the extremely upset stage of humanity, H. sapiens sapiens, and are therefore nowhere near as innocent as humans were some 2 million years ago when the battle of the human condition first emerged. Which is why Australian Aborigines did engage in warfare and raiding of neighboring tribes for women and supplies (see for example the following report in the Red Cross - https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/indigenous-australian-laws-of-war-914). So, conflict clearly wasn’t about space, it was a result of our psychologically upset state, which Jeremy Griffith explains in THE Interview. Most significantly though, despite the differing levels of upset due to everyone’s different encounters with humanity’s heroic battle to find knowledge, we are all equally good. You might like to read our FAQ 9.1 about how this understanding puts an end to racism and for a testimonial on the power of this knowledge to end racism, we recommend the presentations from Franklin Mukakanga, of Zambia, and Refentse Molosiwa, of South Africa, in Video/Freedom Essay 8.

Yes Vaz our problem has been lack of self-understanding and now we have it our future certainly depends on choosing it rather than the misunderstanding of ourselves. You’ll be heartened to know every day so many people are choosing it and this is why, to quote FAQ 1.5: “having understanding of the human condition will completely transform your life into the most wonderful existence imaginable. This is because biologist Jeremy Griffith’s explanation of the human condition gives you the ability, for the first time ever, to understand every aspect of human behaviour in yourself and in everyone else with 100% clarity and confidence. The explanation will change how you view humans, and most importantly yourself, literally overnight—and your behaviour will change naturally as a result, and just as quickly.” We encourage you to pursue your interest by subscribing to our mailing list where you will receive one email per week and occasional News Flashes and joining our Facebook Group to learn more about this amazing, human-condition-resolved new world! We are a not-for-profit organisation and make all our material and publications free to read online, watch, listen to and even download and print!

Hi George, THE Interview is about both men and women. It explains the universal psychosis all humans suffer from caused by the clash between our instinct and intellect, which significantly can be healed through understanding. The female perspective is certainly not missing from Jeremy Griffith’s treatise and both the male and female contribution to the human journey are fully explained and equally acknowledged. In fact, matriarchy is finally given the recognition and honour it deserves with Jeremy’s explanation of how it was women’s maternal love that gave us our moral soul and created humanity no less! (This love-indoctrination process is further explained in Freedom Essay 21 and fully explained chapter 5 of Jeremy’s definitive book FREEDOM.) And what is astonishing is that despite our psychologically upset condition this biological treatise establishes all humans are equally good, worthwhile, meaningful and wonderful regardless of gender, age, religion, etc. We suggest you watch scientist Dr Anna Fitzgerald’s video commendation where she talks about how “This explanation brings about the true liberation of women and the reconciliation of the sexes, which is truly extraordinary.” Also FAQ 8.1 titled ‘How does the explanation of the human condition reconcile men and women?’ is most helpful.

Thank you for you comment Eileen. In THE Interview biologist Jeremy Griffith’s reference to 150 years is in regard to science’s ability to explain the human condition, he is not referring to when the human condition began which he suggests is some 2 million years. To quote: “Precisely, it’s only in the last 150 years or so that science has given us A: the ability to know that the gene-based natural selection process gives species orientations to the world; and B: the knowledge of our nerves and how they are able to remember events, which, much developed, has led to our mind being able to sufficiently understand the relationship between cause and effect to become conscious of, or aware of, or intelligent about those relationships. So that’s only happened in the last 150 years, but since, as explained in pars 705-707 of FREEDOM, the fossil record of our ancestors suggests that our large association-cortexed, thinking, fully conscious brain appeared some 2 million years ago, that means for almost all of the 2 million years we have been conscious we have had no ability to explain and understand why we corrupted our original innocent instinctive self or soul.”     Also in THE Interview Jeremy explains while we lacked the real defence of understanding our corrupted condition, we absolutely needed the artificial defence and reinforcement of seeking power, fame, fortune and glory. It makes sense after a lifetime of having to live like this we may become disenchanted with that strategy and people’s egocentricity subside to a degree. Thankfully now our fundamental goodness has been biologically established and we can understand our corrupted state, all our upset insecure, defensive behaviours are obsoleted, brought to an end, and we free ourselves from the human condition — it couldn’t be a bigger breakthrough! You might find our FAQ 1.40 titled ‘‘How can you hope to transform the world? — In particular, how are you going to change the behaviour of the rich and powerful? / How are you going to reach the bastions of power? / Won’t the greedy and power-hungry simply ignore this?’ of interest.

Thank you for your comment Timothy and we hope you and others find this thorough response helpful. Firstly it needs to be emphasised that the subject of the human condition that biologist Jeremy Griffith’s treatise addresses is the most important but also the most difficult and thus contentious of all subjects for humans to address because it deals with the ultimate confronting issue of ‘self’. When the renowned Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson wrote, ‘There is no grail more elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012, p.1), he was making this point that while ‘understanding the human condition’ is the most ‘precious’ ‘grail’ of science, it is also the most ‘elusive’ ‘grail’ because the subject is the most difficult of all subjects for humans to engage with. It therefore has to be expected that Jeremy’s treatise on the human condition can cause hostile unfair attacks on it.     With that consideration in mind, we strongly recommend that everyone, such as yourself, who has concerns about the scientific validity of Jeremy’s treatise on the human condition, read our FAQ 1.10 as it addresses the full range of criticisms Jeremy’s treatise has attracted from those accustomed to science’s prevailing human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic paradigm—providing as it does, the following information: “A summary of the scientific veracity of Jeremy Griffith’s explanation of the human condition / ‘Why Jeremy Griffith’s explanation of the human condition necessarily challenges mechanistic science / Why Jeremy Griffith’s work developed outside the traditional peer review system / Why Jeremy Griffith’s inductive, testable treatise is real science — just like Darwin’s / Why it is being so strongly asserted that Jeremy Griffith’s scientific explanation of the human condition is the real explanation of the human condition; including The ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation is testable through experience; The truth of the ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation is confirmed by its ability to explain all aspects of human life; We also have history’s confirmation of the ‘instinct vs intellect’ elements involved in producing the human condition, to which Jeremy Griffith has added the all-important redeeming explanation of WHY the clash between those elements produced the psychological upset state of the human condition; Science’s recent understanding of the difference in the way the gene-based, naturally selected, instinctive learning system and the nerve-based, conscious mind’s learning system work further confirms the obvious ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation; and testimony affirming the veracity of Jeremy Griffith’s ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanations / Jeremy Griffith’s explanation of the human condition is not a ‘non-falsifiable’, circular argument / Why Jeremy Griffith’s treatise fulfill’s science’s ultimate goal”.     Also our FAQ 1.25 responds to the criticism that Jeremy cherry-picks quotes. It is titled ‘Does Jeremy Griffith cherry-pick quotes from other thinkers, manipulate them, use them out of context, omit key words and passages, misrepresent or misinterpret them, in order to pervert their real meaning and fit an untrue theory?’     As Jeremy explains in chapters 2:4 and 2:12 of FREEDOM, human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic, reductionist, deductive science is an extremely limited and compromised form of science. As Templeton Prize-winning biologist Charles Birch, who was Jeremy’s professor of biology at Sydney University, said, ‘[mechanistic] science can’t deal with subjectivity [the issue of our psychologically distressed human condition]… what we were all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’ and ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’. Indeed, mechanistic science is now so farcically dishonest and discredited in the public’s mind that many people have lost interest in it to the point of dismissing it as of no real use to us in terms of being able to understand and manage our behaviour! Freedom Essay/Video 14 makes this discreditation very clear.     Thankfully mechanistic science can now be replaced by human-condition-confronting-and-solving, truthful, holistic, inductive science—but of course the established, entrenched, traditional mechanistic scientific paradigm resists this massive paradigm shift. It does this by ignoring the new synthesis, as well as using such outrageously dishonest and irresponsible claims as ‘the new synthesis presents no new data’, is an ‘untestable’ and ‘non-falsifiable’ hypothesis, and is therefore not even science! As is explained in FAQ 1.10, these accusations are transparently false and nothing more than the dying tremors of an old, extremely flawed form of dishonest science that has lived way past its used-by-date and is rapidly taking humanity to extinction!     As to the veracity of Jeremy’s biological treatise, the fifth section of FAQ 1.10 outlines ‘Why it is being so strongly asserted that Jeremy Griffith’s scientific explanation of the human condition is the real explanation of the human condition’; and you can see the Praise that Jeremy’s work has received from extremely eminent scientists and thinkers in the sub-section there titled ‘Testimony affirming the veracity of Jeremy Griffith’s ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanations’.     Jeremy’s truthful explanation of the human condition allows us to understand the limitations and falsehoods inherent in science’s prevailing mechanistic human-condition-avoiding theories. Professor Scott Churchill, the then Chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Dallas, wrote, ‘I have recommended his [Griffith’s] more recent work to my students precisely for his razor-sharp clarifications of positions of contemporary authors like Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Wright. Griffith manages to summarize book-length expositions of these oftentimes obtuse and varying perspectives on human evolution with clarity and brilliance’ (Expert Report, 2007).     For instance with the human condition now safely defended, we can admit the evidence all confirms our cooperative past, not a savage, ‘red in tooth and claw’ past as is commonly held. For example, in Part 3 of THE Interview and further in his definitive book FREEDOM (which he refers the audience to), Jeremy evidences that the cooperative and gentle bonobo represent a far better model of our human ancestors than the common chimpanzee. Both share approximately 99% of their DNA with humans, however bonobo physiology, bipedality, environment, intelligence and reduced canine size, better match our human ancestors. Reduced canine size is particularly relevant as it is arguably the outstanding features of the hominin clade, and universally accepted as an indication of reduced aggression. Fossil evidence of our cooperative past, including reduced canines, has lead the prominent anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy to write that “our species-defining cooperative mutualism can now be seen to extend well beyond the deepest Pliocene [well beyond 5.3 mya]”. Also in chapter 5.4 of FREEDOM it is explained the bonobo’s isolation caused by the Congo River facilitated the love indoctrination process (discussed in THE Interview) which created the caring and loving nature of the bonobos as it required ideal nursery conditions, see FAQ 5.2 ‘How did we humans acquire our all-loving, unconditionally selfless moral conscience? / What do the nurtured and cooperative bonobos tell us about our own evolutionary heritage?’.     THE Interview also explains the key distinction between our selfless behaviour and cooperation seen in other parts of the animal and plant kingdom, is that humans have genuinely selfless instincts. While other animals and plants appear to be cooperating this type of behaviour is actually a subtle form of selfishness, driven by the genetically selfish strategies of reciprocity (or kin selection) that you mention. We suggest Freedom Essay 25 (which summarises the biology presented in FREEDOM) as it explains our human moral instincts are not driven by reciprocity but rather developed through this love-indoctrination process that produced genuinely selfless or altruistic instincts in humans and in the bonobos to a lesser degree. Also we suggest FAQ 5.6 ‘How do you explain the transition from Love-Indoctrination creating selfless behaviour, to that behaviour becoming instinctive?’.     In terms humans current contradictory behaviour, as mentioned, Jeremy explains all humans are born with an instinctive self or soul that is perfectly aligned to a cooperative and selfless way of living and that humans’ upset (angry, egocentric and alienated) behaviour is not a product of savage animal instincts within us, but the result of a universal psychosis caused by the unavoidable clash between our instinct and intellect. And, most significantly, as Part 4 of THE Interview explains a psychosis can be healed with understanding, so our psychologically upset human nature is fixable or changeable—not unchangeable. Also towards the end of Part 2 Jeremy provides a graph that charts the progression of upset from no psychosis to ‘terminal levels of psychosis’ and obviously all grades in between.     It really is at the 11th hour that the often highly intellectualised, sophisticated-in-the-art-of-denial, pretentious, makes-it-seem-like-unreachable-knowledge-for-the-average-person, scientific presentations from the ivory towers of human-condition-avoiding academia are at last replaced by truthful, sensible, fully accountable, relatively simple and straightforward, soul-ualised not intellect-ualised scientific presentations, which is what FREEDOM provides for the human race.