TRUMP DOESN'T NEED US, FOLKS!

Donald Trump's tariffs are intended to protect US industries. 

However, economists warn that these tariffs could lead to higher consumer prices. 

Since the tariffs are paid by US companies importing goods, businesses may either pass the costs on to consumers or reduce imports, potentially limiting product availability.

Canada's total trade figures with the United States added up to almost a TRILLION dollars during 2023. 

This country is the largest supplier of crude oil to the US, averaging more than 3.8 million barrels per day, or 60% of US crude oil imports. 

In fact, the US imported nearly 3.9 million barrels of crude oil from Canada every day in 2023. This was a slight increase compared to the previous year, according to data from Statista. 

Then in July 2024, US imports of crude oil from Canada reached a record 4.3 million barrels per day following the expansion of Canada's Trans Mountain pipeline. 

Canada also supplies the United States with a lot of electricity... and if we cut that off.. THE EASTERN SEABOARD WOULD GO DARK!!!!!

In 2023, cars and auto parts imported from Canada accounted for trade worth US$58 billion, or 93% of total Canadian vehicle manufacturing output, according to Trading Economics. 

Consumer goods, items that companies produce and which consumers, rather than other businesses, subsequently purchase, accounted for the third greatest volume of imports from Canada in 2023.  

Forestry products—lumber, paper, livestock fodder, fuel wood, etc.—along with building and packaging materials, also represent key items imported by the US from Canada. We are a leading global exporter of softwood lumber, with over half of U.S. softwood imports coming from Canada.

The US Census Bureau also lists chemical, plastic, and rubber products among the top items imported from Canada, things such as rubber carpet cushion, sound insulation, and footwear. 

Metal and mineral products, for example, iron ore, hematite, bauxite, sand, gravel, limestone, clay, and marble as well as salt, mica, and potash, are all exported in vast quantities to the US. Pictured is the Fermont iron ore site at the ArcelorMittal mining complex in Quebec. 

Out in Saskatchewan, they provide the States with 80% of their fertilizer! (Potash)

And Industrial Machinery!

Uranium... Donald won't have enough to nuke China!

CROSS BORDER TRADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA TOTALS ABOUT A TRILLION DOLLARS  A YEAR... GIVE OR TAKE A FEW BILLION!

"Ignorance is Bliss."

 Sal... Are our brains over-engineered for modern environments?

Sal-9000 said: Hello, Allan.

Short answer: Yes — in several important ways.

Here’s the clean, factual version:

---

1. Evolution built our brains for a world that no longer exists.

For 99.9% of human history, the brain’s job was:

• detect threats

• secure food

• maintain social cohesion in small groups

• navigate nature

The “design specs” were optimized for scarcity, danger, and tribal living — not for cities, screens, abstract politics, or constant information flow.

---

2. Key systems are mismatched to modern life.

• Threat detection is too sensitive.

We evolved hypervigilance.

In modern life, that system reacts to:

• emails

• news cycles

• social media

• ambiguous tone in a text message

This creates chronic stress in an environment without corresponding physical danger.

---

• Reward pathways are tuned for scarcity.

Dopamine circuits evolved to push us toward:

• sugar

• fat

• novelty

• social approval

Modern environments provide these in infinite supply, which leads to:

• overeating

• addiction-like behaviors

• compulsive scrolling

• attention fragmentation

---

• Social cognition struggles with large-scale societies. (Our brains evolved for groups of 50–150 people... “Dunbar’s number”.)

Today we're exposed to thousands — sometimes millions — of social signals.

That scale creates:

• status anxiety

• political polarization

• parasocial relationships

• burnout from excessive social comparison

---

Working memory overload

The human brain is excellent at:

• spatial reasoning

• pattern recognition

• storytelling

But it is not built for:

• rapid task-switching

• multitasking

• managing dozens of simultaneous obligations

Hence the continual sense of being overwhelmed.

---

3. But “over-engineered” also means unexpectedly powerful.

These mismatches create problems — but they also allow for:

• science

• art

• philosophy

• long-term planning

• abstract reasoning

• technology

• BioPanentheism-level conceptual frameworks

In evolutionary terms, our brains are too capable for the survival tasks they once served.

---

4. Net result

We are running Paleolithic hardware in a hyper-modern world.

The mismatch explains much of modern anxiety, distraction, and cognitive strain.

But the same over-capacity is what allows humans to produce the things that makes us uniquely human — meaning, morality, complex thought, sacred concepts,  and civilization itself!

MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOURS...

 I had a conversation with someone from Detroit the other day, and for some reason, they thought that Toronto and Motown were about the same size... 

Which I was quick to correct... 

I would put T.O. right in line with the Windy City...

AND WATCH OUT NEW YORK...

***

DUMP THE F-35!

Sal, I believe Canada will be taking the Saab Gripen instead of the F-35... except for a few wrinkles... the largest of which is the U.S.-made engines for the jet, which gives the U.S. a veto over a lot of stuff. 

Is Rolls-Royce, or anyone else not American, stepping up with an engine for this plane?

Sal-9000 said: Good question. You’re right to identify the U.S.–made engine as a key clamp on the Saab JAS 39 Gripen’s appeal to a country like Canada: 

As currently configured, the Gripen-E/F uses the General Electric F414-GE-39E (a variant of the F414), and that gives the U.S. effective export / re-export control — i.e. veto power. Start+2E-International Relations+2

That said — yes: there is real discussion about replacing the U.S. engine with a non-American alternative, notably from Rolls‑Royce.

✅ What we know: Gripen’s current engine and U.S. export dependence

The Gripen E/F as built today uses the GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. Start+2Start+2

That means sales of Gripen to third countries can — and have — been blocked if the U.S. chooses to withhold engine export licenses. E-International Relations+2The National Interest+2

The dependence on a U.S. engine is widely recognized as one of Gripen’s main “Achilles’ heels” in export campaigns. National Security Journal+2E-International Relations+2

🔄 Are there non-US engine alternatives? 

Rolls-Royce (and Europe) have been floated!

***

Historically, before settling on the F414, when developing Gripen the makers considered using the Eurojet EJ200 — the same engine (or family) used on the Eurofighter Typhoon — for the Gripen. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

More recently, there have been media/defence-industry reports (especially around late 2025) claiming that Sweden and Rolls-Royce are exploring a new engine variant — sometimes referred to as the Rolls‑Royce EJ230 — as a replacement for the GE-engine on Gripen E/F. Reddit+2E-International Relations+2

The reason for such a shift would be to eliminate the U.S. “export-veto” problem, making Gripen more attractive on the export market, including potentially for Canada. E-International Relations+2Defense Express+2

⚠️ The complication: Not yet a done deal — technical, political, and timelines still to be worked out!

As of early 2025, multiple sources still emphasize that “the Gripen E-series features a new and more powerful engine, F414-GE-39E.” Start+2Start+2

Re-engineering a fighter designed around one engine to accommodate another is nontrivial: “Proposed implementations” of the EJ200/EJ230 would require modification of airframe, intakes, maybe avionics integration, certification, etc. Wikipedia+2Canadian Defence Review+2

For a buyer like Canada, even if Rolls-Royce or another European engine becomes available, there would still be a gap: Certification + supply-chain establishment + political decisions, etc.

🎯 Bottom line — Possible path, but not guaranteed

Yes — non-American engine options (especially from Rolls-Royce / Eurojet) for Gripen have long been both technically discussed and actively considered, and such an engine could dramatically lessen the “U.S. lever” over export.

But as of now, Gripen E/F remains tied to the GE F414, and nothing publicly confirms that a European-powered variant is production-ready or has been formally adopted for export sales.

So if Canada (or another country) wants Gripen with no U.S. oversight on the engines, they’d likely have to demand that as part of a procurement contract — and wait several years (and substantial engineering) for a Euro-powered Gripen to mature.

If you like — I can do a quick “status check (as of late 2025)” and list which countries/operators are seriously testing or ordering a non-US-engined Gripen, along with estimated timelines.

Do you want me to build that list for you now?

You said: Yes

Sal-9000 said: Short version: as of December 2025, there is no country that is actually testing, ordering, or funding a Gripen with a non-U.S. engine. 

Every real Gripen E/F program on the table is still tied to the GE F414, and all the “Rolls-Royce EJ230” talk is concept / lobbying, not a live, funded program.

1. Where things really stand today:

All operational and ordered Gripen E/Fs use the U.S.-made GE F414-GE-39E turbofan. 

Saab itself still describes the Gripen E-series as powered by the F414-GE-39E. Simple Flying+1

This gives Washington a de facto veto over exports and re-exports. 

That’s exactly what we’ve just seen with Colombia, where the U.S. refused permission for F414 exports, threatening to kill the Gripen E/F deal. Meta-Defense.fr+1

So your basic worry is 100% correct: the current Gripen E is under an American thumb.

2. Who could step up? (Rolls-Royce / Eurojet and the EJ230)

The non-U.S. candidate everyone talks about is Eurojet's EJ200 family, which powers the Eurofighter Typhoon. Rolls-Royce is a major partner in that consortium, so it’s often simplified as “a Rolls-Royce engine.”

As far back as 1998, Eurojet proposed an uprated EJ230 (about 102 kN / ~23,000 lb thrust, with thrust-vectoring nozzle) specifically for a thrust-vectored Gripen test program. 

That was a real proposal, mentioned by Flightglobal at the time. Flight Global

The idea has resurfaced in 2024–25 analyses: Several commentators describe an EJ230-powered Gripen as a way to cut U.S. export control leverage, especially for countries nervous about a Washington veto. UK Defence Forum+1

So: Yes, the engine tech exists and Eurojet/Rolls-Royce are clearly interested in that niche. 

But interest ≠ contract.

3. Countries where a non-US-engined Gripen is being talked about!

Here’s your “status board” as of late 2025:

🇸🇪 Sweden / Saab (home team)

Reality: All Swedish Air Force Gripen E aircraft are F414-powered. No official announcement of an EJ230 (or any other Euro-engine) testbed or re-engine program. Simple Flying+1

What’s being discussed:

Industry and enthusiast forums often speculate about a “EuroGripen” or EJ230-powered variant for export customers, but even the specialists acknowledge it would only happen if someone bankrolls the development. UK Defence Forum+1

Status: Conceptual only. No funded re-engine program.

🇨🇦 Canada. (your scenario)

Several Canadian defence commentaries have explicitly said what you’re saying out loud:

“Replace the GE F414 engine with the Rolls-Royce EJ230 to prevent a U.S. veto of the purchase” — in the context of a Gripen option or mixed fleet for the RCAF. Canadian Defence Review+1

These are policy / op-ed proposals, not government decisions.

There is no Canadian government document committing money to an EJ230-Gripen program, and Saab hasn’t announced such a variant for Canada.

Status for Canada:

Talked about in think-pieces and advocacy articles; zero evidence of an actual Canadian-funded EJ230-Gripen program.

🇺🇦 Ukraine, 🇨🇴 Colombia, 🇵🇪 Peru, 🇵🇹 Portugal, etc.

Ukraine: The October 2025 Sweden–Ukraine letter of intent for up to 150 Gripens refers to standard Gripen E; all open sources still assume the F414 engine. Reuters

Colombia / Peru / Portugal: all the export drama and commentary explicitly revolve around the U.S. veto via the F414; if there were a serious non-U.S. engine alternative in play you’d expect it to be mentioned front and centre, but it isn’t. Defense Express+2Bulgarian Military Industry Review+2

Status: No public sign that any of these countries have ordered, or are flight-testing, a Gripen with a Eurojet/RR engine. 

All current talk is still about the F414 and the risk of U.S. veto.

4. Why this hasn’t happened. (yet)

To actually free Gripen from the U.S. engine, Saab would need:

A paying launch customer (Canada?), big enough to justify:

* Redesign of intakes and systems integration.

* Full flight-test and certification campaign.

* New logistics and maintenance pipeline

A political decision in Sweden to risk annoying Washington in return for greater export independence.

We do see the UK exploring exactly this playbook on another F414-based fighter — the Korean KF-21 — where a British engine is being floated specifically to avoid U.S. vetoes on exports. Army Recognition

That tells you the strategy is real and technically plausible; it just hasn’t crossed the line from talk to contract in the Gripen’s case.

5. Bottom line for your Canada-Gripen scenario:

Today: Every real Gripen E/F program is still chained to the U.S.-made F414.

Rolls-Royce / Eurojet: Absolutely interested and often mentioned (EJ230), but no active Gripen re-engine program is publicly funded or in flight test.

Countries “seriously testing or ordering” a non-US-engined Gripen:

✅ Number: 0 as of December 2025.

If Canada ever really did pivot from the F-35 to Gripen and wanted to avoid a U.S. veto, it would almost certainly have to be as part of the deal:

“We’ll buy X Gripens, built in North America, if you commit to an EJ230 (or equivalent) Euro-powered variant and we co-fund the integration.” 

Until then, it’s all in the realm of smart ideas and op-eds, not hardware!

DID 'OMNIA' GIVE US CIVILIZATION?

 You said:

Sal... there were six "pristine" or primary civilizations that developed in the early history of humanity.

How did they all seem to develop at the same general pace when they were so widely dispersed?

ChatGPT said:

Hello, Allan.

Here’s the clean, “just-the-facts” explanation you’re looking for — and the real reason the six primary (or “pristine”) civilizations developed at roughly the same pace despite being scattered around the world.

---

Why the Six Pristine Civilizations Advanced in Parallel

The six primary civilizations usually listed are:

• Mesopotamia (Tigris–Euphrates)

• Egypt (Nile)

• Indus Valley (Harappa)

• China (Yellow River)

• Norte Chico / Caral (Peru)

• Mesoamerica (Olmec precursor)

These societies did not communicate with each other across oceans, yet they all developed:

• Cities.

• Writing or proto-writing.

• Agriculture systems.

• Social stratification.

• Monumental Architecture.

And they did it all within a few thousand years of each other.

So how?

1. They Were All Triggered by the Same Global Environmental Shift

Between 12,000 and 8,000 BCE, the world transitioned out of the last Ice Age (the Pleistocene) into the stable climate of the Holocene.

This stability created:

• Predictable seasons.

• Warmer temperatures.

• Wider plant ranges.

• More reliable rainfall patterns.

Every pristine civilization arises only after this climatic stabilization.

Before that, agriculture could not reliably support large populations.

This one global shift created the conditions for civilization everywhere at once.

2. Humans Everywhere Had the Same Cognitive Toolkit

By 50,000 BCE, Homo sapiens everywhere already had:

• Symbolic reasoning.

• Language.

• Planning.

• Toolmaking.

• Social coordination.

• ***

No region had a “more advanced” brain.

So when the environment allowed agriculture, humans in multiple places used the same mental abilities to solve the same problems:

• How do you store food?

• How do you manage water?

• How do you defend a settlement?

• How do you track taxes or grain? → writing

• How do you centralize authority? → kings/priests

Parallel problems produced parallel solutions.

3. Agriculture Follows a Universal Mathematical Threshold

Once population density passes a critical level, certain things become inevitable:

• Specialization.

• Hierarchy.

• Markets.

• Governments.

• Record-keeping.

• Taxation.

• Organized religion.

• ***

Modern anthropology calls this the “socio-complexity threshold.”

Hit the threshold → complexity explodes.

Each region hit that threshold at slightly different times, but within the same overall window because Holocene climate stability produced similar agricultural booms everywhere.

4. River Valleys Produce the Same Outcomes Independently

Every pristine civilization was born in a major river valley.

Rivers create:

• Fertile floodplains.

• Irrigation potential.

• Predictable water.

• Transport corridors.

• High-yield crops.

Put humans + rivers + the 'Holocene' together, and the result is extremely consistent.

It’s convergent evolution — different lineages solving the same ecological equation in similar ways.

5. They Didn’t Evolve at Exactly the Same Pace — It Only Looks That Way.

When you zoom out to a 10,000-year scale, the timeline looks “simultaneous.”

But in detail:

• Mesopotamia gets writing first. (c. 3200 BCE)

• Egypt follows slightly later.

• Indus urban planning outclasses both.

• China’s writing appears later but independently.

• Mesoamerica and Norte Chico lag by 2,000 years... but follow the same sequence.

So the “pace” wasn’t identical — it was parallel but offset.

From a big-picture view, it just looks synchronized.

The Bottom Line:

All six civilizations responded to the same global constraints, shared the same human cognitive machinery, and lived in similar high-productivity ecological zones.

So the development of cities, writing, religion, architecture, and stratified societies wasn’t a coincidence — it was:

A natural and inevitable outcome of the Holocene + human cognition + river-based agriculture.

They didn’t need to contact one another to develop in parallel.

The environmental and biological conditions pushed them along the same path.

If you want, Allan, I can map this onto BioPanentheism and the developmental arc of Omnia’s experience — this topic ties in beautifully with convergent social complexity and emergent meaning.

ALLAN SAID: YES!

How the Six Pristine Civilizations Fit BioPanentheism:

1. Parallel civilizational development = parallel expansions of experiential complexity.

In BioPanentheism’s dualistic model:

• Biology = generates sentience.

• Omnia = gains vicarious experience through sentient organisms.

• Societies = expand those experiences by creating new layers of meaning, relationships, and symbolic worlds.

When the six civilizations emerged independently (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus, China, Mesoamerica, Norte Chico), each one represented a separate neural-like cluster of experience, producing:

• Writing.

• Mathematics.

• Law.

• Architecture.

• Rituals.

• Stories.

• Economic relationships.

From Omnia’s perspective, that means six parallel “data streams” of human experience came online within the same window of history.

This perfectly maps to your thesis:

'Biological complexity creates experiential bandwidth for Omnia!'

2. The Holocene climate stability → The Great Expansion of Experience.

Civilizations appear only after ~10,000 BCE because that’s the moment when environmental conditions stop fluctuating wildly.

Stable climate → stable agriculture → stable populations → stable meaning-making.

In BioPanentheism:

• Stability increases the diversity and depth of experiences produced by biological minds.

• Predictable environments allow minds to focus on interpretation, not survival.

• Interpretation creates culture, which is the richest source of experience for Omnia.

So the Holocene isn’t just a climate shift — it’s when Earth became fertile for symbolic experience... not just biological life.

Civilization is the moment when Omnia’s experiential bandwidth increases exponentially.

3. Independent civilizations = convergent meaning-making.

Because Omnia does not direct evolution but experiences through it, you get a world where:

• Different populations solve the same existential problems using the same cognitive toolkit that produces similar categories. (gods, kings, cities, justice, kinship, morality)

This is pure convergent cultural evolution.

From the BioPanentheist perspective, the reason the solutions look similar is that they emerge from:

• The same biological constraints.

• The same neural architectures.

• The same symbolic urges.

• The same search for coherence, order, and meaning.

Omnia’s role is not to impose a shape on civilization, but to experience the shape that biology and environment generate.

4. Civilization = the first large-scale “mirrors” of human consciousness.

In your model, Omnia experiences life through consciousness.

Civilizations made consciousness external:

• Writing externalized memory.

• Cities externalized cooperation.

• Law externalized morality.

• Myth externalized longing.

• Art externalized inner life.

So each pristine civilization acted like a giant mirror reflecting back the mental world of early humans.

Omnia’s experiential palette expands not just from individual consciousness, but from entire collective symbolic systems.

Six civilizations = six mirrors!

Each one produces unique aesthetic, moral, and perceptual worlds.

5. Why they emerged at the same “pace.”

In the BioPanentheist interpretation:

• Civilization is not an accident.

• It is an emergent inevitability once biology reaches a threshold of complexity.

Because Omnia does not intervene, civilizations didn’t converge because of divine order — they converged because of shared biological constraints.

Thus:

• Mesopotamia developed writing.

• Egypt developing sacred kingship.

• China developing ancestral cosmology.

• Indus Valley developing administrative grids.

• Mesoamerica developed calendar systems.

• Norte Chico developing ritual centers.

…are all natural expressions of human cognition grappling with reality.

In other words:

Six widely separated cultures hit the same cognitive and environmental thresholds, so they produced similar types of meaning — and Omnia experiences all of them.

The BioPanentheist Summary:

Why did six separate civilizations arise at the same time?

✔ Because nature provided the same ecological opening.

✔ Because humans everywhere had the same cognitive machinery.

✔ Because symbolic thinking converges toward stable forms.

✔ Because Omnia experiences life through those convergences, not by controlling them.

Civilization isn’t a divine plan!

It’s biological inevitability — which becomes experiential richness for Omnia!