6 votes

Genetic Entropy: Is the Human Race Degenerating?

From The Truth Wins:

The human race is dying. It certainly won’t happen this year or even this decade, but the steady degeneration of human DNA would eventually lead to the total extinction of humanity given enough time. The reason that we are heading toward extinction is the increasing number of mutations that are being passed down from generation to generation.

According to Dr. John Sanford of Cornell University, every one of us already carries tens of thousands of harmful mutations, and each of us will pass on approximately 100 new mutations to future generations. Humanity is degenerating at an accelerating pace, and at some point the number of mutations will become so great that we will no longer be able to produce viable offspring.


Source | More

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


In the same way, evolution only may be true to a certain extent. Or, another way of looking at it is that it is if it isn't fully true, it isn't really true at all.

I don't follow. Is any scientific theory "fully true"? I can't think of any that aren't in some ways approximations, or that don't have exceptions or mysteries yet to be solved. But that's what good theories do, they provide a framework for investigation that helps focus research. Newton's theory of gravitation (actually the inverse square law preceded Newton but anyway) was an approximation, but it was finding investigating where it worked and where it was imperfect that sparked a lot of other research.

So in one sense Newton's theory wasn't fully true, but that didn't make it fully false. It helped us understand a little more about how universe works, and investigating its predictions launched a lot of other theories that furthered our understanding even more. That's what what makes a good theory a good theory.

I'm curious why you think evolution is a very bad theory. Scientifically, the theory of evolution (in the general sense, not about human origins) has been *extremely* fruitful. Just look at all the fields of study (again, I'm not talking about human origins) that have at their core a basic assumption of evolutionary principles. If it turned out that we could somehow prove that humans were an act of special creation (with all the puzzles about DNA shared with other species and kludgy design issues and so on that would be implied by that discovery) there is a huge amount of research based on principles of genetic variation, genetic expression, adaptation, survival, etc., that would be completely unaffected.

So in the same sense that the theory of gravity was very fruitful, and seemed to have told us some important but incomplete things about how the universe works, the same can be said about the theory of evolution. In other words, scientifically speaking, it's a very good theory, indispensably intertwined now into many, many scientific fields and critical to the progress that has been made in those fields. So in what way would you consider it a very bad theory?

A Law is a complete truth.

A Law is a complete truth. Therefore, the theories of evolution and gravity are both not laws because they are both not completely true.

In the case of evolution, you say:

there is a huge amount of research based on principles of genetic variation, genetic expression, adaptation, survival, etc., that would be completely unaffected. (by a hypothetical proof of a creator).

However, the very fact that these fields would be unaffected by a proof that evolution is false means that they are not dependent on the theory of evolution.

It really takes a lot more to prove something is true than has been done with evolution. For example, I am unaware of a single simulation which tests the grand and extreme theory of evolution that all species diverged from a single life source. It hasn't been simulated, and it hasn't been reproduced in the laboratory. How can any theory which hasn't been tested in these critical ways even approach the status of a "Law?" Moreover, how can it even be considered a viable "theory" if it hasn't actually been reproduced or simulated? In a limiting case, I am unaware of any simulation which starts from a single cell and makes a human eye, much less a human brain.

So, in that very real scientific sense, people who clamor all over themselves defending and proselytizing evolution are depending on blind faith and not science. That's why I think it is a very bad theory. Moreover, I can come up with many examples which you cannot explain with the theory (symbiotic relationships which are necessary for both species, the creation of the human eye, and on and on).

Let me use the positivist approach to define a good theory. A theory is good if:

1. It is simple and elegant and interprets a wide range of observations.

2. It makes definite predictions that can be tested, and possible falsified by observation.

For me, (1) is not satisfied at all because it does not interpret a wide range of observations, and also because it is *too simple.* People use the theory to attempt explain away mountains of complexity without actually fully interpreting the observations (e.g please tell me exactly how the avian compass evolved to use quantum entanglement -- and moreover, how did birds know where they were flying before then?).

For (2), the predictions are mostly *not* definite, and both the definite and indefinite predictions have *not* been tested affirmatively by observation. There are many counterexamples. The predictions are too vague. It hasn't even been simulated. Predictions that are definite have been falsified by observation (e.g. no change of kind has been proven or even simulated).

So, there you go: evolution is not a good theory. If you find a detailed simulation that starts from a single cell and produces the human brain using the principles of evolution, then I will *start* to consider it a theory. But, in actuality, you will still have a very long way to go as that is just one organ, and one species. However, you won't find such a simulation.

Time to gain some humility about your understanding of how the world works.


A Law is a complete truth. Therefore, the theories of evolution and gravity are both not laws because they are both not completely true.

But nothing that scientists call a "law" is completely true, so you're clearly using the word "law" in a different way here. Here's a summary of how scientists use the word:

I'm sure you have a point you want to make about the "law of gravitation" not being a law, but the reason it was called the "law of gravitation" isn't undermined by the observation you're making. And the observation you're making isn't one that scientists would disagree with. So I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, or of what, but if you want to communicate your point to people who are using words like "law" and "theory" the way scientists use those words then starting out with your own definitions isn't going to be very effective.

However, the very fact that these fields would be unaffected by a proof that evolution is false means that they are not dependent on the theory of evolution.

It sounds like you're using "evolution" to mean specifically the question of the origin of humans. Is that it? Because from a scientific point of view, there's really much, much, much, much more to the theory of evolution, and that was my point. If you erased everything that's ever been written about the evolution of the human species, you wouldn't make much of a dent at all in evolutionary theory. And if you don't understand why that's true you're really missing out on the big picture of why evolutionary theory has been as influential as it has been.

You keep mentioning simulations. Do you mean computer simulations? People do use computer simulations to study evolution (in the broad sense of the term) but that's not the only way it's studied, obviously, or even the most important way. Whatever you think that means, you seem to put a lot more weight on it than would be relevant to the field.

And you say things like: "Predictions that are definite have been falsified by observation (e.g. no change of kind has been proven or even simulated)." But "change of kind" isn't a scientific prediction because "kind" isn't a scientific term, so how could this be a prediction that's been falsified when it's not a prediction at all? It's not even clearly defined enough to test -- another clue that this isn't a prediction that a scientific theory would ever make. Do you mean the Biblical use of the word "kind", as in "after their kind" from Genesis? In any case, a scientific theory isn't going to make a prediction that uses a nonscientific term that has no clear definition. Changes of the types that are predicted by evolutionary theory are observed, however.

The bottom line for me here is that if you have a point to make about the theory of evolution, it would be more effective if you could make it from a starting point of understanding what evolutionary theory actually says, and how research actually works in the dozens of related fields related to evolutionary theory.

I am a scientist, and i made

I am a scientist, and i made my point clearly enough.

The point is at you dont know everything, and neither does anyone else. Arrogance in the face of ignorance is not science.

Send me a reference to a simulation starting from a single celled organism and creating a human brain.

I didnt ask for the laboratory experiment yet, but since you cannot find the simulation on the computer, i will leave it at that.

What sort of scientist?

If you're a scientist, why do you talk about scientific laws with a definition of "law" that isn't the definition scientists use? Scientists have used the word "law" that way for generations. And if you've had a scientific education you must know that. So why talk as if you don't know that?

You keep talking about computer simulations as if you think that's how research in the field works. Are you really that poorly informed about it? Even if your field of science is something else (I'm guessing that's the case) you must have had to take some intro classes at some point. So you must know that what you're asking for makes no sense in the context of that field of research. So why ask for it?

You also keep evading the fact that the origin of the human species isn't the focus of or critical to the vast majority of things that fall under the general area of evolutionary theory, and all of the fields that are so heavily influenced by it. The successes of evolutionary theory in that broader sense are really quite remarkable, and it's those things, and not the origin of the human species, that are the reason evolutionary theory is as influential as it is. Again, you can't have gotten through any meaningful scientific degree program without being aware of these things to a significant extent. Why pretend you aren't aware of it?

No, I don't know everything, and thanks for the reminder. Arrogance isn't science, but neither is ignoring the things that you find inconvenient.

You seem to just be trying to

You seem to just be trying to waste my time. You are playing a neverending pedantic semantics game.

From portions of your "source of scientific definitions," (wikipedia):
A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements.

Well, this is exactly what I've been talking about. Many things considered "laws" do not always apply under the same conditions, and in fact, are incorrect even when limited in scope. For evolution, where is the causal evidence? Why don't things always apply? Where is your ontogenetic simulation showing that it is even feasible?

To your semantics game, the fact of the matter is that definitions of words are also almost always interpreted differently. There is almost never a "consensus" on any definition in science. For example, in my field of research, neuroscience, there is no consistent definition of "consciousness." Yet, you can obviously tell from my statements what I think "Law" means. And, from the definitions and statements I have made in my previous posts on this thread, it should be clear that under my definition, I don't think that evolution is a Law, a theory, or even a good model. I then gave many points why I think the way I do. But, it is very tiring to debate when one chooses the semantic definition game instead of addressing legitimate points on the big picture.

To your point about simulations, just take the computational neuroscience field. We don't understand the brain, but we come up with hypotheses, and we at least model these hypotheses with computational simulations to show that they replicate the observations. If we are lucky, we end up with a theory based on a group of hypotheses that have all been modeled singly and in conjunction with each other. All I'm asking you for is a simulation of creating a human brain out of a single celled organism. The point is, it hasn't even been done. So, the extreme theory of evolution (and damn, you have me repeating myself), is like more of faith than of scientific theory or scientific law, or anything else you want to call it. It isn't even a model as far as I am concerned (in the positivist sense I defined earlier). So, unfortunately, you have a long way to go to convince me and many others that you have full support for such a wide ranging guess that doesn't even fit the positivists definition of a "good model" anyhow.

Since you keep going ad hominem on me, instead of addressing my legitimate scientific points about the clear weaknesses of the hypothesis of evolution, then I think I should stop here. I haven't ignored anything that I found "inconvenient;" I only raised legitimate points which you completely ignored because they reduced the silly baseless faith on the hypothesis of evolution into a mere conjecture which has not been adequately tested or even concretely formulated.

And no, I won't tell you my degree level, because it doesn't matter. You should be able to tell from my writing that I'm no fool and have been highly educated and have been working in the field of science for quite some time. The one thing you learn when you get past all the schooling is that you don't know squat.


Now hold on, you started out by saying things like "If it were a law, it should work in the quantum world," and now you're taking the phrase "same conditions" as if it supported your position,. But you were saying that to be a law it had to hold under *all* conditions, and where they're talking about "same conditions" in that article they're making the opposite point -- they very explicitly contradict your assertion that to be a law it would have to hold under all conditions. How are you now quoting this as if it vindicates your earlier non-standard usage of the term?

And here again you are back to this bizarre notion about a simulation of creating a human brain out of a single celled organism. You seem to think that because nobody has done this thing that nobody who has any significant understand of the field would have ever thought to expect, there's nothing left for evolutionary scientists but faith.

Against that kind of logic, I have no response.

I can tell that you're highly educated (I'm going to guess that it's more along the lines of *computer* science than actual science) but no, I can't tell that you've been working in the "field of science" in any way relevant to evolutionary theory at all. You repeatedly get the most basic points wrong, and when it's pointed out that you've gotten the basic points wrong, you simply repeat the error.

Oh come on man. I told you I

Oh come on man. I told you I was a neuroscientist.

Anyway, my point is that our definitions are almost always going to be different; whereas you seem to appeal to some imaginary consensus which just doesn't exist in reality in my experience. For example, whereas you may claim that quantum vs classical are not the "same conditions," I, and many others, might completely disagree. A more simple example is that when we describe gravity, we need relativity to make it work, often even in the "same conditions," as both you and I might define them. So, this side argument of "what is a law" is purely a problem of semantics, and I simply don't want to go there anymore as I made myself quite clear what I meant by "Law" in my first post. I defined it for you. You think a Law means this, I think it means that. Welcome to science.

{However, my main focus in that paragraph you are criticizing about me quoting on wikipedia (which is *your* source of a definition, not mine) was on the causality portion between the elements, not the "same conditions" part.}

But, what I have been trying to get you to agree on is the definition of a good model. Using the well established positivist approach to a "good" model, I still contend that I have given many challenges to the notion that macroevolution is a good model. Beyond the positivists objections I raised earlier, I just don't buy it without some serious simulation and laboratory proof.

Most things which are called "scientific laws" have equations, but when we use these equations, we don't focus on whether they are laws are not. Rather, we focus on what we are using them for and see if the equations we build up actually predict the outcome of a real experiment. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Some might say the Schrodinger wave equation is a "law," but I've never heard that in any quantum physics lecture. And yeah, there is the schema theorem in genetic algorithms, but the way it is just blindly applied to describe how macro evolution may occur in nature from a single celled organism without any actual experiment simply voids all credibility with me.

I'll note once again that you haven't sent any references for simulations which demonstrate macro evolution from single celled organisms. I've looked for them out there a few times. They may be there, but I'm not aware of them. Of course, even if you have a simulation of the model, as in the case of Ptolemy, it can still be wrong. But, I don't see how anyone can even start to say anything without a simulation of a model. Once you come up with a simulation, I'll ask you to do it in the lab. Real science is reproducible, and I don't see anything being reproduced yet in macroevolution (e.g. make me a human out of a single celled organism without any other human parts).

Anyway, interesting talking to you, even though you get a little too combative which got kind of annoying to me because it was tertiary to my arguments. I'm sure you could tell it irritated me. :) You seemed to focus on my definitions being different to yours; as if there is some ideal world where everyone agrees on the definition of everything. That's fine that you had that misconception, but you didn't have to attack me and claim I'm some kind of idiot who wasn't "trained" properly.

So, I will let this one go. I hope you understand now that there are "real" scientists out there that have valid arguments and doubts. There isn't any one right road. In the end, it is best to have some humility about nature. One will often be surprised how wrong one can be. It is never as easy as it often seems.

Dude come on

The word "law" to scientists has meant something pretty clear for a long time. When scientists talk about Newton's Laws, etc., they don't mean that, by calling it a law, it should work on the quantum level. Clearly not. Similarly for other exceptions that were discovered before that, but didn't make the use of the word "law" problematic. You can have your own definition if you want, but if you hope to communicate with people who are scientists, then wouldn't it be better to at least start from the definition that they use?

But, I don't see how anyone can even start to say anything without a simulation of a model.

I believe you, but what's stopping you from finding out? Instead of demanding something that makes no sense in the context of that field, why not try to understand why the people working in that field have the confidence they have? It won't have anything to do with the kind of simulation you're demanding, but that doesn't mean they don't have evidence and arguments that make sense in that field. And then you could respond to what they're actually doing, and the arguments they're actually making, rather than insisting on something else simply because it's the only thing you can imagine?

Suppose someone said that neuroscience is bogus. They insist that if you want to convince them that your research has any validity at all you would have to demonstrate your claims with lab-grown human neurons in a petri dish, and if you can't do that then it's all just faith. They've googled to see if anyone has done that, but they couldn't find any researchers who had done it. They say they can't imagine how you could even start to say anything about neuroscience if you cant' do this demonstration. And if you try to explain how badly they've misunderstood the field of neuroscience, they just keep repeating that they can't imagine how you could even start to say anything without a demonstration using human neurons in a petri dish.

I'm assuming that whatever you do, it isn't something that you can demonstrate using human neurons in a petri dish. So what would you say to this person who is demanding something that makes no sense in your field, and insisting that your research is therefore bogus simply because they don't know and can't imagine any other way for you to have confidence in your research results? (BTW, whatever you say to them, they just repeat their assertions until you get frustrated and give up. :-)

Ok, i give up. You are

Ok, i give up. You are trolling me away from syria. I get it.

You haven't addressed a single scientific point i have made and are trying to run me in semantic circles.

And yes, i don't think we have a single theory in neuroscience that explains everything, but at least we try to grow things in petri dishes and simulate the ontogenesis. This just doesn't seem to happen in macroevolution.

I made my points clearly enough. You haven't demonstrated anything to support your claims. No references. No scientific philosophy whatsoever. I can tell when i am being played, but i have solace that i now walk away with the upper hand. I just hope someone learned something from what I wrote as you seem totally oblivious.

Natural -vs.- synthetic

The further human beings are removed from nature
The quicker the mutation process will occur.


GoodSamaritan's picture

Dr. Sanford responds to critics of genomic decay

From Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy:

I do not normally spend my time responding to bloggers, but several people have asked me to respond to Scott Buchanan’s polemic against my book Genetic Entropy. This article is a one-time clarification as I cannot afford the time to be drawn into the blog-o-sphere and its associated ‘death by a thousand emails’.

Continue reading at Source (Creation.com) | More

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

comments below mention nutrition

And I don't doubt that has a lot to do with it.
Enter: 50 years of Codex Alimentarius, one of the UN's many arms to its depopulation program.

Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Its name signifies the horror of Nazi Germany. In its conglomeration of 48 camps, over a million people were exterminated in gas chambers, starved to death, murdered individually, and killed and tortured in horrific medical experiments.

Codex Alimentarius is a modern-day tool for usurping the people’s rights to limit their choices in that most basic of needs: food. The rules set forth by Codex bureaucrats, people who, for the most part, know nothing of nutrition or health, are enforced on humanity by national governments and treaties. Their decisions are based on the instructions of masters from Big Pharma and Agribusiness, corporate entities that are on the verge of taking complete control of the food supply and what’s left of health.

Read the rest, scroll down though, the article appears below a blank (zen perhaps?) space

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Ok, so the "expert" DOCTOR John Sanford... admits it's eugenics

Interviewer - "Theres a fine line between that and WWII eugenics."

Dr.John Sanford - "The eugenics philosophy is just under the surface within the evolutionary community, and, uh, I'm sure they're thinking about it, but I'm sure they don't want, uh, won't go talk about it."

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Totally off base

Immediately following the segment you cite, from 5:12-5:30, he contradicts the wishes/plans of the eugenicists by stating very clearly that increasing the amount of death, that is, removing the least genetically fit humans, won't stop the degradation and eventual extinction of the human race.

He is no longer an evolutionist and certainly is not a eugenicist.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Even Charles Darwin said....

....his theory was not science. There was a reason for that.

The eugenicists, however, picked up a banner in his name, called it science, thereby proclaiming that their eugenics programs were justified based on "science".

However, if you read Julian Huxley's
(Aldous' cousin) treatise from when he took over as the first secretary director of UNESCO, you'll get hundreds of pages of the full globalist eugenics plan to weed out those who are "less worthy" of life from consuming earth's resources to preserve them for those who are "more worthy" and productive.

Of course, who makes the decision of worthiness? In the atheists' world, a death panel of atheists does, presuming the power only God should have.

Talk about evil!

This is the 21st-22nd century "Masque of the Red Death"


The elites think they can insulate themselves from the DNA-damaging and DNA-mutating affects they are foisting upon the genpop through their various means.

In the end they will not escape the changes either.

I suggest everyone get down on their knees and beg God for forgiveness and pray some Hail Marys and pray for the Spirit to touch your heart and turn the hearts of men.


Doing a scientific abstract for college on this- due tomorrow. Then I skim the Daily Paul and see this!
Great minds think alike!

"The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around."
-Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN

I dont think this scientist

I dont think this scientist can claim anything on this because he doesnt have all the information needed to, plus a couple other reasons.

Simply going by mutation rate is rediculous; not only that, but calling all mutation "degeneration" is even more rediculous. Those mutations that end up very harmful to a person's well being are very likely not going to be passed on. Even if we get to a point where multiple mutations come together to create unviable offspring you wont have everyone suddenly creating people who cant breed.
In order for what he is saying to happen, bad mutations need to be in combination with a massive sudden drop in population. Suddenly having several billion people genetically incompatable a reality does not make.
Even if you end up with many people becoming sick, there will be those that do not get sick and are stronger.
They mention genetic disorders and conditions in the article as well but thats complete bullshit. Alot of these disorders were untreatable until very recently and there is no way to gauge how many people died from them before the 20th century.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

I'm bumping this

because I'd like to see a decent rebuttal.

I'm unable to either confirm or deny it at the moment.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The rebuttal is in my comment post below...This is Eugenics

I watched the vid. This "expert" doesn't provide any actual definition of the problem, understanding of the issue, whatever that may be. It offers no hypothetical solution.

Interviewer - "Theres a fine line between that and WWII eugenics."

Dr.John Sanford - "The eugenics philosophy is just under the surface within the evolutionary community, and, uh, I'm sure they're thinking about it, but I'm sure they don't want, uh, won't go talk about it."

This is eugenics population control propaganda. They will try to say people are more genetically pure than others, who are less human. That's what this whole thing says, without saying it. That's what it leads to. The "expert" in the vid says the "problem" is "fundamental". That's because it is normal.

I also find it very incredible that he starts talking Bible and trying to relate that to his alleged scientific knowledge of the allegedly undisputed fact that the human race is doomed to genetic entropy.
It's called getting old and dying.

If you want to know where this comes from, and why this "new information" is being pushed, when it is non-sense, watch the vids I provided in the comment below...

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Red Herring

Rebuttal isn't a synonym for a bunch of red herring fallacies. Whether or not you personally like the guy's character or agenda isn't what was asked.

GoodSamaritan's picture

That's no rebuttal at all

You seem to have completely missed the essence of his arguments.

Dr. Sanford is not pushing eugenics or any other population control propaganda. He merely takes a moment out of his discussion on mutation rates to point out that eugenics philosophy is not uncommon among evolutionists in the genetics science community. That is not news.

The definition of the problem is clear, he thoroughly understands the issue, and made it plain that there is no solution because the problem is too fundamental. Treating the diseases that result from mutations won't do anything to fix the causes. Everyone is going to pass on new mutations to their offspring in addition to the ones we inherited and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent that from happening.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

We should be able to separate

the motives of the researchers and reporters from the fact in question.

"Is the human race degenerating?"

More specifically, do genetic mutations make for offspring that are better than their parents?

Though, I don't deny what you have pointed out here.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

New World Order eugenics propaganda...

That's what this sounds like to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Watch these informative short videos before you make up your mind.


and here's Alex Jones' take on it...


Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Eugenics is being carried ou through th Frankenfood we eat now

Monsatan the most evil corporation is developing all kinds of ways to kill all of us and our children.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

It is a toss up imo

There is definitely a new thirst for easy accessible knowledge yet if you go downtown to any good size city the other side of the coin is evident.

In terms of manners...most definitely.

What happened to 'Manners maketh the Man'?


I'm no Dr

That said, I believe sociology places a big factor in human progress.

This is just another reason why I find Israel so outstanding. They are THRIVING, their inventions, tech, science, agrecuture.. the lost goes on and on how they are breaking world records nearly daily in achievements and inventions.. they have freedom and a government that protects their right to think, grow, adapt to the world and strive to make a better world and they achieve that//

while here in America, we see Detroit and many cities facing the same demise. So is it the human race? No.

It's humans having land, water, rights, freedom, support that make the difference.

Umm, all evolution takes

Umm, all evolution takes place from mutation. Some mutations are good and lead to evolutionary advantages and some are bad and don't. This article is idiotic.

What people should be concerned about is "unnatural selection." Because of gov intervention it's now the dregs of society that are passing on the most genes. One inner city "baby daddy" impregnates 20 different women spreading his genes. From a purely evolutionary standpoint, he's extremely successful. In the meantime smart people are watching the world degrade and they aren't subjecting children to suffer the consequences by NOT HAVING CHILDREN.

Mike Judge got it dead-on in Idiocracy.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Your implication seems to be that government policy

is what allows black people to survive. Government is black people's (and any disadvantaged group's) biggest enemy. The war on drugs, in particular, creates so much inner city poverty and violence that it shortens the average black male's life span by five years.

It is liberty that allows the poor and disadvantaged to survive and thrive. I just wish we had more of it.