I think you sorted things into three types of medicine:

[ pseudo, alternative, modern/mainstream ]

I think he believes that most things you put into the alternative category have already been mostly studied; those being not proved or disproved to work.

I think the that some issue here comes from the fact that conspiracy theorists / other (for lack of an agreed upon modifier) medicine gurus may have used the argument that some medicines aren’t proven to be bad yet as a way to give them legitimacy.

Whether or not other medicine is good for you should be be studied and determined to be medicine or not. Until then we can’t say anything about its efficacy. But there can be carry on effects: protein powder was found to have heavy metals, is protein powder good? Maybe in certain circumstances, but concentrating a given substance can have unintended consequences when not properly analyzed.

Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.

There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.

Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.

Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.

Hitler was not left leaning. He was supported by the old guard and the industrialists like Krupp until he out grew them and then turned on them. At the end of the day he was an autocrat, a totalitarian. Think was Gaddafi liberal? How about Suddam? They both had extensive social programs, but they were not left leaning. In the Weimar Republic it was the right wing courts that tried to censor and throw people in jail, and often let the right wing activists off the hook for similar offenses. Left and right wing groups can both censor and throw people in jail, ie USSR, but generally this is in service of totalitarianism, the ideology at that point is just a husk to keep people in line while people vye for control.

The poor whale x.x. I throught for sure the cat was going to climb the mountain and see the elk herd circling like in their dream.