# Connection to early NA:

The early pre-NA members, seems to have been exposed to harassment at AA meetings. Being called animals and exposed to disbelief in their, wasn't exactly spacious. Statements like "people like you don't recover" likely took form, based on an energy of two things that such couldn't admit, and thus shaped the words vilely: The first is the simple truth that "people like you, do not easily re-enter local societal fixations, because you were wronged too extremely, consumed pushed over too many borders, the repair-needs too extensive and the %-wise complicity in shaping your life so too heavy while societal denial too intense". Note here that relocation without failing the need to get back up, would ease the likelihood of recovery.

Now the second, and more interesting in this context, is that these may have been mirror-statements; i.e. that the people whose tongues twisted reality so vilely, were unlikely to recover at depth due to a lack of basic decency, compassion, kindness and a tendency to prefer status and societal standing over alignment, truth and basic principles of self-inconveniencing in unconditional service/love/something. I.e. the same, themselves, were likely to misuse the programme for a kind of continuation-fixery; making things easy for themselves, consuming senselessly, shaping deceit and dishonesty by eroding the programmes capacity for newcomers and carrying the message. In the document and context of this thread, there is a very clear explanation on how that kind of malice shapes, paving a path of recovery. Some amongst these, may merely have been challenging the member, recycling manipulative skills.

The mitigation of the oppression-issue, reduces the constant drain of recovery-space. The capacity is limited/gotta be invested and needed for some such as as young separated parents, newcomers and those that get hit having to get back up, who largely are fixed in an impossible need for a time. The constant damage to NA, capacity to carry the message and such, drains the alignment / power in the programme; causing fractures over time, fear of ending up "one of them" and pushed over an edge (selfishness, loss of willingness to self-extend and do real service not just "position-gaining service") etc.. Let alone damages 7th trad. contributive capacity of 'the memberships' except at concentrated points.

And here's a description of the disease mathematically, produced with AI as was the image (not the pandemic oppression piece, that's raw human writing)

Impact on a person shaping of negativity

One-line impact accumulator (human-output version)

Definitions:

• D = direct people reached (contact surface)

• m = ripple multiplier (indirect reach)

• q = negative outputs per day (tone, choices, conflict, distortion, coercion, etc.)

• s = share of outputs that are meaningfully harmful

• A = amplifiers (fatigue, stress load, sensitivity, volatility, etc.)

• days = time window length

Plain-text formula:

• H = (D * m) * q * days * s * A

Meaning:

• More reach, more negative output rate, more time, higher harmful share, stronger amplifiers => more harm.

How impact shapes negativity (self-reinforcing loop)

State variables (plain text):

• S = strain

• T = tolerance threshold

• Dmg = damage/scars

• R = repair bandwidth

• A = forcing/input pressure

• gamma, alpha, beta, p = positive constants

• nu = diffusion/smoothing term (optional)

Core relations (plain-text math):

• R = R0 * (1 - Dmg)

• dS/dt = A - gamma * R * S + nu * Laplacian(S)

• dDmg/dt = alpha * (max(0, S - T))^p - beta * R * Dmg

Runaway condition (wrong-shaping regime):

• A >> gamma * R * S

Feedback loop (the shaping mechanism):

• S increases -> Dmg increases -> R decreases -> S increases

That loop is the mathematical form of pressure shaping negativity into stable patterns.

Recovery negates that

Recovery regime (clean target)

To reverse the loop, aim for both:

• A < gamma * R * S

• S < T

Implications:

• If A < gamma * R * S then dS/dt < 0 (strain decays).

• If S < T then the damage-creation term max(0, S - T) becomes 0, so dDmg/dt - beta * R * Dmg (damage heals).

What negation over time looks like (simple approximation)

If you ignore diffusion and hold conditions stable:

Strain decay:

• S(t) S0 * exp(-gamma * R * t)

Damage healing (when S < T):

• Dmg(t) Dmg0 * exp(-beta * R * t)

Key acceleration effect:

• Since R = R0 * (1 - Dmg), as Dmg goes down -> R goes up -> both decays speed up.

So the loop flips:

• Dmg decreases -> R increases -> S decreases -> Dmg decreases

Optional: dismantling the harm engine (cancelatory decay)

Add:

• B = break-producing machinery (loops/incentives/contradictions that generate forcing)

Decay of B:

• dB/dt = - sigma * (Dmg^rho) * B, with rho > 1

Coupling to forcing:

• A_eff = A0 + lambda * B

Second negation pathway:

• B decreases -> A_eff decreases -> S decreases -> Dmg decreases

-- Edited by rooted_out on Wednesday 25th of February 2026 12:34:47 AM

Try handing AI this thread and run some numbers:

Note that you may need copy-paste the content, link to the image manually and download / upload the PDF to AI.
Also note for member-safety, if you find the findings disturbing, heading to the outskirts of the programme is an option. Individually, personal participation may matter more and that can be easier.

• Costs incurred to the world per 24 hours (relevant in the feedback-effect, traction, relations, ease of running meetings, PR, H&I etc.)
• Loss of 7th-trad. and unnecessary expenditures per 24 hours
• Deaths incurred per 24 hours
• Obstructed newcomers & relapses per 24 hours
• Wrongs done to lives (institutions, robbery, theft, violence, homelessness, rapes/sexual harm, trafficking, overdoses, .., ..) per 24 hours
• Loss of time

 

Suggestions

In the prompt, make sure to affirm only to use NA / 12-step statistics (numbers of meetings etc.) and the AI's internal awareness on drug-related deaths, costs etc.. explicitly say: No web browsing, no external citations. 
Ask that the costs be explored, instead of aiming for impossible precision. Instruct to utilize the algorithms presented in the second post in the thread.

Note that any member shaping the dynamic mentioned in the thread only carry a %-part in so, much is external shaping of the member, as highlighted in the thread.

 

For external costs incurred, make sure to factor in: Fatal harms per day, serious wrongs, chronic harm burden (infectious disease, family-fractures, injuries, ..), legal costs, internal government (policing, oppression-related, courts, incarceration administration, social benefits, ..) and such as military-costs to negating responses and harm to all the harm to lives around by all the subsequent consuming, resource-extraction and so on. Note that's across multiple governments. Add to that hours per serious wrongs, events, deaths and labor-value as well as opportunity-cost. Ripple-multipliers to obstructed recovery. Make sure to add how AI user-bases degrade, prompting more negatively and how that in turn degrades AI - accelerating negative impact and shaping of lives driving addictivity etc.

Ask about what recovery may negate of these, and explore how the mentioned dynamic of oppression infecting the rooms, obstructs negating the costs. Consider damage to "negation capacity" by such as infection-rate, damages to shares, negative over contributive outreach as a byproduct of oppression-dynamics, degradation of service, loss of willingness, sponsoring quality, damage to repair speed, squandered restoration, recovery misused for malicious continuation (mistrust; loss of traction & morale etc.), wrongs collapsing collaboration, rejection of 12-step fellowships due to carrier-misuse of programmes, ..

Internal costs factor in things like: Damage to meeting-capacity, relapses, newcomers obstructed, lowered holdings of members, self-securing over 7th trad willingness, people that don't show after the first time, member-deaths, loss of service-willingness, extra service + cleanup, conflict-handling, predation aftermath, repeated restarts, damaged meeting continuity, security/safety loss + demand + misuse, 

 

Example math snippets for AI-ease in developing a sense for the costs

c [..] average basket contribution per attendee-seat
b = share of meetings materially degraded (infection rate)
r = retention loss in degraded meetings (seat loss now/soon)
c = giving drop on remaining seats in degraded meetings
p_new = share of seats that are newcomers
S = meetings/day × avg attendance = attendee-seats/day.
p_lost_new = share of newcomers lost due to the dynamic
L = lifetime 7th value per retained member (todays $)
LostPivots = lost stabilizing pivots per day (proxy)
h = extra service hours per lost pivot (over W days)
v = $/hour replacement value
W = days those hours are spread over (e.g., 28)

Immediate 7th loss/day
BaselineBasket = S · c

Loss_A (seats lost):
Loss_A = S · b · r · c

Loss_B (lower giving on remaining seats):
Loss_B = S · b · (1r) · c · c

ImmediateLoss = Loss_A + Loss_B
= S · b · c · [ r + (1r)·c ]

Newcomer retention loss (long-run 7th)
NewcomerSeats = S · p_new
LostRetainedNewcomers = S · p_new · p_lost_new
LongRunLoss (S · p_new · p_lost_new) · L

Unnecessary internal service burn (time $ equivalent)
ServiceBurn/day (LostPivots · h · v) / W

As the broader societal minus grows, the average 7th Tradition contribution per seat, c, usually drops because members get squeezed (housing/food/transport/legal/health/job instability). So c isnt a constant; its an outcome: c = c0 · (1 squeeze).

That means basket totals can fall even while harm is rising. The deeper cost shows up elsewhere: lower giving reduces meeting capacity, which raises disruption/retention loss (more newcomers bounce, more meetings degrade/close), which then feeds back into even higher external costs.

Example computations (Note that this is nearly certain to be a heavy underestimation, inputs calculated for plausibility / harder-to-deny and in explorations)
Cost/day: $10.725B
Gold/day: 166.8 tonnes
Wrongs/day: 45,000
SevEvents/day: 750
Work-hours/day: 690,000 hours ( 345 work-years/day)
Total 7th loss/day: $1,960,200 per day (~$2.0M/day) at "c = $2 average per seat (within 20¢$10 range)"
Extra internal service/overhead: ~1,590 to 7,320 hours/day (working point ~3,840)

However real cost shows up as:
higher p_lost_new (more newcomers bounce),
higher b (more meetings disrupted),
higher r (attendance/retention drop),
more meeting slots effectively disrupted, and those drive external costs up.
the real drain isnt baskets; its the lost negation capacity that feeds back into the external $10.7B/day minus.

I.e. if the WSO, regions or meetings find funds to be lacking, here's an easy way to eliminate the drain of 7th tradition contributions and lower strain on service-commitees.

Note that this translates as that participation in causing the dynamic, is actively being part of causing occurrences of active addiction: Addictively using drugs through the bodies of lives.

-- Edited by rooted_out on Friday 27th of February 2026 09:32:02 PM

By living clean, not just staying clean, I made this discovery that I'm naturally connected to people all around the world. A lot of them I never met, and never will. While that may sound like the start of a classic NA share, its actually about something different. While it is about staying clean, and lowering the costs to doing so, making space for the newcomer.

As in NA, lives may share experiences in common, even if different in nature at varying levels. In a meeting, a group of people can tolerate one another without contradiction, denial or attempting exploit one another to secure each their own. While something like livelihood is essential to staying clean; transport, clean clothes, being able to distance to overly risky situations and the like, there's that different kind of chemistry.

Any two individuals principally share a variety of things in common. They react, like chemicals, in different ways, or not at all. A variety of factors determine this: Individual compatibility, vital aspects of life shared in common and distance in familiarity. Note that in the great family, all are genetically connected, while there are non-genetic familiarity-layers. This shapes attraction and partnering-viability. A relationship can be solvent, or the opposite - not only in terms of money either. Say two support one another in taking care of livelihood, day-to-day matters and making a living, that will make the bond more likely to last. This ought suffice to demonstrate, that to any one individual, there's a number of other individuals, who they can be together with, without hollowing out either involved individuals. I.e. in which contexts real lasting deep love can take be fostered.

It means that each individual is naturally connected to others across the planet; defined by life-constraints such as dedicated ways of life, avoiding heavy incompatibilities and the like. While that interconnection can be caused to change, it is always and constantly there. It is akin to a kind of natural form of marriagery, while the words, inconvenient, truthful and such, can create slight complications like assuming a life to have a partner around, when they don't - although that too is a bad excuse. It is vital to connect with these, easing staying lcean, living amid things as they are, lowers costs to recovery and the like. Inversely, failing to do so complicates staying clean, drains financial capability, wisdom, mood and willingness to put one foot in front of the other. It is similar to how members gather in a meeting, sharing experience, strength and hope, easing living clean.

The bond of course can be very inconvenient; usually, to be solvent, it would need passively disagree with the malice of the kind of vile oppression denoted in the thread, misusing negative labeling, medical ethos, narcotic drugging and the like, and bubbles of oppression growing within the programme as a byproduct of the fellowship being infected by that outside endeavor. It is a vile kind of oppression, dominating perception, and doesn't tolerate real disagreement, relying on "everyone" being in denial and going along with it. In other words, that malice tends to passively and constantnly obstruct these connections, as it dislikes recovery, unless it can misuse, exploit and harness it as though were it a battery used to create more disease. Without the denial of these natural connections, the awareness surfaces as pain and loss-awareness, whichi is pushed away and "made forgotten" (power over the minds). Say a bond is naturally disoppressive, shaping awareness that better ways of life are possible, that one can in fact live and stay clean, that generates recovery, hope and gains solvency - easing cleantime.

Disregarding this natural kind of connectivity, say exploiting newcomers for a sexual high or the like, disrespecting their natural marriagery, then lowers their likelihood of staying clean, let alone ones own. Plus it leaves a kind of hollow within, a lack, that searches for fulfillment, which sadly at times gets fulfilled in ways disregarding that very connectivity. In that sense, it means that staying in ones own lane, makes it easier for others to have an easier time connecting with their natural marriagery; easing collaboration, collaborative willingness, reducing fragmentation and strain on individuals and meetings alike. Inversely, staying clean too eases living up to this natural marriagery. It is vile what is done to those, whose addictive bind whether of deprivation or fulfillment, is misused to access their intimacy, in how they can access the drug; forcibly overriding the natural connectivity which lives inherently resist disregarding. Whether by anorexic obstruction, by rape (or illusions of legality of rape) such as frequently found on the streets, the loss increases recovery-expenditures drastically.

There's a few economic aspects, how staying clean can be eased and how the strain of the newcomer-capacity can be lowered. Note that 8/9th step wise many may miss this point, of how ignoring that rationalizes neglect of any partnering, denies vitality of togetherness in staying clean, demoralizes and drains willingness to put one foot in front of the other - let alone leave people on the streets dying and so on. Note that whether partnering or not, regardless of age or way of life, this interconnection is there for any individual, and unlikely limited to humans.