Ecosystem

+ Expand

• What makes for a suitable problem for AI (Demis Hassabis, Nobel Lecture)?
  • Space: Massive combinatorial search space
  • Function: Clear objective function (metric) to optimize against
  • Time: Either lots of data and/or an accurate and efficient simulator
• Guess what else fits the bill (Yours truly, amateur philosopher)?
  • Space
    1. Intestines/villi
    2. Lungs/bronchioles
    3. Capillary trees
    4. Network of lymphatics
    5. Dendrites in neurons
    6. Tree branches
  • Function
    1. Energy
    2. Aerobic respiration
    3. Delivery to "last mile" (minimize distance)
    4. Response time (minimize)
    5. Information
    6. Exposure to sunlight for photosynthesis
  • Time
    1. Nourishment
    2. Gaseous exchange
    3. Oxygen & Nutrients (Carbon dioxide & "Waste")
    4. Surveillance for antigens
    5. Coherence of functions
    6. Water and nutrients from soil

-- Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2024

In precolonial Uganda, before the equations of enzymes or the doctrine of empiricism had ever trickled into the hills, my grandfather stirred a brew. Not a metaphor, not a metaphor yet—but a literal fermentation of grain, warmth, and will. Out of necessity, and without the luxury of theoretical knowledge, he crafted a brewing system to generate income so that his son—my father—could go to school. He did not know the molecular structure of ethanol or the biochemistry of yeast. He had no map of carbon chains or ATP cycles. What he had was necessity, perception, tradition, and ingenuity—the raw gifts of human sight and struggle. Ukubona. The Zulu word for “seeing,” but richer—to see in order to know, to know in order to survive.

That fermentation vat was not just economic—it was epistemic. It was a vessel of knowledge born of life’s crucible, not lab coats. My grandfather, like all of humanity before the advent of codified science, participated in a different method: pattern-recognition by trial and toil. He had no microscope, but he had the eyes of the soul sharpened by hunger and hope. He was a tinker, in your epistemology—a pirate in the best sense: innovating within constraints, seizing opportunity from the unknown. 🏴‍☠️🪛

Now we name the company Ukubona LLC, not just as tribute, but as testimony. Because we too are at the gates, brewing something out of inherited dark. Not with barley this time, but with Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier overlays, APIs, and scraped federal databases. But still—it’s a ferment. A process. The bubbling of unseen interactions into something tangible, drinkable, livable. And like my grandfather, we must see without having all the schematics. We must tinker.

I've surnamed thee
— Isaiah 45:3

“Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets…” (Proverbs 1:20). Isn’t that what he heard? The voice of necessity, of ingenuity, crying not from scripture but from soil, from trade, from the cost of school fees. And yet that is scripture. That is wisdom. She is in the streets. She is in the brew.

And “I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places…” (Isaiah 45:3). That verse is the very DNA of our project. Not only because our origins are hidden—in huts, in rural fermentations, in oral stories—but because we are choosing to see those shadows not as lack, but as treasure. Ukubona means the refusal to dismiss what’s unscientific as unintelligent. It means we claim those “secret places” as sites of legitimacy. The dark is not dumb. It is encoded.

“For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth…” (2 Chronicles 16:9). What else is our platform, if not a microcosm of that divine roving? A machine that scans patient data, that watches over patterns, that seeks whom to strengthen—not with omniscience, but with better odds, better graphs, better tools for risk and resilience. In this sense, Ukubona is not just a health tool. It’s a theology of vigilance. A prosthetic eye.

The beauty is, we are no longer in one place. My father, whose school fees were paid by a brewer’s ingenuity, became a scholar. I, born of that schooling, live now across oceans, tracing the line between empiricism and vision, science and myth, data and dream. Ukubona LLC is the continuation of that line—not sterile, not “neutral,” but infused. With story. With inheritance. With a deep, burning belief that what we see, and how we choose to see, is the essence of truth.

Okubonabona—to see and to be seen. That is the mutual contract of life, is it not? The eye of the Lord roves, yes, but so does ours. The crucible brews, but so do our algorithms. The darkness hides, but only long enough for us to uncover its riches. And when we do, may we remember the old man by the vat—tired, focused, stirring not only mash, but destiny.

That is our beginning. That is our theology. That is Ukubona.

---

Yes—Isaiah 45:3 is absolutely saturated with mythic power. Here’s how it reads in the ESV:

“I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name.” — Isaiah 45:3

This verse is wild. It flips all our expectations: darkness is not the place of fear or abandonment, but of treasure. The hidden places, the unlit corners, the unprocessed traumas, the forgotten geographies—those are the sites of divine bequest. This isn’t prosperity gospel shine; this is the gritty, abyssal wealth found when you’re stripped and sinking.

Pair that with 2 Chronicles 16:9, and you get a haunting duet:

• The eye of the Lord roves, scanning the whole earth. Not passive, but questing.

• And when He calls your name, what He gives you are treasures of darkness, not easy light.

It’s a theology of exile, of depth, of crucible. The lifebuoy (🛟) doesn’t come instead of the storm—it emerges from within it. Ukubona isn’t sight in daylight. It’s seeing in shadow.

Would you like to map this to your five-part epistemology again? I see the verses threading through like this:

1. 🌊 Abyss – “Treasures of darkness” → raw, terrifying potential.

2. 🚢 Ship – “Who call you by your name” → cultural bequest, destiny.

3. 🏴‍☠️🪛 Pirates & Tinker – Seeking, roving eyes → sabotage and repair.

4. 🦈✂️🛟 Shark, Scissors, Lifebuoy – Survival amid secrecy and ambush.

5. 🏝️ Island – The revealed name, known not in ease but through ordeal.

It’s the theology of the searchlight in the storm. Want to develop this into a mini meditation or visual motif?

---

Here it is in the King James Version (KJV)—rich, poetic, and heavy with symbolic weight:

And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
— Isaiah 45:3

This version hits differently, doesn’t it? That phrase — “treasures of darkness” — feels like a paradox made sacred. And “hidden riches of secret places” conjures a cosmic intimacy: not just wealth, but veiled inheritance. Something meant for you, known only to God, buried in obscurity—until it’s time.

And the purpose?

...that thou mayest know...

It’s epistemic. It’s not about possession but revelation. You are given not ease, but encrypted knowing—so you’ll recognize the One who knows your name.

In your framework, I think this KJV rendering belongs in the 🛟 Crucible-Lifebuoy tier:

• It is in the wreckage, in the unlit trench, that something is passed to you—not to escape the sea, but to interpret it.

• And that act of interpretation is how you “know” the Lord.

• So the treasure isn’t gold, it’s Ukubona—sight in the dark. Revelation under pressure.

Would you like me to build this out as a short homily, poem, or metaphorical etching in your layered theology? I think it would make a stunning anchoring parable.

---

Ah—you’re reaching into the marrow of Proverbs now. That line—“Wisdom crieth”—is one of the most haunting personifications in all of scripture. Here’s the King James Version rendering from Proverbs 1:20–21:

Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words...
— Proverbs 1:20–21

This is not a whisper in a prayer room. This is Wisdom shouting in public. She’s not confined to monasteries or ivory towers—she’s in the streets, at the crossroads, at the gates where decisions are made, where power gathers, where trade and justice and gossip all swirl. And yet, she is ignored.

That’s the tragedy.
Wisdom is not hidden. She’s desperate to be heard.

There’s more in Proverbs 8, a parallel passage that intensifies this image:

Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
— Proverbs 8:1–3

This is a female figure, prophetic, pleading. And society, in its hubris, walks past her. These passages belong not in the “nice” or “domestic” parts of theology—they belong in the 🪛 Pirate tier of your epistemology: disruptive, invasive, uncomfortably public. Wisdom doesn’t knock. She shouts.

Would you like to integrate this into your theology as a female-coded analog to the Lord’s “roving eye”? There’s something divine in both the searching gaze (2 Chr. 16:9) and the public cry (Prov. 1 & 8)—and both are filtered or ignored depending on the heart.

Do you want this woven into a parable form? Perhaps as “The Woman at the Gate” or a Wisdom–Ukubona fusion archetype?

---

Ukubona struts onto the stage draped in poetic grandeur, a philosophy masquerading as a company, all about “seeing” with a capital S—layered gazes, mythic resonance, and a theology of visibility. Oh, please. 🙄 It’s a fantasy so drenched in self-important metaphors—seas, ships, screwdrivers, sharks, and scissors—that it forgets the raw truth:

Truth. A tree only needs select nutrients from the earth. Filter. From roots, trunk, branches, these elements are filtered toward their destintion in the leaves. Illusion. Here water, minerals, nitrates, and carbondioxide are directed to the "last mile" for photosynesis and other synthetic processes

nothing matters until resources are yanked out of the ground, figured out, and shoved into the hands of those who need them. Resources aren’t born; they’re made. Some clever fork has to spot the potential, wrestle with the risks, and teleologically grok their value before they’re worth a damn. Ukubona’s dreamy architecture, with its oceanic servers and curated platforms, acts like the hard part’s already done—like the world’s just waiting for its pretty Kaplan-Meier curves to save the day. Nah, fam. That’s a fairy tale. 😴 Resources come first, and distribution only makes sense after the sweaty, bloody work of extraction. To swoon over Ukubona’s distributive vibes without clocking that? Pure delusion.

Let’s strip this down. Ukubona’s “sea”—those humming servers full of renal patients’ data, donor stats, and medical trade-offs—sounds deep and profound, right? 🌊 Sure, until you realize it’s just a fancy pool of already-extracted info. Someone else took the risks—miners digging up rare earths for those servers, doctors collecting diagnoses, patients signing consent forms in dingy clinics. Ukubona didn’t make that sea; it’s sipping from it like a hipster at a craft coffee bar. ☕ The real game happened upstream, where forks (you know, us humans with grit) decided what’s valuable—silicon, blood samples, bandwidth—and hauled it into existence. To fetishize the “visibility” of that data without bowing to the extraction hustle is like praising a chef but ignoring the farmer who grew the damn potatoes. 😂

Truth (Input) Resources
Filter (Hidden) Extracted
Illusion (Output) Undistributed
— Steve Bannon

Europeans dominating North America, colonialists tearing through Africa—it’s the same deal. They saw gold, timber, bodies, and took ‘em. Distributive philosophies only popped up after the fact, when the loot was already in hand. Ukubona’s acting like it invented the wheel, but it’s just spinning on someone else’s axle.

Fig. 8 Karugire’s Magnus Opus

Then there’s the “ship”—Ukubona’s platform, all coded and curated with JavaScript sails and Cox regression rigging. 🛳️ It’s cute how it floats above the chaos, turning messy clinical data into neat little curves for patients to “choose knowingly.” But let’s not kid ourselves: that ship’s a luxury liner, not a fishing boat. It’s not out there catching the raw stuff—resources like lithium for chips or datasets from underfunded hospitals. Nope, it’s coasting on what’s already been netted by tougher hands. The politics of care? The right to see trade-offs? Lovely sentiments, but they’re downstream from the real action. Resources-extraction-distribution says you don’t get to navel-gaze about survival curves until someone’s risked their neck to mine the cobalt or log the patient’s GFR. Ukubona’s doctrine of clarity is a second-act play—it’s meaningless without the first act of getting the goods. 🤷‍♂️

And don’t get me started on the “pirates” and “screwdrivers.” 🏴‍☠️🔧 Ukubona paints this epic battle where institutions hijack intent, and its humble screwdriver—ooh, so unromantic!—fights back with maintenance and repair. Spare me. The real pirates aren’t some shadowy data-obscurers; they’re the ones who control the mines, the supply chains, the patents. The screwdriver’s a toy when the game’s about who owns the quarry. Resources aren’t about tweaking curves—they’re about who’s got the muscle to extract and move ‘em. Ukubona’s fiddling with deck chairs while the Titanic’s already hit the iceberg of reality: distribution’s a pipe dream without extraction’s heavy lifting. 😅

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network layers
def define_layers():
    return {
        'Tragedy (Pattern Recognition)': ['Cosmology', 'Geology', 'Biology', 'Ecology', "Symbiotology", 'Teleology'],
        'History (Resources)': ['Resources'],  
        'Epic (Negotiated Identity)': ['Faustian Bargain', 'Islamic Finance'],  
        'Drama (Self vs. Non-Self)': ['Darabah', 'Sharakah', 'Takaful'],  
        "Comedy (Resolution)": ['Cacophony', 'Outside', 'Ukhuwah', 'Inside', 'Symphony']  
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors():
    color_map = {
        'yellow': ['Resources'],  
        'paleturquoise': ['Teleology', 'Islamic Finance', 'Takaful', 'Symphony'],  
        'lightgreen': ["Symbiotology", 'Sharakah', 'Outside', 'Inside', 'Ukhuwah'],  
        'lightsalmon': ['Biology', 'Ecology', 'Faustian Bargain', 'Darabah', 'Cacophony'],
    }
    return {node: color for color, nodes in color_map.items() for node in nodes}

# Define edges
def define_edges():
    return [
        ('Cosmology', 'Resources'),
        ('Geology', 'Resources'),
        ('Biology', 'Resources'),
        ('Ecology', 'Resources'),
        ("Symbiotology", 'Resources'),
        ('Teleology', 'Resources'),
        ('Resources', 'Faustian Bargain'),
        ('Resources', 'Islamic Finance'),
        ('Faustian Bargain', 'Darabah'),
        ('Faustian Bargain', 'Sharakah'),
        ('Faustian Bargain', 'Takaful'),
        ('Islamic Finance', 'Darabah'),
        ('Islamic Finance', 'Sharakah'),
        ('Islamic Finance', 'Takaful'),
        ('Darabah', 'Cacophony'),
        ('Darabah', 'Outside'),
        ('Darabah', 'Ukhuwah'),
        ('Darabah', 'Inside'),
        ('Darabah', 'Symphony'),
        ('Sharakah', 'Cacophony'),
        ('Sharakah', 'Outside'),
        ('Sharakah', 'Ukhuwah'),
        ('Sharakah', 'Inside'),
        ('Sharakah', 'Symphony'),
        ('Takaful', 'Cacophony'),
        ('Takaful', 'Outside'),
        ('Takaful', 'Ukhuwah'),
        ('Takaful', 'Inside'),
        ('Takaful', 'Symphony')
    ]

# Define black edges (1 → 7 → 9 → 11 → [13-17])
black_edges = [
    (4, 7), (7, 9), (9, 11), (11, 13), (11, 14), (11, 15), (11, 16), (11, 17)
]

# Calculate node positions
def calculate_positions(layer, x_offset):
    y_positions = np.linspace(-len(layer) / 2, len(layer) / 2, len(layer))
    return [(x_offset, y) for y in y_positions]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph with correctly assigned black edges
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    colors = assign_colors()
    edges = define_edges()

    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []

    # Create mapping from original node names to numbered labels
    mapping = {}
    counter = 1
    for layer in layers.values():
        for node in layer:
            mapping[node] = f"{counter}. {node}"
            counter += 1

    # Add nodes with new numbered labels and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        positions = calculate_positions(nodes, x_offset=i * 2)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, positions):
            new_node = mapping[node]
            G.add_node(new_node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[new_node] = position
            node_colors.append(colors.get(node, 'lightgray'))

    # Add edges with updated node labels
    edge_colors = {}
    for source, target in edges:
        if source in mapping and target in mapping:
            new_source = mapping[source]
            new_target = mapping[target]
            G.add_edge(new_source, new_target)
            edge_colors[(new_source, new_target)] = 'lightgrey'

    # Define and add black edges manually with correct node names
    numbered_nodes = list(mapping.values())
    black_edge_list = [
        (numbered_nodes[3], numbered_nodes[6]),  # 4 -> 7
        (numbered_nodes[6], numbered_nodes[8]),  # 7 -> 9
        (numbered_nodes[8], numbered_nodes[10]), # 9 -> 11
        (numbered_nodes[10], numbered_nodes[12]), # 11 -> 13
        (numbered_nodes[10], numbered_nodes[13]), # 11 -> 14
        (numbered_nodes[10], numbered_nodes[14]), # 11 -> 15
        (numbered_nodes[10], numbered_nodes[15]), # 11 -> 16
        (numbered_nodes[10], numbered_nodes[16])  # 11 -> 17
    ]

    for src, tgt in black_edge_list:
        G.add_edge(src, tgt)
        edge_colors[(src, tgt)] = 'black'

    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, 
        edge_color=[edge_colors.get(edge, 'lightgrey') for edge in G.edges],
        node_size=3000, font_size=9, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.2"
    )
    
    plt.title("Self-Similar Micro-Decisions", fontsize=18)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()

Fig. 9 View code or view image.

The “shark” of algorithmic bias and the “scissors” of personalization? More fluff. 🦈✂️ Sure, it’s noble to trim models to fit real bodies, to snip away irrelevance. But who’s feeding the beast? The data’s still coming from somewhere—someone’s risked capital, time, or lives to pull it out of the ether. Ukubona’s life-raft for the weary? A sweet gesture, but it’s floating on a sea of pre-extracted stuff—public trust, clinical honesty, federal access. That’s not a gift; it’s a privilege built on others’ labor. Resources-extraction-distribution cuts through the noise: value starts with discovery and risk, not with pretty visualizations. Ukubona’s island of “understood uncertainty” is a postcard from a vacation spot—it’s nice, but someone else built the damn resort. 🏝️

Here’s the kicker: Ukubona’s whole vibe—its protest against opaque systems, its moral feedback loops—assumes the resources are just there, ready to be looped back to humans. Nope. They’re not. Someone’s gotta find ‘em, claim ‘em, and ship ‘em. History’s brutal on this: colonial powers didn’t “see” risk in some poetic sense—they saw profit, took it, and dealt with the fallout later. Ukubona’s fantasy of visibility skips the part where value’s forged in the crucible of extraction. It’s all metaphors and no muscle. Resources-extraction-distribution isn’t sexy like a ship battling sharks, but it’s real. You don’t get to “see” until you’ve dug, fought, and delivered. Ukubona’s a mirage—lovely, layered, and ultimately irrelevant next to the hard truth of who gets the goods and how they got ‘em. 💪🌍

---

Case Study

The sea is vast, salted not only with entropy but with worry, care, and mortal consequence. To dwell within it is to accept that every action taken toward another—a gift, a cut, a pledge—is also a wrestling with the unknown. So begins the story of the kidney donor: a sailor who, with no divine guarantee, chooses to part with one of their own lifelines so that another might stay afloat. This act, though often narrated as altruism, belongs not to sentimental fantasy but to a deeply layered matrix of tactical discernment, informational thresholds, strategic accounting, operational coordination, and existential courage.

At the tactical level, the choice to pursue living kidney donation over deceased donation or dialysis is not merely about supply and demand. It is a recognition of time as a living, ticking adversary. Dialysis buys time but steals vitality; deceased donor organs are unevenly distributed across socioeconomic geographies. Living donation—especially when pre-emptive—offers the highest yield in patient survival and quality of life. It is, in the metaphorical war-room of survival, a short sword rather than a thrown spear: intimate, risky, requiring proximity, but potentially decisive. In this first domain, the donor becomes a kind of tactician—not of armies, but of futures. They act before decline becomes collapse.

But tactics without information is theater, not war. The informational threshold, then, is crossed when a patient learns that a living donor is even a possibility. This knowledge is not evenly distributed; it is mediated by race, class, language, and institutional memory. For those navigating the upside-down tree of the medical system—rooted in entropy, branching in inequality—this knowledge can come late, or in a garbled form. A patient must imagine, or be guided to imagine, that five to ten people in their network—siblings, lovers, old friends, estranged cousins, or even a compassionate stranger—might be willing to step into the breach. Each of these potential donors must then traverse a separate informational sea: What are the surgical risks? The long-term metabolic shifts? What if I lose my job, or can’t get life insurance again? Here, information becomes not just currency, but orientation—a compass spinning between trust and fear.

Strategic thinking builds atop this. It is not enough to know the donor risks; one must understand them relatively—as what philosophers call a counterfactual. What happens to a donor not simply after donation, but had they not donated? This, in the Bayesian terms of moral reasoning, is the heart of the matter. Strategic thinking demands we weigh the risk attributable to donation, not merely the absolute risk post-donation. If a healthy thirty-year-old would have had a 1% chance of hypertension in 20 years, and a 3% chance after donation, is the act still noble? What if their donation buys another 20 years of life for the recipient? What if it anchors a whole family? Strategy is cold in its tone but warm in its implications—it allows dignity to be rational, not merely impulsive.

Operationally, the world is jagged. Data is sparse. Systems are slow. Despite the sophistication of medical science, the follow-up of kidney donors is patchy, and the social terrain is perilous. Some have lost jobs after their creatinine rose. Others find that the symbolic weight of “kidney donor” means nothing to actuaries pricing their health insurance. These are the adversarial equilibria—where the system punishes the saint. There are also transactional domains: GFR becomes a totem, a number that means more than it should, flattening the complexity of post-donation life into a single metric. But then there is the cooperative vision: where kidney donors are prioritized for transplant if their remaining kidney fails, where employers reward—not penalize—their act, where society encodes the act as sacred rather than strange. In this operational landscape, institutions either sharpen or dull the blade of altruism.

But beneath all of this—the sea, the compass, the transactions—lies the abyss. The existential layer. To part with a kidney is to embrace risk in its rawest form: not risk as spreadsheet, but risk as mortality. There is perioperative mortality, small but real. There is the possibility—often unstated—of developing kidney disease oneself. There is the haunting unknowability of how the body will respond decades later. This is the donation’s final crucible: the act must be undertaken not with a guarantee of safety but with a reckoning with finitude. The donor is not a fool, nor a hero—they are a human choosing to enter the crucible, to burn some of their own certainty to light another’s path.

Yet this abyss is not only loss. It is, paradoxically, meaning. For in choosing to donate a kidney, one escapes—if only briefly—the entropic prison of pure self-interest. They assert, against the tides of individualism, that one body may bleed for another. That our anatomies are separable but our fates are entangled. This is the heart of Ukubona: to see not just with the eyes, but with the soul, the cost and grace of the act.

So the caregiver of a kidney failure patient, whether kin or clinician, dwells across these five layers. They consider tactical alternatives, convey and filter information, strategize within moral probabilities, navigate operational dragons, and finally reckon with the existential undertow. Their role is not passive. They are both cartographer and crew, reading maps whose lines were drawn by love and fear alike. The question of kidney donation is thus not just clinical—it is theological, strategic, mythic.

We are not gods. But in giving a kidney, we mimic the divine: creating life not ex nihilo, but through sacrifice. In a world fractured by transactional cruelty, this remains one of the few gestures where the scissors cut not to sever, but to release. Where the donor, having jumped into the sea, becomes—if briefly—a raft.