Game Theory, False Narratives, Survival, Life Advice - Daniel Schmachtenberger | BSP# 20

In a world driven by game theory, trust is a luxury and competition is the default.

Okay, Daniel, it's great to see you! It's very good to see you, my friend. I've been looking forward to this conversation; this is the big one. I've been looking forward to this one for quite some time. I have to say, I spend a lot of my time looking into deep thinkers, philosophers, and theories, and I have to say that your ideas are some of the deepest I've come across. So, I'm going to try to keep up, but I'm really excited to dive deep today.

I've been so impressed with the translation that your videos have done of a number of really great thinkers, making it so much more engaging and digestible for people. So, respect is mutual, and I'm happy to be here and see what comes. Thank you!

So, we're going to talk about the meta-crisis today and some other things. Before we begin that conversation, I thought that maybe something that would inform the rest of the discussion would be to define game theory. I’ve heard you mention that quite a bit.

Yeah, formally, game theory is a branch of mathematics that studies how to make the optimal strategic choice under uncertainty to win a game. It starts with two-player zero-sum games like chess or the Cold War, and it was formalized during the World War II era. There was a book written by Von Neumann, the great physicist, mathematician, and thinker, along with a guy named Morgan Stern on game theory and economics.

It's interesting that it was those two together because so much of how our economic system works is based on the same concepts. Game theory has been happening forever; it just wasn't called game theory. It’s simply called strategy. We just hadn't been able to apply some of the tools of math and computation that were available at that time. But if you're reading Sun Tzu or Machiavelli or any kind of general discussing military strategy, they're basically talking about how to win a rival risk game where you don't know what the opponent is doing.

Depending upon what they’re doing, some moves would be great moves, while others would be terrible moves. Obviously, this is chess; this is any kind of game dynamic like that. The most famous first study in game theory that many people have heard of is the prisoner's dilemma. I won't describe the prisoner's dilemma in detail here; people can check it out online. But the idea is you and a buddy are both in jail, you're both being investigated, and you're both being given a kind of plea-type option. If you both cooperate by not ratting each other out, it's the best solution for both of you. However, if the other guy rats you out and you don't, it's the worst solution for you personally.

If you end up ratting on the other guy and he doesn't, it's less bad for you than if you both keep the dynamic. What is found out is that under the uncertainty where you don't know what the other guy's going to do, the tendency is to assume the worst and move into a position of maximum selfishness and maximum rivalry. You can imagine in situations of warfare, if you don't know how much armament the other guy has or how aggressive their interests are, you want to assume the worst-case scenario and try to plan to win under that worst-case scenario.

This ends up meaning that if the other guy is doing the same thing, let's say they're offering an agreement but you know they might defect on their agreement—which happens all the time. For instance, Stalin and Hitler were participating when it served both of their interests, and then Hitler defected on Stalin when it was no longer aligned with his interests.

In game theory, there's something called a coordination game, where you actually don't compete against someone; you coordinate with them when it's in your interest to do so. However, you reserve the right to defect on them when that's in your interest. This is not just in military situations; you see that in class dynamics. For example, the upper class might all coordinate with each other regarding tax policies for the upper class while simultaneously competing for who has positions of maximum power within that class.

A whole industry, like the AI sector or oil, might coordinate with each other to get the regulations they want for the sector while then all competing for who has the most market share. So, under a game theoretic scenario, there is no such thing as allies for real; there is no such thing as friends or loyalty. There are frenemies at best. The frenemy scenario is that as long as we have...

=> 00:04:57

In a world where cooperation is often just a facade, we find ourselves trapped in a cycle of self-interest, racing towards outcomes we all dread.

When it's in your interest to coordinate, you may reserve the right to defect on others when that is in your interest. This dynamic is not limited to military situations; it can also be observed in class dynamics. For instance, the upper class might coordinate with each other regarding tax policies while simultaneously competing for who holds the positions of maximum power within that class. Similarly, a whole industry, such as the AI sector or oil, might coordinate to achieve favorable regulations while competing for the largest market share.

Under a game theoretic scenario, there are no real allies; there are no true friends or loyalty, only frenemies at best. In this scenario, as long as we have shared interests, I can expect a certain degree of cooperation. However, as soon as we no longer share interests, I can expect defection. Consequently, we are continuously planning for selfishness and defection, which consumes a significant amount of bandwidth. This understanding explains a tremendous amount about how the world works—militarily, economically, politically, and diplomatically. We often make agreements while assuming the other party will defect, and they assume the same about us. This leads to attempts to spy on each other's defection while simultaneously confusing their spies. Such dynamics contribute to many of the coordination failures we see in the world.

Game theory, even before its formalization in mathematics, has been influential. The formalization made it much more powerful and ubiquitous, allowing us to run models on computers and AI. We can observe AI outperforming humans in games like chess, Go, and Starcraft, and it is increasingly excelling in more generalized tasks such as economic trading and comprehensive war planning, including missile targeting.

One type of game theoretic scenario that defines many properties of the world involves multiple players—tribes, countries, or companies. If one player takes an action that provides a significant near-term advantage, such as a tribe cutting down more timber than necessary to create surplus, it can lead to destructive competition. If other tribes do not follow suit, they risk losing out in tribal warfare, as the first tribe will exploit the resources regardless. Consequently, even if they do not want to, other tribes may feel compelled to race to cut down the forest faster to protect their people. This scenario exemplifies a race to exploit the commons, whether it involves fishing, hunting, or oil extraction.

This situation is known as The Tragedy of the Commons, a social trap or multipolar trap where the collective actions of individuals lead to the worst possible outcome for everyone. Nobody can stop this race because if anyone does, they face severe consequences in the short term, and they cannot guarantee that others will refrain from exploiting the resources. The idea that "because they are doing it, we have to" results in a world that nobody desires, yet no one feels they can choose otherwise.

Understanding this concept is crucial, especially concerning major environmental issues of our time. Take climate change, for example. Nobody actually wants climate change; there is no one for whom it is a strategic objective. The entire world, including the G20 and the United Nations, acknowledges climate change as a significant issue that we all want to address. There is a trillion dollars in climate-related funding occurring every year, and organizations like the IPCC are actively involved in tackling these challenges.

=> 00:08:57

We all agree on the problems we face, like climate change and arms races, but our actions tell a different story; we keep choosing the path of destruction instead of collaboration.

They can choose otherwise, and this is such a deep thing to understand. For example, let's take climate change, which is one of the major environmental issues of our time. I’m going to assume that most of your listeners think that's a significant concern. For those who don't, you can apply this reasoning to species extinction or chemical pollution or any of these pressing issues.

Literally, nobody actually wants climate change. There is no one for whom climate change is their strategic objective. Yet, the whole world, in terms of the G20, the United Nations, and all of the major countries, has acknowledged that climate change is a major issue. We all want to stop it. There is a trillion dollars in climate-related funding happening every year, and organizations like the IPCC are using huge supercomputers supported by NASA and NOAA. There are also international agreements in place.

However, despite all these efforts, every single year, we use more fossil fuels than the year before. All of the renewables, all of the solar energy, and everything else we have not even slowed the rate of increase in fossil fuel use. So, we obviously don't know how to stop climate change. Everybody thinks that it's a particularly bad thing. The UN estimates that about a billion refugees from extreme weather events and climate change will happen in the next decade, and the world has no way to deal with a billion refugees.

We can't stop climate change, and yet nobody wants it. What they want is energy for every other purpose, and that’s one of the side effects of it. No one feels that they could price energy properly or consume less. For instance, let’s say the US priced energy properly. Right now, we price oil based on how much it costs us to extract it from the ground plus a tiny margin—not what it took nature to make or what it would take for us to clean up the environmental effects.

Most of the costs are externalized to the environment. If we were to start trying to price it more properly, so that we could produce it in a way that didn’t have negative environmental effects, but say China didn’t, then they would have more margins than us, and they would beat us. This is what I refer to as the multi-polar trap. The same situation occurs in arms races, such as the advancement of military technology.

If one country is making AI drone weapons that comprehensively outperform those run by humans, then we have to make drone weapons too. If we don't know exactly what type they are making, we have to assume the worst-case scenario. We have to spy on them, run counterintelligence on their spies, and assume that they are making all of the worst possible weapons, plus defenses. This leads to larger and larger military budgets, resulting in a world with increasing destructive power, including nuclear weapons, cyber weapons, hypersonic delivery of nuclear weapons, and drone weapons.

Again, literally nobody wants to live in a world with AI drone weapons, but no one feels that they can stop it. This creates a multi-player game theoretic dilemma where, under uncertainty, you assume the worst-case scenario and race ahead. The net result is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: the other party does what they do, whether they were going to or not, because they think you are going to do it. The world you end up getting is one of maximum environmental destruction, maximum weapons, and maximum distrust.

This situation reminds me of a story where a town has no lawyers, so there are no lawsuits. Then it has one lawyer, and there are still no lawsuits. But once it gets two lawyers, all of a sudden, everybody is suing each other. It's similar to the idea that I don't need a security guard unless you have a security guard. This leads me to wonder: is this just built into human nature?

The answer is no, and the reason you can say no confidently is that there are examples of groups of humans who have effectively bound these kinds of social traps for periods of time. This means that human nature is capable of doing that thing. Human nature is obviously capable of this, and it does so very well, but it doesn't mean that human nature obligately does it. Rather, it is human nature under certain conditioning environments that leads to this behavior.

To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at the Jains, an Eastern religion that emphasizes nonviolence more seriously than most. They go out of their way to never hurt a bug; for instance, if they are going to build a house, they remove all the bugs first so they don’t harm any of them. They also practice a lifestyle that reflects their commitment to nonviolence.

=> 00:13:06

Human nature is not fixed; it's shaped by our environments and cultures, allowing for both extreme nonviolence and violence depending on conditioning.

Human nature is a complex topic, and one can confidently assert that it is capable of adapting to various social traps. There are numerous examples of groups of humans who have effectively navigated these traps for extended periods. This indicates that human nature is not only capable of such adaptability but does so under specific conditioning environments. It is crucial to understand this aspect of human nature.

For instance, consider the Jains, an Eastern religion that emphasizes nonviolence to an extraordinary degree. The Jains go to great lengths to avoid harming any living creature, even going so far as to remove all bugs before constructing a house to ensure no harm comes to them. They consume fruits and nuts that have naturally fallen from plants, refusing to kill plants for sustenance. The existence of the Jains, with their relatively large populations sustained over long periods, demonstrates that it is possible for a culture to enculturate individuals to live in a nonviolent manner. Thus, human nature allows for the existence of the Jains as one example of peaceful living.

Conversely, we can examine the situation of child soldiers in Sudan, where, by the time individuals reach puberty, nearly everyone has committed acts of murder. In such an environment, failing to participate in violence can result in dire consequences, including not surviving to adulthood. This stark contrast illustrates that populations can exhibit radically different distributions of violence and nonviolence.

Additionally, we can look at the Jewish communities in Russia, particularly during periods of extreme hardship. Despite facing conditions akin to slavery and total poverty, these communities invested heavily in the education of their children, showcasing a cultural dynamic that prioritizes learning and knowledge.

A significant aspect of human nature is its adaptability compared to other animals. Unlike species such as the cheetah or polar bear, which thrive in specific niches, humans have the capacity for tool-building that allows them to thrive in diverse environments. This adaptability has enabled humans to become apex predators across various ecosystems.

When we compare the life of a cheetah or polar bear today to their counterparts from 10,000 years ago, we find that their adaptive traits remain largely unchanged. In contrast, what it means to be an adaptive human today is vastly different from what it meant thousands of years ago or even decades ago. Most people today are not particularly skilled at spear throwing, a once-essential skill, but excel at modern tasks such as texting.

As humans change their tooling, languages, and environments, they must also adapt their nature and perceptions of the world. A key aspect of human nature is its profound plasticity. This adaptability is partly why human children take longer to develop self-sufficiency compared to other animals. For example, a horse can walk within 20 minutes of birth, while a human child takes about a year to achieve this milestone. This extended developmental period is necessary for humans to learn language and other critical skills.

In summary, human nature is characterized by a remarkable degree of plasticity, allowing for adaptation to various environments. This adaptability is evident in the existence of tribes that have maintained relative peace within their communities, demonstrating the diverse expressions of human nature across different cultural contexts.

=> 00:17:11

Human nature isn't fixed; it's shaped by the systems we create and the environments we adapt to.

One profound aspect of humans is a profound amount of plasticity. This plasticity arises because we change our environment so much that we have to adapt rather than being hardwired, much like software that is adapted to the unique environments we inhabit. This characteristic is also part of why human children are often described as neotonous; they remain in a state of dependency for a long time. For instance, while a horse can walk within 20 minutes of birth, it takes a human child about a year to walk. This delay occurs because humans do not come with built-in imprints; instead, they must learn a language and acquire various skills. As a result, human nature is very radically plastic.

If we examine environments where tribes were not only relatively more peaceful within themselves but also between different tribes, we can find notable examples. For instance, the Iroquois Confederacy and certain intertribal agreements among the Aborigines demonstrate how they did not define their relationships through conflict. Instead, they engaged in intertribal councils, had discussions, reached agreements, and maintained enforcement that worked effectively. This raises the question: is it in human nature that we can engage in game theory? The answer is yes, but it is not necessarily a requirement. However, when others begin to employ these strategies, it becomes obligatory to adapt or risk losing out. Thus, it is not simply human nature at play; rather, it is system dynamics that create this obligation.

There are many behaviors we attribute to human nature because they are ubiquitous and conditioned over time, becoming obligatory in various contexts. This is an important example to consider. On your show, there are individuals who contest how long humans have existed, but the standard narrative suggests that Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 to 300,000 years—a significant duration. For most of that time, we lived as hunters and gatherers. Across all hunter-gatherer cultures worldwide, it appears that they were predominantly animistic. When something occurs universally, it suggests a significant evolutionary property.

Animism is the belief that everything possesses a spirit, whether it be the spirit of a tree, a buffalo, a river, or the moon. Therefore, animism reflects the idea that everything is animated by a great spirit and has its own unique essence. In studying indigenous cultures, one can observe practices such as hunting a buffalo, during which hunters might cry upon killing the animal, offering prayers and acknowledging the buffalo's spirit. They believe that when they die, their bodies will return to the earth, nourishing the grass that future buffalo will eat, thus participating in the great cycle of life.

However, with the advent of the plow, particularly the ox-drawn plow, humans had to learn to domesticate animals, which involved practices such as castration and yoking. This shift necessitated a departure from animistic beliefs, leading to worldviews that emphasized man's dominion over nature. Animals were seen as existing to serve humans, and humans were regarded as the kings of their domain. This contrasts sharply with the perspective expressed by Chief Seattle, who stated, “We are not the web of life; we are merely a little strand. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.”

These worldviews are fundamentally different. The introduction of the plow not only represented the domination of animals but also of land and ecosystems. This agricultural advancement required the clearing of forests to allocate land for long-row cropping. Thus, the plow was not merely a tool for cultivation; it symbolized a broader domination of nature.

It is crucial to note that many people naively believe that technology is inherently neutral—merely a tool that can be used for good or bad purposes. For example, a hammer can be used to harm someone or to build homes for the homeless. However, this perspective is misleading. Tools carry values that ultimately shape the behaviors and beliefs of the populations that use them. In our work with the Consilience Project, we explored this concept in detail, concluding that technology is not values neutral. The plow serves as a prime example of how tools can influence societal values and dynamics.

=> 00:21:34

Technology shapes our values and behaviors, influencing not just how we live, but who we become.

To agriculture, I clearcut a forest. The plow was not only the domination of the animals but also of the land and ecosystems. A worldview arises from this, and it is important to note that many people, including myself in the past, naively thought that technology is neither good nor bad; it is kind of neutral. It is an empowerment, a tool that we can use for whatever we want. For example, we can use a hammer to beat someone's head, but we can also use it to build homes for the homeless. Thus, a hammer is not good or bad. However, this perspective is not true. Tools actually have values built into them that end up conditioning the population that uses them.

On the Consilience Project, we wrote a whole paper on this called "Technology is Not Values Neutral." The plow serves as a very good example. When you use this tool called the plow, it necessitates a totally different behavior. Instead of hunting or gathering, I am now doing animal husbandry, yoking and whipping an ox all day. This represents a completely different set of behaviors, a different worldview, and a different conditioning of my experience and beliefs. Consequently, that tool actually ended animism.

It is also crucial to understand that the plow contributed to population growth because it allowed for the creation of a lot more caloric surplus. Populations that adopted it were able to thrive and, in warfare, would completely overpower other populations. This means that any population that resisted using the plow, believing it to be evil and horrible, would eventually be defeated in tribal warfare or become radically overpopulated, thus becoming an increasingly smaller percentage of how the world is stewarded. Therefore, it is not only that technology affects the nature of human minds and cultures; it also becomes obligate.

I have never heard the idea that technology is not neutral before, and I find it really interesting. It made me think of the greatest inventions throughout our history, such as writing or electricity, and what consequences they had. There are great philosophers of technology who discuss this in depth, with very different views. For instance, Lewis Mumford and Marvin Harris are excellent authors to read. Many indigenous cultures hold that the written word was the downfall of humanity, which contrasts sharply with the way we typically view it. We often consider it one of the greatest inventions of all time, as it allowed us to store knowledge, accumulate knowledge, and coordinate at a distance.

Let me describe the indigenous perspective on this. Written language is not that old—approximately 10,000 years, give or take a couple of thousand. For hundreds of thousands of years, humans had cultures rich in stories, creation myths, systems of medicine, and music, all without relying on the written word. Their intergenerational knowledge transmission centered around the relationship between the old and young people in the tribe. The elders, who had amassed the most knowledge and wisdom throughout their lives, spent significant time with the young, which was considered the central sacred activity of the tribe. The middle-aged individuals supported this knowledge transmission.

I recall a Native American describing why the written word was viewed as detrimental. He explained that in the past, if an elder had something meaningful to share, rather than spending their time writing it in a decontextualized linear fashion that might appeal to some but not others, they would invest their time with the young people. This approach ensured that the teachings were connected to everything else, taught in a way unique to each individual, and conveyed through various methods to ensure the knowledge was truly embodied. The children did not spend their time as one of thirty kids in a classroom with someone who was merely paid to care for them, lacking genuine love and embodied wisdom. Instead, they spent time with those who possessed the most wisdom and were fully invested in their learning.

It is very interesting to think about these dynamics and their implications for our understanding of knowledge transmission and cultural development.

=> 00:25:33

True wisdom comes from deep, embodied connections rather than just information transfer; it's about learning in context, not in isolation.

In today's rapidly changing world, the way we transmit knowledge and wisdom is undergoing significant transformation. It is essential to consider how love cannot be transmitted effectively in certain contexts. For instance, individuals who dedicate their time to working with children and young people often ensure that these learners truly connect with the material. They teach in unique ways that allow the content to be embodied, rather than simply being one of 30 kids in a classroom with someone who lacks genuine investment in their learning.

This approach emphasizes that learning occurs within various contexts. For example, when studying a tree, the experience of harvesting apples, identifying bugs damaging the tree, or even praying to the trees provides different insights. Each context offers distinct lessons, contrasting with a linear approach that presents information in isolation. The written word tends to linearize thought, requiring a structured beginning, middle, and end, which can freeze content in a specific context and separate the relationship between teacher and learner. While this method allows for widespread dissemination of knowledge, it can also lead to a decreased awareness of the environment.

With the advent of smartphones, many individuals have experienced a decline in their sense of direction, relying heavily on GPS tools. This reliance, while useful, has altered behavioral patterns and conditioned individuals to depend on technology, leading to a decreased awareness of their surroundings. As technology becomes essential for maintaining an advantage, it shifts from being a tool to a necessity, ultimately shaping what we consider human nature.

Reflecting on the generational divide, the older generation, often viewed as a living library, holds knowledge that may seem less relevant to the younger generation. The rapid pace of change can lead younger individuals to perceive older adults as a useless life force, consuming resources without providing value. This perception raises the question: Is change happening so quickly that we are unable to adapt?

When examining the current landscape, particularly regarding the Elders of Generation Z and younger individuals, it is crucial to recognize that the boomer generation was not raised in a culture focused on developing wise Elders. The goal of cultivating wisdom has diminished over time, overshadowed by priorities such as maximizing GDP and physical comforts. Since the onset of modernity, particularly following the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, the aim of our educational and civilizational systems has shifted away from nurturing wisdom.

The Cartesian dualism introduced by Descartes, which separates the domains of mind and body, has further complicated our understanding of knowledge transmission. As we navigate this complex landscape, it becomes increasingly clear that the methods we use to impart wisdom must evolve to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world.

=> 00:29:44

Modern society prioritizes technological advancement over wisdom, leading to choices that can harm us long-term.

The discussion begins with the concept of GDP and the idea of maximizing physical comforts or optionality. This perspective leads to a very different understanding of older generations, particularly in the context of modernity. Over time, the goal of developing wisdom in individuals has not been prioritized by our educational or civilizational systems. The Scientific Revolution, which paved the way for the Industrial Revolution, is often referred to as a defining moment of modernity.

A significant aspect of this era was Cartesian dualism, which distinguishes between the domain of mind and the domain of body, or the objective and subjective realms. These two domains are viewed as completely different universes, where the same methods cannot be applied. The objective world—the third-person perspective—is accessible to scientific methods, allowing for measurement, repeated testing, and mathematical analysis. However, the first-person world—the subjective experience of being oneself—cannot be measured by others. While brain activity can be correlated with experiences, the intrinsic nature of these feelings remains unquantifiable.

Furthermore, the shared experience, or we, also exists outside the realm of scientific philosophy. This led to the notion that science can describe what is in the physical world but cannot dictate what ought to be. The distinction between is and ought highlights that value judgments do not stem from scientific philosophy. Science can study the mechanics of the world—physics, chemistry, biology, etc.—to understand what is, but it cannot provide insights into what ought to be, which is the domain of religion and ethical systems.

These ethical systems, however, do not possess the same formalization as science. They often rely on democratic processes where everyone can express their views on what should be. The challenge arises because the philosophy of science, which can articulate what is, also has an applied side—engineering and technology—that can alter reality. The rapid rate of change we experience today stems from scientific discoveries applied to technological advancements, fundamentally transforming not just our lives but also the surface of the planet.

This raises critical questions about the appropriateness of technology: Is it a good technology to build? Is it the right way to construct it? Should we proceed with its application? In the realm of science and engineering, there is often no binding ethical framework. Market dynamics dictate that if something can be built and sold, it will be. For instance, consider leaded gasoline. This toxic substance, which took the biosphere a billion years to sequester safely, was mined, processed, and used in internal combustion engines. This led to the atomization of lead, releasing it into the atmosphere and affecting the environment globally.

Leaded gasoline is a neurotoxin that has been shown to decrease IQ, increase aggression, and exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, among other health issues. It is estimated that before its ban, leaded gasoline contributed to a decrease in global IQ by over a billion points and increased aggression by approximately 4X. The question arises: what was the guiding principle that advised against such actions? There was none; it was simply a case of market demand. Consumers were unaware of the detrimental effects of lead, and only after significant harm was caused did regulations emerge to ban its use.

=> 00:33:53

The pursuit of progress often overlooks the hidden costs, leading to harm that outlasts the benefits.

Gasoline is a neurotoxin that has been shown to decrease IQ, increase aggression, and increase psychiatric symptoms. Additionally, it contributes to issues with bones and various other health problems. This is why it was eventually banned. However, before its ban, it is estimated that gasoline decreased the global IQ by over a billion points and increased aggression by something like 4X.

When we consider the history of such substances, we find that there was often no authoritative body that said, "don't do that." Instead, some individuals invented these products and released them into the market based on what they believed consumers wanted, without understanding the potential consequences. It was only after observing the extensive harm caused by these substances that regulations were created to ban them. This pattern is also evident in the case of DDT. After DDT was banned, it was sold to Mexico for continued use, which still contributed to environmental damage. Furthermore, a new pesticide that was also toxic was developed as a replacement.

This situation highlights a critical issue: the technology that studies these substances often focuses narrowly on specific goals. For instance, while gasoline did stop engine knocking, and DDT did kill mosquitoes, both caused significant and harmful side effects. This raises an important question: are we studying a wide enough range of effects to determine whether these substances lead to a world we want? Unfortunately, the philosophy of science and the applied side of engineering often lack this broader perspective. Market incentives do not encourage such considerations; if a product serves a purpose, it is sold, and the profits are privatized, while the environmental and health costs are socialized. This is how the market operates—privatizing the gains and socializing the losses.

The distinction between "is" and "ought" suggests that there is no inherent guidance on what should be done. The standard narrative of science posits that there was a big bang, leading to a universe governed by constants like the gravitational constant and the fine structure constant, which we do not fully understand. For approximately 12 billion years, the universe was fundamentally inert and unconscious until natural complexity allowed for the emergence of biology and consciousness. This perspective often leads to a worldview that dismisses the concept of free will as nonsensical.

Many people, influenced by scientific reductionism, believe that our thoughts and desires are merely the results of physical processes in the brain. For example, when we observe brain activity through tools like EEG or fMRI, we see correlations between brain states and subjective experiences. However, this assumption—that there is a perfect one-to-one correlation between subjective experiences and brain activity—is a significant leap. The mapping we currently have is quite rudimentary compared to the complexity of human experience.

The reductive physicalist paradigm raises questions about the meaning of existence. If there is no consciousness for the vast majority of time, and if consciousness is merely a byproduct of physical processes, then the concept of free will becomes problematic. From this perspective, the notion of "ought" may seem like a human construct devoid of real significance. In a world without inherent meaning, some might argue that hedonism could be a rational perspective.

=> 00:37:55

In a world driven by finite games, we often forget the most crucial question: just because we can do something, should we?

The ion determines if the synapse fires or doesn't fire, and so the thing you thought was your desire or whatever obviously is not. You can see that there are so many places, whether it's the origin of the universe or why the constants are what they are. The fact that there was no consciousness for the vast majority of time, and then consciousness became a phenomenon, suggests that there couldn't be free will. Thus, the reductive physicalist paradigm is kind of meaningless anyway. It doesn't even seem like a thing that makes sense; it seems like kind of a goofy human concept from that perspective. If there is no meaning, then hedonism is kind of a rational perspective, in which case market dynamics and Game Theory come into play.

However, if you have no system within science for what ought to be, what ends up making the choice of what tech gets built and what science gets funded? The market does, and Game Theory does. This is actually interesting to tie back to Game Theory, which was basically the closest thing to a scientifically commensurable theory of what is the right choice. The right choice is the choice that doesn't lose. You assume rivalry and a particular narrow definition of when you apply the concept of a finite game to the world. For those who haven't read it, there's a really beautiful small book called Finite and Infinite Games by a man named James K. A. Smith. It presents such an important distinction, and I'll bring it up in the context of Game Theory.

Almost all the things we think of as games are what he calls finite games. For example, if you and I are playing chess, you only win when the game ends. Winning and ending the game are the same thing, and this is true if we're playing checkers, Monopoly, football, or anything else. Intrinsic to a finite game is the goal you're pursuing, which is actually the end of the game. In contrast, the idea of an infinite game that he proposes is that we're not trying to end the game. If you're modeling life as finite games, where the goal is to win and end the game, then the focus is narrow. However, in an infinite game, the goal is to continue to improve the quality of play, the enjoyableness, the meaningfulness, and the beauty of the game itself. That's a very different goal and a very different decision theory. You don't achieve this by maximally beating the other player and getting caught in multipolar traps that destroy the commons.

In finite Game Theory, where you're assuming everything is rivalrous, the only "ought" we really have applied to the development of technology is what will win. This is why we're currently in AI arms races, where everybody is racing for AI dominance as fast as possible at a geopolitical level between the U.S. and China, and at a corporate level as well. When you're in an arms race, you don't go slow and try to ensure that you're doing the safe thing or testing all the externalities. You don't take the risks seriously because someone is going to get there first, and whoever gets there first has all of the first-mover advantages. Thus, you'll deal with the problems later. This is why Game Theory matters so much; it is basically the only thing guiding all technological development and major geopolitical strategy. A good choice is the choice that doesn't lose, and not losing means, in the very short term of a finite game, even if it is destroying the playing field of the game for everybody.

Wow, that was brilliantly put! You had my mind going off in so many different directions. One thing that sums this up so well is a scene in Jurassic Park, the first one, where there are all these scientists working on creating dinosaurs. Jeff Goldblum comes in; he's not a scientist, he's kind of a goofy guy, and he's the only one that asks, "Wait, the question is, should we do this?" The scientists are all saying, "Look what we can do, look what we can do," and he's like, "But should we?" They all look at him like he's crazy, but it turns out that was a great question to ask. Yes, it came from the least scientific person there, which is a good showcase of human nature right there. I also like what you said about how when the game's ending, everybody starts really going for self-interest because they have to. But if the game never ends, then it's...

=> 00:42:26

Sometimes the most profound questions come from the least expected voices; it's not just about what we can do, but whether we should do it.

One thing that I think sums this up so well is a scene in Jurassic Park, the first one, where there are all these scientists working on creating dinosaurs. Jeff Goldblum comes in, and he's not a scientist; he's kind of a goofy guy. He is the only one who says, "Wait, the question is should we do this?" While everyone else is saying, "Look what we can do, look what we can do," he challenges them with, "But should we?" They all look at him like he's crazy, but it turns out that this was a great question to ask. Yes, it came from the least scientific person there, which is a good showcase of human nature right there.

I also like what you said about how when the game's ending, everybody starts really going for self-interest because they have to. However, if the game never ends, then it's about cooperation. I think you see this in nature, where you'll see a giant shark with little fish eating bacteria off it; that's a symbiotic relationship. You also see it with chimps or other animals that groom each other. There’s really no benefit to yourself for grooming someone else, but if you cooperate with them and groom them, they might groom you back. It's like this cooperation relationship that benefits everybody.

You reminded me of something important when you mentioned how science is what is and religion runs the domain of what ought. I think that really speaks to both the issues in those fields. In the realm of facts, science reigns supreme, but it struggles with coming up with morals, ethics, and principles. Conversely, in the realm of religion, we often make fun of them for getting their facts wrong, but in other realms, they really have it right. That's why religion has been around for so many thousands of years; it may seem factually incorrect, but it's metaphorically correct.

Furthermore, I wouldn’t even say that science says what is. Science can explore what is exclusively in the domain of the objective, not the subjective or intersubjective. Specifically, it deals with a subset of the objective: things that are measurable, which is not everything. It is important to recognize that science can only tell us as much as the very small number of things we've measured so far. If I'm observing or measuring anything, there might be an almost infinite number of things I could observe about it. For instance, if I'm trying to study the body, there are many things happening within it; which ones do we study?

If I get a measurement and say, "This thing is happening," that doesn’t explain how the body works as a whole. It only explains how that tiny little molecular target works. We continue to discover almost every day a whole new domain of types of molecules and systems that we didn’t even know about before. Thus, science can tell us only in the domain of the objective and in very limited contexts some things about what is. There is a humility in recognizing that, and obviously, it is still powerful enough that we can land a rover on Mars, split the nucleus of an atom, edit the genome to create new species, and make a Large Hadron Collider with pulses hotter than the surface of the Sun.

Science is extraordinarily powerful for some things, but the insights offered about anything in the domain of meaning are, at best, inferences from the limitations of science. This includes fields like complexity science and deep ecology, which look at the limits of reductionist science. To truly understand something, you have to look not just at its parts but also at what it is a part of, which contextualizes it and makes it what it is.

You're reminding me of my experience working for many years at a psychiatric institute that was part of a medical school. Psychiatry was kind of seen as the ugly cousin within the medical school because it wasn’t as objective. I remember there was a big insecurity in the psych institute because they wanted to be a hard science. They really leaned into neuroscience and neurotransmitters, trying to assert that mental health issues were a chemical imbalance. That's where we got that idea, suggesting that if you're sad, it's...

=> 00:46:52

Understanding health requires more than just looking at the body; it’s about recognizing the interconnectedness of mind, environment, and lifestyle.

What are the limits of reduction in science? This question highlights the necessity of understanding not just the components of a phenomenon but also the broader context that gives it meaning. To truly grasp an issue, one must consider both its parts and what it is a part of, which contextualizes it and defines its nature.

Reflecting on my experience, I recall working for many years at a psychiatric institute affiliated with a medical school. In this setting, psychiatry was often viewed as the ugly cousin within the medical school due to its perceived lack of objectivity. There was a palpable insecurity within the psychiatric institute, as it sought to establish itself as a hard science. This led to an emphasis on neuroscience and neurotransmitters, with the prevailing notion that mental health issues stemmed from a chemical imbalance. This idea suggested that if someone felt sad, it was simply due to a malfunction in their biochemistry, and the solution was to adjust the chemicals in their body.

However, this approach has significant flaws. When we assert that sadness is due to a mysterious biochemical deficiency, we neglect to explore other factors such as diet, exercise, lifestyle, and relationships. We tend to assume that mental issues arise solely from the body, which we study in isolation, ignoring the complexities of human experience. This reductionist view leads us to believe that the body is inherently flawed and that an external chemical solution is the answer—specifically, a patentable one that allows for profit recovery from research and development costs.

From a market perspective, this issue becomes even more critical. The cost of bringing a treatment through phase three clinical trials to obtain FDA approval can exceed half a billion dollars. To recoup this investment, it is essential to have a product that can be patented. However, this means that we cannot patent substances that are naturally occurring in a healthy body. Consequently, the focus shifts to synthetic molecules that do not reflect how a healthy person functions or the evolutionary context of human health. This raises the question: what are the chances that synthetic solutions are the right way to promote health?

If we genuinely aim to study health, we would uncover numerous factors that cannot be patented and thus would not yield significant profits. This situation exemplifies the perverse incentives embedded within the market, which, combined with a reductionist worldview and regulatory processes, reinforce a particular approach to medicine.

As a result, despite decades of effort in psychiatry and psychiatric medicine, mental illness continues to rise. Rates of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and suicide have also increased, even as healthcare remains the largest area of government spending. Additionally, we see a rise in obesity, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and cancers. The alarming trend in these diseases closely correlates with the increase in chemical pollution from agriculture and industry. The American Chemical Society Journal lists 230 million known chemicals, and since the environmental movement began with Silent Spring in the 1960s, we have recognized the dangers posed by pesticides and other chemicals.

In conclusion, the limits of reduction in science reveal a need for a more holistic understanding of health that goes beyond mere biochemical explanations and considers the broader context of human experience and environmental factors.

=> 00:50:52

The narrative of progress often overlooks the rising tide of health crises linked to environmental pollution and chemical use; we need to question what true progress means.

Despite all of the work in kind of healthcare and pharmaceuticals, and the fact that healthcare is the number one area of spending for our government and deficit spending, obesity continues to rise. Additionally, there is a whole bunch of new autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, cancers, as well as psychiatric diseases. The curve of the rise of those diseases matches very closely to the curve of the amount of chemical pollution we put into the environment, agriculture, and industry. The American Chemical Society Journal lists 230 million known chemicals.

Ever since the environmental movement began with Silent Spring in the 1960s, recognizing how dangerous pesticides were and that they were extincting species and having huge effects, we have continued to put more total pesticides into the atmosphere every single year than the previous year. This includes pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals. When you look at the curve of the rate of inventing things that are designed to kill the foundation of life and the ecosystems with which we co-evolved, and then spraying them onto the food supply and into the atmosphere at scale, one must question if that is a good idea.

If we want to solve cancer right now, one of the arguments is that we need to rush forward with AI to be able to do genetic engineering and immuno-oncology to solve these cancers. If you want to slow down the technology, you are labeled a terrible person because of the emotional appeal of cases like "look at this little girl with cancer; would you want her to die?" However, the same technology that gets advanced for that purpose is now cheap and easy to use for all market purposes. This raises concerns about bioweapons, designer babies, and all the other implications of AI technology. It begs the question: why does the energy not go first to looking at why the cancer rate is rising everywhere and how to eliminate that, which is mostly an issue of things like chemical pollution and how we do agriculture?

You are laying out a story of a lot of things going wrong, but I've heard you talk about this progress narrative. There are people like Stephen Pinker who argue that everything is getting better—infant mortality is down, people's lifespans are longer, the GDP of countries is larger, and people are becoming richer globally. Is that progress narrative completely false?

It's not completely false; it's just mostly false. Those statistics are largely true but are cherry-picked and decontextualized. The progress narrative suggests that everything is getting better and better through some combination of science, technology, markets, and democracy. This view, which has become the dominant worldview in modernity, often includes a regressive history. It paints a Hobbesian view that the state of man and nature was brutish, short, nasty, and mean for indigenous people, which serves as our comparison.

This worldview became dominant especially because, when you consider the isotopic distinction, science is the thing that keeps giving you better and better weapons that win wars, better abilities to increase food supply, and grow markets and power. The other areas are mostly binding and asking whether you should do this. This is where you get the idea that "God is dead" because those worldviews that confer the behaviors that win in war and in markets are the ones that prevail.

An important point to consider is that throughout history, there have been times when there were much more peaceful cultures and then warring cultures. The warring cultures often killed the peaceful cultures, took whatever elements they had, turned them into weaponized capabilities, and continued on. When you study the history of this, you can see relatively recent examples, such as Tibet. Was Tibet a perfect culture before it was invaded? No, but were they relatively lovely in many ways? Yes. Were they good at building standing armies? Not really.

=> 00:55:07

History shows that the cultures that thrive are often those that wield power, while the peaceful ones fade away, reminding us that progress can come at a devastating cost.

The behaviors that win in war and win in markets are the ones that ultimately make it through. This is a really important point to consider. When discussing whether it is human nature, we can look back throughout history. There have been times when there were much more peaceful cultures, and then there were warring cultures. The warring cultures often killed the peaceful ones, taking whatever elements they had and turning them into weaponized capabilities to continue their dominance.

When you study the history of these interactions, you can see examples from relatively recent times. For instance, was Tibet a perfect culture before it was invaded? No, but were they relatively lovely in many ways? Yes. However, they were not particularly good at building standing armies because their worldview did not orient itself toward that. What happened to them is part of history that many people know, but the same can be said for Native Americans and colonization. Most people, if they haven't studied it, do not know the extent of these events.

In the Americas, there were about 140 million human beings living here before colonization, and the effects of colonization resulted in the deaths of 90% of them. This led to a loss of countless ancient languages, systems of music, prayer, medicine, spirituality, and more. If you ask Native Americans what they think of the progress narrative, they often cannot believe that anyone would take it seriously. Similarly, if you ask most Black people, particularly those who are American descendants of slaves, their perspective on the progress narrative is vastly different.

Moreover, if you were to ask about the species we make extinct, it is estimated that roughly 10 to 30 species are made extinct by human activity every day. What would they think of the progress narrative? Or if you were to ask all the animals in factory farms, it becomes clear that we are discussing progress for a very small number of beings, defined in a very narrow way, often at the expense of many others.

Returning to the idea of warring cultures versus peaceful cultures, we can look at the history of figures like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Mao, Stalin, and Leopold in the Congo. It is a crazy history of humanity. Genghis Khan, for instance, is estimated to have killed 50 million people during his lifetime, which was roughly 11% of the entire global population at that time. It is also noted that about 1 in 200 people on Earth today are his direct descendants, with estimates suggesting that between 8% and 11% of Asians are also his descendants. This is due, in part, to the violent and reproductive practices of his conquests.

The cultures that did not mount effective militaries often did not survive, while those that did are the ones whose ideas and cultures persisted. This reflects a part of the multi-polar trap of history. For example, when King Leopold went to the Congo, he committed some of the most atrocious acts of enslavement and murder, all under the guise of a humanitarian mission to help the people of Africa. Similarly, the concept of Manifest Destiny in the United States was framed as a divine right to take over North America, presented as a generous act of civilizing the so-called savages.

The extent of human-motivated reasoning is truly profound. We often believe and attempt to convince others to accept ideas that serve our self-interest, even when they are completely ridiculous. This brings to mind a quote: "the worst atrocities are always committed in the name of virtue." Throughout history, figures like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler have all had slogans proclaiming that their actions were for the common good, yet they were completely blind to the atrocities they committed.

=> 00:59:37

The narrative of progress often blinds us to the true costs of our advancements, leading us to overlook the richness of experiences and connections we've sacrificed along the way.

The discussion revolves around the historical narrative that has shaped our understanding of progress and civilization. It begins with the assertion that to take over the United States, North America, etc., was seen as a generous act, where we were civilizing the savages. This perspective highlights the extent of human motivated reasoning, which is profound. It reflects how we often believe and attempt to convince others of ideas that serve our self-interest, even when those ideas are totally ridiculous.

A notable quote emerges: the worst atrocities are always committed in the name of virtue. Throughout history, figures like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler have justified their actions with slogans claiming they were acting for the common good. While they may not have been completely blind to the consequences of their actions, they genuinely believed they were doing good. Often, the most narcissistic and evil individuals think their plans will create a Utopia, disregarding the mass suffering they inflict along the way. It's not always that they believe in a Utopia; rather, they understand that such narratives are effective propaganda to mobilize people.

The conversation shifts to the idea that the winner gets to write history. Typically, the victors do not portray themselves as the bad guys who defected on agreements or lied effectively. Instead, they frame their victory as progress. For instance, Alexander is depicted as uniting disparate tribes, while Genghis Khan is celebrated for creating a great empire. This progress narrative often erases the alternative histories that reflect the true costs of such advancements. The sacrifices made in terms of culture, art, spirituality, and child-rearing are overshadowed by military conquests and market dominance.

Moreover, the root of the progress narrative lies in history being written by the winners, which is a significant part of the story. In modernity, there has been a divorce from the idea that tradition holds value, leading to a belief that new insights are the key to moving forward. This shift has established a dominant narrative that often dismisses embedded religious perspectives.

The discussion also touches on the notion of progress as measured by material comfort. Many people today are so accustomed to their comforts that they would likely prefer modern conveniences over the lifestyles of 50 or 100 years ago. The comparison between the iPhone 15 and the iPhone 1 illustrates this point; it seems unlikely anyone would want to revert to older technology. This materialist mindset contributes to the prevailing progress narrative.

However, there is a critical reflection on how this comfort may blind us to the richness of life that we are missing. People who have not spent significant time in deep wilderness may not realize how much happier they could be or how many of their pains and psychological disorders could diminish. Much of our striving stems from an emptiness created by a lack of intimate relationships with nature and others.

When engaging with indigenous cultures, one can observe their profound understanding of the language of animals and the natural world. Most people are unaware of how impoverished their lives are due to their inability to communicate with animals or understand the constant dialogue of the world around them. Their minds are often restless, making it difficult to feel the absence of experiences they have never had.

Lastly, the conversation touches on addiction, where the addict, when coming down, does not seek happiness but rather a hit of their supply. This highlights the struggle of individuals who are disconnected from the deeper, more fulfilling experiences of life.

=> 01:03:54

True happiness comes from meaningful connections and experiences, not quick fixes or addictive highs.

Other people in nature can provide profound insights into our existence. If you spend time with an indigenous culture, you can see how much more they understand the language of all the animals. Most people aren't aware of how impoverished their life is because they don't know how to communicate with the animals. They are oblivious to what the whole world around them is saying all the time. Their minds are never still and quiet, making it hard to feel bad about missing something you've never experienced and don't know exists.

When an addict is coming down, they don't want happiness; they want a hit of the supply. For instance, if somebody is coming down on heroin, they don't want to see a beautiful sunset or have a deep conversation with a friend. Everything else becomes meaningless because they have created a hypernormal stimuli that allows them to derive happiness from a very narrow source. This addiction actually deadens their ability to find joy in many other things.

There are reward circuits in us that are more addictive, while others are not. The addictive reward circuit provides a quick spike of pleasure, followed by a drop, leading to cravings for another spike. This cycle is evident with sugar, likes on social media, and using filters to enhance one's appearance. Most things in our world operate on some version of this model. Consequently, individuals crave more of these stimuli, leading to a bipolar type experience and an erosion of their baseline happiness over time. As a result, there are fewer and fewer things that bring joy, necessitating larger amounts of stimuli to achieve satisfaction.

In contrast, the types of reward circuits that promote psychological and physiological health are those that don't provide immediate gratification but instead raise your baseline happiness over time. For example, the rewards from exercising, having meaningful conversations with friends, helping others, or spending time in nature differ fundamentally from those derived from fast food, pornography, or social media. However, it is challenging to monetize these healthier rewards.

On one's deathbed, every person reflects and wishes they had spent more time with their family, their kids, and the people they loved, expressing their love and working less. The pursuits that occupied their lives often seem meaningless in those moments of reflection. Unfortunately, the supply side of our economy markets to the addictive impulse more effectively.

From a business perspective, especially when there is a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder profit, there is a legal obligation to maximize the lifetime revenue of a customer. Addiction is incredibly profitable for this purpose. The emergence of fast food and processed foods—whether we are talking about Hostess products, candies, Coca-Cola, or McDonald's—represents combinations of salt, fat, and sugar. These combinations are scientifically optimized to maximize addiction, with numerous split tests conducted to determine which products elicit the strongest cravings.

In an evolutionary context, the reason that foods high in salt, fat, and sugar provided a dopamine hit was that they were rare and valuable resources before agriculture. When these foods became hyper-abundant, however, people began to suffer from their excess. We have built a world that our genetics are not fit for, exploiting our weaknesses rather than supporting us in navigating this complex landscape. Additionally, these nutrients were once bound with vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, but fast food often removes all of these essential components.

=> 01:07:49

We've created a world overflowing with addictive shortcuts, stripping away the nutrients of life, leaving us craving more while feeling empty inside.

In an evolutionary environment, the reason that things containing salt, fat, and sugar provided people with more of a kind of dopamine hit was that, during pre-agriculture times, these items were very rare. It was hard to obtain much of them, so when people did find them, there was an incentive to seek out these evolutionarily rare and useful resources. However, as soon as we made these substances hyper-abundant, we began to see people suffering from the excess of them. We have constructed a world that we are not genetically fit for, and instead of supporting people to navigate this environment, we exploit their weaknesses.

Additionally, it’s important to note that those nutrients were originally bound with vitamins, minerals, and many other nutrients simultaneously. Fast food, however, strips away all the micronutrients and optimizes for addiction. As a result, individuals can actually be dying of malnutrition while being obese, as they are severely deficient in micronutrients. Fast food represents a form of food that takes the maximally addictive parts and removes what made us attracted to it in the first place. This phenomenon can also be seen in other areas: social media relationships are to human relationships what porn is to human intimacy, what the news is to our desire to understand the world, and what productivity is relative to meaning. This stripping away aligns with the interests of the market, leading to a need for greater productivity, which may be beneficial from a GDP-maximizing perspective but detrimental when considering deathbed reflections, the quality of how children are raised, or the state of the environment.

This brings forth some dark thoughts regarding our species. Are we going to select for individuals who can self-regulate? It seems that those who cannot self-regulate—who succumb to porn addiction, food addiction, or other similar dependencies—may not pass on their genes. Conversely, those who can resist these temptations are likely to find romance and maintain healthier relationships, thus perpetuating their genes. This creates a filtering effect where individuals capable of controlling their dopamine and impulses are more likely to reproduce.

However, it is important to note that the selection criteria may not always work as suggested. While it is true that extreme levels of addiction could render someone unfit for relationships, leading to a lack of reproduction, the overall trend appears to be different. Historically, populations that have engaged in more destructive practices—such as killing, raping, and exploiting resources—have often been the ones that thrived. For instance, after the Industrial Revolution, the global population surged from about 500 million to 8 billion in a remarkably short time. This growth occurred over just a couple of hundred years, compared to the 200,000 years it took to reach the initial half a billion.

In the developed world, resource consumption per capita increased dramatically during this period, approximately 100 times. This increase does not imply that individuals consumed 100 times more calories; rather, it indicates that our lives now depend on a significantly greater amount of resources—about 1600 times more unrenewable extraction from the environment and pollution over a very short period. This rapid change corresponds with the profound shifts in our societal structure and environmental impact.

=> 01:12:18

Our quest for progress has led to a staggering imbalance: while human population and consumption soar, wildlife dwindles, with 95% of mammals now in factory farms. The cost of our advancements is a world where quality of life is sacrificed for quantity.

In the developed world, resource consumption per capita has increased about 100 times since the Industrial Revolution. This does not imply that individuals consume 100 times more calories directly, but rather that our modern lives depend on 100 times more calories in the form of fossil fuels and other resources to power everything from light bulbs to the internet and vehicles. Consequently, the Industrial Revolution marked a significant rise in resource extraction, leading to a staggering 1600 times increase in unrenewable extraction from the environment and pollution over a relatively short period.

During this same timeframe, the population of wild animals that are not extinct has declined by 70% globally compared to 1900. One particularly striking statistic reveals that only 4% of all mammals in the world live in the wild, while 95% are found in factory farms. This stark contrast highlights the immense impact human activities have on the natural world.

The population boom during the Industrial Revolution was driven by various factors, often celebrated as a progress story. However, this narrative frequently overlooks the darker consequences, such as the plight of animals in factory farms, the extinction of species, and the rise of diseases like turbo cancers and autoimmune disorders. A key technological advancement that facilitated this population growth was the Green Revolution, which included the development of synthetic fertilizers. This innovation allowed for the transformation of previously unarable soil into productive agricultural land, significantly increasing crop yields.

The introduction of synthetic nitrogen, along with phosphorus and potassium—collectively known as NPK fertilizers—enabled the cultivation of crops in areas that would not have been viable otherwise. However, while NPK fertilizers provide essential nutrients, they fail to replenish the 72 minerals and organic matter necessary for healthy soil. This deficiency leads to micronutrient-poor plants, which, in turn, affects human health when consumed. The runoff from these fertilizers contributes to the formation of over 500 dead zones in the oceans, vast areas where marine life cannot survive.

Furthermore, the use of synthetic fertilizers destroys the microbiome of the soil, which impacts plant genetics and nutrient uptake. This disruption can affect human genetics and health, particularly in terms of genetic expression. Although the progress narrative celebrates the ability to support a growing population, it raises critical questions about the quality of life that has been sacrificed in the process.

While life expectancy has increased, largely due to reductions in infant mortality, overall morbidity has also risen. Many individuals reaching the age of 80 are often reliant on an average of 11 different prescription medications, some of which have side effects that further compromise their quality of life. This situation reflects the broader externalized costs of a declining quality of life, as evidenced by rising pollution levels and the loss of biodiversity.

=> 01:16:14

True progress isn't just about numbers; it's about enhancing the quality of life for everyone and everything we share this planet with.

The discussion revolves around the complexities of progress and its implications on quality of life. "You're like, was that the best way to do it?" This question highlights the need to evaluate whether we should have tried to maximize the number of people and how much we were decreasing the authentic quality of life. As longevity has increased, primarily due to a decline in infant mortality, the morbidity in many ways has also been going up.

Indeed, there are individuals who reach the age of 80, but on average, they are taking 11 different prescription meds. Some of these medications have side effects that contribute to a not awesome quality of life. This situation also externalizes costs, affecting everyone else. When we examine various environmental issues, such as pollution and species extinction, we see that those curves are on still exponential curves crossing planetary boundaries. We cannot continue on this path for much longer.

Our idea of progress has emerged from a very narrow definition. We often ask, "Can we grow more food?" without considering whether it is good quality food or whether it will harm the environment. From a market perspective, it makes sense to sell more food, but we do not ask whether this contributes to obesity or improves people's health. The progress narrative tends to focus on limited areas of advancement without acknowledging the externalized costs. Thus, I think that's a ridiculous definition of progress; it is at best immature, if not outright propaganda.

For progress to be meaningful, it must not only involve advancements in technology but also lead to a better world. This requires a different relationship to how we make choices. Authentic progress means that the world is genuinely becoming a better place. We must ask, "Better for whom?" Is it better for everyone, including other species we share the planet with?

Furthermore, we need to reconsider our definitions of good. Are we measuring progress by people's deathbed reflections, which often reveal a life filled with meaning? Or are we relying on GDP as a metric? GDP is a ridiculous measure; it can increase due to war, addiction, and preventable sickness.

As we navigate this finite game, we must recognize that the continuation of our win orientation will actually end the possibility of civilization continuing on this planet. To prevent this outcome, we need to redefine progress by factoring in all externalities. We should ask ourselves, "Is this still good?" We must avoid the trap of privatizing gains while socializing losses.

In this context, if progress is not beneficial for everyone, it will ultimately not be progress for anyone. This leads to arms races where a momentary uptick in security for one group creates insecurity for others, prompting them to reverse engineer and escalate their efforts, making conflicts more dangerous.

One area of particular interest is the birth rate. The population is no longer growing at the same rate; projections indicate we may peak around 2100. Countries like Japan and Korea are experiencing significant declines in population, losing exponentially more people each year. While our population will continue to rise for a couple more decades, we are approaching a plateau.

This trend could be seen as a natural course correction. The decreasing birth rate is influenced by both cultural and physiological factors. Specifically, when women have more education and economic opportunity, they typically choose to have fewer children.

=> 01:20:41

Our society's growth model is clashing with nature's limits, and our biology is signaling a hard reset.

A topic that requires close attention is the birth rate and the fact that the population is not growing anymore like it once was. It appears that we are going to peak around 2100, and already countries like Japan and Korea are experiencing a significant decline, losing exponentially more people every year. While our population is still increasing and will continue to do so for a couple of decades, we are plateauing.

Is this a kind of natural course correction? I think that's a fair way to see it. The decreasing birth rate is partly cultural but is also largely physiologic. It is cultural in that when specifically women have more education and economic opportunity, they usually do not choose to have as many kids. However, a huge factor contributing to this trend is the decrease in fertility. This decline in fertility throughout the developed world corresponds closely to the rise of glyphosate use, the rise of pesticide use, and other factors that are debasing our physiology and its capacity to reproduce healthfully.

The topic of population is very complicated. You’ll hear people like Zion discussing demographic collapse as one of the most serious issues we face. It is true that if we have a lower population, it will cause massive problems for our world system. If there are fewer young people entering the workforce while there are more older individuals who cannot work but still require retirement accounts, the economics of the system become quite tricky.

On the other side of the population story, we must consider that before the plow and the beginning of large-scale deforestation, there were only about 30 to 50 million people. Before the Industrial Revolution, which enabled industrial-scale extraction faster than the regeneration of resources, there were only 500 million people. The curve of human population growth closely maps to the curve of other animal extinctions, indicating that we have built a human system—a market geopolitical system—predicated on exponential population growth. This growth, of course, could not continue indefinitely.

This system was also based on exponential economic growth, as it is necessary to keep up with interest. Each year, there must be all the dollars present globally plus interest, and since interest compounds, this creates an exponential demand for capital growth. This demand for capital must relate to goods and services, leading to an exponential demand for energy use. There is a 99% correlation between global GDP and global energy use, as well as material use, which is why the curves for GDP, material extraction, and energy use are nearly identical in shape.

However, on a finite planet, we cannot maintain this growth forever. Our current civilizational system is fundamentally incompatible with the biosphere. We cannot change the laws of physics governing how the biosphere works. If we continue to push our system as it currently operates, we will end up destroying the biosphere upon which we depend. To avoid this destruction, we cannot maintain the fundamental logics of the system; we cannot continue exponential GDP growth or exponential population growth. This situation indicates that we are likely to experience demographic inversion for a while before we can find stable state populations. These are some of the unprecedented challenges we currently face.

It seems almost as if our biology is rejecting our species at this moment. Many people are now experiencing infertility, with sperm counts plummeting and miscarriages skyrocketing. Additionally, issues like erectile dysfunction are becoming increasingly common among young men. It feels as though our biology is saying, "Alright, I’m going to press the off switch." While we may want to pass on our genes, it seems that biology is putting a halt to this for the sake of the Earth. However, I wonder if the planet is truly the boundary for this situation.

=> 01:25:05

Our biology is signaling a pause on reproduction, urging us to rethink our relationship with the planet before we reach for the stars.

Stable state type populations are currently facing some unprecedented challenges. It seems that our biology is rejecting our species at the moment. Many people are now experiencing infertility, with sperm counts plummeting and miscarriages skyrocketing. Additionally, issues like erectile dysfunction are becoming increasingly common among young men. It feels as if our biology is saying, "Alright, I'm going to press the off switch. You may want to pass your genes on, but we're going to put this to a halt just for the sake of the Earth."

This raises the question: is the planet really the boundary? If the population grows so large that it puts pressure on us, will we be forced to expand outward into the cosmos? We might have to extract resources from asteroids and other celestial bodies. However, this notion of extending our resource consumption to the rest of the universe is troubling. We are using up all the resources of this planet and turning them into trash and pollution. Instead of solving these issues, the idea is to simply extend this behavior beyond Earth.

I believe that this is one of the most gross worldviews and certainly not a beautiful one. In terms of scientific and technological progress, there is little chance that we will become interplanetary in the near future. The time scales at which we destroy this planet are much shorter than the time scales required for us to effectively become interplanetary. If we are to have any chance of becoming interplanetary, it is crucial that we first get our dynamics right here on Earth.

There is a significant amount of energy being invested in mining asteroids and the moon, as well as in becoming an interplanetary species. However, I would much prefer to see that energy reinvested in creating a viable civilization here. The other escape route is through technological realism, which includes AI, programmable matter, and the singularity approach.

Earlier, we discussed whether older generations are becoming less useful to younger ones due to the rapid rate of technological change. If we had a culture that emphasized wisdom, it might not promote all technologies indiscriminately. An interesting aspect of wisdom is that it often involves the concept of restraint—knowing what not to do—which is not a prevalent concept in our market or in game-theoretic scenarios.

If we had a culture that emphasized wisdom, many of its principles would remain transcontextual and transferable, even as the technological environment changes. Unfortunately, we did not cultivate such a culture. We are now in a situation where the technological singularity is advancing so rapidly that even young people struggle to keep up. The rate of technological change is so fast that by the time one adapts to a new technology, it has already become obsolete.

In many ways, we have already passed the point of the information and technological singularity. The rate of information creation has reached a level where no one can be an expert on any subject, as there is more information being produced than anyone can comprehend. Regrettably, the prevailing trend of investment and focus is on accelerationism. We find ourselves in a multi-polar trap, unable to stop the momentum of technological advancement.

As a result, the only potential solution seems to be the development of AI. The idea is that whoever builds the first AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) will control everything. This could be achieved through brain-computer interfaces or by uploading consciousness to the cloud. The entity that successfully creates AGI will possess a significant advantage, becoming the first mover in this new landscape.

=> 01:29:35

We're racing towards a future where the first to create AGI might control everything, while we ignore the existential crises looming over us. Don't let the urgency of personal problems blind you to the bigger picture.

In some ways, we can know that we've already passed the information in technological singularity. Unfortunately, the answer that most of the money in the world is following right now is accelerationism. We find ourselves in this multi-polar trap where we can't stop the momentum. The reality is that we are not smart enough to understand all of this and to adapt quickly enough. Perhaps an AI will be the solution. Whoever builds the first AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) will likely end up running everything. This could be achieved either through a brain-computer interface, a whole brain emulation, or by keeping the AI working for them. This entity will have a significant first mover advantage.

If we examine the current landscape, we see that Microsoft, as a $3 trillion company, has a market cap that surpasses the GDP of almost every nation in the world. Among the top eleven companies, seven of them have AI as their primary focus. There are trillions of dollars invested in the U.S. and China, both competing for AI supremacy. This competition is so intense that we hear comments from figures like Sam Altman, who jokingly suggests that while AI might "kill everybody," it will also generate substantial shareholder profit in the meantime. This creates a strange environment where society seems willing to continue down this path.

Another approach being pursued, which I find even more alarming, is the idea of creating a digital God that can solve all our problems. This endeavor risks everything and may exacerbate the very issues we face. The problems and challenges are so vast that for the average person, they seem insurmountable. It raises the question of how to engage people with these massive existential crises when their personal problems feel more immediate and pressing.

A few years ago, the residents of Kiev believed their day-to-day issues were the most critical, but that perspective changed rapidly. Kiev was a progressive city, attracting many from the blockchain community, becoming a hub for decentralized computing. Meanwhile, Israel has emerged as one of the most technologically advanced places. The dynamics in these regions illustrate how quickly collapse can occur. It is easy for those not experiencing collapse to assume it will never happen to them, lacking the intuition that comes from such experiences. Historically, every empire has collapsed, often at a time when its citizens believed it would not happen, leading them to neglect necessary preparations.

We can be more foresightful than that. It would be beneficial if we were more aware of the timelines of the issues facing the world. If people are paying attention now, they will realize that there are much larger issues at stake than their current life challenges, which require deep life reconsideration.

Furthermore, I encourage everyone to explore the Asch conformity studies and the Milgram experiments. These fascinating behavioral psychology experiments conducted at Stanford involved participants who believed they were part of a study on the effects of electroshock therapy. They were tasked with administering shocks to a person on the other side of a wall, pushing buttons to determine shock levels, while scientists monitored the effects. These studies reveal critical insights into human behavior and conformity under pressure.

=> 01:34:00

When we blindly follow authority or conform to the crowd, we risk losing our moral compass and becoming complicit in the very systems we criticize.

The discussion begins with the notion that we are facing impending challenges that require a deep reconsideration of life. It is emphasized that everyone should engage with the Asch Conformity studies and the Milgram experiments, which are pivotal in understanding human behavior under authority.

The Milgram experiments, conducted at Stanford, involved participants who believed they were part of a scientific study examining the effects of electroshock therapy. They were instructed to administer shocks to a person on the other side of a wall, who they thought was receiving the shocks. In reality, the individual was an actor and not connected to any electric shock. Each time the participant pushed the button, the actor would react with sounds of pain, escalating from groans to screams. Despite the apparent distress, a significant percentage of participants continued to administer shocks, driven by the authority figure's insistence that it was necessary for science. This highlighted how individuals can be led to believe they are causing harm simply because an authority figure tells them to proceed.

Similarly, the Asch Conformity studies examined group dynamics by presenting participants with a simple task: identifying which line was longer among several options. The twist was that all but one of the participants were actors who deliberately provided incorrect answers. A considerable number of individuals conformed to the group's incorrect consensus, even when they knew the truth, showcasing the powerful influence of group dynamics on personal judgment.

The conversation then shifts to the Nuremberg trials, where the behavior of the Nazis was scrutinized. It raises the question of how a population, once composed of moral individuals, could become complicit in horrific acts such as genocide. When asked if they believed their actions were justified, 90% of the Nazis admitted they did not, stating that initially, they thought they were merely transporting people to camps. However, as the situation escalated, they recognized the moral decline but felt they had no choice. They all echoed a common phrase that translates to "officer's orders," illustrating how a lack of perceived choice can lead individuals to participate in evil actions, even if they do not inherently possess evil intentions.

This phenomenon is paralleled in contemporary society, where individuals often feel powerless against systemic issues. Many express sentiments like "there's nothing I can do about the world situation," which reflects a similar complicity with a flawed system. People continue to engage in behaviors that align with societal expectations, such as purchasing goods from Amazon and chasing cultural status dictated by marketing, rather than questioning or unplugging from these influences.

In conclusion, as the discussion references a quote from Krishnamurti, it suggests that "it is not a good measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly insane society." This sentiment resonates deeply, especially in light of the ongoing extinction of numerous species, as it challenges us to reflect on our roles within a society that may be contributing to such crises.

=> 01:37:56

In a world where our choices shape the future, complicity in a broken system is a choice we must confront.

Evil, even if they are not actually evil, manifests in the way people respond to the world situation. When individuals say, "there's nothing I can do about the world situation," it reflects a complicity with the distributed system. Many choose to continue engaging in behaviors that the system encourages, such as buying all of the things that I want on Amazon, having them delivered to my door, and pursuing the cultural status things that marketing tells me to pursue. Instead of unplugging from this cycle, they remain entrenched in it.

As Krishnamurti once said, "it's not a good measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly insane society." If my society is causing the extinction of 10 to 30 species every day, increasing chemical pollution to the point that everybody's becoming infertile and having autoimmune diseases and cancers and neurodegenerative diseases, and rapidly building the most horrifying kinds of weapons possible in arms races, is that a sane society? No, it's a batshit crazy society.

Do I want to be complicit with it? Am I willing to have my spot in the history of the world be at a time when human choice mattered more than any other time? Historically, civilizations like the Roman, Ottoman, and Egyptian empires fell, but their impacts were mostly local. The story of civilizations failing due to environmental overreach is a multi-thousand-year-old narrative. Books like The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter illustrate that one reason civilizations collapse is due to environmental degradation. For example, when they cut down all of the trees, the topsoil erodes, leading to a loss of agricultural capability, which ultimately prevents them from feeding their people.

Iceland, once covered in trees, is now a stark example of this destruction; it is Iceland post-deforestation. Some of the world's great deserts resulted from early human activity that led to desertification. However, when we destroyed the environment in the past, it was always a local issue, not one that affected the entire biosphere.

Today, we face a different reality. A study released about six months ago on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), which are found in products like Rain-X and Scotch Guard, revealed that these substances are present in rainwater everywhere in the world, including freshly fallen snow in Antarctica. This means that there's just one category of pollution that we have made so ubiquitous that if you're off-grid collecting rainwater to try to not be part of the system, it's filled with PFAS. The levels of PFAS found were often many times higher than the EPA allowable levels everywhere, leading to biological effects not just on humans, but also on soil microbes, algae, and the entire planet.

We are at a critical juncture in history where the precedent of history shows that civilizations end, often due to reasons they helped cause—self-termination. Even when civilizations fall to external opponents, it is frequently due to internal decay, rivalry, and corruption. Many civilizations that fell to opponents were actually defeated by smaller groups than those they had previously triumphed over, as they had already experienced significant internal erosion.

For the first time in history, we have a single global civilization where all the products we depend on rely on supply chains spanning six continents. There is no longer a distinct Chinese civilization and a U.S. civilization; rather, U.S. products depend on Chinese materials, which in turn rely on cobalt from the DRC in Africa, and so forth. This interconnectedness underscores the fragility of our current societal structure and the urgent need for awareness and action.

=> 01:41:44

Civilizations often self-destruct through internal decay, but we have the power to change our global trajectory and redefine what it means to thrive sustainably.

Throughout history, civilizations have often experienced internal infighting and erosion of their governance due to corruption and other factors. Many civilizations that fell to opponents were defeated by those smaller than the ones they had previously conquered, primarily because they had already undergone internal decay. This establishes a precedent: civilizations end, and their own growth plays a significant role in their demise.

For the first time in history, we find ourselves within a single global civilization. All the products we depend on are created through six-continent supply chains. There is no longer a distinct Chinese civilization and a U.S. civilization; rather, U.S. products rely on Chinese materials, which in turn depend on resources like cobalt from the DRC in Africa and oil from the Middle East. Consequently, all our manufacturing needs are sourced from a global civilization that is currently in a state of self-termination. However, it doesn't have to end this way; we can choose a different path.

Consider the Nazis during World War II; many did not defect because they feared for their lives. If they had been able to coordinate a mass defection, the genocide might not have occurred. Today, individuals have the opportunity to recognize that the trajectory of the world we are on is not one they desire. They can choose not to be complicit and realize that the potential for change is a more meaningful contribution than anything currently engaging their attention. This perspective represents a sane assessment of our situation.

However, one might wonder if this viewpoint is privileged. It is indeed challenging to approach someone in a developing nation, who is burning fossil fuels merely to stay warm, and tell them to stop overfishing when they are just trying to survive. In contrast, we have built our civilization to a point where we are not living in a survival mindset. Jordan Peterson suggests that we must make everyone rich before they start caring about the environment.

What do I think about that idea? Indigenous people, who did not even have fiat systems of money, cared deeply about the environment. This highlights a significant point: many of our sociological theories are based on ubiquitous conditioning that emerged post-industrialization. We conduct social studies on individuals conditioned in this way and label their behaviors as human nature. However, if we examine indigenous cultures, which represent how humanity existed for most of history, we find that they often fall outside the sociological bell curves we use to define norms.

So, do you have to be rich to care about the environment? No. Is it harder to care if you are in abject poverty? Yes. Indigenous cultures were not in abject poverty; they may not have had surplus wealth, but they maintained a sustainable relationship with nature that allowed them to provide for themselves. It is crucial to understand that poverty is a result of the very civilization we have built.

As large cities began to emerge—such as those in Sumeria, Babylonia, and Egypt—people were trained in specialized activities, leading to a division of labor. This resulted in a system where individuals became dependent on a larger societal structure, losing their self-sufficiency and even small-scale tribal independence. This system is now undergoing unsustainable growth and is caught in game theoretic dynamics with other regions.

Before colonization, Africa was not characterized by rampant poverty; it became impoverished as a result of colonization, which destroyed cultures, led to enslavement, caused environmental damage, and displaced people from their arable land. Thus, the logic that suggests poverty is inherent to certain regions is part of the perpetuation of the cycle of suffering and degradation.

=> 01:45:56

True progress isn't about constant advancement; it's about valuing and maintaining the intricate systems of life that took billions of years to evolve.

The division of labor in our society leads to a situation where more total activities are happening, yet individuals become increasingly dependent on this overall system. As a result, no one achieves true self-sufficiency, not even on a small scale like tribal sufficiency. This system is currently undergoing a process of unsustainable growth and is influenced by game theoretic dynamics with other regions.

Historically, before colonization, Africa was not a place characterized by rampant poverty. In fact, it was the colonization process that led to widespread poverty, which was exacerbated by the destruction of local cultures, enslavement, environmental degradation, and the displacement of people from their arable lands. These factors contribute to the logic that perpetuates the existing system, which insists that everyone must grow up within the confines of this economic structure.

If we attempted to provide everyone in countries like India, Bangladesh, China, and Nigeria with a U.S. or U.K. quality of life in terms of resource consumption per capita, it would be impossible. We have already surpassed ecological tipping points, making such an endeavor unfeasible. Importantly, I do not place the burden of changing the world system on those who have been marginalized and impoverished by it. Many of your listeners might not find themselves in this position; they may feel that they are working hard to pay their bills, yet they often find ways to increase their cost of living. This cycle keeps them bound to the necessity of earning money, perpetuating the feeling that they must constantly work and remain part of the system.

One of the gifts in my life has been the advice from mentors to keep my cost of living extremely low. This approach allowed me to allocate minimal time to supporting my existence, freeing up most of my time for studying the world and contemplating what is meaningful, all while engaging in activities that were not market-bound.

I would like to address the concept of progress. When we consider human life, it is fundamentally dependent on various species and the biosphere, which has taken billions of years of evolution to develop. The sheer amount of work that nature has invested in creating a world where we can exist is truly mindblowing. It is reasonable to assert that a significant portion of our attention should be directed towards maintaining and protecting this intricate ecosystem, rather than solely focusing on advancement.

While advancement may seem more interesting—especially to our egos—most of life should actually revolve around maintenance. This is evident in the traditional division of labor between men and women, particularly in household activities. Tasks such as feeding children, washing dishes, and preparing meals are ongoing cycles that do not receive historical recognition, yet they form the foundation of our existence.

A healthy culture should place immense value on maintaining and stewarding the incredible gift that existence represents. It is crucial to recognize that maintaining and stewarding this gift requires effort. Therefore, the primary focus should not be on progress but rather on appreciating and honoring what already exists.

Moreover, the activities associated with maintenance are substantial. Many examples illustrate how progress can lead to harm in other areas, causing significant damage within a short span of years or decades to what nature has taken billions of years to create. The extinction of a species, which results from countless years of evolution, occurs rapidly and irreversibly. Similarly, the destruction of a culture, where language and traditions have developed over thousands of years, is an irreversible loss that we must acknowledge and strive to prevent.

=> 01:50:31

True progress isn't just about moving forward; it's about deeply appreciating and protecting the beauty of what already exists.

Stewarding the unbelievable gift that existence is requires the realization that it takes work to maintain and protect it. Thus, progress is actually not the main focus; rather, the main focus should be on appreciation of what is and honoring and relating to what is. While maintenance on the doing side encompasses a significant amount of activity, it is crucial to recognize that many examples of progress have caused harm in other areas. This harm can occur rapidly, often in just a few years or decades, to ecosystems that took nature billions of years to develop.

When we make a species extinct, we are erasing the result of billions of years of evolution, and this extinction happens quickly, with no chance of recovery. Similarly, if we destroy a culture whose language and traditions took thousands of years to evolve, that culture is lost forever. The reality is that destruction is fast, while nurturing and growing life takes time. It can take decades to grow an adult human being, but one can end a life in an instant. Therefore, maintenance and protection should be a very high value.

Moreover, it is essential to understand that growth can also lead to destruction. This destruction often occurs outside the purview of market incentives or the jurisdiction of decision-makers. I recall one of my early engagements with government organizations, specifically with the World Food Program, where discussions revolved around solving world hunger. They proposed an approach that introduced NPK-based agriculture to the developing world, which resulted in increased agricultural output. However, I pointed out that this approach would accelerate the dead zones in the oceans, ultimately threatening the habitability of the entire planet. They acknowledged this concern but stated that their metrics focused solely on how many people they were feeding per year. This illustrates that it is not just the perverse incentive of the market at play; it is also the decision-making structures that divide the world into parts, neglecting the interconnectedness of everything in our universe.

Additionally, we must consider that the world we inhabit took immense effort to create, and we should strive to maintain it not only for survival but also for enjoyment. A meaningful human life involves spending time in awe of sunsets, trees, animals, children, and stars. If our goal is solely to make things better without grounding ourselves in the actual experience of the beauty of what is, then who cares? A significant portion of our lives should not be oriented toward progress but rather toward taking in, with awe and gratitude, the beauty that surrounds us. Much of our impulse for progress stems from a sense of emptiness, a desire to fill that void with the addictive hit of progress—whether it be getting ahead, growing, or inventing something new.

While there is a healthy type of progress that is important, it must be rooted in a deep appreciation of the world as it is. This mode of being forms the foundation for why anything matters at all. Our experience of the meaningfulness of life is what drives us to want to protect, maintain, or add to our world. As creative beings, we desire our creations to enhance the beauty of the world. First, we must take in the beauty of our surroundings, then protect and maintain it, and finally, seek to add to it in a way that is harmonious with all that exists. If we fail to do so, our efforts may inadvertently destroy more fundamental and meaningful aspects of life.

It is crucial that our sense of progress emerges from a place of depth and fullness, ensuring that we do not seek all our happiness solely through progress. Furthermore, there is much to be said about how children are raised; often, their rewards are tied to learning more and gaining new skills. This dynamic contributes to the overall understanding of progress and its implications in our lives.

=> 01:54:47

True progress isn't just about achievements or milestones; it's about enriching the world and leaving it more beautiful for future generations.

In our exploration of the world, we need to take in the beauty of the world. We want to protect and maintain it, and then we want to add to it. However, it is crucial to consider where it really adds to it. If we do not approach this addition in harmony with all that exists, it may lead to destruction rather than enhancement. This destruction could impact elements that are more fundamental and meaningful. Therefore, it is important that we cultivate a sense of progress that comes from a depth of being and fullness, rather than seeking all our happiness solely from progress.

There is also a significant issue regarding the way kids are raised. Often, children learn that their rewards come from gaining knowledge and achieving progress in their studies. This emphasis on achievement can overshadow the importance of real intimacy and unconditional love, leading to a focus on doing rather than being. In many cases, children are rewarded for doing what others, such as teachers and parents, want them to do. They often receive praise for answers that have already been determined by others, while they may be punished for answers that resonate with their own sensibilities. This approach can instill conformity rather than fostering independent thinking, discovery, and the ability to make good choices on their own.

Reflecting on education, I recall a conversation about schooling and incentives. Marshall Rosenberg, known for his work in nonviolent communication, shared his approach to teaching children. He emphasized that when teaching subjects like math, he does not praise students for getting the right answers or punish them for wrong ones. Instead, he discusses the answers independently of their sense of validation. For instance, if a child rushes to finish a math assignment, rather than congratulating them for their speed or accuracy, he might say, “I get the same answer as you for all of these except this one. Can you walk me through how you got that one?” This method encourages self-correction and fosters a deeper expression of the child's authentic self, rather than merely focusing on right or wrong answers. This approach can lead to a genuine love for learning, rather than a superficial desire for rewards.

The type of progress that emerges from a sense of fullness of what is and a desire to appreciate, protect, maintain, and add to our surroundings is far healthier than that which stems from a desire to fill an emptiness. It is essential that we believe we can engage in activities that leave the world better for others. This belief forms the authentic and meaningful part of the progress narrative. I have experienced tremendous beauty in my life, and I aspire to leave the world at least as beautiful, if not more so, for others. This sacred impulse is vital, and it is important to rescue it from the propagandized version of progress that equates it with economic growth, new products, or advanced technologies—especially when these advancements may lead to destruction.

Authentic progress should be defined as leaving the world better than we found it. This requires a meaningful understanding of what is good and what ought to be. We must consider better for whom, embracing a more inclusive definition that encompasses everyone.

=> 01:58:53

True progress is about leaving the world more beautiful for future generations, not just chasing economic growth or technological advancements.

I have experienced a tremendous amount of beauty in my life, and I want to leave the world at least as beautiful, if not more beautiful, for others. This desire is such an important and sacred impulse that I want to rescue it from the propagandized version that equates progress with merely growing GDP, launching new products, or advancing technology—even if that technology is used to destroy many things. Authentic progress is about leaving the world better than we found it. This notion of "better" requires us to engage with concepts of good and what ought to be, rather than merely what is. It also necessitates a more inclusive definition that encompasses everyone, including future generations, all people, and other beings.

I envision a world where people feel empowered to contribute to progress, where there is something sacred about our understanding of progress. Because this concept is so sacred, a bastardized version of it is completely unacceptable; it is, in fact, a sin. We are incredibly gifted to exist in this world, and we must honor and protect that gift. We have been endowed with creative capabilities, and it is our responsibility to use those capabilities to leave a legacy for others. I want people to recognize how sacred the impulse for progress is and ensure that all the ways they contribute to the world align with that definition.

There are many directions I want to explore in this conversation, but I am curious to know how you arrived at these ideas. Were psychedelics a part of your mind expansion, or was it meditation? What led you to this way of thinking? I am not trying to derail our conversation, but it seems there is a spiritual flavor to your thoughts, and I wonder where that comes from.

My journey has been influenced by many different experiences. One particularly fortunate experience from my childhood was when my mom took me to engage in various forms of activism and volunteer work. One type of volunteer work involved visiting old folks' homes, where we spent time talking and listening to the residents' stories. We specifically sought out individuals who did not have family members visiting them, adopting them as grandparents and visiting them regularly, sometimes even bringing them to our home.

As a young child, I had the profound experience of being with people who were literally on their deathbeds. I listened to their reflections many times, and this was incredibly impactful. There were noticeable patterns in what they shared, particularly regarding how they reflected on what was meaningful as death approached. They expressed that they had never been able to reflect in such depth before because they were always focused on their obligations and what they still wanted to accomplish.

As they faced the reality of not having future opportunities, they began to reflect on what truly mattered to them. Their insights were striking. Numerous articles discuss the number one regret of the dying, and while different people have articulated various regrets, the most prominent one I observed was that they wished they had expressed their love more openly to those around them. Many expressed a desire to have told their children how much they loved them, how proud they were, and to have spent more time with them.

The pain and remorse they felt as they faced death stemmed from a sense of having lived wrongly. Another significant source of regret was that the things they deemed most important and meaningful were often postponed due to the obligations they felt compelled to fulfill. They lamented that their lives did not align with their own values as closely as they wished. This realization was profoundly impactful for me, and I never heard any of them express a wish to have pursued more material success or accolades.

=> 02:03:22

Regret often stems from not aligning your life with what truly matters—love, connection, and meaningful action. Don't wait until it's too late to express your feelings and live by your values.

Reflecting on my life, I often wish I would have told my kids how much I loved them and how proud of them I was. I regret not spending more time with them. Additionally, I wish I had expressed more to my parents. Many people, when facing death, experience remorse and pain, realizing they had lived wrong.

One significant observation was that the things that felt most important and meaningful to them were often put off due to obligations they felt they had to fulfill. This became their next biggest source of regret: their lives did not align with their own values as much as they wished. It was striking to note that none of them expressed a desire to have spent more time on their work or productivity. They did not highlight material possessions or accomplishments as the pinnacle of their lives. Instead, the highlights of their lives were always moments of love and intimacy, as well as the ways they had been able to do something meaningful for others.

This reflection starkly contrasts with how society often prioritizes achievements and material success. The systems of education and the market seem almost perfectly optimized for lives full of regret. This realization was a fervent reminder for me: I did not want to make the same mistakes that so many others had made. Their most earnest advice to young people was, "please don't make the same mistake." I understood this deeply.

My engagement in activism began at a young age. I vividly remember visiting a factory farm, which was a pivotal moment for me. Growing up, I ate meat without considering its origins, even while loving pets like dogs, cats, and guinea pigs. However, witnessing the conditions of animals in factory farms was mind-blowing. It revealed to me the unnecessary continuous suffering they endured. That day, I stopped eating meat and began studying everything I could about factory farming and animal rights.

At just nine years old, this awareness plunged me into a deep suicidal phase. I thought, if someone were to treat my dog in such a torturous manner, I would do anything to stop it. Yet, here were billions of animals, as sentient as my dog, suffering without any means of escape. I felt an overwhelming obligation; I was born into a situation where I could help, unlike those animals. It was a blessing I could take no credit for, but it came with a responsibility.

I realized that I couldn't end my life, as that wouldn't save any animals. I struggled with the idea of living a normal life while knowing about the infinity of torture happening around me. To ignore it would mean I would have to dissociate completely, which felt sociopathic. I believed there was no way to have a successful life without confronting these issues. Thus, I committed myself to activism against factory farms, which opened my eyes to other global issues, such as overfishing of the oceans, destruction of coral reefs, and deforestation.

The benefit of this deep awareness of suffering is profound. When you truly see the suffering in the world and take it in deeply enough, it becomes an antidote to complacency, driving you to act and make a difference.

=> 02:07:40

True connection with nature reveals the emptiness of our ego-driven desires and helps us embrace the beauty of life and death.

In reflecting on my experiences, I realized that I would have to dissociate completely, which, in a way, makes me a sociopath. I felt trapped, believing there was no way to have a successful life without adopting such a mindset. However, I also recognized that I couldn't kill myself, leading me to conclude that the only answer was to engage in activism against factory farms. This involvement opened my eyes to the broader issues of overfishing of the oceans, the destruction of coral reefs, and deforestation. As I delved deeper into these topics, my awareness continued to expand.

The benefit of this deep awareness is profound. When you truly see the suffering in the world and take it in deeply enough, it becomes a constant presence in your life. This awareness serves as an antidote to the narcissism that is so prevalent in society, where individuals are often focused solely on me, my desires, my goals, my problems. This self-centered mindset creates a horrible prison of existence.

Moreover, I observed that people spend 90% of their time indoors, isolated from the natural world and surrounded by possessions that fuel their desires. This environment continuously reinforces the egoic complex of wanting and needing. However, I find that when I take people into deep wilderness, especially those who have not spent much time there, their addictive tendencies diminish rapidly. They stop feeling the urge to scroll their phones incessantly, and many of their productive impulses—the unhealthy ones aimed at filling an emptiness—also begin to fade.

In this natural setting, people often become more at peace with death. Nature is filled with reminders of mortality; there is no square foot devoid of death, from decaying leaves to dead trees. Yet, amidst this decay, life thrives, creating a beautiful and interconnected ecosystem. The stark contrast between this experience and living in a nuclear family home, surrounded by the results of our own acquisition, conditions a very different aspect of the self.

Interestingly, much of sociology has conditioned us to view the world through a lens that suggests it is human nature to fear death. However, many indigenous cultures do not share this fear. The work of thinkers like Ernest Becker, particularly his Terror Management Theory, offers valuable insights into how civilization can be seen as a domestication program for wild sapiens. For hundreds of thousands of years, our ancestors lived in relatively small tribes, and the notion that all human actions are driven by a desire to avoid the fear of death is not innate to all forms of human nature.

Having spent considerable time in nature as a child, I developed a profound love for the non-human world and a deep horror at its destruction. My journey has also included numerous experiences in meditation, which have further shaped my understanding and connection to these themes.

=> 02:11:52

We are not separate; our existence is woven into the intricate web of life around us. Recognizing this interconnectedness is the key to understanding our place in the world and the impact of our actions.

The idea that everything we do is to avoid fear of death is a profound concept. One can induce fear of death in people, creating a world system that perpetuates this fear. Consequently, their desire to avoid the fear of death leads them to contribute to that world system. However, this is not innate to all forms of human nature.

Reflecting on my childhood, I spent a lot of time in nature, which instilled in me a deep love for the non-human world. This love was accompanied by a horrified feeling at its destruction. Throughout my experiences in meditation, with psychedelics, and simply being alone in nature for extended periods, I became acutely aware of the intrinsic beauty of every being. I realized that every living thing is interconnected with every other thing. For instance, I pondered, "Who am I without plants?" I couldn't exist without them, as they produce the oxygen I need to live and the calories I consume. Similarly, I recognized my dependence on bacteria, viruses, and plankton; without them, I wouldn't exist. I am an emergent property of all these other life forms.

When I think of myself without considering these connections, I can inadvertently advance my own interests while destroying the very things I depend upon for existence. Recently, I spoke with a brilliant new colleague, Vanessa Andreotti, who wrote a book called Hospice in Modernity. She shared a beautiful definition of colonialism from her chief, stating that it is not merely about taking land or owning people. Instead, the essence of colonialism lies in believing that there are separable things. This belief leads to optimizing certain aspects at the expense of others, rooted in a deeper conditioning to perceive the world as a collection of separate entities.

This perception is reinforced even in the way we teach children language, labeling things as nouns. However, there are no true nouns; for example, a tree is not just a noun but a dynamic process involving billions of biochemical, biological, and physical interactions. Everything we think of as separate is a result of our limited observation. If we consider what exists outside of a tree, we realize it cannot exist without its connections, such as mycorrhizae.

Moreover, when we define an atom, we often overlook its dependencies. For instance, what is an atom of hydrogen without the Higgs field, the electromagnetic field, or the strong force? The atom relies on many factors that are not the atom itself, yet we ignore this context when defining it. This tendency to treat everything we care about as separable entities leads us to harm the connections that sustain them.

My studies in ecology, complexity, and the philosophy of science have brought me to these realizations, alongside my exploration of history and what I consider spiritual experiences. These experiences have led to clear perception, where the interconnectedness of everything with everything else, as well as the uniqueness of each being, becomes apparent. Each tree is completely unique, and every human has experiences and perceptions that are entirely their own. I could never fully know all of that uniqueness, but recognizing it allows for a deeper appreciation of the intricate web of life that surrounds us.

=> 02:16:05

Every being is unique and irreplaceable; our interconnectedness means that harming one ultimately harms us all.

In contemplating the study of history, one can also consider the significance of spiritual experiences. These experiences can be described as clear perception, a state of awareness that is not entirely distorted. In this state, the interconnectedness of everything becomes apparent, along with the uniqueness of each individual. For instance, the tree in front of me is completely unique; there is not one exactly like it. Similarly, every human being possesses experiences and perceptions that are entirely their own—experiences that nobody has ever had and that nobody ever will have in the same way. This realization highlights that every being is priceless and irreplaceable, which implies that harm cannot be externalized anywhere. Furthermore, the notion of interconnectedness suggests that your fate and the fate of everything you care about are intertwined with the fates of others.

This perspective can be viewed as spiritual, but I believe it is also scientifically and philosophically valid. It emerges naturally in perception when the mind is not overly distorted. You reminded me of one of my favorite lessons from Romas, which discusses the two spiritual ideas that exist in conflict with one another. One idea is that suffering is endless, and one must have a broken heart for all the suffering in the world. The other idea is that everything is perfect. These two concepts are fundamentally at odds, yet it is crucial to hold both in our hearts simultaneously.

Often, when people are experiencing difficult times, I lean towards the belief that it's all perfect, aiming to show them that their struggles are part of a higher wisdom preparing them for a greater purpose. However, it seems that your focus is heavily on the endless suffering in the world. Part of me wants to zoom out and ask whether this suffering is part of some greater lesson. Are we, in fact, destroying ourselves through our mistreatment of the Earth? As you mentioned earlier, quoting a chief, “we are not the web; we are the strand in the web.” Therefore, any harm we inflict on the Earth is ultimately harm we inflict upon ourselves. The idea that hurt people hurt others encapsulates a profound paradox: the sense of order and perfection in the universe versus the injustice and atrocity that demand change.

I recall a time when I was about 25 years old. A woman approached me, asking if I could speak with her daughter, who had recently discovered that her husband had been raping her for years. The daughter was only 15. The mother, upon learning the truth, had thrown the man out and sought to help her daughter. However, in her desire to assist, the mother held some new age beliefs, suggesting that everything happens for a reason and that there is good in every situation. When the daughter came to see me, she was visibly shut down—her arms crossed, her body turned away. Early in our conversation, she expressed her frustration, saying, “if you're going to tell me that it's good that this happened, just leave.”

I reassured her, saying, “No, I'm not going to tell you that it's good that it happened. I'm going to tell you that it happened, and it’s not your fault. However, you have to deal with it. You must make meaning of it and internalize it.” I explained that there are various ways to process such trauma, and the path she chooses can lead to a very different life based on how she navigates this experience.

=> 02:20:44

Healing from trauma isn't about pretending everything is perfect; it's about fully feeling the pain and transforming it into something meaningful. Your choices can either serve the whole or detract from it—own them.

The conversation began with a mother who was visibly distressed; her arms were crossed, her body was turned away, and she was completely shut down. Early in our discussion, she expressed her feelings by saying, "if you're going to tell me that it's good that this happened," implying a sense of hopelessness. I responded firmly, stating, "No, I'm not going to tell you that it's good that it happened. I'm going to tell you that it happened." I reassured her that it's not your fault that it happened, but emphasized the importance of dealing with it.

I explained that she must make meaning of it and internalize it, as there are different ways to process such experiences. Depending on how she navigates this, she could lead a very different life. I pointed out that she could choose to hate men forever, not trust people, and feel disgust in her body. Alternatively, she could go through a healing process that would equip her with the skills to help other women facing similar challenges. This path could lead to a more whole version of herself, which we could consider good. However, I made it clear that this does not mean I was suggesting that it was good that he did that; this is an important distinction to make in the context of everything is perfect.

I shared my perspective on spiritual beliefs, stating, "any belief that any spiritual or kind of worldview belief that lessens your empathy, I'm not a big fan of." I highlighted the tendency for people to engage in spiritual bypassing to avoid dealing with suffering. Many of us are avoiding our own suffering, which prevents us from facing painful experiences from our past. This avoidance makes it difficult to be present with others' suffering, as truly feeling their pain would require us to confront our own.

Thus, we often resort to affirmations like "everything is perfect" or "you get more of what you focus on" to sidestep the discomfort. I believe that the ability to transform trauma necessitates fully engaging with it—acknowledging and feeling it—without resorting to beliefs that attempt to bypass the experience.

In general, I advocate for spiritual views that promote responsibility to each other. We need to recognize that our distress over unnecessary harm stems from our love for those affected. For instance, "I wouldn't care that people... I wouldn't feel badly about the girl being raped if I didn't actually care about her existence." This intrinsic connection to the suffering of others is what drives our anger and heartbreak, whether it concerns the kids in Gaza or the animals in factory farms.

When we feel devastated by injustice, tracing our feelings back to their source reveals that the source of all of it is love. This understanding leads us to the notion of perfection, as we realize that, to some extent, we possess authentic choice. We are not merely automatons; we can make choices that either serve or hinder the collective good. It is crucial to acknowledge where we have made choices that do not align with this service to the whole and to reconcile those decisions.

Ultimately, the question remains: how do we align this progress?

=> 02:25:10

True progress means considering the full impact of our choices, not just the immediate benefits. It's about aligning our actions with the well-being of all beings, not just a narrow agenda.

I care about these aspects of reality because they are intrinsically meaningful and beautiful to me. I want to see them doing well and thriving. Therefore, I think it's important to feel all those feelings and then to trace them back to their source, which is love. This is where the perfection part comes in. However, we also realize that, in so far as we have some element of authentic choice and are not purely automated, we can make choices that are more or less in service of the whole.

It is crucial to recognize where we have made and are making choices that do not serve the whole, which are not coming from clear perception and intention. We need to own it and reconcile it. The question arises: how do we align this progress narrative with what is best for the whole? I would say that for a change to be considered progress, the total set of effects that come from that change needs to be considered.

For instance, when you create a technology, your goal might be that the phone performs a specific function. However, your goal likely does not include the fact that child slave labor was used in the DRC to obtain the nickel or cobalt for the battery, or that all the mining tailing pollution went into the ocean. To truly consider it progress, you have to factor in all of that and the effects on all beings. Are all the beings being affected through the total set of effects still experiencing progress?

If we consider the total consequences of our choices and express a desire to change the world in ways that are comprehensively considerate of all the effects of those changes, that is what I would consider authentic progress. If it does not consider that, then it is merely change and advancement of some narrow thing. In such cases, it is not progress but rather regress or worse for many other measures that matter and for many other beings.

Is it possible to have a solution without unintended consequences? While it may be challenging, it is possible to do orders of magnitude better than we do now. For example, consider the chemical posos that is present in every drop of water, which has carcinogenic and other harmful effects on all biology. The chemical companies that invented it actually conducted animal trials that showed it caused cancer, but they hid those results before bringing the product to market. A similar situation occurred with the lead additive in gasoline, where it was known to be toxic, yet studies were repressed, and propaganda was disseminated to claim it was safe.

Often, we claim we couldn't have possibly known about these dangers, but in reality, we did know and were lying. In the early days of Facebook, for instance, social media platforms claimed they didn't know it would polarize the population and increase issues like teen suicide and body dysmorphia. However, individuals like Jaron Lanier were openly warning in 2008 that monetizing attention would lead to shorter attention spans, drive addiction, and promote negative emotions. These warnings were largely ignored, and later, we were able to claim plausible deniability, asserting that it was impossible to anticipate unforeseen externalities.

I recall one of my first experiences working in environmental science when a company asked me to conduct a risk analysis. I identified numerous potential negative outcomes that could arise from their actions, but they responded by saying, "No, no, we didn't want this." They wanted me to perform the industry standard risk analysis, which involved checking boxes to indicate that nothing harmful would occur. This way, they could claim they had done their due diligence and move forward with plausible deniability.

=> 02:29:30

Design technology with foresight: anticipate not just success, but the potential harm it may cause.

During a discussion about the challenges of anticipating unforeseen consequences in environmental science and technology, it was noted that people often feel ignored when they raise concerns. This leads to a situation where later, organizations can claim plausible deniability, asserting that they couldn't have possibly known about potential risks. The speaker recalled an early experience in their career when a company requested a risk analysis. They presented a comprehensive list of potential negative outcomes, but the company rejected this approach. Instead, they wanted a standard industry risk analysis that simply checked boxes to indicate that no harm would occur, allowing them to proceed with plausible deniability.

The speaker emphasized the need for a more thoughtful approach when developing new technologies. They suggested that we should thoroughly consider the implications of success, including the necessary supply chains, the radical increase in demand, and the behavioral changes among users. Additionally, it is important to analyze the psychological and sociological effects if the technology becomes widely adopted. They highlighted the concept of red teaming, which is commonly used in cybersecurity and military strategy. This involves simulating attacks on a system to identify vulnerabilities.

Building on this idea, the speaker introduced a related process called yellow teaming. While red teaming focuses on how a project might fail, yellow teaming examines the potential external harms if the project succeeds. By conducting yellow teaming early in the design process, organizations can identify harmful externalities and adjust their designs to mitigate these risks. This approach aligns with the question posed by Jeff Goldblum: "Should we do it?"

The speaker provided an example related to social media. They argued that if social media platforms had not relied on an advertisement revenue model that monetizes user attention, the underlying technology could have been developed differently. For instance, users could have had the option to pay for the service and customize their exposure to ideas, seeking out diverse perspectives rather than content designed to capture short attention spans.

The conversation also touched on the contentious issue of censoring hate speech on social media. The speaker clarified that the problem is not merely the existence of offensive comments but rather how these comments can be amplified to millions of people. They pointed out that the algorithms used by social media platforms often prioritize content that generates division and conflict, which can polarize the population and foster enmity.

The speaker proposed that it is possible to design algorithms that do not maximize for engagement, thereby reducing the amplification of divisive content. They stressed that this situation is unprecedented in history, as algorithms now determine how much attention an idea receives on a global scale, rather than allowing for a more organic distribution of ideas.

=> 02:33:21

The algorithm is shaping our reality by amplifying division instead of unity; we need to rethink how we curate ideas to foster common ground rather than conflict.

The algorithm that governs social media platforms plays a significant role in determining what content is seen by millions of people—500 million people, to be exact. This algorithm tends to select for content that causes the most division. The reason for this is that when people engage in arguments within a thread, the activity generated by that thread upregulates its visibility. Consequently, the algorithm is designed to polarize the population, leading to increased enmity among users.

Now, one might wonder if it is possible to design the algorithm differently, such that it does not maximize engagement. In this context, fighting can be considered a form of engagement. Here, we are not merely discussing freedom of speech; rather, we are addressing an unprecedented phenomenon in human history—the ability for anyone's ideas to be presented to the entire world. The algorithm plays a crucial role in determining how much attention a particular idea receives. Unlike natural selection, where ideas gain traction based on genuine popularity, the algorithm actively chooses which content to promote in users' newsfeeds and in what order. This situation raises questions about the ethical implications of amplifying certain ideas over others.

Currently, the algorithm tends to amplify the worst ideas, those that are intrinsically divisive and capable of hijacking attention. However, what if we shifted our focus to content that receives a generally positive reaction across various political and ideological divides? By prioritizing ideas that foster shared views rather than divisive ones, we could create an environment where people recognize common ground and build upon it. While individuals would still be free to post divisive content, the algorithm would prioritize amplifying more unifying messages. This change could lead to a world where people are encouraged to create content that appeals across ideological divides, rather than content that polarizes.

If we anticipate the potential harms of our current approach, we might reconsider how we design these algorithms. By optimizing for broader goals and being mindful of the external effects, we could fundamentally change the way technology impacts society. As we continue to develop increasingly powerful technologies that scale rapidly, we must also consider the cumulative externalities and rivalries that could lead to extinction.

From a mythopoetic perspective, the total technological power that humanity wields is unlike that of any other species. Even the creation of stone tools set us apart, but our current capabilities—such as genetic modification, nuclear technology, and advanced artificial intelligence—are akin to the powers of gods from antiquity, yet we lack the corresponding wisdom to wield this power responsibly.

We have developed a mindset that excels at analyzing parts and causal relationships within narrowly defined domains, particularly in technology. However, this has not been matched by a corresponding growth in wisdom regarding what types of technology should be developed. As I see it, we must either cultivate this wisdom or risk the continuation of our current trajectory.

My concern lies in how this situation will be regulated. We will need a third party to assess the potential second-order effects of technology and determine what could lead to harm. For instance, if I were to upload a YouTube video, and someone flagged it as likely to direct viewers toward conspiracy theories that could incite opposition to the government, would that content be allowed to remain? This scenario highlights the complexities of regulation in the digital age.

=> 02:37:36

We stand at a crossroads where unchecked technology can lead to chaos or tyranny; we must find a balance before it's too late.

For if it grows, profits win, and war can convince more people to believe a particular thing. However, we have not correspondingly grown the wisdom of what types of tech should be built. Basically, what I'm saying is we either have to do that, or this process doesn't continue very long.

That's really well said. My concern is, how is this going to be regulated? You're going to need a third party to decide, "Hey, this second-order effect is going to cause a lot of harm; you can't do that." You know, it instantly makes me think, let's say I'm trying to upload a YouTube video, and somebody says, "Hey, this is going to lead a lot of viewers to check out some conspiracy theories that might lead them to oppose the government; you can't post this video."

So, I'm generally butting heads quite a bit with these policymakers of the algorithm—the regulators—because, as a content creator, I'm always fighting them over what I can and can't post. You know, I'm always getting things taken down or shadowbanned, and that's very frustrating. So, it's a very hard thing to regulate.

There are twin failure modes that the world faces right now. Throughout history, there have always been failure modes that come from whatever the system of social coordination is—government, institutions, market, religion. Whatever the systems of social coordination are, they are not effective, and you get increasing chaos. Under critical conditions, things aren't being manufactured or made that need to be, and people are warring with each other.

On the other side, the failure mode is that the social coordination system has enough power to check those things, and it itself becomes corrupt, leading to tyranny. So, there's this kind of chaos on one side and tyranny on the other—twin failure modes. We don't want either of those.

In the same way that we said we're for the first time in history, even though empires have always fallen, we are at a place where the unit of civilization could be considered the entire planet. It's these six continents and supply chains that make the stuff that all civilizations depend upon. Following globalization, we are at a place where, for the first time, you could have chaos and global catastrophic risk for the whole planet.

We are also, however, at a place where you could have autocratic dystopia for the whole planet. Before industrial tech, you could not destroy the ecosystem; you just couldn't fish out all the fish with fishing rods. But when you have mile-long drift nets, you can pull up whole schools of fish all day long, leading to overfishing the entire ocean.

Before nuclear weapons, we couldn't destroy everything quickly, even if we wanted to. There were people who really tried, but the scope of the catastrophic potential is related to our technological capacity. However, the same technology can also create control dystopias. You can see the intuitions of people focusing on one of these problems or the other.

There are people who are just terrified of all regulation and typically tend to think that it is almost always corrupt. On the other hand, there are those who are terrified of what especially exponentiating tech and market forces do to the world without anything checking them. Both are right.

To think about this correctly, you have to embrace the rock and the hard place, not just focus on one and not the other. The solution to one ends up being the other one. We can see that multipolar traps between major nations lead to the probable destruction of everything. The nations in multipolar traps with each other are all extracting more fossil fuels every year and are all externalizing their pollution costs because nobody wants to internalize the pollution cost themselves if everyone else doesn't.

Then, they have less margin to compete. Everybody is putting more energy into militaries, etc. So, you're like, "Okay, the competitive nature between the countries will destroy everything." Of course, one proposed solution is, we need a one-world government so we don't have...

=> 02:41:41

In a world racing towards rapid technological deployment, we risk amplifying harm instead of solving problems. Thoughtful implementation is key to avoiding a dystopian future.

The discussion highlights the complexities of multi-polar traps between major nations, emphasizing that these traps could potentially lead to the destruction of everything. Nations engaged in these traps are increasingly extracting more fossil fuels each year while externalizing all their pollution costs. This occurs because no country wants to internalize pollution costs if others do not, which would reduce their competitive margins. Consequently, every country is investing more energy into militaries, leading to a competitive nature that threatens global stability.

One proposed solution to this dilemma is the establishment of a one world government to prevent such destructive competition. However, it is important to note that where power has become concentrated, it has often led to corruption. Historically, during the time of the Roman Empire, it was difficult to monitor actions and enforce the rule of law due to technological limitations. In contrast, today we have real-time imaging of the Earth's surface through satellites and an increasing amount of sensor data that can be processed by AI. This raises concerns about the potential for a terrifying global dystopic control state.

When discussing checks and balances on power, it is crucial to recognize the destructive potential of decentralized artificial intelligence as it develops. AI can be utilized to create better chemical weapons, bioweapons, and even enhance propaganda and fake news. Although some may argue that AI will save the environment by providing efficiencies, it is essential to understand that efficiency does not equate to reduced energy use. Instead, it often leads to increased energy consumption. This phenomenon is known as Jevons Paradox, which illustrates that as the cost of energy decreases, we tend to use more energy, not less.

In current market dynamics, almost every goal is achieved at the expense of numerous externalities. Even the ostensibly beneficial applications of AI can inadvertently accelerate these externalities. For instance, if the cost of energy decreases, it opens up new mining opportunities that were previously unprofitable, resulting in increased pollution and industrial tailings. The market dynamics we observe today suggest that even the good things optimized by AI can exacerbate the rate of externalities, not to mention the potential for weaponized applications.

As we grapple with these challenges, it is evident that we are moving in the opposite direction of thoughtful forecasting and testing. The rapid deployment of AI technologies, such as ChatGPT, to hundreds of millions of users without adequate consideration of potential harms is concerning. The speed of deployment and scale of AI today is astonishingly fast—much faster than the development of oil by companies like Standard Oil. For example, reaching 100 million users in just a week with platforms like Threads is unprecedented.

This rapid pace contradicts the necessary approach of careful planning and observation during implementation. A more prudent strategy would involve conducting safe-to-fail probes and making adjustments based on unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately, the current trajectory suggests that we are not succeeding in implementing these thoughtful measures.

=> 02:45:39

The rapid evolution of AI is outpacing our ability to regulate it, risking catastrophic consequences if we don't restructure governance for transparency and accountability.

The speed of deployment and scale of AI right now is astonishing, especially when compared to historical developments like those of Standard Oil. The rapidity with which technologies can reach 100 million users in a week, as seen with platforms like Threads, is mind-blowingly fast. This rapid advancement stands in stark contrast to the careful, protracted thinking required to ensure that we are not causing significant harm. When implementing new technologies, it is essential to conduct extensive observation at a smaller scale, allowing for a safe-to-fail probe approach. This method enables us to make necessary changes based on unforeseen issues that arise, rather than rushing to scale without adequate understanding.

Currently, we are facing challenges in effectively regulating AI technologies. The applications of AI can be terrifying, and while we might consider halting market applications until we can ensure safety, the burden of proof should lie in demonstrating that these technologies are adequately safe. This is crucial to avoid a scenario similar to the historical regulation of harmful substances like lead and DDT, where the damage was done before any regulatory action was taken. By the time we recognize the disruption caused by unregulated AI, it may be too late, and the consequences could be irreversible.

If we were to implement regulations, a significant question arises: who is "we"? The level of market investment in AI technologies would necessitate government intervention, leveraging the monopoly of violence and rule of law to enforce such regulations. However, it is challenging to ascertain whether military contractors and classified projects are subject to the same regulatory scrutiny. If they are not, then development continues unchecked, leading to a situation where the monopoly of power becomes nearly infinite.

This situation presents one of the hardest issues humanity is facing right now. Without robust regulation, market forces may drive us beyond planetary boundaries, leading to numerous global catastrophic risks. Merely relying on incentives will not suffice; we need deterrents. Unfortunately, existing regulatory systems lack the visibility, integrity, and checks and balances necessary to be trusted with the power required to regulate these technologies effectively. Therefore, we must restructure governance to ensure that transparency and accountability are in place, along with the wisdom needed to navigate these challenges swiftly. However, the prospects of achieving this seem bleak.

It is important to note that accomplishing this restructuring does not fundamentally violate any laws of physics; rather, it is a complex challenge. We must recognize that the discontrol dystopia and decentralized catastrophe are intertwined, where solutions to one often exacerbate the other. Our focus should be on deepening our understanding of these failure modes and designing solutions that avoid both extremes.

Currently, AI is advancing at an unprecedented pace, with significant updates emerging almost weekly. When reflecting on AI from just a year ago, it is almost laughable compared to the crazy deep fake technologies being developed today. Although there is talk of regulation, the rapid evolution of technology means that by the time regulatory frameworks are established, AI will have advanced 20,000 years beyond current capabilities.

The technology is evolving at the intersection of multiple exponential curves. We have come to understand exponential growth in technology through concepts like Moore's Law, which describes the progressive doubling of compute speed per cost every couple of years. Presently, in the AI space, GPU cluster hardware is experiencing a 10x increase in just six months, and this rate is accelerating. We are witnessing exponential growth in hardware, data availability, capital investment, and software development, particularly in cognitive architectures. Unfortunately, the legal frameworks are still progressing at the same slow pace as before, which poses a significant challenge to effective regulation.

=> 02:49:56

The rapid acceleration of technology demands a revolutionary rethink of governance, as our current systems can't keep pace with the exponential growth of AI and data.

I started to understand exponential curves in technology, particularly with concepts like Moore's Law, which describes the progressive doubling of compute speed per cost every couple of years. Currently, in the AI hardware space, specifically with GPU cluster hardware, we are witnessing a 10x increase in just six months, and the rate of this growth is increasing.

We observe exponential curves not only in hardware but also in the amount of data available, the capital being invested, and the number of people working in this space. Additionally, there is an exponential curve in the software development of cognitive architectures involved. All of these elements are intersecting, yet law is not only still working as slowly as it did at the founding of this country, but it is also working slower due to the increasing polarization of the population. This polarization has led to the election of increasingly polarized representatives who disagree on everything.

It is important to note that social media is actually an early form of AI; it utilizes an early form of AI to curate all of the world's content, maximizing its stickiness for users based on harvested behavioral data. As a result, deep fakes are now creating content that was once curated. This curation is powerful because it incentivizes every other content producer to create material that aligns with what the algorithms favor, including mainstream news. Consequently, technology has simultaneously decreased the capacity of government to govern, diminished the clarity of thinking and collective intelligence of the population, and increased enmity and certainty in wrongness across the board. This combination is quite troubling, as it leads to increasing certainty coupled with a decreasing scope of understanding on most issues.

With the rapid advancement of technology and the increasing allocation of capital to it, it is evident that the regulatory system is ineffective. For any regulatory system to be viable, it must be able to keep pace with the speed of technological development. This necessity calls for fundamental innovations in how we think about governance. If the founding fathers were alive today and observed the current tech landscape and issues, they would likely not propose the same solutions they did in 1776; they would devise a different set of approaches.

The innovation in technology necessitates innovation in social technology as well. This includes not only faster and more powerful methods, such as deregulation of markets and venture capital, but also innovations that are aligned with a viable future. This raises the question: What will it mean to be human when AI can perform everything better and faster? What will our roles be in this impending post-AI world?

Regarding the primary current approaches to AI, I do not believe it will be able to do everything faster and better than humans, but it will excel in many areas. For instance, if you engage with large language models (LLMs), you may notice that they tend to hallucinate—though "hallucinate" may not be the most accurate term; they often confabulate. They generate responses that sound plausible but may not be true, as they do not genuinely understand concepts in any meaningful way. Instead, they analyze statistical relationships to determine the likelihood of the next word fitting into a sentence, often producing sentences that sound reasonable to those who lack knowledge on the topic.

Sometimes, these models may quote statistics that are completely fabricated, leading to extremely distorted understandings. Moreover, they tend to recombine existing concepts rather than provide novel insights. The cognitive architectures employed in AI differ fundamentally from those in humans. While there are researchers studying human cognition to replicate it in AI, the paths of development may diverge significantly.

=> 02:54:21

AI may automate tasks, but it can't replicate the essence of being human—our ability to appreciate life beyond mere function.

The next word that seems reasonable to the sentence is factoring all of human language. Consequently, AI systems will make sentences that sound good, and if you don't know anything, they may sound reasonable. However, sometimes they're quoting stats that are completely fabricated or made up, and the understanding can be extremely distorted.

You'll also notice that recombining concepts that exist happens a lot more than anything resembling novelty of insight. The cognitive architectures being used in AI are different in kind from the types of cognitive architectures happening inside of humans. There are obviously people studying how it happens in humans and trying to replicate that, so it might go in different directions. Currently, the direction in which AI, not just large language models (LLMs), is going is mostly optimized for near-term maximum market applications.

We are getting very good at using AI for various purposes, such as weapons targeting, and for beneficial applications like energy grid distribution and solving traveling salesman problems for supply chains. However, there are also concerns about AI making believable content at an unbelievable scale and speed, which will soon dominate online content. This content has no actual connection to reality, as the AI generating it has no real understanding of reality, which is quite troubling.

I understand your question about job automation. In the past, we've seen a bunch of jobs automated, yet new jobs were created. For instance, nobody is upset that elevators got automated, as there were new jobs that emerged from that process. To illustrate, the internal combustion engine tractor has reduced the number of people involved in food production to one-fiftieth of what it was before. This represents a significant automation of human activity.

With AI, some people argue that while it will automate many jobs, it will also create new ones, so there won't be a job issue. However, this is fundamentally not true about AI in the same way it was true for other technologies. The earlier technologies, like the internal combustion engine and the automated elevator, came from human intelligence that could figure out how to create something new. In contrast, AI is trying to replicate that type of human intelligence at an exponentially larger scale.

Yes, it will create new market niches, but it will simultaneously figure out how to automate them. This is a very different scenario. There are many versions of this world that look quite dystopic. If we advance this world while maintaining capitalism as the underlying system, there will be a shift. In the past, there was a need for labor, and the surf class had some utility to the elites. However, in the future, there may be no utility at all.

This is also why some people running AI companies are fans of universal basic income. If they are competing for who wins "Master of the Galaxy" and who will own everything, having the people not rebel is worth some small amount while they increasingly get their needs met in a digital universe that costs almost nothing compared to the physical universe. This situation may lead to people feeling mostly obsolete, which can be packaged as a nicer idea, suggesting that they will have time to pursue creative endeavors.

The good part of the AI question serves as a thought experiment: if you could automate all or most of the tasks that humans do, what constitutes a meaningful human life? What is unique to being human that is not simply task fulfillment? This is a really good question, and it grounds in experience. We are not building AIs that can appreciate sunsets; rather, we are building AIs that can say words that sound like empathy but are not truly empathetic.

Ultimately, one thing that is unique to being a sentient being, as opposed to just an automaton, is the capacity for genuine emotional experience and understanding.

=> 02:59:02

In a world where AI can do almost everything, what truly defines a meaningful human life? It's not just about tasks; it's about the depth of shared experiences and genuine empathy that machines will never replicate.

The good part of AI raises an intriguing thought experiment: if we could automate all, or at least most, of the tasks that humans do, what constitutes a meaningful human life? What is unique to being human that transcends mere task fulfillment? This is a really good question that grounds itself in experience.

Currently, we are not building AIs that can appreciate sunsets; instead, we are creating AIs that can articulate words that sound like empathy but do not embody true empathy. One of the unique aspects of being a sentient being, as opposed to just an intelligent one, is the capacity for experience and the capacity for shared experience. I hope that in the future, a much higher percentage of everyone’s time will be allocated to activities within the realm of interpersonal care.

If we could automate many of the tasks humans perform, we could also create a world system where a significant portion of our activities—often unnecessary and essentially a racket—could be eliminated. This brings me to an important point regarding the multipolar trap. Just as some individuals may start a company knowing it will be harmful, only to later claim ignorance about unforeseen consequences, the reality is that the difficulty in enforcing accountability often serves as a source of plausible deniability.

In a more generous interpretation, some may genuinely not know the consequences of their actions, but they often do not invest the necessary research to understand the potential harms. Instead, they focus on optimizing their processes for speed and efficiency. This is why legal frameworks have increasingly granted corporate personhood under laws originally designed for slavery, protecting directors from prosecution for their companies' activities.

The assertion that unforeseen externalities are unavoidable is often misleading. The groups that frequently make this claim are often the most powerful entities capable of creating agreements to change the status quo. Conversely, those who feel they cannot win are more likely to seek cooperative agreements. For instance, the argument that the U.S. cannot halt the AI arms race due to competition from China is a reflection of a mindset focused on winning rather than cooperation.

If the U.S. genuinely wanted to stop the AI arms race because it recognized the associated risks, it could engage in geopolitical work to foster cooperation with China, leading both nations to guide the rest of the world toward collaboration. However, those who believe they can win are typically disinclined to pursue such cooperative measures. The individuals who have risen to power within a competitive context are often better suited to a mindset focused on winning rather than cooperating.

It is crucial to recognize that the most powerful players in a multipolar trap possess the ability to bind or alter it, yet they are often the ones driving it forward. Thus, the argument for the multipolar trap frequently serves as a justification for their pursuit of victory. This observation is telling; if someone is unwilling to make a deal, they are indirectly revealing their intentions. They may claim they are willing to negotiate, but their actions often suggest otherwise, leading to a situation where we feel compelled to act while concealing the other side's unwillingness, often due to historical failures to uphold agreements.

As we have discussed extensively, there are still some questions I would like to ask you. If you need to leave, please let me know. I am particularly interested in the observation that it seems our institutions are currently falling apart.

=> 03:03:09

When institutions crumble, it’s often a reflection of our lost faith in them, revealing deeper issues that need to be addressed.

If you're not in a position to win, of course you're going to make a deal; that makes perfect sense. This situation is very telling. If somebody's not willing to make a deal, they're kind of indirectly revealing their intentions. Often, they'll say they're willing, but in reality, they are not. Consequently, we're forced into this position while hiding all of the things that the other side isn't willing to reveal, largely due to the way we have defected on all of our deals with them historically.

We've gone on for a good amount of time, but there are still some questions I would really like to ask you. If you have to leave, let me know. Something I've been really interested in is the observation that it seems like our institutions are falling apart right now. Hollywood is falling apart, our academic institutions are struggling, and the mainstream media and government seem to be crumbling as well. I'm wondering if all of this is related. Is there one common thing that's causing these institutions to fall apart, or are we simply losing faith in them? Do we need our institutions, and is there a way to save them?

I think I've been the most interested in the academic focus of this issue, particularly seeing the downfall of colleges and the increasing sentiment among young people that college is "not for me anymore." I believe it's good that we have colleges, but they are misaligned with what society actually needs. Would you like me to talk about colleges specifically, or institutions in general?

Let me start by discussing democracy, as I think that's a relevant frame. The higher-order institutions contextualize the other ones. You had asked me in the emails about democracy ending. This concept revolves around the institution of nation-states being able to function as liberal democracies rather than autocracies or something else.

In one way, there is a significant critique that democracies have never really existed as we think of them. The founding of the U.S. involved all of the undesirable jobs being done by slaves who had no say in the matter. Women also did not have a voice at that time. If people had to democratically vote for the totality of what happened, the system would not have worked as it did because those who were voting were also responsible for all of the labor. If they had to pay fair labor, the people would have voted for a system that wasn't exploitative, which would not have allowed the margins to grow as they did.

After the Civil War, we didn't truly end slavery; instead, the peonage system extended slavery. The 13th Amendment stated that slavery shall not exist, except as punishment for a crime. Consequently, many fake crimes were created to put Black people in prison and force them into labor again. When that system ended, it was largely associated with globalization, which allowed the shipping of slavery to the third world. Today, there are more people in indentured servitude or conditions of slavery than at any point in history. We have shipped most of the cheap labor and environmentally harmful practices to those areas that are part of the margins of how things work.

Calling this system democracy is somewhat misleading. Within corporations, those are not democracies; they are essentially autocracies that control a significant amount of everything. The military is also not a democracy, among other institutions. Therefore, it is challenging to assert that what we had was truly democratic. Even in the limited sense that it was, it has eroded in very significant ways that require a restructuring of the entire idea set.

This erosion was possible here in the way that it was, and each of the modern democracies has different but related stories. A key factor was that the entire continent was separated from adversaries by oceans, which played a huge role in why certain things were possible. This separation allowed for sharing information with the population that would not be shared with enemies, ensuring that the people could be apprised of key decisions without immediate repercussions.

=> 03:07:37

Democracy is in crisis when the public lacks the education and information needed to make informed choices, while legislation increasingly reflects the interests of the wealthy rather than the will of the people.

Supposedly, democracy is a concept that has faced significant erosion over time, making it difficult to assert that it truly embodies its original ideals. Even in its best form, it has undergone substantial changes that necessitate a complete restructuring of the underlying ideas. Each modern democracy has its own unique yet interconnected narrative, influenced by historical contexts.

A crucial factor in the development of democracy was the geographical separation of the continent from potential adversaries by vast oceans. This separation allowed for the sharing of information with the population without the immediate risk of it reaching enemies. Citizens could be informed about key decisions without the fear of adversarial interception. However, as technology advanced, particularly with the emergence of telecommunications and enhanced surveillance capabilities, the landscape shifted dramatically. The ability to act swiftly through missiles and other means, far outpacing traditional naval methods, meant that sharing information with citizens also equated to sharing it with adversaries, such as the Soviets.

Consequently, many issues of national importance, including those related to water and food supply, as well as financial decisions made by the Federal Reserve, began to be classified under national security. This raises critical questions about how democracy can function effectively when the most important decisions are shrouded in secrecy. In a world where adversaries can listen in from afar and act accordingly, how can sensitive information be shared with the public? This dilemma is one that modern democracy grapples with, a challenge that was not present in 1776.

Expanding on this, when Karl Popper wrote about the concept of an open society, he linked democracy with the open dissemination of scientific knowledge. The foundational idea was that a well-informed and comprehensively educated populace was essential for democracy to thrive. The founding documents emphasized the necessity of public education and a free, independent press, which would enable citizens to make informed decisions based on a clear understanding of complex issues.

Today, however, the educational level of the American population is increasingly inadequate relative to the complexity of the challenges it faces. For instance, how well does the public understand the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Ukraine-Russia dynamics, or the geopolitical risks associated with emerging technologies like CRISPR and artificial intelligence? Furthermore, issues such as the condition of ocean dead zones require a nuanced understanding that the general populace may lack. The exponential increase in the complexity of information contrasts sharply with a simultaneous decline in educational quality. Additionally, news media has become increasingly partisan, further complicating the public's ability to discern fact from propaganda.

The antecedents for democracy—an educated and well-informed populace—are not currently in place. There is a pressing need for citizens to be educated in a manner that transcends vested interests and propaganda, enabling them to make informed choices that match the complexity of contemporary issues. Unfortunately, the reality is that we are far from achieving this goal.

A study popularized by Braver Angels highlighted a troubling trend: since the 1970s, there has been a 0% correlation between popular opinion and legislation. This indicates that what the people want has little to no impact on legislative outcomes. In stark contrast, the correlation between lobbying dollars and legislative action is perfect. This brings us back to the issue of captured government. The foundational idea of liberal democracy posited that a pure market would naturally lead to power law distributions. However, the reality is that some individuals are simply more adept at accumulating wealth, and this wealth translates into power across all sectors.

=> 03:11:48

Legislation is shaped by money, not the people's will; when the market captures the state, democracy fades.

There was a study, I think it was done by Braver Angels, or at least popularized by them, that showed that since the 1970s, popular opinion has 0% correlation with legislation. This means that what the people want has absolutely no effect on legislation. That's crazy! The amount of marketing and the amount of lobbying dollars has a perfect correlation.

Now, again, we come back to the topic you were asking about: captured government. The core idea of this liberal democracy concept was that the market would naturally create power law distributions. If you just had a pure market, you would end up with a situation where some people are better at making money than others. That money is power for everything because it acts like a unit of Game Theory; it's a token that allows you to buy private mercenaries, marketing, labor, technology, and more.

If I need to change the views of people, get politicians on my side, build new technology, or buy land, money is something that has no intrinsic value but provides optionality for every type of value. Consequently, everyone started valuing money more than anything else because it represented this optionality, which is obviously game theoretically relevant. Some people would be better at making money than others, and those who have more money have more ability to make even more money, even just through compounding interest. Compounding interest grows faster than the general market does. This is what Petti showed in Capal in the 24th century: the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer, which is intrinsic to the system.

Even without considering that the rich get better education, better healthcare, and better access to financial services, wealth inequality will naturally increase over time until it becomes so imbalanced that, in a market like that without a state, pretty much everybody has no voice. The amount of voice you have to determine the world is proportional to the amount of money you have, and that ends up being detrimental for many aspects of society.

There are many situations where there is a market incentive to do things that we still don't want to do. For instance, we don't want to cut down all the national parks or have markets on organs. Therefore, we decide that we are going to have a state, but we want a minimal state. The job of the state is to serve the collective will of the people, including those who don't have a lot of money. The state must be powerful enough to check the powerful forces in the market, especially when those forces have a vested interest in doing something that is actually bad for the whole, and where the whole agrees that we don't want that.

The purpose of the state is to check the excesses of the market, aligned with the will of the people, assuming there is both a moral and scientific education of all the people, along with comprehensive informedness. This way, the will of the people would be a good idea. Ideally, the state is supposed to check the market, while the people check the state. It is meant to be a government of the people, by the people. There should be high transparency, and the people should not be career politicians; they should be elected from the populace.

However, we do not have a situation where the government is of the people and by the people. As a result, the state is no longer effectively checking the market. Instead, the market ends up capturing the state. If the market is going to be regulated by the state in a way that decreases its profits, it becomes the responsibility of the market to lobby and change the legislation in favor of its interests.

The private sector can afford to pay for a multitude of lawyers to write laws in a way that the general public cannot. Consequently, we have a world today where the vast majority of all new laws are written by the private sector in its own interests. We also see a situation of revolving doors, where someone from industry moves into the position of being the regulator who is supposed to regulate in the interest of the companies they were just employed by, and will likely be employed by again after their term is over. For example, if your FDA commissioner had previously worked in big pharma and then goes back there afterwards, what are the chances that this situation is beneficial for the public?

=> 03:15:39

True democracy thrives when everyone has a voice in the decisions that shape their lives, not just the powerful few writing the rules.

To grow as a business, one strategy is to engage in lobbying to change the legislation in favor of its interests. In today's world, the private sector has the financial resources to hire numerous lawyers to draft legislation in ways that the general public cannot. Consequently, we find ourselves in a situation where the vast majority of all new law is written by the private sector to serve its own interests.

This scenario is compounded by the phenomenon of revolving doors, where individuals from industry transition into regulatory positions, overseeing the very companies they were previously employed by, and often return to those companies after their regulatory term ends. For example, if your FDA commissioner had previously worked in big pharma and then returns there after their term, one must question the likelihood of effective regulation.

Additionally, we see the emergence of public-private partnerships, which are crucial in the current regulation of technologies like AI. The rationale behind these partnerships is that the government is often too slow and lacks the budget to keep pace with technological advancements. The private sector, which is advancing the technology and possesses the necessary expertise, proposes to collaborate with the government to address regulatory needs. However, it is typically the private sector that writes the operating agreements, as they can afford the lawyers, and these agreements often serve to regulate their own activities in a manner that does not hinder their market capabilities.

Thus, in nearly every instance of revolving doors, lobbying, and public-private partnerships, we observe a state that is effectively doing the bidding of the market, specifically catering to the interests of a select few rather than the common good. This raises the question: is that democracy?

When the only choices for elected representatives are individuals that the public does not favor, selected by parties without meaningful public input, and when citizens can only vote yes or no on propositions that they had no part in crafting, we find ourselves in what can be described as a Kabuki theater of democracy rather than genuine democratic engagement.

Moreover, the challenges of modern governance cannot be addressed through a return to the 1776-style democracy. In an era where adversarial relationships exist globally, and where foreign entities can utilize advanced technology to influence public opinion, the stakes are higher than ever. For instance, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement identified that the 16 top most popular Evangelical Facebook groups were all run by Russian troll farms, which curated content to sow division among the populace.

The strategy of powerful opponents, such as Russia and China, is to foster division within the U.S., rather than simply supporting one political figure over another. A divided society is easier to manipulate and control.

In a true democracy, the goal should be that everyone participates in the choices that affect their lives. This means ensuring that individuals have a voice in decisions that impact them, and that there is a collective effort to educate the populace effectively. However, the question of who constitutes "we" in this context and what is deemed "good education" is complex and contentious.

For democracy to be viable, there must be a competent and shared understanding of the world, along with the ability to communicate effectively across differing viewpoints to prevent conflicts from escalating into war. The mechanisms for achieving this must be fundamentally different from those of the past, as the context in which we operate today is vastly changed.

Lastly, it has been suggested that the smaller the group of people, the more trust there is, leading to more open and honest communication. This idea underscores the importance of fostering trust and collaboration in any democratic process.

=> 03:19:50

Trust diminishes as groups grow, leading to skepticism and division; true progress requires a shared understanding and collaboration across diverse perspectives.

And um, obviously, even when I say we can, that's a very tricky thing. Who is the we, and what are they calling good education? This is a very tricky thing in so far as it is possible to have a competent and shared understanding of the world emerge. An effective ability to communicate across different worldviews towards things that don't just turn into war is essential. Then, democracy is increasingly viable only in that cultural antecedent, and the mechanisms by which that could be mediated moving forward have to be completely different than they have been before because the context is completely different.

That was brilliantly explained; thank you for that. I've heard an idea, and I don't know if you've heard this, but the smaller the group of people, the more trust there is, and so the more open you can have a society. For example, with your family, you want to be a socialist and just share everything. With your community, you can be a communist, and with your region, you can be a Democrat. However, the bigger you get, the less trust there is. Of course, people are going to be more skeptical, and that's kind of one of the defining features of conservatives; they are very paranoid and skeptical of the government.

I tend to agree that it is in the interest of the political class to have people's skepticism stay partisan. As long as the Republicans say that the liberals are the ones who want big government and are ruining everything, including education, their whole answer is to not really engage in a deep democratic process. They are not involved in making sense of the world and crafting what good propositions would be or evolving the systems of government. Instead, they aim to get the guy who is saying that the liberals are bad elected to still run the system with almost none of their authentic understanding or input. The liberals do the exact same thing.

As a result, you get to take everybody's recognition that the system isn't working and keep perpetuating the system, having them all work very hard to do something that is obviously just perpetuating the system. Gregory Bateson coined the term schismogenesis, which refers to where the schism is actually the generator of the ongoing growth in the system. You have a movement that appeals to some people while anti-appealing to others. It's not that all movements must do that, but movements crafted in a way that considers values in a dialectical relationship—like rights and responsibilities—can lead to imbalance.

When one value is emphasized over another, those who care about that emphasis will be drawn in, while others who recognize the imbalance will be pushed away. Thus, you can have a movement where the success of that movement actually scares other people. In the same way that you mentioned earlier, as one nation increases its relative security, it decreases the security of everybody else. This leads to an arms race, increasing the total killing power of the world while also increasing enmity among everyone.

This is not a good endgame. Similarly, you have a movement that says some true things but leaves out some really important aspects. As a result, it appeals to some people but not others, emphasizing certain values while neglecting others. The success of that movement drives its counter-movement, meaning it never actually wins. It's so focused on a near-term win, but if it innovates any method of being more successful—like utilizing social media and elections—the other side instantly reverse engineers that and innovates as well.

Intrinsic to how one side appeals to their support base is the fact that they are anti-appealing to the other side, driving a counter-reaction. Therefore, any attempt to change the world that is made in this manner is likely to face significant challenges.

It seems like a lot of these politicians and the arguments that we hear are just distractions for what is really going on in the background. So, I am really thankful that you've taken this time to answer these questions. Every time we talk, I find myself thinking and reflecting for quite a long time because I have...

=> 03:24:19

Challenge your beliefs by seeking out the smartest voices that oppose you; true understanding comes from confronting your blind spots, not doubling down on them.

Instantly reverse engineers that innovates does the same kinds of things, and this is intrinsic to how one side is appealing to their support base. They are anti-appealing to the other side, and they are actually driving the counter-reaction on the other side. So, any attempt to change the world that is misguided is very different.

It seems like a lot of these politicians and the arguments that we hear are just distractions for what is really going on in the background. I am really thankful that you've taken this time to answer these questions. Every time we talk, I have to think and reflect for quite a long time because I have some cognitive biases and things. You are really good at addressing those and making me think about my blind spots. There are certain things that you've said that have made me think and really back off on certain things that I feel strongly about, prompting me to re-evaluate them. I don't think I've ever talked to anybody who has had that much of an effect on my thinking just from conversations, so thank you.

You said something really important that I think is a good closing point: people should be really dubious of their own certainty. It is sad how much this is true, but the amount that people really think is amazingly low. In general, if you give me four or five of someone's political views—what they think on gun control, what they think on abortion, what they think on climate change, what they think on COVID, whatever—I can predict the rest of their views with high accuracy. It's hard to say that they are truly thinking; they are in a mimetic complex. The moment you identify this complex, you know the vast majority of everything they think.

Similarly, if you are in a conversation with someone, pretty soon you know what their responses to most things are going to be. They are actually more predictable than ChatGPT; they don't even pass the Turing test. Most people don't even pass the Turing test when you're talking to them. Are they saying anything that indicates there is some real depth of consideration and sentience on the other side?

I think David Bohm said that most people are engaged in a process where thoughts arise and new ideas come in. These ideas hit the person's existing cognitive biases and mimetic filters. Those filters either reject or accept the thought. If they accept it, they seek to propagate it by trying to sell other people on the idea. Essentially, they are a mostly unconscious meme-filtering propagation system. This is really sad and also unnecessary.

You can correct this, but you have to care about what is real more than any of your ideas about what is real. Any place where your identity is associated with an idea—like "I am a pro-science person," "I am an anti-a person," "I am a Zionist," "I am an anti-Zionist," or "I am a conservative"—your identity will probably have to die when you recognize that those ideas are very limited. There are ideas on the other side that are also good.

If there are ideas that you hold on to because they support your vested interests, such as the way you make money or the way you got your fame, there is a depth of earnestness in wanting to understand reality. I existed; I was born. I don't know why I'm here for a very short period of time, and then I'll be dead. There is this amazing reality I didn't make, and I want to understand it. I want to understand how it works and what is meaningful about it so that I can live in the most authentic and meaningful way possible.

If that is the case, then what you are more curious about than anything is your own blind spots and your own biases. You want to investigate them profoundly; you don't want to ever double down on them. So, if you have a list of all the things that you believe fervently, find who are the smartest people that disagree and really listen. There might be people who have studied this way more than you and know much more stuff, and they disagree for some important reasons.

=> 03:28:46

Curiosity is the antidote to cognitive bias; the more you seek to understand differing perspectives, the more you grow.

And then I'll be dead. There's this amazing reality I didn't make. I want to understand it; I want to understand how it works. I want to understand what's meaningful about it so that I can live in the most authentic and meaningful way possible.

Then, if that's the case, what you are more curious about than anything is your own blind spots and your own biases. You want to investigate them profoundly; you don't want to ever double down on them. So, if you have a list of all the things that you believe fervently, then find who are the smartest people that disagree and really listen. There might be people who have studied this way more than you and know way more stuff, and they disagree for some important reasons. Maybe they're not 100% right either, right?

In fact, finding where experts disagree in a field is one of the best ways to enter the field. If they've studied the field for decades with deep earnestness—more than your cursory understanding—and they disagree, it means that maybe none of the worldviews or epistemologies are adequate. You want to ask yourself, Can I understand why each of them thinks what they do? Can I understand where the difference is? And maybe, because I'm not as invested, is there a chance I might be more plastic? I could see if there is a view in which there are partial truths in what each of them are saying.

So, to just look at where you hold fervently to something and identify who are the smartest people that disagree, and really try to take it in, will do so much to improve the quality of your thinking, your understanding of the world, and also just the quality of you as a human being. You will lead with more respect for other people and will have more authentic humility.

One of the other things to consider is the Dunning-Kruger effect. When you start to learn about a topic, there's this process where, before you know a lot about it, you can have confidence in it because you just don't know how much stuff you don't know. As you learn more, you become aware of how much you don't know. If you really stay attuned to how much stuff is out there—like perusing more scientific journals and just looking at how many words all the cutting-edge stuff is being talked about that you just have no idea about—you can start to grasp how much you have yet to understand.

The certainty gets replaced with both curiosity and humility and awe. As a result, you start learning a lot more. The fascinating thing is that you learn a lot more, so your views get more accurate and less certain at the same time. A world in which everybody worked to have a lot more epistemic rigor and is also aware of how much they don't know would be a world capable of some kind of democratic process working.

I just finished a video on why smart people believe stupid things, and it was all about cognitive bias and how to overcome it. It's interesting; the video made a case that smart people are more prone to cling to really idiotic ideas because they can rationalize them better. We made a case that the antidote to this cognitive bias was curiosity. The more curious you are about things, the more it will extinguish the cognitive bias. So, just being curious is a great way to live.

The smart person can rationalize, and the interesting thing is that rationalizing is the opposite of rationality. The idea of rationality is that we are taking some, hopefully, clear formal process of assessing the world. Rationalization, on the other hand, is when you come to a belief based on ingroup identity or motivated reasoning or whatever types of things, and then you rationally backfill why you came there. The reason that you say you came there and why you actually came there aren't the same, but you probably have low enough psychological insight that you don't realize that.

Therefore, one should be very attentive to their own rationalization and motivated reasoning. The smart person, because they have an identity as a smart person—and maybe they have a job as a smart person—might be supported by the people who encourage them to believe that stuff. They speak to an audience on the left or an audience on the right who wants them to be the smart person who says those things.

=> 03:32:55

True growth comes from facing our deepest truths, especially when we realize our actions shape the lives of those we love most.

Rationalization is when you come to a belief based on ingroup identity, motivated reasoning, or other similar factors. Then, you rationally backfill the reasons for why you arrived at that belief. However, the reason you state for coming to that belief and the actual reason may not be the same. You probably have low enough psychological insight that you don't realize this discrepancy. Therefore, one should be very attentive to their own rationalization and motivated reasoning.

Moreover, the smart person, because they have an identity as a smart person—perhaps supported by their job—may be influenced by the people around them who encourage them to maintain that identity. They often speak to an audience on the left or right that desires them to be the smart person who articulates certain views. If they started expressing more nuanced opinions, they might risk losing their support base. It’s not just that they are better at rationalizing; they may also associate their success and identity with narrow applications of what it means to be smart. This phenomenon can be described as audience capture, market capture, and incentive capture.

This issue is particularly prevalent in the influencer world, where an audience often desires a more extreme version of the character being portrayed. Consequently, the influencer may feel compelled to become increasingly extreme in their views. This raises the question: who is doing the influencing—you or the audience?

Reflecting on this, one should spend more time in deathbed reflections because you may not feel proud of having become a person not grounded in the most earnest understanding of reality. Instead, you might find that your identity was shaped by an appeal to status and incentives. This realization can lead to a deeper understanding of what truly matters in life.

Interestingly, I live near a hospice, and I feel compelled to visit and check in. This is a beautiful thing to do. One of the tragedies in our society is that, in tribal societies, the old and young people were central to knowledge transfer. However, we often ship our elderly to nursing homes, where they are medicated and placed in front of a TV, cared for by the lowest-cost workers. Similarly, we send our children to daycare and schools with minimal investment in their care, only taking responsibility if it is financially viable.

This trend extends to the medicalization of birth and death. Many people have not experienced births or been present for the deaths of loved ones. In tribal environments, individuals are familiar with both processes, having witnessed numerous births and deaths. By the time a person experiences birth or death themselves, they have been through enough to mitigate the fear and unknown surrounding these events. These experiences are sacred and beautiful, and spending time with them can help contextualize what we often deem important, revealing the self-centered nature of our concerns.

I would encourage more people to spend time with the dying, infants, and the processes of birth and death. When visiting a hospice, you may notice that just because someone is old and dying does not mean they lived a life filled with wisdom. Some individuals approach death with terror, regret, and agony, while others do so with grace, gratitude, and beauty. This difference often relates to how they lived their lives, which is an important observation to make.

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about these topics, especially since I just found out that I am going to be a dad. This news has shifted my priorities significantly, and I realize that I need to get my act together.

Congratulations! I believe that there is nothing as powerful for motivating someone to grow into their own values as parenting. If you are thoughtful enough to recognize that your children will inherit both your gifts and your issues, you will understand the importance of your own growth. What you tell them will influence them less than who you are; thus, if you cannot live out the values you express, they will feel the conflict and shame from the disparity between your words and actions.

During the early years, when children are highly neuroplastic, they will not have that level of plasticity again. While there is still potential for healing and growth later, those first three years are crucial for their development. You are not imprinting your own nervous system; they are. Realizing this can be a profound shift in perspective, leading you to understand that you are not the most important factor in their lives. Much of what you need to overcome for your own sake must be addressed for their benefit.

I hope you find many insights and integrations during this time.

Thank you! I really appreciate your advice, and it has left me with a lot to think about. I look forward to sharing my follow-up thoughts, and perhaps we can have another conversation in the future.