Joe Rogan Experience

The outrage machine thrives on extremes, drowning out nuance and critical thinking, leaving us lost in a sea of polarized opinions.

Joe Rogan's podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, is a fascinating platform that showcases a variety of discussions. As he often says, "Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night." One particular clip stands out, as it will "live in infamy." In this clip, he appears to be a totally different person, revealing his true self in a way that is both surprising and engaging. This transformation can be likened to the Ellen thing, where he seems to have lost his composure in a peculiar manner.

The conversation then shifts to the intense nature of certain performances, drawing a comparison to Christian Bale's method acting. In a particularly intense scene, Bale becomes frustrated with distractions, exclaiming, "God damn it, stop [__] around." This highlights the difference between actors immersed in their roles and public figures discussing Republican talking points on Fox News. The discussion touches on Bill O'Reilly's past as a gossip journalist on shows like Inside Edition, showcasing how these roles can linger in a person's career.

The dialogue dives deeper into the current media landscape, noting that there is no centrist news source on television. Instead, viewers are often presented with polarized perspectives, creating an environment that resembles "living in a bipolar person's brain." The evolution of journalism is also examined; once a respected profession, journalists were once at the top of the social hierarchy as a check and balance. However, a shift in the business model has led to a focus on clicks, resulting in a landscape filled with opinion rather than news.

This shift has fed the outrage machine, where sensationalism reigns supreme. The phrase "it bleeds, it leads" has taken on new meaning in the age of social media, where algorithms dictate content based on engagement. The result is a 247 anxiety fest, constantly bombarding individuals with distressing information. This is akin to a bad diet; while the initial engagement may be satisfying, over time it can lead to mental fatigue and a lack of critical thinking.

As individuals consume more of this content, they build antibodies against differing opinions, making it difficult to consider alternative viewpoints. The conversation highlights the challenge of navigating this new landscape, especially when platforms like Facebook and Threads present starkly different environments. A friend of the speaker, who works at Facebook, shared insights about how the outrage machine on Threads operates. For instance, a post claiming "2 plus 2 equals 5" can generate significant engagement, prompting a wave of responses that escalate from gentle nudges to outright chaos.

In conclusion, the discussion reflects on the complexities of modern media consumption and the challenges of discerning truth amidst a sea of opinion and outrage. As society grapples with these issues, the need for critical thinking and open-mindedness becomes increasingly vital.

=> 00:05:09

The outrage machine thrives on absurdity, but we risk stifling potential by eliminating opportunities for growth and excellence in the pursuit of inclusivity.

The discussion revolves around the contrasting dynamics of Threads and X, which are described as polar opposites in some ways. The speaker shares insights from a conversation regarding the outrage machine on Threads. In this context, a woman wrote an article explaining how engagement works on the platform. The process often begins with a provocative statement, such as "2 plus 2 equals 5," which can garner a million views. Initially, the reactions may come from individuals gently nudging the poster to reconsider their claim, suggesting that "2 plus 2 actually equals four." However, as the conversation evolves, the reactions escalate, leading to a situation where people eventually "lose their mind."

In contrast, on X, the speaker notes that there is more structural data, but this information can easily get lost in the noise. The algorithms tend to amplify certain content, which can overshadow other important discussions. The speaker suggests that finding a way to blend the two platforms could be beneficial, as there are likely valuable insights on both sides that do not cross over.

The conversation then shifts to the topic of content moderation on Threads, with both speakers admitting they do not use the platform extensively. The speaker recalls a bizarre trend where discussions claimed that "math is racist," leading to concerns about the implications of such a statement. If math is deemed racist, it raises the alarming notion that "everything's math," thus everything could be considered racist.

The speaker references a recent decision made by the San Francisco Board of Education to eliminate several AP classes, including AP math, due to concerns about exclusion. They argue that while the intent may be to create a more equitable starting point for all students, removing these classes could inadvertently shut out talented individuals who might excel in those subjects. The speaker emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities for students to discover their potential, noting that "part of our social responsibility as adults is how do you make it so that that second Steve Jobs can find a path to do stuff."

Reflecting on their own educational experience, the speaker recalls not being particularly good at school but finding solace and confidence in certain subjects. They express concern that by eliminating advanced classes, we risk holding back potential innovators, like a second Steve Jobs or Elon Musk, which ultimately "hurts all of us."

In a lighter note, the episode is sponsored by Farmer's Dog, a company dedicated to providing healthy food for dogs. The speaker highlights the importance of a balanced diet for pets, explaining that "a healthy life for your dog starts with healthy food." Farmer's Dog offers fresh, real food developed by board-certified nutritionists, ensuring that it meets the same quality and safety standards as human food, which is a rarity in the pet food industry.

=> 00:09:20

Investing in your dog's health starts with real food, just like it does for us.

Brought to you by the Farmer's Dog. Dogs are amazing; they're loyal and lovable. Just having Marshall around can make my day 10 times better, and I'm sure you love your dog just as much. You want to do your best to help them live longer, healthier, and happier lives. A healthy life for your dog starts with healthy food, just like it does for us.

There's a reason having a balanced diet is so important. So, how do you know if your dog's food is as healthy and as safe as it can be? Well, Farmer's Dog gives you that peace of mind by making fresh, real food developed by board-certified nutritionists to provide all the nutrients your dog needs. Their food is human grade, which means it's made to the same quality and safety standards as human food. Very few pet foods are made to this strict standard.

Let's be clear: human grade food doesn't mean the food is fancy; it just means it's safe and healthy. It's simple, real food from people who care about what goes into your dog's body. The Farmer's Dog makes it easy to help your dog live a long, healthy life by sending you fresh food that's pre-portioned just for your dog's needs. Because every dog is different—not just in breeds, but also in size, personality, and health—every dog is unique. Plus, precise portions can help keep your dog at an ideal weight, which is one of the proven predictors of a long life.

Look, no one—dog or human—should be eating highly processed foods for every meal. It doesn't matter how old your dog is; it's always a great time to start investing in their health and happiness. So, try the Farmer's Dog today! You can get 50% off your first box of fresh, healthy food at thefarmersdog.com/Rogan, plus you get free shipping. Just go to thefarmersdog.com/Rogan, tap the banner, or visit this episode's page to learn more. This offer is applicable for new customers only.

Now, shifting gears, isn't that part of the problem with eliminating gifted classes? There's talk—I think they're doing that in New York—about eliminating the concept of gifted classes. The reality is, there are some people who will find regular classes, particularly in mathematics and some other subjects, a little too easy. They are more advanced students, and those students should have some sort of an option to excel. It should be inspiring, maybe intimidating, but also inspiring to everybody else.

I mean, that's part of the reason why kids go to school together—to see how hard others work. Look how hard she works; she works so much harder than me. Look how much she's getting ahead. I got to work harder. It really does work that way. That's how human beings, in cooperation, grow together. I think it used to be the case that if you went to high school, you would be really cool with people who were going to specific high schools to get really good at something.

Remember that show on TV, Fame? That was more about the performing arts, but it was amazing. If you knew a kid going to one of those schools, you'd say, Wow, you are incredibly talented in this one specific thing. Go push the boundary of that and see what happens. I think we owe it to ourselves to say that, yes, there are 330 million Americans in the United States. Don't you think that if we created a bunch of different ways for people to figure out what they're super good at, things would be better, not worse?

What is the answer? Do you think things take a huge step back? You have more Joe Rogans, more Kevin Harts, more great actors, more great directors, but you also have more engineers, more scientists, and more doctors. You created a way for them to just go deep into something where their curiosity took them. What's wrong with that idea? Nothing at all. It sounds optimal, it sounds pretty reasonable, and it sounds great. It's just a matter of resources and then also completely revamping how you teach kids.

This is my gripe with this whole ADHD thing. I've talked to many people who have varying opinions on whether or not that's an actual condition. There are a lot of people with a lot of energy sitting in a class that is very boring, and they don't want to pay attention to it. So instead, you drug them, giving them medication that is essentially speed, which lets them hyperfocus on things. Now, all of a sudden, little Timmy's locked on.

=> 00:13:14

We need to transform education from memorization to teaching kids how to think critically, because in a world dominated by AI, human judgment and creativity will be our greatest assets.

In discussing the educational system, there is a significant concern regarding how it currently caters to children, particularly those diagnosed with ADHD. Many people hold varying opinions on whether ADHD is an actual condition or simply a reflection of children with high energy levels who find traditional classroom settings boring. The prevailing practice often involves medicating these children with substances that essentially act as speed, allowing them to hyperfocus on tasks. This raises the question: what if these children were engaged in subjects that genuinely interested them? For instance, if a child is excited by biology, perhaps they could find a pathway that resonates with their personality.

However, the current educational system is rigid, emphasizing the need for children to sit still for extended periods, often under the supervision of teachers who may not be highly motivated or well-compensated. This rigidity is concerning, especially as we look towards the future. With advancements in technology, particularly AI, we are moving towards a world where computers can handle much of the rote thinking for us. This shift necessitates a reevaluation of how we educate children.

The critical distinction between humans and computers lies in our judgment and taste. As we consider the future, where a PhD assistant could be readily available in our pockets, the ability to memorize and regurgitate information may become less important than the capacity to interpret and think critically. We must teach children how to learn to think rather than simply memorize facts. The current education system is not adequately preparing children to compete with computers, which can produce creative outputs, such as a Drake song, in mere minutes.

Thus, a reasonable question arises: what can computers not do? While they can learn and process information, they currently lack the ability to express genuine judgment and taste in the same way humans do. The softer skills that allow for cooperation and collaboration among humans will become increasingly vital in a world filled with robots.

Teachers, therefore, will play a crucial role in this evolving landscape. They must be tasked with teaching children how to think critically rather than memorize historical facts. For example, instead of asking students to recount what happened in the War of 1812, educators should encourage them to explore the motivations behind the events and consider how they might respond if similar situations arose in the future. These reasoning and judgment skills are areas where humans still excel compared to computers.

To empower teachers in this mission, we must ensure they are adequately compensated and supported in their roles. Reflecting on personal experiences, one individual shared their journey with ADHD within their family. They noted that while the system offers certain benefits, such as extended time on tests or the provision of computers for note-taking, it can also feel restrictive. Ultimately, the goal should be to foster an environment where children can thrive, think critically, and engage with the world around them.

=> 00:17:31

Sometimes, less screen time leads to more real-life connection and growth.

In today's educational landscape, teachers must adapt to new technologies, which requires that they be compensated appropriately and placed in a position to perform their jobs effectively. This is particularly relevant when discussing the challenges faced by students with ADHD, as I have experienced firsthand within my own family. I have five children, one of whom was diagnosed with ADHD. Unfortunately, the educational system can feel restrictive at times.

On one hand, parents receive numerous benefits, often communicated through emails, such as extra time on tests or access to computers for note-taking. These provisions are intended to serve as aids for students. However, there is also pressure to consider medication for ADHD, which my ex-wife and I firmly decided against. This was a personal choice made based on our understanding of our child, recognizing that every child is different.

During the pandemic, we faced unique challenges. We initially imposed strict rules regarding device usage, but as the situation evolved, we found ourselves in a position where we had to rely on technology to keep our children engaged. With schools closed and our children at home, we handed them devices for learning and social interaction. This led to a noticeable decline in their ability to engage in activities without screens.

Recognizing this, we drew a bright red line and decided to limit screen time significantly. We eliminated video games and iPads, opting for small doses instead. This decision resulted in a remarkable turnaround for our child. His self-confidence began to return, and he thrived during this period. However, I made the mistake of relaxing our rules during the summer, allowing him an hour of screen time to connect with friends. This led to a regression in his behavior, necessitating another reset.

From our experience, we discovered that reducing screen exposure had a profound impact on our child's development. Engaging in outdoor activities like basketball, roughhousing with siblings, and having face-to-face conversations significantly improved his social skills. We also noticed that our children struggled to watch movies or listen to songs in their entirety, often skipping after just a few minutes. This behavior highlighted their difficulty in focusing on slower-paced activities compared to the rapid-fire stimulation of video games and platforms like TikTok.

While this approach is not a cure-all, it reinforces the idea that parents should be given options regarding device usage. I came across a statistic suggesting that if a child’s devices are taken away, they may feel isolated from their peers. However, if one-third of parents in a class agree to limit device usage, the child may not experience social isolation, as it becomes a normative behavior among their peers.

Interestingly, I learned about a memo from Eton College, one of the most prestigious private schools in the UK, which stated that upon arrival on campus, parents would be given specific guidelines regarding device usage. This example underscores the importance of establishing norms around technology use in educational settings.

=> 00:21:42

When parents set the norm against devices, kids feel less isolated and learn real social skills.

In a classroom of 20 students, if you can get a third of the parents to agree on a policy of no devices, the child feels zero social isolation. This is because it becomes normative; it’s seen as normal to have a flip phone. For instance, a child might be texting their parents or making calls in a manner that feels less isolating.

There was a remarkable initiative at Eton College, one of the most elite private schools in the UK, known for educating many of the country’s prime ministers. The Headmaster sent a memo to the parents of the incoming class, stating that upon arrival on campus, they would be provided with what is essentially a no-frills flip phone. Parents were instructed to remove the SIM card from their child's iPhone or Android device and insert it into this basic phone. This would be the only means of communication while on campus. I found this mandatory policy to be incredible; it takes a lot of courage to implement such a measure. The impact of this decision is still uncertain, but it certainly promotes a different kind of communication, one that avoids the addictive qualities of smartphones and social media.

As we consider the evolution of human behavior, it’s evident that technology is affecting us at an unprecedented pace. Historically, as we adapted to agriculture and civilization, we became softer and less muscular. However, the rapid rise of technology is creating a disconnection, even as we remain constantly connected through social media. This disconnection hampers our ability to learn social cues and interact normally with one another. For example, I have a rule with my oldest child, who is 15. When he calls me, or even when I call him, the greeting often resembles a grunt. It seems that many young people are losing the ability to engage in normal conversation.

To address this, I started hanging up the phone when he would greet me in that manner, prompting him to call back. I emphasized the importance of looking people in the eye and having meaningful conversations, even if he finds it lame or stupid. I encouraged him to try it out, as these skills will be valuable in forming connections with others.

In my experience with my children at a well-meaning private school, I worry that we are not teaching them to think for themselves. Instead, they seem to be memorizing fake greetings and salutations. On one end of the spectrum, there are these visceral, almost instinctual interactions, while on the other, you have overly formal and insincere greetings. For instance, when my kids say thank you, they often do so in a manner reminiscent of royalty, saying “thank you” in an exaggerated way. I question who taught them this and why they can’t simply express gratitude in a straightforward manner.

As technology becomes increasingly invasive in how children interact with the world, I am concerned about its profound effects on their behavior and development. At 48 years old, I reflect on my upbringing, which was devoid of such technology. I experienced a gradual introduction to it throughout adulthood, starting with VHS tapes and answering machines. The landscape has changed dramatically, and it raises questions about the future of human interaction and connection in a world dominated by technology.

=> 00:26:15

As technology evolves, we must ensure it enhances our humanity rather than diminishes it.

You were taught at school to say thank you like that. For example, you could just say, "thank you," right? Or, "thanks, I appreciate that." Just look somebody in the eye and say, "thank you." However, what concerns me is that as this technology gets more and more invasive in terms of how human beings, particularly children, interface with it, we are really just guessing as to what comes out of AI and what kind of world we are even looking at in 20 years. It seems like it's having a profound effect on the behavior of human beings, particularly young human beings, and their development.

To provide some context, how old are you? I'm 48. I'm 57. So when I grew up, there was zero of this technology. I experienced a slow trickle through adulthood, from when I was a child with VHS tapes and answering machines to the big tech innovations. Yes, you had the rotary phone. Exactly! We went through the whole cycle of it, which is really interesting. You get to see this profound change in people and wonder what it is doing to kids. You have to ask yourself: what is that doing to the species? Is it going to be normal to be emotionally disconnected and have very bizarre person-to-person interactions?

I think that when technologies get going, you have this little burst—it's like these Cambrian moments. You get these little bursts that are overwhelmingly positive. Personally, when I first saw the iPhone, I was blown away. I think the first four or five years were entirely positive because it was just so novel. You took this big computer and effectively shrunk it to this little device, making it half to a third of the cost. Lo and behold, supply and demand caused the number of computers to triple, quadruple, and quintuple, allowing so many more people to be a part of that economic cycle—all positive.

Then you get a little dip. This dip occurs when we lose a bit of the ambition from that first moment and get caught up in the economics of the current moment. What I mean by that is, in the last five or ten years, we haven't had a big leap forward from the iPhone, or really from any mobile device. If you look at the last decade, an enormous amount of money has been created by a vast number of apps. The problem is that they are in a cul-de-sac, and they just iterate in one way that they understand because the money is really good. Quite honestly, the incentives of the capital markets tell you to just keep doing that.

Then, I think something shocks us out of it, and we get the second wave. If you go all the way back to look at the PC, the first moment of the PC in the 70s and early '80s was incredible. You had people who were able to take it and do all kinds of really interesting things. It was pure. Then you had the '90s and early 2000s, which were duopolistic at best, with Microsoft and Intel. They were able to extract a huge tax by putting all of these things on folks' desks. It was still mostly positive, but somewhat limited because most of the spoils went to these two companies, and all the other companies basically got a little bit run over.

Then it took the DOJ to step in in 2000 and try to course-correct that on behalf of everybody. What happened next was that the internet exploded. The internet blew the doors wide open, and suddenly, if you had a PC, you weren't dependent on these gatekeepers. It didn't even matter whether you were running on Intel anymore; you just needed a browser. You didn't need Microsoft Windows or Intel, and then the internet just exploded.

So, we have a positive moment followed by about 10 or 15 years of economic extraction. Today, I think we have invented something really powerful. We've had 10 or 15 years that were largely economic. Again, I think this is like the problem I’m going to sound like every other nerd from Central Casting in Silicon Valley telling you this, but I do think that there’s a version of this AI thing that could blow the doors wide open again. We owe it to ourselves to figure out how to make that more likely than not.

It seems that AI's emergence and where it goes from here is inevitable. It's going to happen, and we should probably try to...

=> 00:30:32

AI has the potential to revolutionize healthcare by drastically reducing error rates in surgeries, turning uncertainty into precision and saving lives.

Over the past 10 or 15 years, we have experienced a period largely characterized by economic extraction. However, I believe that today we have invented something really powerful. This era has been primarily economic, but I think there is a version of AI that could blow the doors wide open again. We owe it to ourselves to figure out how to make this potential more than just likely; we should strive to make it a reality.

The emergence of AI seems inevitable, and its trajectory from here is also set to unfold. We should aim to steer it in a way that benefits everybody. I agree that there is a world where AI could change everything. One of the aspects that makes me most hopeful is the potential for a much better form of translation. This advancement could significantly enhance our ability to understand each other, addressing a major issue in the world akin to the Tower of Babel. Currently, we struggle to communicate effectively, which hampers our understanding of various problems and the feelings of others.

Empathy is often lost in translation. For instance, if you have ever been in a situation with a translator in your ear, you might have experienced a lack of empathy. The translator conveys the message in a certain tone, but when you are focused on the words, the emotional nuances can be lost. In my experience with interview fighters, I have used translators, and it can be challenging to feel empathy for the person you are communicating with. You are so focused on catching the words that the deeper meaning can slip away, leaving both parties in a similar predicament.

While the translation aspect of AI is promising, I acknowledge that there will be negative consequences as well. There will be pressure on certain jobs, and we need to address that. However, if we envision the potential of AI, some applications are truly remarkable. Let me share a couple of examples, starting from the most likely to the more ambitious.

Consider the case of breast cancer treatment. If someone with breast cancer goes to a random hospital in America, the error rate for a lumpectomy—the procedure to remove cancerous tissue—can be about 30%. In regional hospitals, especially in poorer or remote areas, this rate can rise to 40%. This is not due to the fault of the doctors; they are tasked with visually assessing tissue to determine the boundaries of the cancer.

Imagine this scenario: after surgery, the tissue is sent to a pathologist, who takes between seven and eleven days to analyze it. In that time, seven out of ten patients might receive good news about clean margins, while three will be told there is still cancer present. Unfortunately, one of those women may receive a second call indicating that there is still cancer left in her body. This situation represents a computer vision problem, one that is solvable with current technology.

Today, we have models and tissue samples from women of all ages and races, providing the necessary data to potentially achieve a 0% error rate. Remarkably, this technology is making its way through the FDA approval process. Within the next two years, we could see an AI assistant in operating rooms. The surgeon will remove what they believe is the appropriate tissue, place it into this machine, and it will indicate—simplifying the process—whether all the cancer has been removed or if more needs to be taken out. This advancement could drastically reduce the 30% error rate, leading to more successful outcomes for patients.

=> 00:34:41

In just a few years, AI will revolutionize surgery, enabling 0% error rates in cancer removal and transforming our approach to materials, leading to groundbreaking innovations that can reshape our world.

That can't not be solved literally today. We have models and we have tissue samples of women of all ages and all races. This means we have all of the different boundary conditions needed to basically achieve a 0% error rate. What's amazing is that this is now working its way through the FDA. So, call it within the next two years, there will be an AI that sits inside of an operating room. The surgeon will take out what they think is appropriate, put it into this machine, and it will literally—to simplify it—flash red or green. It will indicate whether you got all the cancer out or if you need to take out a little bit more just right over here.

Now, instead of a 30% error rate, you will have a 0% error rate. That's amazing! This is possible today because we have this computer that is able to assist. All we need is the will and the data that says, "Okay, we want to do this. Just show me that it works and show me what the alternative would be if we didn't do it." The alternative, it turns out, is pretty brutal: 14 surgeries for every 10 surgeries. I mean, that's not what the most advanced nation in the world should be doing, right?

If you look at breast cancer, the reason why it is the focus is because it gets so much attention and is like prime time. However, it's not just breast cancer; it's lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, and colon cancer. If you're at the stage where you need to get this foreign growing thing out of your body, we should all have the ability to do that with 0% error. This will be possible in the next couple of years because of AI.

Now, moving on to another exciting development, I think between years two and five, you're going to see a crazy explosion in materials. This might sound dumb, but I think it's one of the coolest things. If you look at the periodic table of elements, there are currently 118 elements. We have theoretically forecasted that there will be a 119th element, and they predict there could be as many as 142.

However, in our lived world today, we use a very narrow expression of these elements, relying on the same few materials repeatedly. If you had to solve a really complicated problem, don't you think the answer could theoretically be found in this? For example, if you took selenium and doped it with titanium at 1%, but doped it with boron at 14%, all of these combinations are possible. This could lead to materials that are stronger than the strongest things in the world and lighter than anything else. This means we could make rockets that use less energy to send them all the way up.

So, why haven't we figured this out yet? The answer lies in the amount of energy and the computational power needed to solve those super complicated problems, which haven't been available to us until now. I believe this is the next phase of AI. As you mentioned, we are going to have these PhD-level robots and agents in the next two to five years, and we will come up with all kinds of materials.

Imagine a frying pan that is nonstick but doesn't need to heat up. From the most benign to the most incredible, we will be able to re-engineer what's on Earth. This transformation will be crazy and incredible, and we will all benefit from it. The kinds of jobs that this will create are beyond our current understanding.

Our physical lived world is going to totally transform. Imagine a building made of a material that bends without changing its structure. Why would that be important? If you want to protect yourself from the unpredictable nature of climate in susceptible areas, or if you want to construct buildings that are cheaper and more resilient to earthquakes, this could be revolutionary.

For instance, in San Francisco, you could build structures that address the housing crisis in a cost-effective way because the materials would be fundamentally different. You could prove that these buildings are bulletproof, allowing us to spend less while achieving more.

=> 00:38:53

The future of our world lies in transforming how we build and interact with technology, allowing us to focus on creativity and human connection while robots handle the dangerous and mundane tasks.

The discussion revolves around the transformative potential of technology, particularly in the context of our physical environment and societal structures. The speaker emphasizes that our physical lived world is going to totally transform. They envision a future where buildings are constructed from materials that can bend and adapt without losing their integrity. This innovation could be crucial for protecting ourselves from the unpredictable nature of climate in vulnerable areas. By utilizing these advanced materials, construction could become significantly cheaper, allowing for the creation of more buildings, particularly in regions prone to earthquakes. For instance, in San Francisco, you could build buildings that solve the housing crisis in a cost-effective manner, as these new materials would require less foundational depth, thus reducing construction costs.

The conversation then shifts to the role of artificial intelligence and robotics in society. The speaker predicts a future where physical robots are going to do things that today will make so much sense in hindsight. They provide an example of robots, akin to "Optimus-like Tesla robots," serving as police officers. This shift would mean that you don't put humans in the way, allowing robots to handle dangerous tasks. These robots would be remotely controlled, introducing a new layer of psychological judgment and decision-making that differs from traditional policing. The speaker believes that if you had robots that were able to do the dangerous work for humans, it would enable people to focus on more complex, nuanced areas of judgment that are difficult for computers to replicate.

The speaker critiques the notion that AI is the end all and be all, suggesting that it should be viewed as a tool that enhances human capabilities. They liken this to how you used to have to get your spelling right in an email, but now, tools like Gmail correct errors automatically, allowing individuals to focus on more creative tasks. This perspective extends to physical robots, which could take on precarious jobs, such as rescuing individuals from dangerous situations. With advanced sensors and vision, these robots could effectively assess and respond to emergencies, allowing humans to concentrate on areas where they excel.

However, the speaker acknowledges potential complications arising from this technological evolution. They express concern for those who may not thrive in a world increasingly dominated by automation. While there will always be a market for handmade things and human experiences, there are individuals who simply want stable employment. The speaker reflects on their lack of experience in previous economic transitions, such as the agrarian economy or the industrial revolution, and admits uncertainty about how to address the challenges posed by these changes.

=> 00:43:11

In times of change, the challenge isn't just about jobs lost, but about creating purpose and identity for those affected.

In the final example, I see what you're saying about the rosy scenario; that's the best case option. It gives people the freedom to be more creative and to pursue different things. I think there's always going to be a market for handmade items. People enjoy human and real experiences, such as acoustic performances. However, there are also many individuals who just want a job. These people may not be inclined towards creativity; they might be very simple individuals who just want to work. Those are the people that I worry about.

I share your concerns. I didn't live through the agrarian economy or the industrial revolution, so I don't know how we solve this problem. However, we have seen this issue arise twice before, and each time we found a way to address it. This ties back to news, politics, and the importance of working together. In each of those moments, we managed to create substantive solutions for all people. I came across a striking statistic: in 1800, 80% of people lived in extreme poverty. Today, that figure is below 10%, in single digits. This progress has been achieved through the agrarian and industrial revolutions. It is possible for humans to cooperate and solve these problems. While I don't have the answers, I agree that there will be significant pressure on many individuals, which is why we need to figure this out.

What are your thoughts on universal basic income as a potential Band-Aid to mitigate that transition? Personally, I'm pretty sympathetic to that idea. I grew up on welfare, and I can tell you that there are many people who are trying their best but, for various reasons, can't figure it out. I agree; I also grew up on welfare. If I didn't have that safety net, my parents' struggles would have likely worsened. I believe in the importance of a social safety net.

In the best-case scenario, your parents worked their way out of it, and mine did too. However, some people are content just to receive a check. This is a significant issue; many people fear that others will become entitled and simply want to collect a check. If universal basic income were implemented and AI eliminated, let's say, 70% of manual labor jobs—including truck drivers and construction workers—that would leave many individuals without a purpose. A good day's work and earning one's pay provide people with a sense of self-sufficiency, value, and purpose. They can take pride in their contributions, such as building a structure and being able to point it out to their children.

The worst-case scenario is that people become locked into a world of computers and online activities, merely receiving checks and having the bare necessities to survive. They might be content with that and contribute nothing to society. If we were sitting here in 1924, during the height of the industrial revolution, we would have seen many people working on farms and wondered where those jobs would come from in the future. Looking back, it wasn't obvious, but we can see how new job classes emerged. Factories created a substrate for new industries, leading to various businesses and job opportunities.

I hope that if we navigate this transition correctly, the next leap will resemble that historical pattern. We are currently in a period where it's challenging to predict what new job classes will emerge. However, I believe we have a responsibility to explore these possibilities, discuss them, and envision potential outcomes. History shows that humans, when unimpeded, have a remarkable ability to invent and adapt. Perhaps by 2035, we will see a billion people who have traveled to new opportunities and roles in society.

=> 00:47:35

The future of innovation hinges on our ability to harness limitless energy and advanced technology, transforming what seems impossible today into tomorrow's reality.

In discussing the evolution of industries, it is evident that all of these industries were made possible because we built a factory, which turned out to be a substrate. This foundational step led to the creation of various businesses that generated different kinds of jobs on top of it. I would hope that if we do this right, this next leap will resemble that initial transformation. We are currently in a period where it is hard to know with certainty what this job class will evolve into, but I believe we have a responsibility to go and figure it out. We must engage in discussions and explore possibilities because history shows us that humans, when unimpeded, have a really good ability to invent.

Looking ahead, perhaps by 2035, there will be a billion people that have traveled to Mars, and we will be tasked with building an entire planet from the ground up. This endeavor will create all sorts of work to do there. I imagine that the first people to venture there will likely be those who are frustrated with what’s happening here on Earth, similar to those who boarded the Pinta and the Santa Maria centuries ago. It all begins with a group of individuals who are simply fed up with this. However, the desire to travel to a place that lacks an atmosphere capable of sustaining human life raises questions about the mindset of those willing to take such risks. They would be akin to the cast outs of society, perhaps even described as "Australia on meth"—a worst-case scenario of the adventurous spirit.

Reflecting on historical decisions, think about what it must have felt like 400 years ago when the first group of prisoners was sent to Australia. Most people on the mainland likely thought it was insane. In hindsight, such decisions are easier to rationalize, yet I believe there will be many who want to go to Mars when it becomes possible.

In our current environment, we could be anywhere—in Salt Lake City, Rome, or Perth—and it would feel the same, especially today. The future could involve instantaneous communication with people on other planets, much like how we communicate with those in New Zealand today. This scenario exemplifies an innovation in Material Science that we have been experimenting with for years. At the core of this discussion lies a semiconductor problem—is it silicon, germanium, or a combination of both? The challenge, as you pointed out, is a tractable problem that has been constrained by energy and computing capabilities.

We are approaching a point where the marginal cost of energy is basically zero. This means that generating the next kilowatt will cost less than a penny, even without relying on nuclear energy. We are on a trend line that suggests we are nearing infinite energy. With the advancements in AI, the cost of obtaining answers to complex questions is also decreasing significantly. When we combine these two developments, we find ourselves in a position where the world can address challenges like instantaneous communication between here and Mars. We will be able to harden communication chips using materials we have simulated and tested, leading to rapid production and deployment.

While it may still take 5 to 10 years to realize these advancements, my point is that what may seem crazy today is not as unattainable as it appears. These are achievable technical milestones, and everything will ultimately boil down to a technical question that we can answer. For instance, if you want a hoverboard, we could probably figure it out.

Additionally, with the rise of Quantum Computing, there is a growing discussion about the massive energy requirements of AI. It has even been proposed to develop nuclear sites specifically to power AI, which is quite a bold idea. I must admit, I have my reservations about this approach, but before sharing my opinion, let me present the facts.

=> 00:52:02

The future of energy isn't just about innovation; it's about empowering every home to generate and store its own power, making resilience the new norm.

My point is that all these things that sound crazy are not actually that crazy; they are achievable technical milestones. Everything will boil down to a technical question that I think we can answer. For instance, if you want a hoverboard, we could probably figure it out. Additionally, with Quantum Computing, one of the things that has been discussed about AI is the massive need for energy. It has been proposed to develop nuclear sites specifically to power AI, which is quite wild.

Now, I have to be careful about how I express my thoughts on this. Before I share my opinion, let me outline the facts. Today, it costs about 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Just keep that 4 cents concept in mind. Twenty years ago, it cost around six or seven cents. If you install solar panels on your roof, it basically costs nothing; in fact, you can probably make money from it. In many parts of America, you can sell energy back to the grid, making it effectively a negative cost—like negative 1 cent.

However, if you look inside the energy market, the cost has been compounding. You might wonder, "How does this make sense? If the generation cost keeps falling, why are my end-user costs going up?" This situation seems illogical. When you investigate further, you find that we have a regulatory burden in America. There are less than 2,000 utilities in the country, and they are given a monopoly in their respective areas. For example, in Austin, they can provide all the energy, and while Texas has its own dynamics, this serves as a useful illustration.

In return for this monopoly, these utilities are allowed to increase prices, but they are also required to improve infrastructure. Every few years, they must upgrade the grid and invest money into various improvements. Over the next ten years, we collectively need to invest a trillion dollars into enhancing the current grid, which I believe will not be sufficient because it is aging and, most importantly, insecure. This insecurity means that it can be penetrated or hacked, leading to failures during critical moments. For instance, in Austin, there have been numerous outages in the last couple of years, which is totally unacceptable in 2024.

As people increasingly demand resilience, I foresee a future where 110 million power plants will exist—essentially, every homeowner in the United States will generate their own energy and store it in a power wall. This technology will become absolutely dirt cheap and will redefine how energy is generated. However, this is not the entire solution, as we still need the larger utilities to step in.

Now, regarding these 2,000 utilities that need to spend trillions of dollars, they can currently do a lot to generate enough energy to keep things running. When we look at nuclear energy, there are two different kinds: the old and the new. I agree that the old methods are just about money and can be turned back on with existing knowledge. This involves a specific isotope of uranium that everyone in that field knows how to manage safely.

However, the next-generation reactors present a materials and technical problem. Some of these reactors require a material that takes about 50 years to harvest an ounce. The only place where you can find this material in sufficient quantity is the moon. Are we really going to go to the moon to harness this material and then transport it all the way back to Illinois to produce energy? I find that hard to believe.

I can find the specific material in an email from one of my colleagues, but it involves a certain form of reactor that utilizes a very rare material to create the plasmonic effect.

=> 00:56:20

The pursuit of next-gen reactors may promise clean energy, but the technical hurdles and geopolitical risks remind us that the path to progress is fraught with challenges we can't afford to overlook.

The discussion begins with a technical problem related to NextGen reactors, particularly concerning the materials required for their operation. Some of these reactors need a material that could take 50 years in America and around the world to harvest just an ounce. The only place where this material can be obtained in sufficient quantity is the moon. This raises the question: are we really going to go to the Moon to harness this material and then transport it all the way back to a location in Illinois for production? I find that hard to believe.

The material in question is a certain form of reactor that utilizes a very rare substance to create plasmonic energy, which can generate substantial energy outputs. However, this material is extremely difficult to find on Earth. I often scratch my head wondering about the benefit of this particular type of reactor. While it promises enormous energy potential—where a solar cell generates a certain amount of energy, and a nuclear reactor generates more—there are still profound technical problems that have yet to be resolved. I applaud those pursuing these technologies, but it's crucial not to oversell them, as they face significant challenges.

Currently, we have just passed what is known as positive net energy, meaning that if you input 100 units of energy, you aim to extract at least 100.1 units. This is where we stand with NextGen reactors. In contrast, I am a total believer in the older generation of reactors and advocate for building them as quickly as possible. If we achieve infinite energy, it could lead to a massive peace dividend. The odds of the United States going to war would approach zero if we had infinite energy.

However, there is a significant concern regarding the introduction of nuclear power to other countries. In places where nuclear power plants have been established, it quickly became evident that they could potentially be used to create nuclear weapons. When uranium degrades, it can be transformed into weapons-grade uranium. The real danger lies in the possibility that this capability could spread beyond a small handful of countries to the entire world, which could become very sketchy.

I believe you are touching on what I consider to be the single biggest threat facing all of us today. I have personal experience with the destructiveness of war, having escaped a civil war myself. The collateral damage of war is terrible. I was in Sri Lanka during a 20-year civil war between the ethnic majority, the Sinhalese Buddhists, and the Hindu Tamil minority. This conflict turned a once-thriving country with 99% literacy into a struggling developing nation. My family eventually moved to Canada, where my parents did everything they could to rebuild their lives. However, they were deeply affected by the war, transitioning from a solidly middle-class life to one filled with challenges, including my father's alcoholism and my mother's shift from being a nurse to a housekeeper. This dysfunction crippled their dreams and, in turn, impacted their children.

I fear that we have lost sight of the risks associated with war. Many people do not fully grasp how destructive it can be, and there are not enough individuals who are genuinely afraid of this reality. This lack of awareness sends my Spidey senses up, prompting me to question the prevailing narrative that war is off the table and impossible. I reflect on the current state of the world and conclude that we are facing the biggest risk of my lifetime. The only comparable situation might be during the Cold War, though I was too young to fully understand it. Events like the Bay of Pigs crisis required decisive leadership, such as JFK drawing a hard line in the sand. I wonder if we will be that fortunate this time.

=> 01:01:00

We’re sleepwalking into a nuclear crisis, and the stakes have never been higher. If we don’t wake up and recognize the real risks, nothing else will matter.

I believe we have lost the script a little bit. I think that folks don't really understand how destructive war can be, but also that there are not enough people who are objectively afraid of this. That’s what sends my Spidey senses up and makes me say, "Hold on a second." When everybody is telling you that this is off the table and not possible, shouldn’t we just look at the world around us and ask, "Are we sure that that’s true?"

I come to the conclusion that we are facing the biggest risk of my lifetime. The only thing that is probably near this is maybe at some point during the Cold War. I don't know, because I was so young—definitely during the Bay of Pigs. It required JFK to draw a hard line in the sand and say, "Absolutely not." So, will we be that fortunate this time around? Are we going to find a way to eliminate that existential risk?

This is why my current vein of political philosophy is mostly that which focuses on the fact that the Democrats and the Republicans are engaged in so much fighting over many small stakes issues. Some of these issues matter more or less at different points, but there is one issue above all where if you get it wrong, nothing matters, and that is nuclear war.

We now have two and a half nuclear powers that are out and about, extending and projecting their power into the world: Russia, China, and Iran. This wasn’t what it was like 10 years ago, 25 years ago, or even four years ago. I just don’t think enough people take a step back and say, "Hold on a second. If this thing escalates, all this stuff that you and I just talked about won’t matter." Whether our kids are on Adderall, or whether we give them too much Fortnite, or focus on material science—it's all off the table because we will be destroying ourselves.

I think that’s tragic. We have an enormous responsibility right now for the village elders of the world to tell people, "Guys, we are sleepwalking into something that you can’t walk back from." One of the strangest things about us is the kind of wisdom that’s necessary to see the future, to prognosticate, and to understand where this could go, especially based on the history of human beings. There are many examples all over the world of civilizations that were thriving and then were pounded into dust.

Because every day is similar for us, we have this inability to look forward and see the potential for disaster that all these things have. This is what freaks me out when people talk openly about, "We have to win with Russia versus Ukraine." What are you talking about? What does "winning" mean? This sounds insane. Applauding the long-range attacks into Russia now—this escalation—what are you, in a movie? Do you think this always ends up with the good guys winning? Because that’s not the case in human history at all.

Not only that, but there is no good guy. If people start launching nukes, everybody's a bad guy, and everybody's in trouble. That’s on the table. When you see long-range Israeli bombing campaigns in Lebanon and you see what’s going on with Ukraine and Russia, who knows how this escalates? Who knows what the retaliatory response will be? Who knows what the response to the response is?

Let me add to this by saying we know what the response will be: it will not be measured. It will not be calm. It will not be, "Hey, let’s get on the phone and talk about it." There was a long period of time when America was the leading moral actor in the world. I think we spoke from a place of wisdom but also from a place of earned respect. However, we forget that at the end of the Cold War, it’s not that we vanquished the USSR as much as they imploded from within. It was just an economic calamity; they just couldn’t afford to keep up with us.

The reason was that we had these two edges: we had a technological edge and we had an economic edge. When you put those two things together, it created a lot of abundance. We can talk about how some of that is not equal, which I also agree with, but it allowed America to be, for a long period of time, the top dog.

=> 01:05:27

America needs to redefine its role in the world, moving from a position of dominance to one of collaboration, understanding that our past glory doesn't dictate our future.

There was a long period of time where, you know, America was the leading moral actor in the world. I think that we spoke from a place of wisdom but also from a place of earned respect. However, we forget that at the end of the Cold War, it's not that we vanquished the USSR as much as they imploded from within. It was just an economic calamity; they just couldn't afford to keep up with us. The reason for this was that we had these two edges: we had a technological edge and we had an economic edge. When you put those two things together, it created a lot of abundance.

Now, we can talk about how some of that abundance is not equal, which I also agree with, but it allowed America to be, for a long period of time, the top dog. The honest reality is that that's not where we are today. We are now one of two or three leading nations, and the problem with that is that you can't look back in history and try to live your life like it was in the good old days. You know, we're not the high school football star anymore. So, we need to live in a more modest way, in a more reliable and consistent way, with neighbors that have also done well for themselves. We must realize that they have their own incentives, and when you tell them to do something, they're not always going to listen.

If we don't understand that and find a way to de-escalate these situations, what you said is going to happen: something is going to be one step too far—a reaction, a reaction, a reaction—and then eventually, somebody will overreact. That is all just so totally avoidable. It frustrates me that we objectively don't understand this; we sweep it under the carpet and talk about all the other things. I understand that some of those things—all of those things, let's say—matter, but at some point in time, nothing matters because if you don't get this right, nothing matters. I think we have to find a way of identifying people who draw a bright red line and say, "This is the line I will never cross under any circumstance." I believe America needs to do that first because it's what gives everybody else the ability to exit stage left and be okay with it.

The other problem that America clearly has is that there is an enormous portion of what controls the government—whether you want to call it the military-industrial complex or military contractors. There is so much money to be made in pushing that line, pushing it to the brink of destruction but not past it, maintaining a constant state of war but not an apocalypse. As long as there are financial incentives to keep escalating, and you're still getting money while signing off on hundreds of billions of dollars to funnel this through military contractors, the windfall is huge. The amount of money is enormous, and they do not want to shut that off for the sake of humanity, especially if someone can rationalize it.

You get this diffusion of responsibility where there's a whole bunch of people together, and they're all talking about it. Everyone's kind of on the same page, and you have shareholders that you have to represent. The whole thing is bananas. So, I think you just said the key thing. This may be super naive, but I think part of the most salvageable feature of the military-industrial complex is that these are largely public companies that have shareholders. I believe that if you nudge them to make things that are equally economically valuable, or ideally, more valuable, they probably would do that.

What would be an example of that other than weapons manufacturing? When you look at the primes—the five big companies that get all of the economic activity from the Department of Defense—they act as an organizing principle for a bunch of subs underneath. Effectively, they're like a general contractor, and they have a bunch of subcontractors. There is a broad set of commercial applications for the components being built. For example, when you build a drone, you are also building a critical and very valued subcomponent. All the navigation, all the communications—all of it has to be encrypted. You can't hack it; you can't do any of that stuff. There are many commercial applications for that that are equal to or even more valuable than weapons manufacturing.

=> 01:09:49

The future of economic prosperity lies in reimagining technology for peaceful applications instead of war, unlocking new markets and opportunities for growth.

The five big primes in the defense sector act as an organizing principle for a multitude of subcontractors. Effectively, they function like a general contractor, overseeing various subs underneath them. There is a significant amount of activity happening within these structures that could be reoriented if we had an economy capable of supporting it. For instance, when you build a drone, you are also creating a critical subcomponent, which includes navigation and communications systems that must be encrypted to prevent hacking.

There exists a broad set of commercial applications for these technologies that are equal to or even exceed the profit margin of selling the drone itself. However, these organizations often do not explore those markets. If we were to become multiplanetary, I would bet that these same organizations could earn two to three times as much money by redirecting their technology into systems that facilitate communication from Earth to the Moon and Mars. We would need to establish a comprehensive communications infrastructure that allows for triangulation and real-time internet access across all these endpoints. The economic value of such an endeavor is enormous.

Currently, we have very siloed parts of the economy that are limited by our existing knowledge. This knowledge is shaped by the fact that we build certain technologies and then convince others to use them. Instead of suggesting that there is a nefarious plot to perpetually go to war, we might consider whether these organizations would pursue alternative markets if they could sell their products for greater profit. It seems more plausible that they would do so, as long as there remains a business model for war. This perspective reduces the concept of war to a different kind of business—one that is smaller and more drone-oriented.

While I do not believe that war will ever completely disappear—there is no utopia where conflict ceases to exist—I think we will always be fighting over some resources. Over the last 30 or 40 years, many of our ongoing conflicts have revolved around energy. However, I see a bright spot with the advent of AI. Many people are concerned about issues like the open border situation and the influx of criminals. But what if the solution lies in not having desperate third-world countries from which people are trying to escape? Imagine living next to another United States, where travel between the two nations is seamless because both are equally safe, economically prosperous, and democratically governed.

If the entire world operated under such conditions, it would be incredible. I believe AI could help make this possible, although we will have to confront several uncomfortable factors, such as the illegal drug trade and the consequences of prohibition. I feel that the only way to disempower illegal drug manufacturing is to establish a regulated legal drug market. For instance, to combat fentanyl overdoses, we might need to consider legalizing cocaine. However, this raises concerns about addiction, as it could lead to an increase in the number of people addicted to cocaine.

Can I ask you a question? I don’t do drugs, so I don’t fully understand the appeal. What leads someone to try fentanyl? Most fentanyl overdoses occur because fentanyl is cut into other drugs, particularly party drugs like Molly and ecstasy, as well as cocaine and heroin. People often believe they are consuming a pure substance, but they are actually getting a mixture that includes fentanyl.

=> 01:13:52

Legalizing drugs could empower regulation and safety, but it requires a cultural shift towards personal responsibility and understanding the risks involved.

The discussion revolves around the complex issue of drug regulation and the impact of illegal drug manufacturing. "The only way to disempower illegal drug manufacturing is to have legal drug manufacturing that's regulated." This perspective suggests that legalizing and regulating drugs could potentially mitigate the dangers associated with illegal substances. For instance, "the only way to stop fentanyl overdoses is to have cocaine become legal." However, this raises concerns about the potential increase in addiction among users.

A key question arises: what motivates individuals to use drugs like fentanyl? It's important to clarify that "they don't do fentanyl on purpose." Many users begin their journey with prescription medications, but "most fentanyl overdoses is fentanyl that's cut into other drugs," particularly party drugs such as Molly, ecstasy, cocaine, and even heroin. Users often believe they are consuming pure substances, but these drugs are frequently laced with fentanyl, which is "cheap and... very small amounts of fentanyl do incredible damage." The lethal dose of fentanyl can be as small as "the head of a nail," illustrating the extreme danger it poses.

The conversation then shifts to the need for education to deter drug use. "I think you're going to have to have a massive education campaign," similar to the successful campaigns against cigarette smoking. The decline in cigarette use among young people since the 1980s can be attributed to increased awareness of its consequences. The speaker believes that while individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices regarding drug use, "I don't think you should do heroin," and acknowledges the destructive nature of substances like alcohol, which is "one of the most destructive drugs to your health, to relationships and families, to societies." Despite its dangers, alcohol remains legal because society has learned to consume it responsibly.

The discussion also touches on the situation in Oregon, where drug legalization has led to significant societal challenges. "Oregon... legalized it and now they... were already off the rails." The state has seen a breakdown of civil society, with open-air drug markets and a culture of tolerance towards drug addiction. The speaker notes that Portland, as one of the most liberal cities, reflects a "bizarre breakdown of Civil Society."

The libertarian notion of allowing individuals to make personal choices about drug use is acknowledged, yet the speaker expresses concern about the erosion of societal values such as discipline, hard work, and accomplishment. "The encouragement of discipline and of hard work and of accomplishment had been eroded." In this context, the introduction of free heroin could exacerbate existing societal issues, as the perception of success and effort has been distorted, leading to a culture where "if you were a person that had accomplished something great, it wasn't because of some extraordinary effort you put in." This complex interplay of drug policy, societal values, and personal responsibility continues to be a contentious topic.

=> 01:17:49

The erosion of personal responsibility and societal values is fueling a cycle of addiction and crime, making it clear that simply legalizing drugs won't solve the deeper issues at play.

The awesome libertarian notion suggests that we should not make certain personal choices a crime. Instead, individuals should have the freedom to make good or bad personal choices. However, the fabric of society, which encourages discipline, hard work, and accomplishment, has been eroded. In today's environment, accomplishment is often viewed negatively, as if achieving success means there is something wrong with you. This mindset is prevalent in places like Portland, where the idea of "Eat the Rich, tax the rich" has taken hold. If a person has accomplished something great, it is often perceived that they did so by "stepping on other people," rather than through extraordinary effort.

When free heroin is introduced into this context, it is likely to lead to more problems. Society is essentially subsidizing individuals living on the streets. I recall an interview with people in the Pacific Northwest who had moved there specifically to be homeless, knowing they would receive financial assistance. There is no incentive for them to leave their tents, as they have access to free food, free drugs, and financial support. This situation did not fail due to drug policy alone, but rather because of the broader social policies in place.

Have you ever heard of Dr. Carl Hart? He is a professor at Columbia University and was originally a chemist studying substances. Throughout his research, he realized that our understanding of these drugs has been heavily influenced by propaganda, particularly the sweeping Act of 1970, which made many substances illegal. This legislation was aimed at targeting civil rights groups and anti-war activists during the Nixon administration. While MK Ultra, which involved experimenting with LSD, occurred before this, the 1970 Act criminalized many substances, forcing people to obtain them through illegal sources, such as cartels.

The issue with legalization is complex. Keeping drugs illegal leads to fentanyl overdoses and other tragedies, as many individuals have lost loved ones to addiction. Conversely, legalizing drugs could also result in more overdoses, as the accessibility of these substances might encourage more people to try them. This situation mirrors prohibition in the 1930s, which empowered organized crime and led to figures like Al Capone. In the current context, we are empowering criminals who control the drug trade, particularly in Mexico.

During the latest elections in Mexico, there were at least 37 assassinations of candidates, highlighting the dangerous intersection of politics and drug cartels. In contrast, Portugal has decriminalized all drugs and has seen a significant decrease in HIV rates and drug addiction. However, the long-term effects of such policies remain to be fully understood.

The violence in Mexico is a direct result of the trillions of dollars generated by the illegal drug trade, much of which is directed towards the United States. While there are various substances involved, the real money is in meth and cocaine. Additionally, there is a growing problem with illegal marijuana cultivation on National Forest land in the United States. A friend of mine, John Nor, wrote a book called The Hidden War and worked as a fish and game officer, aiming to enforce regulations like checking fishing licenses.

=> 01:22:04

The illegal drug trade thrives on the chaos of outdated laws, turning a simple plant into a battleground while the real money flows unchecked.

In the context of the 2021 midterms, it was reported that 36 candidates were killed, highlighting the severe violence associated with drug trafficking. The situation is indeed wild down there, and it is a direct result of trillions of dollars being made by selling illegal drugs, much of which is directed towards America, although it is likely that these drugs are sold in other regions as well.

When discussing the types of drugs involved, it appears that the real money's in like meth and cocaine. There is also a significant issue with illegal marijuana being grown on National Forest land in the United States. A friend of mine, John Nor, who authored a book called The Hidden War, was a fish and game officer. He had a rather mundane job, checking fishing licenses, but one day he stumbled upon a dried-up creek. Initially, they suspected a farmer had diverted the water, but as they followed the creek upstream, they discovered an illegal grow operation run by the cartel. This discovery led to the formation of a Tactical Unit equipped with Belgian Malinois, bulletproof vests, and machine guns, resulting in shootouts with the cartel in National Forest land.

In California, where marijuana is legal, growing it illegally is treated as a misdemeanor. You can easily purchase marijuana from any store using credit cards, provided you follow the rules. However, if you don't adhere to these regulations, you can sell it illegally, which complicates the situation. I wanted to learn more about the marijuana market, but I realized that processing money can be problematic. For instance, in Colorado, they faced significant challenges and had to operate primarily in cash, reminiscent of Breaking Bad, where they dealt with bricks of cash.

To manage the cash flow, some businesses resorted to using military contractors to transport money to banks, which required armored cars and heavy security. This situation was precarious, as everyone was aware of the large sums of money being transported. I am not sure about the current conditions in Colorado, but I remember a business pitch I received from a guy who was developing software for this cash-heavy economy. Unfortunately, the company went public but ultimately failed, as many were hesitant to engage with this sector due to the federal illegality of marijuana.

Despite the progress made, federally, it's still illegal. The Biden Administration has proposed changing marijuana's classification to schedule three, which could help normalize its status. Ideally, marijuana should be treated like alcohol, requiring individuals to be 21 years old to buy it, present an ID, and undergo education on responsible use. We should also ensure that those growing marijuana are regulated to prevent the production of excessively potent products.

There is a concern that some individuals, particularly those with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, may experience adverse effects from marijuana, which is not necessarily the case with alcohol. This raises the issue of needing to provide nutritional labels on marijuana products to indicate potency, as the intensity of marijuana is not uniformly regulated. In California, some reputable dispensaries do provide this information, indicating THC levels, which can be as high as 39%. However, the broader regulatory framework still needs improvement to ensure safety and accountability in the marijuana industry.

=> 01:25:51

Marijuana can reveal hidden truths about ourselves, but it’s not for everyone; know your mind before you light up.

The problem that somebody raised, which I read in an article, is that you need to make it more than what it is today, more legal, so that you can get folks to put some version of a nutritional label on the product and show intensity. This is important because the intensity is not currently regulated. However, they do regulate it in California. For example, if you go to good places in California, you might see labels indicating this is 39% THC, which is very high, or this is 37%.

There is also the issue that marijuana seems to affect some people differently than alcohol. While some individuals have a propensity for alcoholism, which appears to be genetic, marijuana can push people who have a tendency towards schizophrenia over the edge. Alex Berenson wrote a great book about this called Tell Your Kids, and I have personally witnessed individuals who have lost their minds after using marijuana. I believe this happens to people who have this underlying propensity.

One aspect of marijuana that some find beneficial, but others find alarming, is the paranoia it can induce. I feel like paranoia is a form of hyper-awareness; it breaks down the boundaries and walls you have set up, allowing you to see the world for what it really is. While this can freak some people out, I believe it ultimately makes you more compassionate, kinder, and nicer. You realize, either in the moment or afterward, that it is a tool for recognizing things you are conveniently ignoring.

My friend Eddie once told me that if you're having a bad time and you smoke marijuana, you're going to have a worse time because you're already freaking out about something. For instance, if you're going through a horrible breakup and you get high, you might think, "Oh no, no one loves me." Conversely, if you're having a great time with friends, you'll probably just laugh and be silly because you're in a good mental place, which we should all strive for.

I have developed a weird psychosomatic guard regarding alcohol. My father was an alcoholic, and I didn't drink at all during my teens, twenties, and mostly in my thirties. However, in my mid-thirties, I started drinking wine, and I love it. I think I can handle it, and I genuinely enjoy it. However, I cannot drink hard alcohol; the moment it touches my lips, I get severe hiccups—debilitatingly bad hiccups. I believe this reaction is completely psychosomatic, as it makes no logical sense. If tequila touches my lips, I just start hiccuping uncontrollably, which feels like a protective mechanism my brain has developed.

There are whiskey connoisseurs, and while old Scotch has a fantastic taste, I believe that wine is a different animal. The flavor of wine is spectacular and is, in my opinion, the most delicious of all alcohols without being sweet. I completely agree with this sentiment. People who claim to be tequila connoisseurs often miss the mark; it all tastes like [ __ ]. Some just taste less bad than others.

When I drink a glass of wine with a steak, it feels like oh, wine's [ __ ] great. It puts you in a calm state; you don't want to drive wildly or get into a fight when you're drinking wine. The amazing thing about wine is that you can go on these journeys. When I first started buying wine, I made the mistake that many do, thinking, "If it's expensive, it must be good." I spent a lot of money on marginal wines that had good labels and pedigrees.

However, I learned from experience, especially during summers spent in Italy with my wife and kids, that you can find incredible Italian white Chardonnay. Honestly, there is nothing better to drink in the summer.

=> 01:29:48

True wine appreciation isn't about the price tag; it's about the story behind the bottle and the joy it brings.

When it comes to wine, I don't like to go wild and get crazy or get into fights when I'm drinking it. The amazing thing about wine is that you can embark on these journeys. When I first started to buy wine, I did what every knucklehead does, which is think, "if it's expensive, it must be good," and I started down that road. It was just so dumb because of the amount of money I spent on stuff that was marginal but had a good label and a good pedigree.

Then, I began to discover and learn more about wine. I remember that my wife is Italian, and we spent a lot of time in Italy during the summer with our kids. While we were there, we found these incredible Italian white Chardonnays. Honestly, there is nothing better to drink in the world during the summer; it's better than water. It's cold, refreshing, and has a great bouquet. Yet, these bottles only cost around $40, $50, $60, or $80 at most. In contrast, I would spend $1,000 on some stupid white Burgundy from France that tastes like half of what I could get from Italy.

Another great example is Chateau Petrus. I don't want to get in trouble with the Chateau Petrus guys, but I'll just be honest: those bottles can cost between $2,000 and $19,000 in restaurants. I've never bought one, but I tasted it once in Vegas when a host offered me a bottle for dinner without a cap on the price. Initially, I thought, "God, I must have lost a lot of money," because when they say "No Cap," it could mean $9,000. So, I decided to try it. I went to Caesar's, and it was $5,000. I would never buy this normally, but since it was free, I thought, why not?

All this buildup in my mind made me think, "Oh my God, this is going to be ethereal; it's going to be Ambrosia." But it was not. In contrast, you can find other wines made by people who put their entire lives into it, and you can taste the whole story behind it. I find that incredible. However, there is a weird status thing surrounding expensive wine, much like with Cuban cigars; it's really dumb.

The real skill lies in knowing the difference between price and value. When you know it, it's so satisfying because you can say, "Oh, this is just delicious," and when your friends enjoy it, they might ask, "Oh my God, this is delicious! How much is it?" And I can say, "That's $80." The skill is in finding those hidden gems.

To illustrate how much I love the story and the people behind wine, I even registered for an alcohol license at the ABC in California. I was tired and frustrated with trying to buy retail because you have to go through folks with their own point of view. So, my friend and I set up a little company called CJ Wine LLC. This allows us to negotiate directly with wineries and buy from wholesalers in Europe, South Africa, or Australia.

This setup enables us to buy a bottle, try it, and if we really like it, we can serve it to our friends during our Thursday night poker games. If they enjoy it, we can buy a couple of cases at wholesale prices. It's a great little hack. There are some limitations, like needing a more personal relationship to buy the really good stuff, but you can still buy a few cases and share them with friends.

I think wine is incredible, especially when paired with food. However, when I hear people talking about opening their own wine labels, I wonder, "Oh good lord, how much do you know about wine?" I went to a couple of these wineries and asked them how they got there. All I could think was that it seemed way too complicated. It's like animal husbandry; they are breeding one vine with another and taking bits off to create something new. It’s a breeding program that spans over 10, 20, and even 30 years, and it’s really complicated.

=> 01:34:00

Understanding food is a science, not just a taste; mastering it can change everything.

The conversation begins with a discussion about the incredible nature of wine and its pairing with food. The speaker expresses a sense of disbelief when hearing about people wanting to open their own wine labels, questioning their knowledge about wine. They recount their experiences visiting wineries and asking the owners how they achieved their success. The speaker reflects, “man, this is way too complicated,” emphasizing the intricate processes involved in winemaking. They compare it to animal husbandry, noting that winemakers are essentially breeding different vines over a span of 10, 20, or even 30 years.

The speaker also shares an interesting fact about agricultural practices, mentioning that some winemakers engage in unusual methods, such as splicing avocado trees with pistachios to create sturdier trees. They highlight a friend's innovative venture into agriculture, where he is producing giant potatoes. This friend aims to feed the world in a more abundant and cost-effective manner by hacking the potato's chromosomes. The speaker is amazed, stating, “oh my God, that's incredible,” as they explain how potatoes typically do not have seeds and are usually propagated by cutting them into pieces. However, the friend’s approach involves creating a large potato that produces seeds, simplifying the planting process.

The conversation then shifts to the speaker's love for fruit, particularly white nectarines and white peaches, which can be exceptional but often vary in quality depending on the season. They express frustration with the inconsistency of fruit quality, particularly with mangoes, noting that European mangoes are among the best they have encountered. The speaker also laments the difficulty of finding real heirloom tomatoes in the U.S., describing the common varieties as “freaks.”

The discussion continues with the speaker sharing their experience of wearing a glucose monitor for 90 days. They mention their wife, who runs a pharmaceutical company and has a scientific approach to food due to her sensitivity to inflammation from a past injury. The speaker was shocked to discover that many foods they thought were healthy caused significant sugar spikes in their bodies. For instance, they found that cooking rice or quinoa led to a massive sugar spike, but if they cooked it, refrigerated it, and then ate it the next day, there was no glycemic load.

They also discovered that the way they prepared pasta affected their body's reaction; cooking it al dente resulted in a much lower glycemic load compared to softer pasta. The speaker concludes by expressing their concern about the precarious state of the food supply in the United States, emphasizing the challenges people face in navigating their dietary choices.

=> 01:38:04

The way food is processed in the U.S. can drastically affect your health; even simple cooking methods can change how your body reacts to carbs.

My body reacted with this massive sugar spike the minute I cooked it off, put it in the fridge, waited 24 hours, and then ate it the next day. There was no glycemic load whatsoever, same with potatoes. I found that if I made pasta more al dente than what I was used to, it also resulted in no glycemic load. The problem that’s frustrating is that al dente, meaning less cooked, has a totally different reaction in my body than if I make it soft and mushy. So, I’ve trained my body to have really al dente pasta, and I see that the glycemic load is much lower.

I think the point is that the food supply in the United States is the most precarious it’s ever been. It’s brutally hard to figure this out. I mean, how is everybody supposed to get a glucose monitor and then figure out what little things trigger insulin spikes? Well, that’s not possible. Even if you do find out, how do you get it in a cheap, affordable way? No wonder everybody’s really struggling with this.

Have you ever worn a glucose monitor when you were in Italy? No, I wore it here. I’d like to know because there’s a difference in the way my body reacts. I can tell you how my body feels if I take a picture. I mean, I try to work out and take pretty detailed readings of my BMI, muscle mass, and fat percentage. I always take those readings right before I go, and when I look afterwards, I don’t do anything while I’m there. I swim in the sea when I can, like when I’m on vacation, or I walk a lot, but nothing else—no weights, nothing.

My muscle mass stays the same, my fat percentage goes down, and I look healthier and feel really great. All I do is eat what’s in front of me; I don’t think about quantities. However, when I’m back in the United States, I have to go back on lockdown. Like a lot of people, I had this experience where if you look at a picture of me in Sri Lanka, I looked like old Dave Chappelle—I was just a total stick figure. Within one year of being in North America, specifically in Canada, I looked at school pictures and I was fat. I couldn’t explain the difference in the food system, and my parents were making the same things because they wanted to have that comfort of what they were used to.

I don’t know if it was the food supply or not, but it has to be. Everybody says the same thing, and my whole family has struggled with it. When I go to Italy, it’s a different reference example; it’s like I’m in the best shape of my life. I feel completely different. Even when you eat things like pizza over there, you don’t feel like you ate a brick. I’ve eaten pizza here and I love it, but when I’m over there, I’m like, “Oh, what did you do? You ate a brick!” But over there, it’s just food; it tastes great. The pasta doesn’t bother you; nothing bothers you. It’s just whatever they’re doing.

There are many factors at play. One of them is that they’re not using enriched flour, and another is that they have heirloom flour, which hasn’t been maximized for the most amount of gluten. I’m curious to see what Bobby does if Trump wins. This will make America healthy again, but I don’t exactly know what his plans are. What’s possible? How much can you really affect with regulation? How much can you really bring to light, and what are we going to learn about our food system?

Even Canada has its differences. One of the things about the hearings that they just had was they were comparing Lucky Charms sold in the United States, which are very brightly colored, versus those sold in Canada. They are completely different looking products because it’s illegal to use those dyes in Canada. We know those dyes are terrible for you, and Canada knows they’re terrible for you, which is why they’re illegal up there. The food tastes the same; it still sucks, it’s still bad for you, and it’s still covered in sugar. But at least it doesn’t have that [__] poison that just makes it blue or totally red.

It is impossible to teach my kids healthy eating habits as a result of this. The food in the United States is just everywhere, and it’s beaten into you that this is a cheap way of getting caloric intake. However, it is full of just all these unhealthy ingredients.

=> 01:42:04

The real challenge isn't just unhealthy food; it's the system that makes it so hard to escape the sugar trap.

The discussion begins with a comparison between brightly colored cereals and Lucky Charms sold in Canada. The key difference lies in the fact that it’s illegal to use certain dyes in Canada, which are used ubiquitously in the United States. These dyes are known to be terrible for you, and Canada recognizes this, which is why they are banned there. Although the food may taste the same, it remains unhealthy and still covered in sugar, but at least it doesn't contain the harmful dyes that make it blue or red.

The speaker expresses frustration about the difficulty of teaching their children healthy eating habits due to the overwhelming presence of unhealthy food options in the United States. This food is marketed as a cheap way to get caloric intake, yet it is filled with ingredients that are hard to pronounce and are considered garbage. The situation is exacerbated for those living in food deserts, where fast food is the only available option. The speaker emphasizes that it's impossible to maintain metabolic health if you are poor and living in such areas, as it is both challenging and very expensive to eat well and avoid additives.

Reflecting on past dietary trends, the speaker recalls how in the '90s and 2000s, people were led to believe that fat was bad. They mention buying sugar-free and fat-free products, thinking they were making healthy choices. However, it turned out that these products were often misleading. The speaker points out that a small number of people bribed scientists to falsify data, shifting the blame for coronary heart disease from sugar to saturated fat. This led to a dysfunctional understanding of health, exemplified by the flawed food pyramid that prioritized bread and carbs.

The conversation shifts to the mega mergers of the 1980s, where tobacco companies merged with food companies. The scientists involved began applying their skills in making addictive products to food. The speaker notes that much of the food science in America is based on creating super addictive foods, which has resulted in a failure of public health and regulatory processes. They argue that food products should be labeled similarly to cigarettes, which come with warnings about their dangers.

The speaker shares a personal anecdote about their experience with smoking, stating that they found it easier to quit smoking than to cut out sugar. They express the difficulty of eliminating sugar from one’s diet, as it is pervasive in many foods. They recount a friend's experience with type 2 diabetes, who discovered that cutting out sugar significantly increased his energy levels. This friend had been unaware that he was poisoning himself with sugar, a reality that many people face today as they consume regular soda, candy, and other foods laden with sugar.

=> 01:46:15

Cutting out sugar is harder than quitting smoking, yet it's everywhere, poisoning our health and energy. What if we rethought food stamps to promote real nutrition instead of sugary junk?

When I was younger, I found it much easier to stop smoking than it was for me to cut out sugar. Cutting out sugar is basically impossible; it's very hard because you encounter it everywhere. I have a friend who has diabetes—he has type 2 diabetes—and he's thin. My friend Duncan discovered that when he stopped eating sugar, he felt a surge of energy. He exclaimed, "Oh my God, I have so much energy! This is what I'm supposed to feel like!" He had thought that feeling tired was just a part of life. Now in his 40s, he often says, "Yeah, I need a nap," not realizing he was poisoning himself with sugar.

Most people are doing the same thing. They are drinking regular soda, eating candy, and consuming burgers with sugar in the bun, as well as bread and French fries cooked in seed oils. You are essentially poisoning yourself. You should fact-check this, as I may get the number wrong, but there was something that came out very recently about the percentage of the US Food Stamp system that goes to soda. It was like 10% of the total budget or something equally astounding. It’s a ginormous amount of money that is essentially providing folks with sugar water.

You have to wonder why the solution is just to give everybody on the back end of it OIC (Obesity Intervention Counseling). Let’s be real: that’s not food. You can put it in your mouth, but you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps. So, if you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps, why should you be able to buy something that is really bad for you? What would change if we said, "Food stamps are going to actually increase the amount that you get, but we're going to regulate what you can buy?" You would have to buy all the things from the outside of the store.

I don’t even think you have to regulate it strictly. Consider what has happened because of companies like Uber Eats and DoorDash. These companies have gone out and created cloud kitchens. There are three companies that have bought up every kind of warehouse in every part of every city and suburb in America, placing what they call ghost kitchens inside. When you launch the app, a lot of the time when you get a drink from Starbucks, it's not coming from the actual Starbucks down the street; it's coming from a ghost kitchen. This centralizes all the orders and creates an economy of scale.

I believe there is a way for food stamps to sit on top of that infrastructure and simply deliver food. However, the problem is that people, especially those who don't know or care, want that sugar water. I understand that people will choose a Big Mac because it is delicious. I think they are delicious, and once a year, I have a Big Mac. But if you’re going to tie it to something like a government subsidy, at least the government should have a conversation with itself about how it can ship healthy food and change the boundary conditions in people's lives.

I know what it's like to be overweight; it sucks. Your self-confidence is at a negative one. The way I dressed and felt took an enormous amount of work to overcome, and you're still left with the physical pains and internal issues that you create for yourself. This is not a win. I get that the hamburger tastes good, but this is where the government has a responsibility. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, so let's spend it in a smart way. We're not going to give you pop and soda anymore, and we’re going to start introducing some fruits, vegetables, and fiber. Why can't we do that?

This seems like a very reasonable thing to do, especially if, on the other hand, the government is negotiating insulin prices and Metformin prices. I do see what Bobby Kennedy was talking about with these GP1s. He compared the amount of money spent on GP1s and noted that you could give every obese American free healthy food and a gym membership for just 10% of what is currently spent on GP1s. Bobby mentioned that the cost of GP1s at the current rate would be $3 trillion a year. Isn’t that amazing? Just for something that controls your appetite! For $300 billion, you can provide everyone with food. By the way, you can use this ghost kitchen infrastructure to deliver the food in a prepped way, making life super simple for everyone.

=> 01:50:21

Investing in health should prioritize prevention and wellness over costly medications; a healthier society is worth more than a $3 trillion price tag.

The discussion revolves around the government's approach to healthcare, particularly in relation to the costs of medications like insulin, Metformin, and GLP-1s. The speaker highlights a significant point made by Bobby Kennedy, who compared the financial implications of GLP-1s. Kennedy noted that the cost of GLP-1s could reach $3 trillion a year, an astonishing figure when considering that for $300 billion, every obese American could receive free healthy food and a gym membership. This raises a critical issue: the government is negotiating medication prices while an industry is profiting immensely from these drugs, which merely control appetite.

The speaker emphasizes that while it's acceptable for industries to make profits, in a free market, all actors should be allowed to act rationally. The goal should be to achieve the best healthcare outcomes. The current trajectory suggests that the healthcare system is heading towards a crisis, as the only solution being proposed seems to be increased medication, which would exacerbate the budget deficit.

An alternative approach could involve establishing discipline in health choices, possibly through innovative technologies like Neuralink. However, the speaker warns against dystopian solutions that might involve invasive methods to control appetite. Instead, they advocate for a national scale promotion of health and wellness, rejecting the misleading narratives surrounding body positivity and the idea that all body types are healthy.

The speaker points out that there is funding behind these misleading messages, as influencers are compensated by food companies to promote unhealthy lifestyles. They argue that it is not healthy to be obese, despite claims that one can be metabolically healthy while carrying excess weight. The speaker believes that failing to address these issues is a disservice to individuals who need to be aware of healthier paths.

Furthermore, they criticize the government's spending priorities, citing an example of $50 billion allocated for rural broadband and chargers, which has not resulted in tangible improvements. This spending reflects a broader issue of misallocated resources, as the speaker notes that Congress often engages in horse trading to pass bills, resulting in what they term a Christmas tree bill. This practice leads to funding that does not effectively address the pressing needs of the population.

=> 01:54:39

We're wasting billions on unfulfilled promises while simple, effective solutions like satellite internet could connect everyone for a fraction of the cost.

In a recent discussion, a simple example was presented regarding the $50 billion spent on rural broadband and electric vehicle (EV) chargers. The speaker pointed out that, despite this significant investment, there is no rural broadband available, and only three chargers have been installed. This raises questions about the effectiveness of such spending, especially when considering that this amount does not even reach the $300 billion previously discussed.

The speaker elaborated on the legislative process, noting that in Congress, when bills are passed, there is often a lot of horse trading involved. This can result in what is known as a Christmas tree bill, where various interests attach their requests to the main bill. The speaker highlighted that in the United States, these funding amounts can be substantial, such as $10 billion or $50 billion.

A few years ago, a program was initiated to provide rural broadband to thousands of homes, initially awarded to SpaceX and Starlink. However, the decision was later reversed in favor of laying fiber optics. The speaker explained that, from a practical standpoint, solving the broadband issue via satellites is much more efficient, especially considering the vast distances involved. Unfortunately, despite the promise of fiber optics, zero fiber has been laid, leaving thousands of people without the broadband access they were promised. Instead of affordable internet access costing around $100 a month, these individuals are facing costs in the thousands, with $42 billion allocated but not delivered.

Additionally, the speaker mentioned a $7 billion program aimed at installing EV chargers, which has resulted in only three installations. When combining the two examples, the total of $50 billion could have been redirected to more impactful initiatives, such as providing organic food to those in need. The speaker suggested that while it may not be feasible to provide organic food to everyone, it could benefit tens of millions of people, starting with the 40 million individuals on SNAP.

The discussion continued with a personal anecdote about using the Starlink mini in the mountains of Utah. The speaker praised its compact design, stating it is the size of a book and can easily fit into a small laptop case. The simplicity of the device is remarkable; it can be plugged in and automatically starts to function. The speaker shared their experience of using it while traveling, noting its reliability and affordability, costing less than $100.

Looking ahead, the speaker anticipated that in a year or two, it would be possible to connect directly to a cell phone without needing the dish. Currently, the dish is small enough to be placed in a field, and it even comes with a battery, making it highly portable. The speaker emphasized that providing every American with a Starlink dish would be relatively inexpensive, likely costing far less than $42 billion. Furthermore, if an order for 50 million units were placed, the cost would significantly decrease, demonstrating that fast internet is not only possible but also affordable.

=> 01:58:47

The future of governance could be revolutionized by AI, making it more efficient and less corrupt, but we must ensure the integrity of the data that trains these systems.

This conversation touches on several intriguing topics related to technology, governance, and the future of society. The idea of a Starlink dish is mentioned as a potential solution for providing fast internet access to every American. The speaker notes that in a year or two, it will probably be straight to your cell phone, eliminating the need for a physical dish. Currently, the dish resembles a small iPad that can be placed in a field, and it can operate on a battery, making it quite accessible.

The cost of providing every American with a Starlink dish is discussed, with the assertion that it wouldn't be 42 billion dollars. The speaker emphasizes that if an order for 50 million units were placed, the cost would fall through the floor, suggesting that SpaceX could produce them for as little as eight dollars each. This highlights the potential for fast internet, which is considered a game-changer.

However, the conversation takes a turn as the speaker expresses a mix of optimism married to enormous fear regarding the future. They point out the corruption present in current governance, illustrated by convoluted deals like the one involving the Border Wall and Ukraine funding. The speaker questions the legitimacy of lengthy bills that few people read and suggests that AI government could be a solution to these issues. They argue that AI government is not corrupt and would work directly for the people, eliminating the need for state representatives who often seem to lack genuine expertise.

Yet, the speaker raises concerns about who controls the AI and whether there is an ultimate regulatory body to ensure that the AI remains unbiased. They acknowledge that there is already a level of human override in AI models, which raises questions about who decides how these models are trained and what values they are based on.

The conversation also touches on the potential for AI to be gamed, with the speaker referencing instances where AI has produced distorted representations of history, such as creating multi-racial Nazi soldiers. This leads to a discussion about the greasy fingerprints of modern civilization on AI and the ideologies that influence it.

Despite these concerns, the speaker believes there is a more palatable step before fully implementing AI governance. They draw an analogy to home renovations, explaining how an architect must navigate city regulations, often going through multiple revisions before obtaining permits. They suggest that AI could streamline this process by instantly understanding the rules and providing immediate feedback on necessary changes. This could lead to a more efficient and effective governance model, where AI can ingest all the rules and help citizens comply with regulations more easily.

=> 02:02:43

AI can streamline government processes and cut through bureaucratic red tape, making renovations and public services more efficient.

Renovating your house involves a series of structured steps. First, you make plans and engage an architect, who likely pays an expediter to stand in line at city hall. There, a reviewer examines your plans and provides a series of handwritten markups based on their understanding of the building code. For example, they might say, "You can't use this lead pipe; you need to use aluminum," or "This window's too small." After receiving this feedback, you return to revise your plans. On average, this process occurs two or three times before the necessary permits are issued.

However, advancements in technology, particularly through AI, can significantly streamline this process. An AI can ingest all the rules and instantly determine what is allowed and what is not. By analyzing your plans, it can identify issues such as, "Joe, fix these 19 things." Once you make those adjustments, you can present your revised plans to the city, demonstrating compliance with all regulations. This capability not only streamlines government processes but also highlights where decisions may not align with established rules. This is crucial for identifying areas where the administrative state has grown unwieldy, suggesting that some regulations may need to be simplified or eliminated, as there are often rules on top of rules that conflict with one another.

Moreover, there are undoubtedly outdated regulations still in effect today, and an AI could help clarify these complexities by allowing users to choose between conflicting rules. This could significantly reduce the difficulties associated with making progress in renovation projects.

One notable example of pushing for government efficiency comes from Elon Musk, who faced backlash for his proposals to audit various government programs and improve their efficiency. Critics, including many intelligent individuals, expressed concerns about potential job losses for those in government roles. However, it is essential to recognize that the answer for ineffective government is not to maintain the status quo. It is widely accepted that government operations are not as efficient as they could be. No rational person believes that current bureaucracies are functioning at optimal levels; there is a general consensus that there's a lot of nonsense going on.

The contrast between private sector achievements and government performance is striking. For instance, consider the accomplishments of SpaceX compared to NASA's recent endeavors, or the effectiveness of Starlink versus a $42 billion government program that yielded no results. The private sector thrives in competitive marketplaces, where efficiency is paramount. Companies cannot afford to retain employees who create red tape or hinder progress, which underscores the argument for allowing private companies to take over certain government functions.

It is important to clarify that advocating for improved government efficiency does not equate to a belief that government should not exist. On the contrary, government plays a crucial role in creating incentives that drive private industry to innovate and meet those incentives. A well-functioning government can create a conducive environment for economic growth and development.

A compelling example of effective governance is Singapore. In the 1950s, Singapore's GDP was comparable to that of Jamaica. Fast forward 70 years, and Singapore exemplifies what good governance can achieve. Their extraordinarily efficient recycling program is a testament to this. Singapore has implemented a system where they truly recycle, separating plastics, breaking them down, and repurposing them into energy, road materials, and building supplies. This success stems from their lack of natural resources, which compelled them to become highly educated and industrious.

Under the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore established the right incentives for both government and private industry to excel. Civil servants are compensated well, which encourages them to perform effectively, while private industry is motivated to contribute to the nation's development. This model demonstrates that similar strategies could be beneficial in the United States, where a focus on improving government efficiency and fostering private sector innovation could lead to significant advancements.

=> 02:06:49

Innovation thrives when we start from zero and build up, cutting through the clutter to create real impact.

The recycling program is truly unbelievable. It's really amazing what they do; they genuinely recycle in ways that we might think we're recycling, but they actually do it. They separate the plastic, break it up, and use it to make power. They also create road materials and building materials from it, effectively reusing everything.

They were thrust into a specific piece of land with no natural resources, which compelled them to become incredibly well-educated and industrious. Lewan Yu was able to create the right incentives for the government to perform well; they pay their civil servants incredibly well. This approach also encourages private industry to step in and contribute, and it works incredibly well.

In the United States, we could benefit significantly from identifying the ways in which there are either too many laws or conflicting laws. This could at least spark a conversation about revising those regulations. Additionally, if we look inside private equity, there is one practice that I believe the government would greatly benefit from, known as zero-based budgeting. This is an incredibly powerful, albeit boring, idea.

When private equity firms buy a company, the best among them will look at the next year's budget and ask, "What should the budget be?" Typically, everyone runs in and demands funding for various needs, resulting in a ginormous budget. However, some of the best private equity firms start with zero; they set next year's budget to zero and meticulously build it back up, block by block.

For instance, when someone comes in and says, "I want to build an interface," they are asked to clarify their needs. If they say, "I want to upgrade the factory to produce a higher yield," they are then asked how much they need. This process continues one by one. If this method were applied within the government, it’s likely that the same group of people would enjoy their jobs much more. They would have their hands on the controls in a more directed way, and we would spend significantly less because much of the budget likely goes unnoticed and unused. People would be more empowered to pursue their goals; I could do what I wanted to do, and Elon could do what he wants to do.

In fact, I tweeted today about how Elon Musk cannot get the FAA to grant him a flight permit for Starship five and six. They are currently waiting on dry docks, and the approval process is slow. It takes him less time to build these Starships than it does to get government approval. Meanwhile, the FCC, which is a sister organization to the FAA, fast-tracked the sale of 220 radio stations, including some to foreign entities, right before an election that affected approximately 160 million Americans.

When you look at this situation, it raises the question: how can some individuals cut through all the red tape and receive quick answers, while others are left waiting for what seems like an obvious and exceptional request for America? There is no clear answer to this dilemma.

Additionally, there are two people currently stuck in space. Jamie mentioned that they were supposed to be there for eight hours, but now they will be there until February. This situation is so insane; it’s hard to imagine how terrifying that must be. For us, eight days would be overwhelming, and I think they would feel the same way.

I read an article where they interviewed those astronauts, and while this could be the party line, they claimed, "This is great; it’s my natural place; I’m happy." I find that hard to believe. A friend of mine, who is the founder of Cirque du Soleil, went to space and discussed the experience. It's fascinating how they cope with such extreme situations, but it’s still ongoing.

=> 02:11:02

Embrace the chaos of the universe; it’s a reminder that our time here is fragile and we need to create redundancy in our existence.

Going to be there till February—that's so insane! They're going to be there till February. How terrifying must that be? I mean, for maybe you and me, eight days—they were supposed to be there for eight days. I think I would freak out, 100%. I think they would too. How do you not?

Well, I read this article where they interviewed them. Now, this could be the party line; I don't know, but they're like, "This is great! It's my natural place. I'm happy." Oh, good lord! I can't believe that's real. I had a friend of mine who went to space—the founder of Cirque du Soleil, Guy Laliberté. He brought a super high Google talks about it like it's already over, but it's still going on. No, it's still going on!

Say it until February 21st. Yeah, February. Yet, we're stuck in space. He ended up spending months—more, more. AI—wow, yeah, it could be way more. That's weird that AI... that's another flaw with AI, right? That it would read it like that. I wonder what the incentive is for AI to lie to you about that. How does AI not know it's not 2025 yet? We're stuck in space until February of 2025. That's just a straight-up error.

That's a weird error, though. It is a weird error. But these poor people, you know? So my friend that was up there said it was incredible. He has this funny story where he was a smoker—still is a smoker—but this was like 20 years ago. He was going up on a Soyuz rocket, and he shows up, I guess in Siberia, where they do the launches. He was really stressed out because he had to stop smoking and he had to stop drinking and all this stuff. He shows up, and the cosmonauts are smoking!

Oh no, they're like, "Oh, it's totally fine. Don't worry." So they smoke on the ground while they were training. Oh boy! So they go up, he does eight days, and he comes back down. He took these incredible high-res pictures of all the parts of the Earth. He said it was the most incredible thing, but you know when you get back, he's like, "I was ready to get back."

Did you see this latest report? There's like real controversy about some finding that the James Webb Telescope has discovered, and there's some talk of some large object moving towards us that's course-correcting. Yeah, this is the weird part about it, and there are all these meetings. All the kooky UAP people are all over it saying "Disclosure is imminent. There's a mothership headed towards us." So it gets fun. I don't know what they mean by course-correcting. What does that mean? And how do they know it wasn't impacted with something else that diverted it?

It could have been that; it could have just been the gravitational fields—just an orbital path. But they're not telling anybody. There's something going on. Do you think they would tell people? Imagine if there was a giant chunk of steel, or rather iron, that's headed towards us. That's a great question. I think the question is, what would we do if we knew? Do we have the capability of moving that thing? Would the FCC wait five months to give Elon...

I think you'd probably send as many... but see, I mean, it's all a physics problem at that point, right? It's also a problem of breaking it up. Exactly! If it breaks up, then you have smaller pieces that are hitting everywhere instead of one large chunk. By the way, isn't this like the perfect reason why being multiplanetary just makes a lot of sense? Sure!

For example, would you get on an airplane if they said, "Hey Joe, this is the best airplane in the world. It's the most incredible, it's the most luxurious, it has the best weather, you can surf, you can..." but there's only one navigation system, and if it goes out, you never do that, right? Would you ever get on that airplane? No! So, you know, I think we owe it to ourselves to have some redundancy.

But ultimately, I always wonder, you know, like the universe sort of has these patterns that force innovation and constantly move towards further and further complexity. If you were going to have intelligent life that existed on a planet, what better incentive to get this intelligent life to spread to other parts of the planet than to make that planet volatile? Make supervolcanoes, earthquakes, solar flares—all sorts of different possibilities, asteroid impacts—all sorts of different possibilities that motivate this thing to spread.

But to say, "This is fragile, and it's not forever," so create some redundancy. I mean, I was raised Buddhist; I'm not that religious in that way, but I'm kind of weirdly spiritual in this other way, which is I do think the universe is basically... it's littered with...

=> 02:15:16

The universe pushes us towards innovation and complexity, reminding us that our existence is fragile; we must seek redundancy and cooperation to thrive beyond this planet.

I always wonder, you know, like the universe sort of has these patterns that force innovation and constantly move towards further and further complexity. If you were going to have intelligent life that existed on a planet, what better incentive to get this intelligent life to spread to other parts of the planet than to make that planet volatile? Imagine super volcanoes, earthquakes, solar flares, and all sorts of different possibilities like asteroid impacts that motivate this thing to spread. However, we must acknowledge that this is fragile and it's not forever, so we should create some redundancy.

I mean, I was raised Buddhist; I'm not that religious in that way, but I'm kind of weirdly spiritual in this other way. I do think the universe is basically littered with answers; you just have to go and find out what the right questions are. To your point, all these natural phenomena on Earth lead us to the question: do we want to be a single planet species or do we want to have some built-in redundancy? Maybe a hundred years from now, building on what happens in the next five, we will have discovered all kinds of different planets. That's an amazing thing—unquestionably.

We also know that there are planets in our immediate vicinity that used to be able to harbor life, like Mars. We know that Mars was covered in water and had a sustainable atmosphere. This indicates that what we're experiencing here on Earth is temporary. If we get hit by something big, we know Earth was hit by a planet during its formation. The primary theory is that we were hit by another planet, which is why we have such a large Moon—a quarter the size of Earth—that helps keep our atmosphere stable. It's a wild shooting gallery out there, especially since our solar system has a massive asteroid belt with about 900,000 near-Earth objects.

But isn't that so inspiring? This idea of discovering all these other questions that we don't know yet to even ask is what makes life well-lived. Yes, the most promising aspect of a hyper-intelligent AI, in my opinion, is that it will be able to solve problems that are inescapable to us. It can also offer us real hard data about how big of a problem this is and when it needs to be solved by, and then come up with actionable solutions. This seems to be something that might escape us as biological entities with limited minds, especially if we're not working together.

Imagine if you could get AI to have the accumulated power and mind power of everyone—10x the mental model. If an alien showed up today, would humans, by and large, drop all of their internal issues and cooperate together? Perhaps. I would hope that the answer would be yes, but it would have to be something that showed such overwhelming superiority that it shut down all of our military systems openly, leaving us feeling helpless against it.

One way to think about AI is that it is a supernatural system in some ways. If we can just find a way to cooperate and harness this, seeing the bigger picture, I think we'll all be better off. Killing each other is so barbarically unnecessary; it doesn't solve anything. All it does is create more anger and hatred, leaving what's left over not positive. We need to be reminded of that somehow without actually living the experience.

My hope is that one of the things that comes out of AI and the advancement of society through this is the allocation of resources much more evenly. We should use AI, as I mentioned before, to create conditions where the best way to keep people from entering into this country is to make all the other places as good as this country. That way, you solve all the problems for everybody, and you don't have this one place where you can go to get a job or where you risk getting murdered.

So, why are a lot of people coming to America? A lot of the reasons are clearly political persecution, but many of the other reasons are economic. If you can create economic abundance generally in the world, that's what people want. Most people want, as you said before, a good job. They want to come in and feel like they can point to something and say, "I made that."

=> 02:19:52

True progress comes from creating economic opportunities everywhere, not just in one place.

Evenly, we use AI as I was saying before. The best way to keep people from entering into this country is to make all the other places as good as this country. That's how you solve all the problems for everybody. You don't have this one place where you can go to get a job or where you go over there and you get murdered.

So, I think that, you know, why are a lot of people coming to America? A lot of the reasons, some are clearly political persecution, but a lot of the other reasons are economic, to your point. If you can create economic abundance generally in the world, that's what people want. Most people want, as you said before, a good job. They want to come in and feel like they can point to something and say, "I made that. I feel proud of that." They want to hopefully get married, have some kids, have fun with them, teach them what they were all about, and then, you know, have their swan song.

Isn't it interesting that the idea of people not getting together in groups and killing people they don't know—that's utopia? That is some sort of ridiculous pie-in-the-sky vision of the possibility of the future of humanity. While that's common in small groups, like even in cities, there are individual murders and crimes, but cities aren't attacking other cities and killing everybody. There's something bizarre about nations and the uneven application of resources and possibilities. Your economic hopes, dreams, and aspirations should be achievable pretty much everywhere. If we did that, I think that might be the way that we solve most violence or the most horrific nonsensical violence.

You have this data point; I said this before, but the most important thing that has happened in the last four to five years is that we have severely curtailed the likelihood of war in the nominal sense. I think Trump was able to basically draw a hard red line on that stuff. The underlying reason was because we had enough economic abundance where the incentives to go to war fell. We had just a complete rebirth of domestic hydrocarbons in America. Whether you agree with it or not, my point is it is quite clearly correlated in the data: as we were able to produce more stuff, economic abundance led to less need to go and fight with external parties.

So, I do think you're right; this reduces it down to we need to find ways of allocating this abundance more broadly to more countries. Meanwhile, that one crazy thing that you can't unwind and go back from—you can just never go there—and you just have to make sure nobody believes that that is justified. Because in a nuclear event, I think that that's not what happens.

I saw this brilliant discussion that you had where you were explaining that Trump is the wrong messenger, but many of the things that he did actually were very positive. I think that is a very difficult thing to describe and express to people because we are so polarized, particularly with a character like Trump who is so polarizing. It's very difficult to attribute anything to him that is positive, especially if you're a progressive, on the left, a lifelong Democrat, or involved in tech.

It's this bizarre denial of basic reality—the reality of what you can see based on what actions were taken and what the net benefits were. I've always been a liberal, and I think I should define what liberalism used to mean. It used to mean absolutely no war, free speech, and a government that was supportive of private industry. Try your best; go out there. We'll look out for you. Come back to us if things go haywire. That's an incredible view of the world.

What happened was, when I was given a choice, I would vote Democrat or support Democrats because I thought that that's what they stood for. I didn't really understand Trump, and so I got too caught up in the messenger and didn't focus enough on the message. I didn't even realize that in 2016, but I don't think many people did. Then in 2020, I got lost in it, but probably by 2021, I...

=> 02:24:35

Don't get lost in the messenger; focus on the message. In today's political landscape, it's crucial to sift through the noise and understand the real implications behind the rhetoric.

The discussion revolves around the concept of a supportive government that backs private industry. The sentiment expressed is one of encouragement: "try your best, go out there, we'll look out for you, come back to us if things go haywire." This perspective presents an incredible view of the world.

Initially, the speaker found themselves inclined to vote Democrat or support Democrats, believing that this was aligned with their values. However, they admit to being caught up in the messenger rather than focusing on the message. Reflecting on the 2016 election, they acknowledge a lack of understanding regarding Trump and realize that many others shared this sentiment. By 2021 or 2022, they began to analyze the data more critically, concluding that they were not being a responsible adult in their approach. Upon reevaluating, they recognized that many of Trump's decisions were quite smart, despite his polarizing delivery.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the message and the messenger, especially given the high stakes of the current political climate. They suggest that it may be beneficial to seek out alternative messengers, such as JD Vance, Elon Musk, RFK, or Tulsi Gabbard, who can convey the message in a way that resonates more effectively with the public. The need for multiple messengers is highlighted to prevent individuals from becoming disillusioned by a single figure.

The conversation shifts to the unique political landscape, where strange alliances form. The speaker notes the cooperation between Trump and Bobby, who maintains a balanced view of Trump's positives and negatives. Despite the challenges, they both share a commitment to ensuring that under no circumstance will the United States go to war. The speaker points out the polarizing nature of Trump, mentioning the two attempted assassinations against him, likening him to Neo in The Matrix, skillfully dodging bullets for now, but acknowledging that no one can evade danger indefinitely.

Furthermore, the speaker reflects on the domestic policy agendas of both Democrats and Republicans, suggesting that they often fall within similar parameters. They argue that regardless of whether it’s Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, both must navigate a sclerotic Congress, which limits the likelihood of significant legislative achievements. Historically, past presidents have managed to pass only one piece of landmark legislation in their first two years, with subsequent efforts often unraveling. This pattern has been consistent from Clinton to Biden.

Given this context, the speaker urges listeners to consider the super presidential powers that allow for unilateral action, such as issuing executive orders. These orders can direct behavior in ways that may not require congressional approval, highlighting a critical avenue for enacting policy amidst a gridlocked political environment.

=> 02:29:02

The American political system often makes real change feel impossible, but the power of executive orders can reshape our government in significant ways.

The American political system has a really incredible way of insulating itself. If people would just take a step back and look at that, they would see that a lot of the policy agendas that both major parties espouse are going to be very hard to get done. There may be one significant achievement, such as something on domestic taxation or the border, but based on historical trends, the likelihood is that they will get one of these things done and then not much else will follow. This is why I think folks need to consider what the super presidential powers are, particularly where they can act alone.

One area where the president can act alone is by issuing executive orders, which can direct the behavior of governmental agencies. This raises important questions: Do you want a muscular American bureaucracy? Do you want a more slimmed-down one? Do you prefer one that has bigger ambitions and more teeth, or one that is zero-based budgeted? The options are pretty stark.

In terms of foreign policy, there seems to be a divide. One camp believes that we are the world's policeman, and there is a responsibility that comes with that. The other camp argues that we have a lot of problems at home and should not get pulled into conflicts abroad. People need to decide where they stand on these threshold issues. Beyond that, my honest opinion is that we are operating within error bars between the two parties; one will cut taxes by a certain amount, while the other will increase them by a different amount.

There have been real decisions made during the Biden Administration regarding the border that are affecting people. I don't think it's a lack of action; rather, it is a decision, especially with the flying in of people and the utilization of an app to facilitate this process. That seems insane. I am unsure what the motivation is, but I have spoken to people in the construction business who believe that the motivation is cheap labor. They argue that many industries are struggling due to a lack of affordable labor willing to take on certain jobs.

In Springfield, Ohio, for instance, there has been a lot of criticism regarding the influx of Haitians. However, one positive aspect noted by residents is that these individuals are hard workers willing to take on jobs that others are not. Thus, there are pros and cons to this situation. Yet, there is also an incentivized effort to move people into this country illegally, which will undoubtedly bring in individuals that we do not want here, such as gang members, cartel members, and terrorists. This is a real concern, and it has been documented that there have been arrests of individuals attempting to enter the country with terrorist intentions.

If I give both parties the benefit of the doubt, I believe they will have to act on the border issue. I think that Donald Trump has had a clearer view of this issue for much longer, while Kamala Harris has had to shift her position to appeal to centrists. However, I do believe that both will have to take action, as the current situation is not sustainable.

The fear, as Elon Musk has discussed, is that bringing these individuals in and providing them with a clear path to citizenship will allow them to vote, effectively buying their vote. If the Democrats incentivize these new arrivals to become Democrats and vote, while also providing them with benefits like EBT cards and housing, it raises concerns about fairness. Many of these resources are not being provided to veterans and poor citizens in this country. This strategy seems to incentivize newcomers to appreciate the party that gave them these opportunities.

In swing states like Ohio, if a significant number of people are brought in and given a better life due to certain policies, those individuals, especially if they are limited information voters, are likely to vote for the party that facilitated their immigration. While I am not sure if it qualifies as a conspiracy, I do agree with the outcome of these actions.

=> 02:32:51

We need to prioritize those who have played by the rules, both immigrants and long-time citizens, while also extending compassion to those seeking a better life.

They’re giving them housing and they’re providing resources that Veterans and poor people in this country are not receiving. This situation seems to serve as an incentive for these individuals to want to be here and to appreciate the people that gave them that opportunity. Essentially, in swing states like Ohio, if you can bring in a lot of people and improve their lives because of your policies, those individuals, especially if they are limited or low-information voters, are likely to vote for the party that facilitated their arrival in America.

I have my own experiences that resonate with this situation. I remember very vividly when my parents took our whole family—my two sisters and myself—to Niagara Falls. We then crossed the border to Buffalo and applied for refugee status in America. Unfortunately, we were rejected. Upon returning, we had a tribunal hearing in Ottawa, where I grew up. I distinctly recall sitting in front of a Magistrate Judge, who wore the traditional robes and wig. My father had to defend our family, explaining our life circumstances and what we had endured. I remember crying throughout the entire process; it was a crucible moment for our family. The outcome was uncertain, and I was deeply anxious about what would happen if we were sent back.

Fortunately, it worked out for us. I eventually became a Canadian citizen, then moved to the United States on a visa, and later became an American citizen. I have an enormous loyalty to this country, and when I think about Americans not getting what they deserve before other folks, it genuinely agitates me. It’s not that those newcomers shouldn’t be taken care of; I was once one of those people who needed a safety net. We relied on welfare and community resources for essentials like clothing.

However, it’s crucial to ensure that we also take care of all the people who are putting in the effort and time to be here legally. I came to the United States on a TN visa, which required annual renewal. If the person reviewing my application decided against me, I would have to leave. Later, I transferred to an H1B visa, where my company had to prove that no American could fill my position. I have lived the experience of an immigrant following the rules, waiting patiently, and dealing with the anxiety that comes with it.

There was a website where we could check the status of our green card applications. I would check it obsessively, worrying that my visa would expire and I would have to return to Canada. Despite the anxiety, I continued to play by the rules. It’s important to recognize that many immigrants, as well as people born in this country, are following the rules. We owe it to them to do the right thing and also to assist those who are crossing the border, as many are likely escaping dire circumstances.

Most of these individuals are simply seeking a better opportunity, which is commendable. However, we must ensure that we take care of all the people already here, especially the veterans and those who have been struggling in inner cities, who have faced the long-term impacts of redlining and Jim Crow laws that have set them back for decades.

=> 02:37:00

We need to prioritize the needs of those who have been here and struggled for decades while also finding a fair way to support newcomers seeking better lives. Balance is key.

Immigrants to this country represent a significant topic of discussion, particularly regarding the treatment of those who were born here and have been "playing by the rules." I believe we owe it to them to do the right thing, while also trying to assist those who are coming across the border. Many of these individuals are likely escaping dire circumstances, and I am sure that most of them are simply seeking a better opportunity, which is commendable. However, it is crucial to prioritize the needs of all people currently residing here, especially veterans and those who have been struggling in inner cities. These communities have faced the long-lasting effects of redlining and Jim Crow laws, which have set them back for decades without any corrective efforts.

There has been little to no action taken to improve the economic conditions in these areas, which have been suffering since the early 20th century. Instead, it appears that resources are being allocated to individuals who have entered the country illegally. This situation raises concerns for many, as it may seem like a conspiracy. If there were clearer explanations regarding the support for these newcomers, perhaps the 50% of the population that leans red on this issue could understand better. Unfortunately, the lack of explanation is evident, especially when considering the $150,000 home credit that Gavin Newsom was about to approve, which was widely unpopular. In contrast, there seems to be no similar support for improving food access in food deserts.

If we could achieve a bit more balance and shine a light on these issues, many residents who contribute to society would feel more optimistic about the direction things are heading. They would no longer perceive the system as being rigged. This sentiment is part of what excites people about the Trump Union with Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy. These movements appear to challenge the status quo in ways that seem almost impossible, particularly with the Make America Healthy Again concept. This initiative aims to confront companies that have historically donated to political parties, allowing them to maintain regulations that permit harmful substances in food—substances that are illegal in neighboring Canada.

Taking a step back, it’s worth pondering why such a diverse group of individuals is cooperating. This question is intriguing, and while I don't have an answer, it prompts reflection. The 2024 election seems to hinge on a clash between traditional governance and a radical reimagining of government. The traditional approach advocates for robust policies and a strong governmental role in both domestic and foreign affairs, aiming to rectify past wrongs. In contrast, the radical reimagining seeks to return to a more foundational concept of governance, advocating for a light governmental infrastructure and a reduction in regulations, as well as a more restrained foreign policy.

Ultimately, the lens through which we view these choices is significantly influenced by Donald Trump as a person and the media's often distorted portrayal of him. This distortion complicates the public's understanding of the issues at hand.

=> 02:41:11

In a world where media shapes perceptions, it's crucial to seek the truth for ourselves and understand the real stakes of leadership.

The more founding notion of this country emphasizes a vision of a very light governmental infrastructure. We are going to cut back a bunch of the rules and take a little bit of a step back on foreign policy to avoid ending up in a situation we can't pull back from. In that lens, the choices are markedly different. However, in terms of actual policy, I honestly think that it's pretty much six of one, half a dozen of the other.

The lens that you're describing distorts everyone's vision, primarily due to Donald Trump as a human being and the media's depiction of him, which has been grossly distorted. I have met him and spent time with him; I have also had lunch with Kamala Harris, who was a very kind and nice person. In contrast, Donald Trump is very funny, kind, and polite. When he talks to you, it can be surprising, as I was expecting something totally different.

At the core of the media's frenzy is a part of him that is an entertainer. He is as good as any comedian; he has rhythm and knows how to engage the audience. There is a performance aspect when he is on stage, akin to attending a show or a revival. However, when viewing him as Donald Trump the person, the media's portrayal becomes skewed. The flaws that Donald Trump has are nothing compared to the media's depictions of him. While his flaws exist and are well described, the media's misrepresentation is far more significant.

One example that particularly bothered me was the Charlottesville press conference. Initially, I was upset by the media's depiction of what he said. It turned out he didn't say what I thought he did; in fact, he said the exact opposite. I felt frustrated and angry because I realized he was never lying to me—the filter was lying to me. I believe it is part of the responsibility of being a competent adult to seek the truth. The only repercussion for the media's dishonesty is a lack of trust from the public, and they are digging their own grave in that regard. Trust in mainstream media is at an all-time low, and I think many people trust us more to present a version of what is happening.

This issue extends to Kamala Harris as well, as the domestic political machinery will attempt to characterize her by cherry-picking her comments. The media's treatment is not balanced; for instance, during the debates, they fact-checked Trump multiple times but did not fact-check her. There are claims that the co-host of the debate was her sorority sister, which is true. Additionally, there was an affidavit from someone at ABC stating that she was aware of the questions beforehand and that certain topics were off-limits, including her record as a DA.

One of the most egregious statements she made was that we don't have any troops deployed in combat zones. There are tens of thousands of American troops in active combat zones, and this misinformation is troubling. I was trying to be charitable, assuming both individuals are smart and believe in what they are doing. However, the filters that present their messages often distort the truth for their own interests. The mainstream media seems to serve their interests better through Kamala than Donald Trump.

This is a crucial moment for all of us to show up as responsible adults. We need to seek the source material and think critically about the issues at hand. This is the most consequential election of our lifetime. The president has the authority to hit the button on the nuclear football, so we must consider who we want holding that power. Under extreme pressure, we want someone who can make decisions akin to JFK, focused solely on protecting the future of America and its children.

I believe we are closer to this reality than people think. Thank you very much for being here; it was really fun and an honor to have this conversation. I appreciate your time, and I hope everyone enjoyed it as well. Thank you, and goodbye!