Why Even Try? The 322nd Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying

Hey, folks, welcome to the Dark Horse pod. Asked live stream. It's number 322. You and I are the resident dark horses. I am Dr. Brett Weinstein, your Dr. Heather Hying. It is Saturday, not our usual spot, but hey, it's kind of traditional around here. It has been traditional and then we, we moved it and this is the fourth in a cluster of four live streams and then we're going to be taking most of the rest April to do some other work. But there's going to be some interesting inside rail drops in our absence. And as always, we have our locals watch party going on. We had some great Q&As on locals in the last couple of weeks and check us out there. A cluster of Dark Horse podcasts. I'm just thinking some fraction of our audience has been trained such that the word cluster auto completes. I know, but it makes then that makes me wonder, and I have known in the past, what are the cluster a personality? Oh, that's not what I was thinking at all. Oh, you think of bombs? Yes. Exactly. Well, not exactly. Some fraction of our audience thinks cluster B personality. No, I think our audience. Yes, some fraction. Yes, there's no way no, no fraction of our audience thinks cluster B. For one thing, that's what I thought of. Yep. No, I was actually at the bombs and you with your like agro military focus are thinking about cluster bombs. But I wasn't. I really wasn't the bombs have been the cluster in cluster bomb has been reappropriated into common parlance to describe a an explosively bad situation. And that's what I thought the autocomplete was leading. I think of that as more of a cluster. Yes, exactly. That is what I'm imagining happened in the minds of many of our viewers. And probably they're recovered by now. But you know, I mean, I think we got in the way of that recovery with this conversation. Yes, we've promoted it fully to consciousness. And now that's all they're thinking about. Yeah. By the way, you're welcome. And I'm sorry. No, but I do think that we've talked about before, but this the value of not having some things promoted to consciousness so that you are aware of them and can have them promoted if they need to be, but they aren't taking up valuable sort of interactive day to day space in your life is it's it's an ever more difficult tightrope to walk in the modern era. If you ever spend a time being exposed to things that you weren't explicitly asking for, which is to say online. Actually, you know, that's quite right. That you sound surprised. No, I just it's a good thought that one of the maladies that we suffer from in modernity is that we are forced to keep many active threads open simultaneously just for because we have things at stake in them. You can't. Right. But I mean, you know, my point is now and has been, you know, this is not a new thing that I'm saying that I've said this many times before that for for many of us the active decision to say, actually, that's not where I'm going to be aware right now that it's not going to be where I spend my time. And I'm going to choose to go in sometimes and say, okay, or not. And that isn't inherently an avoidant or evasive or disinterested position. It is a both self preserving position and also one that potentially allows for greater clarity of thought when it comes, you know, episodically, when it is important to go back to or to go for the first time to some topic that has been active in many people's minds constantly for, you know, days, weeks, months, years, decades. Yep. Each of the threads benefits from being put into a latent phase to be revived later with fresh eyes rather than keeping them all active in the mind because it's like a battlefield with, you know, 20 active threats. And, you know, we don't, some people think they do, but we basically don't multitask well. Right. So, you know, at what cost? At many costs, some of the costs will be quantifiable and noticeable and sort of, you know, on the ground and physical space. What did you, what didn't you get done because you were thinking about stuff over here? But I think the much harder to quantify and therefore more likely to be ignored costs have to do with a greater, you know, greater ability to do analysis at various scales at, you know, when, when called to do so, as opposed to at a constant level of like, well, I have to know, you know, I need to know what this and that and this and that at the, you know, hourly, daily, weekly level is. Yeah, I also think it interacts with the Cartesian crisis that in effect, because you're trying to make sense of a bunch of things that don't, that aren't straightforward. The back burner fills up. I'm a big fan of the back burner where you can put things and not resolve them prematurely. And then when you discover something that allows you to make progress, you pull it off the back burner. But if the back burner has 40 things on it because nothing is straightforward, then you, you basically, you've got a lot of live models rather than, you know, if you were programming a computer, you would want to get an element right so that when you're working on some other element and breaking things in the process of elaborating it, you weren't worried that this thing over here wasn't stable. Right. And that, yeah, it's very counter productive. It's very counter productive. And there's also, I mean, I was thinking, you know, we're doing this all before the ads, which means some portion of the audience will just skip this, never hear this part of the conversation. But I think it's maybe the crux of of what we should be talking about today, which is that, you know, part of, as you have discussed the Cartesian crisis, which you named a few years back, our inability or ever greatening inability or ever enhanced or ever growing. Yes, that's the inability to discern what is real, discern what the truth is, has to do with us not being actual eyewitnesses to things where we think we're eyewitnesses to the fabrication of apparent reality on screens, the interface, the, you know, the delay between what we think that we're sensing, what we are sensing, and when it actually happened and therefore the ability for contributing forces to get in between the thing that we think we're observing or sensing in some way and how we're sensing it and to change it. So that's, that's at the empirical level that the pollen continues spring continues here. And, and then, of course, a lot of what we do here with the right to the evolutionary lens is think at the theoretical level, analytically, entirely aside from what is actually true, what would be true if let's work in hypotheticals, let's consider, you know, things like the game theory and the evolutionary logic of systems. And then as we actually know things to be true, let's, let's say, oh, I see that, let's use what we understand analytically and figure out what must be true if that is true and, and use those sorts of skills to assess if what we think we're seeing is true is actually true and also to make inference. But when the new cycle is so fast, when the information is demonstrably, fraudulent, at least in places, the ability to use any model on things that you have totally varying understanding of whether or not they are true and also varying capacity to know to what degree they are true, the whole thing becomes such a model that at the end, and this, you know, your results will vary, like different people will have different, different brains, which, yes, different capacities to, but different brains that work well in different styles of tasks that, that, you know, pulling, pulling back and saying actually that entire thing is so unknown that no amount of analysis over here is going to allow me to discern what's true. Therefore, I can't make sense of it. And I'm not saying I don't care. And I'm not saying I'm disinterested. What I'm saying is it's simply not possible now. And there are so many other things that I could be doing with my time in which I could be making sense of the world developing better models that I'm, I'm, you know, maybe I'll come back to it, maybe not. But being constantly reminded of the thing doesn't often for many people actually help resolve anything and just makes us scattered. Well, it does remind me a little bit of the conversation we had many months ago about my couple of friends who walked away from social media. First order, that's a very wise thing to do for your sanity and mental health. But when I check back in on them years later, I found they, their mental health was fine, but their level of confusion about what was actually going on in the world struck me as quite high, because unfortunately, we're stuck in a kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't world, it's like, which failure mode do you prefer? And I'm not arguing that one is better than the other, but I am arguing, I guess I, it's failure modes on both sides. There are, there is the potential for failure modes on both sides for sure. And they're going to be different ones mostly. But I'm thinking about, you know, you kept both of your friends anonymously, anonymous as you should, but I'm thinking about people who for instance are saying I'm not on social media. And when my beloved child comes to me and says that there are sex that they're not, I believe them, because I believe my child and oh, by the way, what is my news feed? My news feed is the completely captured New York Times and PR. And so it's not that there's no media diet. It's that there's been a choice for a media diet that is extraordinarily ideological. And this will, you know, the same opposite different, but you know, similar levels of error will presumably occur on the so-called right side of the spectrum if that's the only media diet you're receiving. So, you know, ideology is ideology. So I don't think that that is fixed by social media. Most people on social media are getting a straight up ideological diet as well. And it's just coming at them way faster. And so it's, you know, it's more toxic because of the speed, but it's no less or more ideological inherently. And some would argue that the algorithms associated with social media make it more, more catalyzing. I think part of what we've been seeing over the last, I don't know, what you want to call it, five or 50 years is a catalyzing and a fixing of ideology in the legacy publications and legacy media, such that it's really hard to actually end up informed and educated by reading or watching any individual legacy media. So social media has the capacity to amalgamate, but it doesn't usually do so. All right. I think there are three categories. You've got, I embrace the legacy media, you get the equivalent of false signal. It's consistent. It is not true. Social media, if you allow the algorithm to govern you, you get a different false signal. If you attempt to break the false signal on social media, you lose signal in the noise, what you get is a huge amount of noise, most of it not informative. And the question is, can you divine a signal out of that noise that is, in fact, leans in the direction of some kind of truth in the social media you're saying? Right. Because you can follow people who are on different sides of an issue, and then you could try to figure out what's actually going on. So anyway. This is what editors are supposed to do. This is what curation is. These concepts that have been grabbed and twisted and either disappeared, and then their skin suits are walking around or have been used for totally other things, extraordinarily valuable concepts because none of us, especially in the 21st century, can possibly walk into every single system that we might if we are curious and open human beings, be interested in, and become knowledgeable enough to start separating wheat from chaff very quickly. And so it is valuable. The reason that there have been beautiful publications that actually you can say, okay, this is what I, if I go there once a week or every day even, and just do a quick run of the front page or this section in this section, I will get a kind of read on the world as a match for the kind of read that I have historically been interested in. But all of these things have fallen apart. So curation and editing is partially the answer to this, but we don't have curators or editors who are trustworthy or non ideological anymore, which I think is the point. A, that tells you something, the fact that we would all sign up for even one, even if it was from an ideology that we didn't, you know, from a proceeding from an ideology that we didn't match, just something to try to tell the truth and held that as its highest value, it'd be a slam dunk business wise, everybody would sign up. The fact that we don't have one says there's a process that makes sure that this excellent business idea that can't possibly fail will fail every time it will turn into an ideological mess will be targeted. So I do think actually, there is kind of one. And it's the epic times, which I find that I am going to more regularly Epoch. And you've, you've taught with Jan. Yep. The I think founding founder, founder and editor, I'm not sure, I'm not sure in on the ground floor, if you're sure. I never remember how to pronounce his last name. Yacalic. Jan Yacalic, who's extraordinary. You've had him on Inside Rail. And the epic times does a better job than any other media outlet I know of at the moment of doing a really wide array of of stories regularly. And with, you know, with biases, everyone has, but with bias that is worn clearly when it's there. Well, I think it has it has a bias that orients its view of the world. I think the, you know, concern about the CCP is not the worst bias you can have. So anyway, it does have an awful lot of signal and it reports on a lot of stuff where there's no Chinese dimension. And so anyway, there's a lot of a lot of stuff in it. But I still think I've said it before, but we need a real newspaper with a real newsroom with a budget that can report globally with all of the tools at the disposal of an actual newsroom that responds to the journalistic ethics. And the name for it is obvious. It should be called the interesting times. I think there's no question about that. Okay. It's a good name. Yeah, but I mean, was this all in service of that? I just think the cherry on top of a very good Sunday, which we have just constructed here. Okay, I maybe maybe. Okay, let's not not at the top of the hour anymore, or, you know, the top of the half hour, the bottom of the hour. Is that what I mean? I guess, I guess we start at the bottom of the hour. Yes, this is the well, if we're starting, we're now closing in on the top of the hour. We're at the top of the bottom of the hour or the bottom of the middle of the hour. You're not actually thinking about the way that analog clocks work. Diagramming it in my head. Oh, clocks. I had not got. I had a bar graph and it was pretty good. But I mean, what is the top of the hour mean? It's, you know, thinking about an analog clock and that it never occurred to me. I think I don't know. The big events. I haven't looked it up. But, you know, I haven't, I haven't, I haven't referred to experts on this. But to me, it seems obvious that that's what top of the hour means. In which case, we actually start at the bottom of the hour. But we say top of the hour because it's top of the beginning. We stop at the bottom of the hour, not because at the bottom, because hours start at the bottom, which they don't. Typically, it's just that we're on the half hour. So, yeah, it's all making sense to me. Now, my whole life is going to need to rethink in light of the fact that I had missed this until now. Yeah. All right. Okay. Let us at what is now the top of the hour, but the bottom of our starting hour, et cetera. It's the top of an hour. Yes, it is. You have the last one, right? Did I write final? It says final, but I mean, that could mean anything. Maybe it's the first one and things are going to go very wrong after this. That's too bad. In which case, I knew I was pressioned enough and yet I still handed it to you and I'm sitting here next to you. There's some reason. I want to go out with you, love. Yeah, but, Port, I knew that years ago, even if it was surprising at the time. But, no, I meant, I know what you meant. Our first sponsor this week is Branch Basics, which this is one of their products. They make simple, all-natural, non-toxic cleaning products and they are fantastic. They really are. We have been using Branch Basics cleaning products for many, many months now. And we love them more than ever. They are effective and non-toxic and easy to use. What more could you want in cleaning products? You prep food on your countertops, get yourself clean in your shower, clean your laundry in a machine full of detergent, but you know what you're actually cleaning your home with? Maybe you're doing some deep cleaning now that it's spring. But if the products you're cleaning with are themselves full of toxins, that cleaning isn't doing you doing you any good. It's going to make things look cleaner, perhaps. But if the cleaning products you're using are actually poisoning you, that's not a net positive. Your home environment plays a big role in how you feel and you probably use cleaning products every day. But you know what you're cleaning your home with and how it might be affecting how you feel. Many products look clean, but contain ingredients linked to hormone disruption, skin irritation, and respiratory issues. And because cleaning brands in the US don't have to list everything they contain, you don't really know what's in your products. Branch Basics changes this with full transparency about their entirely non-toxic, plant and mineral based ingredients. Their premium starter kit comes with one powerful concentrate that makes everything laundry detergent, bathroom cleaner like this, glass cleaner, even pet wash and vegetable rinse. Just one plant and mineral based formula replaces it all and it's safe for babies, pets, and anyone wanting to reduce their daily exposure to harmful chemicals now or at any time. Branch Basics ships as two products, a concentrate and an oxygen boost, and the shipment includes empty bottles that you fill to different concentrations for different jobs. When you run out, all you need to do is restock the two products on their site or on Amazon or at Target, and you're again ready to clean everything in your home from laundry to bathroom to countertops. Founded by three women on their own personal health journeys, Branch Basics was created out of a desire to heal. Through years of research, trial, and error, the founders discovered the powerful impact that removing toxins from their environment had on their health, and now they're on a mission to help others do the same. And here's more good news. Branch Basics is now available everywhere you shop at Target, Target.com, Amazon, and of course BranchBasics.com. Tossing the toxins has never been more convenient, and for anyone grabbing the premium starter kit, you can still get 15% off at branchbasics.com with code Dark Horse. Just use code Dark Horse for 15% off the premium starter kit at branchbasics.com. After you purchase, when they ask where you heard about them, please make sure to mention our show. It's really good stuff, and I'm actually using it right now. I'm doing a load of laundry. I just, you know, just as a matter of human interest and laundry interest. Go on. You are actually. Yes, I am using it right now. And it's great. You put it in and you think, hey, I don't smell anything. It's transparent, both at the level of the business and the liquid. It's good stuff. And your clothes end up clean. Yes. Which is a plus. They do. It's great stuff. Our second sponsor for this episode is Puree. Puree makes a wide array of supplements and powders from vitamin C, magnesium and B complex to creatine, collagen and protein powders. I've actually written protein powers, but that's not one of their products. It's protein powders. Yeah. What makes puree different is how clean and pure all of their products are, all of them. Puree was founded in 2009 by two men who set out to create the cleanest and purest products to support their own active lifestyles. Since then, their product portfolio has grown to address common nutritional deficiencies in the developed world, knowing that health requires a good diet, physical activity, recovery and balance. The founders of Puree have rejected quick fixes from the very beginning and insist on the most stringent purity testing on all of their products. We use Puree's vitamin D, which is excellent. My mom is using their multivitamins and fish oil. Like all of Puree's products, these products are third-party tested and certified by the clean label project against over 200 contaminants. You can scan the QR code on your bottle any time for the test results for your particular batch. Our son Toby has been making protein and rich smoothies for a couple of years now, but has had a hard time finding a protein powder that he liked. Most of them are strongly flavored and gritty, but he wanted one that would disappear into a shake letting the other flavors shine. Now at 19, now at 20, yep, he has found his protein powder, Puree's grass-fed whey protein powder. He says, out of all the protein powders I've tried, this is the best. The flavor is mild, it doesn't intrude on the other flavors. It's smooth going down and is full of great whey protein. Most protein powders aren't just gritty and artificial, they're actually toxic. Several studies, including those done by Consumer Reports, show that a significant fraction of protein powders in the market contain lead in amounts that are known to be dangerous. You shouldn't be eating lead at all, much less than a supplement you're taking to improve your health. Not only is Puree whey protein powder free of lead, it also delivers a whopping 21 grams of whey protein in each serving. I'm going to blame the pollen for my reading capacity today. And Puree's whey protein powder is free of GMOs, pesticides and exogenous hormones. Our son Toby loves the bourbon vanilla flavor, but they've also got a dark chocolate flavor made from organic cocoa powder. Whether you're looking for magnesium or a multivitamin, collagen or protein powder, you can't go wrong with Puree. Use code darkhorse at purie.com slash darkhorse to get 32% off Puree, that's P-U-O-R-I. Puree, grass-fed whey protein, when you start a subscription. In addition, you get a free shaker worth $25 on your first subscription order, which brings your total savings to $49. Go to purie.com slash darkhorse and use the code darkhorse at checkout for this exclusive offer. We should change that script to say protein forward smoothies. I think it's way cooler. Do you? Yes. You might want to check with your Gen Z children. Well, they will undoubtedly think it's not cooler if only because that's not how they are. That's not how they are at all. Well, they will think undoubtedly it's uncool because they're Gen Z and speak a foreign language, but that's also not how they are. I mean, there's foreign jargon for sure. Oh, there's some jargon. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they speak a whole different language at the level of emojis and pictures that they send in text. Crazy stuff. Fair enough. The pictures. Yes. Yes. Our final sponsor, Heather is mudwater. That's mudwater spelled without the X. Yeah. M U D slash W T R. No X in sight. If you like the routine of making and drinking a cup of warmth in the morning, but you don't drink coffee or trying to cut down on your coffee and take tri mudwater. If you're looking for a different way to kick off your day with a delicious warming enhancing drink, try mudwater. Mudwater makes fantastic products. Their original super functional coffee alternative has a beautiful list of ingredients that includes cacao and chai for just a hint of caffeine, lion's mane mushrooms to support focus, cordyceps to help you support physical performance. Are you having a glass? I want you to smell it. It smells great. It smells so good. Yeah. Right. That's all. Um, Caga and Rishi to support your immune system. Should you have one? Trees don't have one. So anyway, you probably do. You're ad libs again, aren't you? Not well, but you know, there's a certain amount. Cinnamon. Should you have one? If you don't have one, you should not engage with any products at all. How about that? If you don't have an immune system? No, a tree could engage with ornaments. There's lots of products for trees, I'm sure. Trees don't have money with which to buy products. You buy them as gifts for the trees, as I'm led to understand. That's their, that's their original coffee alternative, but mudwater. Mudwater. Yes. Let's just get back to like starting in the middle after talking about tree, tree. We're talking about mudwater for people with immune systems who might want to augment them with chaga and Rishi. See, I'm paying attention. That's their original coffee alternative. They're referring to mudwater, but mudwater also makes a matcha coffee alternative, which is like their original, but has matcha instead of cacao and cinnamon to wait has matcha instead of cacao and cinnamon to all right. And mudwater also makes mushroom coffee with their arabica coffee, plus all the mushrooms already mentioned lion's mane and cordyceps chaga and Rishi. Rishi. That's what I think it's Rishi. Rishi. Rishi. I don't know. Oh, it's Rishi. Sure. Sounds good to me. I mean, you know, protein forward and all. They've got a turmeric. Wow. Next sentence, I swear, says they've got a turmeric forward drink that is caffeine free and has the same mushrooms plus ginger, cinnamon and wait for it. Baobab, really? Yeah. So we haven't actually tried this turmeric one. I went on their site, spent some time on their site. We've had we've had a couple of their stuff, a couple of their flavors, their products and they're great. But they've got a bunch more now, including the turmeric one. And I just had to mention it. And yes, turmeric forward because literally has Baobab in it. It must be Baobab fruits. I can I can look it up. I wish it was Baobab root, because then you could say Baobab root, which is at the top. Well, it's not. But it's not. But the thing about Baobab is that people describe them as being upside down because they look like they have the roots at the top. Anyway, I mean, extraordinary trees. We've seen them in Madagascar and they're also in East Africa. I feel like buying them a gift. I don't water or the Baobabs Baobabs ornaments, something to put on the roots. Yes. I don't know what the Baobab is doing in there, but I'm intrigued. Heather wrote that I'm also intrigued, however. And they've got a drink they call rest, which has Roybo's tea, Valerian root, turkey tail, that's a mushroom and Ashwagandha, a place I've always wanted to go, chamomile and passion flower. There's more too. So there's more, comma, to so you, that's you, go to mud water and find exactly what you're looking for. Every single ingredient in their products is a 100% USDA organic, non GMO, gluten free and vegan. That's right. Their ingredients do not eat meat. Mud waters. Second order vegan too. Right. For all you second order vegans out there, that is people who eat animals that eat plants. Mud waters original flavor flavor. It's the Saturday thing. Mud waters original flavor is warm and spicy with a hint of chocolate plus masala chai, which includes ginger and cinnamon nutmeg and cloves. It's also it's also delicious blended into a smoothie protein forward or not. Try it with banana and ice, milk or milk like substance, mint, a touch of honey and cacao nibs. This is delicious in italics. We've gotten to the point where you're having to point along with this. You read, sorry. I just, I know it's been a long few days. So the funny part is if I was reading this to myself, I would have to read it out loud like this just to understand what it says. That's too big of a confession, but it's true. Ready to make the switch to cleaner energy? Head to mudwater.com. That's MUDWTR.com and grab your starter kit today. Right now our listeners get an exclusive deal up to 43% off starter kits plus free shipping and free rechargeable frother when you use the code dark horse. That's right. Up to 43% off with the code dark horse at MUDWTR.com. After your purchase, they'll ask how you found them. Please show your support and let them know we sent you. That's dark horse also without an X. Yep. Back to earth. Yes. Yes. Now at the bottom of the hour again, we are ready to go. I don't think so. I mean we're cruising towards it. I mean I think, you know, we had fun, but it took time. Yeah. Well, so back to earth actually. Let's, can we talk a little bit about Artemis 2? Please. Yeah. I don't have a ton to say about the actual expedition, but I'm excited by it. We were both born early enough in 1969 to have been part of sort of the space age, the American space age, watching from care get my effect in my case, my father's lap and in your case, one of your grandfathers. I think it was my grandmother. So, you know, going back to space is exciting. It's exciting. And, you know, NASA is one of those agencies that I'm sure there's corruption. I'm sure there's incompetence, but it's just, it's just one of those federal agencies that I'm mostly very excited about. And, you know, you know, we didn't share last week that the internet failed midway. And although we were still etherneted into live stream, my computer stopped connecting. And so I had to do a bunch of stuff. It seems to really not be playing ball with me again. But maybe I already have this Q dot. Oh, here we go. So hopefully I'm not going to be able to change the size of this. Can you see my screen? Of course you can't. There we go. In light of Artemis 2, the Guardian a few days ago published this op-ed called Let's Stop Going Into Space. There's nothing to see and no one to talk to. By, I mean, I hate this, but of course it's by woman. Like, I don't think any man would put their name to such. I mean, the headline is never written by the person whose piece it is. But I'm going to read a little bit of this, but just to preempt the insanity and it's a short piece, maybe I'll just read the whole thing. Like exploration and curiosity and openness and innovation are what we are about. That's what humanity is. The idea that, and frankly, it's like a female coded version of the tech bro, we got it, man. We know exactly what we're going to do. We're going to be data driven confusion over in that space. It's the same thing. Like, I already know what I'm interested in. I already know what there is to know. There is nothing new under the sun. Who cares? I'm going to drill down with numbers or I'm going to only look for the things I already know and I only know what I want to see and who I want to talk to. And it's so constricting and enfeebling and sad. It's those things. So here's what she has to say. She says, I've nothing against astronauts or scientific innovation, but what's the point of Artemis 2? It is, I'm going to try to make this bigger and, oh god, it failed me. Okay, let's see if I can get in this way. Yes, good. Okay. It is absolutely self-evident to me that space exploration is pointless. And the more urgent the crisis is besetting this planet, we live on, the more pointless it becomes. I can see why people got excited about it in the 1960s, back when the world was young and we still thought there might be little green people out there who wouldn't want to meet them. Most serious opinion, however, has now settled on the where is everybody paradox first frame by the physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950. If there is intelligent life anywhere, why is it not sought to make contact? It's because there isn't. There's nothing out there except planets infinitely less beautiful than this one we live on. So that first paragraph is just so full of wrongness and insanity. I like maybe it just worth stopping there. But then she begins the next one with all that seems pretty uncontroversial. I almost never mention it except for when astronauts yet again, pointlessly go into space as with the latest moon mission. Here's what I've noticed. People get really annoyed. Yep, that's me getting really annoyed. I have loads of opinions, she writes, way more vexatious than that one, yet none of them attract the same ire. Everyone's annoyed for a different reason. Some of them think I'm deliberately setting out to ruin a festivity. Festivity chose on there to indicate that this is just frivolous. Others act as though I'm opposing innovation and modernity, which I absolutely am not. Yes, you are. They point to all the discoveries that wouldn't have been made without the space based wonderlust, most of which seem to involve finding better ways to kill each other. And then they mourn the kind of world I want to live in where nobody can see beyond their own horizon. Some people think I just so this is going to be the end of it. Yeah. Some people think I dislike the astronauts themselves, which couldn't be more wrong. Who thinks that? Right. Like, who has that thought? When you start railing against the space program, you don't like the individuals who are going to space. What? Some people think I dislike the astronauts themselves, which couldn't be more wrong. I'm sure they're great. They certainly seem wholesome. Some people think I'm being a scrooge. You are. Resenting the financial outlay because my soul has no poetry in it. It's a paradox and not a delicious one that moaning about the waste of energy that is space travel has turned into quite a significant waste of my own energy. Seriously, NASA, can you not just knock it off? Hasn't the US of all nations got bigger things to worry about? And worry again, festivities and worry. And isn't this just a frivolous little and she doesn't say it. She doesn't at least she doesn't gender this thing, but she does implicitly. This is like men doing their frivolous manly things when they should be solving the real problems here on Earth, which they too caused. Yes, I have thousands to say. I just don't want to interrupt. Excellent riff. I mean, I'm going to I will pick it up after you say something. Okay. So first of all, I think we cannot bypass the fact that the men folk are having a very different conversation about this mission and it will cause you to want to roll your eyes. But the men folk are having a discussion about whether or not the mission happened. So this is not the men folk. This is some some group of men folk. No, and this is not as insane as it sounds. I did I you are now combining two reactions. Okay. This is not the I mean, any more than that is the women folk. But there is a gendered thing here. That's the thing. But it is that the majority of men folk are not questioning whether this happened. Probably if you were to survey people on the street, that's true. But in terms of people who are processing this as something a large fraction of the men folk are having a discussion. I'm not saying they're all saying it didn't happen. That's not what I'm saying. But I am saying there's a very active discussion about what this actually was. And you know, it was a bunch of things, including a religious experience, weirdly enough. Now, I'm not saying I'm saying that what was presented back to us here on earth had a decidedly religious flavor. And it just repeated like, oh, I'm talking about actual illusions to a particular version of the deity. There was prayer and all of this stuff. And I am not saying you don't get to take that stuff with you to space. But I am saying NASA is deciding what we down here on earth get to enjoy about this. And there was a time back when the moon mission either did or didn't happen. There was an illusion to this being an accomplishment of humankind, right? There was a universality to it. And this was different from that. Prayer. I guess I didn't run. I didn't I don't know what you're talking about. So it's hard for me to pursue because I haven't seen any of this. There was a lot of illusions to a particular Christian version of and, you know, I ain't against it coming from the astronauts or NASA coded. Well, you know, choice of who went choice of what they were going to do, all of this stuff somehow happens. We don't know. So anyway, again, you take your beliefs to space with you. I don't think you shouldn't. I don't think we should be populating space with atheists. I've said plenty of stuff about what I you know, as a de facto atheist. I've said lots of stuff about the dangers, I think that come along with abandoning ancient traditions in favor of nothing. But the point is we got a particular thing back. I think there was a huge opportunity missed here. Assuming the the mission is what it appeared to have been, then a lot of effort should have been put into figuring out how this could be used to get us some sort of resolution on what happened in 1969. Because the problem is that the hypothesis that we did not go actually there's stuff in it that you wouldn't expect. It's not flat earth, right? It's right. But how would how would this mission, which did not land on the moon? And I don't know enough about where the landings in the 60s or the 70s were versus what exactly was or what where the orbit was this time. I don't even know if they were I have no idea. I haven't looked into it, presumably knowable. But you're asking for you're asking for this to have been a different set of goals. Well, first of all, I think the goals are a little bit, you know, the goals are in part geopolitical and competitive and chest thumping. Like we're going to get there before China. Yeah, but the goals are also engineering. The goals are let's let's test a bunch of systems and see if manned spaceflight and potentially, you know, living on the surface of other planets, satellites, etc. Like how close are we and what systems work and what systems need tweaking? You know, was was the the stated goal. Right. And look, first of all, let's address this woman's absurd criticisms here just once and for all. The value of going to the moon is it's a little bit like the value of going to college back when that had a value. You are doing it for the purpose of training yourself. And so the point is going to the moon, especially landing on the moon and returning is an extremely difficult task, and it succeeds or fails unambiguously. So the point is if we want to upgrade ourselves, setting a very difficult task like that one from which you will, yes, get some kind of information that you didn't have before. But the purpose is not to figure out what the moon is made of. Right, we can take a pretty good guess at that even before arriving. But so I think your framing is actually, I think that's interesting, because you know, put aside your claim that many men question whether or not this happened. I think your framing of what the what the legitimate purpose of a moon mission is, which is firmly within scientific territory, and my framing of what the legitimate purpose of a moon mission is, which is, I think, also firmly within scientific territory, are actually quite different based on, as it turns out, sex differences. That you just talked about a goal, a mission, a, you know, having the idea in advance and like coming back with data, basically, and my, you know, the way that I framed it, and the way that I think about one of the key purposes and of such missions, but such really of a space program more generally, of having a space program, having grown up in the space age, right, is, is to encourage wonder and awe and openness and curiosity and exploration and discovery, especially when we live on a planet that is full of beauty and unknown things. But other than the oceanic depths, most of the land has been seen. Like we've been there, and there are so many new things under the sun yet. And part of what is happening to us as a species is we're just getting flat. We're just getting bored with what is possible, because anytime you think, oh, oh, I just heard about a new place or a new thing, and you, and you Google it, you AI it, you do whatever it is to figure it out, and you realize that 18 million people have already had thoughts about it or heard about it and added their own little thing. And, you know, most of them are wrong, but some of them aren't. And how do you figure it out? And you're just done. Like, I don't know, I'll just go back to TikTok. Right. So I think for sure, the, you know, stated explicit on the cover of the brochure purpose, and you know, in this case, it was engineering, not science mostly, where the purpose is. But, you know, the scientific reasons are to have questions in advance that you go with the appropriate tools to run experiments or do observations that can help you resolve your hypotheses. But the, the more ethereal necessity for science for humans is to keep open our sense of wonder and awe and curiosity and openness and, and remember that exploration and discovery are just inherent to who we are. I disagree with none of that. And in fact, I thought that your initial defense of it actually included mine, different emphasis. I mean, I think it did. I just, I've done your emphasis fast. No, well, I wasn't defending the engineering. I was saying the stated goals appear to have been mostly engineering rather than scientific. There's like some geopolitical stuff for sure. And there's, there's a lot of engineering stuff. And there's not, there's not really that much over in the explicitly scientific territory with regard to justifications out of NASA for Artemis too. Right. And I don't think, I don't, I don't think there was, I don't think there was much to learn for one thing when it comes to the moon. We've been there, done that maybe. So I, uh, no, but a, NASA tells us, it's a big place, by the way, NASA of space, the moon, the places, places we haven't been for sure. Yeah. Oh, that's true. Oh, on the moon. Yeah. But it's kind of a, you know, variations on a theme it being well, that's what we think having not been many places. All right. But nonetheless, the value of going to the moon itself is mostly an engineering thing. NASA tells us with a straight face that they've lost the technology that got us there the first time. One of the many things that don't quite add up about the story. So the point is, okay, if this is true, we need to bootstrap that capacity again, would be good to have it. It was quite an accomplishment if it was one, right? But what do you say would be good to have it? What do you say to women like this Guardian op-ed writer? He's like, what do you mean it'd be good to have it? Don't we need to solve the problems here on earth first? I remember, I actually remember having this argument in eighth grade. Yep. With a girl, I was going to say woman, but in eighth grade, you're not women, you're girls. A girl I was friends with, and we were doing some science project together, and I was finding her impossible to deal with. Because at every turn, she came up with, you know, sort of the social justifications for why we needed to definitely spend money over there and not over here. Like, what are you talking about? We're talking about science. We're talking about like keeping your mind open and being expansive. And she specifically went after the space program. Right. And this would have been in, you know, whatever the early 80s. Right. But first of all, you and I have covered this topic thoroughly under a different banner. This is basic, and it's not basic science. It's basic engineering. But the point is, it's engineering without a specific purpose. But I would point out, many of us have traveled on an airplane and gone to see important things or accomplished things in remote locations by using one. When the airplane was invented, nobody knew what it was for. And in fact, for many years after nobody knew what it was for, the army couldn't figure out what to do with it. I'm going to keep pushing back, though. Like, yes, absolutely. The value of basic research is in part that you have no idea what it's going to open up with regard to actual things that are useful to humans. But the actual value to humans is the inquiry and the openness and the exploration. So I'm just like, yes, that's true. But every time that gets trotted out, that's the thing that gets remembered. And then people could start dismantling that because it seems finite and you can count it. And you're like, yes, but you know, all this research hasn't resolved anything useful. Therefore, let's cut that branch. That is creating an opportunity to cut opportunities for inquiry on the basis that we haven't yet seen utility. Look, I couldn't possibly be more on your same page. I would point out that I studied tent making bats, and that was either because I misunderstood the potential opportunities that would be opened by our understanding why these bats make these structures and in what way, or it was because I actually believed that it's worth answering difficult questions. So do you want to get into fight as to how unimportant with regard to human success on the planet, each of our dissertation, the field based is because some of your theoretical work. Oh, I think the theoretical work has lots of important practical implications. But with if we are competing to see whose dissertation was more basic and had less potential for human utility, I'm going to win this. Really? Yeah. With regard to the field work only. Yeah. Yeah. Because your frogs are the custodians of an extremely powerful and still mysterious chemical process that creates a compound that interacts in a profound way with mammalian physiology. Yes, but I wasn't studying the toxin, the lipophilic alkaloids on the surface of their skin that they create through their diet of ants and mites. I can say those words, but that has nothing to do with the questions I was asking. I do think that we can both put together stories that I think are actually valid about coming to understand the nature in the case of my research of sex and sexual selection and territoriality and the evolution of paternal care and the conditions under which predation and competition between within species end up superseding one another and also in the evolution of changes of habit like going from nocturnal to diurnal. All of these are actually relevant to questions of humanity as well. But oh, in frogs, they're for not relevant. Oh, do you think evolution didn't happen in which one? That humans are frogs. And we could certainly make arguments that the modification of habitat to create domicile is, I ran out. More about my own work. You did admirably well. It just kind of petered off at the end. But okay, so the wonder part, super important. And as you know, I have argued that actually our light pollution problem accidentally is creating a profound philosophical problem. Yes, we write this into the book that the inability and it you know, it's ironic because when you look into the night sky where it isn't light polluted, most of what you're seeing are near neighbors. But the grandeur of even just that set of near neighbor stars is so great that it does cause you probably to be less solipsistic and, you know, obsessed with your own local environment. By the way, there's a very good song by cage the elephant, the premise of which is that he is, you know, sort of puttering around his house. And then he looks up at the sky and he's thinking about an alien on a different planet, puttering around his house in an analogous way. Anyway, it's kind of the way you should be thinking about this. But there does not need to be a reason to go to the moon, the capability to go to the moon, the fact that the capability to go to the moon is just out of range, or very out of range is reason enough. And it's, you know, you don't want to do arbitrary, we had it losing capacity for such things as crazy. Right. And if we didn't do it the first time doing it for the first time is paramount. These things are really important. And it's a shame that this mission did not focus on bringing us compelling photographic evidence of the landing sites. Well, again, I'm going to push back on that because you presumably also don't know if their orbit, which was, you know, limited by the various astronomical bodies, was anywhere close to where the original landing sites were. Right, I know. And I will say, I believe the Chinese and Russians have both given us some of this evidence. But the unimpressive evidence that we were given of this flight that appears, you know, static photos where you could have had video where you could have had persistent video that would have allowed you to track this mission in a way that would have, you know, assuming the mission is real, which I do the ability to understand, you know, as the context of the spaceship changes what that does to the size of the earth and watching the earth, you know, look, the initial space program that we all grew up thinking was the greatest achievement of humanity thus far, or at least on a small list of such things. One of the things that did come back from it, which, you know, arguably is evidence for its having happened, is the overview effect, which these astronauts kind of alluded to. But the overview effect was a psychological transition in astronauts, if not universal, near universal among them, from the odd experience of looking back at your home planet on which all of history has happened and understanding how tiny it is. So it's a version of Carl Sagan's pale blue dot, which is, you know, not a great photograph based on the actual content, but maybe one of the most important photographs of all time based on its implication and Carl Sagan's narration of it, which is gorgeous and timeless. But anyway, yes, you go because of the upgrading yourself for demonstrating the capacity and understanding what it is that you need to understand in order to accomplish all of the difficult things that are required. You go because it causes wonder in children who then are tracked into some kind of meaning because they know that amazing things are possible possibly reawakens wonder in adults. Sure. Lost it. Well, and we frankly had it poisoned. We've had so much stuff portrayed as other than it was that it has made people cynical. And the fact is, if this was just purely the mission that it appeared to be, it's a shame that you have a huge fraction of the population looking at it for signs that it was a fake and unfortunately not finding overwhelming evidence that it was true. So anyway, I think this is this is the story of a human tragedy. You've got a mission mired in a controversy about the most basic facts of what's true of our technological history. And this mission does very little to alter the status of that discussion. It basically plays to the New York Times reading crowds, some of whom are having absurd reactions like, why are we wasting money on this? Which is the Guardian, but close enough. Well, saying, you know, I think the thing is you're peering into this is one of these soliloquies that you can imagine exactly the cocktail party at which that sounds sophisticated, right? The place that you can go that you can say that and the response is, I know why, why do they do this? Have you seen what's happening on our streets? Right. Don't we have better ways to spend our money? Yeah. And you guys are doing a good job of it at all. Right. And you guys are also not paying attention to the fact that, you know, we have these gigantic leaks of our tax dollars into frauds in various parts of the country. You know, that's what I was referring to, both the frauds and the explicit programs that are batshit crazy. You got explicit programs that are batshit crazy. You've got frauds that are crazy. You've got, you know, wars that, you know, destroy a huge amount of treasure and cost lives. The number of places at which society is misinvesting is spectacular. And, you know, the idea that you're going to take something that's meaningful to many of us and challenge it because you can't find out how, you know, it has a practical benefit to the particular things that you're caring about. It's just, it's a total failure of imagination, which might be one of the many symptoms of the Cartesian crisis and the era of fraud. Yeah. A total failure of imagination is right. And again, the headline of that, of that crazy op-ed piece in The Guardian is, no, that's not The Guardian at all. Let's stop going into space. There's nothing to see and no one to talk to. And, you know, I think maybe hopefully she did write that headline because that line doesn't actually show up in the piece. So that's quite, it's quite an extrapolation by the editors if that's not from this author. But there's nothing to see. There's nothing to see. I'm sorry. There's everything to see, including, as you point out, you know, the greatest existential experience possible for humanity, to see all of humanity all at once, at least those who are living now, and no one to talk to. So that's you, the author, betraying what you think has value. It's just about chit chat. And, you know, that's a denigration that maybe wasn't kind, but, you know, there's all sorts of high-level talk. But talking to people is the only reason to do things. It's the only reason to go places. It makes me wonder why you would ever encourage anyone to go anywhere ever. You know, not just to say Vietnam to explore, but how about your local park? Like, why go anywhere ever if your position is if there's nothing to see, what is there to see? I don't know if you don't think there's anything to see in space by looking back at the Earth. I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no one to talk to. So what? Like, A, there were people to talk to, but B, there's a lot of things to be done in the world that don't involve conversation and don't involve explicit words and don't involve language. That is surely a human value, but it's not the only one. And for many of us, it's not the top one. There's also a profound misunderstanding of what up there means. I mean, what's up there? Yeah. 100% of everything to a thousand decimal places is up there and not down here, right? The fraction of what there is that is down here is so close to zero. I mean, you're now responding to a fiction. She didn't say there's nothing up there. She said there's nothing to see. Well, but I think it's the same thing. The point is it's not. The idea is what can you sense? This is a very limited, like I'm a human being trying to experience things. And I think it misunderstands that the fact is that they were mostly testing engineering systems rather than asking scientific questions. And the scientific questions would be more about like, what can humans perceive versus what can our instruments perceive? And what can we use? Can we put our instruments to to answer scientific questions? But that's not, I don't think, what she's saying. Well, but even so, I mean, the reason to do this mission was not because of this mission. This is a step towards gaining capacity, towards what? Towards seeing things that haven't been seen towards potential travel to places we haven't gone. So, you know, it's a non argument, right? It's like this, this was a prototype. It's a prototype mission. What's the purpose of this prototype mission? Well, it may have had purposes, but the purpose of the prototype is so that you can get good enough that you can do the thing that you haven't done yet. And so that I mean, that is sort of come full circle, that is, you know, over in the sort of more masculine coated part of the legitimate scientific justifications for such a mission. That is exactly the error of imagining the basic science that you can't already in advance of doing it. Imagine what the human applicability will be, dismissing it and only going for applied science, which is to say, usually engineering. Well, I don't think so. I mean, I think as much as you think I was trying to I was trying to sum up what we had both been saying. I it seems to me that even if the purpose is to bootstrap the capacity for somebody to walk on Mars, I mean, I've given the idea of a colony on Mars a hard time because I've specifically ironically leveled the accusation that there's nothing to see up there because it's all rocks of the same kind. And my point is I don't want to go on that mission. I don't think most people would because, you know, you'd have to have a particular bent for that to be an upgrade. But it doesn't mean that getting human beings to Mars wouldn't have tremendous benefit, both in terms of what could scientifically be done, which can, you know, be done by robots and things. And we've done a lot of that. But also, you know, human beings never walked on another planet. That's an accomplishment to do it. What happens when you've walked on another planet? Do you come back and say something that actually causes us to re-conceptualize the earth yet again? Or, you know, our own systems? I mean, even just at the level of how are all of the ways that our physiology, that our anatomy, yes, but especially our physiology, are taking in the cues from our earthly environment and enacting clocks at the seasonal and the circadian level. We have tidal effects. We have electromagnetic effects. We have, you know, there's evidence of some, I think it was plants, being able to maintain some of its circadian effects deep underground. It turns out to have been due to some, gosh, I think it was like radioactive decay of particles that it was picking up on. I'm confusing as I was reading a lot about various ways that we keep track of time in ways that we have no idea of consciously, most of us. And of course, our scientists don't know most of it yet. So, move us off of this planet in which we have only and entirely evolved. For some amount of time, we know that being in space messes with you. What would actually the effect of being on a different planet with a different mass, a different distance from the sun, a different day length, a different year length, you know, present like you're going to be living in a space with an atmosphere like Earth, but all of the other effects, you know, a different core, different like all these different things, what will we start to see that will change? I'm, I'm fascinated. I'm so curious to know what the answers to those questions will be. Yeah, I think those are all good questions. I also think there's something here we're wrestling to phrase that there's something about humans that figures out what can't be done and then tries to figure out how to do it. And that that is so fundamental to who we are and what we are. And I saw a video the other day, of course, had the same reaction. Is it real? You know, somebody built a little car that can drive up a wall, drive around on the wall. A car with a person in it? No, okay. Just a little vehicle. Yeah. And it works with fans. The fans basically create a force that pushes the car onto the wall, allowing all the regular car stuff to fans that are pushing it down onto its surface. I think the fans are pushing out. So it pushes the car down that it's possible that they're sucking towards the wall. It wasn't clear from the video which it was. But you know, by adjusting the fans, I think can actually drive and then go up the wall and drive around. The point is, Oh, why do that? Well, I can come up with use cases. But the reason to do it is because that's so cool to be able to overcome that thing through lodging your way through it, prototyping your way to being able to even start and then improving the thing. You know, some of the benefit was it was that those of us who hadn't had the thought saw this thing that that's productive of who we are. The technological problems that you will have solved to do it, that creates a knowledge base in the people who did it. Those people are hyper competent people. They're exactly who you want. And you know, so anyway, well, this exists across all domains too. Right. The theme music for Dark Horse is the creation of a man who made is making music with wood and marbles, elaborate design of wood and marbles, Winter Gaten. Is that? Yes, Martin Mullin. Yeah. And, you know, improv and innovation are probably accepted or embraced by such, you know, space exploration naysayers. If it happens in the place of music, if it happens over in comedy space, maybe. But, you know, if it's entirely linguistic, then everyone's into it. Oh, of course, we like we innovate all the time, we're creative, that's who we are. But the idea that over in actual functional physical understanding of an engagement with the universe space, that that's where the curiosity and creativity have to stop. My God, that's exactly where we need it most. And, you know, it's fantastic that we have it in art that doesn't have a, you know, an art and also craft, but like art that doesn't have an obvious practical use. But it's frankly amazing there. And if we have to prioritize, it's more important. The creativity and the openness is more important in science than in art. And it is a amazing misapprehension of what science is to imagine that it doesn't involve creativity and discovery. I think at one level, if something causes, you know, there are obviously people with low standards or whatever, or people with perverse desires. But if something causes your average person to go, wow, that's really cool, it's probably worth doing. Whatever it is, whatever realm it is. Right? Yeah. If it's creating optical illusions, if it's some kind of acrobatic feat that you wouldn't have thought possible. Parkour. Parkour, engineering, any of these things, right? So, you know, why? Yeah, I mean, sport in general. Yeah. Right. And in fact, you know, one of the, it's a horrifying age in many ways, but one of the benefits of this age is that you can look out across disciplines and you can watch human beings do things you would not think possible, right? Manage their center of gravity in a way that doesn't seem possible. Play ping-pong at a speed with dexterity you wouldn't imagine could happen. You know, whatever these things are, what you're actually discovering is what the limits of that organism are. And the limits of that organism are amazing precisely because we're not specialized on anything. So, you know, discovering what we can do. As a species, we're not specialized on anything. Right. We've talked about this a lot, but we tend to be a species that is a generalist where each individual has various specializations. Right. And, you know, but we can expand them throughout life. And knowing once you've seen somebody accomplish something incredible, you actually have a sense of what the possibility space is. So, it's valid in that regard too, right? Oh, I didn't realize a human being can do that. But now I do. And so the question is, well, okay, what else hasn't been done? And, you know, all right, guys, we are stuck down here on the pale blue dot. And it's beautiful. It's lovely. It's tragic. But if there's one thing we probably ought to figure out, it's what the limits of what we're capable are. I mean, yeah, why wouldn't you? What better investment? All of the stuff we're investing in, how many things actually rise to that level? Not that many. Figuring out what the human animal is capable of, that is a worthy investment. And that doesn't matter whether we're talking about, you know, a huge organizational effort to get people to the moon or whether we're talking about an individual, you know, discovering something with a guitar. It's worth knowing what the limits are and where we haven't found them yet. And exposing your discovery to the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed inquiry of others and seeing what they think, right? And, you know, at the smaller, often not scientific individual scale of creating a new riff on the guitar or, you know, an example with which I'm quite familiar is work in clay. And, I mean, you know that we live with a whole bunch of apparently mismatched pottery in our cabinets because when I find a bowl that is appealing to me in heft and in form and in glaze and I tend to buy it and put it in the cabinet and we eat from it. Obviously, these things aren't precious. You know, there are certainly, you know, things that we have that we don't eat from. But in general, you know, like we've just got, you know, a certain amount of objects that have been handmade with different clay bodies, fired different temperatures with different glazes, fired in either an oxidation or reduction environment with different amounts of underglaze or slip or carving or, you know, any number of things. And every time I hold one of these objects, I mean, you see me doing it all the time, I'm just appreciating the artistry and trying to figure out what they did. And sometimes I don't, I can't know. And sometimes I think I know and I, if I have opportunity to talk to the artist, which sometimes I do, I'm surprised by what they say. And all of that is just opportunity for learning and to create new things that may branch off of that. Or sometimes you'll see something say, oh, that's, that's nothing that I want to do. I don't want that in my life. But I'm super impressed by the capacity to have done that. And I want to know what all went into that thing. And sometimes it's mimicry. And actually, we have, we have a mug that I particularly like. I think I got for you, but I like it, I like it more that looks like it's made of pipes, right? And it's, and it's not, it's, it's entirely made of clay, but it looks and it has the heft of it looks like it's made from, from plumbing fittings, the handle and just it feels great in the hand. But I did talk to the artist in that case, I was, I was out of Portland, Oregon, and just, you know, the, the capacity to have looked at a real functional thing and said, okay, I think that would make an interesting form on a mug. I'm going to make this metal thing into clay. I'm going to make a clay thing that exactly mimics that metal thing to such a degree that anyone picking it up actually has to question what it is. That is, again, it's in the realm of optical illusion. It's in the realm of, yes, creativity of mimicry of just, you know, expanding your capacity to the edges of, of what is possible and, you know, and then going further. Yeah. Pushing, pushing the limit is inherently valid. And that's probably why all of us are fascinated by it. Right. Yeah. Really, who do you know who isn't looking at these things documented and thinking that one's really cool. That one doesn't impress me. Oh, this one does. But we are in, in some sense, it's galvanizing that we're all obsessed with seeing things that, oh, I've never seen anybody do that before. That's pretty amazing. That obsession is there for a reason. And we should, we should not overthink it the way this woman at the Guardian was clearly overthinking it. And I think we can also say that the Artemis II mission, if it was a mission was successful. And if it was a PSYAP, not quite as successful, but still impressive. You can say that. Okay. I did say that. Yeah. Perhaps clumsy. I think a human could do better, but I remain to see it done. I think I actually want to hold off on the other things. I enjoyed talking about, yeah, I mean, I think you might have something you want to talk about, but I had a couple of their stories that just are so much more downers and sociopolitical and, and, you know, about what is happening right here on earth at a very uncreative and an open level that they'll save, unfortunately, because the, you know, the corruption will continue. All right. Well, I do have one other thing. I hope you'll give me a little leash for this. It's not, I think you'll see why it's worth talking about once we, once we look at it. You realize you're not wearing a collar? Metaphorical entirely. Yeah. Yeah. If I was, it'd be spiked, for sure. But that doesn't preclude a leash, I think. I don't know. I've never had a spiked collar. But Jen, do you have the tweet and video you want to show that video? It's just me. There's anyone else slightly concerned what professors can see when you upload your paper for them to grade it? Because I am grading students paper and I'm a TA and this professor is having me do something that he's never had me do before when it comes to grading a college students paper. And I want to show you guys what this is and like what you guys should look out for if you're currently making essays in college. Okay. So this is a students paper that I pulled up in Google Docs. It is a real students paper. And when I come over here to this black dot from GPT zero, what it does is it pulls up basically an AI detector. Okay. But the real thing is we can obviously see this is a human paper. Okay. The student didn't use AI or chat to be teeter at the paper. But the way that we're proving it now that my professors never had us do until now is this button right here called the typing analysis. Guys, what this does is it pulls up a video in real time showing you exactly how a student type of paper. So it shows all of the front spaces and like all the back spaces all the keystrokes of student made when writing out the essay. Then it shows all the pastes and all the edits the student made. And if you come over here, you can see the timestamp when the student upload the paper into Google Docs, the how many words are in the paper, how many edits and pastes are, how long it took the student to write the paper. Then it shows the editors of the paper. So the student and the professor who both made edits to this paper. And then this typing analysis, where it says if it's natural or unnatural sounding, and this paper is 100% natural sounding because of the pauses, errors, and changes in speed and rhythm. Wow. Yeah. Wow. Now I do have to say a few things before we get to discussing the implications here of which there are many. There is something weird about this in the sense that you couldn't do that analysis, I believe with something that you wrote in Word or I use a LibreOffice, the free version. Why don't you think it could work in Word? Because I don't think Word records the data about what you did. This was a Google Doc? Exactly. Now I'm not saying the information doesn't exist somewhere, but I don't think it exists in a readily readable way in the file that you upload. There's obviously also a danger here, let's suppose that your professor in order to be able to use this tool. Sorry, but no wonder file sizes have gotten so huge. There's so much data in there. There's a lot of data in there, but what about the student who does write it in LibreOffice and then cuts and pastes it? Right. Right. So it's possible that the professor required students to write in Google Docs in order to be able to do such an analysis? Mm-hmm. Even if that's the case, though, it is obviously also the case that we are 30 seconds from somebody generating a program that will take a preexisting document and typing it like a human. Right. So the point is arms race, that's where we are. But- And this TA's job, this TA's time is now being spent assessing reality of whether or not a human wrote the paper rather than actually assessing the content. Right. Now, I did want to make two points as a former professor about the interesting fact of this post AI moment. One of them is I think that we just need a rethink on the relationship between three objects, the work, whatever it is, the professor and the student. And the point is, at this moment, professor and student have both been rendered novice at something fundamental. And that's not necessarily bad. And I would point out, when you and I take students into a tropical forest, we have the benefit, although we know more than they do about it, of knowing that nobody knows all that much. Yep. So the point is everybody's in student mode, and that's good. It's wonderful. It's ideal, really, from the point of view of teaching. It's part of the reason to go. Right. So I would argue that college needs a rethink and that part of the rethink is not how are the experts going to keep the students from cheating and pretending to be more expert than they are. That's not the job anymore. AI isn't going anywhere. So in some sense, you are never should have been the main job. Right. No, policing the cheaters. That's not the highest and best use of an excellent professor. No. And I would point out that the I know people here, this is hyperbole. I mean it perfectly literally. The Academy was essentially a fraud before the AI era. Right. You had a huge number of people pretending to be expert in something they themselves often did not know. Probably almost all of them didn't know that they were frauds. But you can tell if you look at their performance on sex and gender, if you look at their performance on COVID, if you look at their performance on string theory, there's no shortage of evidence that the Academy is full of people who aren't in a position to tell anybody anything because on the most basic tests they fail. My favorite example, which will be immediately obvious to everyone and it's short, is when I was teaching with a medical anthropologist who declared that malaria had never killed anyone. And when called out on this, obviously, he must have misspoke and no student raised their hand. It was early in the quarter of it was scared. And I was like, I'm sorry. That's not true. Oh, yes, it's definitely true. Malaria is not actually deadly. Yep. So now he's never actually murdered anyone. This is true. I mean, that you know, that's a defensible if pedantic claim. But okay, so what should college professors be doing? I think one thing that is perfectly clear is this. Your students are going to go into a world that we cannot foresee, but in which AI is going to be a dominant feature in the same way that computers are now a dominant feature in the same way that search is a dominant feature. So the point is you're training them for that world. The best thing you can do for them, all the money they're paying to go to hear you, the best thing you can do is figure out how to train them to leverage that thing rather than use it to supplant their own capacity. You want to use it to make them smarter. That is your job. To make them smarter. That's your job. They're not trying. They should not be of the mindset of they're producing valuable work. They don't do that in college, typically. Bring it in as a tool like you bring in books as tools. Right. And not you can't bring it in the same way that you bring in books, but use it as a tool. You already use tools. You already use technology. A book is technology. Computers are technology. So here it is. Here's the newest. And because, you know, if I had to guess, you and the students don't understand AI and how it might be leveraged. But if anybody understands that they probably understand it better than you do, just given the age and exposure. So I don't know that that's necessarily true. I've said this before, but for an accident of timing, we were teaching exactly millennials. I mean, a lot of older students too, but just the years in which we were professors were the years in which age typical millennials were in college. And that was supposedly the first generation of digital natives. And almost always I found that I had far greater technological capacity and understanding what was actually going on. Now, you know, my dad was a computer scientist, but I don't think that's what it was. I think it was that they had been handed so many systems that were prefab that they just when they needed to solve a problem, they're like, well, what, just where's the app? Or, you know, where's where's the button as opposed to now you're actually going to have to solve some of your problems here. Yeah, I think that part of that is going to happen with AI too, the people who are coming of age into AI are adopting it in a way that that they aren't pushing it. On the other hand, it's changing super fast. So well, I don't disagree with what happened with computers, right? The slicker computers got the easier it was to become an expert user without knowing anything about how to actually do anything yourself because there was a solution packaged for you. That's not where we are with AI yet. It's changing so quickly. And I do think that figuring out how to get this beast to do your bidding is a skill. And I think if I had to guess, the folks in the academy, the faculty are liable to be late to the party in this regard. Anyway, either way, I do think. And that, of course, they will be. Because in general, it's a slow moving population. They're slow to react to change. Yes. And if you just model this in your mind for a second, imagine the faculty party in which faculty are discussing AI and imagine the eye rolling that will be done and the effective applause that will follow from it over. Well, here's how I'm excluding it from my classroom, right? The idea being, look, we know how academic work is done. It doesn't involve AI. Now, that's true at one level. You don't want students faking their success in your field. Yeah. On the other hand, I think in fact, although you haven't said it, you're arguing for two modes that are opposite of one another. And almost all of what's being done is in this intermediate muddled mode of we used to wish for when we were on campus teaching, as opposed to in the field, the ability to turn off the Wi-Fi and cellular in the classrooms that we ran. So to keep people so they weren't distracted. And I've said this before, but I always, when it came time to ask for rooms for the quarter, I always asked for rooms for the big window out onto something nice so that when people become distracted in the middle of class, which will happen, they had something of nature to consider instead of being drawn to their phones or whatever else it might be. The argument here isn't we need to get rid of distraction. Like people are too distracted, people are too distracted, but people will always be distracted. People will always have a tenancy to no matter how much they're excited about the topic at hand. If you're asking them to sit with their butts in seats for an hour and a half straight, my God, it's too much, right? And yet we do it. So having space to learn, which is utterly free of influence, except from the nature and the people with whom you are with. And then on the other end of the spectrum, engaging and facilitating use of all the tools that are at our disposal and figuring out how we can become better with them as opposed to be fighting their encroachment. Yep. I would also point out you and I did something pretty unique in the classroom. We did it differently, but you and I did it differently. Yeah. The you and I used to create exams that were sufficiently. I don't want to say difficult, but sufficiently novel. They were difficult, but sufficiently novel that you and I could also take those exams. It wasn't like, I know the answer to this question and it's a really hard one. Let's see if you do too. Well, they were elaborate evolutionary hypotheticals with narratives that we had either said, OK, the year is now 2100 and here's what else has happened and here's a population of ex-organisms. I'm going to tell you three things about them. I want you to predict their social system, their mating system, any number of things. Here's a number of planets. Yeah. One of mine was, imagine a ring of planets equally distant from a sun in which migration between them is possible. Basically, I set a species in motion on a planet and predict changes as it migrates around this circle. The equator, I think it was. There were different ones. There was also one in which predict the pattern of species diversity based on a cube-like planet. So I would specify the parameters. Let me just say one more. I was very vague about the one that I mentioned of mine, but another one that I was very proud of had a quantitative part for which the math was the math and then a social evolution part for which there were multiple possible answers, some far better than others. What I could see as a professor reading and talking with the students about what they wrote was how good is their evolutionary thinking not, did they arrive at the same answer I did? This was what I called the fraternity, the imaginary, the fictitious family of beetles that unlike the hymenoptera, which is the real clade of insects, includes the ants, bees, and wasps, which have this very unusual genetic system in which females are diploid just like we are. All of their somatic cells have two copies of each of their chromosomes and males are haploid, which creates really interesting relationships where full sisters of bees and ants and wasps are three-quarters related to one another and male bees don't have dads. That's reality. That's science fact and it's amazing. And so in my fraternity day, who was haploid and who was diploid reversed said now do the math and it's not just you get to swap out what is going on in the hymenoptera. You have to actually follow the math through and do the genetics on it. But then now that you've got the relationships, tell me about the social system. Tell me who's going to be more aligned with whom based on relatedness and who's going to end up in more competition than you would expect if you were dealing with a fully diploid species. And at least at that time, we were typically giving these as take-home exams, right? You're going to have a few days and then you upload your document. There was really no cheating unless you happened to be working with someone who had taken a program from us before, in which case go for it, like talk to them. This is about learning how to think evolutionarily. Right. So the question is, could you adapt such things such that professor and student, both of whom are students of the AI tool and how to leverage it, could you arrange things in such a way that there's no cheating? Because in effect, what you're doing, you know, if you fed these questions to AI, I think different ones would work differently. Well, but my guess is the AI would reliably fail. And so an assignment in which the point is, give me your answer, run it through AI, see if the AI differs, critique its answer, right? Wow, is that educational? Not only at the level, you know, typically our classes worked at multiple levels in the sense that, you know, we're going to teach you how to do a kind of analysis. And then we're going to teach you how to think about a particular system. And then the point is, you're going to walk away with a tool and some insight and you're going to learn how to think actively about things that are said to you, things that you read, whether or not they're coming out of a peer reviewed paper or Wikipedia or your professor or your peer, all of which can be wrong, all of which could be correct, but don't mistake tone for accuracy. Right. So to sum this up, we're somewhere in an arms race, this is a moment that's not going to last, but the overall picture is pretty clear for the foreseeable future. You've got a phony academy now in charge of a job that none of the people in it trained to do. And the smart ones, you know, the ones who aren't a fraud, who are functioning in this environment are going to have to do something innovative in order to manage the problem that the rest of the academy is about to fail at, which is you can't possibly prevent people from cheating because how do you cheat tools are as powerful as the how do you detect cheating tools? And so, you know, it's become theater, right? The students are producing phony stuff, so they don't have to work and the professors are using the same stuff to detect whether they cheated. And it's like, okay, you know, what are you teaching them to do exactly? What job is that? And maybe there is one, but it's not like we can employ the entire population to spot cheaters amongst the entire population spotting cheaters. I mean, it's bullshit jobs 2.0. It's it's like exponential bullshit jobs. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, that was good. Yeah. All right. We are going to be back in two and a half weeks. And I think it's the it's the 29th of April. In the interim, our older son is going to have a birthday. I'm also going to have a birthday, but it's less exciting for me at my age. But he's going to become palindrome once again. And that's thought. That's good news for him. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Doesn't have to change anything. I'm going to go on. He's Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And yeah, until until you and you and there are going to be a couple inside rails coming out in the interim. Check us out locals. You'll find all the previous Q&As where we get into all sorts of conversations that you don't normally hear us talk about here. And until you see us next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food and get outside. Be well, everyone. Yeah.