Link: https://youtu.be/8s2nO_hxbLA

Duration: 130 min

Short Summary

This two-part episode explores transformative technologies including AI commoditization, fusion energy breakthroughs, epigenetic reprogramming for longevity, and space colonization logistics, alongside economic critiques of California's fiscal management and wealth tax debates with guest David Friedberg. The discussion contrasts exponentially falling costs in AI, robotics, and solar energy against government-driven inflation in healthcare, education, and housing, advocating for an optimistic abundance narrative over fear-based discourse.

Key Quotes

1. "humans are programmed to be that way. We always were worried about some predator coming around the corner eating us. Like we're we're tuned to survive, right? So we're tuned to always there's always some existential threat to humanity." (00:00:10)
2. "every technology commoditizes. That's what's so amazing about technology is it like it's always diffusing." (00:07:12)
3. "every person has that capacity in them to do something unique, to do something special, to take agency if they're given the right space to do it and they're not told that you can't do it." (00:19:55)
4. "the number one most unfavorable thing in the United States right now according to a recent poll is AI. More unfavorable than Donald Trump, more unfavorable than uh everything." (00:48:34)
5. "You could use a swimming pool sized amount of ocean water to make all the electricity needed for an entire year for the planet Earth." (00:34:34)

Detailed Summary

ThinkingBlock(signature='d641359ee30e1505aa86a94cb2c4cb34becbf833cfde67ba8f9e0c4b1368541b', thinking="The user wants me to write a final detailed markdown summary for a long-form transcript based on the supplied structured summary and section digests. Let me analyze the requirements:\n\n1. Markdown only\n2. At least 10 section headings using '##'\n3. Each section should start with 1-2 narrative sentences\n4. Include at least 30 bullets total\n5. Bullets must focus on substantive claims, disagreements, mechanisms, examples, chronology, names, numbers, and outcomes\n6. Avoid sponsor copy, banter, repeated praise, meta commentary, and filler\n7. Prefer concrete details over generic abstraction\n\nLooking at the structured summaries provided, I can see two main sections with extensive detailed summaries. Let me organize this into a comprehensive markdown document that:\n\n1. Covers AI democratization and commoditization\n2. Covers fusion energy\n3. Covers space colonization\n4. Covers epigenetic reprogramming and longevity\n5. Covers genetic modification and embryo selection\n6. Covers human potential and economic abundance\n7. Covers transhumanism and human enhancement\n8. Covers genetic enhancement ethics\n9. Covers California fiscal crisis\n10. Covers wealth tax debate\n11. Covers government intervention and cost inflation\n12. Covers political cycles and democracy\n\nI need to make sure I:\n- Use at least 10 ## headings\n- Have 1-2 narrative sentences at the start of each section\n- Include at least 30 bullets total\n- Make bullets substantive with concrete details\n- Not invent any facts - use only what's provided\n\nLet me write this comprehensive summary:\n", type='thinking')

Detailed Episode Summary: Technological Abundance, Longevity Science, and Economic Critique

AI Democratization and Commoditization

The episode argues that artificial intelligence is rapidly diffusing from cloud-dependent services to local execution on consumer devices, fundamentally changing how individuals access and deploy AI capabilities. Open-source models now run on personal Macs, and Andre Karpathy demonstrated iterative AI model improvement on his home computer over a single weekend, producing results comparable to recent cloud-based systems. Token costs have dropped approximately 1,000x through better architectures, distributed smaller models, and new chip designs, making AI increasingly accessible to ordinary users. AI arm farms in southern India employ engineers wearing GoPros to train humanoid robots through human demonstration, mirroring how Tesla collected driving data to train autonomous vehicles. The discussion frames AI as a tool for human use rather than a controlling force, comparing it to a "rocket boost" enabling individuals to accomplish what they cannot do alone. Early AI leaders like Nvidia and Google will likely see their dominance commoditized, similar to how Cisco's early internet infrastructure advantage diffused over time. A poll is cited finding AI is the most unfavorable thing in the United States, more unfavorable than Donald Trump.

• Token costs dropped approximately 1,000x through better architectures, distributed smaller models, and new chip designs
• Andre Karpathy demonstrated iterative AI model improvement comparable to cloud systems in a single weekend on his home computer
• AI arm farms in southern India use engineers wearing GoPros to train humanoid robots through human demonstration
• AI is framed as a "rocket boost" for human capability rather than a controlling force
• Early leaders like Nvidia and Google face commoditization similar to Cisco's internet infrastructure advantage

Fusion Energy as the "Holy Grail"

The discussion positions fusion as a near-term breakthrough that could reduce energy costs by 10x, representing a transformative shift in global energy economics. Fusion differs fundamentally from fission—it combines hydrogen protons rather than splitting heavy radioactive elements like uranium—and requires plasma heated to 100 million degrees Celsius using magnetic confinement devices called tokamaks and stellarators. AI is solving plasma stability problems that have historically prevented fusion from achieving net energy gain. Chinese researchers extended magnetic field hold times from 17 seconds to 30 minutes in roughly 2.5-3 years, representing a dramatic acceleration in fusion development. Approximately 70 startups are developing fusion technology across various approaches to achieving viable fusion power. A swimming pool-sized amount of ocean water could theoretically power the entire planet for a year, demonstrating fusion's extraordinary energy density. Current US residential energy costs range from 15-40 cents/kWh while fusion promises 1 cent/kWh, which would dramatically expand all economies by reducing the cost of everything dependent on power.

• Fusion combines hydrogen protons rather than splitting heavy radioactive elements like uranium
• Plasma must be heated to 100 million degrees Celsius using magnetic confinement devices
• Chinese researchers extended magnetic field hold times from 17 seconds to 30 minutes in roughly 2.5-3 years
• Approximately 70 startups are developing fusion technology across various approaches
• A swimming pool-sized amount of ocean water could theoretically power the entire planet for a year
• Fusion promises 1 cent/kWh versus current US residential costs of 15-40 cents/kWh

Space Colonization: Moon as Economic Platform

The Moon's 1/6th gravity and lack of atmosphere make it an ideal platform for space logistics, fundamentally changing the economics of interplanetary resource transport. A 9 km mass driver (electric rail gun) could accelerate 1 ton of material off the Moon in 4.5 seconds at roughly 20,000 km/hour, enabling efficient bulk material movement without traditional rocket launches. Moon dust and rock contain aluminum, silicon, carbon, and water ice at the poles that can be electrolyzed for fuel and life support, making sustained human presence increasingly viable. A 500m x 500m solar array could power hourly shipments from Moon to Mars, establishing a regular logistics corridor between the two bodies. Energy costs to move material from Moon to Mars could be reduced by 100x compared to launching from Earth, fundamentally altering the economics of space colonization. The speaker predicts the Moon will become a massive economy comparable to the East India Company, built by self-replicating AI robots without requiring millions of humans to relocate to space.

• Moon gravity is 1/6th Earth's, making it ideal for space logistics
• A 9 km mass driver could accelerate 1 ton of material off the Moon in 4.5 seconds at roughly 20,000 km/hour
• Moon dust contains aluminum, silicon, carbon, and water ice at the poles
• Water ice can be electrolyzed for fuel and life support
• A 500m x 500m solar array could power hourly shipments from Moon to Mars
• Energy costs to move material from Moon to Mars could be reduced by 100x compared to Earth launches
• Self-replicating AI robots may build Moon infrastructure without requiring millions of humans

Epigenetic Reprogramming and Longevity Science

A single human cell contains approximately 10 billion proteins operating via random Brownian motion in a space analogous to Manhattan with 500-story buildings, making cellular biology extraordinarily complex yet mathematically describable. Every cell shares identical DNA; what makes cells different is which genes are switched on or off via epigenetic molecular markers, determining cellular identity and function. In 2006, Shina Yamanaka discovered four proteins that can reset adult cells to become pluripotent stem cells, winning the Nobel Prize for this breakthrough in cellular reprogramming. In 2016, researchers found partial reprogramming reverses aging without fully converting cells to stem cells—mouse experiments showed cellular health extended to over 250 human years equivalent, and monkey experiments eliminated wrinkles. Altos Labs has raised approximately $10 billion for epigenetic reprogramming development, representing the largest single investment in longevity science. Current clinical targets include blindness, glaucoma, rheumatoid arthritis, and heart conditions applied locally before systemic treatment, offering near-term therapeutic applications. Exercise is identified as the number one action to fix the epigenome, releasing molecules that make cells more youthful and demonstrating accessible longevity interventions. Fasting and peptide supplementation also demonstrate epigenetic effects, offering additional pathways for cellular rejuvenation.

• A single human cell contains approximately 10 billion proteins operating via random Brownian motion
• Every cell shares identical DNA; epigenetic markers determine which genes are switched on or off
• Shina Yamanaka discovered four proteins in 2006 that reset adult cells to pluripotent stem cells
• Partial reprogramming reverses aging without fully converting cells to stem cells
• Mouse experiments showed cellular health extended to over 250 human years equivalent
• Altos Labs has raised approximately $10 billion for epigenetic reprogramming development
• Current clinical targets include blindness, glaucoma, rheumatoid arthritis, and heart conditions
• Exercise is identified as the number one action to fix the epigenome

Genetic Modification and Embryo Selection

The episode outlines five progressive lines in genetic modification representing increasing levels of intervention and ethical complexity. Visual embryo selection under microscopes allows basic screening of IVF embryos for obvious traits. DNA sequencing enables trait prediction including immune function, IQ, and externalizing behavior with high accuracy using DS testing and parental genome modeling. CRISPR editing of existing traits offers precise modification of specific genetic sequences. Stacking multiple enhancements combines several modifications in single organisms. Transgenic modifications create traits impossible through natural parental combinations, potentially enabling capabilities beyond natural human variation. He Jiankui gene-edited human embryos using CRISPR Cas9 to confer HIV resistance by modifying the CCR5 gene, resulting in at least 2-3 babies born in 2018-2019, raising profound ethical questions about germline modification. Brian Johnson participated in Prospera and received gene therapy with plasmids carrying enhancement genes, demonstrating active wealthy participation in enhancement experiments. The speaker draws an ethical line: picking from harvested IVF embryos is acceptable, but changing genes is not yet justified and creating genes from scratch remains morally unconvincing. Approximately 50% of human traits are genetically inherited on average according to Spencer Greenberg's research.

• Five progressive lines in genetic modification: visual selection, DNA sequencing, CRISPR editing, stacking enhancements, transgenic modification
• Herisite and Anomaly are leading companies for embryo genetic screening
• He Jiankui edited human embryos using CRISPR Cas9, resulting in at least 2-3 babies in 2018-2019
• Brian Johnson participated in Prospera and received gene therapy with enhancement gene plasmids
• The ethical line: picking from IVF embryos is acceptable, changing genes is not yet justified
• Approximately 50% of human traits are genetically inherited on average

Human Potential and Economic Abundance

The discussion frames technological progress through an abundance lens, challenging common narratives of decline or stagnation. At the turn of the 20th century, 80% of Americans worked on farms; today less than 1% do due to automation, yet agricultural output increased dramatically, demonstrating productivity improvements beyond what previous generations imagined. Global malnutrition (living on less than 1,200 calories/day) dropped from billions to 600 million, though obesity now affects twice as many people as starvation, representing a fundamental shift in humanity's relationship with food. Work hours have progressively decreased from 100 to 60 to 40 to 30 per week, with France enacting a 30-hour work week law, demonstrating society's capacity to reduce labor requirements. Millions now earn income through platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Shopify, Etsy, and podcasting—careers that didn't exist 15 years ago, showing how technology creates entirely new economic opportunities. The speaker identifies three compounding technology categories: free energy/AI automation, infinite labor, and living forever, framing these as the core drivers of future abundance. UBI inevitably fails because it creates passivity and inflates money supply, making goods more expensive for recipients rather than genuinely helping them. Physical AI and robotics could enable anyone to own a robot employee working 24/7 to run automated businesses, democratizing entrepreneurship.

• At the turn of the 20th century, 80% of Americans worked on farms; today less than 1% do
• Global malnutrition dropped from billions to 600 million despite population growth
• Work hours progressively decreased from 100 to 60 to 40 to 30 per week
• France enacted a 30-hour work week law
• Millions earn income through TikTok, Instagram, Shopify, Etsy, and podcasting
• Three compounding technology categories: free energy/AI automation, infinite labor, living forever
• UBI fails because it creates passivity and inflates money supply
• Physical AI could enable anyone to own a robot employee working 24/7

Transhumanism and Human Enhancement

Human-machine interface paths include Matrix-style direct neural connection, Avatar-style external ponytail interface, and a likely third path of soft neuron-compatible systems that connect without penetrating neural tissue, offering multiple developmental trajectories for human-computer integration. Max Hodak, former Neuralink CEO now running Science Corp, developed a paper-thin, solar-powered retinal implant in outpatient clinical trials to restore sight, demonstrating near-term viable neural interface technology. Embryo DNA can be sequenced through IVF to determine genetic traits including immune function, IQ, and externalizing behavior, enabling increasingly sophisticated pre-birth trait selection. Transgenic humans with traits they could not have naturally acquired—such as infrared vision—may become reality, potentially creating entirely new categories of human capability. Scott Solomon, an evolutionary biologist, applies evolutionary thinking to human adaptation for Mars survival, including radiation effects, bone density loss, C-section necessity leading to narrower hips and larger baby heads, and melanin changes in underground habitats. The discussion considers how humans will keep pace with superintelligence, potentially requiring enhanced cognitive abilities or cybernetic integration to remain relevant alongside artificial intelligence. In a world with digital super intelligence, parents may shift away from choosing higher IQ because the competitive landscape changes toward adapting to and using AI rather than competing with each other.

• Three human-machine interface paths: Matrix-style neural connection, Avatar-style interface, soft neuron-compatible systems
• Max Hodak developed a paper-thin, solar-powered retinal implant in outpatient clinical trials
• Embryo DNA can be sequenced through IVF to predict immune function, IQ, and externalizing behavior
• Transgenic humans with infrared vision may become reality
• Scott Solomon studies human evolution for Mars adaptation including radiation effects and bone density loss
• Humans may require enhanced cognitive abilities to keep pace with superintelligence

California Fiscal Crisis

The episode presents detailed critiques of California's fiscal management, exposing systematic failures in government spending and accountability. The state raised $100 billion in incremental taxes since 2012-2013, but 80% went to public retirement benefits rather than schools and healthcare as intended, fundamentally misaligning stated priorities with actual spending. Specific failures cited include the bullet train project spending $30 billion with six CEOs fired or arrested, representing one of the most spectacular infrastructure cost overruns in American history. A homeless program spent $220 million while only helping six people escape poverty, demonstrating complete failure of well-intentioned government programs. The state faces an estimated $600 billion to $1 trillion unfunded public pension liability, representing a generational fiscal time bomb that future taxpayers must address. An informal survey of tech leaders found close to 87% plan to leave California, with roughly a third already having left, indicating the state's business climate has become untenable for innovation economy workers. Nearly 87% of surveyed tech leaders plan to leave California due to high taxes, failed public programs, and pension liabilities.

• California raised $100 billion in incremental taxes since 2012-2013
• 80% of tax increases went to public retirement benefits rather than schools and healthcare
• Bullet train project spent $30 billion with six CEOs fired or arrested
• A homeless program spent $220 million while only helping six people escape poverty
• Estimated $600 billion to $1 trillion unfunded public pension liability
• Close to 87% of surveyed tech leaders plan to leave California

Wealth Tax Debate and Political Cycles

The episode covers California's proposed "Billionaire Tax Act," which would be the first wealth tax in the United States, initially targeting 1% of net worth for billionaires with potential expansion to 5% or lower thresholds. A wealth tax would require annual disclosure of all assets including cars, art, and property values, creating substantial compliance burdens and privacy concerns. The speaker argues this sets a precedent where 51% of people could vote to take everything from 49%, fundamentally threatening property rights that underpin economic development. China could become the counterbalancing force if the US adopts wealth tax policies, shifting global economic leadership to nations that respect capital accumulation. Politicians Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren are named as advocates for national wealth tax, representing a coordinated policy movement. The wealth tax is identified as a major political issue expected between 2026 and 2028, likely becoming a central battlefield in upcoming elections. The hosts argue democracy inherently leads to systems where voter blocs extract benefits that don't solve underlying problems, with political promises requiring larger commitments each cycle. Nearly half the US population either works for government or lives off government retirement/welfare checks, creating structural incentives to expand rather than constrain government programs.

• California's "Billionaire Tax Act" would be the first US wealth tax, initially targeting 1% of net worth
• Wealth tax requires annual disclosure of all assets including cars, art, and property
• Politicians Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, AOC, and Elizabeth Warren advocate for national wealth tax
• Wealth tax is identified as a major political issue expected between 2026 and 2028
• Nearly half the US population works for government or lives off government checks
• One host predicts AOC will be elected president in 2026-2028 as part of a "wave"

Government Intervention and Cost Inflation

The episode presents a chart comparing government intervention versus price increases, showing government-involved sectors rising dramatically while private sectors remained stable, demonstrating the differential impact of market forces versus regulatory control. Healthcare and education have increased by 200% since 2000, while toys and TVs have decreased 50-100% in price, showing opposite trajectories between regulated and competitive markets. The US spends approximately three times more per person on healthcare than the UK, despite similar health outcomes, indicating massive efficiency losses from government involvement. College tuition rose from $10,000 per year to $60,000 per year after government began funding student loans with no price check, demonstrating how guaranteed funding without accountability drives cost inflation. Federal student loans cannot be defaulted on, removing market discipline from lending and enabling universities to raise prices without consequence. The SNAP (food stamp) program costs approximately $100 billion per year (roughly 1.4% of federal spending), having doubled from 2010 levels and increased 60x from 1969 to 2022. An estimated 60-70% of SNAP recipients are clinically obese, with approximately $20 billion of the annual budget spent on soda, demonstrating unintended consequences of well-intentioned programs.

• Healthcare and education have increased by 200% since 2000 while toys and TVs decreased 50-100%
• US spends approximately three times more per person on healthcare than the UK
• College tuition rose from $10,000 to $60,000 per year after government-guaranteed student loans
• Federal student loans cannot be defaulted on, removing market discipline
• SNAP program costs approximately $100 billion per year, increasing 60x from 1969 to 2022
• Approximately $20 billion of SNAP budget is spent on soda despite 60-70% recipient obesity rates

Agricultural Innovation and Future Food Systems

The seed industry emerged approximately 100 years ago when researchers discovered inbreeding plants for seven generations creates uniform genetics since plants have both male and female parts unlike animals, enabling predictable crop production at industrial scale. Modern wheat is hexaploid (six chromosome sets), modern strawberry is octoploid (eight), and modern potato is tetraploid (four), demonstrating how polyploidization creates valuable agricultural traits. A breakthrough enabling seed production could replace the current practice of chopping up and replanting potatoes, reducing a farmer's input from approximately 5,000 pounds of chopped potatoes to roughly 10 grams of seed, representing a 99.98% reduction in planting material requirements. Soybeans and legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen directly, eliminating fertilizer needs and re-fertilizing soil, with research underway to integrate this trait into other crops, potentially revolutionizing agriculture's environmental footprint. The discussion frames these agricultural innovations alongside technological abundance themes, suggesting food production can continue improving even as other sectors face constraints from government intervention.

• Seed industry emerged 100 years ago when inbreeding plants for seven generations created uniform genetics
• Modern wheat is hexaploid (six chromosome sets), strawberry is octoploid, potato is tetraploid
• A seed breakthrough could replace chopped potato replanting, reducing input from 5,000 pounds to 10 grams
• Soybeans and legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen directly, eliminating fertilizer needs
• Research is underway to integrate nitrogen-fixing traits into other crops

Full Transcript

Show transcript

You've said the future's going to be
epic. You're really optimistic about it
when a lot of people are pretty worried.
How come?
>> I think people have had a tendency to be
worried about the future because humans
are programmed to be that way. We always
were worried about some predator coming
around the corner eating us. Like we're
we're tuned to survive, right? So we're
tuned to always there's always some
existential threat to humanity. This
goes back to kind of biblical eras
thousands of years ago. It was the the
great flood that was about to come.
There was the um you know the plague.
The plague is going to wipe us all out.
Uh there's uh starvation. you know, the
late 19th century,
uh, population was outstripping, uh,
food supply and there was this big
belief that we were going to run out of
food and there was this kind of rush to
and and the primary reason was all the
world's fertilizer actually came from
these guano fields off of the South
American coast. So, these giant islands
covered in in poop. And they would, the
clipper ships would go down, they'd get
all this poop and they'd bring it back
to Europe and they'd use it as
fertilizer to farm. If you don't have
fertilizer, you get less yield, less
less calories. So, the islands were kind
of diminishing. And there was this big
call to action. We're going to run out
of fertilizer. The world's going to
starve. We're going to die. And then
there was this invention called the
Hobbos process where they figured out
how to take nitrogen from the
atmosphere, compress it, and make
fertilizer. Boom. Suddenly, population
skyrocketed. Every generation has these
existential threats. Climate change,
COVID, there's always and now it's AI. I
think fundamentally AI is one of these
most kind of like mindnumbing sort of
unbelievable to understand kind of um
technologies and when these kind of
things happen that we don't fully gro
that seem so overwhelming like a plague
like running out of food like co we have
a tendency to be very existential about
it. Um, now you compare that to the
facts on the ground. The facts on the
ground, people are living longer,
they're living healthier, they're living
better lives across the board, across
populations. And people can argue all
day long about relative
prosperity. Hey, some people in America
have gotten really far ahead. They're
doing really well. The rest of us feel
left behind. But if you look at some of
the metrics of like, hey, everyone has a
a home, everyone has a car, like
everyone has some of these things that
we take for granted today that we didn't
have a 100 years ago that that were
really things to struggle to get. Um now
separate to that there's an
extraordinary compounding effect
happening in technology generally
digitization of the physical world and
then our ability to kind of make
predictions about the future and
engineer a different future because of
the tools that we call AI today but it's
really a long history of these sorts of
tools where we take data and we use that
to better understand the world and then
say hey we could do this or we could do
this we could make this molecule to
solve this cancer we could do this thing
and suddenly turns out we're right we
could build this machine that could get
us to the moon. Oh yeah, we're right. We
could do that. Like all of these
fundamental tools start to compound and
we're in this kind of exponential curve
right now that I think and we can talk
about some of the things that I think
are most exciting, but that are really
going to kind of transform the
trajectory for humanity. So I I I I
think that there's um a risk of too much
change too fast, which is perhaps the
thing that breaks social order. M
>> and that's probably the phase that we're
in right now. Like how much is the
social order going to break? How hard is
it going to be for people to adapt? How
how how much of a dislocation will there
be in social systems and economic
systems?
And um people's expectations when they
shift too much uh and they have to kind
of rethink what do I have to do? They
want to put a break on things. And I
think that's kind of a moment that we're
in in the west right now. In the east,
it's a little bit different. When you go
to China, they're very much embracing
these technologies because there's so
much more to gain than there is to lose.
In the West, we have so much more to
lose than there is to gain. So
>> Oh, that's interesting. A victim of your
own success so far. Yeah.
>> Because it feels like you've climbed
pretty high and if you fall, that could
be bad.
>> You have more to lose.
>> Yeah. And um
we could pontificate on this for a
while, but you could go back to FDR in
the United States and and we we we kind
of came out of the war with this big
effort where we said, "Hey, we can
aggregate all our resources, we can win
World War II." And then we said by
aggregating our resources, we could do
the extraordinary. So let's do that
again and let's keep doing that. And
that became this kind of trajectory
we've been on in terms of making
promises for tomorrow and then having
the government kind of deliver the
promises, right? And that's been a big
thing that's gone on for the last call
it almost a hundred years
>> particularly in the west.
Um
at some point you could only promise so
much like there's a system where
everyone had this sort of expectation
setting that was made. Okay, everyone
gets a home. That's the American dream.
everyone goes to college and then they
get a job. Uh some of those things may
not necessarily be the right things from
a free market perspective in which case
you're making these promises and then
people feel like the promises aren't
being delivered. They're not being met
and that's all they care about and
that's all that they want. In the West,
we have that problem right now. And so
there's a lot of these things that we've
set expectations around. If you go to
college, you get a good degree, no
matter how much it costs, you will have
a good job and you'll be able to buy a
home and live a good life. And that's
not true anymore.
>> And so these are the sorts of things
that I think make us more fearful of the
changes ahead. Whereas in the east,
those promises weren't necessarily made.
They're like in China, GDP per capita
skyrocketed from 3,000 to 30,000 in just
a couple of years. I mean, imagine
seeing the average person's income in a
country go up by 10x. And everyone's
moving from farms to villages to cities.
And the cities are like the future. Like
it's been an extraordinary trajectory.
So, um, you know, there's a lot of
embracing of the future that's happening
in in one social set of social systems
in the world today and then a bunch of
this like, oh my god, tomorrow is scary.
It's going to break everything on the
other side. And I think, you know, we
have that that very dangerous kind of
choice to make.
>> I think the concern is that AI is a
difference of kind, not just a
difference of degree, that there is a
centralizing of power amongst potential
five trillionaire class people on the
planet. And what did they what sort of
control do they have? How much
displacement if is there of work that
didn't happen in the same way as when
horses were killed because the
automobile came along or because manual
labor needed to turn into driving JCBs
instead of digging holes that this is a
a difference of kind, not just a
difference of degree. What's your
perspective when it comes to AI
dumerism, AI optimism? Yeah,
all technology uh shifts go through a
phase of diffusion. Meaning they have to
start somewhere. It's not like we turn
on a switch and suddenly everyone can
build an Etsy store or a Shopify store.
Like that's not how the internet started
with everyone suddenly benefiting from
being able to be an entrepreneur online.
It took a couple of generations of
technology
to fusion before the idea of Shopify and
the high-speed internet all over the the
country got everywhere and people could
actually stand up a Shopify store and
run it. Um, the first people on the
internet, the first businesses that
stood up did very well and so the
technology started centrally, but then
you know initially people are like, "Oh
my god, Cisco is going to dominate the
world, right?" Like Cisco's got the
switches that make the internet switch.
That's the technology that's gonna those
guys that own Cisco. Those guys are
going to run the world. This is not
fair. Like they're going to control
everything. This is crazy. Nowadays,
it's Nvidia to some degree. It's Google.
But like eventually every technology
commoditizes. That's what's so amazing
about technology is it like it's always
diffusing. Like this new innovation
finds its way out. Like we've already
seen in just the last couple of weeks
this insane shift in AI where people
don't have to run models in the cloud
anymore. they can run models on their
desktop at home. So there's no longer um
like a dependency on Google or a
dependency on, you know, pick your
favorite hosted model provider. I can
download an open source model and
there's plenty of great models. I can
run it on a Mac computer in my ho house.
And if you saw recently, there's this
auto research thing that went viral on
Twitter this weekend where Andre Karpapi
turned on auto research and he ran all
of these agents on his computer and they
were just asked a bunch of questions to
solve make better LLMs and they just ran
30 of them talking to each other and
they just kept scoring the improvements
they were each making to the LLM to the
underlying AI model
>> and they made a better LLM model than
what chat GPT had not too very long ago
in like a weekend on a computer at home.
That's how quickly it's diffused. And so
I'm like I I think that there's a and so
this whole thing of like, oh, data
centers need to be stopped. I actually
don't think that data centers are going
to have much to do with the benefits
we're going to realize. Like so much of
AI is going to sit at the edge. It's
going to sit in embedded devices. It's
going to sit on your desktop computer.
It's going to sit on your iPhone. It's
going to be ubiquitous. It's going to be
everywhere.
>> And I think everyone just doesn't see
the benefit yet. And so it's very hard
to envision why I should do this. And we
can talk a lot about some of those
benefits that could arise. But over
time, all technologies have like a
central feature where someone's making a
bunch of money early on and then
eventually everyone's like, "Oh my god,
everyone's life has gotten better
because of this thing." Like when the
first CARTT therapies came out, these
are T- cell I I totally jumped shipped
there, but like CARTT therapy is this
amazing technology that was developed
where we could take tea cells, immune
cells out of the human body, program
them to find a specific protein, put
them back in your body, and then they go
and find that protein and kill it and
kill that cell. And it was used for
cancer. So we could take a tea cell out
of the body, program it to go attack a
cancer cell, put it back in the body, it
attacks the cancer cell and destroys it.
When that first came out, it was like,
"Oh my god, this is incredible." And a
couple of companies made a couple
billion dollars selling the first
generation of those technologies. But to
get that therapy is like millions of
dollars initially. You have to take all
these cells out, isolate them, make sure
they're clean, engineer them, put them
back in, make sure the person doesn't
die. So it became this very expensive
initial process. And now CARTT therapy
is making its way into more and more
cancer treatments. And it is like almost
100% like success rate in blood cancers
when it works. And so it's becoming this
thing that goes from millions of dollars
to a million to 500 and pretty soon to
50k, 20k, and eventually 5k. And that
ends that disease, that whole class of
diseases goes away. So all of these
technologies start up with this
aggregation of value. Small number of
people get it, small number of people
get value, but eventually all
technologies diffuse. And so I'm less
like concerned about there being a
monopoly. We're already seeing every
single model company getting disrupted
by something else the next week. Um,
we're already seeing this idea of data
centers being the requisite breaking
apart. There's a bunch of startups right
now that are making technology that
reduces the token cost by a,000x.
So for every token produced, which is a
measure of output from AI,
it used to be 10 bucks or whatever, you
know, pick your number, a$1.50, for 50
cents, 10 cents, it's coming down by a
thousandfold because they're figuring
out better ways to architecture the
underlying models to make distributed
smaller models to use new chip
architecture to use new systems of
balancing energy across the different
chips that you're using etc etc etc and
these all compound. So suddenly it's
like is the people that are going to
build all these data centers really
going to have a monopoly? I don't know
like this will allow anyone to stand up
a small data center and run a bunch of
AI stuff. So you don't really need big
hundred billion dollar data center. So,
I think there's a lot that's changing
very quickly and every step of the way
that's it's happening so fast. People
just have all these reasons to have
concern, but I I'm I'm pretty optimistic
as history being a predictor here that
the diffusion of these technologies will
unlock value for every human on Earth.
And it's really just a function of at
what point and at what point of value.
>> I've heard you talking about the moon a
lot. What's happening with the moon?
um the moon. I think
so
one of the things that I think AI
unlocks is the ability to do really
complex projects. People think about AI
as like hey I'm going to replace labor
like the accountant's job is going to go
away and we're all kind of swirling our
heads around what are we going to do
with the accountant's job's going away
and you know we could use the the
automobile and the horse buggy driver
analogy.
People were worried about the horse
buggy jobs going away and who's going to
breed the horses? Who's going to take
care of the horses? all the horse tables
are going to go away. And then when the
car came around, there was auto
mechanics and there were the highway
system and then motel popped up and then
gas stations popped up and then coffee
houses popped up on the highways and and
new towns emerged on the highways
because you could get to them and
suddenly the automobile unlocked
industries we didn't contemplate, right?
It's several degrees away, several steps
away from the initial problem that
you're thinking about, which is the the
the horse company's dying and the horse
jobs going away. Um, so I think that's
kind of like an important thing to note.
And before I get to the moon, I'll just
say this one point. I think physical AI
or robotics is really going to be an
unlock for people.
People think it's like the companies,
the corporations will have all the
robots and the corporations will replace
all the people. Like, but why can't
everyone have a robot? Meaning, why
can't someone put a robot in their
garage? And this robot can do anything.
It works 24 hours a day. That robot's
now your employee. And you can say to
the robot in the garage, hey, I want to
make a bicycle shop. I want to make
custom bicycles that are really cool.
They're like Chrome and people can, you
know, kind of tweak them online and make
all these different versions of bicycles
and then the robot will build the
bicycle. So people, so you can stand up
a Shopify store or an Etsy store,
whatever, make sell bicycles and your
robot will make them for you. You don't
even have to know how to make bicycles.
The robot will order all the parts.
It'll order all the machinery it needs.
It'll run the robot bike shop in your
garage. It'll make bikes. It'll package
them up and ship them out for you. When
you think about it in that context,
which is that this diffusion of
technology enables everyone to get value
from it. So, everyone will have a robot.
Everyone will be able to have a small
business. It's like imagine back in the
day, 20, 30 years ago, if you told
people, "Hey, everyone can have an Etsy
store. Now, all of the knitting you're
doing at home, you can sell and you can
make 50 grand a year." No one would have
believed you. But like, now you now you
can do that.
>> Have you seen these arm farms in India?
No.
>> Jared, pull up that video I sent you
about robots needing a human body inside
the race to train AI robots how to act
human in the real world. I traveled to
southern southern India to document the
rise of AI arm farms where young
engineers strap GoPros to their
foreheads and fold laundry or pack boxes
to teach humanoid robots how to do
chores. So people are getting paid to do
normal [ __ ] Here it is.
>> And then the robot learns.
>> Yeah. So, this is the same thing that
happened with uh Tesla's full cell
driving
>> that they take the best I mean I don't
this doesn't strike me as the best
folding I've ever seen but um they take
the best drivers on Tesla and they use
that to train the model on
>> it would be a good hack to mess with the
robots and fold incorrectly over and
over again just
>> well just downstream loads of people
with creased t-shirts
>> just mess it all up
>> yeah this is this is my way to destroy
the t-shirt folding industry
>> every like suddenly in the future
everything you buy is completely broken
because they everyone trains the robot.
>> But this is everything. This this is for
everything. This is for making a cup of
tea. What's that famous robotics
challenge they have? Cracking an egg.
>> The delicacy to hold it and the speed to
hit it and the precision to whatever.
But uh yeah, this is this is the future.
Hey, look, if you need extra cash,
>> let it watch you fold your pants.
>> And this is obviously transitory. So
this is the training phase of the
robotics. The real question is what are
people individually going to do? So like
I know you asked about the moon. and
we'll get it.
>> That's that's fine cuz there was also
that anthropic uh uh uh report that just
got released looking at which jobs are
going to be popped first by AI and that
doesn't even include robotics.
>> So I don't think that there's like going
to be a successful organized government
system to solve this problem to come in
and be like hey
we're going to stop these industries and
they're going to try. I mean, New York
just passed a law making medical advice,
legal advice, all these other things
illegal in um through AI tools, which by
the way, you got to ask yourself the
question, are they really going to be
able to do that? Because if all the
models are open sourced and they're all
available and I can run them locally,
why wouldn't I just download a model,
put it on my computer, and I can ask it
legally?
>> Going to burst through the door and say,
"David, what is that? What what have you
got on your computer? You better not be
looking at your health reports." all of
these legal efforts and government
efforts to try and stall and stop
historically. Like it's just not going
to work except when you have a limited
resource like uranium, you know, for
like nuclear fuel or something like
that. But um but for like something like
this which is self-replicating, it's
software. It can go anywhere. It can be
anywhere. It can fill any space. It's
knowledge work. Um it's going to be very
hard to to stop it. So the the real
question and this is going to be
transitory for now but the real question
is going to be which of the humans that
are folding t-shirts today are going to
have the spark in their brain that's
going to say I should buy five robots
and run my own t-shirt folding business.
That's this challenge that I think
humanity faces in this next evolution.
We can talk about transhumanism too,
which I think is going to be a forced
adaptation, but particularly it's about
agency,
taking ownership for how do you engage
the future versus waiting for someone to
tell you what to do next.
>> That's going to be a change of kind, not
just a difference of degree. I think
that previously if you were someone who
was mocking the horses in the streets of
Manhattan, that job goes away. But
there's a new business that comes up and
your friend decides to go and work
there. the agency of I am enough of a
self-starter with the sovereignty and
the determination to go and do this
thing. That does feel like the bar is
being raised and some people are going
to fall below that bar. I don't know if
that's true cuz I do think every human
has a degree of innate agency. It's
programmed into us as humans. It's just
generally been turned off because we've
created social systems that have told us
here's what you're going to get next and
here's what you're going to get next and
here's what you're going to get next.
Since we're children, we've been
programmed by our education, by college,
by the work system, by the economy, by
the taxes, by the fact that the
government's supposed to give me all
this [ __ ] Every step of the way, I'm
being told, "Do this, you'll get this.
Do this, you'll get this." You've never
been given the freedom as a human to
operate. Like, and I think this is
fundamentally true with social systems.
We've created, government systems,
financial systems, everything. We've
been very severely limited as people. I
think one example that speaks positively
to my point is what's happened with
people making money on Tik Tok and
Instagram and Shopify and Etsy. If if
you told someone, pick the time frame 15
years ago that X number of millions of
Americans would be making on average
tens of thousands of dollars a year
doing the things they're doing, posting
photos of themselves in bikinis and at
historic monuments on Instagram with
with, you know, a sports drink or
whatever next to them. or people were
making money podcasting like like at the
scale that they are today. You're you're
the prime example. Or people were making
money selling home goods and making 300
grand a year selling their custom cat
blankets or pick pick these things. You
would have never believed it. But every
person has that in them. Every person
has that capacity in them to do
something unique, to do something
special, to take agency if they're given
the right space to do it and they're not
told that you can't do it.
>> Interesting point on that. I wonder how
many people are going to have their
agency diminish because of their
reliance on AI. So I wonder if the very
thing that's going to enable them is
also going to be something that that
reduces their capacity to enact it. And
I think that that's one of the concern.
Anyway, the moon.
>> Yeah.
>> A quick aside, there is a stat that
genuinely surprised me when I first
heard it. 95% of people don't get enough
fiber. Not because they're being
careless, but because hitting your daily
fiber target through food alone is
actually quite hard. But that's why
Momentus built Fiber Plus. See, fiber
isn't just a digestion thing. It's the
foundation of your gut health, which
drives how well you absorb nutrients,
how stable your energy is, and how
quickly you recover. If your gut isn't
dialed in, everything else that you're
doing is working at a fraction of its
potential. Fiber Plus is a threein-one
formula built to address digestion, gut
barrier strength, and blood sugar
stability all at once. And this cinnamon
flavor is unreal. You might think,
"Fiber? Wow, I bet that tastes great."
Well, yeah, actually it does, doubters.
Uh, I really enjoyed this. Best of all,
Momentus offers a 30-day money back
guarantee. So, if you're not sure, you
can buy Fiber Plus. Try it for 29 days.
If you don't love it, they'll just give
you your money back. And they ship
internationally. Right now, you can get
up to 35% off your first subscription
and that 30-day money back guarantee by
going to the link in the description
below or heading to live
momentous.com/modernwisdom
and using the code modernwisdom at
checkout. That's l i v o m n o
s.com/modern wisdom and modern wisdom
a checkout. What's happening with the
moon? Um well so I I think that you know
there there's a big discussion obviously
um I would say largely led by pushed by
Elon but but many others over time that
you know we should expand humans beyond
Earth and get to Mars and that's a good
place to set up a colony and uh yada
yada right um Mars is not very habitable
we need to move a lot of material to
Mars but I think um if you look at the
math it is very likely the case that you
can probably reduce your energy cost
needs to move material to set up a
colony on Mars by probably 100x or more
by making most of the material you need
for Mars on the moon and shipping it
from the moon to Mars. And the reason is
the moon unlike the earth does not have
an atmosphere. One of the biggest uses
of the energy when you're moving matter
off the earth is getting away from
through the atmosphere which drags or
pushes the rocket back down and gravity.
So the moon is 16th the gravity of the
earth. So it takes much less energy to
escape the gravitational pull of the
moon than it does the earth. And there's
no atmosphere pulling you back. So with
AI and robotics, it is theoretically
possible. And then if you look at moon
dust and moon rock, it has all of the
raw materials that we may need to build
machines, to build housing units, to
build habitation units.
>> What's it constituent? What's the
constituent part?
>> It's got aluminum. It's got silicon.
It's got carbon. You can even go up to
the poles and you can get hydrogen and
oxygen from the ice up there. So you can
melt the the water at the poles, run
electricity through it, break it into
hydrogen and oxygen, use the hydrogen
and oxygen and the carbon in various
chemical reactions. You can
theoretically make any substance you
need or any metal or any material you
need that we can make here on Earth. So
we can and should build very large
factories on the moon. And the the way
that this would work is you basically
can use solar power, right? Solar very
deployable on the moon. lots of
sunlight, no atmosphere, etc. Good um
good continuous energy flow, no clouds
>> and um and then you can use kind of
battery storage. But the mechanism for
moving material off the moon is not
propul propulsion.
>> It's actually a mass driver. So electric
rail gun. So think about like a train
track, you know, like these mag lev
trains, you know, think about like a mag
lev train. And uh you know if you run
the calculations it would take about uh
call it a 9 kilometer long track to move
one ton of material off of the moon and
get it to Mars.
>> Okay
>> at an angle.
>> So here's the thing. It doesn't actually
even have to be at an angle. It just has
to clear any craters or mountains.
>> Of course it's flat enough and that's
escape velocity.
>> Just escape velocity. So all you have to
do is orient it correctly. put it on the
right part of the moon and orient it
correctly
>> for the moon to basically uh aim.
>> That's right.
>> The moon's passing around
>> and it would take Yeah, it would take a
couple megawatt hours of power to push a
ton of material down this rail track. It
would take about 4 and 1/2 seconds for
it to move down the rail track and then
hit
>> 4 and a half seconds to move 9 km a ton.
Yeah. So it is it ends up escaping at
roughly call it 20,000 km an hour. And
that's now uh if you're moving one ton
of material, you would still need a
couple hundred kg, call it about 200 kg
of of some sort of propulsion um
>> to slow it down
>> to slow it down as it approaches the
moon. But here's the other thing. You
could use moon rock as a heat shield for
re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere or
the Martian atmosphere. So you basically
take moon rock, put it on the front
because you don't care if it burns away
and goes away.
>> It can just vaporize. So you need 15 cm
of moon rock on the front of this
parcel. You ship the parcel off this
rail track. It goes towards Mars. It can
hit 100 gs of acceleration while it's
accelerating. Gets over there. You slow
it down a little bit and then it can
actually enter the Martian atmosphere.
The moon rock burns away and you've just
delivered roughly 700 kg of material.
And um you can run that every hour with
uh solar panels that are roughly 500
kind of meters by 500 meters. So, you
know, pretty small kind of solar system,
some batteries, some capacitors, and
then you got to build the rail. The
rail, you need about nine tons of
material. So, you got to get a lot of
material put out to get this this rail
built. But again, the amazing thing
about AI is you can you can kind of
think about it being self-replicating in
the physical sense as well as the the
digital sense. You can put robots on the
Martian surface with the necessary
starting equipment that can make the
next robots, that can then make the next
robots, that can then go do the mining,
that can then go build the factories,
that can then go build the rail, that
can then go build the propulsion system,
and can then do the mining for you. And
there's a lot of very valuable material
on the moon that we could also ship back
to Earth. So, I actually think the moon
is going to be a giant giant giant
economy. And I think it's like one of
these economies like it's almost like
the East India or like you know, like
when when you get over there, you don't
realize how big it's going to be till
this starts. But once it starts, the
value of what you can do and the lowcost
nature of it because of AI now that you
can have robots doing this stuff and you
can have AI orchestrate a lot of work
and you don't need to commit millions of
people to it and trillions and I you
still need some money but not trillions
and trillions and trillions of dollars.
I think the moon is probably one of
these like more underdised and Silicon
Valley kind of economic grand economic
opportunities.
>> Is space the next industrial revolution?
>> There's a lot um that could happen on
Earth too. So like um
I think there's a lot there there's a
there's a there's a couple big other big
drivers. I think one is dropping energy
cost to zero. Um and I think
uh fusion will have a big role in that
this this century. So people don't want
to talk about fusion because everyone's
all about solar all the time and Elon
loves solar and blah blah blah. So
everyone poo poos fusion.
Um,
so I I'll talk about it in a second, but
the cost if you get the cost of energy
down to 1 cent a kilowatt hour, it
absolutely expands every economy. Like
everything blows up. Like imagine if you
>> What is it currently?
>> Well, it's in the US, we're paying 15 to
40 cents a kilowatt hour for off the
grid. Um, but nuclear power you uh, you
know, best case scenario is about 5
cents a kilowatt hour. Um, and that's
advertised when you take the cost of
everything you got to build and
advertise it out and then your your
runtime cost 5 to 10 cents, but they're
going to sell it at like 15. So like
imagine if you could take power cost
down to 100th of what it is today. The
cost to make anything drops because now
you've got robots. Robots can make stuff
quickly and with no marginal cost
because the electricity is what runs the
robots. So you could have a swarm of 100
robots build you a mansion. How much
would that cost? Like a 10,000 foot
crazy house. The cost of energy is
nothing. So maybe having a crazy house
could cost close to nothing.
>> Well, there's a robot printing machine
that's just launching in Austin at South
by Southwest this week.
>> Making houses.
>> Just Yeah. House 3D printing houses.
>> Gen one. Now imagine Gen 6, right? And
imagine energy cost is like zero. Um,
and imagine all that material
production.
>> How cool of a house do you want? I want
to live in Hogwarts. Fine, get the land.
>> I want like a Lake Koa, but I want to
make my own Lake Ko, you know, like like
no one else. Like just like
>> Lake David.
>> Yeah, Lake David. Um
but uh so so energy cost I think are
going to uh this this will be the era
when um fusion happens. Uh so fusion is
this crazy like
um
principle like it's it's this it's this
fundamental thing that drives the
universe. If the sun is run on fusion
fusion is when protons jam together.
Okay. So the sun is so um hot because it
has so much mass. So when all this mass
came together, all the matter starts
bumping into each other and that creates
kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is
heat and it's so dense because of the
gravity, because of all the mass that
you've got this extremely hot, extremely
dense plasma. Plasma means that it's so
energetic that the electrons break away.
>> It's technically a fourth state of
matter, right?
>> It is. Yeah. So there's arguably five
states of matter, right? solid, liquid,
gas, plasma, and then Einstein Bose
condensate, which is crazy physics.
>> You always have to one up me.
>> No, but it's like I actually think that
one's more cool is why I said it, but
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, but the uh the the
what happens in fusion is when two
protons have enough energy and they get
close enough, they jam together and they
stick together. So, one proton, you
remember this like with an electron is
hydrogen.
>> Two protons is helium,
>> right? And then it's lithium and then
burillium and and so on. So um protons
jamming together forms a new nucleus
forms a new kind of element goes from
hydrogen to helium all the way up the
periodic table of elements. So the more
energy you have the denser these things
get. It requires more and more energy to
get this to happen. Now when you fuse
protons together and form a new element
less than iron it actually releases
energy in the process. Anything greater
than iron requires energy to make it
stick together. That's like a cool
feature of physics which you could get
philosophical on why this is the case.
>> Ian's kind of like an equilibrium state
in a weird way.
>> It's it's actually related to the the
strength of the strong and weak nuclear
forces and how they have a trade-off.
There's a there's a threshold at which
the repulsiveness is greater because you
have so many more protons. They're
pushing each other apart. So, they're
pushing each other apart more than the
benefit you get from getting them
together. And so you actually have to
put energy in to make
all the heavier elements on planet Earth
that exploded billions of years ago.
Crazy. But um so fusion is how the sun
makes energy. So every time proton and
proton get together, they release some
energy and that's the light that we get
from the sun. Constant fusion. So the
the challenge has always been can we do
fusion on Earth? Can we just jam protons
together and get and capture that
energy? So the technology to do it is
you basically spin you know this these
protons around in a plasma at 100
million degrees C. Some people are using
these like donut shaped toidals. Some
people are now using these sort of weird
what are called stellarators. They've
got crazy shapes. And much of the design
of these systems on how do you get these
protons to move fast enough? And the
problem is when the protons get close
and close together they push each other
apart. So, you got to use a magnetic
field to squeeze these protons together
so they get closer and closer and then
get them to fuse. The problem is as they
get closer, the protons make their own
magnetic field that pushes back and
[ __ ] up the magnetic field that you're
trying to use to squeeze them together.
And so, it's this dynamical equilibrium
problem. They just keep breaking and
breaking and breaking. And you cannot
get a stable plasma at that density. AI
seems to be solving that problem because
they're now using AI to train the
control of the magnetic fields in a way
that's working and they're now able to
hold these magnetic fields for 30
minutes at a time out of China now. You
know, started out it went from like 17
seconds to a few sec few longer to a few
minutes to 30 minutes in literally like
the last two and a half three years.
Like that's how quickly they're ramping
up in the ability to make this happen.
There's about 70 startups doing this.
Just to give you a sense of what this
enables, basically you could think about
taking water, putting it into this
machine, getting the protons to spin
around, and then extracting energy from
those protons jamming together. That
energy turns into electricity. There's
no nuclear explosion. There's no risk of
the whole thing melting down. There's no
nuclear material. Nothing's radioactive.
It's it's a very clean way of generating
energy. So, it's been this kind of holy
grail for the since the 1950s when
people first thought about it.
>> It needs a different name.
>> Yeah.
>> What would you call it? It can't have
the word nuclear in it.
>> Yeah,
>> it can't.
>> Yeah, maybe uh some people have said
just call it fusion. Some people have
said call it L.
>> It's too close to fishing.
>> Yeah,
>> people are going to patatterent match it
already and they're going to think I've
heard even me.
>> Let's come up with a name. What do you
think?
>> I think something to do with the
electromagnetic
uh electromagnetic energy uh element of
that. That doesn't feel that feels kind
of green. Yeah, that feels quite safe.
Yeah.
>> I don't expect that to explode.
>> Yeah.
Strong power, weak power. Yeah.
Protonics, something. We'll come up with
something.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, I think
that if you have nuclear in it, I think
it's just such a contentious topic,
>> right? Cuz it's it's everyone thinks
branding in history.
>> Yeah. Like nuclear energy is fision
where you're taking heavy heavy heavy
elements like uranium,
>> breaking them apart. They're
radioactive. It's the opposite.
>> And you're getting energy out. Yeah.
You're doing the opposite. You're taking
the heavier stuff and grabbing the
energy when the heavier stuff becomes
lighter, releasing that energy that it
took to make it. Um, so this is
different and this you can I did the the
math on this. Basically, you could use a
swimming pool sized amount of ocean
water to make all the electricity needed
for an entire year for the planet Earth.
That's what this can do. That's why it's
so important that we get it done. Now,
when you do this and you it works and
we're very close to having this work at
industrial scale. Next, everyone's
always joked, oh, fusion's always like a
decade away. It's the it's, you know,
maybe it's a decade away. Maybe not, but
it's going to happen. Like we're
progressing up this production curve.
It's going to happen.
>> Are those 30 minute long runs energy
positive? Net positive.
>> They're still requiring net energy in
because of the setup and and so on. But
the next phase will be to capture
basically the the current systems aren't
just protons. They put protons with
neutrons and the neutrons are what get
energized into the wall to heat up the
wall and that's where they heat up water
to turn a steam turbine. You know, like
other people have other ideas that, hey,
maybe we shouldn't be using a steam
turbine.
>> Isn't it mad that of all of the ways
it's still rotate a thing attached to a
dynamo? It doesn't matter what the
fanciness that occurs before it.
Totally. It's just
>> dynamo and a fan. That's another thing
that should likely change this century
is the um the move away from from that
system uh where we can do direct energy
capture and conversion into uh
electricity because you're trying to
you're basically the reason you do that
is you're trying to get electrons to
move through a wire. So you wrap a wire
with magnets around a coil and you get
the magnet thing to spin. The faster it
spins the more it moves the electrons
through the wire. So that's the basis of
that system. But there's other things
that people have theorized. So with this
energy system, I think you're going to
like drop the cost of energy, unleash
productivity, unleash economic
opportunity. So that's another kind of
technology that I would say is like very
kind of future positive on like what's
around the corner.
>> Before we continue, most people in their
30s are still training hard. Their
protein is dialed in. They sleep better
than they did in their 20s. Discipline
is not the issue, but recovery feels
somewhat different. Strength gains take
a little longer. The margin for error
starts to shrink. And that is why I'm
such a huge fan of timeline. You see,
mitochondria are the energy producers
inside of your muscle cells. As they
weaken with age, your ability to
generate power and recover effectively
changes even if your habits stay strong.
Mitoure from timeline contains the only
clinically validated form of urethylene
A used in human trials. It promotes
mphagy, which is your body's natural
process for clearing out damaged
mitochondria and renewing healthy ones.
In studies, this supported mitochondrial
function and muscle strength in older
adults. It's not about pushing harder.
It's about actually supporting the
cellular machinery underneath your
training. If you care about staying
strong into your 30s, 40s, and 50s and
beyond, this is foundational. Best of
all, there is a 30-day money back
guarantee, plus free shipping in the US,
and they ship internationally. And right
now, you can get up to 20% off by going
to the link in the description below or
heading to timeline.com/modernwisdom
and using the code modernwisdom at
checkout. That's
timeline.com/modernwisdom
and modernwisdom at checkout. Just
rounding out space, two things. Who owns
the moon and who owns the resources on
the moon? And secondly, if we're going
to start mining asteroids and mining the
moon, what does that mean for the
Earth's economy? Cuz I have to imagine
that that's a pretty big dice roll, or
at the very least, you're adding dice to
the game that you were already playing
with, and that's going to make things
interesting. You know, economic growth
is one of these things that's very hard
to contemplate intuitively, to fully gro
intuitively because like if you if you
add chips to a game, like we're playing
poker, there's eight of us playing poker
and we suddenly increase our chip stack
by like 10x. We're still playing poker,
but um you know, maybe we could tip
more, right? like maybe um the the
amount of money we're now making gives
us the ability to go buy $100 bottle of
wine instead of $2 Coors lights, you
know, like that's what ends up happening
is as more chips come on the table. Now,
the poker analogy is a very bad one cuz
that's a zero sum game.
Economic growth comes from should come
from productivity growth, not from money
printing. Okay, much of our economic
growth over the last couple of decades,
one could argue, has come from money
printing. We've just put more chips on
the table. the house has made more
chips, put them on the table.
>> But economic growth means that I went
outside and I made something. I made a
new I I mined gold. Let's use gold
mining as an example. I mined gold out
of the ground. That's worth something
because now I people can use it. They
can trade it. They can sell it. So I'm
being productive with my time. So the
more productivity there is in the
system, the more chips get made, the
more the economy grows, the more
everyone gets the ability to buy and
sell more stuff and everyone's labor,
everyone's time is worth more worth
more. And so everything grows. That's
the benefit of true productivity. So
productivity is like this best measure I
would say of technologies advance on how
technology advances social systems. The
more productive we are, the more
everyone's going to benefit.
>> It feels like a unique kind of
productivity to take raw materials that
were maybe rare or at least didn't exist
within what was a closed system. The
Earth was a closed system. We weren't
getting anything from off it unless we
were hit by an asteroid, right?
>> And then bringing it back in, right?
that I I is what happens to the iron
price,
>> right?
>> When we are bringing iron back from
outside of what was predicted as a part
of that.
>> Yeah. So, think think I I would say
think more about availability of iron
versus the price. Like what it does is
it makes iron more available, more
abundant to everyone. And same with
energy, right? When you increase energy
through fusion, you make energy more
abundant. The price comes down by 10x,
but now everyone can use much much more
energy. meaning
>> because the price is just indicative of
the supply and the availability
>> and everyone can and now everyone gets
more access. This is why technology
>> I've always wanted more iron. I've said
I don't have enough.
>> You're like an iron horde. It's funny
when we walked in the studio I was
wondering why you had that blanket over
that big pile of iron in the
>> That's correct. Don't look at that. The
parking lot. Yeah. You're like your iron
horde. You're like you're like a
Minecraft but for for iron. Yeah. Yeah.
Um, but yeah, I mean, abundance is the
the name of the game, right? Like, if we
really are moving a productivity curve,
energy costs are coming down, we're able
to make more stuff with AI. It's not
that some people are going to get richer
faster. That may happen, but I don't
think that's the problem. I think what
really functionally happens is everyone
has more abundance. you can now instead
of working 60 hours a week or 100 hours
a week when we all worked you know when
not we all but like when Americans
worked on farms right at the turn of the
century it was like 80% of people worked
on a farm
>> and now it's less than 1% so we don't
have to spend the 100 hour work week
working on the farm in fact the guy
working on the farms in a John Deere
automated tractor with air conditioning
he's on TikTok while the thing drives
itself I trust me I work in the industry
like that's it's awesome they still work
their asses off not to diminish it but
like it's a very type of farming.
>> And yes, it is still backbreaking work,
but there's a lot of automation. And so
that created an abundance of food, an
abundance of calories, an abundance of
availability, and we dropped the number
of people globally that live on less
than 1,200 calories a day for a year,
which is how we define malnourished. Um,
you know, from billions of people down
to 600 million. It's come back up
recently because of various supply chain
issues postcoid but um
>> well the number one uh type of
malnutrition worldwide is now obesity
not starvation
>> that is a problem
>> yeah it's abundant it's excess
>> there's there's twice as many people
that are malnourished through their
obesity than through their starvation uh
final thing who owns
>> the moon
>> the moon yeah so I don't know I think uh
that's
>> astropolitics is f do you know anyone
that does astropolitics I want to bring
someone on the show
>> that's a good idea
>> I want to talk about it I think it's so
cool But do you own cuz geostationary
above the net of your country? It's kind
of yours.
>> Depends on what the treaties say.
>> Kind of.
>> As a country or as an individual, I
could say anything I want. If I moved to
the moon and put a flag down and said,
"F you guys. I've got lasers and I'm
going to protect. This is my part of the
moon." Who's going to stop me? Like, I
don't care about being on Earth anymore.
You can't arrest me on Earth anymore.
You can't take my money out of the bank
anymore. That's that's a frontier.
>> Have you ever read Seven Eves by Neil
Stevenson?
>> Love that book.
>> Yeah. [ __ ] I one of my most reread
fiction books and uh in that they go up
to the uh space station Izzy and they
need to come up with an entire new form
of law. What happens if somebody commits
a crime in space?
>> Right?
>> And I never thought about the fact that
well, especially if you've got people
from multiple different countries, well
the way that we deal with it is X. The
way that we deal with it is Y. And this
is an entire new environment to work in.
So it needs to be built from the ground
floor up. People got different prior.
>> Right. Right. Right. Totally. You see
that movie Ad Astra?
>> There's that scene where he's like and
there there's like the pirates on the
moon, you know, they're like shooting at
him and he has to like get away. Like
that may be what happens. Moon pirates.
There's like
>> a battleground on the moon for who has
territorial rights and and so on. But
>> look, there's so much resource
availability. That's the thing about
abundance. It's like maybe wars go away.
I'm very This is where one of the things
>> because scarcity scarcity drives wars.
Do I really need to be fighting with
Iran if I don't care as much about oil
and energy availability?
>> Look at what happened during 2020 2021
when crypto was on a bull run. Everyone
was friends. Look at what happens when
the price drops. Everyone [ __ ] hates
each other.
>> Same with every resource, right? And so
like as resources become more abundant,
lower cost, everyone's getting what they
want. We're all vacationing in Hawaii
working 10 hours a week. That's where
things go. This is why I mentioned the
100 hours. It's like you go 100 to 60 to
40 to 30. In France, they like have a
law. It's like 30. Now, a lot of the
Democrats in the US are like, "Let's all
work 30 hours a week and like let's drop
Fridays and all this sort of stuff."
>> Didn't a country try a 4-day work week?
>> I think France, doesn't it?
>> I think it might have been France that
tried the 4-day work week.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And um you know, that's one of the
measures of prosperity is like how much
do you have to work to be able to live a
good life? And so if you can take more
time with your family and more time to
explore your personal interests and you
don't have to do labor whether it's on a
computer or in a field, uh that's a good
way to think about like are we all
prospering? Are we being able are we
being given freedom to do more things
rather than being caged into doing the
things we don't want to do?
>> Speaking of prospering, how far off are
we from age reversal, do you think?
>> That's one I'm most excited about. Um so
have you looked at Yamanaka factors or
have you talked about this on your show
before? uh David Sinclair's been on and
I know that he's sort of tangentially
associated with it but assume no do the
30,000 foot view of the Yamanaka
factors.
>> So every cell in our body has the same
DNA. Okay. Uh we know that and the DNA
is in every cell because of a process
called mitosis. Every time we make a new
cell from the time we're in the womb to
today we're making new cells. Both our
entire DNA gets copied over into every
cell. But what makes my eye look and act
differently than my skin? If it's got
the same DNA, how's it different? How's
it different than my brain or my tongue
or my feet? They're all they're all
those are different cells. There's
different cells in different organs in
the body. Those cells are different
because the genes in the DNA are on or
off.
>> So there's a bunch of switches and the
switches are either on or off and that
creates cellular differentiation. which
it's what makes one cell different from
another cell. The eye cell different
from the heart cell different from the
skin cell or the lung cell. And the
switches that are on or off are these
little molecular switches. They're
molecules that sit on top of the DNA and
they keep that gene from working. It
blocks it off. And then the other gene
is open. And when it's open, that means
that your cell is making RNA copies of
that gene and turning it into a protein.
>> Zeros and ones.
>> Zeros and ones. And each gene makes a
unique protein. The proteins that then
come out
do a bunch of stuff. They're machines.
They're molecular machines. And they're
constantly doing all this stuff in your
cell. And that's what makes every cell
different is what genes are on and what
genes are off. And the complexity of
this is astounding. If you were to think
about a cell being the size of
Manhattan. So imagine a cell is a is a
is a city the size of Manhattan with
500tory tall buildings. That's how big
it would be. And every person is a
protein. There's 10 billion people
living in this 500 story tall building
island of Manhattan going in between the
buildings up and down all day long
building stuff together never sleeping
always working into each other having
coffee making stuff together breaking
stuff together working. 10 billion of
us. Those are the proteins in the cell
>> in one cell running around doing stuff
for 80 years.
That's 1 second in one cell. That's how
complex this is. So the proteins that
are on or off matter a lot. And then
they make stuff. So that's why the eye
cell does totally different stuff than
the brain cell or the heart cell. As we
get older, this is the current science
on this. It looks like what happens is
we have DNA breaks. DNA gets damaged
from radiation and sunlight and bad
eating and alcohol and all the other
[ __ ] As those DNA breaks happen, your
cell actually fixes the DNA. It's very
good at fixing it. Goes in, there's a
bunch of proteins. They're the worker
proteins that are repair proteins. They
go in, they fix the DNA. Every time the
DNA gets fixed, there's a chance that
those ones and zeros, those ons and offs
get moved around a little bit. And as
they get moved around over time, they
get moved to the wrong place. So what
ends up happening over time is that the
wrong genes get turned on and the right
genes can get turned off in a cell and
then that cell stops working right stops
the eye cell stops doing what it's
supposed to be doing. The heart cell
stops getting the right electrical
cascade to flow through the other cells.
all of the cells the the skin cell
becomes a little wrinkled and eventually
if enough of those cells have those
epigenetic is what it's called
epigenetic errors you start getting
wrinkles your heart stops beating as
well you go blind all these sorts of
things happen with aging it looks like
the root of all disease may be aging and
aging is a disease so it is a disease
rooted in the fact that the epigenetic
factors these little molecules move
around in the wrong place that's what we
discovered is basically aging in 2006 a
guy named Shina Yamanaka found that he
could take four proteins and put them on
a cell. They would go into the cell and
they would move all of those epigenetic
markers, those ones and zeros to make
that cell into a stem cell which can
then be turned into any other cell in
the body. So that was the magic thing he
won the Nobel Prize for. In 2016,
another scientist published a series of
papers showing that instead of putting a
lot of those four proteins on the cell,
you could put a small amount. And if you
put a small amount, instead of resetting
all those molecular markers and making
that cell back into a stem cell, what it
actually does, it just moves those
markers back to where they're supposed
to be to make it a young cell. And
suddenly that retinal cell becomes like
a young retinal cell. The skin cell
becomes a young skin cell. The heart
cell becomes a young heart cell. All of
these cells get reset. And they did this
in mice and they made the mice age to
like 250 plus years old. They put it in
monkeys, the wrinkles went away. and
they've done it in um specifically
applying it to retinal cells in the eye
and reversed blindness.
>> This is Sinclair's stuff, right?
>> Sinclair has one of these companies
that's in clinical trials now. And
there's dozens of others. Altos Labs is
like one of the most funded startups in
history that no one talks about. Um
they've raised, you know, close to
probably $10 billion at this point uh to
pursue these technologies. But basically
what this means is we are now
discovering not just the four proteins,
but a whole bunch of other little
molecules that we can put into a
cocktail. either we're going to drink
it, take it as a shot, uh, uh, or take
it as a pill. It will get into our cells
and it will reset the epigenetic of that
cell to make it young again. They're
starting with targeting diseases like a
particular like like blindness or
glaucoma in the eye or, you know,
rheumatoid arthritis or some other heart
issue and they're applying these factors
to the cells in that tissue only
>> locally
>> locally. But over time what'll end up
happening is this becomes a systemic
treatment and they're already doing it
in animal models and then you can either
do it continuously or what I think will
end up happening is we'll probably have
a system whereby these factors will be
continu when I say the word factor I
mean protein. These proteins can be
continuously made and released inside
our body as they're needed.
>> So we maintain our youth
>> and we will live theoretically for as
long as we want. That's where this is
headed. And the technology shows now
that we can do this in animals. We can
re redose them, redose them, and keep
them.
>> Has it been done systemically yet? It's
you mentioned.
>> Yeah. This is the mouse the mouse model
where they made these mice the
equivalent of like having someone live
like 200 plus years old, you know, and
this is like so early. They haven't even
optimized the molecules. They haven't
optimized how you deliver the molecules.
They haven't optimized the dosing. They
haven't optimized the method of the do.
Like there's all these techniques that
are going to be developed on top of
this. For every one year we can extend
average human lifespan, we're adding
tens of trillions of dollars to GDP.
Right? So this is also another big
economic driver. But it's not just how
long people live, it's how healthy they
are and how energetic they are and how
happy they can be and they can now go
out and not feel all the pain and have
the disease. You know, theoretically,
this can lead to a reversal in rates of
cancer proliferation or reversal in
diabetes or reversal in many of these
other diseases that are fundamentally
rooted in this kind of failure of your
epiggenome. the the markers that are
turn your genes on and off. So this is a
technology category that I am like I
think is one of these other things that
you can kind of think about the
compounding effect free energy right
like AI automation
um uh and you know infinite labor uh for
people to do all the things they want to
do and potentially living forever. I
mean, you start to think about how these
all kind of compound. That's why I'm
excited about the future. Like these
very quickly become these sort of
compounding effects that drive us into a
happier tomorrow. And then again, it
becomes a question of abundance. How do
you want to spend your time? You know,
again, 100 years ago, I don't think
people would have had the job option of
being a yoga instructor or being a
podcaster or being a wedding
photographer or, you know, go down the
list. Like, there's so many things that
people have found joy in doing with
their time and they can be productive
doing it. I think more of that starts to
happen tomorrow and it's less of the
like you got to go work the corporate
shitty job on a trading floor in a
corporate office at a cubicle or you
know in a factory or all the things that
maybe we will look back one day and say
hey that was kind of limiting human
potential like maybe humans could do a
lot more and maybe they should and these
shifts to more abundance give us that
opportunity to do that. A quick aside.
Look, you know sleep matters, but let's
be real, most nights you're probably not
getting the sort of sleep that's
actually restorative. Eight Sleeps Pod 5
fixes that. It's a smart cover that you
throw over the top of your mattress that
actively cools or heats each side of the
bed up to 20°. They've even added a
temperature regulating duvet and
pillowcase, so you and your partner can
sleep at your preferred temperatures,
covered head to toe, like some
temperature controlled mummy. Plus, it's
got upgraded sensors that run health
checks when you're asleep, tracking
things like abnormal heartbeats and
breathing issues and sudden HRV changes.
There's a built-in speaker for white
noise. The autopilot feature learns your
sleep patterns, makes real-time
adjustments to improve your sleep. It
even detects when you're snoring, and
lifts your head a few inches to help you
breathe better. That is why eight is
clinically proven to add up to an hour
of quality sleep per night. And best of
all, they have a 30-day sleep trial, so
you can buy it and sleep on it for 29
nights. And if you don't like it, they
will just give you your money back.
Plus, they ship internationally. Right
now, you can get up to $350 off the Pod
5 by going to the link in the
description below by heading to
eightsleep.com/modernwisdom
and using the code modernwisdom at
checkout. That's ei.com/modernwisdism
and modernwisdom at checkout. How far do
you think we're off from getting to the
stage where we can do age reversal?
One decade, five decades?
>> Way less than that. Way less than that.
We are in clinical trials now on several
of these cocktails
and if there's always a risk in going
from animals to humans but we've done it
with human cells in um in vitro in in a
petri dish and we see the effects that
we are expecting to see. So we have a
lot of reasons to believe that
you know over the next 10 to 20 years
um more of this starts to proliferate.
You've heard Peter Demandis' idea of
longevity escape velocity, right? That
you need to stick about every year that
you live means that you're going to live
a little bit longer, but that when you
cross a particular threshold, you just
need to stick about until this happens
essentially or whatever the equivalent
is, whatever the technology is.
>> Yeah.
>> It allows you to extend lifespan
indefinitely.
>> I think it's fair.
>> You just hold on. Hold on. It's it's
probably
>> the best long-termist view for looking
after your health.
>> Yeah. that now is not the time to [ __ ]
it.
>> Right. Totally.
>> Because in the past there wasn't really
any reason to stick about. Yeah. You're
going to live 80 years or 70 years or 60
years, but you know, you're playing
around with fives and tens. Whereas if
the difference is between 80 and 100 or
80 and 120.
>> Yeah. You're like, "Hey, keep it
together." And by the way, a lot of like
the number one thing you can do to fix
your epigenome, which you can do without
taking these drugs, is exercise.
>> Fasting.
>> Well, fasting helps. Yeah,
>> fasting does have an effect, but
exercise, like exercise releases
molecules that in many cells in your
body will go in and start to address the
epigenome and make you more youthful.
And then there's other things that you
can start to take. Some of this peptide
stuff that people are crazy about has
shown that it has an effect. Um, some of
I I don't want to be prescriptive on
these things. Um but there's a lot of
ways that uh you can start to kind of
edge your way
>> Mhm.
>> before all the big clinical stuff is
done and and the big you know products
come out to market.
>> What do you think happens to careers and
retirement and family structures in a
world where people live over 120 years?
>> Um
it's hard it's hard to say. I mean, you
know, I could I think it's very sad that
like I love my kids. Like I I was uh uh
with my daughters um and my wife, we
were doing a uh what are the three wish
if you had a if a if you had a a genie
come out of a lamp and you had three
wishes, what was your three wishes? The
first thing my daughter said is, I wish
everyone in our family could live
forever.
>> Uh that was her first wish. And I was
like, such a sweet wish. But I really do
think that there is like this incredible
um you know human element to this
technology. It's not just like
technology for technology embodied
sterile.
>> Yeah. It's like it's not a
pharmaceutical drug. It's like it's a
it's an opportunity to give everyone
more time to do the things they want to
do. I really think this idea that like
humans don't reach their potential is
like a very fundamental truth we're
going to come to at some point. that for
a long time maybe because we had to we
created organized social systems to
achieve things as a group but limited
ourselves individually and I think that
that's what maybe changes in the future
is that these technologies and this
level of abundance gives each of us the
ability to achieve outcomes and have
like
things that maybe we didn't realize we
could have
uh because we had to make all these
trade-offs to make things work in a
social system,
>> in a society.
>> Yeah. I wonder just how much of a
challenge it's going to be for people to
to face more spare time. I know that you
guys did really great coverage about a
year and a half ago of the two UBI
experiments. Yeah.
>> That went on.
>> Yeah.
>> Is that not an indication that maybe
there's going to be a crisis of meaning
when we start to give people because
that those weren't good, right?
>> No. I mean UBI inevitably like all
welfare systems will fail.
>> Why?
>> Um two things. One is it uh creates a
system whereby people will always want
more. So it becomes this kind of
self-fulfilling thing. It create it
makes people feel like there's a
disincentive to go have agency, right?
It creates a enough of a if it's giving
you enough Yeah. passivity to
>> uh to explore yourself and and and your
potential and and engage the world to
find your potential. You're not
>> you're not given that incentive. Um but
the the more fundamental issue is simply
inflation. Um UBI whether it comes about
through uh giving people money as taxes
from other people or whether it comes
about from money printing inevitably
leads to an increase in money supply
which makes everything more expensive.
So there's a class of things that
everyone that's getting the UBI check
will buy and those things will all get
more expensive, right? It's it's a it's
a terrible feature of of the economy of
like economic principles like those
things will get more expensive. So, I
think that that's um that's why those
things simply don't work. But look, I'm
optimistic. I think that uh
again I I keep going back to this idea
that there's this
this this digital universe that we've
created where people can kind of build
like Twitch streamers another good
example people going on uh Patreon,
people going on I mean pick your
platform and they're finding ways to uh
to explore their interests and they can
live on it like they can make money
doing it because other people value what
they're doing. massage therapists, yoga
instructors and Pilates instructors, dog
walkers. I value those people. They're
valuable like and people like doing that
work.
>> So there's I think that there's more to
to come in terms of what's next that we
always like want to look backwards and
we don't want to think about hey the
chart is the path is uncharted
and you know we should just get on the
ocean and we'll figure out what's over
there.
>> What about transhumanism?
Um okay let's talk about so super
intelligence I think is a manifestation
of AI at scale meaning that there's
intelligence features of intelligence
that in isolation or aggregation exceed
human capacity. Um
>> it's just not general yet.
>> I don't know if there's a I don't know
if I subscribe to any of the
definitions. Um, but
what do humans do in a world where the
AI anticipates everything you're going
to do next or knows everything you're
going to think or has a sense of um
how to do things better than you do?
Um, I think we're going to be forced
to adapt. So this idea of like humans
living in their natural state should be
back to their natural state. It's it's
such a weird thought because we live in
buildings, you know, like we don't live
under a tree. Even when you pick berries
off a tree and eat the berries from the
tree, you're breaking nature. Like
there's an aspect of a continuum of like
what is nature, what is the human, and
what are we doing? So I I I don't love
the term transhumanism, but I do like
this idea that like this super
intelligence capacity needs to be
harnessed by humans.
I think there's probably two things that
happen and the second one I'm going to
say is very controversial. The first one
I'll say is pretty well described which
is this kind of human machine interface.
Um you know Elon's got Neurolink where
they put the wires in the brain but the
wires I saw a good presentation from Max
Hodak at his company science uh company
corporation or whatever. You should have
him on. He's great.
>> Um but he worked he started Neurolink.
He was the old CEO at Neurolink
>> and he's got this system where they're
putting like a digital uh device in your
retina. put a screen in your eye.
>> Yeah. And it works. And so the screen,
>> it powered
>> um it's uh solar. He's got this whole
power system in it. It's incredible. Um
>> so when your eye is open, it powers up
>> and then it releases an electrical
signal that triggers the neurons on your
the inside of your retinal cells that
then trigger your brain and it passes
the signal and you can suddenly see. And
it's a very thin like paper thin kind of
um device that goes under your retina in
your eyeball. It's an outpatient
procedure to put it in. He's in clinical
trials on this. It's incredible. So,
it's restoring blindness.
But you can kind of think about these
interfaces that aren't about sticking a
wire into the brain, which I don't think
is going to be where things end up, but
I think it's likely going to end up a
little bit more like, and people are
going to view this as being extremely
dystopian.
Um, so I'll give you the two versions of
it. Some people would say Neo in the
matrix where you kind of connect the
digital thing, but the other one is um
Avatar where they have that ponytail
thing that they connect to. Um but
there'll probably be some interface
where the chip to brain interface is
just a soft neurons like it's some sort
of system that can connect with the
brain without going into the brain. You
don't need to go into the neural tissue.
>> Um theoret Now I'm not super optimistic
and I don't get excited about this. Let
me be clear. I'm not like, "Oh my god,
we all need to connect to like we all
need to be like the Matrix, so don't
think about me as some dystopian crazy
technocrat." Um, but I think my my point
is someone will do it and then you'll be
able to think, I want to fly a
helicopter like Neo did in the Matrix
and you'll be able to fly a [ __ ]
helicopter.
>> And um you'll want to access information
quickly using the super intelligence
that exists in the silicon. So, you want
to solve a physics problem because
you're, you know, trying to build
something on the moon and it and you
sort of like access that information.
You look up and you're like, "Okay, you
have the answer you need." You're not
looking at a screen to get the answer.
And so, you're you're able to kind of
tap into and look, do we all want to be
connected all the time? I don't know. I
I don't know if that destroys humanity
or like is going to be an adaptation of
humanity in an era when there's now a
species that might be more intelligent
than humanity in aggregate. I I don't
know. And so I'm not trying to be too
like deterministic about this stuff. Um,
but I think that that human machine
interface outcome is very likely going
to happen. And whether or not people
want it or embrace it, you'll have to
have the benefits. You'll have to go
through an exercise where it's
lightweight, easy to put on, maybe it
sits above your ear and it works and it
doesn't need to kind of like be plugged
into your physical brain. Maybe it uses
a transmission where we can connect it
to and you can start to think things and
get information that you want and and
and so on. on and suddenly you become
super intelligent and you have all of
this capacity that you didn't have
before. That's one one one path that we
might walk. Another path that we might
walk which is extremely dystopian for
most people's points of view but um
may end up becoming a reality because of
what we're seeing happening in China and
other places is um transgenic humans
where basically right now you can look
at an embryo and I don't know if you've
seen this controversial app where
they'll sequence the DNA of your embryos
if you've got frozen embryos
>> uh for uh IVF right which is a common
procedure where you've got a effectively
an embryo that that's frozen. It's not
yet um fertilized, but you can sequence
the DNA and determine what genetic
traits does that embryo have.
>> I'm a big investor in herite who is the
most evidence-based one of these.
>> Okay,
>> so the ones that have used the DS test
plus the best geneticist on the planet
to fill the gaps in. So you model the uh
genome of mother and dad. Then you take
the sample from the embryo and between
those they can triangulate with real
accuracy what the embryo is. You have
here's your 10 harvest or your 15
harvest or whatever. And there's your
dashboard. Totally. And we've got immune
function. We've got IQ. We've got
externalizing behavior. And uh yeah,
Johnny Anomaly and Herasite are the the
best at this. And I I'm I don't think
it's dystopian at all. I think I think
that crumbly genome and if you if you
say that selecting against negative
traits is good then it seems to me to be
philosophically consistent to say that
selecting four positive traits.
>> So so everyone's got a line. The further
I walk this conversation the more you're
going to more people are going to on the
audience going to say you cross my line
>> right?
>> So the first is should we even be
looking at the DNA of embryos? We
already do,
>> right?
>> We already do because the and this was
what
>> prenatal screening.
>> Not only prenatal screening, but let's
say anybody that's ever done IVF, even
if you didn't know,
>> they screen
>> the doctor gets a microscope and has a
look at the embryos and just eyeballs
it.
>> Yes.
>> And he goes,
>> "Yeah, that one that one looks like the
roundest, right? And we don't we don't
you don't want number seven. Number
seven, we can't we can't do number seven
or it wouldn't even take. We know that
it wouldn't take. It's not going to
implant correctly." So, he was already
doing it. So, I'm like, "Right, okay.
just taking it from some guy. It's like
an an umpire in MLB that's just
eyeballing it and then eventually
they're going to get removed and it's
going to be robots. You go, "Okay, well,
I'm glad that the robot got it accurate
100% of the time."
>> 100%.
That is the next line.
The next line would be sequencing the
DNA and looking at the the genome and
looking at the genetics and saying,
"Hey,
>> I want blue eyes or brown eyes."
>> And some people say that's dystopian.
That's in the Black Mirror episode. Uh
the the eyes thing's got a bad rap when
it comes to selection.
>> Right. That's right. Okay. Fair enough.
Tall or short,
smart, not smart. Suddenly there's a
line some people are like, "Well, you
shouldn't be doing
>> blind, not blind, death, not live."
>> Um the next line is what's going on
controversially in China where they're
using gene editing.
>> Yeah. The enhancement stuff
>> enhance. So they'll take an existing
human trait, a human alil, and so
they'll basically take you from brown
eye to blue eye,
>> or they'll take you from dumb to smart.
They're not creating a foreign gene.
They're just making a tweak to your DNA
to give you the trait that you could
have randomly gotten in the embryo, but
you just didn't.
>> Is that what the guy did with the twins
that turned out to be triplets?
>> There was a conversation. There's a I
think that's the guy that got arrested
or got in trouble.
>> Correct. Yeah. 2019, I think. Yeah,
>> you know that there was a third one.
>> I didn't realize there was a third.
>> I'm pretty sure. Jerry, can you just
Google Oh, the chat GPT how many
babies were born from the crisper
editing
in China? Was it two or three? Because I
swear that there was a third one. So,
after all of that, I might eat humble
pie here and have completely
misremembered it, but um
>> you can also edit yourself out. So,
>> I'll I'll I'll own my failures. I
learned my failures here. I've said
worse things on the internet. Um, but
yeah, I swear that not only did he do
this thing and he couldn't believe it
and it's the first time this has ever
happened and it's so and there was there
was two of them and there was a [ __ ]
third one. I swear that there was a
third one. Come on, Jared. Prove me
right here, brother.
>> This is like a
>> three babies
>> where there were three babies. A third
gene edited baby was later confirmed
through court documents.
>> [ __ ] yes. Well, not I'm not
celebrating the thing. I'm not
celebrating the thing. I'm not
celebrating the thing. I want him
celebrating.
>> You're not You're not celebrating that.
I'm right.
>> Progene editing babies.
>> Uh and he edited the embryos using
crisper cast 9 to make them resistant to
HIV.
>> Exactly. Exactly. So So the the HIV
resistant alil, which is the genetic
trait, is a known trait. So he just made
a couple of changes, confirmed that
nothing else was changed, took that
forward. So should we give children or
should we give embryos these
enhancements where we're not introducing
new DNA? What we're basically saying,
hey, randomly you could have gotten this
trait and you didn't.
>> But now we're just going to make sure
you get it and then stack this up. And
then if you do that, how many traits are
we willing to give to an embryo?
>> Should I make every embryo superhuman?
Should I make every embryo? Should I
have a bunch of kids where I got one
that's really good at sports, one that's
really good at music, one that's really
good at podcasting? I mean, you pick
your poison. And well,
>> sometimes you can put it in all three
into one person.
>> There you go.
and uh um the super superhero.
>> Yeah. And the British accent. And the
British accent.
>> I don't think that's genetic.
>> Yeah. Um Okay. So now, okay. So So that
might be a line that many people are
going to say, "Hey, I don't want to
cross into that." And you could debate
that philosophically. Why would you not
want that? If you're willing to do the
other things, where like it's a
spectrum. Why are you going that far?
And there's a lot of philosophical
discourse around this. Now, the final
one, the final one is transgenic. And
this is where you put a gene or a trait
into the human that it doesn't naturally
have that the human would not have been
born with. No matter how many sperm or
how many egg combinations you put
together, you would not have come up
with this gene
>> regardless of who the parents were.
>> Correct. For example, being able to see
infrared,
>> right?
>> Okay. And so this is where you make
X-Men, right? And the capacity to do
this historically was like no way
impossible. But now in many of these
there arguably could be the capacity to
do this. And I'm not arguing for it. I'm
just saying that it's likely that this
is going to be a limit that's going to
get tested at some point here in the
near future where we are going to have a
conversation about how do humans keep up
in an era in a world of super
intelligence? And are there certain
traits like that that can enable us to
either have a better performance against
the super intelligence either super
intelligent humans or a relationship
with the super intelligence via some
mechanism that allows us to connect with
the super intelligence or control it
better or what have you or all the
digital AI that's out there or other
tools or techniques that or sorry other
um phenotypes physical characteristics
that might allow us to better survive on
Mars.
>> Mhm. um to have a great conversation.
What was the guy's name? It wasn't
Christopher Mason. That was the guy that
was talking about space. Who was the
dude that I did the episode with last
week that we put out? Scott, somebody
the guy about Mars.
>> Um I I had this [ __ ] phenomenon.
>> Yeah, Scott Solomon. Unbelievable
evolutionary biologist who's applied
evolutionary biology thinking to what
we're going to need to do to be able to
survive on Mars. Uh radiation. What
happens to bone density? But if you've
got the bone density loss, how do women
give birth? You're going to have to do
every child by cesarian C-section. But
over time, if you have C-section, you
get narrower hips. You get bigger baby
heads. You almost reverse evolution of
where we got through. Like just end it
needs to be underground. Cuz if we're
underground in Mars, then it means that
we're going to be protected naturally by
the terrain from the radiation. But if
you're underground, what happens to
melanin in the skin? And what happens to
vitamin D levels? And we've got
artificial light and what happens to
what's the psychological profile of
these people? is there. I'm like sat
there just a virtual episode and my
[ __ ] mind was this is a sleeper
episode. It was so [ __ ] good. Such a
sleeper episode. But um yeah, can we
engineer? It was a
>> and so remember like transgenics we use
in plants.
>> The [ __ ] word trans, dude. Put the
word trans at the start of anything
after the last six years and it's going
to struggle.
>> Same as nuclear.
>> Yeah. Well, I don't want to say GMO
people cuz that's got a worse name.
Yeah. Like if I say the GMO person you
cuz I used to work in Monsanto. So,
you'll like that gives me my double evil
scientist credibility.
>> But there's um there's likely going to
be a a situation where they're going to
discover this cuz what we're now
discovering
>> a lot of like the human biology like we
talked about all the genes that are on
or off. How do they all work? How do all
those proteins work together? I
described 80 years of 10 billion
proteins interacting in a place the size
of Manhattan, 500 story tall, bumping
into each other, doing stuff. That's how
we do stuff in a cell for 1 second. So
there's a regulatory network where all
these proteins are doing stuff in a way
that we can't model. We don't understand
today.
>> Isn't it mad that that just doesn't
switch off one day of all of the human?
Yeah. It just 404s and you sort of blue
screen of death yourself for a bit.
>> Cold temperatures will do that.
>> That's that's why we can freeze
biological tissue and then boot it back
up because it just stops all that
because it's actually the
thermodynamics. It's the uh the kinetic
energy of the proteins. It's random. the
proteins are just bouncing around in the
cell and they randomly will bump into
stuff and do stuff. It's amazing to
think about like like there's no way
that you could think that that you can
realize that and not think that the
universe is a simulation, you know? It's
just like it's it's literally just
chaotic ensembles of molecules that
randomly do these incredible things that
we look at and we're like, I can move my
fingers. Like, it's the craziest [ __ ]
>> But it's the same as when you realize
that most of matter is empty space, but
if I do this, my hand doesn't pass
through the table. [ __ ] awesome,
>> right? And the fact that it's all
quantum anyway, which means that it
could tunnel through anything at any
point in time. I'm
>> still waiting for that to happen.
>> Well, here's another [ __ ] up um thing
to think about.
>> You've heard of like quantum
entanglement. So, you know, you can
entangle two particles and move them
apart, change the state of one, and the
other one will change instantaneously
>> on the other side of the universe.
Theoretically,
>> there's reasons to believe that it might
be the case that every particle of a
particular type is entangled with every
other particle.
And I'll just let that settle for a
second because if that were true then
you could theoretically every particle
every time any particle changes anywhere
in the universe it's affecting every
other particle in the universe.
>> It's kind of like a pansychism but for
connectivity like a membrane that
everybody is a part of. Or it might be
the case that progression in the
universe is actually like a think about
a quantum state that's changing and then
space and time are a manifestation of
that change
>> because
>> that's why entropy ex that's why there
is a progression in one direction
>> and it might just be that you know
because because space and time are
defined by the relationship between
particles and it may be the case that if
all the particles are entangled that
there's just this one thing that just
changes and then all of space And time
is a feature.
>> It's like a universal clock.
>> Yeah. It's it's a whole another way of
thinking about our plates in the
universe. How do we get here? We were
talking about
>> where's your line?
>> Is there a line that you have from uh
GMO people to uh IVF shouldn't happen?
Do you have a do you have an ethical
line for that?
>> Yeah. Um I definitely think that we can
be very defined around the crisper stuff
where we can turn we can change a gene
to make someone healthier or enhanced.
And I actually I don't have a
philosophical disagreement with giving
someone the ability to not just like
turn off disease, but to say, "Hey, I
want this person to have the trait that
they did they didn't randomly get from
me or like inherit."
>> I think that's that's fine.
>> How do you stop people? I mean, no. But
by the way, I'll say there's like
there's a whole bunch of therapeutic
treatments that we're doing now that are
doing what I described in that final
stage with an adult human
>> like fostin stuff,
>> right?
>> I was in uh uh Prospera with the guys
when Brian Johnson got that,
>> right? And so you could take that is a
gene that makes a protein that you're,
you know, you could theoretically use
mRNA to do it, but it but it's
shortlived. And you could put a plasmid,
a gene, and put it in your body and it
will make a protein that gives you
strength.
>> Yeah. or whatever it is.
>> But that is like nursery school. Go to
like university, PhD level. And what
we're learning about all the interaction
between all the proteins is we could
come up with a set of genes that if I
put them into you, they will make you
100 times smarter.
Would you get that that shot?
>> I would.
>> Right.
>> I'm choosing for me. I think what
becomes interesting is when parents are
choosing for their kids.
>> I think that's right.
>> I think that's the right com that's the
right philosophical framing.
>> Yeah. Yeah. that look if you've got this
technology and it's available to be
elected in the same way as we don't let
people get tattoos before they're 18
whatever then all right you so for me
currently uh Johnny from Herasite uh who
again I can't [ __ ] shout out enough
he's so good at communicating this stuff
and Herasite rules um that line up to
embryo selection so I'm happy I I see no
philosophical issue with uh choosing
from the harvest that you've already
done. IVF's already been and gone.
Perhaps that's a bit of anchoring bias
for me that I might have thought twice
about what IVF meant had I been born 100
years ago. But
>> right,
>> it's here and I I I can't go back. I
can't cognitively take myself out of it.
I think up to the point where here's
your 15. Pick from your 15. We're
already eyeballing it. That seems to
compel me in the direction that this is
already being done. When it gets to
>> we're going to choose from the genes
that you could have had,
>> then when it gets to we're going to
change them. And then when it gets to
we're going to create them that I'm as
yet morally unconvinced. So you can you
can pick but you can't change yet. And I
think that's probably where we are
today. And maybe we're maybe you're a
little more progressive like than most
people. I would say I think most people
would still object to that. I think the
Overton window changes when if if the
the the solution I offered you where I
give you a shot that puts a plasmid
which is a gene in your body or
integrates that plasmid into your cells
cuz I do think that's ultimately where
that age reversal stuff is going to come
from. I think we're going to end up
putting a series of genes
>> in plasmids into our body. They're going
to go into our cells and they're going
to self-regulate those cells to make
them live forever. Mhm.
>> Um when we end up doing that as a
mainstay and everyone's getting that
shot and everyone's living forever and
that becomes kind of a thing that
everyone's like, "Yeah, of course we're
boosting our lifespan with these genes.
Like this totally makes sense." That's
when people say, "Well, if we're doing
it to ourselves and we're all doing it,
like why don't we just do it to every
embryo
and that's when people will start to and
that that's probably many decades from
now." But I think that's where you can
start to think about how the Overton
window shifts at what point when it
becomes less about this like that is
crazy because if everyone's doing it as
an adult and it's totally safe and
normal and it extends lifespan then
>> bring it back down to doing it for the
children. Uh yeah, I get the sense that
any ickiness that people have around
embryo selection specifically for
positive traits, everybody's already
pretty much on board with embryo
selection against negative traits,
right? Huntingtons, etc. the Ashkanazi
community are already like very deep in
this because of their genetic profile.
>> I think very quickly all of the people
who either are blank slatists, deny
behavioral genetics, don't think
heritability is a thing, think that
embryo selection for IQ is just
rebranded eugenics, all of those people
typically quite well educated, uh
probably quite liberal and left-leaning,
uh they care about the outcomes that
their kids get. And if these slightly
more right of center [ __ ] hicks that
have managed to cobble 15 grand together
to get their IVF done and then a little
bit more to get herit or somebody else
to to to do their their their um
profiling if their kids are out
stripping theirs in school and in sports
because well the imu their immune
function was the best of the ones that
were available and there's lowered rates
of autism or there's lowered rates of
ADD or there's lowest rates of
depression they've got a happier more
flourishing life. Uh, I think very
quickly parents are going to look at it
and go, "Well, why did I read all of
those parenting books? Why did I work so
hard to try and give my kids the best
future that I could?" And I'm now
leaving behind the Jeffrey Miller said
this [ __ ] great quote. It's like
every single parenting book on the
planet could be replaced with the power
of one behavioral genetics book that
your kids are made up of the raw
materials of the person that you make
them with.
That is infinitely not infinitely sorry
that would be incorrect. 50% of
everything you are on average is
genetically inherited including your
psychological profile and for physical
traits significantly more. Like very
unlikely you're going to be born black
with two white parents. Um therefore if
you just understand the behavioral
genetics of the situation I think that
lots of people are going to get on
board.
>> Yeah that's right. And as soon as it
becomes a competitive uh game, this race
to the top, not race to the bottom, is
going to happen and people are going to
go, well, now the thing that's
interesting I think is cool, two
wrinkles that I spoke to Johnny about
the last time we sat down. First one is
basically buyers remorse from parents.
This sense that because I was so
consciously involved in the decision to
choose this child if any negative
outcomes occur because of that kid, I
think that there's the potential for
parents to blame themselves or for the
kid to blame the parents if they were to
find out. And the second one that I
think is kind of interesting is parents
are likely to
regress or converge on a small bucket of
traits that they think would be optimal
to give their kid. But Spencer Greenberg
did this fantastic study, huge big
study. IQ is not it is moderately
negatively correlated with life
satisfaction. Higher IQ, lower life
satisfaction. And you have to assume
people with higher IQs are less likely
to go to jail, less likely to be
addicted, less likely to be homeless,
more likely to get married, more likely
to complete a high-powered degree. Um,
okay. So, all of those things would
increase life satisfaction. So, the
impact of IQ on life satisfaction is so
negative that it offsets the objective
life improvements that you get from
being smarter.
>> Right? So
which parent if you look at this
dashboard all of the things being equal
is not going to choose the smarter kid.
>> Now if you had the option to boost the
the kids IQ by 200 because the world is
different with super intelligence. So if
you have digital super intelligence in
the world it's a very different world
than we live in today. It's not just
competing with each other. It's about
finding a place in the world with the
super intelligence and we're all going
back and forth to Mars and traveling the
universe and figuring out quantum shifts
in the universe and like all the the
things that I think are pioneering in
the next century. Um
that becomes a different and more
important framing at that point cuz you
don't want to end up being one of the
people or you don't want your kids to be
disadvantaged in a world where there's
this pervasive super intelligence that
everyone's using and accessing and
turning on and turning off as they need
it. to do the things they want to do in
the world. And that's the right way to
think about super intelligence. It's not
controlling us. It's how do we use it?
>> And you have to have a degree of control
over knowing where do you want to go
with it? What do you want to do with it?
And I think that's why there's this idea
that maybe people start to think more
about how do we adapt in a world of
super intelligence as a species? What is
our role? Because there's a
philosophical argument to be made that
humans are dying down making way for the
AI. Like,
>> yeah, we're just boot loaders,
>> right?
>> Fleshy boot loaders for the silicon.
>> And I don't like that idea.
>> Oh, so you want to compete?
>> I want to use I want the AI to be a
rocket boost for me and everyone else.
And I want everyone to have a rocket.
>> And I think that's what it does is it's
not like a world where I'm competing
with the super intelligence. It's like,
dude, you're my rocket. I can't do what
a rocket can do. I'm a human with two
legs. I can't propel in, you know, into
space. I need the rocket and similarly,
I need the super intelligence to do the
crazy next [ __ ] that I want to do.
>> We'll get back to talking in just one
second, but first, tell me if this
sounds familiar. You train regularly,
you eat reasonably well, maybe you even
supplement, you feel fine, but you're
just kind of going off vibes. Most
people have absolutely no idea what's
going on inside of their body, which is
why I partnered with Function. function
gives you access to more than 160
advanced lab tests spanning hormones,
heart health, metabolic markers,
inflammation, thyroid, nutrients, liver,
and kidney function. It even detects
early signals linked to more than 50
types of cancer. To put that in
perspective, your typical annual
physical might test about 20 markers and
function runs over 160. And this isn't
just numbers dumped into your inbox.
Every result is reviewed by clinicians.
Abnormal markers get flagged and you get
clear explanations and a personalized
protocol with actionable next steps so
you can actually do something about what
you learned. Best of all, you test twice
a year and everything lives in a simple
dashboard. You can just track trends
over time, make sure that you're moving
in the right direction. Normally, this
level of testing would cost thousands
through private clinics. With function,
it is $365
a year. That's $1 a day to know what's
actually happening inside of your body.
And right now you can get $25 off,
bringing it down to $340. Get the exact
same blood panels that I get and save
that additional $25 by going to the link
in the description below by heading to
functionhealth.com/modernwisdom
and using the code modernwisdom at
checkout. That's
functionhealth.com/modernwisdom
and modernwisdom a checkout. What are
you doing with plants? I've heard that
you're spending a lot of time working
with seeds. Yeah, I run a company. My
day job, which uh most people uh that I
talk to recognize me from my uh this is
like a pill. Is that what this is?
>> No. Uh toothpicks. So, we managed to
find a company that
uh embed flavor and uh supplements into
the wood of toothpicks. So, try try try
what's this?
>> Maybe I'll take it with me and try it
later. But um
>> just take that one, put it in your
pocket. It's really cool. Just a
>> Wait, what is the neutropic? Uh, so
Cognizin, there's a 15 milligram dose of
Cognizin in there. Uh,
>> in one toothpick.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, my brother would do this. Here,
>> and uh,
>> lovely [ __ ]
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Do it in 15 minutes.
>> And, uh, there's a little like 15
milligs of caffeine. 50 milligrams of
uh,
>> he'll try anything. He's like my guinea
pig now.
>> We're [ __ ] about with every delivery
mechanism on the planet for these at the
moment. So, obviously, Zins went went
absolutely crazy over the last couple of
years.
>> Is that your nicotine?
>> No. So, this is just the same again.
It's more cognizant cytooline. same
thing that you get in similar to the
choline that you get in eggs and uh we
just decided that we would go for
pouches the same as Zen. So uh
degenerate delivery mechanism but um
much better for you. So awesome. That's
what I'm playing with at the moment.
>> Is it doing well?
>> It's [ __ ] crushing. Yeah, we just
raised for Newtonic. We just raised on
60 mil. We're in uh going into HB. We're
in Vitamin Shop GNC, Sainsbury's,
Morrison's Daily around the UK. Uh we're
just launching in Australia. And then
we've got these RTDs. It's a smarter
energy drink.
the last time that we sat down at
Southby, we were talking about sort of
how people are launching
>> and that was like my thing was like I
think everyone you know we launched a
tequila brand for all in
>> which is great but you know it tequila
>> it's tequila but um I think that's the
whole thing is like you can own your own
brand you can own your own equity.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, look, I I'm very much
a lifestyle maxi, not a profit maxi. Um,
but given that this didn't exist, uh,
it's cool to have the ability and the
contacts and the time and the resources
to be able to make something that you
want.
>> Yeah, it's awesome.
>> This podcast, the podcast, the reason
Modern Wisdom exists is because there
was nobody having
>> a conversation that was basically
>> less [ __ ] than comedy, but more
[ __ ] than Tim Ferrris, right? And um
it sort of sat in this nice middle
ground like I really wanted to speak to
people a lot about psychology, a lot
about human nature and uh it wasn't it.
So I decided to do it and then a
thousand episodes later we're here. The
honestly the best you must have found
this the best businesses to get into if
you can. I'm sure that when you get to
your level that it's difficult to always
design something for yourself. But the
best businesses to get into is designing
something that's a gap in the market
that you yourself would use.
>> Uh especially when you're at the sort of
>> level that that I'm at. So yeah. Anyway,
you are obviously a burgeoning farmer.
Um, hoing the grounding, milling the
tilling the the fields.
>> I do have a kitchen garden, although it
does need to get updated.
>> Um, so my day job is running a company
called Oh, and what we do at Oh
meiosis and plants. Okay. What does that
mean?
>> That's very sexy.
>> Yeah, that's it. So that's the pitch I
give at the bar. Um, and uh, you know, I
usually get the blank stare and then I
uh,
>> walk. Yeah. So, all the cells in our
body, we talked about this earlier, are
made through a process called mitosis,
which copies over the whole all the DNA
in your cell. Your DNA is actually
packaged up into chromosomes. And
there's two sets of chromosomes side by
side in your cell. So, those two sets of
chromosomes get copied over every time
you're you make a new cell in your body,
except for sperm and eggs. So when you
make sperm or eggs, you only copy one
chromosome, one set of chromosomes. And
it's not just a selection of one of the
sets. What happens is the two sets of
chromosomes fuse. And they fuse at
random places. So you get a random half
of one chromosome, a random half of the
other chromosome. And that's why every
sperm, which has just one set of
chromosomes, is genetically different.
Every one is unique. And every egg in a
female is unique. They're all
genetically different because that
fusion event, which is called meiosis,
fuses the two chromosomes down to one.
>> And then a sperm and an egg come
together and you end up back with two
and that's the new offspring. And every
offspring looks a little bit different
because every sperm is different and
every egg is different. That's why kids
all look different even though they come
from the same two parents.
>> So they get half the genes from the
mother, half the genes from the father
and it's a random half from the mother,
random half from the father. And meiosis
drives that evolutionary process. that
random selection is what is evol. It's
the source of evolution
>> by turning off and and and this is
fundamentally a challenge for farming.
Number one, because most crops, people
don't realize this, you can't plant
seed. When farmers plant seed in the
ground, the reason they use seed is
because they're going to get the the
same genetics in the field. You want all
the corn to grow at the same time so you
can harvest it all at the same time.
It's all going to look the same. You can
sell it all to the same person and it's
the same crop. You don't want to harvest
a bunch of tomatoes where some are
green, some are yellow, some are red,
they're all different sizes. How are you
going to market that? That's not
marketable. So, the seed industry came
about about 100 years ago when this guy
figured out that you could actually
inbreed plants and um when you inbreed a
plant, so a plant has both male and
female parts. Unlike animals, most
plants will make sperm and egg. You can
pollinate itself. And if you do that for
seven generations, both chromosomes end
up identical because remember the two
chromosomes
have the same genes. But if the genes
are different, you have different alals.
And if the genes are the same, it's
called homozygous. They're the same
alals.
>> So if both chromosomes end up being
identical and you make sperm, it doesn't
matter where the fusion happens. Every
sperm will look the same. It'll because
they're they're the exact same two
chromosomes. Same with egg. So
inbreeding is what was developed about
100 years ago where they inbred plants
seven generations took the inbredads
crossed them and now every seed is
identical. That's how they make
identical seed in corn, in tomato, in
cotton, in canola, in sorghum. And
farmers went to a seed company and they
started buying seed for the first time
ever. And they put that seed in the
ground and they could grow a crop. And
every year, the other thing it does is
it allows you to improve the yield every
year because the plant breeder would try
and make the two chromosomes from the
two backgrounds different. The more
different they are, the more
complimentary they are. The more
different genes you're putting in that
plant, the higher the yield, the faster
the plant grows. Plants are really
interesting because they're kind of like
looking for tools in a tool belt. Like,
how many tools do I have? How many
different genes do I have that I can use
any second of any day to keep growing?
Humans and animals, we just grow like
two arms, five fingers, two eyes, two
legs, and we're done growing. And then
our job is to go out and find food and
survive. Plants, their job is to keep
growing. They grow roots. They grow
branches. They grow leaves. The sun's
over there. I'm going to grow a branch
towards the sun. I'm going to make more
leaves. Oh, the water's down there. I'm
going to grow a root down there. And
they just keep growing and growing,
growing until they die. So plants are
always looking for more genes in the
toolbox that they can use to grow. So by
turning off meiosis, we can take plants
that don't have seed today, put two of
them together, and all the seed will now
be the same because every sperm is the
same, every egg is the same. Because by
turning off meiosis, both chromosomes go
into the sperm. both chromosomes go into
the egg and now the offspring has four
chromosomes instead of two.
>> That might sound crazy but many many
plants have four chromosome versions.
It's called polyploloy polyloid many
versions of the the chromosome. And uh
some like modern wheat is hexaploid. It
has six chromosomes. Modern strawberry
is octoploid. It has eight chromosomes.
U modern potato is tetroploid. It has
four chromosomes. So many modern kind of
crops have multiple copies of the
chromosome and you can't make seed in
those crops and so you end up taking the
plant chopping it up and replanting it
and that's what they do. So by making
seed, it actually saves farmers the
majority of their expense, which they
have to spend money chopping up all the
old plants, putting them back in the
ground, and it allows us to make better
plants every generation because we can
make better selections on the ones that
are complimentary to each other,
increasing the genetic diversity in the
crop, increasing disease resilience,
drought resistance,
um climate change adaptation, all the
things that drive yield and make the
farmers more profitable, make more food
per acre, all these sorts of things. And
then every year instead of having like
in the US we're farming Russet Burbank.
We've been farming Russ Burbank for 150
years we can now bring new potatoes to
market every year that are getting
better and healthier, more nutritious,
more adapted to climate change, making
the farmer more money. And so you can
kind of and the farmer instead of using
5,000 pounds of chopped up potatoes and
like Matt Gaiman did and putting them in
the ground, he can use 10 gram of seed
that fits in the palm of your hand.
>> Wow.
>> So it cuts down on his expenses like
crazy. he makes more money and we make
more food. So that's the business I run.
And so, you know, we figured out a way
to turn off meiosis and do this. And
then we've also developed a lot of other
technology to make plant breeding more
efficient, to increase the rate of yield
gain, to increase the adaptation to the
climate, to increase all of these things
that are going on in agriculture that
make it very hard to farm.
>> Can you make it so that you need less
fertilizer?
>> Yeah, absolutely. So, nitrogen
utilization is a kind of good phenotype
to think about. Um, so you can kind of,
you know, cuz you got to apply nitrogen
to grow most crops. Um, and then there's
also work now on which we don't do
today, but there's some work that's
being done. Some crops like soybeans and
legumes, they actually can suck nitrogen
out of the atmosphere and you don't need
fertilizer. And um, it actually
refertilizes the soil from the air and
so there's ways to kind of integrate
that into crops that don't have that. So
there's a whole bunch of that sort of
technology that's going on as well.
>> Wow, that is cool. what what's happening
with this California flight stuff
because I was with Palmer over Christmas
and a bunch of other guys. Yeah. From
that side. And um
>> I didn't know about it. I knew that it
was going to be brought in before the
end of the year. It's this sort of
sticky thing that seems to be following
people around, but it's also going to
get worse over time. It seems like
there's more and more rumblings that
stuff's going to keep on. This feels
like the sort of core engine of
California's prosperity since the 1800s
is now unraveling.
>> Yeah. Uh I'm in a bunch of group chats.
I talked to a lot of people. I would say
probably a third of people I talked to
have already left. Uh you're asking
about people leaving, right? And I would
say um like a survey we did informally
in a group which has been published uh
talked about is close to 87% of people
are going to leave. Um these are the
core leaders in tech. And the other
thing is I talked to a lot of emerging
tech CEOs of startups that are doing
really well that are growing
>> and they're all looking to leave. Like
there was one company I was talking to
they're going to move up to Northern
California from Southern and they're
like now I'm going to move to Nevada.
And that's because they're worried about
what's next. So California is in this
fundamental like sinkhole right now. Um
it goes back to my point about people
making promises. In order to get
elected, politicians promise people
something that they don't have today.
That's how you get elected.
>> You don't get elected by saying I'm
going to take stuff away from you. The
government's going to do less for you.
Show me one politician in the last 100
years has been elected saying that.
So in order and and the there's a
fundamental kind of like moment this
come to Jesus moment. Can you keep doing
these promises? Can you even meet the
promises you've already made? And in
California the answer is no.
California set up a system um where we
created the highest tax rate in the
country because of all the success in
Silicon Valley, all the income that's
being generated, all the success and
capital gains and whatnot and use that
to fund a bunch of nonsense. the the
bullet train to nowhere, you know,
freaking like $30 billion in nothing.
Like the
>> How much is it?
>> 30 billion. Um and they've had six CEOs,
by the way, that have all been fired or
the one guy just got arrested. It's
insane. There's um it was just published
that this this homeless program, $220
million are spent on it. Six homeless
people got themselves out of the cycle
of uh poverty that they were in. Um you
go down the list. What was it? Sorry,
just what was that thing about the
affordable internet?
>> Oh, Bill,
>> rural broadband.
>> That was it. And for the same amount of
money that was spent, I think every
American citizen could have got
Starlink.
>> Yeah, that and that one. That's a
federal problem. I don't
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But
>> you're going to get me very emotional.
I've been I've been very like you seem
like an emotional
>> I've been very like unemotional during
our uh talk about science in the future.
And then this is the opposite. Okay.
This is the [ __ ] the opposite that
happens when social systems become
manifest like um rotten. It's a system
where people lie to each other in order
to keep themselves in power, in order to
keep their money flowing, in order to
keep this nonsense up and running.
People lie to themselves. They lie to
their constituents and the democracy
starts to become like what's the point?
Like does this even work? California in
particular
um we made a bunch of uh changes to the
pension system. So, we have public
pensions for public employees in
California. And over the past um uh 12
to 15 years, um those changes have
resulted in a bunch of guarantees to
people on their future retirement
benefits that the state simply cannot
afford to meet.
>> The estimate currently is that there's
600 billion to a trillion dollars in the
hole. Okay. The state then has a
question. And how are we going to like
pay for all these people all the stuff
that we promised them? And that's a big
part of and then there's also all the
near-term stuff like healthare cost.
Hey, we promised them healthare. We
promised our union workers healthare.
We've got to figure out a way to fund
the healthcare because the promises were
made. But the promises were never
funded. The promises were never possible
to be funded. And then suddenly it all
comes to roost and everyone's like,
"Well, how are we going to make the
payments now? How are we going to fill
the hole?" That's the situation
California is in. California has such a
heaping liability problem that it's now
you're seeing like all the rats jumping,
you know, off the ship or they're
burning the ship or the people are
leaving the ship. I don't know what the
right analogy to use is, but that's the
chaos that's ensuing in California in
this very moment. And that's and and so
we talk a lot about the billionaire tax.
The billionaire tax came about because
of one union, one guy at one union
called SEIU uhw who set up a a scheme
where they would tax you 5% of your net
worth if your net worth is over a
billion dollars, which everyone in this
audience is like, who cares? Screw the
billionaires. But what it does is it
gives the state assembly, the
legislature, the ability to in the
future change the threshold and the
amount.
>> So theoretically, you could take the 5%
on billionaires one time and make it 1%
on billionaires every year. Wasn't this
the case with the original income tax?
>> 1930
it was 1%.
>> Tell people the story of how the
original income tax
>> I mean the original income tax was
pitched because we did not have an
income tax in the United States and that
was again why this country was founded.
It was set up as we no taxation without
representation. There was a huge tax
scheme to fund all of the you know
nonsense that was going on in England.
Uh
>> careful careful now. I mean at the time
very different um not to speak to the
people but the uh let's call it the
aristocracy and uh you know what we call
the elites today and by the way the I
think about the term the elites is sort
of like that Spider-Man meme where like
everyone's you're the elite you're the
elite you're the elite like the tech
guys the elite like that's kind of the
moment we're in right now it's like the
tech guys are the elites but like the
tech guys last year were telling they
were calling out the NOS's as the elites
and then the you know it's just like
everyone's an elite
>> your privilege is more privileged than
my privilege.
>> Yeah. This is all rooted in Marxist
philosophies by the way. It's all this
like oppressor oppressed stuff. Like
again all of those philosophies
fundamentally uh distinguish people's
agency. Like this is so critical for
people to understand. When you give
people a bunch of stuff or you create a
governmental system or economic system
that says you do X, you get Y, you're a
slave to that system. You are now
oppressed no matter what anyone tells
you. You are not getting risen up and
you're not and pulling other people down
doesn't solve any of your problems.
another conversation for another day.
But in California, so we started out as
a one. So they they the way they started
the income tax in the United States was
they're like, "Hey, we'll promise
everyone 1% on high on incomes over
whatever it was at the time. I think
$10,000 a year. You can probably look it
up." And that was it. And then over time
it's like, wait, we had to fund a war.
So we and and now we're like going to
expand the highway system.
>> So the original the original income tax
was 1%
>> 1% on high net worth people on high
earning people and that's it.
>> Jared Chad this and uh find out what how
the income tax progressed over time. I
want to see this,
>> right? And you can look at this. And so
then it became like suddenly today
everyone pays an income tax. In
California I pay 53% income tax and you
know most people pay an income tax
that's and now they're like creating a
whole new tax regime. And I want to talk
about this importantly what they're
trying to do in California. Here you go.
It was a temporary wartime tax. And you
know again leading up to this we had
tariffs to fund the government. The
government was small. Like the
government wasn't meant to be this big
system that took care of everyone and
did all this stuff.
>> Keep going. coming coming out of World
War II. And here's the the income tax
started out as 1% on income over $3,000
a year.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> And um and then there was like a
progression. They added a 7% top rate
later. And then you can kind of see here
when the thing kind of expanded.
>> Oh wow. 1944 to 1945 in World War II,
the top rate was 94%.
>> Yeah. They took everyone's money to fund
the war. But but that set a precedent
because what happened at that point is
after they set the precedent and then we
had this kind of FDR kind of New Deal,
expansionism, all the stuff that
happened post World War II in the United
States was like, "Holy crap, we can get
the government to do big stuff.
>> Let's do big stuff to make our lives
better." That you can see that that
sound principle like it makes sense. It
sounds good in principle. But this is
where it leads us to today. Because
every year once you start thinking about
the government as solving your problems
and doing things for you, that becomes
something that only escalates up. It
never goes down.
>> Thing about if 51% can vote themselves
what the 49.
>> So this is the next thing that happens.
So now so so that's income.
Let's say you've paid your income tax
and you own a bunch of stuff. That's now
your private property. You own this
stuff. That's yours. So now comes along
the government or this new bill, the
Billionaire Tax Act in California. And
for the first time ever in the United
States, we're trying to create a wealth
tax. It doesn't matter that it's
billionaires and doesn't matter that
it's one time or 5%. What you're saying
is that the stuff that you've already
paid taxes on that you now own that's in
your backyard, all your iron ore that
you've stored in the backyard. Correct.
Yeah. Or your cool, you know, podcast
studio. You own these things. You've
paid taxes. You've earned your money and
you bought this stuff. But now the
government can come in and say, you know
what, we want that lamp. We want half
your iron ore. We're going to take all
your private property, right? Your iron
ore. They're going to get all your
private property. That's what a wealth
tax does is it taxes people on post tax
earnings. It takes away private
property. If you give the government the
ability to do that on even 1% of net
worth for billionaires,
>> the next step is 5% of the billionaires
or maybe 2% of millionaires. And then
maybe it's 3% on people making that have
a net worth of 100 grand a year. And by
the way, to figure out how much you
have, what your assets are, you got to
send me a list every year of everything
you own. So now the government gets to
look into your house, not just see
what's in your bank account, what stocks
you own, but what cars do you own? How
what's the value of those cars? How much
is that art worth? What's everything
here worth? Private property rights go
out the window when you institute a
wealth tax. Because now the government
has the right to assess all your value
and to take anything they want from you
based on a vote where a bunch of people
raise their hand and say, "We'll
increase the tax rate to this 5%, 2%,
10%, whatever it is, and here's the
threshold and we'll take it every year."
And when you do that,
it eventually leads to 51% of people
voting to take everything from 49%.
That's that's the worst case. Like
that's the end state of this is it eats
itself. And that's socialism. And so I
think that a wealth tax and I look I
it's not going to affect me this
California tax. So like don't think that
I'm trying to like speak my book or
whatever the comments or bullshits are.
I think this is a fundamental principled
issue that by degrading private property
rights, we are setting a precedent in
the United States, that is the
foundation of why the United States was
set up in the first place, which is for
all of us that came to this country to
get away from tyrannical governments
outside the United States that took all
our [ __ ] and controlled everything and
told us what to do all the time. And we
came here, we get to have private
property. Sure, I'll pay my tax. Here's
my 53%. Thank you very much, government,
for all the great stuff you do, for all
the services you provide. But like, [ __ ]
off.
>> Now, [ __ ] off and leave me alone. And
that's not the case anymore when this
passes. Bernie Sanders, Ro Conor, all
these national politicians, AOC,
Elizabeth Warren, they're all saying we
need to have a national wealth tax now.
So it's not just in California.
>> This is going to be the issue between
2026 and 2028. The elites are the
billionaires and the tech people.
They're coming after them. And the
manifestation of that is to create this
wealth tax. And that gives the
government the system by which private
property rights are gone. and the United
States is a very questionable future at
that point. That's the thing I worry
about the most. And and I juxtapose that
with my optimism about the future and
this amazing [ __ ] Like I mean, think
about it. Like this amazing [ __ ] that's
happening in the world. We're going to
have free [ __ ] energy. We're going to
live forever. We're going to have all of
this insane stuff that we never
imagined. Abundance and resources that
we could never contemplate. Happiness,
spending time with family, working less
hours, robots that build [ __ ] for us.
everything is gonna get better.
Everything is getting better. Everything
is getting more amazing. And then we're
like, let's [ __ ] ourselves. Like,
>> why not? Because we'll just [ __ ]
ourselves.
>> That's that. And you know, this is this
principle of like I I I don't like using
the term good verse evil, but it's like
are you thinking about the future
optimistically or pessimistically?
>> If you're thinking about the future as
these are control system, this is these
these tech guys are crazy, this is
dystopian, blah blah blah. the number
one most unfavorable thing in the United
States right now according to a recent
poll is AI. More unfavorable than Donald
Trump, more unfavorable than uh
everything. It's the most unfavorable
thing because it is this like this
narrative that everyone's been
instituted in their minds that like this
is the thing that destroys us yada yada.
And that's the choice we have. That's
the choice we have right now is do we
want to walk this path of abundance or
do we want to lock ourselves up? And I
will say the counterbalancing force and
people won't like hearing this but the
counterbalancing force in the world will
be a place like China because if the
United States walks this path other
countries will not walk this path and it
will glean the benefits therein
>> and we have to recognize that and then
you have to ask the question wait a
second is there some psychosocial
motivation that others might have to see
this happen in the United States
>> and I would argue Maybe maybe there's
influence happening. Maybe there's a
reason why people are spending so much
time why so much foreign money is going
into NOS's that are supporting these
sorts of causes. I I just like for me
it's so hard to gro why people would be
so um
you know quick and and look I
>> ardent.
>> Yeah. There's some there's something
anyway I I don't want to be too
conspiratorial because that discredits a
lot of this [ __ ] Look,
>> I think that you could look at the
conspiratorial angle, but just straight
incentives for I want to be seen to be
standing up for the little person when
we saw how far that pushed a lot of
social movements over the last six,
seven years. And that got people to do
some pretty insane things that I think
in retrospect a lot of them regret. And
uh that was I am here for the righteous.
This is dangerous. This is too much.
This is xenophobic, misogynistic,
misinformation, disinformation,
malinformation, unedical, unethical,
unmedical.
>> There's a big list of things. And and
because everybody is their opinions, not
their deeds, right? The difference
between our opinions and our deeds has
never been greater. You're able to say
good whilst doing bad. This was Elon's
thing. I remember four or five years
ago, he was pulled up about what he was
doing with Tesla and about his
presentation things. He says, "What I
care about is doing good, not the
appearance of it. There are many people
out there who are doing bad whilst
appearing good, and I don't care to be
one of them."
>> That's right. And the people that are
trying to lead on this have three homes.
You know, it's very easy to pull the
ladder up.
>> Would they not think would would they
not be looking at themselves? Oh, I
suppose that at least at the moment when
they're pointing at the billionaires
that are above,
>> right,
>> they're in this sort of interesting
middle ground, which is wealthy enough
to be wealthy, but not so wealthy as the
tax. You know, if you go to Africa and
you go visit farmers, you think those
guys are complaining about using GMO
seed and farming if it's going to double
their their income. Their lives changed.
You know, there's all these stories
about how technologies, nuclear energy,
dropping the cost of energy, making it
proliferant in India been a game
changer. Like these technologies that we
shun in the west are luxury beliefs for
us to shun them. We have these ideas
that we can just shun stuff because
we're we we we are already well enough
off. That's what happened in Germany.
And Bernie Sanders has three homes. So
it's easy for him to tell people, hey,
the average person has one, you know,
has an apartment. We should go down this
path that fundamentally in every record
of history that we've tried to go down
this path, has [ __ ] everyone up. It is
the worst idea that humans have ever
come up with and they keep trying to
repeat it. You can only look at
Argentina, which is like gotten out of
the [ __ ] like yesterday, to see how bad
of a problem this leads to. Socialism is
the worst idea ever.
>> Why did Mandani get into New York then?
>> People want more. They're not People are
left behind. We look this is this is so
important I think to recap.
We promised people that if they went to
college you would get a good career and
you could buy a home and that turned out
to not be true. That was a lie.
The way we promised it to them and the
way we gave everyone access to college
is through federal education grants
loans. The federal student loan program
didn't have a market check. The federal
government, as long as you were an
accredited university, you could run
Trump University, Phoenix University,
UCLA, Harvard, MIT, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what the tuition is,
$60,000. And it doesn't matter what the
degree is. You could get a degree in
basket weaving or a degree in computer
science. The government,
>> the government will loan you, right?
>> Um, the background for this should be
like a Minecraft
But the government will loan you money
to go to that college. And so the
government basically fueled increases in
tuition because why would all these
colleges suddenly go from costing 10
grand a year to 60 grand a year? It's
because they could just charge more and
there was no one to say no
>> cuz the government just funded the loans
every year and the students are like I
got a student loan. I'm good to go. Like
no one's doing the math on like can I
afford to pay 60 $240,000?
>> Is it true that you can't default on it
as well in the way
>> and you cannot default on it? And so
that was the setup. That's how it got
passed in Congress where the government
spends trillions of dollars underwriting
student loans. So there's no
underwriting process. Any college, any
degree, any individual, any price, those
four things, you could be a bad student.
I shouldn't underwrite your loan. You
could get a shitty degree. I shouldn't
underwrite your loan. You go to a shitty
school. I'm not underwriting your loan.
And if it costs a lot, I'm not
underwriting your loan. That's what
would normally happen. And that didn't
happen.
>> As a result,
>> if you privatized it.
>> If you privatized it. And as a result,
everyone got stuck with an education.
And then it's like, hey, the market's
not there. Rents are high and much of
the problem with rents being high and
all this other sort of stuff.
>> Home,
>> home building, government regulation,
government funding. The more the bigger
the government got, the more expensive
everything got. You can, you know, that
chart, can you pull up the chart with
like government stuff versus like
non-government stuff?
>> Yeah. just uh ask Chad um what is the
chart explaining government intervention
compared with the price of different
goods and services
>> over the last few years. It's it's a an
image.
>> This tells you everything you need to
know. This is why everything got worse
when moving to New York suddenly cost
$6,000 of rent. You couldn't get a job.
Food was $18 for a friaking sandwich. A
lot of this was rooted in this problem
which is the government got too big. So
the solution is I need someone to fix
that for me. And here's a guy who's
coming along saying he's going to make
everything free. The groceries are going
to be free. So all the stuff on the red,
everything above on the top section,
these are things that the government
fundamentally has a large role in paying
for in the economy.
>> So government dollars are flowing into
the cost of things. So the people
selling those things can basically
charge more. And they know they can
charge more because the government can
just fund it. And the government's an
endless pool of money printing. So it
just keeps printing and eventually
they're like, "Hey, let's raise taxes or
get the money to pay for the stuff once
they realize." But you know, all of
these things are services the
government's gotten involved in. College
education, health care through Medicare,
Medicaid, because there's no negotiation
on these programs. Everything below is
where the government doesn't have a
role. The cost of a car, the cost of
clothing, the cost of television, the
cost of internet, the cost of software.
These are all private industries where
the government is not funding the
purchase of these things for the
consumer in some way or distorting the
market in some way. So, you know,
>> you know who I first showed this chart
to? Tony Sanders.
>> What did he say? Did you have him on
this?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, you did?
>> Last year. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It
was
>> I should watch that.
>> It was It was interesting.
>> What did he say to this?
>> Uh, in fact, Jared, let's see if we can
pull it up. We should react to that. And
if you if you look at I I mean what's
frustrating to me is you can read
textbooks, you can go on the internet,
you can watch YouTube and you can see
exactly what happens with socialist
socialism and socialist policies around
the world. When the government runs a
grocery store, when the government
decides to, you know, offer everyone
healthare, it's great in principle. I
would love for that to work. I would
love for everyone to have healthcare.
I'm not opposed to that idea. But if
you're going to have like a government
with no accountability and there's no
one there that has any skin in the game
be responsible for giving me my
healthare, I know it's going to get
[ __ ] up. And I've seen that happen
time and time again around the world.
It's just not the right system. And I
think that there's much for us to kind
of learn from like why these things
haven't worked around the world. And
it's like we what frustrates me is
people are ignorant. They put their
blinders on. They don't want to see it.
And they just I I saw an interview with
a guy during the protest in LA. Um, and
the guy went on camera and he's like,
uh, you know, what are you here for? And
he's like, I'm here for socialism. We
need socialism in America. And the
interviewer is like, but you know,
socialism's never worked anywhere else
ever before. And he's like, well, that's
bad socialism. That's socialism that
doesn't work.
>> Like, I want good socialism. I want
socialism done the right way, and we're
going to do it the right way in America.
>> This is the story in every generation of
socialist movements that have happened
around the world. And they all start, by
the way, where you have this kind of
inept or explosive government system
that drives people to say, "I'm not
getting what I want and everything's
costing more. I need socialism."
>> And also, that's super sexy, right?
Because it allows you to be able to
promise something that people are going
to love. And what was that point around
it involves promising people something
that they don't?
>> I always used to say the kid the kid
that gets elected for middle school
president is the kid that promises to
make the vending machines free.
Everyone's got a story about this at
their school.
>> You know, there's always the kid who
said, "Hey guys, what I'm gonna promise
you is I'm gonna make the vending
machines free." And that's what we deal
with every day. So, here he is.
>> I want to show you a chart uh in a
second. So, this is that you with hair?
Yes, it's me with hair. Humor goods and
services over the last 25 years. Broadly
speaking, prices have increased by about
74% since 2000. But the actual numbers
vary wildly depending on what type of
good or service it is. So, consumer
goods, toys, TVs have got
>> housing got housing in there. Uh
consumer goods like toys and TVs have
gotten over 50% cheaper. TVs are nearly
100% cheaper. Yeah.
>> But critical categories like healthare,
education have skyrocketed by 200%.
Housing is in there too. One potential
interpretation is that the less
legislation that you apply to an
industry.
The more the free market is allowed to
take over, the cheaper the things
become. Even new cars haven't got that
much more expensive. So this is price
changes. And you can see as you
basically get to the top, there's more
legislation put in and down to the
bottom. What do you make of that?
>> I don't uh
Yeah, look to me when I look at the
economy, I look at what does a family
need to do well. Okay, let's just go
through what are the basic needs of
life.
>> All right, everybody, right? Rich, poor,
young, old needs healthcare. Correct. In
America, by the way, we probably spend
three times more per person on
healthcare than you do in the UK.
>> Do you think he um got trained as a
hypnotist?
Uh I look I was proud of uh me sitting
down with someone who's been in office
for nearly twice as long as I've been
alive. Um
and
grabbing him and not not letting go too
much without I think being too
canankerous. It was a real sort of
strategic learning uh experience for me.
Yeah. Um but yeah, look that's the game
that is played. There is a question that
gets asked and what is answered is what
I wanted to hear.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh and I I I think that it's very hard
to deny
the value and the importance of the
empathy. One of the things that the
other side gets wrong is the failure to
empathize.
>> Mhm.
>> He's extraordinary and so is AOC and so
are others at speaking to people that
are feeling desperate and in need. And
it is true that there are tens of
millions of people in the United States.
I think it's 63% of people are living
paycheck to paycheck
>> or living on less than 500 bucks of
total savings.
>> Yeah. That if there was one catastrophe
that they would need to go into debt for
it.
>> Um
but I'll go back to this point about I I
think that the more government you
create to help those people, I worry
that over time it hurts more than it
helps. Right. And this is where the
price of things go up and you can't
offer the same thing like, "Hey, I'm
going to offer you more and more every
year." By the way, I'll give you one
anecdote. In 2013 or 12, when they
passed the temporary tax cuts or sorry,
the temporary tax hikes in California,
they raised an incremental hundred
billion since then. California, I've
paid that like I'm a big big chunk of
that check, that money. Um, not a big
chunk, but I've done my part. And 80
billion of that went to increasing and
it was supposed to go to increasing
schools and like health care services.
80% of it went to increasing uh public
retirement benefits.
>> 80 billion.
>> And it you know you I can't sit here and
like bemoone public employees. I'm not
going to like say negative things about
public employees,
but the system whereby, you know,
there's a voter block that says, "Hey,
like we need to get more." And then the
system is created that doesn't actually
solve the problems that need to be
solved and the people that ask for more
get the benefit. I think it's very
inherent in democracy. Like over a
period of time, it you could argue that
democracy eats itself.
>> Yeah. Isn't it crazy that nobody ever
pulls these people up? Uh each cycle
false promises are made not kept. Bigger
promises need to be made in order to get
ahead of where the previous ones were.
The people who didn't deliver on the
promises previously don't get held to
account in the right way. It's kayfabe.
It's like WWE. By the way, you can look
at um
the uh food stamp program. If you type
in uh food stamp program spending per
year over time, watch what happened in
2019. Blow your mind. Um we can come
back to that one. But uh this is exactly
the problem today. I would argue I and
I' I've tried to do the math on this. If
you take the number of people that work
for the federal government, state
government or local government, city
government plus the number of people
that work for contractors.
>> Oh, hello.
>> Yeah. So here's the food stamp program
as an example. And so you could argue
like, hey, like people were it was a
crisis. We needed to increase spending.
So we drove up the food stamp program.
It's hundred billion dollars a year now.
um Snap program
>> doubled from 2010.
>> Yeah. And um roughly,
>> holy [ __ ] SNAP spending increased 60x
from 1969 to 2022 and it's a hundred
billion per year, roughly 1.4% of total
federal.
>> So 60 to 70% of people on the food stamp
program, which costs a h 100red billion
a year, 60 to 70% are obese, clinically
obese.
And
>> oh that are on the food stamp
>> that are on the food stamp program
>> and close to 20 billion of the hundred
billion a year is spent on soda.
>> [ __ ] hell.
>> Oh
>> 1/5th
>> oneif of the money is going to Coca-Cola
and
>> it starts like from a good place like
hey it's actually started during the
Great Depression. It was like
>> can we get new on Snap actually? That'd
be a great way to raise the valuation of
the company. That'd be [ __ ]
fantastic. Yeah, but it started as a um
you know an emergency program much like
the emergency 1% income tax. It started
as an emergency program to help uh
people during the Great Depression that
were actually starving.
>> And it was like let's give them bread,
give them milk, give them eggs, help
them survive.
>> What's that? Uh I think it's a
>> Oh, and sorry, I'll give you my
statistic today. Hey, if you add up
federal, state, local, government
employees plus all the contractors for
the government plus all the people that
live off of a retirement check or or a
welfare support check. So all the people
that are living off government checks,
it's about nearly half the US population
>> either working for or being supported by
>> Wow.
>> So we may be too far gone. That's kind
of where democracy is like everyone gets
and and now so now think about that
person if you're and I'm not saying that
person like if you're collecting a check
every month from the government you will
never vote to have that check go down
>> you're living on those checks so we're
now so this is how it maybe eats itself
a little bit right so you're now in a
system where like will people actually
want to say
>> so you ask why mom Donnie got elected
like I think that you reach a tipping
point where this becomes like a like a
like a wave and that's how socialism
you know, could manifest in this cycle.
I think 26 to 28 is going to be the big
cycle. And my money's on AOC being
president.
>> Why?
>> I think this is the the wave we're in.
And tech is AI is the boogeyman right
now, right? Like, so there's there's
also this like you always got to pick a
fear like the Japanese are coming, the
Russians are coming, climate change is
coming. There's always something, AI is
coming.
>> That's the fear
>> and it works.
Um and you know Bernie Sanders like
pounding the table saying data centers
need to be stopped. We got to stop all
data centers this week. So you know um I
think we have a choice. I still believe
in agency. I still believe everyone can
look in the mirror and look at the
situation and realize that more
government is not going to stop the
problem created by too much government.
And uh this this this is just such a
crazy juxtaposition while we're in this
exponential technology curve of and this
abundance curve that we're on.
>> Yeah. Do you feel a little bit like
there's a a schism going on between
what's happening in the real world and
the way that it's being perceived?
>> It's crazy. I mean like I I I think that
it's so sad that so many people are so
negative.
I think like people talk about Yes.
Certainly a lot of people can be
struggling,
but I think you know in in in the
midentury coming out of World War II, we
were so optimistic as a people. We were
so positive about tomorrow. All of our
conversations about tomorrow were all
about we're going to go to the moon.
We're all going to move around in, you
know, electric
trams. We're we're all going to have a
microwave in our kitchen. You know, I
always tell people the analogy uh if you
pull up uh um I'll do this for your
audience. If you pull up the Disney
History Institute YouTube channel and
there's an episode on Tomorrowland, when
they opened up Tomorrowland in 1955, it
was all about this optimism of tomorrow.
>> Mhm.
>> And it was like every ride was all about
tomorrow being incredible. It's like
we're all going to like go to the moon.
There was a ride called the rocket to
the moon. You go to the moon and back.
>> You move. And then they had a inside the
house of tomorrow
>> um where everyone had a microwave so you
could cook your dinner in 30 seconds. It
was like the future. And people were
like mind-b blown. That's so cool. And
you know, and then I think we kind of so
then in the video they say like in the
1970s they changed over every ride to
make it all about the fear of tomorrow.
It was like Star Tours was a robot that
like made the mistake. It's a navigator
robot and of course the navigator robot
has to screw up. So you veer off course
and nearly crash in an asteroid. The
they took out the rocket to the moon and
replaced it with Space Mountain which is
a rocket ship that veers off course and
spins violently through the galaxy.
Captain Eio was Michael Jackson coming
back to planet Earth and he's like,
"Hey, we're going to destroy the robots
that took over the Earth." And him and
his organic band destroy all the robots
>> apocalyptic.
>> And so like, you know, we we've kind of
gotten into this very pessimistic view.
And I think like you know um if we can
change people's aperture a bit and get
them to be pess optimistic instead of
pessimistic and see how promising
tomorrow is and not need to feel
sheltered and um you know taken care of
and fundamentally creating a burden to
these bigger social systems these
governmental type systems people um I
think might change their view. I'm
hopeful. That's why we're having this
conversation. But like that's the sort
of thing that I think we need to be
doing is like showing people all the
amazing [ __ ] that's happening and how
much it's going to benefit you and how
crazy awesome it is and like you're
going to be able to spend more time with
your kids. The cost of food's going
down. The cost of energy is going to go
down. Like we're all going to have
robots that can build stuff for us and
you're going to be able to spend more
time with your family. Like on and on
and on. Like housing needs to get cheap.
But like fighting against these things
is just so
um it's so crazy that we would you know
do that. Like you know there's this
whole story about Germany fought against
nuclear energy and then their energy
cost spiked and now they have to buy
natural gas from Russia and just put
carbon into the atmosphere which is what
they were trying to fight against in the
first place.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I uh I wonder whether people
being more hopeful would mean that they
would vote in a less fear-based way.
>> That's right. and uh that
anybody that's talking about hope if you
feel fearful sounds like they're
dismissive of the problems that you're
facing.
>> Yeah.
>> That seems like the dynamic that's going
on.
>> That's right. It's like I'm not
empathizing with your pain.
>> Yeah.
>> And if I and by the way, if I empathize
with your pain, we have to figure out an
enemy responsible for your pain.
>> Them.
>> Them. I think it was 2012 that uh votes
went from voting for the party you like
to voting against the party that you
don't.
>> Yeah. I mean, there's all these videos
now. I don't we don't need to pull these
up, but obviously like all the people
that were like, "We got to go attack
Iran. We got to attack Iran." And then
when Trump did it or we got to go get
Maduro, Trump does it, it's like, "Well,
Trump did it. We got to all be against
it." Like, I don't know what happened.
>> I saw the flip-flop with the vaccine.
>> Yeah. when it was Trump's vaccine or it
was Sanders's vaccine and each side was
like I'm f wait no I'm not and I don't
know when we got there there was a
flipping flipping that happened probably
around the time you're describing
>> the flipping
>> yeah when people went from like hey
there's a set of things we agree on and
a bunch of stuff we disagree on to like
anything that you do or say I disagree
with
>> and that's politics
>> regardless of whether it's good or bad
>> David Friedberent
Uh, you're great. I appreciate all the
work.
>> I appreciate it, bro. Thank you for
having me.
>> [ __ ] yeah. All right. Goodbye,
everybody.
>> Dude. Yes.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Good [ __ ]
>> So good. Have a good flight.