Category: Uncategorized

  • Ben Horowitz: What Founders Must Know About AI and Crypto

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 Today, we’re doing something a little different.
    0:00:05 We’re dropping an episode from Impact Theory,
    0:00:07 a show hosted by Tom Bilyeu,
    0:00:09 featuring a conversation with Ben Horowitz,
    0:00:11 co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz.
    0:00:13 Ben rarely does interviews like this,
    0:00:16 and in this one, he goes deep on AI, on power,
    0:00:18 on the future of work, and what it really means
    0:00:20 to be a human in a world of intelligent machines.
    0:00:24 He breaks down why AI is not life, not consciousness,
    0:00:25 but something else entirely.
    0:00:28 Why blockchain is critical to preserving trust and truth
    0:00:29 in the age of deepfakes.
    0:00:32 Why distribution may matter more than code,
    0:00:34 and why history tells us this isn’t the end of jobs,
    0:00:36 but the beginning of something new.
    0:00:37 Let’s get into it.
    0:00:42 This information is for educational purposes only
    0:00:45 and is not a recommendation to buy, hold, or sell
    0:00:47 any investment or financial product.
    0:00:49 This podcast has been produced by a third party
    0:00:51 and may include paid promotional advertisements,
    0:00:53 other company references, and individuals
    0:00:54 unaffiliated with A16Z.
    0:00:57 Such advertisements, companies, and individuals
    0:01:00 are not endorsed by AH Capital Management LLC,
    0:01:02 A16Z, or any of its affiliates.
    0:01:04 Information is from sources deemed reliable
    0:01:05 on the date of publication,
    0:01:08 but A16Z does not guarantee its accuracy.
    0:01:14 Revolutions don’t always come with banners and protests.
    0:01:18 Sometimes, the only shots fired are snippets of code.
    0:01:20 This is one of those moments.
    0:01:24 AI is the most disruptive force in history,
    0:01:26 and it’s no longer a distant possibility.
    0:01:28 It is here right now,
    0:01:31 and it’s already changing the foundations of power
    0:01:32 and the economy.
    0:01:34 Few people have been as influential
    0:01:36 in shaping the direction of AI
    0:01:38 than mega-investor Ben Horowitz.
    0:01:40 A pioneer in Silicon Valley,
    0:01:42 he spent decades at the center
    0:01:44 of every major technological disruption,
    0:01:47 including standing up to the Biden administration’s
    0:01:49 attempts to limit and control AI.
    0:01:50 In today’s episode,
    0:01:53 he lays out where AI is really taking us,
    0:01:55 the forces that will define the next decade,
    0:01:57 and how to position yourself
    0:01:59 before it’s too late.
    0:02:04 You are in an area making investments,
    0:02:05 thinking about some of the things
    0:02:07 that I think are the most consequential
    0:02:08 in the world today
    0:02:09 as it relates to innovation.
    0:02:10 But along those lines,
    0:02:13 you and Marc Andreessen are all in on AI,
    0:02:15 but how do we make sure
    0:02:16 that it benefits everyone
    0:02:18 instead of making humans obsolete?
    0:02:19 To begin with,
    0:02:21 we have to just realize,
    0:02:22 you know, what AI is
    0:02:23 because I think that
    0:02:24 because we called it
    0:02:25 artificial intelligence,
    0:02:26 you know,
    0:02:29 our whole industry of technology
    0:02:30 has a naming problem
    0:02:31 in that we started,
    0:02:32 you know,
    0:02:34 by calling computer science,
    0:02:35 computer science,
    0:02:37 which everybody thought,
    0:02:39 oh, that’s just like computers.
    0:02:42 It’s like the science of a machine
    0:02:44 as opposed to information theory
    0:02:45 and what it really was.
    0:02:47 And then in Web3 world,
    0:02:48 which you’re familiar with,
    0:02:49 we call it cryptocurrency,
    0:02:51 which to normal people
    0:02:52 means secret money.
    0:02:54 But that’s not what it does.
    0:02:55 That’s a good point.
    0:02:56 And then I think
    0:02:57 with artificial intelligence,
    0:03:01 I think that’s also like a bad name
    0:03:02 in a lot of ways
    0:03:03 and that, you know,
    0:03:04 look, the people
    0:03:05 who work on in the field
    0:03:08 call what they’re building models.
    0:03:09 And I think that’s
    0:03:11 a really accurate description
    0:03:12 in the sense that
    0:03:13 what we’re doing
    0:03:15 is we’re kind of modeling
    0:03:17 something we’ve always done,
    0:03:18 which is we’re trying
    0:03:19 to model the world
    0:03:22 in a way that enables us
    0:03:23 to predict it.
    0:03:24 And then, you know,
    0:03:25 we’ve built much more
    0:03:26 sophisticated models
    0:03:27 with this technology
    0:03:29 than we could.
    0:03:30 in the old days,
    0:03:31 we had E equals MC squared,
    0:03:33 which was like amazing,
    0:03:35 but a relatively simple model.
    0:03:38 Now we have models
    0:03:39 with what,
    0:03:41 like 600 billion variables
    0:03:42 and this kind of thing.
    0:03:43 And we can model like,
    0:03:45 what’s the next word
    0:03:46 that I should say
    0:03:48 and that kind of thing.
    0:03:51 So that’s amazing and powerful.
    0:03:52 But I would say like,
    0:03:53 we need to distinguish
    0:03:54 the fact that
    0:03:56 it’s a model
    0:03:59 that is directed by us
    0:04:00 to tell us things
    0:04:01 about the world
    0:04:02 and do things
    0:04:03 on our behalf.
    0:04:05 But it’s not a,
    0:04:06 it’s not life.
    0:04:08 It doesn’t have a free will
    0:04:09 and these kinds of things.
    0:04:11 So I think default,
    0:04:13 you know,
    0:04:13 we are the master
    0:04:16 and it is the servant
    0:04:18 as opposed to vice versa.
    0:04:20 The question though
    0:04:21 that you’re getting at,
    0:04:21 which is, okay,
    0:04:24 how do we not get obsoleted?
    0:04:26 Like, why do we need us
    0:04:27 if we’ve got these things
    0:04:28 that can do all the jobs
    0:04:29 that we currently do?
    0:04:31 And I think, you know,
    0:04:33 we’ve gone through that
    0:04:34 in the past
    0:04:36 and it’s been interesting, right?
    0:04:39 So in I think 1750,
    0:04:41 over 90% of the jobs
    0:04:42 in the country
    0:04:43 were agricultural.
    0:04:45 And, you know,
    0:04:46 there was a huge fight
    0:04:47 and a group called
    0:04:47 the Luddites
    0:04:48 that fought the plow
    0:04:49 and, you know,
    0:04:50 some of these
    0:04:53 newfangled inventions
    0:04:54 that eventually,
    0:04:55 by the way,
    0:04:57 eliminated 97%
    0:04:58 of the jobs
    0:04:59 that were there.
    0:05:01 But I think that
    0:05:03 most people would say,
    0:05:03 gee,
    0:05:05 the life I have now
    0:05:06 is better than
    0:05:07 the life that I would have
    0:05:08 had on the farm
    0:05:10 where all I did
    0:05:11 was farm
    0:05:12 and nothing else
    0:05:13 in life.
    0:05:15 But, you know,
    0:05:15 like,
    0:05:16 and if you want to farm
    0:05:16 still,
    0:05:17 you can.
    0:05:18 that is an option.
    0:05:20 But most people
    0:05:21 don’t take that option.
    0:05:23 So the jobs
    0:05:24 that we have now
    0:05:25 will,
    0:05:25 you know,
    0:05:26 a lot of them
    0:05:27 will go away
    0:05:28 and will have,
    0:05:29 but will likely
    0:05:30 have new jobs.
    0:05:30 I mean,
    0:05:31 humans are pretty good
    0:05:33 at figuring out
    0:05:34 new things to do
    0:05:36 and new things
    0:05:36 to pursue
    0:05:37 and so forth.
    0:05:40 And, you know,
    0:05:40 like including,
    0:05:41 like,
    0:05:42 going to Mars
    0:05:42 and that kind of thing,
    0:05:44 which obviously
    0:05:45 isn’t a thing today
    0:05:46 but could very well
    0:05:47 be a thing tomorrow.
    0:05:50 So I think that,
    0:05:50 you know,
    0:05:51 we have to stay creative
    0:05:53 and keep dreaming
    0:05:54 about, like,
    0:05:55 a better future
    0:05:56 and how to kind of
    0:05:57 improve things for people.
    0:05:57 But I think that,
    0:05:58 you know,
    0:05:58 particularly
    0:06:01 for kind of the people
    0:06:01 in the world
    0:06:03 that are on the struggle bus
    0:06:04 who are living
    0:06:05 on a dollar a day
    0:06:07 or, you know,
    0:06:07 kind of subject
    0:06:08 to all kinds of diseases
    0:06:09 and so forth,
    0:06:10 life is going to get,
    0:06:10 like,
    0:06:11 radically better for them.
    0:06:13 When I look at the plow example
    0:06:13 and the Luddites
    0:06:14 fighting against it,
    0:06:15 I think you’ll see
    0:06:16 the same thing with AI.
    0:06:17 You’re going to get people
    0:06:19 that just completely reject it,
    0:06:19 refuse to engage
    0:06:21 in anything for sure.
    0:06:24 But when I look at AI,
    0:06:26 what I worry about
    0:06:26 is that there will be
    0:06:28 no refuge to go to,
    0:06:30 meaning if you realize,
    0:06:30 oh,
    0:06:31 I can’t plow as well
    0:06:33 as a plow
    0:06:34 or a tractor
    0:06:35 or now a combine,
    0:06:36 there are still
    0:06:37 a lot of other things
    0:06:38 that technology
    0:06:39 can’t do better than me.
    0:06:40 Do you think
    0:06:41 there’s an upper bound
    0:06:42 to artificial intelligence,
    0:06:43 bad name or not,
    0:06:45 or do you think
    0:06:46 that it keeps going
    0:06:47 and it literally
    0:06:49 becomes better than us
    0:06:50 once it’s embodied
    0:06:50 in robotics
    0:06:52 at everything?
    0:06:54 We are kind of limited
    0:06:55 by the new ideas
    0:06:56 that we have.
    0:06:58 And artificial intelligence
    0:06:58 is really,
    0:06:59 by the way,
    0:07:00 artificial human intelligence,
    0:07:01 meaning,
    0:07:03 right,
    0:07:05 humans looked at the world,
    0:07:06 humans figured out
    0:07:07 what it was,
    0:07:08 you know,
    0:07:09 described it,
    0:07:09 came up with these
    0:07:11 concepts like trees
    0:07:11 and,
    0:07:12 you know,
    0:07:14 air and all this stuff
    0:07:16 that it’s not necessarily
    0:07:16 real,
    0:07:19 just how we decided
    0:07:20 to structure the world.
    0:07:21 And AI has learned
    0:07:22 our structure.
    0:07:23 Like,
    0:07:24 they’ve learned language,
    0:07:25 human language,
    0:07:26 which is a version
    0:07:27 of the universe
    0:07:27 that is not
    0:07:29 an accurate version
    0:07:29 of the universe.
    0:07:30 It’s just our version
    0:07:31 of the universe.
    0:07:32 But you’re going to
    0:07:33 have to go deep on that.
    0:07:34 I know my audience
    0:07:35 is going to be like,
    0:07:36 air seems pretty real
    0:07:37 when you’re underwater.
    0:07:38 What do you mean
    0:07:39 that trees and air
    0:07:40 are not necessarily real?
    0:07:41 It’s,
    0:07:41 look,
    0:07:42 it’s a construction
    0:07:43 that we made.
    0:07:43 You know,
    0:07:44 we decided
    0:07:46 it is literally
    0:07:48 the way humans
    0:07:48 have interpreted
    0:07:49 the world
    0:07:50 in order for humans
    0:07:51 to navigate it.
    0:07:52 And,
    0:07:53 you know,
    0:07:55 as is language,
    0:07:55 right?
    0:07:56 Language isn’t
    0:07:57 the universe
    0:07:58 as it is.
    0:07:59 Like,
    0:08:00 if completely objective,
    0:08:02 if you had an objective
    0:08:02 look at,
    0:08:03 you know,
    0:08:05 the atoms and so forth
    0:08:06 and how they were arranged
    0:08:07 and whatnot,
    0:08:09 you probably,
    0:08:10 you know,
    0:08:11 those descriptions
    0:08:12 are lacking
    0:08:13 in a lot of ways.
    0:08:13 They’re not
    0:08:14 completely accurate.
    0:08:16 They don’t,
    0:08:17 you know,
    0:08:17 they certainly don’t
    0:08:18 kind of predict
    0:08:19 everything about
    0:08:19 how the world works.
    0:08:21 And so,
    0:08:23 what machines have learned
    0:08:23 or like what
    0:08:25 artificial intelligence is
    0:08:26 is an understanding
    0:08:27 of our knowledge,
    0:08:29 of the human knowledge.
    0:08:31 so it’s taken
    0:08:31 in our knowledge
    0:08:32 of the universe
    0:08:34 and then it is
    0:08:36 kind of,
    0:08:36 can refine that
    0:08:37 and it can work on that
    0:08:39 and it can derive things
    0:08:40 from our knowledge,
    0:08:42 our axiom set.
    0:08:44 But it isn’t actually
    0:08:45 observing the world
    0:08:46 at this point
    0:08:47 and figuring out
    0:08:47 new stuff.
    0:08:48 So,
    0:08:48 you know,
    0:08:49 at the very least,
    0:08:50 you know,
    0:08:52 humans still have to
    0:08:55 discover new principles
    0:08:56 of the universe
    0:08:57 or kind of
    0:08:57 interpret it
    0:08:58 in a different way
    0:08:59 or the machines
    0:09:00 have to somehow
    0:09:01 observe directly
    0:09:02 the world
    0:09:02 which they’re not
    0:09:03 yet doing.
    0:09:06 And so,
    0:09:06 you know,
    0:09:07 that’s a pretty big role
    0:09:08 I would say
    0:09:09 but then,
    0:09:09 you know,
    0:09:10 in addition,
    0:09:11 you know,
    0:09:11 we direct the world.
    0:09:12 I think like Star Trek
    0:09:13 is actually a pretty
    0:09:14 good metaphor for that.
    0:09:15 Like the Star Trek
    0:09:16 computer was pretty
    0:09:16 badass
    0:09:18 but,
    0:09:19 you know,
    0:09:20 the people in Star Trek
    0:09:21 were still like
    0:09:22 flying around the universe
    0:09:23 discovering new things
    0:09:23 about it.
    0:09:24 You know,
    0:09:24 there was still
    0:09:25 much to do
    0:09:27 and I think that
    0:09:27 it’s always
    0:09:29 a little
    0:09:31 kind of difficult
    0:09:32 to figure out
    0:09:33 what the new jobs
    0:09:34 that get created
    0:09:34 are.
    0:09:35 And we’ve had
    0:09:37 intelligence for a while,
    0:09:37 right?
    0:09:38 Like we’ve had
    0:09:39 machines that could
    0:09:40 do math way better
    0:09:40 than us
    0:09:42 and,
    0:09:43 you know,
    0:09:43 I mean,
    0:09:44 I can remember
    0:09:46 when I was in
    0:09:47 junior high school
    0:09:49 or junior high
    0:09:49 put on a play
    0:09:50 about like
    0:09:51 how bad it was
    0:09:51 that there were
    0:09:52 calculators
    0:09:52 because nobody
    0:09:53 would know
    0:09:53 how to do
    0:09:54 arithmetic
    0:09:54 and then
    0:09:56 all the calculators
    0:09:56 would break
    0:09:57 and then we’d
    0:09:57 be stuck.
    0:09:58 We’d be trying
    0:09:59 to like fly around
    0:09:59 the universe
    0:10:00 and rockets
    0:10:01 but we wouldn’t
    0:10:02 be able to do math
    0:10:03 and the calculators
    0:10:03 would be broken
    0:10:04 and we’d be screwed.
    0:10:06 So there is always
    0:10:07 that fear
    0:10:09 and,
    0:10:09 you know,
    0:10:10 we’ve had computers
    0:10:11 that can play games
    0:10:12 better than us.
    0:10:12 We currently have
    0:10:13 computers that can
    0:10:14 drive better than us
    0:10:15 and so forth.
    0:10:16 So we have a lot
    0:10:16 of intelligence
    0:10:17 out there
    0:10:19 but it hasn’t,
    0:10:21 you know,
    0:10:22 created like
    0:10:23 this super dystopia,
    0:10:24 you know,
    0:10:25 in any degree.
    0:10:25 It’s actually
    0:10:26 made things better,
    0:10:27 you know,
    0:10:28 everywhere it’s appeared.
    0:10:29 So I would expect
    0:10:30 that to continue.
    0:10:31 What do you think
    0:10:32 though is the limiting
    0:10:32 function?
    0:10:34 So when I look
    0:10:34 at AI,
    0:10:36 I always say
    0:10:37 unless we run
    0:10:38 into an upper bound
    0:10:39 where the computation
    0:10:40 just can’t allow
    0:10:41 the intelligence
    0:10:42 to keep progressing,
    0:10:45 it seems like
    0:10:45 it will become
    0:10:46 not only
    0:10:47 generalized human
    0:10:47 intelligence
    0:10:48 and thusly be able
    0:10:48 to do everything
    0:10:49 that we can do,
    0:10:50 it will become
    0:10:52 embodied as robotics
    0:10:53 and if,
    0:10:54 I ran the math
    0:10:54 on this once,
    0:10:56 Einstein is roughly
    0:10:58 2.4 times smarter
    0:10:58 than someone
    0:11:00 who is definitionally
    0:11:00 a moron
    0:11:02 and the gap
    0:11:03 just between
    0:11:04 those two
    0:11:06 is so dramatic
    0:11:07 the army won’t
    0:11:08 even draft
    0:11:09 somebody
    0:11:10 that is a moron
    0:11:11 at, you know,
    0:11:11 whatever,
    0:11:12 81 IQ
    0:11:13 or whatever it is.
    0:11:14 because it’s,
    0:11:14 they create
    0:11:15 more problems
    0:11:16 than they solve
    0:11:17 even just by being,
    0:11:18 you know,
    0:11:19 bullet fodder.
    0:11:21 So do you think
    0:11:22 there is something
    0:11:23 that’s going to cause
    0:11:25 that upper bound
    0:11:27 or you have a belief
    0:11:29 about the nature
    0:11:30 of intelligence
    0:11:31 that will keep
    0:11:33 AI subservient
    0:11:34 to us?
    0:11:35 The smartest people
    0:11:36 don’t rule the world,
    0:11:37 you know,
    0:11:38 Einstein wasn’t in charge
    0:11:42 and, you know,
    0:11:42 many of us
    0:11:43 are like ruled
    0:11:45 by our cats
    0:11:47 and so,
    0:11:48 like,
    0:11:49 power and intelligence
    0:11:50 don’t necessarily
    0:11:51 go together,
    0:11:51 particularly when
    0:11:52 the intelligence
    0:11:53 has no free will
    0:11:54 or has no
    0:11:55 desire to do
    0:11:56 free will.
    0:11:56 It doesn’t have will.
    0:11:58 You know,
    0:11:59 it is kind of a model
    0:12:00 that’s computing things.
    0:12:02 I think also,
    0:12:02 you know,
    0:12:03 the whole general
    0:12:04 intelligence thing
    0:12:06 is interesting
    0:12:07 in that,
    0:12:10 Waymo’s got a super
    0:12:10 smart AI
    0:12:11 that can drive a car
    0:12:14 but that AI
    0:12:14 that drives a car
    0:12:16 doesn’t know English
    0:12:18 and, you know,
    0:12:19 isn’t, you know,
    0:12:20 particularly good
    0:12:21 at other tasks,
    0:12:22 you know,
    0:12:23 currently
    0:12:24 and then the
    0:12:26 chat GPT
    0:12:27 can’t drive a car.
    0:12:30 And so that’s,
    0:12:31 you know,
    0:12:33 how much things
    0:12:35 generalize particularly
    0:12:36 and if you look
    0:12:36 at, well,
    0:12:37 why is that?
    0:12:38 A lot of it
    0:12:39 actually has to do
    0:12:40 with the long tail
    0:12:41 of human behavior
    0:12:43 where humans,
    0:12:45 you know,
    0:12:46 the distribution
    0:12:47 of human behavior
    0:12:47 is,
    0:12:49 it’s fractal,
    0:12:50 it’s mantle
    0:12:51 broadion or whatever,
    0:12:53 it’s not evenly
    0:12:54 distributed at all
    0:12:56 and so,
    0:12:58 you know,
    0:12:58 an AI
    0:13:00 that kind of
    0:13:01 captures all that
    0:13:02 turns out to be,
    0:13:04 you know,
    0:13:05 we’re not so much
    0:13:06 on the track,
    0:13:07 we’re more on the track
    0:13:08 for kind of
    0:13:10 really great reasoning
    0:13:12 over kind of
    0:13:12 a set of axioms
    0:13:14 that we came up with,
    0:13:15 you know,
    0:13:15 in say math
    0:13:16 or physics
    0:13:18 but not so much
    0:13:21 you know,
    0:13:21 kind of general
    0:13:23 human intelligence
    0:13:24 which is,
    0:13:25 you know,
    0:13:26 being able to
    0:13:28 navigate other humans
    0:13:30 and the world
    0:13:30 in a way
    0:13:32 that is productive
    0:13:33 for us
    0:13:33 is kind of a,
    0:13:34 it’s a little bit
    0:13:35 of a different
    0:13:36 dimension of things.
    0:13:37 You know,
    0:13:37 yeah,
    0:13:38 you can compare
    0:13:40 the math capabilities
    0:13:41 or the go
    0:13:43 playing capabilities
    0:13:43 or the driving
    0:13:44 capabilities
    0:13:46 or the IQ test
    0:13:47 capabilities
    0:13:48 of a computer
    0:13:49 but that,
    0:13:51 that’s not really
    0:13:52 a human.
    0:13:53 I think a human
    0:13:54 is kind of different
    0:13:55 in a fairly
    0:13:56 fundamental way.
    0:13:58 So what we end up
    0:13:58 doing,
    0:13:59 I think is going
    0:14:00 to be different
    0:14:00 than what we’re
    0:14:01 doing today
    0:14:02 just like what
    0:14:02 we’re doing today
    0:14:03 is very different
    0:14:04 than what we did
    0:14:04 a hundred years ago.
    0:14:06 But,
    0:14:07 you know,
    0:14:08 the not having
    0:14:09 a need for us,
    0:14:10 I think that,
    0:14:10 you know,
    0:14:12 these AIs
    0:14:13 are tools for us
    0:14:15 to basically
    0:14:16 navigate the world
    0:14:17 and help us
    0:14:18 solve problems
    0:14:19 and do things
    0:14:20 like,
    0:14:21 you know,
    0:14:22 everything from
    0:14:24 prevent pandemics
    0:14:25 to deal with
    0:14:27 climate change
    0:14:28 to that sort of thing,
    0:14:29 to not kill each other
    0:14:30 driving cars,
    0:14:32 which we do a lot of.
    0:14:34 You know,
    0:14:35 hopefully it doesn’t,
    0:14:36 you know,
    0:14:38 create more wars,
    0:14:38 hopefully it creates
    0:14:39 less wars,
    0:14:40 but we’ll see.
    0:14:41 What I know
    0:14:43 about the human brain
    0:14:44 maybe tricking me
    0:14:46 into painting a vision
    0:14:46 of the future
    0:14:47 that isn’t going
    0:14:47 to come true,
    0:14:49 let me put words
    0:14:49 in your mouth
    0:14:50 and you tell me
    0:14:52 if they fit appropriately.
    0:14:53 What I hear you saying
    0:14:54 is something akin
    0:14:55 to the way
    0:14:56 that we’re approaching
    0:14:57 artificial intelligence
    0:14:57 right now,
    0:14:58 let’s round it
    0:15:00 to large language models,
    0:15:02 that is going
    0:15:04 to hit an upper bound
    0:15:05 where it’s not able
    0:15:07 to have insights
    0:15:07 that a human
    0:15:08 won’t already have,
    0:15:10 that they are trapped
    0:15:11 inside of the box
    0:15:11 that we have created,
    0:15:12 what you’re calling
    0:15:13 the axioms
    0:15:14 by which we navigate
    0:15:14 the world.
    0:15:15 They get trapped
    0:15:16 inside that box
    0:15:18 and thusly will never
    0:15:19 be able to look
    0:15:19 at the world
    0:15:20 and go,
    0:15:21 I’m not going
    0:15:21 to predict
    0:15:22 the next frame,
    0:15:22 I’m going to render
    0:15:23 the next frame
    0:15:24 based on what I know
    0:15:25 about physics.
    0:15:27 And so water reacts
    0:15:28 this way
    0:15:29 in an earthbound
    0:15:29 gravity system
    0:15:30 and so it’s going
    0:15:31 to splash like this
    0:15:32 and it understands
    0:15:32 liquid dynamics,
    0:15:33 et cetera,
    0:15:33 et cetera.
    0:15:36 So is that accurate?
    0:15:37 Are you saying
    0:15:37 that it is trapped
    0:15:38 inside of our box
    0:15:39 and will never have?
    0:15:40 It hasn’t demonstrated
    0:15:41 that capability yet
    0:15:43 so it hasn’t
    0:15:44 walked up to a rock
    0:15:45 and said this is a rock,
    0:15:46 right?
    0:15:47 We labeled it a rock
    0:15:49 because that’s our structure.
    0:15:50 But a rock
    0:15:51 isn’t probably
    0:15:54 a more intelligent being
    0:15:55 would have called it
    0:15:55 something else
    0:15:57 or maybe the rock
    0:15:58 is irrelevant
    0:16:00 to how you actually
    0:16:01 can navigate
    0:16:02 the world safely.
    0:16:05 and kind of figuring
    0:16:06 those things out
    0:16:07 or kind of adopting
    0:16:08 to them
    0:16:08 is just not something
    0:16:11 that, you know,
    0:16:12 it’s trained on our
    0:16:14 rendition of the universe
    0:16:16 in our kind of
    0:16:19 literally like the way
    0:16:20 we have described it
    0:16:22 using language
    0:16:22 that we invented.
    0:16:26 and so it is
    0:16:29 constrained a bit
    0:16:30 to that in nature
    0:16:31 currently.
    0:16:33 You know,
    0:16:34 that doesn’t mean
    0:16:34 it’s not like
    0:16:36 a massively useful tool
    0:16:37 and can do things
    0:16:38 and by the way
    0:16:39 can derive new rules
    0:16:40 from the old rules
    0:16:41 that we’ve given it
    0:16:42 for sure.
    0:16:46 but, you know,
    0:16:46 we’ll,
    0:16:49 like I think
    0:16:49 it’s a bit of a jump
    0:16:50 to go,
    0:16:51 you know,
    0:16:52 it’s going to replace
    0:16:53 us entirely
    0:16:56 when the whole
    0:16:57 discovery process
    0:16:58 is something that we do
    0:16:59 that it doesn’t do yet.
    0:17:01 Okay.
    0:17:02 The way that the human
    0:17:03 mind is architected
    0:17:04 is you have
    0:17:05 competing regions
    0:17:06 of the brain
    0:17:06 like if you cut
    0:17:07 the corpus callosum
    0:17:08 the part that connects
    0:17:09 the left and the right
    0:17:09 hemisphere
    0:17:10 you can get
    0:17:12 two distinct personalities
    0:17:13 one that is atheist
    0:17:14 for instance
    0:17:15 and one that
    0:17:17 believes deeply in God
    0:17:17 and they’ll argue
    0:17:18 back and forth.
    0:17:18 I mean,
    0:17:19 this is in the same
    0:17:20 human brain.
    0:17:22 So that tells me
    0:17:23 that what you have
    0:17:24 is basically
    0:17:25 regions of the brain
    0:17:26 that get good
    0:17:26 at a thing
    0:17:28 and then they end up
    0:17:28 coming together
    0:17:29 to collaborate
    0:17:30 and that is
    0:17:31 sort of human intelligence
    0:17:31 and I’ve heard you
    0:17:32 talk about
    0:17:32 there’s something
    0:17:34 like 200 computers
    0:17:36 inside of a single car
    0:17:38 so if we already know
    0:17:38 that you can
    0:17:39 daisy chain
    0:17:40 all of these
    0:17:40 like it’s
    0:17:41 it’s a very deep
    0:17:42 knowledge about one thing
    0:17:44 but as you daisy chain
    0:17:45 then the intelligence
    0:17:47 gets what I’ll call
    0:17:48 more generalized
    0:17:49 you don’t see that
    0:17:50 as a flywheel
    0:17:51 that is going to
    0:17:52 keep going.
    0:17:53 You know,
    0:17:54 what we can compute
    0:17:55 will get
    0:17:57 better and better
    0:17:57 and better
    0:18:00 but having said that
    0:18:00 you know,
    0:18:01 that doesn’t
    0:18:02 say that
    0:18:05 like humans
    0:18:06 one,
    0:18:07 you know,
    0:18:08 humans
    0:18:09 built the machines
    0:18:10 plug them in
    0:18:11 give them the batteries
    0:18:12 all these kinds
    0:18:13 of things
    0:18:15 and
    0:18:17 you know,
    0:18:18 and they’ve been
    0:18:19 created to
    0:18:20 fulfill our purposes
    0:18:21 so
    0:18:22 you know,
    0:18:23 what it means
    0:18:23 to be a human
    0:18:24 will probably
    0:18:25 will change
    0:18:26 like it has been
    0:18:26 changing
    0:18:28 and kind of
    0:18:29 how humans
    0:18:29 live their life
    0:18:30 will change
    0:18:31 but humans
    0:18:32 still find things
    0:18:32 to do
    0:18:32 I mean,
    0:18:33 like it’s kind
    0:18:33 of like
    0:18:34 you know,
    0:18:35 like a cheetah
    0:18:35 has been able
    0:18:36 to run faster
    0:18:36 than a human
    0:18:37 forever
    0:18:38 but we
    0:18:38 never watch
    0:18:39 cheetahs race
    0:18:40 we only watch
    0:18:40 humans race
    0:18:41 each other
    0:18:43 you know,
    0:18:44 computers have
    0:18:44 played chess
    0:18:44 better than
    0:18:45 humans for a
    0:18:45 long time
    0:18:46 but nobody
    0:18:47 watches computers
    0:18:47 play chess
    0:18:48 anymore
    0:18:48 they watch
    0:18:49 humans play
    0:18:49 humans
    0:18:49 and chess
    0:18:50 is more
    0:18:50 popular than
    0:18:51 it’s ever
    0:18:51 been
    0:18:52 and so I
    0:18:53 think we
    0:18:53 have like
    0:18:53 a keen
    0:18:54 interest
    0:18:54 in each
    0:18:54 other
    0:18:55 and
    0:18:57 how that’s
    0:18:57 going to
    0:18:57 work
    0:18:57 and these
    0:18:58 will be
    0:18:58 kind of
    0:18:58 tools
    0:18:59 to enhance
    0:19:00 that whole
    0:19:00 experience
    0:19:01 for us
    0:19:01 but I
    0:19:01 think
    0:19:02 it’s
    0:19:03 you know
    0:19:06 like a
    0:19:07 world of
    0:19:07 just
    0:19:08 machines
    0:19:09 seems
    0:19:10 like
    0:19:10 that
    0:19:10 seems
    0:19:11 like
    0:19:11 really
    0:19:11 unlikely
    0:19:12 so
    0:19:13 you’ve
    0:19:13 got
    0:19:13 people
    0:19:14 like
    0:19:15 Elon Musk
    0:19:16 Sam
    0:19:16 Altman
    0:19:17 who have
    0:19:17 both
    0:19:18 expressed
    0:19:18 deep
    0:19:19 concerns
    0:19:19 about
    0:19:21 how
    0:19:22 AI
    0:19:24 may
    0:19:24 in fact
    0:19:25 make us
    0:19:25 obsolete
    0:19:25 Elon
    0:19:26 has likened
    0:19:27 he’s
    0:19:27 certainly
    0:19:27 become
    0:19:28 fatalistic
    0:19:29 but he
    0:19:30 gave a
    0:19:31 rant
    0:19:31 that I
    0:19:31 absolutely
    0:19:32 love
    0:19:32 that is
    0:19:33 AI
    0:19:33 is a
    0:19:33 demon
    0:19:34 summoning
    0:19:34 circle
    0:19:35 and
    0:19:35 you’re
    0:19:35 calling
    0:19:36 forward
    0:19:36 this demon
    0:19:36 that you
    0:19:37 were just
    0:19:37 convinced
    0:19:38 you’re going
    0:19:38 to be
    0:19:38 able to
    0:19:38 control
    0:19:39 and he
    0:19:39 certainly
    0:19:40 is not
    0:19:40 so sure
    0:19:40 and at
    0:19:41 one point
    0:19:41 and again
    0:19:42 I’m fully
    0:19:42 aware
    0:19:43 that he’s
    0:19:43 on his
    0:19:44 fatalist
    0:19:44 arc
    0:19:44 and he’s
    0:19:45 just
    0:19:45 moving
    0:19:45 forward
    0:19:45 and he’s
    0:19:46 building
    0:19:46 as fast
    0:19:46 as he
    0:19:46 can
    0:19:48 it’s
    0:19:48 interesting
    0:19:49 that both
    0:19:50 of them
    0:19:50 despite
    0:19:51 saying
    0:19:51 these
    0:19:52 things
    0:19:52 are
    0:19:52 building
    0:19:53 AI
    0:19:53 as
    0:19:54 fast
    0:19:54 as
    0:19:54 like
    0:19:55 they’re
    0:19:55 literally
    0:19:56 in a race
    0:19:56 with each
    0:19:56 other
    0:19:57 to see
    0:19:57 who can
    0:19:57 build it
    0:19:58 faster
    0:20:01 that they’re
    0:20:01 warning
    0:20:02 about
    0:20:03 what do
    0:20:03 you take
    0:20:04 away
    0:20:04 from that
    0:20:04 is it
    0:20:04 just
    0:20:05 regulatory
    0:20:05 capture
    0:20:06 on both
    0:20:06 of their
    0:20:07 parts
    0:20:07 is it
    0:20:08 is Elon
    0:20:09 being
    0:20:09 sincere
    0:20:10 not that I
    0:20:10 need you
    0:20:10 to mind
    0:20:10 read him
    0:20:11 but like
    0:20:11 what do
    0:20:12 you take
    0:20:12 away
    0:20:13 in
    0:20:14 the fact
    0:20:14 that
    0:20:14 they’ve
    0:20:15 both
    0:20:15 warned
    0:20:15 against
    0:20:16 it
    0:20:16 and
    0:20:16 they’re
    0:20:16 both
    0:20:17 deploying
    0:20:18 it
    0:20:18 as
    0:20:18 fast
    0:20:18 as
    0:20:18 they
    0:20:18 can
    0:20:19 yeah
    0:20:20 it seems
    0:20:20 fairly
    0:20:21 contradictory
    0:20:23 look I
    0:20:24 think there
    0:20:24 is
    0:20:25 like I
    0:20:26 won’t
    0:20:26 question
    0:20:27 either
    0:20:27 their
    0:20:28 sincerity
    0:20:28 at some
    0:20:28 degree
    0:20:29 but I
    0:20:29 do
    0:20:29 think
    0:20:29 there
    0:20:30 are
    0:20:32 many
    0:20:32 reasons
    0:20:33 to warn
    0:20:33 about
    0:20:33 it
    0:20:33 but like
    0:20:34 I also
    0:20:34 think
    0:20:35 that
    0:20:36 you know
    0:20:37 any
    0:20:37 kind
    0:20:38 of new
    0:20:38 super
    0:20:38 powerful
    0:20:39 technology
    0:20:40 you know
    0:20:41 in a way
    0:20:41 they’re right
    0:20:42 to kind
    0:20:42 of warn
    0:20:42 about
    0:20:42 like
    0:20:43 okay
    0:20:44 this
    0:20:45 thing
    0:20:46 if we
    0:20:48 you know
    0:20:48 if we
    0:20:48 don’t
    0:20:49 think
    0:20:49 about
    0:20:49 some
    0:20:49 of
    0:20:49 the
    0:20:50 implications
    0:20:50 of
    0:20:50 it
    0:20:51 could
    0:20:51 get
    0:20:51 dangerous
    0:20:52 and I
    0:20:52 think
    0:20:52 that’s
    0:20:52 a good
    0:20:53 thing
    0:20:53 like
    0:20:53 every
    0:20:53 technology
    0:20:54 we’ve
    0:20:54 ever
    0:20:54 had
    0:20:54 from
    0:20:55 fire
    0:20:55 to
    0:20:57 you know
    0:20:58 from
    0:20:58 fire
    0:20:59 to
    0:20:59 automobiles
    0:20:59 to
    0:21:00 nuclear
    0:21:00 to
    0:21:01 AI
    0:21:02 has
    0:21:02 got
    0:21:03 the
    0:21:03 internet
    0:21:05 has
    0:21:05 got
    0:21:05 downsides
    0:21:06 to
    0:21:06 it
    0:21:06 they
    0:21:06 all
    0:21:06 have
    0:21:07 downsides
    0:21:08 and
    0:21:08 the
    0:21:09 more
    0:21:09 powerful
    0:21:09 the
    0:21:10 more
    0:21:10 kind
    0:21:10 of
    0:21:12 you know
    0:21:12 kind
    0:21:12 of
    0:21:12 intriguing
    0:21:13 the
    0:21:13 downside
    0:21:13 and
    0:21:13 you know
    0:21:14 maybe
    0:21:14 like
    0:21:15 you know
    0:21:15 without
    0:21:16 the
    0:21:16 internet
    0:21:16 we probably
    0:21:17 would have
    0:21:17 never gotten
    0:21:18 to AI
    0:21:20 and so
    0:21:22 maybe that was the downside of the internet
    0:21:24 that it led to AI or something like that you could argue
    0:21:26 but I think
    0:21:27 generally
    0:21:33 we would take every technology we’ve invented and keep it because you know net net they’ve
    0:21:38 been positive for humanity and for the world and and that’s generally and that’s
    0:21:40 why I think they’re building it so fast because I think they know that
    0:21:47 all right so anybody with a 17 year old right now is thinking oh my how where do I point
    0:21:53 my kid what do I tell them to go study that’s future proof what can we learn about the way you guys are investing at
    0:22:01 Andreessen Horowitz that would give somebody an inclination of what you think a 17 year old should be focused on now
    0:22:10 yeah you know it’s really interesting I think one of the things what we’re saying in the kind of smartest young people that come out is
    0:22:18 they spend a lot of time with AI learning everything they possibly can so I think you want to get very good at like high
    0:22:19 curiosity
    0:22:21 and
    0:22:23 and then learning you know you have
    0:22:26 available to you all of human knowledge
    0:22:28 in something that will talk to you
    0:22:33 and that’s you know that’s an incredible opportunity and I think that
    0:22:36 anything you want to do in the world to make the world better
    0:22:40 you now have the tools as an individual to do that in a way that
    0:22:44 you know if you look at kind of what Thomas Edison had to do
    0:22:47 in creating GE and like what that took and
    0:22:51 and so forth you know it was a way higher bar to have an impact
    0:22:53 whereas now I think
    0:22:55 you know you can
    0:22:57 very quickly
    0:23:02 you know build something or do something that you know just pick a problem
    0:23:07 it’s not like you know sometimes in this AI conversation the thing that we ignore is like
    0:23:10 well what are the problems that we have in the world
    0:23:10 well they
    0:23:13 well we still have
    0:23:14 cancer and diabetes
    0:23:16 and sickle cell
    0:23:17 and
    0:23:18 and every disease
    0:23:19 and we still have
    0:23:20 the threat of pandemics
    0:23:21 and we still have
    0:23:22 climate change
    0:23:23 and we still have
    0:23:25 you know lots of people who are
    0:23:26 starving to death
    0:23:27 and we still have malaria
    0:23:27 and
    0:23:30 and so like pick a problem you want to solve
    0:23:32 and now
    0:23:34 you know
    0:23:36 you have a huge helping hand in doing that
    0:23:38 that nobody in the history of
    0:23:40 the planet has ever had before
    0:23:40 so
    0:23:42 I think there’s
    0:23:44 really great opportunities along those lines
    0:23:47 so that
    0:23:47 that would be my
    0:23:48 you know
    0:23:50 my
    0:23:51 best advice
    0:23:53 I think is to
    0:23:55 to get really good with that
    0:23:55 and
    0:23:58 and look I think a lot of the things that we’ve learned
    0:24:01 or that have been valuable skills traditionally
    0:24:02 are going to change
    0:24:03 so you really
    0:24:04 you know again
    0:24:06 want to be able to learn how to do anything
    0:24:08 and
    0:24:09 and I think that’s probably
    0:24:11 going to be key
    0:24:13 when I look at
    0:24:13 the
    0:24:14 things you were just talking about
    0:24:15 that feels right
    0:24:17 for people that have
    0:24:17 the
    0:24:18 the inclination
    0:24:19 that have the
    0:24:20 cognitive horsepower
    0:24:22 to go and say
    0:24:23 okay I’m going to leverage AI
    0:24:25 to extend my capabilities
    0:24:26 to tackle the biggest problems in the world
    0:24:28 certainly right now in this moment
    0:24:28 that
    0:24:29 that is the
    0:24:30 thrilling reality
    0:24:31 that people should focus on
    0:24:32 but then
    0:24:34 I contrast that with
    0:24:36 the deaths of despair
    0:24:37 a young
    0:24:38 among
    0:24:39 largely
    0:24:40 young men
    0:24:43 we have this problem
    0:24:43 in
    0:24:44 call it
    0:24:45 middle America
    0:24:46 where
    0:24:47 manufacturing jobs
    0:24:48 have gone away
    0:24:48 so for that
    0:24:49 normal
    0:24:50 just sort of everyday person
    0:24:51 I want to have a trade
    0:24:52 I want to go out into the world
    0:24:53 and get something done
    0:24:55 is AI going to be
    0:24:56 useful to them
    0:24:58 or are they going to
    0:24:59 get replaced by
    0:24:59 robotics
    0:25:01 the truth of it is
    0:25:02 is there’s only one
    0:25:03 robot supply chain in the world
    0:25:04 and that’s in China
    0:25:05 and
    0:25:07 you know
    0:25:07 so
    0:25:07 like
    0:25:08 we all need a robot
    0:25:09 supply chain
    0:25:11 we need to
    0:25:11 manufacture that
    0:25:13 so I think there’s going to be
    0:25:13 like a real
    0:25:16 manufacturing opportunity
    0:25:18 coming up
    0:25:19 and it’ll be
    0:25:20 a different kind of
    0:25:20 manufacturing
    0:25:22 certainly more will be
    0:25:23 automated and so forth
    0:25:24 but there will be a lot of
    0:25:26 things to learn
    0:25:26 in that field
    0:25:28 that I think will be
    0:25:29 you know
    0:25:30 super interesting
    0:25:31 and
    0:25:33 and you know
    0:25:34 likely very very good job
    0:25:35 so I
    0:25:36 ironically
    0:25:37 I would say
    0:25:38 like going into
    0:25:39 manufacturing now
    0:25:40 as a young man
    0:25:41 and trying to
    0:25:42 you know
    0:25:43 kind of figure out
    0:25:44 what that is
    0:25:45 and get engaged in it
    0:25:46 will probably lead to
    0:25:47 you know
    0:25:48 quite a
    0:25:49 good career
    0:25:50 you know
    0:25:50 maybe in
    0:25:52 creating
    0:25:53 factories
    0:25:53 have become
    0:25:55 like insanely valuable
    0:25:55 and
    0:25:55 and
    0:25:56 and kind of
    0:25:57 and strategic
    0:25:58 to the national
    0:25:59 interests as well
    0:26:00 that makes sense
    0:26:01 so again
    0:26:02 at the level of
    0:26:03 the guy smart enough
    0:26:04 to build the facility
    0:26:04 yes
    0:26:05 and I recently saw
    0:26:06 a video of the
    0:26:07 grocery store
    0:26:08 of the future
    0:26:08 where it is
    0:26:10 a huge grid
    0:26:11 inside of a
    0:26:12 giant facility
    0:26:13 and there’s just
    0:26:14 like these
    0:26:15 bots that
    0:26:15 look kind of like
    0:26:16 small shopping carts
    0:26:17 and they’re just
    0:26:18 grid patterning
    0:26:19 across all the items
    0:26:20 snatching up
    0:26:20 whatever you order
    0:26:22 so you order online
    0:26:22 these things
    0:26:23 grab all that stuff
    0:26:24 and then they send
    0:26:25 it off to you
    0:26:26 so for the person
    0:26:27 that’s savvy enough
    0:26:28 to build that facility
    0:26:29 yes
    0:26:30 tremendous
    0:26:31 but
    0:26:33 what I think
    0:26:33 I hear you saying
    0:26:34 and correct me
    0:26:34 if I’m wrong
    0:26:35 is that
    0:26:36 okay there are
    0:26:37 two opportunities here
    0:26:37 the opportunity
    0:26:38 one is
    0:26:39 if you’re the kind
    0:26:39 of person
    0:26:40 that can leverage
    0:26:40 AI to build
    0:26:41 that facility
    0:26:42 massive opportunity
    0:26:44 if you’re the kind
    0:26:44 of person
    0:26:44 that would traditionally
    0:26:45 work at that
    0:26:45 factory
    0:26:46 something new
    0:26:47 is coming
    0:26:47 we know that
    0:26:48 because looking
    0:26:48 back at history
    0:26:49 all these technologies
    0:26:50 unleash things
    0:26:51 we can’t yet see
    0:26:52 and so I have faith
    0:26:53 in the
    0:26:54 we can’t yet see it
    0:26:54 but it is coming
    0:26:55 yeah
    0:26:56 no for sure
    0:26:56 look I mean
    0:26:58 you know what
    0:26:58 like the biggest
    0:27:00 in-demand job
    0:27:00 in the world
    0:27:01 is right now
    0:27:02 data labelers
    0:27:04 and
    0:27:05 like data labeling
    0:27:06 wasn’t a job
    0:27:08 not long ago
    0:27:09 but if you talk
    0:27:10 I’ve even heard of this
    0:27:11 what is data labeling
    0:27:12 yeah
    0:27:13 so it’s what
    0:27:13 Alex said
    0:27:14 it’s what scale
    0:27:15 AI does
    0:27:16 you know
    0:27:16 they pay
    0:27:18 armies and armies
    0:27:19 and armies of people
    0:27:20 to label data
    0:27:21 so say hey
    0:27:23 this is a plant
    0:27:24 or this is
    0:27:24 you know
    0:27:24 a fig
    0:27:25 or whatever it is
    0:27:26 for the AI
    0:27:28 to then understand it
    0:27:29 and then you know
    0:27:30 now with the
    0:27:32 you know
    0:27:33 with the kind of
    0:27:34 reinforcement learning
    0:27:35 coming back
    0:27:36 into play
    0:27:37 you know
    0:27:38 labeling
    0:27:38 you know
    0:27:39 that kind of
    0:27:40 supervised learning
    0:27:41 is still like
    0:27:42 very very very important
    0:27:44 and I think that
    0:27:46 you know
    0:27:47 right now
    0:27:48 like he’s got
    0:27:50 unlimited hiring demand
    0:27:51 which is
    0:27:51 you know
    0:27:52 ironic
    0:27:53 for scale AI
    0:27:54 to have
    0:27:55 unlimited need
    0:27:56 for humans
    0:27:57 and I think
    0:27:58 you know
    0:27:59 in manufacturing
    0:28:00 there are going to be
    0:28:01 jobs like that
    0:28:02 and there will be
    0:28:02 the kind of physical
    0:28:05 well when you go
    0:28:06 and you go
    0:28:07 into these robot
    0:28:08 like the software
    0:28:09 companies that are
    0:28:10 doing robotics
    0:28:12 they have people
    0:28:14 managing the robots
    0:28:15 right
    0:28:15 like they’re training
    0:28:16 the robots
    0:28:17 humans train robots
    0:28:19 to do all kinds
    0:28:20 of things
    0:28:21 and it turns out
    0:28:21 that like
    0:28:23 folding clothes
    0:28:25 doesn’t necessarily
    0:28:27 generalize
    0:28:28 to making eggs
    0:28:30 they’re like
    0:28:31 super different
    0:28:32 for robots
    0:28:34 and so you need
    0:28:35 you know
    0:28:36 these robots
    0:28:36 trained in all
    0:28:37 these kinds
    0:28:37 of fields
    0:28:38 and so forth
    0:28:38 so I think
    0:28:38 there’s
    0:28:39 you know
    0:28:40 there’s a whole
    0:28:40 new class
    0:28:41 of jobs
    0:28:42 that are
    0:28:42 a little bit
    0:28:43 hard to
    0:28:44 anticipate
    0:28:46 you know
    0:28:47 in advance
    0:28:48 but I think
    0:28:49 at least
    0:28:49 for the next
    0:28:50 10 years
    0:28:50 I think
    0:28:51 the number
    0:28:52 of new
    0:28:52 jobs
    0:28:53 related
    0:28:54 to making
    0:28:54 these machines
    0:28:55 smarter
    0:28:56 is going
    0:28:57 to increase
    0:28:57 a lot
    0:28:59 and then
    0:29:00 after that
    0:29:00 you know
    0:29:00 like
    0:29:02 I think
    0:29:02 there will
    0:29:03 be
    0:29:04 there just
    0:29:05 tend to be
    0:29:05 like
    0:29:06 throughout
    0:29:07 history
    0:29:08 so many
    0:29:09 needs
    0:29:09 for new
    0:29:09 things
    0:29:10 that we
    0:29:10 never
    0:29:11 anticipated
    0:29:11 like well
    0:29:12 I mean
    0:29:12 you know
    0:29:12 one of my
    0:29:13 favorite
    0:29:13 examples
    0:29:13 is
    0:29:14 okay
    0:29:15 computers
    0:29:17 are going
    0:29:18 to kill
    0:29:20 the typesetting
    0:29:20 business
    0:29:21 and they did
    0:29:22 everybody knew
    0:29:22 that
    0:29:23 like that
    0:29:23 was coming
    0:29:24 nobody
    0:29:26 nobody
    0:29:26 said oh
    0:29:26 and then
    0:29:27 there’s
    0:29:27 going to be
    0:29:28 5 million
    0:29:28 graphic design
    0:29:29 jobs
    0:29:29 that come
    0:29:30 out of
    0:29:30 the PC
    0:29:31 like
    0:29:32 nobody
    0:29:33 not a
    0:29:33 person
    0:29:34 predicted
    0:29:34 that
    0:29:35 so
    0:29:35 it’s
    0:29:35 really
    0:29:36 easy
    0:29:36 to figure
    0:29:36 out
    0:29:36 which
    0:29:37 jobs
    0:29:37 are
    0:29:37 going
    0:29:37 to go
    0:29:37 away
    0:29:38 it’s
    0:29:38 much
    0:29:39 more
    0:29:39 difficult
    0:29:39 to
    0:29:39 kind
    0:29:40 of
    0:29:40 figure
    0:29:40 out
    0:29:40 which
    0:29:41 jobs
    0:29:41 are
    0:29:41 going
    0:29:41 to
    0:29:41 come
    0:29:42 but
    0:29:43 like
    0:29:43 if
    0:29:43 you
    0:29:43 look
    0:29:43 at
    0:29:43 the
    0:29:44 history
    0:29:44 of
    0:29:44 automation
    0:29:46 which
    0:29:46 is
    0:29:46 kind
    0:29:47 of
    0:29:47 automated
    0:29:47 away
    0:29:48 everything
    0:29:48 we
    0:29:48 did
    0:29:48 100
    0:29:49 years
    0:29:49 ago
    0:29:50 there’s
    0:29:54 and so
    0:29:54 you go
    0:29:56 okay
    0:29:57 and then
    0:29:57 you know
    0:29:57 like
    0:29:58 some of
    0:29:58 the
    0:29:58 employment
    0:29:59 will be
    0:30:00 much
    0:30:00 more
    0:30:01 I think
    0:30:01 enjoyable
    0:30:02 than the
    0:30:02 old
    0:30:02 employment
    0:30:03 as well
    0:30:04 as it
    0:30:04 has been
    0:30:05 you know
    0:30:05 over time
    0:30:06 and you
    0:30:07 always talk
    0:30:07 about
    0:30:07 manufacturing
    0:30:08 jobs
    0:30:08 going
    0:30:08 away
    0:30:08 but
    0:30:09 the
    0:30:09 manufacturing
    0:30:09 jobs
    0:30:10 that
    0:30:10 have
    0:30:10 gone
    0:30:10 away
    0:30:10 have
    0:30:11 been
    0:30:11 the
    0:30:11 most
    0:30:11 mind
    0:30:12 numbing
    0:30:12 so
    0:30:13 I
    0:30:13 think
    0:30:13 things
    0:30:14 evolve
    0:30:14 in
    0:30:14 very
    0:30:15 very
    0:30:15 unpredictable
    0:30:16 ways
    0:30:17 and
    0:30:18 you know
    0:30:18 like
    0:30:18 I
    0:30:18 think
    0:30:19 the
    0:30:19 hope
    0:30:19 is
    0:30:19 that
    0:30:20 you
    0:30:20 know
    0:30:20 the
    0:30:20 world
    0:30:21 just
    0:30:21 gets
    0:30:22 much
    0:30:22 better
    0:30:23 but
    0:30:23 I’m
    0:30:23 not
    0:30:24 I’m
    0:30:24 not
    0:30:25 so
    0:30:26 worried
    0:30:26 about
    0:30:27 kind
    0:30:27 of
    0:30:28 anticipating
    0:30:28 all the
    0:30:28 horror
    0:30:29 that’s
    0:30:29 going to
    0:30:29 come
    0:30:29 I mean
    0:30:29 I think
    0:30:30 the main
    0:30:30 reason
    0:30:30 we’re
    0:30:31 making
    0:30:31 these
    0:30:31 things
    0:30:31 is
    0:30:32 you
    0:30:32 know
    0:30:33 the
    0:30:33 ways
    0:30:34 that
    0:30:34 they’re
    0:30:34 making
    0:30:34 life
    0:30:35 better
    0:30:36 and
    0:30:36 you know
    0:30:37 just like
    0:30:37 we finally
    0:30:38 figured out
    0:30:38 a way
    0:30:39 for
    0:30:39 everybody
    0:30:40 like
    0:30:40 we
    0:30:40 already
    0:30:41 have
    0:30:42 in
    0:30:42 our
    0:30:43 hands
    0:30:44 everybody
    0:30:44 can
    0:30:44 get
    0:30:45 a
    0:30:45 great
    0:30:45 education
    0:30:46 like
    0:30:47 that
    0:30:47 whole
    0:30:49 inequality
    0:30:50 of
    0:30:50 access
    0:30:50 to
    0:30:51 education
    0:30:51 is
    0:30:52 like
    0:30:52 literally
    0:30:53 gone
    0:30:53 right
    0:30:53 now
    0:30:54 which
    0:30:55 is
    0:30:56 pretty
    0:30:56 amazing
    0:30:57 I mean
    0:30:57 it’s
    0:30:57 certainly
    0:30:58 huge
    0:30:59 yeah
    0:30:59 nothing
    0:30:59 that I
    0:31:00 ever
    0:31:00 thought
    0:31:00 I’d
    0:31:00 see
    0:31:01 so
    0:31:02 hopefully
    0:31:04 things
    0:31:04 go well
    0:31:05 the great
    0:31:05 irony
    0:31:05 it’s
    0:31:06 so
    0:31:06 crazy
    0:31:07 I
    0:31:07 don’t
    0:31:07 think
    0:31:08 anybody
    0:31:08 anybody
    0:31:09 saw that
    0:31:09 coming
    0:31:09 it was
    0:31:09 always
    0:31:10 going
    0:31:10 to
    0:31:10 be
    0:31:10 it’s
    0:31:10 going
    0:31:10 to
    0:31:10 go
    0:31:10 for
    0:31:10 the
    0:31:11 drivers
    0:31:11 it’s
    0:31:11 going
    0:31:11 to
    0:31:12 go
    0:31:12 for
    0:31:12 all
    0:31:12 those
    0:31:12 hard
    0:31:13 difficult
    0:31:13 repetitive
    0:31:14 tasks
    0:31:14 yeah
    0:31:14 it’s
    0:31:15 been
    0:31:15 very
    0:31:16 fascinating
    0:31:16 to
    0:31:16 see
    0:31:16 what
    0:31:17 actually
    0:31:17 is
    0:31:17 in
    0:31:18 danger
    0:31:18 like
    0:31:19 super
    0:31:19 creative
    0:31:20 jobs
    0:31:20 very
    0:31:21 much
    0:31:21 in
    0:31:21 danger
    0:31:23 but
    0:31:23 yeah
    0:31:23 as
    0:31:23 you
    0:31:23 get
    0:31:24 down
    0:31:24 I
    0:31:24 mean
    0:31:24 look
    0:31:24 I
    0:31:25 think
    0:31:25 I
    0:31:25 believe
    0:31:26 way
    0:31:26 more
    0:31:26 strongly
    0:31:27 than
    0:31:27 you
    0:31:27 do
    0:31:27 that
    0:31:28 robots
    0:31:28 are
    0:31:28 just
    0:31:28 going
    0:31:28 to
    0:31:28 get
    0:31:29 better
    0:31:29 and
    0:31:29 better
    0:31:29 and
    0:31:29 better
    0:31:30 and
    0:31:30 better
    0:31:31 but
    0:31:32 that
    0:31:32 could
    0:31:32 be
    0:31:32 that
    0:31:33 I’m
    0:31:33 not
    0:31:33 as
    0:31:33 close
    0:31:33 to
    0:31:33 the
    0:31:34 problem
    0:31:34 as
    0:31:34 you
    0:31:34 are
    0:31:35 speaking
    0:31:35 of
    0:31:35 which
    0:31:36 how
    0:31:36 the
    0:31:37 insights
    0:31:37 that
    0:31:37 you’ve
    0:31:38 had
    0:31:38 into
    0:31:39 AI
    0:31:39 how
    0:31:39 are
    0:31:39 they
    0:31:40 informing
    0:31:40 the
    0:31:41 investments
    0:31:41 that
    0:31:41 you
    0:31:41 guys
    0:31:42 make
    0:31:42 the
    0:31:43 theory
    0:31:43 is
    0:31:43 there’s
    0:31:44 this
    0:31:44 one
    0:31:44 like
    0:31:44 super
    0:31:45 intelligent
    0:31:45 big
    0:31:46 brain
    0:31:46 that’s
    0:31:46 going to
    0:31:46 do
    0:31:47 everything
    0:31:47 the
    0:31:48 reality
    0:31:48 on the
    0:31:48 ground
    0:31:49 is
    0:31:49 even
    0:31:50 with
    0:31:50 the
    0:31:50 state
    0:31:50 of
    0:31:50 the
    0:31:50 art
    0:31:51 models
    0:31:51 they’re
    0:31:51 all
    0:31:52 kind
    0:31:52 of
    0:31:52 good
    0:31:53 at
    0:31:53 slightly
    0:31:53 different
    0:31:54 things
    0:31:54 right
    0:31:54 like
    0:31:54 you know
    0:31:55 Anthropic
    0:31:55 is
    0:31:55 like
    0:31:55 really
    0:31:56 good
    0:31:56 at
    0:31:56 code
    0:31:57 and
    0:31:58 Grok
    0:31:58 is
    0:31:58 really
    0:31:59 good
    0:31:59 at
    0:31:59 like
    0:31:59 real
    0:31:59 time
    0:32:00 data
    0:32:00 because
    0:32:00 they’ve
    0:32:00 got
    0:32:00 the
    0:32:01 Twitter
    0:32:01 stuff
    0:32:01 and
    0:32:02 then
    0:32:02 you
    0:32:02 know
    0:32:03 OpenAI
    0:32:03 has
    0:32:04 gotten
    0:32:04 like
    0:32:04 very
    0:32:04 very
    0:32:05 good
    0:32:05 at
    0:32:05 reasoning
    0:32:07 so
    0:32:09 with
    0:32:09 all
    0:32:09 of
    0:32:10 them
    0:32:10 are
    0:32:10 doing
    0:32:11 AGI
    0:32:11 but
    0:32:12 then
    0:32:12 they’re
    0:32:12 all
    0:32:12 good
    0:32:12 at
    0:32:13 different
    0:32:13 stuff
    0:32:13 which
    0:32:14 is
    0:32:14 you know
    0:32:15 from
    0:32:15 an
    0:32:15 investing
    0:32:16 standpoint
    0:32:16 it’s
    0:32:16 very
    0:32:16 good
    0:32:17 to
    0:32:17 know
    0:32:17 that
    0:32:19 because
    0:32:20 if
    0:32:20 something
    0:32:20 like
    0:32:20 that’s
    0:32:21 not
    0:32:21 winner
    0:32:21 take
    0:32:21 all
    0:32:22 that’s
    0:32:22 very
    0:32:23 that
    0:32:23 becomes
    0:32:23 like
    0:32:24 super
    0:32:24 interesting
    0:32:25 it
    0:32:25 also
    0:32:26 is
    0:32:26 interesting
    0:32:27 for
    0:32:28 what
    0:32:28 it
    0:32:28 means
    0:32:28 at
    0:32:28 the
    0:32:29 application
    0:32:29 layer
    0:32:29 because
    0:32:30 if
    0:32:30 the
    0:32:32 infrastructure
    0:32:32 products
    0:32:33 aren’t
    0:32:33 winner
    0:32:34 take
    0:32:34 all
    0:32:34 and
    0:32:34 then
    0:32:35 the
    0:32:35 other
    0:32:35 thing
    0:32:35 about
    0:32:35 the
    0:32:36 infrastructure
    0:32:36 products
    0:32:37 that’s
    0:32:37 interesting
    0:32:37 is
    0:32:38 that
    0:32:38 they’re
    0:32:39 not
    0:32:39 particularly
    0:32:40 sticky
    0:32:41 in the
    0:32:42 way
    0:32:42 that
    0:32:42 kind
    0:32:43 of
    0:32:44 Microsoft
    0:32:44 Windows
    0:32:45 was
    0:32:45 very
    0:32:45 sticky
    0:32:46 right
    0:32:46 it was
    0:32:46 sticky
    0:32:47 you build
    0:32:47 an application
    0:32:48 on Windows
    0:32:49 it doesn’t run
    0:32:49 on other
    0:32:50 stuff
    0:32:50 you’ve got
    0:32:51 to do a lot
    0:32:51 of work
    0:32:52 to move
    0:32:52 it to
    0:32:52 something
    0:32:52 else
    0:32:53 so you
    0:32:53 get this
    0:32:53 network
    0:32:55 effect
    0:32:55 with
    0:32:56 developers
    0:32:57 then you
    0:32:57 go
    0:32:58 okay
    0:32:58 well
    0:32:59 how does
    0:32:59 that work
    0:32:59 with
    0:33:00 state-of-the-art
    0:33:00 models
    0:33:01 well people
    0:33:01 build
    0:33:01 applications
    0:33:02 on these
    0:33:02 things
    0:33:03 but
    0:33:03 guess
    0:33:04 what
    0:33:04 like
    0:33:05 to move
    0:33:05 your
    0:33:05 application
    0:33:05 to
    0:33:06 DeepSeq
    0:33:06 you didn’t
    0:33:07 have to
    0:33:08 they just
    0:33:09 literally
    0:33:09 took the
    0:33:09 open
    0:33:11 Python
    0:33:11 API
    0:33:12 and like
    0:33:12 it runs
    0:33:13 on DeepSeq
    0:33:13 now
    0:33:16 so
    0:33:17 you know
    0:33:17 that
    0:33:17 that kind
    0:33:18 of thing
    0:33:19 really impacts
    0:33:20 you know
    0:33:20 how you
    0:33:20 think about
    0:33:21 investing
    0:33:21 and like
    0:33:22 what is
    0:33:23 the value
    0:33:23 of having
    0:33:24 lead in
    0:33:24 application
    0:33:25 and then
    0:33:25 you know
    0:33:26 where is
    0:33:26 the mode
    0:33:26 going to
    0:33:27 come from
    0:33:28 and of
    0:33:28 course
    0:33:28 AI is
    0:33:29 also
    0:33:29 getting
    0:33:29 like
    0:33:30 the one
    0:33:30 thing
    0:33:30 it is
    0:33:30 getting
    0:33:31 amazingly
    0:33:32 good at
    0:33:32 is
    0:33:32 writing
    0:33:33 code
    0:33:34 and
    0:33:34 so
    0:33:35 then
    0:33:35 you know
    0:33:35 how much
    0:33:36 of a
    0:33:36 lead
    0:33:36 do you
    0:33:37 have
    0:33:38 in
    0:33:38 the
    0:33:38 code
    0:33:39 itself
    0:33:39 versus
    0:33:41 you know
    0:33:42 kind of
    0:33:42 the other
    0:33:42 traditional
    0:33:43 things
    0:33:43 you know
    0:33:43 when I
    0:33:44 started
    0:33:44 in the
    0:33:44 industry
    0:33:45 the
    0:33:46 sales
    0:33:46 people
    0:33:46 were
    0:33:46 in
    0:33:47 charge
    0:33:48 they
    0:33:48 were
    0:33:48 kind
    0:33:49 of
    0:33:49 like
    0:33:49 the
    0:33:49 big
    0:33:50 there’s
    0:33:50 a
    0:33:50 great
    0:33:52 TV
    0:33:52 show
    0:33:52 called
    0:33:53 Halt
    0:33:53 and Catch
    0:33:53 Fire
    0:33:54 and
    0:33:55 if you
    0:33:55 watch it
    0:33:56 like the
    0:33:56 thing
    0:33:57 that’s
    0:33:57 really
    0:33:58 stunning
    0:33:58 if
    0:33:58 you’re
    0:33:59 you know
    0:33:59 kind
    0:33:59 of
    0:34:00 coming
    0:34:00 from
    0:34:01 the
    0:34:02 2010s
    0:34:03 2020s
    0:34:04 world
    0:34:04 is
    0:34:05 why
    0:34:05 are
    0:34:05 the
    0:34:05 sales
    0:34:06 people
    0:34:06 so
    0:34:06 powerful
    0:34:08 but
    0:34:09 they
    0:34:09 were
    0:34:09 the
    0:34:09 most
    0:34:09 powerful
    0:34:10 in
    0:34:10 those
    0:34:10 days
    0:34:11 and
    0:34:11 it
    0:34:11 was
    0:34:12 because
    0:34:12 you know
    0:34:12 distribution
    0:34:13 was the
    0:34:14 most
    0:34:14 difficult
    0:34:14 thing
    0:34:16 and
    0:34:16 I
    0:34:17 you know
    0:34:17 I think
    0:34:18 distribution
    0:34:18 is going
    0:34:19 to get
    0:34:19 in
    0:34:19 very
    0:34:19 very
    0:34:20 important
    0:34:20 again
    0:34:23 because
    0:34:24 maintaining
    0:34:24 a
    0:34:25 technological
    0:34:25 lead
    0:34:25 is
    0:34:26 a lot
    0:34:26 harder
    0:34:27 you know
    0:34:28 when the
    0:34:28 machine
    0:34:29 is writing
    0:34:29 the code
    0:34:30 and writing
    0:34:30 it very
    0:34:30 fast
    0:34:32 although
    0:34:32 it’s not
    0:34:33 all the way
    0:34:34 where it
    0:34:34 can build
    0:34:35 like super
    0:34:35 complex
    0:34:36 systems
    0:34:37 but there’s
    0:34:37 you know
    0:34:38 a bunch
    0:34:39 of things
    0:34:40 out now
    0:34:40 you know
    0:34:40 Replet’s
    0:34:41 got a
    0:34:41 great
    0:34:42 product
    0:34:42 for it
    0:34:43 there’s
    0:34:43 a company
    0:34:43 called
    0:34:44 Lovable
    0:34:44 that’s got
    0:34:44 one out
    0:34:45 in Sweden
    0:34:46 that just
    0:34:46 builds you
    0:34:47 an app
    0:34:47 like if
    0:34:47 you need
    0:34:48 an app
    0:34:48 for something
    0:34:49 just say
    0:34:49 build me
    0:34:50 this app
    0:34:51 and there
    0:34:51 it is
    0:34:52 yeah
    0:34:53 another thing
    0:34:53 in cursor
    0:34:54 that you
    0:34:54 can select
    0:34:56 what model
    0:34:56 you want
    0:34:57 to use
    0:34:58 for whatever
    0:34:58 thing that
    0:34:58 you’re about
    0:34:59 to generate
    0:34:59 so the
    0:35:00 ability to
    0:35:00 go oh
    0:35:01 I want
    0:35:01 10 of
    0:35:01 these
    0:35:02 things
    0:35:02 I’m gonna
    0:35:02 use this
    0:35:03 one for
    0:35:03 this kind
    0:35:03 of code
    0:35:04 this one
    0:35:04 for that
    0:35:04 kind
    0:35:04 of code
    0:35:05 it’s
    0:35:06 really
    0:35:06 fascinating
    0:35:08 now the
    0:35:08 Biden
    0:35:08 administration
    0:35:09 was super
    0:35:09 hostile
    0:35:10 towards tech
    0:35:12 when you
    0:35:13 look at
    0:35:14 what’s going
    0:35:14 on now
    0:35:15 with the
    0:35:15 changes
    0:35:16 in
    0:35:16 regulatory
    0:35:18 what do
    0:35:19 you think
    0:35:19 about the
    0:35:20 race
    0:35:21 between
    0:35:21 us
    0:35:21 and
    0:35:21 China
    0:35:22 were we
    0:35:22 headed
    0:35:23 down a
    0:35:23 dark
    0:35:23 path
    0:35:24 where
    0:35:24 if
    0:35:25 that
    0:35:26 administration
    0:35:26 had
    0:35:27 stayed
    0:35:27 with that
    0:35:27 like we’re
    0:35:28 going to have
    0:35:28 one or two
    0:35:29 companies
    0:35:29 we’re going to
    0:35:30 control them
    0:35:30 that’s going
    0:35:30 to be that
    0:35:32 is it possible
    0:35:32 we could have
    0:35:33 lost that race
    0:35:34 is that race
    0:35:35 a figment
    0:35:35 of my
    0:35:36 imagination
    0:35:36 is that
    0:35:36 real
    0:35:38 I think
    0:35:38 there’s
    0:35:40 multiple layers
    0:35:41 to the
    0:35:43 AI race
    0:35:43 with China
    0:35:44 and then
    0:35:45 you know
    0:35:45 the Biden
    0:35:46 administration
    0:35:47 was
    0:35:48 kind of
    0:35:48 hostile
    0:35:49 in many
    0:35:50 ways
    0:35:50 but all
    0:35:51 for kind
    0:35:51 of a
    0:35:51 central
    0:35:52 reason
    0:35:52 I think
    0:35:54 so
    0:35:55 you know
    0:35:56 in AI
    0:35:56 in particular
    0:35:58 you know
    0:35:58 when we
    0:35:59 met
    0:36:01 and I
    0:36:01 should be
    0:36:02 very specific
    0:36:03 we did
    0:36:03 meet with
    0:36:04 Jake Sullivan
    0:36:04 but he was
    0:36:05 very good
    0:36:05 about it
    0:36:05 we met
    0:36:06 with Gina
    0:36:06 Raimondo
    0:36:07 she was
    0:36:07 very good
    0:36:08 about it
    0:36:09 but we
    0:36:10 met with
    0:36:10 the kind
    0:36:11 of White
    0:36:11 House
    0:36:13 and
    0:36:13 their
    0:36:14 you know
    0:36:15 their position
    0:36:15 was
    0:36:16 super
    0:36:18 kind of
    0:36:18 I would
    0:36:18 say
    0:36:19 ill-informed
    0:36:20 so
    0:36:21 they
    0:36:21 basically
    0:36:22 were
    0:36:23 they
    0:36:24 walked in
    0:36:24 with this
    0:36:25 idea
    0:36:26 that like
    0:36:26 we’ve got
    0:36:27 a three-year
    0:36:28 lead on
    0:36:28 China
    0:36:30 and
    0:36:30 we have
    0:36:31 to protect
    0:36:31 that lead
    0:36:33 and
    0:36:34 there’s
    0:36:34 no
    0:36:36 and
    0:36:36 therefore
    0:36:37 we need
    0:36:37 to shut
    0:36:38 down
    0:36:38 open
    0:36:38 source
    0:36:39 and
    0:36:39 that
    0:36:39 doesn’t
    0:36:40 matter
    0:36:41 to
    0:36:41 you
    0:36:42 guys
    0:36:42 and
    0:36:42 startups
    0:36:42 because
    0:36:43 startups
    0:36:44 can’t
    0:36:44 participate
    0:36:45 in AI
    0:36:45 anyway
    0:36:47 because
    0:36:47 they don’t
    0:36:48 have enough
    0:36:48 money
    0:36:50 and
    0:36:50 the only
    0:36:51 companies
    0:36:51 that are
    0:36:52 going to
    0:36:52 do
    0:36:52 AI
    0:36:53 are
    0:36:54 going to
    0:36:54 be
    0:36:54 kind
    0:36:54 of
    0:36:55 ironically
    0:36:56 the
    0:36:57 two
    0:36:57 startups
    0:36:58 Anthropic
    0:36:58 and Open
    0:36:58 AI
    0:36:59 that are
    0:36:59 out
    0:37:00 and then
    0:37:00 the big
    0:37:00 companies
    0:37:00 Google
    0:37:01 and so
    0:37:01 forth
    0:37:01 and
    0:37:02 Microsoft
    0:37:03 and so
    0:37:03 we can
    0:37:04 put a
    0:37:05 huge
    0:37:05 regulatory
    0:37:06 barrier
    0:37:06 on them
    0:37:06 because
    0:37:07 they have
    0:37:07 the money
    0:37:07 and the
    0:37:08 people
    0:37:08 to deal
    0:37:08 with it
    0:37:09 and then
    0:37:10 that’ll
    0:37:10 be
    0:37:11 and you
    0:37:11 know
    0:37:12 in their
    0:37:12 minds
    0:37:12 I think
    0:37:13 they actually
    0:37:13 believe
    0:37:14 that
    0:37:15 that would
    0:37:15 be how
    0:37:16 we would
    0:37:16 win
    0:37:18 but of course
    0:37:18 you know
    0:37:19 in retrospect
    0:37:20 that makes
    0:37:20 no sense
    0:37:21 and it
    0:37:21 kind of
    0:37:23 it damages
    0:37:23 you know
    0:37:23 if you look
    0:37:24 at China
    0:37:24 and what
    0:37:24 China’s
    0:37:25 great at
    0:37:25 then this
    0:37:26 goes to the
    0:37:26 next thing
    0:37:27 so there’s
    0:37:27 how good
    0:37:28 is your
    0:37:28 AI
    0:37:28 and then
    0:37:30 how well
    0:37:30 is it
    0:37:31 integrated
    0:37:31 into
    0:37:33 your
    0:37:33 military
    0:37:34 and the way
    0:37:34 the government
    0:37:34 works
    0:37:35 and so
    0:37:35 forth
    0:37:36 and I
    0:37:36 think
    0:37:36 that
    0:37:37 China
    0:37:37 being a
    0:37:38 top-down
    0:37:39 society
    0:37:40 their strength
    0:37:40 is
    0:37:42 you know
    0:37:43 that whatever
    0:37:44 AI they have
    0:37:44 they’re going
    0:37:45 to integrate
    0:37:45 into it’s
    0:37:46 already all the
    0:37:46 companies are
    0:37:47 highly integrated
    0:37:47 into the
    0:37:48 government
    0:37:49 so you know
    0:37:50 they’re going
    0:37:50 to be able
    0:37:50 to deploy
    0:37:51 that and
    0:37:52 and we’re
    0:37:52 going to
    0:37:52 see it
    0:37:53 in action
    0:37:55 with their
    0:37:55 military
    0:37:56 very fast
    0:37:57 I think
    0:37:57 that the
    0:37:58 advantage
    0:37:58 of the
    0:37:59 US
    0:37:59 is like
    0:38:00 we’re not
    0:38:01 a top-down
    0:38:01 society
    0:38:02 we’re like
    0:38:02 a wild
    0:38:03 messy
    0:38:03 society
    0:38:04 but it
    0:38:05 means that
    0:38:05 all of our
    0:38:06 smart people
    0:38:07 can participate
    0:38:08 in the field
    0:38:10 and look
    0:38:11 there’s more
    0:38:11 to AI
    0:38:12 than just
    0:38:12 the big
    0:38:12 models
    0:38:13 as you said
    0:38:13 like
    0:38:14 you know
    0:38:15 how important
    0:38:15 is cursor
    0:38:16 it’s really
    0:38:17 important
    0:38:18 if you’re
    0:38:18 building stuff
    0:38:19 so like
    0:38:20 oh you want
    0:38:20 to go
    0:38:21 build
    0:38:23 you know
    0:38:24 the next
    0:38:25 whatever
    0:38:26 thing that
    0:38:27 the CIA
    0:38:27 needs
    0:38:27 or the
    0:38:28 NSA
    0:38:28 needs
    0:38:28 or this
    0:38:29 and that
    0:38:30 like
    0:38:30 you’re
    0:38:30 building
    0:38:30 that
    0:38:30 with
    0:38:31 cursor
    0:38:31 you’re
    0:38:31 using
    0:38:31 a state
    0:38:32 of the
    0:38:32 art
    0:38:32 model
    0:38:33 but like
    0:38:33 if you
    0:38:33 had
    0:38:34 eliminated
    0:38:34 if you
    0:38:34 know
    0:38:35 if
    0:38:35 the
    0:38:35 Biden
    0:38:36 White
    0:38:36 House
    0:38:36 had
    0:38:36 gotten
    0:38:36 their
    0:38:36 way
    0:38:37 they’d
    0:38:37 eliminate
    0:38:37 things
    0:38:38 like
    0:38:38 cursor
    0:38:38 they’d
    0:38:38 eliminate
    0:38:39 startups
    0:38:39 being
    0:38:40 able
    0:38:40 to do
    0:38:41 anything
    0:38:41 in AI
    0:38:43 and so
    0:38:44 the advantages
    0:38:45 that we have
    0:38:45 that we
    0:38:45 don’t just
    0:38:46 have a model
    0:38:47 we’ve got
    0:38:47 all this
    0:38:47 other stuff
    0:38:48 that goes
    0:38:48 with it
    0:38:50 and then
    0:38:50 we have
    0:38:51 new ideas
    0:38:51 on models
    0:38:53 with new
    0:38:53 algorithms
    0:38:53 and this
    0:38:54 and that
    0:38:55 and that’s
    0:38:55 what the
    0:38:55 U.S.
    0:38:56 is great
    0:38:56 at
    0:38:57 and I
    0:38:57 think
    0:38:57 what China
    0:38:58 is great
    0:38:58 at
    0:38:58 is
    0:39:01 by the
    0:39:01 way
    0:39:01 they’re
    0:39:01 very good
    0:39:01 at math
    0:39:02 people
    0:39:02 people
    0:39:03 are good
    0:39:03 at math
    0:39:03 and AI
    0:39:04 is math
    0:39:04 so
    0:39:04 their
    0:39:06 models
    0:39:06 are good
    0:39:07 they also
    0:39:07 have
    0:39:08 a data
    0:39:08 advantage
    0:39:09 on us
    0:39:10 where they
    0:39:10 have access
    0:39:10 to the
    0:39:11 Chinese
    0:39:11 internet
    0:39:12 they have
    0:39:12 access
    0:39:12 to
    0:39:13 copywritten
    0:39:13 material
    0:39:14 which
    0:39:15 they do
    0:39:15 not
    0:39:16 have
    0:39:16 the
    0:39:17 same
    0:39:17 difference
    0:39:18 for it
    0:39:18 that we
    0:39:18 do
    0:39:18 in the
    0:39:19 U.S.
    0:39:19 and so
    0:39:19 they’re
    0:39:19 able
    0:39:20 to
    0:39:20 kind
    0:39:21 of
    0:39:21 get
    0:39:21 to
    0:39:22 you know
    0:39:23 if you
    0:39:23 use
    0:39:23 DeepSeq
    0:39:24 you go
    0:39:24 wow
    0:39:24 DeepSeq
    0:39:25 really is
    0:39:25 a great
    0:39:25 writer
    0:39:26 compared
    0:39:27 to a lot
    0:39:27 of the
    0:39:28 U.S.
    0:39:28 models
    0:39:28 why
    0:39:28 is
    0:39:29 that
    0:39:29 well
    0:39:29 they
    0:39:30 train
    0:39:30 on
    0:39:30 bigger
    0:39:30 data
    0:39:31 set
    0:39:31 than
    0:39:31 we
    0:39:31 do
    0:39:32 and
    0:39:33 that’s
    0:39:33 amazing
    0:39:34 so
    0:39:35 it
    0:39:35 really
    0:39:36 you know
    0:39:37 I think
    0:39:37 what we
    0:39:38 want
    0:39:38 is
    0:39:38 we
    0:39:39 want
    0:39:39 to
    0:39:39 have
    0:39:40 kind
    0:39:40 of
    0:39:40 world
    0:39:41 class
    0:39:41 first
    0:39:41 class
    0:39:41 AI
    0:39:42 in
    0:39:42 the
    0:39:42 U.S.
    0:39:42 and I
    0:39:43 think
    0:39:43 of it
    0:39:43 less
    0:39:43 as
    0:39:44 you know
    0:39:45 is it
    0:39:45 ahead
    0:39:45 of
    0:39:45 China
    0:39:46 is it
    0:39:46 slightly
    0:39:46 ahead
    0:39:46 of
    0:39:46 China
    0:39:47 I
    0:39:47 think
    0:39:47 that
    0:39:47 model
    0:39:50 you
    0:39:52 know
    0:39:52 what
    0:39:52 we’ve
    0:39:52 seen
    0:39:53 with our
    0:39:53 own
    0:39:53 state
    0:39:53 of the
    0:39:53 art
    0:39:54 models
    0:39:54 are
    0:39:55 very
    0:39:55 shallow
    0:39:57 and I
    0:39:57 think
    0:39:57 that’ll
    0:39:58 continue
    0:39:58 as long
    0:39:58 as we’re
    0:39:59 able
    0:39:59 and allowed
    0:40:00 to build
    0:40:00 AI
    0:40:00 and then
    0:40:01 economically
    0:40:02 what you’d
    0:40:02 like
    0:40:02 is you’d
    0:40:03 like
    0:40:04 you know
    0:40:04 to have
    0:40:05 a vibrant
    0:40:06 AI
    0:40:06 ecosystem
    0:40:07 coming out
    0:40:07 of the
    0:40:07 U.S.
    0:40:08 so other
    0:40:08 countries
    0:40:09 you know
    0:40:10 who aren’t
    0:40:11 state-of-the-art
    0:40:12 with this
    0:40:12 stuff
    0:40:13 adopt our
    0:40:14 technology
    0:40:14 and you know
    0:40:15 we continue
    0:40:16 to be strong
    0:40:16 economically
    0:40:18 as opposed
    0:40:18 to everything
    0:40:19 goes to
    0:40:19 China
    0:40:19 and that
    0:40:20 was like
    0:40:20 a big
    0:40:21 big risk
    0:40:21 with the
    0:40:21 Biden
    0:40:22 administration
    0:40:22 I think
    0:40:24 and you
    0:40:24 know
    0:40:25 which was
    0:40:26 you know
    0:40:26 what they
    0:40:27 were doing
    0:40:27 on AI
    0:40:28 was
    0:40:29 you know
    0:40:30 tough
    0:40:30 I would
    0:40:30 say
    0:40:30 what they
    0:40:31 were doing
    0:40:31 on kind
    0:40:32 of fintech
    0:40:32 and crypto
    0:40:32 was even
    0:40:33 tougher
    0:40:35 in that
    0:40:35 they were
    0:40:36 just trying
    0:40:36 to get
    0:40:36 rid of the
    0:40:37 industry
    0:40:37 in its
    0:40:38 entirety
    0:40:38 you know
    0:40:38 with AI
    0:40:39 they were
    0:40:39 trying to
    0:40:42 I would
    0:40:42 say they
    0:40:43 were extremely
    0:40:43 arrogant
    0:40:44 in their
    0:40:46 in what
    0:40:46 they thought
    0:40:47 their ability
    0:40:47 was to
    0:40:47 predict
    0:40:48 the future
    0:40:50 you know
    0:40:50 Mark and I
    0:40:51 were in
    0:40:51 there
    0:40:51 you know
    0:40:52 like our
    0:40:52 job is
    0:40:52 to
    0:40:53 predict
    0:40:53 it
    0:40:53 like this
    0:40:53 is our
    0:40:54 job to
    0:40:54 invest in
    0:40:55 the future
    0:40:55 to predict
    0:40:56 the future
    0:40:57 and they
    0:40:57 were saying
    0:40:58 things that
    0:40:59 like were
    0:41:01 so arrogant
    0:41:01 that we
    0:41:02 would never
    0:41:02 even think
    0:41:03 to say
    0:41:03 them even
    0:41:03 if we
    0:41:03 thought
    0:41:03 them
    0:41:04 because
    0:41:04 we’re
    0:41:04 like
    0:41:05 we know
    0:41:06 that we
    0:41:06 don’t know
    0:41:07 the future
    0:41:07 like that
    0:41:09 you know
    0:41:09 it’s just
    0:41:10 unknowable
    0:41:11 there’s too
    0:41:11 many moving
    0:41:11 parts
    0:41:12 and these
    0:41:12 things are
    0:41:12 really
    0:41:13 complicated
    0:41:15 all right
    0:41:16 well speaking
    0:41:16 of the future
    0:41:18 fully accepting
    0:41:18 that it is
    0:41:19 very opaque
    0:41:20 and very
    0:41:20 difficult to
    0:41:21 see
    0:41:21 what would
    0:41:21 you say
    0:41:22 is the
    0:41:22 most
    0:41:23 controversial
    0:41:23 view that
    0:41:24 you hold
    0:41:24 about the
    0:41:25 future
    0:41:26 if we
    0:41:27 don’t
    0:41:28 get to
    0:41:29 world class
    0:41:30 in crypto
    0:41:30 we’re gonna
    0:41:32 be you know
    0:41:32 AI really has
    0:41:34 the potential
    0:41:34 to wreck
    0:41:35 society
    0:41:37 and what I
    0:41:37 mean by that
    0:41:38 is if you
    0:41:39 think about
    0:41:40 what is
    0:41:42 obviously
    0:41:43 clearly gonna
    0:41:43 happen in an
    0:41:44 AI world
    0:41:44 is one
    0:41:46 we’re not
    0:41:46 gonna be able
    0:41:46 to tell the
    0:41:47 difference between
    0:41:47 a human and
    0:41:48 a robot
    0:41:49 two
    0:41:49 we’re not
    0:41:50 gonna know
    0:41:50 what’s
    0:41:50 real or
    0:41:51 fake
    0:41:53 three
    0:41:54 the level
    0:41:55 of security
    0:41:56 attacks
    0:41:57 on big
    0:41:58 central data
    0:41:58 repositories
    0:41:59 is gonna
    0:41:59 get so
    0:42:00 good
    0:42:01 that
    0:42:02 everybody’s
    0:42:02 data is
    0:42:03 going to
    0:42:04 be out
    0:42:04 there
    0:42:05 and you
    0:42:05 know
    0:42:06 there is
    0:42:06 no safe
    0:42:07 haven for
    0:42:07 a consumer
    0:42:09 and then
    0:42:10 finally
    0:42:10 you know
    0:42:10 for these
    0:42:11 agents
    0:42:12 and these
    0:42:12 bots
    0:42:13 actually be
    0:42:13 useful
    0:42:14 they
    0:42:14 actually
    0:42:15 need to
    0:42:15 be able
    0:42:15 to use
    0:42:16 money
    0:42:17 and pay
    0:42:17 for stuff
    0:42:18 and get
    0:42:18 paid for
    0:42:19 stuff
    0:42:19 like so
    0:42:22 and if you
    0:42:22 think about
    0:42:22 all those
    0:42:23 problems
    0:42:23 those are
    0:42:24 problems
    0:42:25 that are
    0:42:25 by far
    0:42:26 best solved
    0:42:27 by kind
    0:42:27 of blockchain
    0:42:28 technology
    0:42:30 so one
    0:42:32 we absolutely
    0:42:33 need
    0:42:34 a public
    0:42:34 key
    0:42:34 infrastructure
    0:42:36 such that
    0:42:37 every citizen
    0:42:38 has their
    0:42:39 own wallet
    0:42:39 with their
    0:42:40 own data
    0:42:40 with their
    0:42:41 own
    0:42:41 information
    0:42:43 and if
    0:42:44 you need
    0:42:44 to get
    0:42:45 credit
    0:42:46 or prove
    0:42:46 you’re a
    0:42:46 citizen
    0:42:47 or whatever
    0:42:48 you can do
    0:42:49 that with
    0:42:49 the zero
    0:42:49 knowledge
    0:42:49 proof
    0:42:50 you don’t
    0:42:50 have to
    0:42:50 hand over
    0:42:51 your social
    0:42:51 security
    0:42:52 numbers
    0:42:52 your bank
    0:42:53 account
    0:42:53 information
    0:42:54 all this
    0:42:55 kind of
    0:42:55 thing
    0:42:56 because
    0:42:58 the AI
    0:42:58 will get
    0:42:59 it
    0:43:00 so you
    0:43:01 really need
    0:43:01 your own
    0:43:02 keys
    0:43:02 and your
    0:43:02 own
    0:43:02 data
    0:43:03 and there
    0:43:03 can’t be
    0:43:04 these
    0:43:04 gigantic
    0:43:06 massive
    0:43:06 honeypots
    0:43:07 of information
    0:43:08 that people
    0:43:08 can go
    0:43:09 after
    0:43:10 I think
    0:43:10 that with
    0:43:11 deep
    0:43:11 fakes
    0:43:12 if you
    0:43:12 think
    0:43:12 about
    0:43:13 okay
    0:43:14 we’re
    0:43:14 going to
    0:43:15 have to
    0:43:15 be able
    0:43:16 to
    0:43:16 whitelist
    0:43:17 things
    0:43:17 we’re
    0:43:17 going to
    0:43:17 have to
    0:43:17 be able
    0:43:18 to say
    0:43:18 what’s
    0:43:18 real
    0:43:19 but who
    0:43:20 keeps
    0:43:20 track
    0:43:20 of what’s
    0:43:21 true
    0:43:21 then
    0:43:21 is it
    0:43:21 the
    0:43:22 government
    0:43:23 you know
    0:43:24 please
    0:43:24 Jesus
    0:43:24 everybody
    0:43:25 trust
    0:43:25 everybody
    0:43:25 trust
    0:43:26 Trump
    0:43:26 now
    0:43:27 you know
    0:43:27 everybody
    0:43:27 trusted
    0:43:28 Biden
    0:43:28 is it
    0:43:29 going to
    0:43:29 be
    0:43:29 Google
    0:43:29 we
    0:43:30 trust
    0:43:30 those
    0:43:30 guys
    0:43:31 or is
    0:43:31 it
    0:43:31 going to
    0:43:32 be
    0:43:32 the
    0:43:32 game
    0:43:33 theoretic
    0:43:33 mathematical
    0:43:34 properties
    0:43:34 of the
    0:43:35 blockchain
    0:43:35 that
    0:43:36 can hold
    0:43:36 that
    0:43:39 and so
    0:43:39 I think
    0:43:39 that
    0:43:40 you know
    0:43:40 it’s
    0:43:41 essential
    0:43:42 that we
    0:43:43 regenerate
    0:43:43 our
    0:43:44 kind of
    0:43:45 blockchain
    0:43:45 crypto
    0:43:46 development
    0:43:46 in the
    0:43:46 US
    0:43:47 and we
    0:43:47 get
    0:43:47 very
    0:43:48 serious
    0:43:48 about
    0:43:48 it
    0:43:49 and
    0:43:49 you know
    0:43:49 like
    0:43:50 if the
    0:43:50 government
    0:43:50 were to
    0:43:51 do
    0:43:51 something
    0:43:51 I think
    0:43:51 it should
    0:43:52 be to
    0:43:52 start to
    0:43:53 require
    0:43:54 these
    0:43:55 information
    0:43:56 distribution
    0:43:56 networks
    0:43:57 these social
    0:43:57 networks
    0:43:58 to have
    0:43:59 a way
    0:43:59 to
    0:44:00 you know
    0:44:01 verifiably
    0:44:01 prove
    0:44:02 you’re human
    0:44:02 you know
    0:44:03 prove where
    0:44:04 a piece
    0:44:04 of data
    0:44:05 came from
    0:44:05 and so
    0:44:05 forth
    0:44:06 and I
    0:44:07 think
    0:44:07 that
    0:44:08 you know
    0:44:09 we have
    0:44:09 to
    0:44:09 you know
    0:44:10 have
    0:44:10 banks
    0:44:12 start
    0:44:12 accepting
    0:44:13 zero
    0:44:13 knowledge
    0:44:14 proofs
    0:44:15 and you
    0:44:15 know
    0:44:16 and that
    0:44:16 be just
    0:44:17 the way
    0:44:17 the world
    0:44:17 works
    0:44:17 we need
    0:44:19 a network
    0:44:20 architecture
    0:44:20 that is
    0:44:21 up to
    0:44:22 the challenge
    0:44:22 of you
    0:44:23 know
    0:44:23 these
    0:44:23 super
    0:44:24 intelligent
    0:44:24 agents
    0:44:25 that are
    0:44:25 running
    0:44:25 around
    0:44:26 we were
    0:44:27 talking
    0:44:27 before we
    0:44:27 started
    0:44:28 rolling
    0:44:28 that you
    0:44:28 guys
    0:44:28 have an
    0:44:29 office
    0:44:29 in DC
    0:44:30 and part
    0:44:30 of what
    0:44:30 you do
    0:44:32 is advise
    0:44:32 on that
    0:44:33 like what
    0:44:33 what does
    0:44:34 the infrastructure
    0:44:35 changes
    0:44:35 what do
    0:44:35 they need
    0:44:36 to look
    0:44:36 like
    0:44:37 what are
    0:44:37 a small
    0:44:38 handful
    0:44:38 of things
    0:44:39 that you
    0:44:39 guys are
    0:44:40 really
    0:44:40 pushing
    0:44:41 to see
    0:44:41 the government
    0:44:42 adopt
    0:44:42 to modernize
    0:44:43 the way
    0:44:43 that
    0:44:44 the whole
    0:44:44 bureaucracy
    0:44:45 works
    0:44:46 yeah so
    0:44:47 there’s a few
    0:44:48 things you know
    0:44:48 and one of the
    0:44:49 things is because
    0:44:50 you know
    0:44:51 blockchain
    0:44:52 technology
    0:44:53 involves money
    0:44:55 we do need
    0:44:55 right it’s not
    0:44:56 like we don’t
    0:44:56 need any
    0:44:57 regulation
    0:44:58 we do need
    0:44:58 regulation
    0:45:00 and there are
    0:45:00 kind of very
    0:45:01 specific things
    0:45:02 that that
    0:45:03 we’re working
    0:45:04 with the
    0:45:04 administration
    0:45:05 to make
    0:45:05 sure
    0:45:06 are done
    0:45:07 in a way
    0:45:08 that kind
    0:45:09 of creates
    0:45:09 a great
    0:45:10 environment
    0:45:10 for everybody
    0:45:11 what do
    0:45:12 you guys
    0:45:12 hoping
    0:45:13 will get
    0:45:13 blocked
    0:45:13 out
    0:45:14 for instance
    0:45:14 is that
    0:45:14 what you’re
    0:45:14 about to
    0:45:15 cover
    0:45:16 yeah I mean
    0:45:17 so like
    0:45:18 one of the
    0:45:20 first thing
    0:45:20 you need
    0:45:21 is you know
    0:45:22 we do need
    0:45:23 electronic money
    0:45:23 you know
    0:45:24 in the
    0:45:26 form of
    0:45:26 stable coin
    0:45:27 so actual
    0:45:27 currency
    0:45:29 and
    0:45:30 but we need
    0:45:31 that to not
    0:45:32 like it’s very
    0:45:32 bad if one of
    0:45:33 those collapses
    0:45:36 because then
    0:45:36 like the
    0:45:37 whole trust
    0:45:37 and the
    0:45:37 system
    0:45:38 breaks down
    0:45:38 and so
    0:45:38 forth
    0:45:39 well why
    0:45:39 do we need
    0:45:40 this kind
    0:45:40 of money
    0:45:41 this kind
    0:45:42 of internet
    0:45:42 native money
    0:45:44 well
    0:45:45 I’ll give you
    0:45:45 an example
    0:45:46 so we have
    0:45:46 a company
    0:45:48 called
    0:45:48 Daylight Energy
    0:45:50 and what
    0:45:50 they do
    0:45:50 is
    0:45:52 so we’re
    0:45:52 running
    0:45:52 we’re going
    0:45:53 to run
    0:45:53 into a big
    0:45:54 energy problem
    0:45:55 with AI
    0:45:55 that I think
    0:45:56 most people
    0:45:57 probably listening
    0:45:58 to this know
    0:45:58 about where
    0:45:59 AI consumes
    0:46:00 a massive
    0:46:00 amount of
    0:46:01 energy
    0:46:01 you know
    0:46:02 much more
    0:46:02 than Bitcoin
    0:46:02 ever did
    0:46:03 by the way
    0:46:04 which everybody
    0:46:04 was all up
    0:46:05 in arms about
    0:46:07 and you know
    0:46:07 so much so
    0:46:08 that like
    0:46:08 you can’t
    0:46:09 really even
    0:46:09 get it out
    0:46:09 of the power
    0:46:10 grid
    0:46:10 and I think
    0:46:11 Trump has
    0:46:11 been smart
    0:46:12 about this
    0:46:12 saying hey
    0:46:12 you probably
    0:46:13 need to build
    0:46:15 a kind
    0:46:17 of power
    0:46:17 next to your
    0:46:18 data center
    0:46:19 because we
    0:46:19 can’t be
    0:46:20 giving it
    0:46:20 to you
    0:46:20 from the
    0:46:21 central tank
    0:46:22 but beyond
    0:46:22 that I think
    0:46:23 that you know
    0:46:23 kind of
    0:46:24 individuals
    0:46:25 you know
    0:46:26 now have
    0:46:27 Tesla
    0:46:28 kind of
    0:46:28 solar panels
    0:46:29 and power
    0:46:29 walls
    0:46:30 and these
    0:46:30 kinds of
    0:46:31 things
    0:46:32 and when
    0:46:32 you have
    0:46:32 one of
    0:46:33 those
    0:46:33 you
    0:46:33 sometimes
    0:46:34 have
    0:46:34 more
    0:46:34 energy
    0:46:35 than you
    0:46:35 need
    0:46:36 and sometimes
    0:46:36 have
    0:46:36 less
    0:46:37 and wouldn’t
    0:46:37 it be
    0:46:38 great
    0:46:39 if you
    0:46:39 could
    0:46:40 you know
    0:46:40 if there
    0:46:41 was a
    0:46:41 nice
    0:46:42 system
    0:46:43 that figured
    0:46:43 out who
    0:46:44 needed
    0:46:44 energy
    0:46:45 and who
    0:46:46 had
    0:46:46 energy
    0:46:47 and you
    0:46:47 could just
    0:46:47 trade
    0:46:48 and there
    0:46:49 was some
    0:46:50 kind of
    0:46:50 contract
    0:46:51 that said
    0:46:51 okay this
    0:46:51 is what
    0:46:52 you pay
    0:46:52 during peak
    0:46:53 this is what
    0:46:53 you pay
    0:46:53 at different
    0:46:54 periods
    0:46:55 and that
    0:46:56 contract
    0:46:56 probably
    0:46:57 best done
    0:46:57 in the
    0:46:57 form of
    0:46:58 a smart
    0:46:58 contract
    0:46:59 but a
    0:46:59 power wall
    0:47:00 is not
    0:47:00 a human
    0:47:01 so it
    0:47:01 doesn’t have
    0:47:01 a credit
    0:47:02 card
    0:47:02 it can’t
    0:47:02 get a credit
    0:47:03 card
    0:47:03 doesn’t have
    0:47:03 a bank
    0:47:04 account
    0:47:04 doesn’t have
    0:47:04 a social
    0:47:05 security number
    0:47:07 but it can
    0:47:07 trade crypto
    0:47:08 it can trade
    0:47:08 stable coins
    0:47:11 and so we
    0:47:11 need that
    0:47:11 kind of
    0:47:12 currency
    0:47:13 to kind
    0:47:14 of facilitate
    0:47:16 all these
    0:47:16 kind of
    0:47:17 automated
    0:47:17 agreements
    0:47:18 and automated
    0:47:19 transfer
    0:47:19 of
    0:47:22 kind of
    0:47:23 wealth
    0:47:24 between
    0:47:25 entities
    0:47:26 in order to
    0:47:26 kind of
    0:47:27 solve these
    0:47:28 big problems
    0:47:28 that we have
    0:47:29 like energy
    0:47:31 and so we
    0:47:31 need a
    0:47:32 stable coin
    0:47:32 bill that
    0:47:33 kind of
    0:47:33 says okay
    0:47:34 look
    0:47:35 we need
    0:47:36 these
    0:47:36 currencies
    0:47:37 to be
    0:47:37 backed
    0:47:38 one for
    0:47:39 one with
    0:47:39 US dollars
    0:47:40 or whatever
    0:47:41 it is
    0:47:42 so that
    0:47:43 you know
    0:47:43 we can
    0:47:44 have a
    0:47:46 system that
    0:47:46 works and
    0:47:46 is trusted
    0:47:47 now there’s
    0:47:48 this really
    0:47:49 interesting side
    0:47:49 benefit to
    0:47:50 that which
    0:47:51 is if
    0:47:51 you look
    0:47:52 at treasury
    0:47:52 auctions
    0:47:53 lately
    0:47:55 the demand
    0:47:56 for dollars
    0:47:56 is not
    0:47:57 good
    0:47:58 you know
    0:47:58 and a lot
    0:47:59 of that
    0:47:59 is the
    0:48:00 two biggest
    0:48:01 kind of
    0:48:02 lenders
    0:48:02 to the
    0:48:03 US have
    0:48:04 been China
    0:48:04 and Japan
    0:48:06 and you
    0:48:06 know China
    0:48:06 has backed
    0:48:07 off a lot
    0:48:08 and Japan
    0:48:09 has backed
    0:48:10 off somewhat
    0:48:11 and so
    0:48:11 the demand
    0:48:12 for dollars
    0:48:12 has gone
    0:48:12 down
    0:48:13 we’ve done
    0:48:13 things to
    0:48:14 also dampen
    0:48:15 demand like
    0:48:16 you know
    0:48:16 when we
    0:48:17 sanctioned
    0:48:18 Russia
    0:48:18 and we
    0:48:19 seized the
    0:48:19 assets of
    0:48:20 the Russian
    0:48:20 central bank
    0:48:21 you know
    0:48:21 there were
    0:48:22 other countries
    0:48:22 that had
    0:48:23 you know
    0:48:23 other entities
    0:48:24 that had
    0:48:24 money there
    0:48:26 and their
    0:48:26 money got
    0:48:26 frozen
    0:48:27 and they
    0:48:27 couldn’t
    0:48:28 access it
    0:48:28 and so
    0:48:28 that makes
    0:48:29 people more
    0:48:30 wary of holding
    0:48:30 everything in
    0:48:31 dollars
    0:48:32 so we’ve
    0:48:33 done a lot
    0:48:34 to dampen
    0:48:34 that which
    0:48:34 of course
    0:48:35 is you
    0:48:35 know
    0:48:36 fueled
    0:48:36 inflation
    0:48:37 in the
    0:48:38 same way
    0:48:38 that increasing
    0:48:39 supply
    0:48:40 fuels
    0:48:40 inflation
    0:48:41 killing
    0:48:41 demand
    0:48:42 fuels
    0:48:43 inflation
    0:48:44 so here
    0:48:44 we would
    0:48:44 have this
    0:48:45 new
    0:48:46 major source
    0:48:46 of demand
    0:48:47 for dollars
    0:48:48 and then the
    0:48:49 dollars would be
    0:48:49 much more useful
    0:48:50 because you can
    0:48:50 use them
    0:48:51 online as well
    0:48:53 and machines
    0:48:53 can use them
    0:48:54 and so forth
    0:48:54 so we
    0:48:55 really
    0:48:55 and sorry
    0:48:56 really fast
    0:48:56 for people
    0:48:57 that are
    0:48:57 trying to
    0:48:58 track that
    0:48:58 the reason
    0:48:59 that that
    0:49:01 would increase
    0:49:01 the demand
    0:49:01 for dollars
    0:49:02 is that they
    0:49:02 would the
    0:49:03 stable coin
    0:49:03 would be
    0:49:04 backed one
    0:49:04 for one
    0:49:05 with debt
    0:49:06 is that the
    0:49:06 idea
    0:49:07 well yeah
    0:49:07 with
    0:49:09 where you
    0:49:09 would basically
    0:49:10 have
    0:49:10 you would
    0:49:11 have to
    0:49:11 have a
    0:49:12 dollar
    0:49:12 right
    0:49:15 for
    0:49:16 every
    0:49:16 whole
    0:49:17 treasuries
    0:49:17 stable coin
    0:49:17 yeah you
    0:49:18 basically
    0:49:18 hold
    0:49:18 treasuries
    0:49:19 so that
    0:49:20 if somebody
    0:49:20 wanted to
    0:49:21 redeem their
    0:49:21 stable coins
    0:49:22 they could
    0:49:23 and then that
    0:49:23 way
    0:49:24 you know
    0:49:24 kind of
    0:49:25 the equivalent
    0:49:26 of the
    0:49:26 gold standard
    0:49:27 in the old
    0:49:27 days
    0:49:27 you know
    0:49:28 when dollars
    0:49:28 were trying
    0:49:29 to get
    0:49:29 credible
    0:49:30 you know
    0:49:31 we would
    0:49:31 need
    0:49:31 like
    0:49:33 dollars
    0:49:34 to be the
    0:49:34 gold standard
    0:49:35 for the
    0:49:35 stable coin
    0:49:37 you know
    0:49:38 and probably
    0:49:38 we should
    0:49:39 never back
    0:49:40 off of that
    0:49:40 maybe we
    0:49:40 should never
    0:49:41 backed off
    0:49:41 of gold
    0:49:42 but
    0:49:43 you know
    0:49:43 it’s easier
    0:49:44 when it’s
    0:49:44 dollars
    0:49:45 because we
    0:49:45 did kind of
    0:49:46 start to run
    0:49:46 out of gold
    0:49:47 a bit
    0:49:49 so
    0:49:50 yeah so
    0:49:51 that’s
    0:49:51 you know
    0:49:51 one thing
    0:49:53 then
    0:49:54 secondly
    0:49:55 there’s
    0:49:56 a bill
    0:49:57 that went
    0:49:58 through the
    0:49:58 house
    0:49:58 known as
    0:49:59 the market
    0:49:59 structure
    0:50:00 bill
    0:50:00 it was
    0:50:01 technically
    0:50:01 called
    0:50:02 fit 21
    0:50:03 that’s a
    0:50:04 very important
    0:50:04 you know
    0:50:05 whether it’s
    0:50:05 exactly that
    0:50:06 or some
    0:50:06 form of
    0:50:07 that
    0:50:08 because
    0:50:09 you know
    0:50:09 when you
    0:50:10 talk about
    0:50:11 tokens
    0:50:12 which are
    0:50:13 this kind
    0:50:13 of instrument
    0:50:14 that’s very
    0:50:15 very important
    0:50:16 in blockchain
    0:50:16 world
    0:50:17 because it’s
    0:50:17 the way
    0:50:19 that this
    0:50:20 amazing
    0:50:21 kind of
    0:50:21 network
    0:50:22 of computers
    0:50:23 gets paid
    0:50:23 for it
    0:50:23 so
    0:50:24 you know
    0:50:25 who
    0:50:26 who pays
    0:50:26 the people
    0:50:26 for running
    0:50:28 the computers
    0:50:28 well that’s
    0:50:29 paid in the
    0:50:29 form of
    0:50:30 these tokens
    0:50:31 but these
    0:50:31 tokens
    0:50:33 which can be
    0:50:34 created on
    0:50:34 blockchain
    0:50:36 have
    0:50:38 they can be
    0:50:39 many things
    0:50:41 so you can
    0:50:41 create a token
    0:50:42 that’s a
    0:50:42 collectible
    0:50:43 you know
    0:50:44 you can
    0:50:45 create a
    0:50:45 token
    0:50:47 that is a
    0:50:48 digital property
    0:50:48 right
    0:50:49 you know
    0:50:49 that links
    0:50:51 to you know
    0:50:51 some piece
    0:50:52 of real
    0:50:52 estate
    0:50:53 or a piece
    0:50:53 of art
    0:50:53 or so
    0:50:54 forth
    0:50:55 a token
    0:50:55 can be
    0:50:57 a you know
    0:50:58 pokemon card
    0:50:58 a token
    0:50:58 could be
    0:50:59 a coupon
    0:51:00 a token
    0:51:00 could be
    0:51:01 a security
    0:51:02 that represents
    0:51:02 a stock
    0:51:04 it could be
    0:51:04 you know
    0:51:05 a dollar
    0:51:06 so which
    0:51:07 one is it
    0:51:08 is a very
    0:51:09 kind of
    0:51:09 important set
    0:51:10 of rules
    0:51:11 that doesn’t
    0:51:11 exist
    0:51:12 and this is
    0:51:12 one of the
    0:51:14 most insidious
    0:51:14 thing that
    0:51:15 the Biden
    0:51:15 administration
    0:51:16 did was
    0:51:17 basically say
    0:51:18 well everything
    0:51:19 is a security
    0:51:19 everything’s
    0:51:20 a stock
    0:51:22 or you know
    0:51:22 like some
    0:51:23 thing with
    0:51:23 asymmetric
    0:51:24 information
    0:51:25 which kind
    0:51:26 of basically
    0:51:28 undermines
    0:51:28 the whole
    0:51:30 power of the
    0:51:30 technology
    0:51:31 and so it
    0:51:32 was basically
    0:51:33 a scheme
    0:51:34 for them
    0:51:36 to kind
    0:51:37 of get rid
    0:51:37 of the industry
    0:51:38 but it was
    0:51:39 very very
    0:51:40 dark
    0:51:43 cynical
    0:51:44 way of
    0:51:46 legislating
    0:51:47 things and
    0:51:47 they would
    0:51:47 make these
    0:51:48 fake claims
    0:51:49 about scams
    0:51:50 and so forth
    0:51:51 but the
    0:51:52 market structure
    0:51:52 bill is
    0:51:53 very very
    0:51:53 important in
    0:51:54 that way
    0:51:54 and by the
    0:51:55 way also
    0:51:55 you know
    0:51:56 another thing
    0:51:57 that was in
    0:51:57 the original
    0:51:58 market structure
    0:51:59 bill which
    0:52:00 is important
    0:52:00 is look
    0:52:01 there are
    0:52:03 also scams
    0:52:04 there are
    0:52:04 you know
    0:52:05 and we call
    0:52:05 it the casino
    0:52:07 but you know
    0:52:08 like I can
    0:52:09 create some
    0:52:10 coin like the
    0:52:11 Hak Tua girl
    0:52:11 did right
    0:52:12 like and
    0:52:13 she creates
    0:52:14 a coin
    0:52:15 she kind
    0:52:16 of lies
    0:52:17 about
    0:52:19 you know
    0:52:20 her holdings
    0:52:20 and says
    0:52:21 she’s going
    0:52:21 to hold
    0:52:21 them but
    0:52:22 then sells
    0:52:23 them you
    0:52:23 know
    0:52:24 after people
    0:52:25 buy it
    0:52:25 in a short
    0:52:26 time period
    0:52:26 and so forth
    0:52:27 and there’s
    0:52:28 no part of
    0:52:28 the problem
    0:52:28 is there’s
    0:52:29 no kind
    0:52:30 of rules
    0:52:30 around that
    0:52:31 but in
    0:52:31 the kind
    0:52:32 of bill
    0:52:33 that passed
    0:52:33 the house
    0:52:34 it said
    0:52:34 like you
    0:52:35 can create
    0:52:35 a token
    0:52:37 but if
    0:52:37 you hold
    0:52:37 it you
    0:52:38 can’t trade
    0:52:38 it for
    0:52:39 four years
    0:52:40 that kind
    0:52:41 of takes
    0:52:41 a lot
    0:52:42 of the
    0:52:42 ability
    0:52:43 to scam
    0:52:44 out of
    0:52:44 it
    0:52:45 and kind
    0:52:45 of forces
    0:52:46 people to
    0:52:46 do things
    0:52:47 that are
    0:52:47 their real
    0:52:48 utilities
    0:52:48 or if
    0:52:48 it’s a
    0:52:49 collectible
    0:52:50 you know
    0:52:50 if it is
    0:52:51 the Hak Tua
    0:52:51 collectible
    0:52:53 you know
    0:52:53 it’s got to
    0:52:54 be a real
    0:52:54 collectible
    0:52:55 where you
    0:52:56 don’t just
    0:52:56 you know
    0:52:57 rug
    0:52:58 the users
    0:52:59 of it
    0:52:59 right away
    0:53:00 and so
    0:53:01 that you
    0:53:01 know
    0:53:01 that’s
    0:53:02 right away
    0:53:04 it’s okay
    0:53:04 to do it
    0:53:04 later
    0:53:04 but
    0:53:05 well but
    0:53:05 you know
    0:53:06 like in
    0:53:06 four years
    0:53:07 it is
    0:53:07 what it
    0:53:07 is
    0:53:08 right
    0:53:08 yeah
    0:53:09 no no
    0:53:09 I’m just
    0:53:09 giving you
    0:53:10 a hard
    0:53:10 time
    0:53:10 I just
    0:53:10 know how
    0:53:11 that’s
    0:53:11 going to
    0:53:11 sound
    0:53:11 to
    0:53:11 people
    0:53:12 yeah
    0:53:13 yeah
    0:53:14 thank you
    0:53:15 but you
    0:53:15 know
    0:53:15 so these
    0:53:16 kinds of
    0:53:16 things I
    0:53:17 think are
    0:53:18 are going
    0:53:18 to be
    0:53:18 really
    0:53:18 important
    0:53:19 to
    0:53:19 making
    0:53:19 the
    0:53:20 whole
    0:53:20 industry
    0:53:20 work
    0:53:21 and so
    0:53:21 we’re
    0:53:21 working
    0:53:22 you know
    0:53:23 on that
    0:53:23 you know
    0:53:24 trying to
    0:53:24 make it
    0:53:25 safe for
    0:53:25 everybody
    0:53:26 but as
    0:53:27 I said
    0:53:27 it’s just
    0:53:28 such a
    0:53:28 critical
    0:53:29 technology
    0:53:34 yes it’s
    0:53:34 just going
    0:53:34 to be
    0:53:35 like a
    0:53:35 very
    0:53:36 kind of
    0:53:37 problematic
    0:53:39 you know
    0:53:40 it’s going
    0:53:40 to be
    0:53:40 it’s
    0:53:41 cyberpunk
    0:53:41 it’s
    0:53:44 it’s
    0:53:44 a
    0:53:44 it’s
    0:53:44 a
    0:53:45 not
    0:53:46 yeah
    0:53:46 it’s
    0:53:46 a
    0:53:47 high
    0:53:47 technology
    0:53:49 difficult
    0:53:50 society
    0:53:51 yeah
    0:53:51 yeah
    0:53:52 it
    0:53:53 it was
    0:53:54 shocking
    0:53:54 to me
    0:53:55 the level
    0:53:55 of
    0:53:56 backlash
    0:53:57 that
    0:53:57 the
    0:53:57 blockchain
    0:53:58 web
    0:53:58 3
    0:53:59 community
    0:54:00 got
    0:54:01 what
    0:54:02 do you
    0:54:02 think
    0:54:03 drives
    0:54:03 that
    0:54:03 is
    0:54:03 it
    0:54:04 just
    0:54:04 the
    0:54:05 perception
    0:54:05 that
    0:54:05 it
    0:54:06 was
    0:54:06 only
    0:54:06 scams
    0:54:06 and
    0:54:07 there’s
    0:54:07 nothing
    0:54:07 real
    0:54:08 like
    0:54:08 what
    0:54:08 was
    0:54:08 that
    0:54:08 all
    0:54:09 about
    0:54:09 so
    0:54:09 there
    0:54:10 was
    0:54:10 multiple
    0:54:11 factors
    0:54:11 so
    0:54:11 the
    0:54:11 first
    0:54:11 one
    0:54:12 is
    0:54:12 the
    0:54:12 one
    0:54:12 that
    0:54:12 hits
    0:54:13 all
    0:54:13 new
    0:54:13 technology
    0:54:14 where
    0:54:15 oh
    0:54:16 it’s
    0:54:16 a
    0:54:16 toy
    0:54:18 it
    0:54:18 doesn’t
    0:54:18 do
    0:54:18 anything
    0:54:19 new
    0:54:19 like
    0:54:20 the
    0:54:20 old
    0:54:20 way
    0:54:20 of
    0:54:20 doing
    0:54:21 things
    0:54:21 is
    0:54:21 better
    0:54:22 and
    0:54:24 you
    0:54:24 know
    0:54:24 we
    0:54:24 saw
    0:54:24 that
    0:54:25 with
    0:54:25 social
    0:54:25 networking
    0:54:26 we
    0:54:26 actually
    0:54:27 saw
    0:54:27 that
    0:54:27 with
    0:54:27 the
    0:54:27 internet
    0:54:28 I
    0:54:28 think
    0:54:29 Paul
    0:54:29 Krugman
    0:54:29 famously
    0:54:30 said
    0:54:30 never
    0:54:31 have
    0:54:31 more
    0:54:32 economic
    0:54:32 impact
    0:54:32 on a
    0:54:33 fax
    0:54:33 machine
    0:54:33 and so
    0:54:33 forth
    0:54:34 so
    0:54:34 that’s
    0:54:34 just
    0:54:34 kind of
    0:54:34 a
    0:54:35 normal
    0:54:35 thing
    0:54:35 that
    0:54:35 happens
    0:54:36 with
    0:54:36 new
    0:54:36 technologies
    0:54:37 as they
    0:54:37 start
    0:54:37 out
    0:54:57 and
    0:54:57 so
    0:54:58 you
    0:54:58 know
    0:54:58 if
    0:54:58 you
    0:54:59 look
    0:54:59 at
    0:55:00 even
    0:55:00 like
    0:55:01 the
    0:55:01 iPhone
    0:55:02 it
    0:55:02 was
    0:55:02 a
    0:55:03 bad
    0:55:03 phone
    0:55:04 it
    0:55:05 had
    0:55:05 a
    0:55:05 horrible
    0:55:06 keyboard
    0:55:06 you
    0:55:07 know
    0:55:07 if
    0:55:07 you
    0:55:07 compared
    0:55:07 it
    0:55:07 to
    0:55:08 anything
    0:55:08 it
    0:55:08 wasn’t
    0:55:08 very
    0:55:09 powerful
    0:55:09 it
    0:55:09 had
    0:55:10 a
    0:55:10 little
    0:55:10 itty
    0:55:10 bitty
    0:55:11 screen
    0:55:12 but
    0:55:13 it
    0:55:13 had
    0:55:13 a
    0:55:13 feature
    0:55:14 that
    0:55:15 was
    0:55:15 pretty
    0:55:15 awesome
    0:55:16 which
    0:55:16 you
    0:55:16 could
    0:55:16 put
    0:55:16 in
    0:55:16 your
    0:55:17 pocket
    0:55:18 and
    0:55:18 it
    0:55:18 had
    0:55:18 like
    0:55:18 a
    0:55:19 GPS
    0:55:19 in
    0:55:19 it
    0:55:19 and
    0:55:19 a
    0:55:19 camera
    0:55:20 in
    0:55:20 it
    0:55:21 and
    0:55:21 so
    0:55:21 now
    0:55:21 you
    0:55:21 could
    0:55:21 build
    0:55:22 Instagram
    0:55:22 you
    0:55:22 could
    0:55:22 build
    0:55:23 Uber
    0:55:24 which
    0:55:24 you
    0:55:24 could
    0:55:24 not
    0:55:24 build
    0:55:24 with
    0:55:25 the
    0:55:25 PC
    0:55:25 and
    0:55:25 you
    0:55:25 still
    0:55:26 can’t
    0:55:26 build
    0:55:26 with
    0:55:26 the
    0:55:26 PC
    0:55:28 and
    0:55:28 so
    0:55:28 that
    0:55:29 was
    0:55:29 enough
    0:55:30 and
    0:55:30 then
    0:55:30 eventually
    0:55:31 it
    0:55:31 started
    0:55:31 to
    0:55:31 add
    0:55:32 the
    0:55:32 other
    0:55:32 features
    0:55:33 and
    0:55:33 it’s
    0:55:33 an
    0:55:33 awfully
    0:55:34 powerful
    0:55:34 computer
    0:55:35 these
    0:55:35 days
    0:55:36 if
    0:55:36 you
    0:55:37 look
    0:55:37 at
    0:55:37 blockchain
    0:55:38 it’s
    0:55:39 slower
    0:55:40 it’s
    0:55:40 more
    0:55:41 complicated
    0:55:41 to
    0:55:41 program
    0:55:42 like
    0:55:42 there’s
    0:55:42 a lot
    0:55:42 of
    0:55:43 issues
    0:55:43 with
    0:55:43 it
    0:55:44 but
    0:55:44 it’s
    0:55:44 got
    0:55:44 a
    0:55:51 that
    0:55:52 code
    0:55:53 you
    0:55:53 know
    0:55:53 says
    0:55:54 there’s
    0:55:54 only
    0:55:54 21
    0:55:55 million
    0:55:55 bitcoin
    0:55:56 you
    0:55:57 can
    0:55:57 absolutely
    0:55:58 count
    0:55:58 on
    0:55:58 that
    0:55:59 in
    0:55:59 a
    0:55:59 way
    0:56:00 that
    0:56:00 like
    0:56:00 you
    0:56:00 can’t
    0:56:01 trust
    0:56:01 Google
    0:56:02 you
    0:56:02 can’t
    0:56:02 trust
    0:56:03 you
    0:56:03 know
    0:56:04 Facebook
    0:56:04 to
    0:56:04 say
    0:56:05 like
    0:56:05 oh
    0:56:05 these
    0:56:05 are
    0:56:06 our
    0:56:06 privacy
    0:56:07 rules
    0:56:08 like
    0:56:08 you
    0:56:08 can’t
    0:56:08 trust
    0:56:09 that
    0:56:09 at
    0:56:09 all
    0:56:10 you
    0:56:10 can’t
    0:56:10 trust
    0:56:10 the
    0:56:10 US
    0:56:11 government
    0:56:11 to
    0:56:11 say
    0:56:11 they’re
    0:56:11 not
    0:56:11 going
    0:56:11 to
    0:56:11 print
    0:56:12 any
    0:56:12 more
    0:56:12 money
    0:56:13 like
    0:56:13 that’s
    0:56:13 for
    0:56:13 sure
    0:56:14 and
    0:56:15 so
    0:56:15 you
    0:56:15 know
    0:56:21 count
    0:56:21 on
    0:56:22 and
    0:56:22 you
    0:56:22 don’t
    0:56:23 have
    0:56:23 to
    0:56:23 trust
    0:56:23 a
    0:56:23 company
    0:56:24 you
    0:56:24 don’t
    0:56:24 have
    0:56:24 to
    0:56:24 trust
    0:56:25 a
    0:56:26 lawyer
    0:56:26 you
    0:56:26 just
    0:56:27 have
    0:56:27 to
    0:56:27 trust
    0:56:28 the
    0:56:28 game
    0:56:28 theoretic
    0:56:29 mathematical
    0:56:30 properties
    0:56:30 of the
    0:56:30 blockchain
    0:56:32 and
    0:56:32 that’s
    0:56:32 amazing
    0:56:33 so
    0:56:33 now
    0:56:33 you
    0:56:33 can
    0:56:34 you
    0:56:34 know
    0:56:35 program
    0:56:35 property
    0:56:36 rights
    0:56:36 and
    0:56:36 money
    0:56:37 and
    0:56:37 law
    0:56:37 and
    0:56:38 all
    0:56:38 these
    0:56:38 kinds
    0:56:38 of
    0:56:39 things
    0:56:39 that
    0:56:39 you
    0:56:39 could
    0:56:39 never
    0:56:39 do
    0:56:40 before
    0:56:41 and
    0:56:42 so
    0:56:42 I
    0:56:42 think
    0:56:43 that’s
    0:56:43 hard
    0:56:43 for
    0:56:44 normal
    0:56:44 people
    0:56:44 to
    0:56:45 understand
    0:56:46 who
    0:56:46 aren’t
    0:56:47 deep
    0:56:52 and
    0:56:52 then
    0:56:53 you
    0:56:53 know
    0:56:53 I
    0:56:53 think
    0:56:54 the
    0:56:54 next
    0:56:54 wave
    0:56:55 was
    0:56:55 you
    0:56:55 had
    0:56:56 look
    0:56:57 you
    0:56:57 know
    0:56:57 it
    0:56:58 was
    0:56:58 a
    0:56:58 very
    0:56:59 odd
    0:56:59 thing
    0:57:01 with
    0:57:01 the
    0:57:01 Biden
    0:57:01 administration
    0:57:02 because
    0:57:02 he
    0:57:02 wasn’t
    0:57:03 really
    0:57:04 I
    0:57:04 think
    0:57:04 it’s
    0:57:05 come
    0:57:05 out
    0:57:05 now
    0:57:05 he
    0:57:05 wasn’t
    0:57:06 really
    0:57:06 the
    0:57:06 president
    0:57:06 he
    0:57:07 wasn’t
    0:57:07 really
    0:57:07 making
    0:57:07 any
    0:57:08 decisions
    0:57:09 you
    0:57:09 couldn’t
    0:57:10 even
    0:57:10 get a
    0:57:10 meeting
    0:57:10 with
    0:57:10 him
    0:57:11 if
    0:57:11 you
    0:57:11 were
    0:57:11 in
    0:57:12 his
    0:57:12 cabinet
    0:57:13 and
    0:57:13 in
    0:57:13 terms
    0:57:13 of
    0:57:14 domestic
    0:57:14 policy
    0:57:14 that
    0:57:15 was
    0:57:15 run
    0:57:15 by
    0:57:16 Elizabeth
    0:57:16 Warren
    0:57:17 and
    0:57:17 then
    0:57:17 the
    0:57:17 second
    0:57:18 confusing
    0:57:18 thing
    0:57:18 is
    0:57:19 Elizabeth
    0:57:19 Warren
    0:57:20 is
    0:57:20 always
    0:57:20 calling
    0:57:21 like
    0:57:21 people
    0:57:21 fascist
    0:57:22 her
    0:57:23 whole
    0:57:24 push
    0:57:24 with
    0:57:25 fintech
    0:57:25 and
    0:57:25 crypto
    0:57:26 was
    0:57:27 to
    0:57:27 make
    0:57:28 sure
    0:57:29 that
    0:57:29 she
    0:57:29 could
    0:57:30 kick
    0:57:30 people
    0:57:30 out
    0:57:30 of
    0:57:30 the
    0:57:31 banking
    0:57:31 system
    0:57:31 who
    0:57:31 are
    0:57:32 political
    0:57:32 enemies
    0:57:33 and
    0:57:33 so
    0:57:34 in
    0:57:34 order
    0:57:34 to
    0:57:34 do
    0:57:34 that
    0:57:35 you
    0:57:35 have
    0:57:35 to
    0:57:35 outlaw
    0:57:36 new
    0:57:36 forms
    0:57:36 of
    0:57:37 financial
    0:57:38 technology
    0:57:39 because
    0:57:39 those
    0:57:40 would
    0:57:40 be
    0:57:40 kind
    0:57:40 of
    0:57:41 back
    0:57:41 doors
    0:57:41 or
    0:57:42 side
    0:57:42 doors
    0:57:42 or
    0:57:43 parallels
    0:57:44 to
    0:57:45 the
    0:57:46 g-sibs
    0:57:46 and
    0:57:46 the
    0:57:46 banking
    0:57:46 system
    0:57:47 which
    0:57:47 she
    0:57:48 comprehensively
    0:57:49 and I
    0:57:49 think
    0:57:49 this is
    0:57:50 coming out
    0:57:50 now
    0:57:50 could
    0:57:50 kick
    0:57:51 people
    0:57:51 out
    0:57:51 of
    0:57:52 and
    0:57:52 so
    0:57:52 when
    0:57:52 you
    0:57:53 use
    0:57:53 when
    0:57:54 it’s
    0:57:54 a full
    0:57:55 top-down
    0:57:55 hierarchy
    0:57:56 and you
    0:57:56 can
    0:57:56 use
    0:57:57 private
    0:57:57 companies
    0:57:58 to enforce
    0:57:58 your will
    0:57:59 that is
    0:58:00 the way
    0:58:00 fascism
    0:58:01 works
    0:58:01 and then
    0:58:02 the way
    0:58:02 she does
    0:58:02 it
    0:58:02 is
    0:58:03 she
    0:58:03 sells
    0:58:04 this
    0:58:04 fake
    0:58:05 story
    0:58:05 about
    0:58:06 you know
    0:58:07 it’s
    0:58:08 funding
    0:58:08 terror
    0:58:08 and it
    0:58:09 turns out
    0:58:09 like
    0:58:09 the
    0:58:10 USAID
    0:58:10 was
    0:58:11 funding
    0:58:11 the
    0:58:11 terrorist
    0:58:11 groups
    0:58:12 but
    0:58:12 that’s
    0:58:12 a
    0:58:12 different
    0:58:12 story
    0:58:13 but
    0:58:13 you know
    0:58:13 it’s
    0:58:14 doing
    0:58:14 all
    0:58:14 these
    0:58:15 nefarious
    0:58:15 things
    0:58:16 which
    0:58:16 you know
    0:58:17 was just
    0:58:17 a very
    0:58:18 unfair
    0:58:18 portrayal
    0:58:19 and so
    0:58:19 then
    0:58:20 the whole
    0:58:20 industry
    0:58:21 got this
    0:58:21 reputation
    0:58:22 as scammy
    0:58:22 and this
    0:58:23 and that
    0:58:23 and the
    0:58:23 other
    0:58:24 and then
    0:58:24 of course
    0:58:25 we had
    0:58:26 Sam
    0:58:26 Bankman
    0:58:26 freed
    0:58:27 who
    0:58:27 didn’t
    0:58:27 do
    0:58:27 us
    0:58:27 any
    0:58:28 favors
    0:58:28 by
    0:58:30 you know
    0:58:30 and this
    0:58:31 is another
    0:58:32 kind of
    0:58:32 though
    0:58:33 issue
    0:58:33 with what
    0:58:34 Elizabeth Warren
    0:58:34 did
    0:58:34 is she
    0:58:35 blocked
    0:58:35 all
    0:58:36 legislation
    0:58:38 and so
    0:58:38 the
    0:58:39 criminals
    0:58:39 were running
    0:58:40 free
    0:58:40 and the
    0:58:41 people
    0:58:41 doing
    0:58:41 things
    0:58:42 that
    0:58:42 should
    0:58:42 have
    0:58:42 been
    0:58:42 legal
    0:58:43 were
    0:58:43 getting
    0:58:44 terrorized
    0:58:44 by the
    0:58:45 government
    0:58:46 when they
    0:58:46 should
    0:58:46 have been
    0:58:46 looking
    0:58:47 they should
    0:58:48 have been
    0:58:48 looking at
    0:58:49 FTX
    0:58:49 they were
    0:58:50 looking at
    0:58:50 Coinbase
    0:58:51 which was
    0:58:51 totally
    0:58:52 compliant
    0:58:52 public
    0:58:53 company
    0:58:54 you know
    0:58:54 begging
    0:58:55 for
    0:58:55 feedback
    0:58:56 tell us
    0:58:56 what you
    0:58:56 want us
    0:58:57 to do
    0:58:57 exactly
    0:58:59 yeah
    0:58:59 that
    0:59:00 whole
    0:59:00 thing
    0:59:00 was
    0:59:00 crazy
    0:59:01 so
    0:59:01 given
    0:59:02 that
    0:59:02 AI
    0:59:02 is
    0:59:03 putting
    0:59:03 us
    0:59:03 on
    0:59:03 a
    0:59:03 collision
    0:59:04 course
    0:59:04 with
    0:59:05 I
    0:59:05 don’t
    0:59:05 know
    0:59:06 who’s
    0:59:06 real
    0:59:06 I
    0:59:06 don’t
    0:59:06 know
    0:59:07 what’s
    0:59:07 fake
    0:59:07 do
    0:59:07 you
    0:59:08 think
    0:59:08 that
    0:59:08 blockchain
    0:59:09 is
    0:59:09 about
    0:59:09 to
    0:59:09 have
    0:59:09 its
    0:59:09 day
    0:59:10 like
    0:59:10 in
    0:59:10 the
    0:59:10 next
    0:59:11 12
    0:59:11 to
    0:59:12 24
    0:59:12 months
    0:59:13 or
    0:59:13 is
    0:59:13 this
    0:59:13 still
    0:59:14 something
    0:59:14 that
    0:59:14 it’s
    0:59:14 so
    0:59:15 embedded
    0:59:15 deep
    0:59:15 in
    0:59:15 the
    0:59:16 infrastructure
    0:59:16 it’s
    0:59:16 going
    0:59:16 to
    0:59:17 take
    0:59:17 a
    0:59:17 long
    0:59:17 time
    0:59:17 to
    0:59:18 really
    0:59:18 have
    0:59:19 its
    0:59:19 I
    0:59:19 told
    0:59:19 you
    0:59:19 so
    0:59:20 moment
    0:59:21 you
    0:59:21 know
    0:59:21 I
    0:59:22 think
    0:59:22 it’s
    0:59:23 I
    0:59:23 think
    0:59:23 it’s
    0:59:24 within
    0:59:24 24
    0:59:24 months
    0:59:24 for
    0:59:25 sure
    0:59:25 I
    0:59:25 mean
    0:59:25 I
    0:59:25 think
    0:59:26 that
    0:59:27 there’s
    0:59:27 enough
    0:59:28 you
    0:59:29 know
    0:59:29 there
    0:59:29 were
    0:59:29 like
    0:59:30 actual
    0:59:30 like
    0:59:30 if
    0:59:30 you
    0:59:30 like
    0:59:31 kind
    0:59:31 of
    0:59:31 the
    0:59:31 last
    0:59:31 wave
    0:59:31 of
    0:59:32 blockchain
    0:59:33 there
    0:59:33 were
    0:59:34 real
    0:59:35 technological
    0:59:35 limitations
    0:59:36 that
    0:59:36 made
    0:59:36 it
    0:59:37 you
    0:59:37 know
    0:59:38 I
    0:59:38 think
    0:59:39 we’re
    0:59:39 slowing
    0:59:39 it
    0:59:40 down
    0:59:40 from
    0:59:40 getting
    0:59:40 broader
    0:59:41 adoption
    0:59:41 so
    0:59:42 you
    0:59:42 know
    0:59:42 very
    0:59:43 obvious
    0:59:43 usability
    0:59:44 challenges
    0:59:45 the
    0:59:46 fees
    0:59:46 were
    0:59:46 really
    0:59:46 high
    0:59:47 the
    0:59:47 blockchains
    0:59:47 were
    0:59:48 slow
    0:59:49 so
    0:59:49 there
    0:59:49 were
    0:59:49 just
    0:59:49 a
    0:59:50 lot
    0:59:50 of
    0:59:50 use
    0:59:50 cases
    0:59:50 that
    0:59:50 you
    0:59:51 just
    0:59:51 couldn’t
    0:59:51 do
    0:59:51 on
    0:59:51 them
    0:59:53 I
    0:59:53 think
    0:59:54 that’s
    0:59:54 changing
    0:59:55 very
    0:59:55 very
    0:59:55 fast
    0:59:56 things
    0:59:56 are
    0:59:56 you
    0:59:56 know
    0:59:57 the
    0:59:57 chains
    0:59:58 are
    0:59:58 much
    0:59:58 faster
    0:59:59 the
    1:00:00 layer
    1:00:00 two
    1:00:00 stuff
    1:00:01 makes
    1:00:01 them
    1:00:02 very
    1:00:02 fast
    1:00:02 and
    1:00:03 cheap
    1:00:05 you
    1:00:05 know
    1:00:05 people
    1:00:05 are
    1:00:05 doing
    1:00:06 a
    1:00:06 lot
    1:00:07 on
    1:00:07 usability
    1:00:09 you
    1:00:09 know
    1:00:09 for
    1:00:10 wallets
    1:00:10 and
    1:00:10 these
    1:00:11 kinds
    1:00:11 of
    1:00:11 things
    1:00:11 so
    1:00:12 I
    1:00:13 think
    1:00:13 we’re
    1:00:13 getting
    1:00:13 pretty
    1:00:14 close
    1:00:14 and
    1:00:14 then
    1:00:14 I
    1:00:19 world
    1:00:19 coin
    1:00:20 you
    1:00:20 know
    1:00:20 to
    1:00:21 me
    1:00:21 the
    1:00:22 difference
    1:00:23 between
    1:00:23 that
    1:00:23 thing
    1:00:23 being
    1:00:24 very
    1:00:24 broadly
    1:00:25 adopted
    1:00:25 and
    1:00:26 where
    1:00:26 it
    1:00:26 is
    1:00:26 now
    1:00:26 where
    1:00:26 it’s
    1:00:27 I
    1:00:27 think
    1:00:27 half
    1:00:27 the
    1:00:27 people
    1:00:28 in
    1:00:28 Buenos
    1:00:28 Aires
    1:00:29 use
    1:00:29 it
    1:00:30 daily
    1:00:31 so
    1:00:31 it’s
    1:00:32 widely
    1:00:33 adopted
    1:00:33 where
    1:00:33 it’s
    1:00:33 been
    1:00:34 legal
    1:00:35 I
    1:00:35 think
    1:00:35 that
    1:00:36 if
    1:00:36 they
    1:00:37 are
    1:00:37 able
    1:00:37 to
    1:00:38 get
    1:00:38 integrated
    1:00:39 into
    1:00:39 some
    1:00:39 of
    1:00:39 the
    1:00:39 big
    1:00:40 social
    1:00:41 platforms
    1:00:42 then
    1:00:43 everybody
    1:00:44 needs
    1:00:44 proof
    1:00:44 of
    1:00:45 human
    1:00:47 and
    1:00:49 you
    1:00:49 know
    1:00:49 like
    1:00:49 it
    1:00:49 would
    1:00:50 make
    1:00:50 the
    1:00:51 experience
    1:00:52 online
    1:00:52 so
    1:00:52 much
    1:00:52 better
    1:00:53 if
    1:00:53 you
    1:00:53 knew
    1:00:53 who
    1:00:53 was
    1:00:53 human
    1:00:54 and
    1:00:54 who
    1:00:54 was
    1:00:54 not
    1:00:55 and
    1:00:55 right
    1:00:55 now
    1:00:56 like
    1:00:56 you
    1:00:56 can’t
    1:00:57 tell
    1:00:57 at
    1:00:58 all
    1:00:59 and
    1:00:59 so
    1:00:59 and
    1:01:00 that
    1:01:00 problem
    1:01:00 is
    1:01:00 going
    1:01:00 to
    1:01:00 get
    1:01:01 worse
    1:01:01 and
    1:01:01 then
    1:01:01 the
    1:01:02 solution
    1:01:02 is
    1:01:02 really
    1:01:02 here
    1:01:04 so
    1:01:04 I
    1:01:05 think
    1:01:05 it’s
    1:01:05 going
    1:01:05 to
    1:01:06 start
    1:01:06 to
    1:01:06 take
    1:01:06 off
    1:01:06 and
    1:01:06 you
    1:01:06 only
    1:01:07 need
    1:01:07 one
    1:01:07 or
    1:01:08 two
    1:01:09 big
    1:01:09 use
    1:01:10 cases
    1:01:10 to
    1:01:11 start
    1:01:11 getting
    1:01:11 the
    1:01:12 whole
    1:01:12 infrastructure
    1:01:13 deployed
    1:01:14 and
    1:01:14 once
    1:01:15 the
    1:01:15 infrastructure
    1:01:15 is
    1:01:16 deployed
    1:01:16 I
    1:01:17 think
    1:01:17 we’ll
    1:01:17 certainly
    1:01:18 rely
    1:01:18 on
    1:01:18 it
    1:01:19 and
    1:01:20 if
    1:01:20 you
    1:01:20 look
    1:01:20 at
    1:01:21 actually
    1:01:21 the
    1:01:21 curve
    1:01:22 of
    1:01:22 people
    1:01:22 who
    1:01:22 have
    1:01:23 active
    1:01:23 wallets
    1:01:24 and
    1:01:25 the
    1:01:25 curve
    1:01:25 of
    1:01:26 internet
    1:01:27 adoption
    1:01:27 they’re
    1:01:28 pretty
    1:01:28 similar
    1:01:32 it’s
    1:01:32 about
    1:01:32 I think
    1:01:33 blockchain
    1:01:33 is
    1:01:33 growing
    1:01:34 a little
    1:01:34 faster
    1:01:34 than
    1:01:34 the
    1:01:35 internet
    1:01:35 did
    1:01:36 initially
    1:01:37 and
    1:01:37 so
    1:01:37 I
    1:01:37 think
    1:01:38 we’ll
    1:01:38 get
    1:01:38 to
    1:01:39 a
    1:01:39 place
    1:01:39 where
    1:01:40 certainly
    1:01:40 everybody
    1:01:40 in
    1:01:40 the
    1:01:41 US
    1:01:41 will
    1:01:41 be
    1:01:42 on
    1:01:42 it
    1:01:44 which
    1:01:44 by
    1:01:44 the
    1:01:44 way
    1:01:45 could
    1:01:45 be
    1:01:46 great
    1:01:46 from
    1:01:46 a
    1:01:46 government
    1:01:47 standpoint
    1:01:47 you
    1:01:47 know
    1:01:48 Elon
    1:01:48 has
    1:01:48 talked
    1:01:49 about
    1:01:49 putting
    1:01:49 all
    1:01:49 the
    1:01:50 government
    1:01:50 payments
    1:01:50 on
    1:01:50 the
    1:01:51 blockchain
    1:01:51 which
    1:01:51 I
    1:01:51 think
    1:01:52 would
    1:01:52 be
    1:01:52 really
    1:01:53 good
    1:01:53 for
    1:01:53 transparency
    1:01:55 we never
    1:01:55 get into
    1:01:56 this weird
    1:01:56 situation
    1:01:57 now
    1:01:57 where
    1:01:58 half
    1:01:58 the
    1:01:58 country
    1:01:59 wants
    1:01:59 to
    1:02:00 tear
    1:02:00 down
    1:02:01 all
    1:02:01 the
    1:02:01 government
    1:02:02 services
    1:02:02 and half
    1:02:02 them
    1:02:03 wants
    1:02:03 to
    1:02:03 keep
    1:02:03 it
    1:02:03 because
    1:02:04 nobody
    1:02:04 knows
    1:02:04 what
    1:02:04 the
    1:02:05 spending
    1:02:05 is
    1:02:06 but
    1:02:07 that
    1:02:07 would
    1:02:07 be
    1:02:07 great
    1:02:08 but
    1:02:08 you know
    1:02:09 beyond
    1:02:09 that
    1:02:09 like
    1:02:09 if
    1:02:10 you
    1:02:10 think
    1:02:10 about
    1:02:11 well
    1:02:11 why
    1:02:11 is
    1:02:11 there
    1:02:12 so
    1:02:12 much
    1:02:12 waste
    1:02:12 and
    1:02:12 fraud
    1:02:14 well
    1:02:14 part
    1:02:14 of
    1:02:14 it
    1:02:14 is
    1:02:14 you know
    1:02:15 like
    1:02:16 you know
    1:02:17 I
    1:02:17 get
    1:02:18 taxed
    1:02:18 I
    1:02:18 give
    1:02:19 my
    1:02:19 money
    1:02:19 to
    1:02:19 the
    1:02:20 IRS
    1:02:21 the
    1:02:21 IRS
    1:02:22 gives
    1:02:22 it
    1:02:23 to
    1:02:23 Congress
    1:02:23 they
    1:02:24 you know
    1:02:24 do
    1:02:24 whatever
    1:02:24 they
    1:02:24 do
    1:02:25 with
    1:02:25 it
    1:02:25 and
    1:02:25 so
    1:02:25 forth
    1:02:26 and
    1:02:27 well
    1:02:27 how
    1:02:27 does
    1:02:27 it
    1:02:27 get
    1:02:27 to
    1:02:27 the
    1:02:28 people
    1:02:28 who
    1:02:28 need
    1:02:29 it
    1:02:30 you know
    1:02:30 that’s
    1:02:30 a
    1:02:30 very
    1:02:31 lossy
    1:02:31 process
    1:02:32 you know
    1:02:32 and
    1:02:32 we
    1:02:32 don’t
    1:02:32 even
    1:02:33 know
    1:02:33 they
    1:02:33 are
    1:02:33 and
    1:02:33 it’s
    1:02:33 very
    1:02:34 you know
    1:02:35 one of the things we found out during COVID
    1:02:38 the government’s not very good at sending people money
    1:02:39 it’s good at taking money
    1:02:41 it’s not good at sending them money
    1:02:41 right
    1:02:44 we lost like 400 billion dollars trying to give people
    1:02:44 stimulus
    1:02:45 ridiculous
    1:02:46 yeah
    1:02:46 crazy
    1:02:47 ridiculous
    1:02:48 you know
    1:02:48 like
    1:02:48 if
    1:02:49 everybody
    1:02:49 in the US
    1:02:50 had
    1:02:51 an address
    1:02:52 on the blockchain
    1:02:54 you could just tell me
    1:02:56 okay here’s 10,000 people who need money
    1:02:58 please send them
    1:02:59 you know
    1:03:00 $5,000 each
    1:03:02 well probably that’s too much money for me
    1:03:02 but
    1:03:03 you know
    1:03:04 something like that
    1:03:05 you know
    1:03:07 whatever my tax bill is
    1:03:09 or whatever that portion of wealth redistribution is
    1:03:11 that would be 100%
    1:03:12 zero loss
    1:03:13 by the way
    1:03:14 I’d feel a lot better about it
    1:03:16 because I’d know I’d be helping people
    1:03:17 and you know
    1:03:17 look
    1:03:18 maybe even
    1:03:19 somebody would go
    1:03:20 hey this is great
    1:03:21 thank you
    1:03:21 and we’re like
    1:03:22 maybe it would bring us
    1:03:24 we wouldn’t have this crazy class warfare
    1:03:25 because everybody would go
    1:03:26 hey we’re all integrated
    1:03:26 you know
    1:03:27 like I’m helping you
    1:03:28 you’re helping me
    1:03:30 and then
    1:03:31 like if you had that
    1:03:32 then you’d fix the whole
    1:03:33 kind of
    1:03:35 democracy integrity problem
    1:03:35 because
    1:03:37 everybody could vote
    1:03:38 off that address
    1:03:39 and by the way
    1:03:40 everybody would have an address
    1:03:42 because everybody would want the money
    1:03:44 so what bigger incentive
    1:03:46 to register to vote
    1:03:47 than
    1:03:48 you
    1:03:49 in order to get money
    1:03:50 you have to have an address
    1:03:52 which registers you to vote
    1:03:53 and so that kind of thing
    1:03:53 I think
    1:03:55 could get us to
    1:03:57 just like a much
    1:03:58 higher trust
    1:04:00 in our own institutions
    1:04:01 hmm
    1:04:02 yeah
    1:04:02 so
    1:04:03 wow
    1:04:04 speaking of that
    1:04:05 I wanted to
    1:04:05 absolutely
    1:04:06 scream
    1:04:08 into the abyss
    1:04:08 when I heard
    1:04:09 that people couldn’t retire
    1:04:10 from the government
    1:04:12 faster than the elevator
    1:04:13 would lower their records
    1:04:15 down into a mine
    1:04:16 I was like
    1:04:17 what is happening
    1:04:19 what do you take away from
    1:04:20 why does Elon
    1:04:22 want to do this
    1:04:22 why is he sleeping
    1:04:23 in hallways
    1:04:25 um
    1:04:26 why
    1:04:27 why is he doing this
    1:04:28 is it just to get
    1:04:28 government contracts
    1:04:29 and it’s nefarious
    1:04:31 in the way that so many people
    1:04:31 think it is
    1:04:32 or is there something
    1:04:33 positive there
    1:04:34 what’s the
    1:04:35 what’s the game
    1:04:36 I think there’s a
    1:04:38 couple of different things
    1:04:38 so
    1:04:40 one is
    1:04:41 the strong thing
    1:04:41 is he
    1:04:42 he truly believes
    1:04:43 that
    1:04:44 um
    1:04:45 America’s the best
    1:04:46 country in the world
    1:04:46 you know
    1:04:47 he is an immigrant
    1:04:48 um
    1:04:49 and that
    1:04:50 it’s not guaranteed
    1:04:51 to stay that way
    1:04:52 and
    1:04:54 and we have been
    1:04:56 in danger of losing it
    1:04:57 uh
    1:04:58 and
    1:04:59 you know
    1:05:00 and so the
    1:05:01 most important thing
    1:05:01 for him to do
    1:05:02 in order for his
    1:05:03 companies to be relevant
    1:05:04 in order for going to Mars
    1:05:05 to be relevant
    1:05:06 in order for anything
    1:05:07 he wants to do in life
    1:05:08 to be relevant
    1:05:08 is
    1:05:09 we’ve got to stabilize
    1:05:10 U.S. government
    1:05:11 I think that’s the main thing
    1:05:12 driving him
    1:05:12 you know
    1:05:13 so then you say
    1:05:13 well how did he get
    1:05:14 to that conclusion
    1:05:15 that
    1:05:16 you know
    1:05:17 the whole country
    1:05:18 is in jeopardy
    1:05:19 and it really
    1:05:19 like
    1:05:21 it’s a pretty
    1:05:22 uh
    1:05:22 it was a pretty
    1:05:23 interesting thing
    1:05:24 to watch
    1:05:24 um
    1:05:25 because
    1:05:26 right in 2021
    1:05:28 I think he was a democrat
    1:05:29 and he was certainly
    1:05:30 pretty apolitical
    1:05:32 and uh
    1:05:32 I was actually
    1:05:34 in a chat group
    1:05:34 with him
    1:05:35 um
    1:05:36 when he got
    1:05:37 the idea
    1:05:38 or posed
    1:05:38 the question
    1:05:39 should he buy
    1:05:40 Twitter
    1:05:41 um
    1:05:42 and
    1:05:44 a lot of it
    1:05:45 stemmed from
    1:05:45 um
    1:05:46 you know
    1:05:47 it started with
    1:05:48 the U.S. government
    1:05:50 just harassing him
    1:05:51 uh
    1:05:51 which was a very odd
    1:05:52 thing right
    1:05:53 like here’s your
    1:05:54 I mean I think
    1:05:55 you could very well
    1:05:56 argue he was our
    1:05:57 most productive citizen
    1:05:58 he um
    1:05:59 was our entire
    1:06:00 space program
    1:06:02 he advanced
    1:06:02 he advanced
    1:06:02 the state
    1:06:03 of electric
    1:06:03 cars
    1:06:04 by 20 years
    1:06:05 he’s still
    1:06:06 like 95%
    1:06:06 of there’s
    1:06:07 something like
    1:06:07 that
    1:06:07 percent
    1:06:08 of the electric
    1:06:09 cars sold
    1:06:09 in the U.S.
    1:06:12 you know he’s
    1:06:13 you know
    1:06:14 done the things
    1:06:15 with Neuralink
    1:06:16 to you know
    1:06:17 help people
    1:06:18 like uh
    1:06:19 use their arms
    1:06:20 and legs
    1:06:20 who have been
    1:06:21 paralyzed
    1:06:21 and this kind
    1:06:22 of thing
    1:06:22 so you know
    1:06:23 you’ve got
    1:06:24 um
    1:06:25 you know
    1:06:25 he’s a really
    1:06:26 kind of remarkable
    1:06:27 person to want
    1:06:28 to pick on
    1:06:29 but uh
    1:06:30 what happened
    1:06:31 was uh
    1:06:33 because he got
    1:06:34 like this PR
    1:06:35 for being very
    1:06:35 wealthy
    1:06:36 um
    1:06:37 the Biden
    1:06:37 administration
    1:06:38 targeted him
    1:06:39 um
    1:06:39 you know
    1:06:40 and again
    1:06:40 they’re fascists
    1:06:41 so uh
    1:06:42 it’s really
    1:06:43 a power struggle
    1:06:44 always with the
    1:06:44 fascists and
    1:06:45 anybody who looks
    1:06:46 like they’re
    1:06:46 becoming powerful
    1:06:48 and yeah
    1:06:48 some of the
    1:06:49 things they did
    1:06:50 and you know
    1:06:50 one of the ones
    1:06:51 that’s talked
    1:06:51 about a lot
    1:06:52 was um
    1:06:54 they sued him
    1:06:55 the Biden
    1:06:55 Department of
    1:06:56 Justice sued
    1:06:58 him for uh
    1:07:00 discriminating
    1:07:01 against refugees
    1:07:02 um
    1:07:03 but he had a
    1:07:04 contract with
    1:07:04 the U.S.
    1:07:05 Department of
    1:07:05 Defense
    1:07:06 that required
    1:07:06 him to only
    1:07:07 hire U.S.
    1:07:07 citizens
    1:07:09 so he was
    1:07:10 breaking the law
    1:07:10 either way
    1:07:11 uh
    1:07:11 and they
    1:07:12 they never
    1:07:13 dropped the lawsuit
    1:07:14 even after it was
    1:07:14 pointed out
    1:07:15 even after
    1:07:16 you know
    1:07:16 it was pointed
    1:07:17 out by Congress
    1:07:18 uh
    1:07:18 so it was
    1:07:19 clear harassment
    1:07:20 and I think
    1:07:21 that his
    1:07:22 conclusion from
    1:07:23 that was
    1:07:24 you know
    1:07:24 this
    1:07:25 we are
    1:07:26 like ironically
    1:07:27 um
    1:07:28 I think his
    1:07:29 conclusion was
    1:07:29 we’re losing
    1:07:30 the democracy
    1:07:31 um
    1:07:32 you know
    1:07:33 we’re going
    1:07:34 into this
    1:07:34 very very
    1:07:35 strange world
    1:07:36 uh
    1:07:36 where the
    1:07:36 incentives
    1:07:37 are all
    1:07:37 upside down
    1:07:38 and
    1:07:39 you know
    1:07:40 the way
    1:07:41 Elon thinks
    1:07:42 is
    1:07:42 it’s up to
    1:07:43 him to
    1:07:43 save it
    1:07:44 um
    1:07:45 and so he
    1:07:45 got like
    1:07:46 extremely
    1:07:46 involved
    1:07:47 and then I
    1:07:47 think the
    1:07:48 more involved
    1:07:49 he got
    1:07:49 the more
    1:07:51 he both
    1:07:52 realized like
    1:07:53 a lot of the
    1:07:53 things really
    1:07:54 were dangerous
    1:07:54 and then
    1:07:55 secondly
    1:07:56 that
    1:07:57 um
    1:07:57 he
    1:07:58 personally
    1:07:59 uh
    1:08:00 would be
    1:08:01 somebody who
    1:08:01 would know
    1:08:01 how to fix
    1:08:01 it
    1:08:02 and
    1:08:03 you go
    1:08:03 like
    1:08:03 well why
    1:08:04 the hell
    1:08:04 would Elon
    1:08:05 must know
    1:08:05 how to
    1:08:05 fix the
    1:08:06 government
    1:08:06 all this
    1:08:07 and you
    1:08:07 know
    1:08:08 this is
    1:08:08 the thing
    1:08:09 that everybody’s
    1:08:09 saying now
    1:08:10 uh
    1:08:11 and it’s
    1:08:11 funny
    1:08:11 because I
    1:08:12 told this
    1:08:13 to um
    1:08:14 Andreessen
    1:08:15 years ago
    1:08:15 uh
    1:08:16 was
    1:08:17 because I
    1:08:18 I’m a big
    1:08:19 fan of
    1:08:19 Isaac Newton
    1:08:20 and you
    1:08:20 know like
    1:08:21 we always
    1:08:21 talked about
    1:08:22 like who
    1:08:22 is Elon
    1:08:22 like
    1:08:23 you know
    1:08:23 like
    1:08:23 what
    1:08:24 entrepreneur
    1:08:25 comes to
    1:08:25 mind
    1:08:26 you know
    1:08:26 and it
    1:08:26 really
    1:08:27 wasn’t
    1:08:27 maybe
    1:08:28 Thomas
    1:08:28 Edison
    1:08:28 but not
    1:08:29 really
    1:08:30 um
    1:08:31 but Isaac
    1:08:32 Newton
    1:08:33 uh
    1:08:33 whoa
    1:08:34 was really
    1:08:34 the one
    1:08:35 that I
    1:08:35 always
    1:08:36 thought
    1:08:37 he was
    1:08:37 most
    1:08:37 like
    1:08:38 um
    1:08:38 you know
    1:08:39 because
    1:08:39 it’s
    1:08:39 like okay
    1:08:39 who
    1:08:40 can build
    1:08:41 like rockets
    1:08:41 and cars
    1:08:42 and this
    1:08:42 and that
    1:08:42 and the
    1:08:42 other
    1:08:43 but the
    1:08:43 reason I
    1:08:43 thought he
    1:08:44 was like
    1:08:44 Isaac
    1:08:44 Newton
    1:08:44 was
    1:08:45 at the
    1:08:46 end of
    1:08:46 Isaac
    1:08:46 Newton’s
    1:08:46 life
    1:08:47 um
    1:08:48 but I
    1:08:48 think
    1:08:48 he was
    1:08:49 he was
    1:08:49 in his
    1:08:49 late
    1:08:50 60s
    1:08:51 uh
    1:08:51 maybe
    1:08:52 like
    1:08:52 67
    1:08:53 68
    1:08:53 and this
    1:08:54 is you
    1:08:54 know
    1:08:54 for those
    1:08:54 of you
    1:08:54 don’t
    1:08:55 know
    1:08:56 Isaac
    1:08:56 Newton
    1:08:56 like
    1:08:56 he
    1:08:56 figured
    1:08:57 out
    1:08:57 how
    1:08:57 the
    1:08:57 entire
    1:08:58 world
    1:08:58 works
    1:08:58 and
    1:08:59 wrote
    1:08:59 it
    1:08:59 down
    1:08:59 in
    1:08:59 a
    1:08:59 book
    1:09:00 um
    1:09:01 you
    1:09:01 know
    1:09:01 called
    1:09:02 Principia
    1:09:02 Mathematica
    1:09:03 which is
    1:09:03 probably
    1:09:04 the most
    1:09:04 amazing
    1:09:05 work
    1:09:05 in the
    1:09:05 history
    1:09:05 of
    1:09:05 science
    1:09:06 uh
    1:09:07 and he
    1:09:07 did
    1:09:07 it
    1:09:08 like
    1:09:08 entirely
    1:09:08 by
    1:09:09 himself
    1:09:10 like
    1:09:11 he didn’t
    1:09:11 even talk
    1:09:11 to anybody
    1:09:12 at this
    1:09:12 you know
    1:09:12 at the
    1:09:13 time he
    1:09:13 wrote it
    1:09:13 I think
    1:09:14 he was
    1:09:14 trying to
    1:09:15 figure out
    1:09:16 what God
    1:09:16 was or
    1:09:16 something
    1:09:17 like that
    1:09:18 um
    1:09:19 but
    1:09:19 as you
    1:09:19 do
    1:09:20 but
    1:09:20 so he
    1:09:20 gets to
    1:09:21 be
    1:09:21 you know
    1:09:21 like
    1:09:22 in his
    1:09:22 late
    1:09:22 60s
    1:09:23 and
    1:09:23 the
    1:09:24 bank
    1:09:24 of
    1:09:24 England
    1:09:24 has
    1:09:25 a
    1:09:25 crisis
    1:09:25 which
    1:09:26 is
    1:09:26 causing
    1:09:27 a
    1:09:27 huge
    1:09:27 crisis
    1:09:27 for
    1:09:28 the
    1:09:28 whole
    1:09:28 country
    1:09:29 um
    1:09:29 which
    1:09:29 is
    1:09:30 uh
    1:09:30 there’s
    1:09:31 a
    1:09:31 giant
    1:09:32 counterfeiting
    1:09:32 problem
    1:09:33 so the
    1:09:33 currency
    1:09:33 is
    1:09:34 going to
    1:09:34 be
    1:09:34 undermined
    1:09:35 and
    1:09:35 uh
    1:09:36 England’s
    1:09:36 going to
    1:09:36 basically
    1:09:37 go
    1:09:37 bankrupt
    1:09:38 and
    1:09:39 so
    1:09:39 they
    1:09:39 had
    1:09:39 no
    1:09:40 idea
    1:09:40 what
    1:09:40 to
    1:09:40 do
    1:09:41 about
    1:09:41 it
    1:09:41 um
    1:09:41 so
    1:09:42 they
    1:09:42 call
    1:09:42 Isaac
    1:09:42 Newton
    1:09:43 because
    1:09:43 he’s
    1:09:43 the
    1:09:43 smartest
    1:09:44 man
    1:09:44 in the
    1:09:44 world
    1:09:45 of
    1:09:45 course
    1:09:45 you’re
    1:09:45 going
    1:09:45 to
    1:09:45 call
    1:09:46 him
    1:09:46 so
    1:09:46 Isaac
    1:09:47 Newton
    1:09:48 67
    1:09:48 year
    1:09:48 old
    1:09:49 like
    1:09:50 hermit
    1:09:51 physicist
    1:09:52 goes
    1:09:52 in
    1:09:53 and
    1:09:53 he
    1:09:53 says
    1:09:54 okay
    1:09:54 I
    1:09:54 can
    1:09:54 help
    1:09:55 with
    1:09:55 the
    1:09:55 problem
    1:09:56 make
    1:09:56 me
    1:09:56 CEO
    1:09:57 of
    1:09:57 the
    1:09:57 mint
    1:09:57 so
    1:09:58 they
    1:09:58 make
    1:09:58 him
    1:09:58 CEO
    1:09:58 of
    1:09:59 the
    1:09:59 mint
    1:09:59 you
    1:09:59 know
    1:09:59 kind
    1:10:00 of
    1:10:00 head
    1:10:00 of
    1:10:00 doge
    1:10:00 whatever
    1:10:02 uh
    1:10:02 and
    1:10:03 he
    1:10:04 reorganizes
    1:10:04 the
    1:10:04 mint
    1:10:05 in like
    1:10:05 a week
    1:10:06 and
    1:10:06 then
    1:10:06 fixes
    1:10:06 the
    1:10:07 technology
    1:10:07 in a
    1:10:07 month
    1:10:08 and
    1:10:09 completely
    1:10:09 makes
    1:10:09 it
    1:10:10 impossible
    1:10:10 to
    1:10:10 counterfeit
    1:10:11 then
    1:10:12 he
    1:10:12 becomes
    1:10:13 a
    1:10:13 private
    1:10:13 eye
    1:10:15 and
    1:10:15 goes
    1:10:15 into
    1:10:16 all
    1:10:16 the
    1:10:16 pubs
    1:10:16 where
    1:10:16 the
    1:10:17 counterfeiters
    1:10:17 are
    1:10:18 arrests
    1:10:18 all
    1:10:18 of
    1:10:18 them
    1:10:19 then
    1:10:20 he
    1:10:20 learns
    1:10:20 the
    1:10:20 law
    1:10:21 and
    1:10:21 becomes
    1:10:21 the
    1:10:22 prosecutor
    1:10:23 and
    1:10:23 prosecutes
    1:10:24 all
    1:10:24 the
    1:10:24 counterfeiters
    1:10:25 and has
    1:10:26 100%
    1:10:26 conviction
    1:10:27 record
    1:10:28 and
    1:10:28 that
    1:10:29 by
    1:10:29 the
    1:10:29 way
    1:10:30 that’s
    1:10:30 Elon
    1:10:30 so
    1:10:32 if
    1:10:32 you
    1:10:33 I
    1:10:33 didn’t
    1:10:33 know
    1:10:34 that
    1:10:34 part
    1:10:34 of
    1:10:34 his
    1:10:34 story
    1:10:35 oh
    1:10:35 yeah
    1:10:35 yeah
    1:10:36 so
    1:10:36 it’s
    1:10:36 an
    1:10:37 amazing
    1:10:37 thing
    1:10:39 and
    1:10:39 if
    1:10:39 you
    1:10:39 look
    1:10:40 at
    1:10:40 Elon
    1:10:40 and
    1:10:41 Doge
    1:10:41 to
    1:10:42 me
    1:10:42 the
    1:10:42 most
    1:10:43 remarkable
    1:10:43 thing
    1:10:43 about
    1:10:44 Doge
    1:10:45 is
    1:10:46 how
    1:10:46 he’s
    1:10:47 done
    1:10:47 it
    1:10:47 so
    1:10:48 if
    1:10:48 you
    1:10:48 or
    1:10:49 I
    1:10:50 were
    1:10:50 to
    1:10:51 say
    1:10:52 okay
    1:10:53 let’s
    1:10:53 go in
    1:10:54 and
    1:10:54 kind
    1:10:54 of
    1:10:55 get
    1:10:55 the
    1:10:55 waste
    1:10:55 and
    1:10:56 fraud
    1:10:56 out
    1:10:56 of
    1:10:56 the
    1:10:56 government
    1:10:57 we
    1:10:57 would
    1:10:58 like
    1:10:58 audit
    1:10:58 the
    1:10:59 departments
    1:10:59 or
    1:10:59 this
    1:10:59 and
    1:11:00 that
    1:11:00 the
    1:11:00 other
    1:11:00 and
    1:11:00 so
    1:11:01 forth
    1:11:02 no
    1:11:02 no
    1:11:02 no
    1:11:03 like
    1:11:03 that’s
    1:11:03 how
    1:11:03 he
    1:11:06 like
    1:11:07 how
    1:11:07 do
    1:11:07 the
    1:11:07 checks
    1:11:07 go
    1:11:08 out
    1:11:10 like
    1:11:11 how
    1:11:11 is
    1:11:11 the
    1:11:11 system
    1:11:12 designed
    1:11:12 like
    1:11:12 when
    1:11:13 does
    1:11:13 the
    1:11:13 money
    1:11:13 leave
    1:11:13 the
    1:11:14 building
    1:11:15 and
    1:11:15 then
    1:11:15 oh
    1:11:16 all
    1:11:16 comes
    1:11:16 out
    1:11:16 of
    1:11:17 one
    1:11:17 system
    1:11:18 let
    1:11:18 me
    1:11:18 have
    1:11:19 access
    1:11:19 to
    1:11:19 that
    1:11:19 system
    1:11:20 and
    1:11:20 I’ll
    1:11:20 look
    1:11:20 at
    1:11:20 all
    1:11:20 the
    1:11:21 payments
    1:11:22 I’m
    1:11:22 not
    1:11:22 asking
    1:11:22 anybody
    1:11:23 what
    1:11:23 they’re
    1:11:23 spending
    1:11:24 I’m
    1:11:24 looking
    1:11:25 at
    1:11:25 what
    1:11:25 they’re
    1:11:25 spending
    1:11:26 like
    1:11:26 I’m
    1:11:26 getting
    1:11:26 to
    1:11:26 ground
    1:11:27 truth
    1:11:27 and
    1:11:28 then
    1:11:28 I’m
    1:11:28 going
    1:11:28 to
    1:11:28 work
    1:11:28 my
    1:11:29 way
    1:11:29 backwards
    1:11:29 from
    1:11:30 there
    1:11:30 and
    1:11:30 he’s
    1:11:31 probably
    1:11:32 and
    1:11:32 you know
    1:11:33 so
    1:11:34 not only
    1:11:34 is he
    1:11:35 not
    1:11:35 unqualified
    1:11:36 he’s
    1:11:36 maybe the
    1:11:37 only person
    1:11:37 qualified
    1:11:38 to figure
    1:11:38 out
    1:11:38 like
    1:11:39 how
    1:11:46 you know
    1:11:46 he’s
    1:11:47 just
    1:11:47 a
    1:11:47 very
    1:11:48 unique
    1:11:48 individual
    1:11:51 he’s
    1:11:51 also
    1:11:52 a troll
    1:11:53 he also
    1:11:53 likes
    1:11:54 upsetting
    1:11:54 people
    1:11:55 I get
    1:11:55 all
    1:11:56 that
    1:11:57 but
    1:11:58 what
    1:11:58 he
    1:11:58 brings
    1:11:58 to
    1:11:58 the
    1:11:59 table
    1:11:59 is
    1:11:59 pretty
    1:11:59 interesting
    1:12:00 I would
    1:12:00 say
    1:12:01 I would
    1:12:01 say
    1:12:02 very
    1:12:02 extraordinary
    1:12:03 you
    1:12:04 have
    1:12:04 also
    1:12:04 written
    1:12:04 about
    1:12:05 another
    1:12:05 extraordinary
    1:12:06 historical
    1:12:07 figure
    1:12:09 from
    1:12:09 the
    1:12:10 Haitian
    1:12:10 revolution
    1:12:11 a guy
    1:12:11 named
    1:12:12 Toussaint
    1:12:16 Tell us
    1:12:16 about him
    1:12:16 because
    1:12:16 there’s
    1:12:17 something
    1:12:17 about
    1:12:17 this
    1:12:18 moment
    1:12:18 about
    1:12:19 being
    1:12:19 a
    1:12:19 master
    1:12:20 strategist
    1:12:20 about
    1:12:22 using
    1:12:22 what you
    1:12:23 have
    1:12:23 being
    1:12:24 creative
    1:12:24 that
    1:12:25 feels
    1:12:25 like
    1:12:25 it’s
    1:12:26 very
    1:12:27 apropos
    1:12:27 to
    1:12:28 this
    1:12:28 moment
    1:12:31 what
    1:12:31 made
    1:12:32 his
    1:12:32 story
    1:12:32 special
    1:12:33 yeah
    1:12:33 so
    1:12:34 Toussaint
    1:12:34 was
    1:12:35 another
    1:12:35 one
    1:12:35 of
    1:12:35 these
    1:12:36 characters
    1:12:36 in
    1:12:36 history
    1:12:37 like
    1:12:37 there
    1:12:37 are
    1:12:37 certain
    1:12:38 I
    1:12:39 call
    1:12:39 them
    1:12:39 like
    1:12:39 once
    1:12:39 in
    1:12:40 every
    1:12:40 400
    1:12:40 year
    1:12:41 type
    1:12:41 people
    1:12:43 where
    1:12:43 you
    1:12:43 just
    1:12:43 don’t
    1:12:43 see
    1:12:43 them
    1:12:44 that
    1:12:44 often
    1:12:44 but
    1:12:45 so
    1:12:46 it
    1:12:46 turns
    1:12:46 out
    1:12:46 like
    1:12:46 in
    1:12:47 the
    1:12:47 history
    1:12:47 of
    1:12:48 humanity
    1:12:50 there’s
    1:12:50 been
    1:12:51 one
    1:12:51 kind
    1:12:51 of
    1:12:52 successful
    1:12:53 slave
    1:12:53 revolt
    1:12:53 that
    1:12:54 like
    1:12:54 entered
    1:12:55 in
    1:12:55 an
    1:12:55 independent
    1:12:56 state
    1:12:57 which
    1:12:57 you
    1:12:57 know
    1:12:57 if
    1:12:57 you
    1:12:58 think
    1:12:58 about
    1:12:59 the
    1:12:59 history
    1:12:59 of
    1:13:00 slavery
    1:13:00 which
    1:13:00 goes
    1:13:01 back
    1:13:02 thousands
    1:13:02 of
    1:13:02 years
    1:13:02 really
    1:13:03 kind
    1:13:03 of
    1:13:04 from
    1:13:04 the
    1:13:05 beginning
    1:13:05 of
    1:13:05 written
    1:13:06 history
    1:13:06 like
    1:13:07 we’ve
    1:13:07 had
    1:13:07 slavery
    1:13:07 so
    1:13:08 it’s
    1:13:09 like
    1:13:09 a
    1:13:09 pretty
    1:13:10 old
    1:13:11 time
    1:13:11 construct
    1:13:12 and
    1:13:13 there’s
    1:13:13 a lot
    1:13:13 of
    1:13:14 motivation
    1:13:14 to have
    1:13:14 a
    1:13:14 revolt
    1:13:15 if
    1:13:15 you’re
    1:13:15 a
    1:13:15 slave
    1:13:17 but
    1:13:17 why
    1:13:17 only
    1:13:18 one
    1:13:18 successful
    1:13:18 one
    1:13:18 and
    1:13:19 it
    1:13:19 turns
    1:13:19 out
    1:13:19 it’s
    1:13:20 it’s
    1:13:20 really
    1:13:21 hard
    1:13:23 you know
    1:13:24 for
    1:13:25 to
    1:13:25 generate
    1:13:26 an
    1:13:26 effective
    1:13:27 revolt
    1:13:27 if
    1:13:27 you’re
    1:13:28 slaves
    1:13:28 because
    1:13:30 slave
    1:13:30 culture
    1:13:31 is
    1:13:32 difficult
    1:13:32 because
    1:13:32 you
    1:13:32 don’t
    1:13:32 own
    1:13:33 right
    1:13:33 if
    1:13:33 you
    1:13:34 don’t
    1:13:34 have
    1:13:36 any
    1:13:37 sense
    1:13:37 of
    1:13:38 you know
    1:13:38 owning
    1:13:38 anything
    1:13:39 you don’t
    1:13:39 own
    1:13:39 your
    1:13:39 own
    1:13:40 will
    1:13:40 right
    1:13:40 like
    1:13:40 you
    1:13:41 are
    1:13:42 at
    1:13:42 the
    1:13:42 kind
    1:13:43 of
    1:13:43 pleasure
    1:13:44 of
    1:13:44 who’s
    1:13:45 ever
    1:13:45 running
    1:13:45 things
    1:13:46 so
    1:13:47 long
    1:13:47 term
    1:13:48 thinking
    1:13:48 doesn’t
    1:13:48 make
    1:13:49 sense
    1:13:50 and
    1:13:51 what
    1:13:51 it
    1:13:52 because
    1:13:52 like
    1:13:52 why
    1:13:53 plan
    1:13:53 for
    1:13:53 next
    1:13:53 week
    1:13:54 it
    1:13:54 doesn’t
    1:13:55 matter
    1:13:55 what
    1:13:55 you
    1:13:55 plan
    1:13:56 like
    1:13:56 it’s
    1:13:56 not
    1:13:57 yours
    1:13:58 so
    1:13:58 everything’s
    1:13:58 going to be
    1:13:59 very short
    1:13:59 term
    1:14:00 and short
    1:14:00 termism
    1:14:01 is
    1:14:02 difficult
    1:14:02 in a
    1:14:02 military
    1:14:03 context
    1:14:04 because
    1:14:06 in order
    1:14:06 to have
    1:14:06 an effective
    1:14:07 military
    1:14:07 there needs
    1:14:08 to be
    1:14:09 a
    1:14:09 trust
    1:14:10 right
    1:14:10 like
    1:14:10 a
    1:14:10 trust
    1:14:12 you know
    1:14:12 you have
    1:14:12 to be
    1:14:12 able
    1:14:12 to
    1:14:13 trust
    1:14:13 people
    1:14:13 to
    1:14:14 execute
    1:14:14 the
    1:14:14 order
    1:14:14 like
    1:14:15 I give
    1:14:15 an
    1:14:15 order
    1:14:16 it’s
    1:14:16 kind
    1:14:16 of
    1:14:16 like
    1:14:17 the
    1:14:17 Byzantine
    1:14:17 generals
    1:14:18 problem
    1:14:19 to go
    1:14:19 back
    1:14:19 to
    1:14:19 crypto
    1:14:21 where
    1:14:22 like
    1:14:23 I have
    1:14:23 to
    1:14:23 trust
    1:14:23 that
    1:14:24 you’re
    1:14:24 going
    1:14:24 to
    1:14:24 do
    1:14:24 the
    1:14:24 order
    1:14:25 you
    1:14:25 have
    1:14:25 to
    1:14:25 trust
    1:14:25 that
    1:14:26 I’m
    1:14:26 giving
    1:14:26 the
    1:14:26 correct
    1:14:27 order
    1:14:28 but
    1:14:28 trust
    1:14:28 is
    1:14:28 a
    1:14:29 long
    1:14:29 term
    1:14:29 idea
    1:14:29 because
    1:14:30 it
    1:14:30 comes
    1:14:30 from
    1:14:30 okay
    1:14:31 I’m
    1:14:31 going to
    1:14:31 do
    1:14:32 something
    1:14:32 for
    1:14:32 you
    1:14:32 today
    1:14:33 because
    1:14:33 I
    1:14:33 trust
    1:14:33 that
    1:14:33 down
    1:14:33 the
    1:14:34 line
    1:14:34 you’ll
    1:14:34 do
    1:14:34 something
    1:14:34 for
    1:14:35 me
    1:14:35 that
    1:14:36 doesn’t
    1:14:36 really
    1:14:36 exist
    1:14:36 in
    1:14:47 to
    1:14:47 running
    1:14:47 a
    1:14:48 successful
    1:14:48 revolution
    1:14:49 and
    1:14:49 then
    1:14:49 if
    1:14:49 you
    1:14:49 look
    1:14:49 at
    1:14:50 Haiti
    1:14:50 at
    1:14:50 the
    1:14:51 time
    1:14:53 you
    1:14:53 had
    1:14:53 the
    1:14:54 French
    1:14:54 army
    1:14:54 the
    1:14:55 British
    1:14:55 army
    1:14:57 and
    1:14:57 the
    1:14:57 Spanish
    1:14:58 army
    1:14:58 all
    1:14:58 in
    1:14:58 there
    1:14:59 fighting
    1:14:59 for it
    1:15:00 so
    1:15:00 really
    1:15:01 well
    1:15:01 developed
    1:15:03 the strongest
    1:15:04 militaries
    1:15:04 of the
    1:15:04 era
    1:15:05 all
    1:15:06 in
    1:15:06 that
    1:15:06 region
    1:15:07 all
    1:15:07 very
    1:15:08 interested
    1:15:08 in
    1:15:09 the
    1:15:09 sugar
    1:15:11 which
    1:15:11 was
    1:15:12 quite
    1:15:12 valuable
    1:15:12 at
    1:15:12 the
    1:15:13 time
    1:15:13 so
    1:15:14 how
    1:15:14 in
    1:15:14 the
    1:15:14 world
    1:15:14 would
    1:15:15 you ever
    1:15:15 get out
    1:15:15 of
    1:15:15 that
    1:15:17 and
    1:15:17 it
    1:15:17 turned
    1:15:17 out
    1:15:18 he
    1:15:19 was
    1:15:20 probably
    1:15:20 the
    1:15:21 great
    1:15:21 cultural
    1:15:22 genius
    1:15:22 of
    1:15:22 the
    1:15:22 last
    1:15:23 you know
    1:15:25 maybe
    1:15:25 in
    1:15:25 history
    1:15:26 but
    1:15:26 certainly
    1:15:26 the
    1:15:26 last
    1:15:27 several
    1:15:27 hundred
    1:15:28 years
    1:15:30 and
    1:15:31 he
    1:15:32 was
    1:15:32 able
    1:15:33 because
    1:15:34 he
    1:15:34 was
    1:15:34 a
    1:15:35 person
    1:15:35 who
    1:15:35 although
    1:15:35 he
    1:15:36 was
    1:15:36 born
    1:15:36 a
    1:15:36 slave
    1:15:37 was
    1:15:37 very
    1:15:38 very
    1:15:38 integrated
    1:15:38 into
    1:15:39 European
    1:15:39 culture
    1:15:40 because
    1:15:40 he
    1:15:40 was
    1:15:40 so
    1:15:41 smart
    1:15:42 and
    1:15:43 so
    1:15:44 the
    1:15:44 person
    1:15:44 who
    1:15:45 ran
    1:15:45 the
    1:15:45 plantation
    1:15:47 kind
    1:15:47 of
    1:15:48 took
    1:15:48 him
    1:15:48 to
    1:15:48 all
    1:15:48 the
    1:15:49 diplomatic
    1:15:49 meetings
    1:15:50 around
    1:15:50 and
    1:15:50 so
    1:15:51 forth
    1:15:51 and
    1:15:51 he
    1:15:52 got
    1:15:52 very
    1:15:52 involved
    1:15:53 and
    1:15:53 kind
    1:15:53 of
    1:15:53 mastered
    1:15:55 European
    1:15:55 culture
    1:15:57 so to
    1:15:57 speak
    1:15:57 and
    1:15:57 the
    1:15:57 different
    1:15:58 subtleties
    1:15:58 around
    1:15:59 it
    1:16:00 and
    1:16:00 he
    1:16:01 started
    1:16:01 adopting
    1:16:01 those
    1:16:02 things
    1:16:02 and
    1:16:02 applying
    1:16:03 them
    1:16:03 to
    1:16:03 his
    1:16:04 leadership
    1:16:04 and
    1:16:05 then
    1:16:06 furthermore
    1:16:07 incorporated
    1:16:08 Europeans
    1:16:09 into
    1:16:09 the slave
    1:16:10 army
    1:16:10 so he
    1:16:10 would
    1:16:11 capture
    1:16:12 you know
    1:16:13 he
    1:16:13 would
    1:16:14 defeat
    1:16:14 the
    1:16:14 Spanish
    1:16:15 capture
    1:16:16 some
    1:16:16 guys
    1:16:16 rather
    1:16:17 than
    1:16:17 kill
    1:16:17 them
    1:16:17 he
    1:16:18 incorporated
    1:16:19 the best
    1:16:19 leaders
    1:16:19 into
    1:16:20 his
    1:16:20 army
    1:16:21 and
    1:16:21 he
    1:16:21 built
    1:16:21 this
    1:16:22 very
    1:16:23 advanced
    1:16:23 hybrid
    1:16:24 fighting
    1:16:24 system
    1:16:24 where
    1:16:25 they
    1:16:25 used
    1:16:25 a lot
    1:16:25 of
    1:16:25 the
    1:16:26 guerrilla
    1:16:27 techniques
    1:16:28 that
    1:16:28 he
    1:16:29 had
    1:16:29 brought
    1:16:29 over
    1:16:29 from
    1:16:30 Africa
    1:16:31 and
    1:16:32 then
    1:16:32 he
    1:16:33 had
    1:16:34 combined
    1:16:34 that
    1:16:35 with
    1:16:35 some
    1:16:36 of
    1:16:36 the
    1:16:37 more
    1:16:38 regimented
    1:16:40 discipline
    1:16:41 strategies
    1:16:42 of
    1:16:42 the
    1:16:43 Europeans
    1:16:44 and
    1:16:44 in
    1:16:44 building
    1:16:44 all
    1:16:44 that
    1:16:45 he
    1:16:46 ended
    1:16:46 up
    1:16:46 building
    1:16:46 this
    1:16:47 massive
    1:16:47 army
    1:16:48 and
    1:16:49 defeated
    1:16:49 Napoleon
    1:16:50 and
    1:16:51 everyone
    1:16:51 else
    1:16:51 and
    1:16:52 it
    1:16:52 was
    1:16:52 just
    1:16:53 quite
    1:16:53 a
    1:16:54 remarkable
    1:16:54 story
    1:16:55 about
    1:16:55 how
    1:16:55 he
    1:16:56 figured
    1:16:56 everything
    1:16:57 out
    1:16:57 from
    1:16:57 his
    1:16:58 principles
    1:16:58 and
    1:16:58 in
    1:16:58 a
    1:16:59 way
    1:16:59 that
    1:16:59 was
    1:17:01 very
    1:17:02 much
    1:17:02 like
    1:17:03 Elon
    1:17:03 in
    1:17:04 that
    1:17:04 sense
    1:17:05 one
    1:17:05 of
    1:17:06 the
    1:17:06 things
    1:17:06 I heard
    1:17:06 you talk
    1:17:07 about
    1:17:10 that
    1:17:10 I
    1:17:10 thought
    1:17:11 was
    1:17:11 so
    1:17:11 ingenious
    1:17:12 was
    1:17:12 he
    1:17:12 would
    1:17:12 basically
    1:17:13 use
    1:17:13 song
    1:17:14 and
    1:17:15 sound
    1:17:16 as
    1:17:16 like
    1:17:16 encrypted
    1:17:17 language
    1:17:18 it’s
    1:17:19 really
    1:17:19 yeah
    1:17:19 so
    1:17:20 that
    1:17:20 was
    1:17:21 like
    1:17:21 a
    1:17:21 very
    1:17:21 cool
    1:17:22 thing
    1:17:22 so
    1:17:23 right
    1:17:24 remember
    1:17:24 that
    1:17:24 this
    1:17:24 is
    1:17:24 in
    1:17:25 the
    1:17:25 days
    1:17:25 before
    1:17:26 telephony
    1:17:26 or the
    1:17:27 internet
    1:17:27 or any
    1:17:28 of
    1:17:28 these
    1:17:28 things
    1:17:28 you know
    1:17:28 it’s
    1:17:29 pre
    1:17:29 Alexander
    1:17:30 Graham Bell
    1:17:30 and all
    1:17:30 that
    1:17:30 kind
    1:17:30 of
    1:17:31 thing
    1:17:32 and
    1:17:33 so
    1:17:34 you know
    1:17:34 they were
    1:17:34 literally
    1:17:35 you know
    1:17:35 the Europeans
    1:17:36 were on
    1:17:36 like
    1:17:37 you know
    1:17:37 notes
    1:17:38 carrier pigeons
    1:17:40 guys running
    1:17:41 you know
    1:17:41 back and
    1:17:42 forth
    1:17:42 and so
    1:17:42 forth
    1:17:43 and so
    1:17:43 as a
    1:17:43 result
    1:17:45 you know
    1:17:45 you kind
    1:17:45 of needed
    1:17:46 the army
    1:17:47 together
    1:17:47 in one
    1:17:48 place
    1:17:48 just
    1:17:48 so you
    1:17:49 could
    1:17:49 communicate
    1:17:49 the
    1:17:50 order
    1:17:52 Toussaint
    1:17:53 basically
    1:17:54 you know
    1:17:55 had these
    1:17:57 drummers
    1:17:57 and these
    1:17:58 songs
    1:17:59 which
    1:17:59 he could
    1:18:00 put on
    1:18:00 top of
    1:18:00 like
    1:18:02 the hill
    1:18:02 who could
    1:18:03 be very
    1:18:03 very loud
    1:18:04 and then
    1:18:04 he would
    1:18:04 separate his
    1:18:05 army
    1:18:05 you know
    1:18:06 into like
    1:18:06 six or
    1:18:07 seven groups
    1:18:09 but in
    1:18:10 the song
    1:18:11 would be
    1:18:11 embedded
    1:18:13 the order
    1:18:13 of when
    1:18:14 to attack
    1:18:14 and you
    1:18:15 know
    1:18:15 when to
    1:18:16 retreat
    1:18:16 and all
    1:18:17 these kinds
    1:18:17 of things
    1:18:17 so he
    1:18:18 had this
    1:18:18 like
    1:18:18 super
    1:18:19 advanced
    1:18:20 you know
    1:18:20 wide area
    1:18:21 communication
    1:18:22 system
    1:18:23 that nobody
    1:18:24 else had
    1:18:24 and that
    1:18:24 you know
    1:18:25 that was a
    1:18:26 big advantage
    1:18:27 for him
    1:18:28 yeah that to
    1:18:29 me the reason
    1:18:29 that that
    1:18:30 comes up
    1:18:30 for me
    1:18:30 now is
    1:18:31 we have
    1:18:31 all these
    1:18:32 new
    1:18:32 technologies
    1:18:33 that are
    1:18:33 coming
    1:18:33 online
    1:18:33 and the
    1:18:34 person
    1:18:34 that’s
    1:18:34 going to
    1:18:34 be able
    1:18:34 to get
    1:18:35 outside
    1:18:35 that box
    1:18:37 and see
    1:18:37 something
    1:18:38 new
    1:18:38 and fresh
    1:18:39 is going
    1:18:39 to be able
    1:18:39 to use
    1:18:40 this in
    1:18:40 totally
    1:18:41 different
    1:18:41 ways
    1:18:41 and while
    1:18:42 in the
    1:18:43 final analysis
    1:18:43 I think
    1:18:44 you and I
    1:18:44 see it
    1:18:44 very differently
    1:18:45 in terms
    1:18:46 of AI’s
    1:18:46 ability
    1:18:47 to ultimately
    1:18:48 gobble up
    1:18:49 what humans
    1:18:49 can do
    1:18:50 but right
    1:18:51 now
    1:18:52 AI is this
    1:18:53 incredible
    1:18:54 tool that
    1:18:54 as an
    1:18:54 entrepreneur
    1:18:55 for me
    1:18:56 it has
    1:18:56 been
    1:18:58 ridiculously
    1:18:59 exciting
    1:19:00 to one
    1:19:01 see how
    1:19:01 much farther
    1:19:02 each of my
    1:19:02 employees
    1:19:03 can push
    1:19:03 their own
    1:19:04 abilities
    1:19:04 by using
    1:19:04 AI
    1:19:05 and then
    1:19:05 it does
    1:19:06 not take
    1:19:06 much to
    1:19:07 prognosticate
    1:19:08 out you
    1:19:08 know 12
    1:19:09 18 months
    1:19:10 to understand
    1:19:11 where the
    1:19:11 tools are
    1:19:12 going to be
    1:19:12 and how
    1:19:12 much more
    1:19:13 they’re going
    1:19:13 to let
    1:19:13 you do
    1:19:13 because
    1:19:13 we’re
    1:19:14 largely
    1:19:14 an
    1:19:15 entertainment
    1:19:15 company
    1:19:16 so for
    1:19:17 us to
    1:19:17 look at
    1:19:17 that
    1:19:18 and just
    1:19:19 the
    1:19:20 revolutionary
    1:19:21 changes
    1:19:21 but you
    1:19:22 can’t be
    1:19:22 trapped
    1:19:23 inside the
    1:19:23 old way
    1:19:23 of thinking
    1:19:24 you’ve got
    1:19:25 to like
    1:19:25 you said
    1:19:25 build up
    1:19:26 from first
    1:19:26 principles
    1:19:27 yeah it’s
    1:19:27 a new
    1:19:28 creative
    1:19:28 canvas
    1:19:29 I think
    1:19:29 that’s
    1:19:29 like a
    1:19:30 really great
    1:19:30 way of
    1:19:30 thinking
    1:19:31 about it
    1:19:31 in that
    1:19:33 it’s
    1:19:33 like
    1:19:34 well is
    1:19:34 your
    1:19:35 creativity
    1:19:36 going to
    1:19:37 be used
    1:19:37 on
    1:19:39 you know
    1:19:40 kind of
    1:19:41 frame
    1:19:42 by frame
    1:19:42 editing
    1:19:43 of like
    1:19:44 a video
    1:19:45 or will
    1:19:45 it be
    1:19:46 thinking
    1:19:46 of like
    1:19:47 incredible
    1:19:47 new
    1:19:47 things
    1:19:48 you can
    1:19:48 do
    1:19:48 in a
    1:19:48 video
    1:19:49 ad
    1:19:50 that
    1:19:50 you
    1:19:50 could
    1:19:50 never
    1:19:50 do
    1:19:51 before
    1:19:51 and
    1:19:51 have
    1:19:52 the
    1:19:52 AI
    1:19:52 do
    1:19:52 that
    1:19:52 for
    1:19:53 you
    1:19:53 you know
    1:19:53 like
    1:19:54 and so
    1:19:54 it’s
    1:19:54 a little
    1:19:54 bit
    1:19:55 of a
    1:19:55 readjustment
    1:19:56 of
    1:19:57 where
    1:19:58 you put
    1:19:58 your
    1:19:59 creative
    1:20:00 energy
    1:20:00 into
    1:20:01 and
    1:20:01 the
    1:20:01 things
    1:20:01 that
    1:20:01 are
    1:20:02 possible
    1:20:02 and
    1:20:02 so
    1:20:02 forth
    1:20:03 and
    1:20:03 I
    1:20:03 think
    1:20:03 that’s
    1:20:04 you know
    1:20:04 we’re
    1:20:04 really
    1:20:05 seeing
    1:20:05 that
    1:20:05 across
    1:20:05 the
    1:20:05 board
    1:20:10 is
    1:20:10 this
    1:20:11 going
    1:20:11 to
    1:20:11 mean
    1:20:12 you
    1:20:12 know
    1:20:12 like
    1:20:13 you
    1:20:13 don’t
    1:20:13 have
    1:20:13 human
    1:20:14 investors
    1:20:14 anymore
    1:20:15 and
    1:20:15 it’s
    1:20:15 actually
    1:20:15 been
    1:20:16 like
    1:20:16 totally
    1:20:16 the
    1:20:17 opposite
    1:20:17 like
    1:20:18 instead
    1:20:19 of
    1:20:19 this
    1:20:20 like
    1:20:22 painstakingly
    1:20:23 collecting
    1:20:24 you know
    1:20:24 all
    1:20:24 all
    1:20:25 the
    1:20:25 data
    1:20:25 needed
    1:20:25 to
    1:20:26 put
    1:20:26 the
    1:20:26 investment
    1:20:27 memo
    1:20:27 together
    1:20:28 like
    1:20:28 yeah
    1:20:28 it
    1:20:28 just
    1:20:28 does
    1:20:29 that
    1:20:29 for
    1:20:29 you
    1:20:29 and
    1:20:30 then
    1:20:30 you’re
    1:20:30 just
    1:20:30 thinking
    1:20:30 about
    1:20:31 like
    1:20:31 okay
    1:20:31 what
    1:20:31 are
    1:20:32 the
    1:20:32 like
    1:20:32 the
    1:20:33 really
    1:20:33 compelling
    1:20:33 things
    1:20:34 about
    1:20:34 this
    1:20:35 or
    1:20:35 rather
    1:20:36 than
    1:20:36 you know
    1:20:37 trying
    1:20:37 to
    1:20:37 track
    1:20:38 every
    1:20:39 entrepreneur
    1:20:40 and
    1:20:41 like
    1:20:41 great
    1:20:41 engineer
    1:20:42 in our
    1:20:42 database
    1:20:43 the AI
    1:20:43 is
    1:20:43 just
    1:20:44 tracking
    1:20:44 all
    1:20:44 those
    1:20:44 people
    1:20:45 and
    1:20:45 letting
    1:20:45 you
    1:20:45 know
    1:20:45 hey
    1:20:46 that
    1:20:46 guy
    1:20:46 just
    1:20:46 updated
    1:20:47 his
    1:20:47 LinkedIn
    1:20:47 profile
    1:20:48 or
    1:20:54 like
    1:20:54 a
    1:20:54 much
    1:20:55 more
    1:20:55 kind
    1:20:56 of
    1:20:56 fun
    1:20:56 part
    1:20:56 of
    1:20:56 the
    1:20:57 game
    1:20:58 and
    1:20:59 and
    1:21:00 so
    1:21:00 you know
    1:21:00 look
    1:21:01 I
    1:21:01 would
    1:21:02 say
    1:21:02 the
    1:21:03 best
    1:21:03 predictor
    1:21:04 of
    1:21:04 kind
    1:21:04 of
    1:21:05 how
    1:21:05 things
    1:21:05 are
    1:21:05 going
    1:21:05 to
    1:21:06 go
    1:21:06 are
    1:21:07 more
    1:21:07 like
    1:21:07 what’s
    1:21:08 happening
    1:21:08 now
    1:21:08 than
    1:21:10 like
    1:21:10 the
    1:21:10 most
    1:21:11 dystopian
    1:21:11 view
    1:21:12 of it
    1:21:12 that
    1:21:13 we
    1:21:13 can
    1:21:14 possibly
    1:21:14 think
    1:21:14 of
    1:21:15 which
    1:21:15 I
    1:21:15 think
    1:21:16 is
    1:21:16 where
    1:21:16 a lot
    1:21:16 of
    1:21:16 people
    1:21:16 go
    1:21:17 to
    1:21:17 and
    1:21:17 like
    1:21:17 I
    1:21:17 said
    1:21:17 I
    1:21:17 think
    1:21:17 some
    1:21:18 of
    1:21:18 that’s
    1:21:18 the
    1:21:18 name
    1:21:19 you
    1:21:19 know
    1:21:20 artificial
    1:21:21 intelligence
    1:21:21 we
    1:21:22 hate
    1:21:23 everything
    1:21:23 artificial
    1:21:24 so
    1:21:25 why
    1:21:25 do
    1:21:25 we
    1:21:26 name
    1:21:26 it
    1:21:26 artificial
    1:21:28 that’s
    1:21:28 too
    1:21:28 true
    1:21:29 Ben
    1:21:29 I’ve
    1:21:30 enjoyed
    1:21:30 every
    1:21:30 minute
    1:21:30 of
    1:21:31 this
    1:21:31 where
    1:21:31 can
    1:21:31 people
    1:21:31 keep
    1:21:32 up
    1:21:32 with
    1:21:32 you
    1:21:33 yeah
    1:21:33 well
    1:21:33 I
    1:21:34 am
    1:21:35 B
    1:21:35 Horowitz
    1:21:35 on
    1:21:36 AX
    1:21:37 and
    1:21:38 you
    1:21:39 know
    1:21:40 that’s
    1:21:40 probably
    1:21:40 the
    1:21:40 best
    1:21:41 thing
    1:21:41 we’re
    1:21:42 a16z.com
    1:21:43 and
    1:21:45 hope
    1:21:45 you
    1:21:45 enjoyed
    1:21:45 it
    1:21:46 and
    1:21:46 that
    1:21:46 was
    1:21:47 great
    1:21:47 fun
    1:21:47 good
    1:21:48 fun
    1:21:48 catching
    1:21:48 it
    1:21:49 was
    1:21:49 indeed
    1:21:49 and
    1:21:49 then
    1:21:49 you
    1:21:49 also
    1:21:50 have
    1:21:51 multiple
    1:21:51 books
    1:21:52 that
    1:21:52 people
    1:21:52 can
    1:21:52 read
    1:21:52 that
    1:21:53 are
    1:21:53 extraordinarily
    1:21:54 well
    1:21:55 respected
    1:21:55 in the
    1:21:55 field
    1:21:56 so
    1:21:57 also
    1:21:57 thank
    1:21:57 you
    1:21:57 for
    1:21:57 those
    1:21:58 absolutely
    1:22:00 awesome
    1:22:00 thanks
    1:22:00 all right
    1:22:01 well thank
    1:22:01 you brother
    1:22:02 I appreciate
    1:22:02 it
    1:22:02 all right
    1:22:02 everybody
    1:22:03 if you
    1:22:03 have
    1:22:03 not
    1:22:04 already
    1:22:04 be
    1:22:04 sure
    1:22:04 to
    1:22:04 subscribe
    1:22:05 and
    1:22:05 until
    1:22:05 next
    1:22:05 time
    1:22:06 my
    1:22:06 friends
    1:22:06 be
    1:22:07 legendary
    1:22:07 take
    1:22:07 care
    1:22:08 peace
    1:22:20 we’ve
    1:22:20 got
    1:22:20 more
    1:22:20 great
    1:22:21 conversations
    1:22:21 coming
    1:22:21 your
    1:22:21 way
    1:22:22 see
    1:22:22 you
    1:22:22 next
    1:22:22 time

    This week on the a16z Podcast, we’re sharing a feed drop from Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu, featuring a wide-ranging conversation with a16z cofounder Ben Horowitz.

    Artificial intelligence isn’t just a tool — it’s a tectonic shift. In this episode, Ben joins Tom to break down what AI really is (and isn’t), where it’s taking us, and why it matters. They dive into the historical parallels, the looming policy battles, and how innovation cycles have always created — not destroyed — opportunity.

    From the future of work and education to the global AI race and the role of blockchain in preserving trust, Ben shares hard-won insights from decades at the forefront of technological disruption. It’s a masterclass in long-term thinking for anyone building, investing, or navigating what’s coming next.

    Resources: 

    Listen to more episodes of Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu: https://link.chtbl.com/impacttheory

    Watch full conversations on YouTube: youtube.com/tombilyeu
    Follow Tom on Instagram: @tombilyeu

    Learn more about Impact Theory: impacttheory.com

    Timecodes: 

    00:00 Introduction to Impact Theory with Ben Horowitz

    01:12 The Disruptive Power of AI

    02:01 Understanding AI and Its Implications

    04:19 The Future of Jobs in an AI-Driven World

    06:52 Human Intelligence vs. Artificial Intelligence

    10:31 The Role of AI in Society

    21:41 AI and the Future of Work

    35:07 The AI Race: US vs. China

    41:25 The Importance of Blockchain in an AI World

    44:26 Government Regulation and Blockchain

    45:16 The Need for Stablecoins

    45:45 Energy Challenges and AI

    49:53 Market Structure Bill and Token Regulation

    53:51 Blockchain’s Trust and Adoption

    01:04:17 Elon Musk’s Government Involvement

    01:12:03 Historical Figures and Modern Parallels

    01:18:41 AI and Creativity in Business

    01:21:29 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

    Stay Updated: 

    Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16z

    Find a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16z

    Find a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/

    Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenberg

    Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures

  • Masculinity and Volunteering, Is Narcissism Productive? and Bouncing Back After a Layoff

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 To succeed in the future of work, forward thinkers use AI to deliver measurable results.
    0:00:09 Workday is the AI platform for HR and finance that frees you from the mundane
    0:00:12 so you can focus on more meaningful work.
    0:00:14 Workday, moving business forever forward.
    0:00:17 There’s a lot nobody tells you about running a small business.
    0:00:24 Like the pricing, the marketing, the budgeting, the accidents, the panicking,
    0:00:28 and the things, and the things, and the non-stop things.
    0:00:32 But having the right insurance can help protect you from many things.
    0:00:37 Customize your coverage to get the protection you need with BCAA Small Business Insurance.
    0:00:43 Use promo code PROTECT to receive $50 off at bcaa.com slash smallbusiness.
    0:00:48 Welcome to Office Hours with Prabhji.
    0:00:51 This is the part of the show where we answer questions about business, big tech, entrepreneurship,
    0:00:53 and whatever else is on your mind.
    0:00:56 Just a reminder, you can now catch Office Hours every Monday and Friday.
    0:00:58 That’s right, two episodes a week.
    0:01:02 If you’d like to submit a question for next time, you can send a voice recording to
    0:01:03 officehoursofproftgymedia.com.
    0:01:06 Again, that’s officehoursofproftgymedia.com.
    0:01:12 Or post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit, and we just might feature it in our next episode.
    0:01:13 First question.
    0:01:19 Our first question comes from The Relevant Elephants on Reddit.
    0:01:21 God, the best names in the world.
    0:01:21 They ask,
    0:01:26 Hey, Prop G, you said mandatory service could help the nation’s loneliness epidemic.
    0:01:31 I volunteer at animal rescues in LA, and I’m literally the only man there.
    0:01:34 I’ve asked on Reddit how to get more men involved, and the top answers were,
    0:01:37 that’s a woman’s job, or I don’t have time.
    0:01:39 I don’t buy that, and I don’t think you do either.
    0:01:41 So how do we reach these men?
    0:01:44 How do we convince them that volunteering is masculine and actually good for their social
    0:01:45 lives, too?
    0:01:47 First off, thanks for doing that.
    0:01:52 I feel a little bit self-conscious, like lecturing about volunteering, because I give a lot of
    0:01:54 money away, but I don’t give much of my time away.
    0:01:58 I like to think that I’m generous with everything but my time, so occasionally I’ll do some volunteer
    0:02:04 work or spend time with young men, but I don’t show up to food kitchens and shit like that,
    0:02:05 and I should.
    0:02:07 I just, I don’t know, lazy, selfish.
    0:02:09 So I don’t want to lecture people about it.
    0:02:16 What I would say is that I had Dan Harris on the pod, and he writes about anxiety and purpose.
    0:02:17 Very thoughtful guy.
    0:02:24 He has a really wonderful podcast called 10% Happier, and he, a couple things that he said
    0:02:26 really stuck with me is that, one, action absorbs anxiety.
    0:02:31 If you are, I have someone in my life right now that has, like, crazy tooth pain and is worried
    0:02:36 at something with her head, had a head injury, and I’m like, okay, let’s get you in to see
    0:02:42 a neurologist, like, tonight or tomorrow morning, and a dentist, like, and immediately she felt
    0:02:44 better because action absorbs anxiety.
    0:02:47 If you’re worried about something, just immediately move to action to try to address it.
    0:02:48 And you’re going to feel better.
    0:02:55 Also, the other thing you said that a great way to sort of practice to sort of help you
    0:02:57 get out of a funk or depression is to help others.
    0:03:00 And that is, it gives you a sense of purpose.
    0:03:05 You get out, you meet other people, makes you feel important, makes you feel masculine.
    0:03:11 I think that if you’re feeling down, getting out of your own head and start focusing on service,
    0:03:16 helping others, I think is a great way to kind of address maybe if you’re feeling a little
    0:03:17 bit down or a little bit depressed.
    0:03:20 So I think volunteer work is an outstanding idea.
    0:03:25 In terms of how to get more people to volunteer at dog shelters, you know, I don’t know, go
    0:03:27 on your social media feed and show all the cool dogs.
    0:03:29 And it’s funny you say that.
    0:03:34 I spoke at a conference in Palm Beach about three months ago.
    0:03:37 And we were talking, I was talking about mating and the dynamics of mating.
    0:03:41 And he came up to me and he was this shorter guy, like not unattractive, but not attractive.
    0:03:44 Like not the kind of guy I would think would do well on dating apps.
    0:03:49 And he said that he met his wife at a dog shelter and that his wife, he claims is much higher
    0:03:50 character and much hotter than him.
    0:03:56 But she was really drawn to him because of his kindness and his service, which I thought
    0:03:57 was actually pretty interesting.
    0:04:00 I do think, I’m trying to think how you appeal to dudes here.
    0:04:02 I do think it’s probably a really good way to meet friends.
    0:04:06 And also it’s just a great rap at a bar.
    0:04:10 You know, well, when I was volunteering down at the, when Bosco, the rescue dog who I was
    0:04:15 saving from the kill shelter down at the animal shelter I volunteer at.
    0:04:17 Anyways, I think it’s probably a great way to meet friends.
    0:04:24 And I would say social media and these accounts, these rescue shelters having accounts and
    0:04:28 opportunities or calls to attention around opportunities to volunteer.
    0:04:35 And again, just more broadly, I think that a fantastic way to address mild depression or
    0:04:39 if you’re feeling down is to get out of your own head and start serving in the agency
    0:04:39 of others.
    0:04:41 Thanks for your good work.
    0:04:45 Our second question comes from RedLegs05 on Reddit.
    0:04:50 They ask, Prop G, you joke about being a narcissist.
    0:04:53 I think most of us raised on social media are, but we rarely talk about it.
    0:04:56 Maybe because if we’re not successful, it just feels shameful.
    0:05:00 So how do you think narcissism fuels achievement or results from it?
    0:05:03 And would you ever delete your social accounts other than Twitter?
    0:05:04 You call them toxic.
    0:05:08 What’s stopping you from actually logging off and signaling some virtue while you’re at it?
    0:05:09 That’s an interesting question.
    0:05:14 So a narcissist, I think, is someone who thinks, you know, looks out the window and sees himself
    0:05:20 to an extent where they lack empathy and they can even become somewhat sociopathic because
    0:05:22 everything is just about them.
    0:05:29 they don’t really make much of an effort or think, look through the lens of other people’s emotions or success.
    0:05:36 And I think I suffer from some of it, but I think even if someone states they’re a narcissist, it probably means they aren’t.
    0:05:54 And one thing that has having kids, working with people, having had some adversity in my life, having friends from different economic backgrounds, going to a public school where there are people from all different ethnicities and economic backgrounds.
    0:05:57 So I think you’re more inclined to become less of a narcissist, is that true?
    0:05:59 What’s the opposite of narcissism, empathy?
    0:06:00 I don’t know.
    0:06:13 But I think that some of the self-absorption, I feel, or vanity are also embers such that I want to be more successful.
    0:06:21 The affirmation or the approval of others in being impressive in other people’s eyes is definitely a motivating force for me.
    0:06:25 And I think it’s interesting to look at what motivates you around things.
    0:06:33 And my primary objective or purpose the first 40 years of my life was economic security, which is Latin for get more money.
    0:06:35 And why is that?
    0:06:43 One, in a capitalist society, all the signals are trying to encourage you to make more money and be more productive such that you’ll go out and buy more Chipotle
    0:06:45 and go to Disney World and fuel the economy.
    0:06:50 So every signal is, all right, how do you aggregate more money, more power?
    0:06:53 Well, if you aggregate more money and power, your kids are going to have more opportunity.
    0:06:56 You’re going to be, men are going to laugh at your jokes.
    0:06:58 Women are going to want to have sex with you.
    0:07:01 I mean, all of these things are pretty strong motivators in a capitalist society.
    0:07:04 And so I very much bought into that.
    0:07:09 And also in a capitalist society, you get to take care of your own when you have money.
    0:07:12 And my biggest source of stress growing up and even into my 30s and 40s with kids,
    0:07:18 was feeling like I was economically vulnerable, whether it was investing in companies that were going poorly
    0:07:26 and worrying that I was failing my children or really my first sort of fear and anxiety around money when I was a kid
    0:07:29 because me and my mom didn’t have enough, but the real fear set in when my mom got very sick.
    0:07:37 And I felt those natural masculine protective instincts to try and take care of my mom.
    0:07:44 And it was very hard and humiliating because I wasn’t able to do it at the level that I expected for myself.
    0:07:48 And so I figured out pretty fucking early, okay, money matters a lot.
    0:07:52 And I became very focused and that was my purpose.
    0:08:01 But as I got older, wanting to be loved, wanting to impress people, wanting to have relevance, all of that.
    0:08:01 I mean, that’s a form.
    0:08:02 Is that a form?
    0:08:04 I think that’s more vanity than narcissism.
    0:08:06 But those things are very motivating.
    0:08:14 And I have thought somewhat to your second part of your question, I thought at some point, I’m just going to go dark off of social media.
    0:08:15 This is just so fucking stupid.
    0:08:17 And I’m addicted.
    0:08:19 I don’t have an addictive personality.
    0:08:20 I drink a lot of alcohol.
    0:08:22 I don’t do a lot of drugs.
    0:08:25 I do some THC, but I don’t think I’m addicted to any of it.
    0:08:29 I’m one of the 95% of people who manage their substance and their professional and personal lives fairly well.
    0:08:34 Where I do have an addiction is I’m addicted to the affirmation of others.
    0:08:38 I care too much about people who I will never meet or their opinion of me.
    0:08:42 And sometimes it gets in the way of what really matters.
    0:08:47 And that is the affirmation, love, empathy, and care of people who are close to me.
    0:08:48 You know, I work.
    0:08:54 I will trade off personal time for work because I want to impress people and I want to make more money.
    0:08:56 And then I do slow down and think, what the fuck am I doing?
    0:08:59 Here’s a nice thing about money.
    0:09:00 God, I’m going off script here.
    0:09:01 There’s three buckets.
    0:09:03 There’s things you want to do.
    0:09:10 I want to hang out with my kids and go to, you know, the, you know, the Arsenal game or Chelsea game or Spurs.
    0:09:11 We’re a house divided.
    0:09:13 How the fuck did we end up with three teams?
    0:09:16 Anyways, there’s things you have to do, right?
    0:09:17 Jim Bancop is going to be a can.
    0:09:21 He’ll want to, he’s, he’s the CEO of Vox who distributes our podcast.
    0:09:22 He wants to get together.
    0:09:23 I have to do that.
    0:09:24 And I say have to do that.
    0:09:25 I also want to.
    0:09:25 I like Jim.
    0:09:26 He’s actually a reasonably nice guy.
    0:09:28 And there’s things you should do.
    0:09:34 I’ve been invited to all this shit at can that will be a bunch of people and it’d be good networking and good for my business.
    0:09:38 And I’m like, the great thing about having money is you can eliminate the should bucket.
    0:09:39 I no longer do shit.
    0:09:41 I should no longer do shit.
    0:09:41 I should.
    0:09:42 Oh my God.
    0:09:42 Isn’t that nice?
    0:09:56 I do think though, that at some point I would like to go dark and just hang out with friends and maybe get involved in, I don’t know, trying to add more value on the nonprofit side.
    0:10:00 Maybe write more, hang out somewhere beautiful and just wait for the ask answer.
    0:10:08 This whole social media thing, it definitely, after I do a lot of it and it’s so important, you’ve got to be on social if you want to market your product, have relevance.
    0:10:09 I get it.
    0:10:15 But at some point I’m going to, you know, every time I spend more than a few hours on social media, I feel like I need to shower.
    0:10:17 It’s like eating a big bag of Skittles.
    0:10:18 You’re like, oh God, is that a good idea?
    0:10:24 So, yeah, at some point I will, but right now I’m still desperate for your affirmation.
    0:10:26 Thanks for the question.
    0:10:28 We’ll be right back after a quick break.
    0:10:37 Support for the show comes from Upway.
    0:10:42 If you’re stuck in traffic again or frustrated with rising gas prices, there’s a better way to get around.
    0:10:47 Commuting by e-bike isn’t just great for your health and can be a game changer for your wallet and your time.
    0:10:47 Here’s a tip.
    0:10:56 Head over to upway.co to find e-bikes from top tier brands, including Specialized, Cannondale, and Eventon at up to 60% off retail.
    0:11:01 If you know exactly what you want, you can search Upway by brand, product, or category.
    0:11:07 And if you want even more guidance and information, you can schedule a phone or video call or even visit one of our showrooms in New York or L.A.
    0:11:13 Whether you’re into mountain bikes for weekend adventures or fast city e-bikes for your daily commute, Upway has you covered.
    0:11:18 You can join their community of fans and ride with confidence, knowing that they’ve got your back every step of the way.
    0:11:26 So head over to upway.co and get $150 off your first e-bike purchases of $1,000 or more with code PROFG2025.
    0:11:30 That’s upway.co, code PROFG2025.
    0:11:31 You can thank us later.
    0:11:38 Support for the show comes from LinkedIn.
    0:11:41 One of the hardest parts about moving to a new city is finding your people.
    0:11:45 You can look far and wide, but it’s hard to find the people who just get you.
    0:11:47 And the same goes for you to be marketers.
    0:11:53 Locating the right people who align with your business and an audience that connects with your product and your mission can make all the difference.
    0:12:00 But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.
    0:12:06 According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over a billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.
    0:12:15 You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority, skills, and company revenue, giving you all of the professionals you need to reach in one place.
    0:12:22 So, you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.
    0:12:26 LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it yourself.
    0:12:29 Just go to linkedin.com slash Scott.
    0:12:31 That’s linkedin.com slash Scott.
    0:12:34 Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.
    0:12:42 Can’t stop, won’t stop, get guap, 10 white toes and then Tori flip-flops.
    0:12:51 This week on Net Worth and Chill, I’m joined by Saweetie, the Grammy-nominated recording artist and entrepreneur who’s turned her hustle into an empire worth millions.
    0:12:57 From attending USC to pursuing music to securing major deals with McDonald’s and Matt Cosmetics,
    0:13:03 Saweetie breaks down how she transformed her icy girl persona into cold, hard cash.
    0:13:07 A money goal is to have passive income in the millions.
    0:13:12 Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com slash yourrichbff.
    0:13:18 Welcome back to our final question from Tana on Reddit.
    0:13:24 Hey, Scott, I was laid off from my job three months ago and I’m having a lot of trouble finding a new job.
    0:13:25 I work in tech as a product manager.
    0:13:30 It seems like a lot of white-collar workers are also having trouble in the current job market, especially in tech.
    0:13:34 What would you suggest are the best ways to go about regaining employment these days?
    0:13:35 Thanks in advance.
    0:13:37 I don’t think there’s a silver bullet here.
    0:13:45 The one thing I would correlate with a job search that sometimes people don’t necessarily correlate with is,
    0:13:49 one, it’s okay to be vulnerable.
    0:13:59 I think especially men put up this front of, oh, yeah, I decided I didn’t like them and I left and I’m fielding other offers when the reality is I got laid off and I really need help.
    0:14:01 Do you have any idea of anyone who’s looking for a job?
    0:14:07 And I mean, you don’t want to come across as desperate, but it’s okay to be, yeah, got laid off, looking for a job.
    0:14:09 Let me know if you know of any opportunities.
    0:14:09 Here’s my CV.
    0:14:11 This is the kind of role I’m looking for.
    0:14:24 And I think it’s okay to call people you’re close with and say, if you have any ideas or to call and say, what I tell people are looking for a job I’m close with, I’m probably, there’s probably opportunities in my universe that I’m not thinking of.
    0:14:32 If you want to meet someone at X company or you think, I had a friend of mine who is the chief revenue officer of a well-known tech company, but it’s not working out.
    0:14:32 He doesn’t like it.
    0:14:35 Call me and say, do you know anyone at Reddit?
    0:14:36 There’s a job there.
    0:14:39 And he forwarded me the job description and it ends up, I do know someone at Reddit.
    0:14:43 So, one, don’t be afraid to ask for help.
    0:14:46 Two, every day, just a list of shit you’re going to do.
    0:14:50 Send out this many emails, go on LinkedIn, contact this many people.
    0:14:56 Success in anything is a small series of disciplined efforts every day, right?
    0:15:05 Working out every day, cutting back your food intake a little bit every day, sending nice messages to people every day, showing you care, saving a little bit of money every day.
    0:15:10 That is what success is, small acts of discipline every day.
    0:15:14 So, every day, before you go to bed or in the morning, write up a list, do certain shit.
    0:15:24 Now, here’s the thing I find that’s most interesting about the job search dynamic is that I love that study that came out of Google that when they post a job opening, they get immediately at 100 applications.
    0:15:26 They shut it down 20 minutes later or take it down.
    0:15:28 They invite in the 20 most qualified people.
    0:15:40 And then 70% of the time, the person they ultimately end up making the offer to is someone who had an internal advocate, someone who already worked at Google, who said, I know Lisa and she’s fantastic.
    0:15:49 And just trust me on this, because here’s the thing, most hiring managers have figured out, interviews are fucking useless, literally fucking useless, or at least they are for me.
    0:15:51 I mean, occasionally someone comes in and you’re like, no way.
    0:15:54 And occasionally someone comes in and blows your socks off and think we should try and find a way to hire this person.
    0:16:00 But anyways, I find the 80% in the middle just doesn’t work.
    0:16:04 I’ve been fooled a lot in interviews, both of the upside and the downside.
    0:16:06 So it’s about reference hiring.
    0:16:14 If someone calls me, Ed Elson, who’s the co-host of Prop G Markets, my friend Joanna Coles, called me and said, you must hire this young man.
    0:16:15 And I’m like, to do what?
    0:16:17 And she’s like, it doesn’t matter.
    0:16:24 And she’s like, literally, I called him and said, I don’t know who you are, but I’ve been told to hire you by someone I trust.
    0:16:25 So I hired him and she was right.
    0:16:26 He’s great.
    0:16:32 So the key when you’re hunting for a job in general is to be as social as possible.
    0:16:33 Go out.
    0:16:40 Go out, meet as many people as possible, have fun, contact people, make as many contacts as possible and let people know that you’re looking.
    0:16:46 And it’s in some, the most popular kids in high school aren’t the best looking, the smartest or the best athletes.
    0:16:49 They’re the ones that like the most other people.
    0:16:53 So to a certain extent, networking and looking for a job is a popularity contest.
    0:16:58 And how do you become most popular and put yourself in a room of opportunities, even when you’re not physically in it?
    0:17:00 You like as many other people as possible.
    0:17:02 You’re as social as possible.
    0:17:05 So one, a series of small disciplined acts every day.
    0:17:12 Two, don’t be afraid and let your ego get in the way of calling out or calling people and reaching out and asking you for help.
    0:17:16 And three, be as social as possible and let people know that you’re looking for a job.
    0:17:18 Anyways, best of luck to you.
    0:17:18 Thanks for the question.
    0:17:22 That’s all for this episode.
    0:17:27 If you’d like to submit a question, please email a voice recording to officehours at propgmedia.com.
    0:17:29 That’s officehours at propgmedia.com.
    0:17:37 Or if you prefer to ask on Reddit, just post your question on the Scott Galloway subreddit and we just might feature it in an upcoming episode.
    0:17:44 This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez.
    0:17:46 Drew Burrows is our technical director.
    0:17:49 Thank you for listening to the Prop G Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network.
    0:17:56 We’ll see you next time.
    0:17:57 We’ll see you next time.

    Scott answers a question about masculinity and service: why don’t more men volunteer, and how do we change that? He then discusses how narcissism relates to success (and whether he’d ever quit social media). Finally, he shares advice for workers trying to get re-hired in today’s tough tech job market.

    Want to be featured in a future episode? Send a voice recording to officehours@profgmedia.com, or drop your question in the r/ScottGalloway subreddit.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • Most Replayed Moment: The Gottman Doctors Guide to Better Sex and Stronger Connections

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:02 What do you think about the subject of sex, Julie?
    0:00:06 And, you know, how important it is for a relationship?
    0:00:07 How much should we be having sex?
    0:00:08 Does it really matter?
    0:00:11 Is it a predictor of long-term success in marriage?
    0:00:15 Great questions that my clients ask me a lot.
    0:00:20 And there’s huge variability in sexual preference.
    0:00:25 Some couples actually don’t want to have sex at all.
    0:00:27 Both people don’t want to have sex.
    0:00:30 They’d rather have kind of a sibling relationship almost.
    0:00:35 If they’re both content with that, then they can have a very successful relationship.
    0:00:41 Some couples really want to have sex a lot, you know, all the time.
    0:00:48 And it’s a really important component of the relationship and everything in between.
    0:00:53 When you run into trouble is the following.
    0:00:55 And I’ve seen this so many times.
    0:01:05 The men who, I guess I would say, are hyper-masculine, they think that cuddling is too infantile.
    0:01:07 So they don’t want to cuddle.
    0:01:15 And the only way they can accept physical contact, which they desperately need, is through sex.
    0:01:16 Period.
    0:01:17 Penetrative sex.
    0:01:18 Penetrative sex.
    0:01:19 That’s right.
    0:01:23 And the woman has 17 children.
    0:01:24 She’s trying to make dinner.
    0:01:26 You know, she’s exhausted.
    0:01:31 She may not want to have sex nearly as much as he does.
    0:01:34 So he begins to feel deprived of touch.
    0:01:39 But instead of complaining about that, he says, we’re not having enough sex.
    0:01:43 And she says, I’m not getting enough affection.
    0:01:49 And there you have, you know, some conflict that has to get sorted out.
    0:01:52 It’s like they’re speaking two different languages of intimacy.
    0:01:53 Yeah.
    0:01:53 If you know what I mean.
    0:01:56 Basically, in a sense, they are.
    0:01:57 They are.
    0:02:04 Though, typically, the men in these relationships really basically need touch.
    0:02:12 And can they accept cuddling as something that’s just as masculine as penetrative sex?
    0:02:19 Well, if they really think about it, and if they experience it, then yeah, they can.
    0:02:23 Then things really will tend to improve.
    0:02:27 The research there, John, is suggesting there, as you said, that life is foreplay.
    0:02:35 Because if, like, the kissing on the way out the door and the touching my partner’s back and the cuddle leads to a better sex life,
    0:02:43 then we should see life, public displays of affection, all that kind of thing, as an investment in what happens tonight in the bedroom.
    0:02:43 Right.
    0:02:45 I think that’s really true.
    0:02:48 Every positive thing you do in a relationship is foreplay.
    0:03:03 And the couples who, a lot of times the couples who stop having sex have also shut down, high-conflict couples who stop having sex have shut down other things, other sensual parts of their lives as well.
    0:03:05 You know, they’re not having much fun.
    0:03:14 And, you know, 80% of the 40,000 couples we studied said that fun had come to die in a relationship.
    0:03:15 There wasn’t much play.
    0:03:17 There wasn’t much adventure.
    0:03:18 It wasn’t just sex.
    0:03:20 Everything shut down.
    0:03:22 All the things that were really delightful.
    0:03:32 You know, exploring new kinds of cuisine, you know, traveling, playing games together, you know, playing sports together.
    0:03:34 How do we stop that happening, though?
    0:03:35 You know, because I’ve often wondered.
    0:03:45 People often said to me that eroticism and attraction is about novelty and spontaneousness and doing all that kind of thing.
    0:03:52 And then they’ve said that love is about familiarity and, you know, comfort, which are, these are two opposite things.
    0:03:54 Well, let me answer that.
    0:04:02 The person who said that it’s all about spontaneity and mystery and so on has never done any research.
    0:04:31 The research shows that the familiarity, the emotional connection, really knowing your partner creates, in the long run, much more passion, what much better sex, actually, than maintaining mystery but not really connecting to one another the way people need to.
    0:04:37 There’s a wonderful book by Emily Nagoski called Come As You Are that reviews this research.
    0:04:44 And it shows that, first of all, women have more prerequisites for eroticism than men do.
    0:04:47 Jeffrey Chase once said, women need a reason for sex.
    0:04:48 Men need a place.
    0:04:49 That’s all.
    0:04:51 So, you know, but it’s true.
    0:04:59 Men don’t need to feel safe to feel sexual.
    0:05:00 Women do.
    0:05:03 Women need to feel psychologically safe.
    0:05:05 And that means emotional connection.
    0:05:12 It also means there can’t be a long to-do list of things that they have to get done that’s been neglected.
    0:05:17 The dog’s been taken out, you know, and has done his business and all of that.
    0:05:23 And then the situation feels erotic to a woman and she’s receptive.
    0:05:27 Let me point out something in addition to that that most men don’t know.
    0:05:40 At least in the United States, one out of four women have been sexually molested or sexually assaulted by the age of 18.
    0:05:44 And that’s only the women who reported it.
    0:05:53 It’s probably one out of three, maybe 40%, including the ones who haven’t reported it.
    0:06:16 So, when women have that history, not to mention thousands of years in their bones of being seen only as sex objects and being raped, you know, every other day, you get to understand why women need safety, much more so than men.
    0:06:24 Yeah, we wrote a book called The Man’s Guide to Women to convey all of these bits of information that have been researched.
    0:06:32 So, familiarity is the basis for eroticism, not for the absence of eroticism.
    0:06:40 So, I’ve heard a lot about epigenetics recently, which is this idea that trauma can be passed on from one generation to the next.
    0:06:53 And with that in mind, if women have been sort of sex objects throughout history and have been raped and those kinds of things, it’s understandable that, as you say, Julie, that they have like an inbuilt need for safety that men might not understand in the same way.
    0:06:54 Exactly.
    0:06:56 What does that say to a man?
    0:06:58 What advice do you then give to a man?
    0:07:01 Is the advice you have to make your partner feel safe for them to be aroused?
    0:07:02 Right.
    0:07:03 Okay.
    0:07:03 Yes.
    0:07:04 What else was in that book, by the way?
    0:07:05 It’s quite an interesting book.
    0:07:06 I feel like I need to read it.
    0:07:07 Yeah.
    0:07:14 Well, you know, it’s really that awareness of emotional connection and psychological safety being so important to women.
    0:07:19 And also realizing that men who do housework get a lot more sex.
    0:07:23 Is that something Julie told you?
    0:07:27 No, that is actually an empirical result.
    0:07:31 Yeah, but specifically, honey, they have to do the vacuuming.
    0:07:32 Yeah, and get the books off the bed.
    0:07:35 Interesting.
    0:07:36 Okay.
    0:07:42 Are you seeing a difference in our relationship with sex as the world is changing?
    0:07:47 Because there’s some stats that suggest we’re getting more and more sexless as a society.
    0:07:51 Have you seen any changes in your 50 years studying love?
    0:07:57 Towards attitudes about sex or, you know, gender roles have changed in that time as well in society.
    0:08:02 So, you know, I wouldn’t say it’s sexless, but I would say it’s loveless.
    0:08:04 More loveless.
    0:08:10 In the sense, you know, again, I don’t know what it’s like in England or in other countries so much.
    0:08:16 But in the United States, the hookup culture is, you know, alive and thriving.
    0:08:33 There are so many websites in which men and men, women and women, men and women are just hooking up, meaning meeting up for the first time, having sex, and departing the end.
    0:08:34 Is that a problem?
    0:08:35 Yes.
    0:08:37 You know why?
    0:08:42 Because in that kind of sex, there’s no emotional connection.
    0:08:43 Zero.
    0:08:56 And I’ve heard this from both men and women, actually, that when they leave, they feel more empty than before they started having that sex.
    0:08:58 Why do you think that is?
    0:08:59 No emotional connection.
    0:09:01 It’s impersonal sex.
    0:09:04 They don’t know who they’re having sex with.
    0:09:09 So, you know, it’s almost like masturbating, practically.
    0:09:23 So, you know, there’s a lot of couples who are doing that, but they’re not committing in long-term relationships as much as they used to.
    0:09:28 And I think there’s several factors involved in that.
    0:09:37 One is they’ve seen their parents divorce, so they don’t believe in marriage or commitment as an institution that they should live to.
    0:09:52 Secondly, women have come into the workforce again in the last 50 years, and career is equally important to many women as it is to men.
    0:10:00 On that point, do you see issues with women becoming more successful in that emasculating men to some degree?
    0:10:09 Because I read about a study that said there’s an expectation in society for men to provide more at home financially.
    0:10:21 And then a separate study showed that women’s sort of equality with men in terms of their pay and education is getting closer.
    0:10:32 And then the third study says that men can feel emasculated in the presence of a smarter, more successful woman, and they find it less attractive.
    0:10:41 So if you put all this together and you go, okay, women are getting richer and more intelligent, men are emasculated by that, but men still have this social expectation that they will pay the bill.
    0:10:54 In that framework, you go, Jesus Christ, this is going to be difficult for, you know, you can look at it another way and say, there’s less of a pool for women who typically want to date men that have a certain level of education and a certain level of money.
    0:10:56 The pool is smaller than ever before.
    0:11:02 So is this, you know, this is some of the issues of the, some of the challenges of the modern world.
    0:11:21 And, you know, I remember this feeling myself, actually, as I built my career and John and I were together and I kept thinking, no, no, no, I should be a housewife.
    0:11:23 I should just be a mom.
    0:11:24 I should just be taking care of the home.
    0:11:29 I shouldn’t be devoting all this time to my career, but I love my career.
    0:11:30 I want to work.
    0:11:36 And so there would be this turmoil inside about who should I be.
    0:11:39 And I think men are feeling that too.
    0:11:44 For example, as I said earlier, men are really wanting to be fathers more.
    0:11:53 But how can you be an involved father when you’re working like crazy, extra, overtime to make more money, right?
    0:11:54 It’s impossible.
    0:12:00 Also, those old myths have a hard time falling away.
    0:12:09 That men who make more money have more status, have more value as human beings, are better partners.
    0:12:10 Or more male.
    0:12:13 Are more male, are more masculine.
    0:12:14 It’s so not true.
    0:12:26 Another thing to keep in mind is that women used to make 79 cents for every dollar that men made.
    0:12:30 Now they make 81 cents for every dollar.
    0:12:32 You think that’s a big change?
    0:12:33 It is not.
    0:12:45 So women are still fighting for equality in terms of career opportunities, work opportunities, and so on.
    0:12:53 And valuing their career, men sometimes, you know, are struggling.
    0:12:55 Who should I be now?
    0:12:57 I used to be the provider.
    0:12:59 Who should I be?
    0:13:01 Well, that’s what we’ve learned, right?
    0:13:05 Because we come from a generation where, like, my father might have been the provider and my granddad was the provider.
    0:13:10 So I’ve modeled that and said, well, for me to be a man like my father, then I need to be able to do this.
    0:13:11 That’s right.
    0:13:12 That’s right.
    0:13:15 It’s a good thing that we’re getting closer to equality, of course.
    0:13:19 And I know the pay gap is still, there’s still a distance there between men and women.
    0:13:30 But it kind of, you can see there being some kind of challenge for men who now don’t know their role, but society still has an expectation that they’ll pick up the bill broadly.
    0:13:31 You bet.
    0:13:33 It’s a difficult conundrum, isn’t it?
    0:13:33 But it’s…
    0:13:35 Well, it’s really hard on men.
    0:13:50 You know, I think men, in many ways, are having as hard, if not harder, time now in figuring out what their role is and who they want to be compared with women.
    0:13:52 I mean, our fight started earlier, right?
    0:13:55 It started in the 70s with women’s liberation.
    0:13:58 And men kind of sat back and went, what?
    0:14:00 What’s happening?
    0:14:03 I think men are discovering the importance of relationships.
    0:14:09 You know, we typically have had worse emotional support systems.
    0:14:15 You know, many men don’t have the best friend, don’t have close friends.
    0:14:22 And their only really close connection is with the woman that they live with, you know, or are married to.
    0:14:29 And so I think men are discovering how important social connection is in their lives compared to achievement.
    0:14:40 You know, I mean, there’s this lie that got sold to women that if they really are the caretakers of relationships, they’ll be happy.
    0:14:45 The lie to men is if you are successful in your career, you’ll be happy.
    0:14:52 Neither lie is really useful because both men and women need close connections.
    0:14:54 We need friends.
    0:14:59 We need, you know, there’s an epidemic of loneliness, you know, in the world right now.
    0:15:00 And that’s a killer.
    0:15:09 We really need to reach out more, not only to make good friends, but also reach out to strangers, create community.
    0:15:12 And that needs to change.
    0:15:13 You know what’s really interesting?
    0:15:16 I mean, just think about it.
    0:15:25 If you go on the internet and you look at what women are looking for in a partner, what’s the first word they say?
    0:15:27 They don’t say rich.
    0:15:33 They don’t say highly successful, great achievements.
    0:15:37 Typically, they say sensitive, right?
    0:15:37 Right?
    0:15:42 Sensitive, emotionally aware, caring.
    0:15:49 So, hopefully, men can absorb that.
    0:15:52 Is that, it’s interesting because they do say that.
    0:15:53 Yeah.
    0:15:55 And then they also say, strong.
    0:15:58 And they say, can protect me.
    0:16:10 And again, it feels like a poll because on one end, it appears that that sort of sensitive emotional openness has somewhat since in contrast to like the, urr, urr, urr.
    0:16:13 You did that very well.
    0:16:15 You have a very lucky part.
    0:16:17 These people are probably listening, don’t even know what I did.
    0:16:19 But I was just flexing my guns.
    0:16:19 It was the gun show.
    0:16:20 So, like, you see what I’m saying?
    0:16:21 It feels like a contradiction.
    0:16:24 It’s like, how do you be this and this?
    0:16:26 The testosterone-filled beats, that’s going to save the day.
    0:16:27 And then the…
    0:16:27 True.
    0:16:35 But keep in mind that being strong doesn’t mean being unemotional.
    0:16:43 Sometimes it takes more strength and courage to voice emotion than it does to shut them down.
    0:16:56 And what they’re talking about, you know, let’s not forget that women are still getting raped, still getting assaulted, still getting attacked everywhere, still getting murdered, right?
    0:17:05 So, they want a man, allegedly, who can physically protect them, for sure.
    0:17:09 That would feel great because women still feel unsafe.
    0:17:15 However, that doesn’t necessarily correlate with being unemotional.
    0:17:22 I guess the contradiction goes both ways because men also want a woman that is, you know, compassionate and soft.
    0:17:26 But they also want her to just be, like, to not be emotional and not keep that out.
    0:17:28 So, it’s like a contradiction both ways.
    0:17:28 Yeah.
    0:17:29 Yeah, yeah.
    0:17:30 We want everything, right?
    0:17:31 All at once.
    0:17:32 And that’s part of the problem.
    0:17:41 Just closing off on this point about sex, because I had one last question, which is, does the research show that couples that have the best sex life talk about it the most?
    0:17:41 Yes.
    0:17:43 I had this debate with my friend and I was wondering.
    0:17:43 Yes.
    0:17:45 No question about it.
    0:17:47 I just want to talk about it and have a better sex life.
    0:17:49 And how should they be talking about it?
    0:17:51 Give me some advice on how to talk about sex with my partner.
    0:17:56 You need to talk about it in a way that is accepting and loving, you know.
    0:18:07 So, you talk about what’s really great in the relationship, what you’ve enjoyed, what you love about your partner, what you find sexy about your partner, what you wish for more of, you know.
    0:18:09 Right.
    0:18:12 We have, we created what we call got sex.
    0:18:18 Isn’t that a, we didn’t think of the title, I promise.
    0:18:33 So, it’s a kit that includes seven different structured conversations to have with your partner about sex that have to do with what do you prefer specifically?
    0:18:48 How would you say, how would you say, how would you like sex to be initiated, how would you like it initiated, how can we refuse sex without massacring each other’s egos, how should sex be completed, etc.
    0:18:55 So, the couples who talk much more openly and more comfortably about that do much better sexually.
    0:19:05 And for love maps, we have a hundred questions you can ask a man about his erotic world and a hundred questions you can ask a woman about her erotic world.
    0:19:07 And they’re not the same questions.
    0:19:14 Men and women have, well, just people generally, even in sort of homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, have very different fantasies.
    0:19:17 Often linked to their trauma or wherever they come from, whatever.
    0:19:24 What happens in a relationship when one partner isn’t willing to do the fantasy that the other partner is really craving?
    0:19:26 How does one navigate that?
    0:19:29 Well, a couple of ways.
    0:19:44 One is the person who’s not willing to do it can maybe describe it verbally because couples who talk more during sex actually have better sexual relationships too.
    0:19:55 So, if the partner who doesn’t want to do what the other wants at least describes it verbally, whispering it in some kind of really cool tone,
    0:20:02 well, the guy can get off on that or the woman can get off on that, right?
    0:20:07 I’m imagining you’re a cheerleader right now and I’m the football player.
    0:20:11 And I’m six foot four, not five foot seven.
    0:20:14 Two things I wanted to say.
    0:20:18 The first thing is a huge thank you for listening and tuning into the show week after week.
    0:20:24 It means the world to all of us and this really is a dream that we absolutely never had and couldn’t have imagined getting to this place.
    0:20:28 But secondly, it’s a dream where we feel like we’re only just getting started.
    0:20:36 And if you enjoy what we do here, please join the 24% of people that listen to this podcast regularly and follow us on this app.
    0:20:37 Here’s a promise I’m going to make to you.
    0:20:43 I’m going to do everything in my power to make this show as good as I can now and into the future.
    0:20:45 We’re going to deliver the guests that you want me to speak to.
    0:20:49 And we’re going to continue to keep doing all of the things you love about this show.
    0:20:50 Thank you.
    Bạn nghĩ gì về chủ đề tình dục, Julie? Và bạn biết đấy, nó quan trọng như thế nào cho một mối quan hệ? Chúng ta nên quan hệ tình dục bao nhiêu? Nó có thực sự quan trọng không? Có phải nó là một dấu hiệu của sự thành công lâu dài trong hôn nhân? Những câu hỏi tuyệt vời mà khách hàng của tôi thường hỏi tôi. Và có sự khác biệt lớn trong sở thích tình dục. Một số cặp thực sự không muốn quan hệ tình dục chút nào. Cả hai người đều không muốn quan hệ tình dục. Họ muốn có một mối quan hệ giống như anh chị em hơn. Nếu cả hai đều hài lòng với điều đó, thì họ có thể có một mối quan hệ rất thành công. Một số cặp thì lại muốn quan hệ tình dục nhiều, bạn biết đấy, mọi lúc. Và đó là một phần thật sự quan trọng của mối quan hệ và mọi sự bên trong. Khi bạn gặp rắc rối là điều sau đây. Và tôi đã thấy điều này rất nhiều lần. Những người đàn ông mà, tôi nghĩ tôi sẽ nói, rất nam tính, họ nghĩ rằng việc ôm hôn quá trẻ con. Vì vậy, họ không muốn ôm hôn. Và cách duy nhất mà họ có thể chấp nhận tiếp xúc thể xác, mà họ rất cần, là thông qua quan hệ tình dục. Đơn giản vậy thôi. Quan hệ tình dục xâm nhập. Quan hệ tình dục xâm nhập. Đúng vậy. Và người phụ nữ có 17 đứa trẻ. Cô ấy đang cố gắng nấu bữa tối. Bạn biết đấy, cô ấy đã kiệt sức. Cô ấy có thể không muốn quan hệ tình dục nhiều như anh ấy. Vì vậy, anh ấy bắt đầu cảm thấy bị tước đoạt sự tiếp xúc. Nhưng thay vì phàn nàn về điều đó, anh ấy nói, chúng ta không quan hệ tình dục đủ. Và cô ấy nói, tôi không nhận đủ tình cảm. Và thế là có, bạn biết đấy, một số xung đột cần được giải quyết. Giống như họ đang nói hai ngôn ngữ khác nhau về sự thân mật. Vâng. Nếu bạn hiểu tôi có ý gì. Về cơ bản, theo một cách nào đó, họ đang như vậy. Họ đang như vậy. Mặc dù, thường thì những người đàn ông trong những mối quan hệ này thực sự cần tiếp xúc. Và họ có thể chấp nhận ôm hôn như là thứ cũng nam tính như quan hệ tình dục xâm nhập không? Chà, nếu họ thực sự nghĩ về điều đó, và nếu họ trải nghiệm điều đó, thì có, họ có thể. Thì mọi thứ thực sự có xu hướng cải thiện. Nghiên cứu ở đó, John, đang gợi ý rằng, như bạn đã nói, cuộc sống là tiền đề cho tình dục. Bởi vì nếu, như, những nụ hôn khi ra khỏi cửa và việc chạm vào lưng của bạn đời và ôm nhau dẫn đến một cuộc sống tình dục tốt hơn, thì chúng ta nên nhìn nhận cuộc sống, những biểu hiện tình cảm công khai, tất cả những thứ như vậy như một khoản đầu tư vào những gì xảy ra tối nay trong phòng ngủ. Đúng. Tôi nghĩ điều đó thực sự đúng. Mọi điều tích cực bạn làm trong một mối quan hệ đều là tiền đề cho tình dục. Và những cặp đôi, nhiều lần những cặp đôi không còn quan hệ tình dục cũng đã ngừng lại, những cặp có xung đột cao dừng quan hệ tình dục cũng đã ngừng lại các thứ khác, những phần cảm xúc khác trong cuộc sống của họ nữa. Bạn biết đấy, họ không còn vui vẻ nhiều. Và, bạn biết không, 80% trong số 40.000 cặp đôi mà chúng tôi nghiên cứu nói rằng niềm vui đã chết trong một mối quan hệ. Không còn nhiều trò chơi. Không còn nhiều phiêu lưu. Không chỉ là tình dục. Mọi thứ đều ngừng lại. Tất cả những điều thực sự tuyệt vời. Bạn biết đấy, khám phá các loại món ăn mới, bạn biết đấy, đi du lịch, chơi trò chơi cùng nhau, bạn biết đấy, chơi thể thao cùng nhau. Nhưng làm thế nào để chúng ta ngăn chặn điều đó xảy ra? Bạn biết đấy, vì tôi thường tự hỏi. Mọi người thường nói với tôi rằng tính quyến rũ và sức hút liên quan đến sự mới mẻ và sự tự phát và làm tất cả những thứ đó. Và sau đó họ đã nói rằng tình yêu liên quan đến sự quen thuộc và, bạn biết đấy, sự thoải mái, đây là hai điều trái ngược nhau. Chà, để tôi trả lời điều đó. Người đã nói rằng tất cả là về sự tự phát và bí ẩn và những thứ tương tự chưa bao giờ thực hiện bất kỳ nghiên cứu nào. Nghiên cứu cho thấy rằng sự quen thuộc, sự kết nối cảm xúc, thực sự hiểu biết về bạn đời của bạn tạo ra, về lâu dài, nhiều đam mê hơn, tình dục tốt hơn, thực sự, hơn là duy trì sự bí ẩn nhưng không thực sự kết nối với nhau theo cách mà mọi người cần. Có một cuốn sách tuyệt vời của Emily Nagoski có tên là “Come As You Are” xem xét nghiên cứu này. Và nó cho thấy rằng, trước hết, phụ nữ có nhiều điều kiện tiên quyết hơn cho tính quyến rũ so với nam giới. Jeffrey Chase từng nói, phụ nữ cần một lý do để quan hệ tình dục. Còn nam giới cần một địa điểm. Chỉ vậy thôi. Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, nhưng điều đó là đúng. Nam giới không cần cảm thấy an toàn để cảm thấy tình dục. Phụ nữ cần. Phụ nữ cần cảm thấy an toàn về mặt tâm lý. Và điều đó có nghĩa là kết nối cảm xúc. Điều đó cũng có nghĩa là không thể có một danh sách việc làm dài những thứ mà họ cần phải hoàn thành nhưng đã bị bỏ bê. Con chó đã được dắt đi, bạn biết đấy, và đã làm gì đó của nó và tất cả điều đó. Và sau đó tình huống đó trở nên quyến rũ đối với một người phụ nữ và cô ấy sẵn sàng tiếp nhận. Để tôi chỉ ra điều gì đó thêm vào điều đó mà hầu hết nam giới không biết. Ít nhất là ở Mỹ, một trong bốn phụ nữ đã bị quấy rối tình dục hoặc tấn công tình dục trước tuổi 18. Và đó chỉ là những phụ nữ đã báo cáo. Có thể gần một trong ba, có thể 40%, bao gồm cả những người chưa báo cáo. Vì vậy, khi phụ nữ có lịch sử đó, chưa kể đến hàng ngàn năm trong xương của họ khi chỉ được xem như là đối tượng tình dục và bị hiếp dâm, bạn biết đấy, mỗi ngày một lần, bạn sẽ hiểu tại sao phụ nữ cần an toàn, nhiều hơn nam giới. Vâng, chúng tôi đã viết một cuốn sách có tên là “Hướng dẫn dành cho nam giới về phụ nữ” để truyền tải tất cả những thông tin này đã được nghiên cứu. Vì vậy, sự quen thuộc là nền tảng cho tính quyến rũ, không phải là sự vắng mặt của tính quyến rũ. Gần đây tôi đã nghe nhiều về di truyền học biểu sinh, đây là ý tưởng rằng chấn thương có thể được truyền từ thế hệ này sang thế hệ khác. Và với điều đó trong tâm trí, nếu phụ nữ đã từng là đối tượng tình dục trong suốt lịch sử và đã bị hiếp dâm và những thứ tương tự, thì dễ hiểu rằng, như bạn nói, Julie, họ có một nhu cầu tiềm ẩn về an toàn mà nam giới có thể không hiểu theo cùng một cách. Chính xác. Điều đó nói lên điều gì với một người đàn ông? Bạn sẽ đưa ra lời khuyên gì cho một người đàn ông? Liệu lời khuyên bạn có phải là làm cho đối tác của bạn cảm thấy an toàn để họ có thể bị kích thích? Đúng. Được rồi. Vâng. Còn gì nữa trong cuốn sách đó không, nhân tiện? Đó là một cuốn sách khá thú vị. Tôi cảm thấy như tôi cần phải đọc nó. Vâng. Chà, bạn biết đấy, thực sự là nhận thức về kết nối cảm xúc và sự an toàn tâm lý rất quan trọng đối với phụ nữ.
    Và cũng nhận ra rằng những người đàn ông làm việc nhà thường có nhiều quan hệ tình dục hơn.
    Có phải đó là điều mà Julie đã nói với bạn không?
    Không, thực ra đó là một kết quả thực nghiệm.
    Đúng, nhưng cụ thể, em yêu, họ phải làm việc hút bụi.
    Đúng, và lấy sách khỏi giường.
    Thú vị.
    Được rồi.
    Bạn có thấy sự khác biệt trong mối quan hệ của chúng ta về tình dục khi thế giới đang thay đổi không?
    Bởi vì có một số liệu thống kê cho thấy chúng ta đang ngày càng trở nên thiếu tình dục hơn như một xã hội.
    Bạn đã thấy bất kỳ thay đổi nào trong 50 năm nghiên cứu về tình yêu của mình chưa?
    Về thái độ đối với tình dục hoặc, bạn biết đấy, các vai trò giới tính cũng đã thay đổi trong thời gian đó trong xã hội.
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, tôi không muốn nói là không có tình dục, nhưng tôi sẽ nói là không có tình yêu.
    Nhiều tình yêu hơn.
    Theo nghĩa là, bạn biết đấy, một lần nữa, tôi không biết tình hình ở Anh hay các nước khác như thế nào.
    Nhưng ở Hoa Kỳ, văn hóa hẹn hò thoáng đãng vẫn đang tồn tại và phát triển mạnh mẽ.
    Có rất nhiều trang web mà ở đó đàn ông và đàn ông, phụ nữ và phụ nữ, đàn ông và phụ nữ chỉ đơn giản là hẹn hò, có nghĩa là gặp nhau lần đầu tiên, quan hệ tình dục và rồi ra đi.
    Điều đó có phải là một vấn đề không?
    Có.
    Bạn biết tại sao không?
    Bởi vì trong loại tình dục đó, không có sự kết nối cảm xúc nào.
    Không có gì cả.
    Và tôi đã nghe điều này từ cả đàn ông và phụ nữ, thực sự, rằng khi họ ra đi, họ cảm thấy trống rỗng hơn so với trước khi bắt đầu quan hệ tình dục đó.
    Tại sao bạn nghĩ điều đó xảy ra?
    Không có sự kết nối cảm xúc.
    Là tình dục không cá nhân.
    Họ không biết họ đang quan hệ với ai.
    Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, nó gần như giống như thủ dâm, thực sự.
    Vì vậy, có rất nhiều cặp đôi đang làm như vậy, nhưng họ không cam kết trong các mối quan hệ dài hạn nhiều như trước.
    Và tôi nghĩ có một số yếu tố liên quan đến điều đó.
    Một là họ đã thấy cha mẹ mình ly hôn, vì vậy họ không tin vào hôn nhân hoặc cam kết như một thể chế mà họ nên sống theo.
    Thứ hai, phụ nữ trở lại làm việc trong 50 năm qua, và sự nghiệp cũng quan trọng đối với nhiều phụ nữ như đối với đàn ông.
    Về điểm đó, bạn có thấy vấn đề khi phụ nữ trở nên thành công hơn có làm đàn ông cảm thấy yếu đuối đến một mức độ nào đó không?
    Bởi vì tôi đã đọc một nghiên cứu nói rằng xã hội có một kỳ vọng cho đàn ông phải cung cấp nhiều hơn ở nhà về mặt tài chính.
    Và sau đó một nghiên cứu riêng biệt cho thấy sự bình đẳng giữa phụ nữ và đàn ông về lương và giáo dục đang ngày càng gần hơn.
    Và nghiên cứu thứ ba cho biết đàn ông có thể cảm thấy bị yếu thế khi ở bên một người phụ nữ thông minh hơn, thành công hơn, và họ thấy điều đó kém hấp dẫn hơn.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn kết hợp tất cả những điều này lại và bạn nói, được rồi, phụ nữ đang trở nên giàu có và thông minh hơn, đàn ông bị yếu thế bởi điều đó, nhưng đàn ông vẫn có kỳ vọng xã hội rằng họ sẽ trả hóa đơn.
    Trong khung cảnh đó, bạn nói, Chúa ơi, điều này sẽ rất khó cho, bạn biết đấy, bạn có thể nhìn theo một cách khác và nói rằng, có ít sự lựa chọn hơn cho phụ nữ thường muốn hẹn hò với những người đàn ông có trình độ học vấn và tài chính nhất định.
    Sự lựa chọn ít hơn bao giờ hết.
    Vì vậy, đây là, bạn biết đấy, một trong những vấn đề, một trong những thách thức của thế giới hiện đại.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, tôi nhớ cảm giác này thực sự, khi tôi xây dựng sự nghiệp của mình và John và tôi đã ở bên nhau và tôi cứ nghĩ, không, không, không, tôi nên là một bà nội trợ.
    Tôi chỉ nên là một người mẹ.
    Tôi chỉ nên chăm sóc gia đình.
    Tôi không nên dành toàn bộ thời gian cho sự nghiệp của mình, nhưng tôi yêu sự nghiệp của mình.
    Tôi muốn làm việc.
    Và vì vậy sẽ có sự xáo trộn bên trong về việc tôi nên là ai.
    Và tôi nghĩ đàn ông cũng đang cảm nhận điều đó.
    Ví dụ, như tôi đã nói trước đó, đàn ông thực sự muốn làm cha hơn.
    Nhưng làm thế nào bạn có thể là một người cha tích cực khi bạn làm việc điên cuồng, tăng ca để kiếm thêm tiền, đúng không?
    Điều đó là không thể.
    Hơn nữa, những huyền thoại cũ rất khó để biến mất.
    Rằng những người đàn ông kiếm được nhiều tiền hơn có nhiều địa vị hơn, có nhiều giá trị hơn như những con người, là những đối tác tốt hơn.
    Hoặc nam tính hơn.
    Họ nam tính hơn, họ nam tính hơn.
    Điều đó thật sự không đúng.
    Một điều khác cần nhớ là phụ nữ trước đây kiếm được 79 xu cho mỗi đô la mà đàn ông kiếm được.
    Bây giờ họ kiếm được 81 xu cho mỗi đô la.
    Bạn có nghĩ đó là một sự thay đổi lớn không?
    Thật ra thì không.
    Vì vậy, phụ nữ vẫn đang đấu tranh cho sự bình đẳng về cơ hội nghề nghiệp, cơ hội việc làm, và v.v.
    Và đánh giá cao sự nghiệp của họ, đàn ông đôi khi, bạn biết đấy, đang vật lộn.
    Tôi nên là ai bây giờ?
    Trước tôi là người cung cấp.
    Tôi nên là ai?
    Vâng, đó là điều mà chúng ta đã học, đúng không?
    Bởi vì chúng ta đến từ một thế hệ mà, như, cha tôi có thể là người cung cấp và ông tôi là người cung cấp.
    Vì vậy, tôi đã lấy đó làm hình mẫu và nói, để tôi trở thành một người đàn ông như cha tôi, thì tôi cần phải làm điều này.
    Đúng vậy.
    Đúng vậy.
    Đó là một điều tốt khi chúng ta đang tiến gần hơn đến sự bình đẳng, tất nhiên.
    Và tôi biết khoảng cách lương vẫn còn, vẫn còn một khoảng cách giữa đàn ông và phụ nữ.
    Nhưng bạn có thể thấy có một thử thách nào đó cho đàn ông, những người hiện không biết vai trò của họ, nhưng xã hội vẫn có kỳ vọng rằng họ sẽ trả hóa đơn.
    Chắc chắn rồi.
    Đó là một câu đố khó giải, phải không?
    Nhưng…
    Chà, điều đó thực sự khó khăn đối với đàn ông.
    Bạn biết đấy, tôi nghĩ đàn ông, theo nhiều cách, đang gặp khó khăn không kém, nếu không muốn nói là khó khăn hơn, để tìm ra vai trò của họ và họ muốn trở thành ai so với phụ nữ.
    Ý tôi là, cuộc đấu tranh của chúng tôi bắt đầu sớm hơn, đúng không?
    Nó bắt đầu vào những năm 70 với phong trào giải phóng phụ nữ.
    Và đàn ông thì ngồi lại và tự hỏi, cái gì?
    Chuyện gì đang xảy ra vậy?
    Tôi nghĩ đàn ông đang khám phá tầm quan trọng của các mối quan hệ.
    Bạn biết đấy, trước đây chúng ta thường có hệ thống hỗ trợ cảm xúc kém hơn.
    Nhiều đàn ông không có người bạn thân tốt nhất, không có bạn bè thân thiết.
    Và kết nối thực sự thân thiết duy nhất của họ là với người phụ nữ mà họ sống cùng, bạn biết đấy, hoặc đã kết hôn.
    Và vì vậy tôi nghĩ đàn ông đang khám phá tầm quan trọng của kết nối xã hội trong cuộc sống của họ so với thành tựu.
    Bạn biết đấy, có một lời nói dối mà đã được bán cho phụ nữ rằng nếu họ thực sự là những người chăm sóc các mối quan hệ, họ sẽ hạnh phúc.
    Lời nói dối với đàn ông là nếu bạn thành công trong sự nghiệp, bạn sẽ hạnh phúc. Cả hai lời nói dối này thực sự không có ích, vì cả đàn ông và đàn bà đều cần những mối kết nối gần gũi. Chúng ta cần bạn bè. Chúng ta cần, bạn biết đấy, hiện tại có một dịch bệnh cô đơn trên thế giới. Và đó là một điều chết chóc. Chúng ta thực sự cần phải kết nối nhiều hơn, không chỉ để tạo ra những người bạn tốt mà còn để kết nối với những người lạ, tạo ra cộng đồng. Và điều đó cần phải thay đổi.
    Bạn biết điều gì thực sự thú vị không? Ý tôi là, chỉ cần suy nghĩ về điều đó. Nếu bạn lên internet và xem phụ nữ đang tìm kiếm điều gì ở một người bạn đời, từ đầu tiên họ nói là gì? Họ không nói giàu có. Họ không nói thành công cao, thành tựu lớn lao. Thông thường, họ nói nhạy cảm, đúng không? Đúng không? Nhạy cảm, nhận thức cảm xúc, quan tâm. Vậy nên, hy vọng đàn ông có thể tiếp nhận điều đó. Thú vị là họ thực sự nói như vậy. Vâng. Và họ cũng nói, mạnh mẽ. Và họ nói, có thể bảo vệ tôi. Một lần nữa, cảm giác như một cuộc thăm dò vì ở một bên, có vẻ như sự cởi mở cảm xúc nhạy cảm đó đã có phần trái ngược với kiểu, ờ, ờ, ờ. Bạn đã làm điều đó rất tốt. Bạn có phần may mắn. Những người này có thể đang lắng nghe, nhưng không biết tôi đã làm gì. Nhưng tôi chỉ đang khoe vũ lực của mình. Đó là một cuộc trình diễn cơ bắp. Vậy, bạn thấy điều tôi đang nói không? Nó cảm giác như một sự mâu thuẫn. Giống như, làm thế nào bạn có thể là cả hai điều này?
    Những nhịp điệu tràn đầy testosterone, đó sẽ là điều cứu rỗi. Và rồi… Đúng vậy. Nhưng hãy nhớ rằng, mạnh mẽ không có nghĩa là không có cảm xúc. Đôi khi, cần nhiều sức mạnh và dũng cảm hơn để thể hiện cảm xúc so với việc kìm nén chúng. Và điều họ đang nói đến, bạn biết đấy, đừng quên rằng phụ nữ vẫn đang bị hiếp dâm, vẫn đang bị tấn công, vẫn đang bị đối mặt với bạo lực ở khắp nơi, vẫn đang bị giết chóc, đúng không? Vậy nên, họ muốn một người đàn ông, theo một cách nào đó, có thể bảo vệ họ về mặt thể chất, chắc chắn. Điều đó sẽ cảm thấy tuyệt vời vì phụ nữ vẫn cảm thấy không an toàn. Tuy nhiên, điều đó không nhất thiết phải liên quan đến việc không có cảm xúc. Tôi nghĩ sự mâu thuẫn diễn ra theo cả hai hướng vì đàn ông cũng muốn một người phụ nữ, bạn biết đấy, đầy lòng từ bi và dịu dàng. Nhưng họ cũng muốn cô ấy chỉ đơn giản là không có cảm xúc và không giữ điều đó lại. Vậy nên, đó là một sự mâu thuẫn ở cả hai bên. Vâng. Vâng, vâng. Chúng ta muốn mọi thứ, đúng không? Tất cả cùng một lúc. Và đó là một phần của vấn đề.
    Chỉ muốn khép lại ở điểm này về tình dục, vì tôi có một câu hỏi cuối cùng, đó là, nghiên cứu có cho thấy rằng các cặp đôi có đời sống tình dục tốt nhất thường nói về nó nhiều nhất không? Có. Tôi đã có cuộc tranh luận này với một người bạn và tôi đã tự hỏi. Có. Không có nghi ngờ gì về điều đó. Tôi chỉ muốn nói về điều đó và có một đời sống tình dục tốt hơn. Và họ nên nói về điều đó như thế nào? Cho tôi một số lời khuyên về cách nói về tình dục với bạn đời của tôi. Bạn cần nói về nó theo cách chấp nhận và yêu thương, bạn biết đấy. Vì vậy, bạn hãy nói về những điều thực sự tuyệt vời trong mối quan hệ, những gì bạn thích, những gì bạn yêu ở người bạn đời của mình, những gì bạn thấy hấp dẫn ở người bạn đời của bạn, những gì bạn mong muốn nhiều hơn, bạn biết đấy. Đúng rồi. Chúng tôi đã tạo ra điều mà chúng tôi gọi là “có tình dục”. Khó mà nghĩ ra được tiêu đề, tôi hứa. Vậy nên, đó là một bộ công cụ bao gồm bảy cuộc trò chuyện có cấu trúc khác nhau để có với partner về tình dục liên quan đến việc bạn thích gì cụ thể? Làm thế nào bạn muốn, làm thế nào bạn muốn tình dục được khởi xướng, bạn muốn hành động đó được khởi xướng như thế nào, làm thế nào chúng ta có thể từ chối tình dục mà không làm tổn thương danh dự của nhau, tình dục nên được hoàn thành như thế nào, v.v. Vậy nên, các cặp đôi nói chuyện cởi mở và thoải mái về điều đó thường có đời sống tình dục tốt hơn. Và với bản đồ tình yêu, chúng tôi có một trăm câu hỏi bạn có thể hỏi đàn ông về thế giới khiêu dâm của họ và một trăm câu hỏi bạn có thể hỏi phụ nữ về thế giới khiêu dâm của họ. Và chúng không phải là những câu hỏi giống nhau. Đàn ông và phụ nữ có, à, chỉ là mọi người nói chung, ngay cả trong các mối quan hệ đồng tính và dị tính, có những tưởng tượng rất khác nhau. Thường liên quan đến chấn thương của họ hoặc nơi họ đến từ đâu, v.v. Điều gì sẽ xảy ra trong một mối quan hệ khi một đối tác không sẵn lòng thực hiện những điều tưởng tượng mà đối tác khác rất khao khát? Làm thế nào một người có thể điều hướng điều đó? Chà, có một vài cách. Một là người không sẵn lòng làm điều đó có thể mô tả bằng lời, vì các cặp đôi nói chuyện nhiều hơn trong tình dục thực sự có mối quan hệ tình dục tốt hơn. Nếu đối tác không muốn làm điều mà đối tác khác muốn ít nhất diễn tả nó bằng lời, thì thì hãy thì thầm nó theo một cách rất thú vị, thì người đàn ông có thể thấy vui mừng về điều đó hoặc người phụ nữ có thể cảm thấy vui mừng về điều đó, đúng không? Tôi đang tưởng tượng bạn đang là một cổ động viên ngay bây giờ và tôi là cầu thủ bóng đá.
    Có hai điều tôi muốn nói. Điều đầu tiên là cảm ơn lớn khi bạn đã lắng nghe và theo dõi chương trình tuần này qua tuần khác. Điều đó có ý nghĩa rất lớn đối với tất cả chúng tôi và đây thực sự là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi hoàn toàn không bao giờ có và không thể tưởng tượng được lại đến được nơi này. Nhưng thứ hai, đây là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi cảm thấy như chúng tôi chỉ mới bắt đầu. Và nếu bạn thích những gì chúng tôi làm ở đây, hãy gia nhập vào 24% người nghe podcast này thường xuyên và theo dõi chúng tôi trên ứng dụng này. Đây là một lời hứa tôi sẽ làm với bạn. Tôi sẽ làm mọi thứ có thể để làm cho chương trình này tốt nhất có thể ngay bây giờ và trong tương lai. Chúng tôi sẽ cung cấp những khách mời mà bạn muốn tôi phỏng vấn. Và chúng tôi sẽ tiếp tục làm tất cả những điều mà bạn yêu thích về chương trình này. Cảm ơn bạn.
    你覺得關於性這個話題怎麼樣,茱莉?你知道它對一段關係有多重要嗎?我們應該多頻繁地進行性生活?這真的重要嗎?它是否能預測婚姻的長期成功?這些都是我的客戶常常問我的好問題。性偏好有很大的變異。有些夫妻根本不想發生性關係,雙方都不想,他們更像是兄弟姐妹的關係。如果他們都對此感到滿意,那麼他們可以擁有一段非常成功的關係。有些夫妻則非常渴望頻繁地進行性生活,幾乎是隨時隨地,這對他們的關係來說是一個非常重要的組成部分,還有其他情形。當問題發生的時候情況就不同了。我看到過很多這樣的情況。一些我想說是過度陽剛的男性,他們認為擁抱太幼稚,不願意擁抱。他們唯一能接受身體接觸的方式,這是他們迫切需要的,便是透過性交。就這樣。插入式性交。對,插入式性交。女性則可能有17個孩子,正在忙著做晚餐。你知道,她非常疲憊。她可能根本不想要性生活,與他的需求相差甚遠。於是,他開始感到被剝奪了觸碰,但他並不抱怨這一點,而是說,我們的性生活不夠頻繁。她則說,我得不到足夠的親密感。於是就產生了一些需要解決的衝突。他們就像在說兩種不同的親密語言。是的,如果你明白我的意思的話。基本上,在某種程度上,他們就是。典型的情況是,這些關係中的男性基本上非常需要觸碰。那麼,他們能否接受擁抱,視其為和插入式性交一樣都是陽剛的行為呢?如果他們真的思考這個問題,並且體驗過,答案是肯定的。那麼情況就會開始改善。約翰,研究顯示,正如你所說的,生活本身就是前戲。因為,如果像是在出門時的吻、輕撫伴侶的背部以及擁抱這些行為能夠導致更好的性生活,那麼我們就應該把生活中的公共親密行為,以及所有這類的事情,視為對今晚在臥室裡發生的事情的投資。對。我認為這是真的。在一段關係中,你做的每一件積極的事情都是前戲。通常,很多停止發生性關係的夫妻,也停止了其他事情,高衝突的夫妻停止性生活,也關閉了生活中其他感性的部分。他們的生活中幾乎沒有樂趣。在我們研究的4萬對夫妻中,有80%的人表示,關係中的樂趣幾乎消失了。沒有太多的遊戲,沒有太多的冒險。不僅僅是性生活。一切都停滯了。所有本來愉快的事物,例如探索新菜系、旅行、一起玩遊戲、一起運動等,都是被損耗的。然而,我們該如何防止這種情況發生呢?因為我常常在想。人們經常告訴我,色情和吸引是關於新穎性和自發性的,做所有這些事情。而愛則是關於熟悉與舒適,這兩者實際上是相對立的。好吧,讓我來回答這個問題。那位說這一切都是關於自發性和神秘感的人,從未進行過任何研究。研究顯示,熟悉的情感聯結,真正了解你的伴侶,在長期內能夠創造出更多的激情,實際上比保持神秘卻不真的彼此聯結要好得多。艾蜜莉·納戈斯基有一本叫《做你自己來》的美妙書籍,回顧了這些研究。書中顯示,首先,女性對於色情的先決條件比男性多。傑弗里·蔡斯曾經說過,女性需要性交的理由。男性則只需一個地方。僅此而已。所以,你知道,這是事實。男性不需要感到安全才能產生性慾,女性則需要。女性需要感到心理上的安全,這意味著情感聯結。這也意味著不能有一長串待辦事項清單,這些事情被忽視了。狗已經被帶出去,並且完成了他的事情。然後,這種情況對女性來說感覺就變得性感且她會變得易於接受。讓我補充一點大多數男性不知道的事情。至少在美國,到18歲為止,每四名女性中就有一人曾經遭受性虐待或性侵。而這只是那些報告的女性。實際上,這個比例可能是三分之一,甚至可能達到40%,包括那些未報告的案例。因此,當女性有這樣的歷史,更不用說幾千年來僅被視為性物件和每天都有可能遭受強姦時,你就能理解為什麼女性需要比男性更多的安全感了。是的,我們寫了一本書名為《男人指南:認識女性》,旨在傳達所有這些經過研究的信息。因此,熟悉是色情的基礎,而不是缺乏色情的根源。最近我聽說了很多關於表觀遺傳學的信息,也就是創傷可以從一代傳遞到下一代這個觀念。考慮到這一點,如果女性在歷史上始終被視為性物件並遭受強姦,正如你所說,茱莉,她們內心可能有一種更強烈的安全需求,而男性可能不會以同樣的方式理解。正是如此。這對男性來說意味著什麼?那麼你會給男性什麼建議?你的建議是,他們必須讓伴侶感到安全,這樣她們才能被激發性慾?對,好的,還有什麼在那本書裡呢?那是一本很有趣的書,我覺得我需要閱讀一下。是的。你知道,對女性來說,情感聯結和心理安全意識是如此重要。
    而且我也意識到,做家務的男人的性生活會更頻繁。
    這是朱莉告訴你的嗎?
    不,這其實是一個經驗結果。
    是的,但具體來說,親愛的,他們得做吸塵。
    對,還得把書從床上拿開。
    有趣。
    好吧。
    隨著世界的變化,你覺得我們的性關係有變化嗎?
    因為有一些統計數據暗示我們作為一個社會正變得越來越沒有性生活。
    在你50年研究愛情的過程中,有沒有注意到任何變化?
    對於性態度或性別角色在這段時間內是否有變化,在社會上也是如此。
    所以,我不會說是沒有性生活,但我會說是缺乏愛。
    更像是缺乏愛。
    從某種意義上來說,我不知道英國或其他國家是怎樣的,但在美國,約會文化依然活躍並且蓬勃發展。
    有如此多的網站,男人和男人,女人和女人,男人和女人只是隨便約會,意思是第一次見面,發生性行為,然後就結束。
    這是個問題嗎?
    是的。
    你知道為什麼嗎?
    因為在那種性關係中,沒有情感聯繫。
    一點都沒有。
    我其實也聽過男人和女人都這麼說,當他們結束後,感覺比開始時更空虛。
    你認為這是為什麼?
    因為沒有情感聯繫。
    這是無個性的性行為。
    他們不知道自己和誰發生性行為。
    所以,這幾乎就像是在自慰。
    所以,有很多伴侶在這樣做,但他們並沒有像以往那樣投入長期關係。
    我認為這其中涉及幾個因素。
    一個是他們見過父母離婚,所以他們不再相信婚姻或承諾作為應該遵循的制度。
    第二,過去50年裡,女性重新進入勞動力市場,對許多女性來說,事業和男性一樣重要。
    就這一點,你是否認為女性變得更加成功在某種程度上使男性感到被剝奪了?
    因為我讀到一項研究,說在社會上對男性在財務上提供的期望更高。
    然後另一項獨立的研究顯示,女性在薪水和教育方面與男性的平等性正在縮小。
    第三項研究說,在一位更聰明、更成功的女性面前,男性可能會感到被剝奪,並且他們會發現這樣的女性不那麼吸引。
    如果把這些都放在一起,你會發現,女人變得更有錢更聰明,男人因為這樣感到被威脅,然而社會仍然期望他們支付賬單。
    在這樣的框架下,你會覺得,天哪,這對於那些通常想與有一定教育水平和收入水平的男性約會的女性來說會很困難。
    這個選擇池比以往任何時候都小。
    這是一些現代世界的挑戰。
    我實際上還記得這種感覺,當我建立自己的職業生涯時,約翰和我在一起,我一直在想,不,不,不,我應該是家庭主婦,我應該只是做媽媽,我應該照顧家庭。我不應該把所有時間都投入到我的事業中,但我愛我的事業。我想工作。
    所以在心裡會有一種內心的煎熬,讓我在想我該成為什麼樣的人。
    我想男性也有這種感覺。
    比如說,正如我之前所說,男性真的越來越想成為父親。
    但是,當你拼命工作,加班賺更多錢時,怎麼能成為一個積極參與的父親呢?
    這是幾乎不可能的。
    而且,舊的神話很難被打破。
    認為掙得更多錢的男性擁有更高的地位,更有價值,成為更好的伴侶。
    或更具男性氣概。
    這實際上並不正確。
    另一件值得注意的事情是,以前女性賺79美分對應於男性的一美元。
    現在是81美分對應男性的一美元。
    你認為這是個重大變化嗎?
    並不是。
    所以女性在尋求職業機會、工作機會等方面仍在為平等而奮鬥。
    而重視事業的男性有時候感到困擾,我現在該成為什麼?我曾經是提供者,我應該成為什麼?
    這正是我們所學到的,對吧?
    因為我們來自一個世代,我的父親可能是提供者,我的爺爺也是提供者。
    所以我以這些為榜樣,說,為了像我父親那樣成為一個男人,我需要做到這些。
    是的,沒錯。
    當然,我們越接近平等是好事。
    我知道薪酬差距仍然存在,男女之間仍然有距離。
    但你可以看到,對於現在不知道自己角色的男性來說,社會仍然對他們有期望,即他們普遍會付賬。
    你可以肯定。
    這是個棘手的難題,對吧?
    但這……
    對男性來說真的很難。
    我認為,從許多方面來看,男性目前在弄清楚自己的角色和想要成為誰方面所面臨的困難,甚至比女性還要大。
    我的意思是,我們的鬥爭開始得更早,對吧?
    它是在70年代伴隨著女性解放運動開始的,而男人卻有點坐在一旁,問:什麼?發生了什麼?
    我認為男性正在發現關係的重要性。
    你知道,我們通常在情感支持系統方面是比較弱的。
    許多男性沒有最好的朋友,沒有親密的朋友。
    他們唯一真正親密的聯繫是與他們生活在一起或結婚的女性。
    因此,我認為男性正在發現社會連結在他們的生活中比成就更重要。
    你知道,我的意思是,有一個謊言被賣給女性,讓她們相信,如果她們真正是關係的看護者,她們就會幸福。
    對男人的謊言是,如果你在事業上成功,你就會幸福。
    這兩個謊言其實都不太有用,因為無論男性還是女性,都需要緊密的聯繫。
    我們需要朋友。
    我們需要,你知道,現在世界上有一種孤獨的流行病。
    而這是致命的。
    我們真的需要更積極地聯繫,不僅是為了交朋友,還要主動接觸陌生人,創造社區。
    這一點需要改變。
    你知道什麼是非常有趣的嗎?
    我意思是,仔細想想。
    如果你上網看看女性在伴侶中尋找的東西,第一個詞是什麼?
    她們不會說富有。
    她們不會說極度成功、成就卓越。
    通常,她們會說敏感,對吧?
    對嗎?
    敏感、情緒覺察、關心。
    所以,希望男性能吸收這些。
    這很有趣,因為她們確實會這麼說。
    是的。
    然後她們還會說,強壯。
    她們說,能保護我。
    而且再次感覺像是民意調查,因為在某種程度上,似乎那種敏感的情感開放與像,嗯,嗯,嗯之間有些對立。
    你表現得很好。
    你有一個非常幸運的部分。
    這些人可能在聽,還不知道我在幹什麼。
    但我只是在秀肌肉。
    這就是肌肉秀。
    所以,你明白我的意思了嗎?
    這感覺像是一種矛盾。
    就像,怎麼可能同時是這樣和那樣?
    充滿睾酮的節拍,這將拯救一天。
    然後…
    真的。
    但請記住,強大並不代表沒有情感。
    有時候,表達情感需要比壓抑情感更多的力量和勇氣。
    而她們所談論的,你知道,我們不要忘記女性仍然在被強姦,仍然在遭受攻擊,仍然在到處被攻擊,仍然在被謀殺,對吧?
    因此,她們想要一個據說可以在身體上保護她們的男人,這是肯定的。
    那會讓人感覺很好,因為女性仍然感到不安全。
    然而,這並不一定與缺乏情感相對應。
    我想這種矛盾是雙向的,因為男性也想要一個,知道的,充滿同情和溫柔的女性。
    但他們也希望她不會表現出情感,而不會出現情感。
    所以,這是一種雙向的矛盾。
    是的。
    是的,對。
    我們想要一切,對吧?
    一次擁有所有。
    而這正是問題的一部分。
    在這裡關於性這一點上,我要結束這個話題,因為我有一個最後的問題,那就是,研究是否表明擁有最佳性生活的伴侶最常談論性生活?
    是的。
    我和我的朋友有過這個辯論,我在想。
    是的。
    毫無疑問。
    我只是想談論這個,並且擁有更好的性生活。
    他們應該如何談論這個話題?
    給我一些關於如何和伴侶談論性的建議。
    你需要以一種接受和有愛的方式來談論它,知道的。
    所以,你談論關於關係中真正美好的事情,你所享受的,你對伴侶的熱愛,你覺得伴侶性感的地方,你希望有更多的東西,知道嗎?
    對。
    我們創建了我們所稱為“有沒有性生活”的工具包。
    這不是,我們沒有想出這個標題,我保證。
    所以,這是一個包含七個不同結構對話的工具包,讓你和伴侶談論性,涉及你具體喜歡什麼?
    你會說,性應該如何開始,你希望它如何開始,我們如何拒絕性而不傷害彼此的自尊,性應該如何結束,等等。
    因此,那些談論得更公開、更自在的情侶在性生活中表現得更好。
    對於愛情地圖,我們有一百個問題可以問男人關於他的性幻想,一百個問題可以問女人關於她的性幻想。
    而這些問題不一樣。
    男性和女性,嗯,基本上人們,甚至在同性關係和異性關係中,擁有非常不同的幻想。
    這通常與他們的創傷或來歷有關。
    當一方不願意實現另一方渴望的幻想時,關係會發生什麼?
    怎樣應對這種情況?
    嗯,有幾種方法。
    一種是那個不願意做的人可以用語言描述它,因為在性行為中多談話的伴侶通常有更好的性生活。
    所以,如果不想做的伴侶至少能用語言描述它,低聲用某種非常酷的語氣描述。
    那麼,男方或女方就可以因為這樣而感到興奮,對吧?
    我想像你現在是一名加油隊員而我是一名足球運動員。
    而我六尺四寸,不是五尺七寸。
    我想說的兩件事。
    第一件事是非常感謝你們每週收聽和關注這個節目。
    這對我們所有人來說意義重大,這絕對是我們從未想過的夢想,也無法想像能達到這個地方。
    但第二,這是一個我們覺得只是剛剛開始的夢想。
    如果你喜歡我們在這裡所做的事情,請加入24%定期收聽這個播客的人,並在這個應用上關注我們。
    這裡有一個承諾我要對你們做。
    我會全力以赴使這個節目在現在和未來都能做到最好。
    我們會找來你們希望我與之交談的嘉賓。
    我們會繼續做所有你們喜愛的事情。
    謝謝你們。

    Renowned relationship experts Drs. John and Julie Gottman share valuable and actionable insights on building stronger emotional connections and enhancing intimacy. With decades of research in the field of relationships, the Gottmans explain how to foster trust, improve communication, and deepen your bond with your partner.

    Listen to the full episode here –

    Spotify: https://g2ul0.app.link/rbGkCfGhTUb

    Apple: https://g2ul0.app.link/K40py7KhTUb⁠

    Watch the Episodes On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/%20TheDiaryOfACEO/videos

    The Gottmans: https://www.gottman.com/

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • Most Replayed Moment: The Gottman Doctors Guide to Better Sex and Stronger Connections

    Renowned relationship experts Drs. John and Julie Gottman share valuable and actionable insights on building stronger emotional connections and enhancing intimacy. With decades of research in the field of relationships, the Gottmans explain how to foster trust, improve communication, and deepen your bond with your partner.

    Listen to the full episode here –

    Spotify: https://g2ul0.app.link/rbGkCfGhTUb

    Apple: https://g2ul0.app.link/K40py7KhTUb⁠

    Watch the Episodes On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/%20TheDiaryOfACEO/videos

    The Gottmans: https://www.gottman.com/

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • 681: 15 List Building Tactics that Actually Work

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 It’s time for some list-building tactics that actually work.
    0:00:08 With all the upheaval in the search results and the fickle nature of social media, you
    0:00:11 know you need to build your email list, but how do you actually do it?
    0:00:15 Today we’re taking the guesswork out of it and breaking down some tried-and-true tactics
    0:00:19 with a longtime Side Hustle Show listener who’s been studying the biggest newsletters
    0:00:23 and creators in the world to figure out what’s working today.
    0:00:28 From growthinreverse.com and the Growth in Reverse podcast, Chanel Basilio.
    0:00:29 Welcome to the Side Hustle Show.
    0:00:31 Thanks for having me, Nick.
    0:00:31 I’m excited to be here.
    0:00:32 Well, me as well.
    0:00:37 We’ve got lots of tactics to get into, and the first one is a really cool one that you shared.
    0:00:39 It was called the One Click Unlock.
    0:00:40 Tell us about this.
    0:00:41 Sure.
    0:00:46 So this comes from Justin Moore, who runs a newsletter called Creator Wizard.
    0:00:47 He’s got an interesting name.
    0:00:52 His whole ethos is helping creators and influencers get more sponsorships.
    0:00:55 So he helps them make more money through their brand deals and that kind of thing.
    0:00:59 His whole newsletter, the entire thing, everything he sends each week is about sponsorship
    0:01:00 opportunities.
    0:01:03 So he’s essentially giving you free money, if you will.
    0:01:05 So he’ll give you the brand name.
    0:01:06 We could plug Justin.
    0:01:09 His little sponsor audit tool is really cool.
    0:01:09 We can plug that.
    0:01:11 We can link that up in the show notes, too.
    0:01:12 That’s really good.
    0:01:12 Yeah.
    0:01:13 He’s got a great business.
    0:01:16 But he essentially gives you away free sponsorship opportunities.
    0:01:19 But this One Click Unlock is essentially his referral program.
    0:01:25 But it’s a little bit deeper than that because in each email, you’ll see this like box and
    0:01:27 it’s grayed out and it has like a lock on it.
    0:01:31 And it says refer one person to get the secret sponsorship research.
    0:01:36 And so if you refer one person every week in that email, you won’t see that box anymore.
    0:01:39 You’ll see the contact info for those brands.
    0:01:43 You’ll see the person’s name, some recent brand deals they might have done.
    0:01:46 So he’s essentially giving you just extra information on top of it.
    0:01:48 But at the same time, he’s getting more referrals.
    0:01:52 So someone is just sharing his newsletter with other people.
    0:01:55 And he said he’s gotten about 5,000 subscribers just from this one thing.
    0:02:01 And that’s kind of a lot when you’re thinking it’s just like one extra referral per person.
    0:02:08 Yeah, it’s 5,000 incremental subscribers for a low barrier to like high value, low barrier
    0:02:08 to entry.
    0:02:08 Oh, sure.
    0:02:11 I got I know somebody else who might benefit from this.
    0:02:11 Yeah.
    0:02:17 Do you know how he like mechanically how he’s getting that done with some conditional content
    0:02:18 or like it sounds technical?
    0:02:21 He uses kit for email and he sets it up.
    0:02:23 There’s like a liquid code I think he can do.
    0:02:25 So you can set up a tag essentially.
    0:02:28 And if this person has referred one person, they get tagged.
    0:02:30 And then every email, it’ll show a box.
    0:02:33 So I think you can actually do this with kits like snippets too.
    0:02:38 Not sure on that one, but I know you can do it with liquid and chat GPT can help you write
    0:02:38 that anymore.
    0:02:40 You don’t even have to know how to code or anything.
    0:02:45 But it essentially says like if they referred one person, show this extra piece of content.
    0:02:51 So it’s kind of interesting to set up in the beginning, but I think it’s well worth it if
    0:02:53 you’re going to end up with 5,000 extra subscribers.
    0:02:54 Yeah, no kidding.
    0:02:54 Yeah.
    0:02:56 We set it up once and then it just kind of runs.
    0:02:59 And it’s it sounds like it’s kind of a constant reminder.
    0:03:03 Like if it’s in every message or every week, you kind of see it like, OK, I should probably
    0:03:04 probably do this.
    0:03:07 Does he have multiple tiers or that’s just like tier one?
    0:03:10 He does have multiple tiers, but that’s the tier one.
    0:03:13 The other ones are like a 30 minute coaching call with someone on his team.
    0:03:17 And then you can go all the way up to like getting his thousand dollar course for free once you
    0:03:19 get like 100 or so subscribers.
    0:03:20 So that’s a lot.
    0:03:21 OK.
    0:03:25 But yeah, but this is just like constant FOMO, like every week you’re seeing this and
    0:03:27 you’re like, well, he gave me this one piece.
    0:03:31 All I have to do is refer one person and I get the contact info for this people and like how
    0:03:33 to reach out to them and make sense.
    0:03:34 OK.
    0:03:34 Yeah.
    0:03:38 Versus having it as paid newsletter tier.
    0:03:41 We see some people kind of, oh, that’s going to be behind the paywall.
    0:03:44 The free sample is here, but that if you want the rest of the goods, you got to pay.
    0:03:47 But that’s that’s a really unique way to do it.
    0:03:51 Like low, low lift, make it so stupid, simple, easy.
    0:03:54 Where it’s like, yeah, OK, I can find one person.
    0:03:55 I don’t know if ConvertKit.
    0:03:59 Well, they bought Spark Loop, so they may have this built in at some point or like on the,
    0:04:01 you know, the pro pricing tier.
    0:04:05 Our buddy Pete McPherson has built a new tool called List Gadget.
    0:04:10 That’s on my to do list to start messing around with because he’s got this kind of referral
    0:04:15 mechanism built in where you can send you build a leaderboard and do polls, like do all
    0:04:18 sorts of cool stuff with with List Gadget.
    0:04:20 So that’s on my list to to play around with.
    0:04:21 I don’t know that one.
    0:04:22 I’ll have to check it out.
    0:04:23 It’s a good guy, though.
    0:04:24 So I’ll check it out.
    0:04:24 Yeah.
    0:04:32 He’s partnered with with Liz from from Liz Wilcox from Survivor fame, but to help get
    0:04:32 that out into the world.
    0:04:37 OK, that is a really cool one where just about anybody could add to your list.
    0:04:38 It kind of answers the question.
    0:04:40 Well, how can I turn one subscriber into two?
    0:04:43 How can I make it easy and beneficial for everybody to do that?
    0:04:47 And hopefully the people you subscribe or people you refer, they refer the next person.
    0:04:49 It kind of becomes this this virtuous cycle there.
    0:04:50 Yeah, totally.
    0:04:51 I think it’s pretty simple.
    0:04:55 Like anyone if you’re creating some piece of content, like just think about what that next
    0:04:59 step that somebody would need or like the next piece of advice or content that they would
    0:05:01 be looking for and just give it to them.
    0:05:07 Yeah, obviously, the famous examples would be, you know, the morning brews and the hustles
    0:05:09 of the world with like the subscriber referral program.
    0:05:13 But how do you take a page out of that playbook and make it applicable to your to your niche
    0:05:15 and to your subscribers and make it a win for them?
    0:05:16 That’s a really cool one.
    0:05:16 Yeah.
    0:05:17 What’s next?
    0:05:20 The next one I think we should talk about is just recommendations.
    0:05:26 So a lot of people are using recommendations at this point, Kit, Substack, Beehive, those
    0:05:29 platforms all have their own built-in referral recommendation platform.
    0:05:32 So essentially, we can recommend each other through Kit.
    0:05:36 So if someone signs up, they get a box afterwards that says like, hey, thanks for joining.
    0:05:39 Here are three other newsletters I really recommend you check out.
    0:05:43 Now, people can like or not like those.
    0:05:47 And I’ve heard from a lot of smaller creators that they’re like, well, you know, I just don’t
    0:05:51 have the big lists that people want to partner with and that kind of thing.
    0:05:55 But I think if you can almost build relationships with those people and not just look at it like
    0:06:00 a checkbox, like the one guy that I followed and wrote a deep dive on, his name was CJ Gustafson.
    0:06:06 And he would actually just ask these creators to get on a phone call, like not expecting them
    0:06:09 to recommend him afterwards, but he would talk to them for 20, 30 minutes, you know, just talk
    0:06:12 about like the industry and like newsletters and stuff.
    0:06:15 And then at the end, he’d be like, hey, do you want to like recommend each other on Substack?
    0:06:16 Like, I’ll just go add you right now.
    0:06:21 And he said the conversion rate was practically 100% because you’ve just you just built this
    0:06:22 relationship with people.
    0:06:23 Yeah.
    0:06:24 And nobody wants to tell you no to your face.
    0:06:26 Yeah.
    0:06:30 But if it makes sense for your audience and like, I don’t know, as long as they have the
    0:06:33 people that you would want on your email list, I think it makes total sense.
    0:06:36 So I have a couple of questions for this because I saw this.
    0:06:40 You were implementing this on the growth in reverse and it was you’re recommending
    0:06:42 Jay Klaus and somebody else.
    0:06:46 It was like, OK, this is kind of a natural if you like this.
    0:06:47 You might also like this.
    0:06:49 It’s like almost like, would you like fries with that?
    0:06:51 It’s like a natural thing.
    0:06:53 But my couple of questions.
    0:06:58 One is, does it interrupt the kind of logical flow?
    0:07:01 Like you have somebody who is, you know, hot to take action.
    0:07:02 They just entered in their email.
    0:07:03 They’re feeling excited about that decision.
    0:07:09 And instead of taking them immediately to the thank you page or the confirmation page or the
    0:07:13 logical next step, there’s like this intermediate thing that hits them in the face and like, well,
    0:07:18 who’s who’s this Jay Klaus guy or like, you know, we almost what is it?
    0:07:20 It’s like checked by default.
    0:07:25 Have you seen any data on that or like the impact on kind of what the next step you want subscribers
    0:07:26 to take as?
    0:07:26 Yeah.
    0:07:29 And that’s a great call out because it’s not perfect for every situation.
    0:07:32 And I have it turned off on some forms.
    0:07:34 Like I don’t have it on every single one.
    0:07:34 OK.
    0:07:38 And that’s the beauty of it is, well, at least with Kit, you can turn it off on specific forms.
    0:07:40 Like it doesn’t show up every single time someone subscribes.
    0:07:40 Yeah.
    0:07:45 But yeah, I only recommend people I know the content’s great because it is.
    0:07:49 It’s like taking a piece of the trust you’ve just built and giving it to someone else.
    0:07:52 But on the same token, you’re getting that back when they’re recommending you.
    0:07:53 Sure.
    0:07:54 So a couple of pointers.
    0:07:58 If someone subscribes through recommendations, you want to make sure that you have them getting
    0:08:00 a separate message in your welcome email.
    0:08:06 So if Jay sends me a subscriber, I want to make sure people have a different welcome email
    0:08:07 than just the typical one.
    0:08:09 So I’ll say, hey, you might not realize who I am.
    0:08:11 Jay Klaus recommended me.
    0:08:14 If you want to unsubscribe, go ahead and do that right here and put it like towards the
    0:08:14 top.
    0:08:18 So that because naturally some of those people are going to be lower quality.
    0:08:21 Maybe they didn’t recognize what they were doing by subscribing to the rest of those.
    0:08:23 So yeah, you do want to be careful with those.
    0:08:27 But I think it’s a good way to kind of, I don’t know, get a couple more people on your
    0:08:27 list.
    0:08:30 I’ve seen good success and have had some really good ones come.
    0:08:32 Yeah, that was that was the second question.
    0:08:36 Like, what’s the subscriber quality like if they didn’t opt in specifically for you?
    0:08:38 It was just kind of like an afterthought.
    0:08:42 And then you start showing up in their inbox every day or every week.
    0:08:44 Like, why am I getting this again?
    0:08:45 But yeah, calling that out.
    0:08:48 So I said, because I started noticing some of these, it was like, you know, from the work
    0:08:52 at home woman or something like there was some other recommendations that started coming
    0:08:52 through.
    0:08:58 And it’s like, oh, yeah, if I’m just dumping these into some generic onboarding, like, I
    0:09:00 think the default was like nothing, like no welcome sequence at all.
    0:09:02 I was like, well, let me let me fix that.
    0:09:06 Is there a way to customize that based?
    0:09:10 I couldn’t figure out how to individualize it based on the source.
    0:09:11 It was just like, hey, I’m so flattered.
    0:09:13 Another creator recommended me.
    0:09:14 That’s why you’re getting this message.
    0:09:16 You know, here’s a little bit about sign hustle nation.
    0:09:19 Yeah, you definitely want to make sure you’re setting this up.
    0:09:21 In the beginning, it was trickier with Kit.
    0:09:24 As they like initially launched it, it was like, what’s happening?
    0:09:28 But now they’ve kind of like refined the process and you can set up a separate welcome sequence.
    0:09:33 I think it’s a different tag or form that they’re subscribed to and you can send them down a different
    0:09:35 path with automations and that kind of thing.
    0:09:39 Again, something to set up, but once you do, it’s kind of like plug and play.
    0:09:43 Yes, these are lower quality subscribers because some people don’t understand what they’re doing.
    0:09:47 However, I have seen a lot of really good subscribers come from this.
    0:09:48 So I think it’s worth it.
    0:09:53 I know for myself, I’ve added probably 10,000 or so subscribers from recommendations.
    0:09:56 So, yeah, it’s worked out really well.
    0:09:58 Now, all of those haven’t stuck around, but yes.
    0:09:59 That’s great.
    0:10:01 I remember joking with Nathan Berry when they announced this.
    0:10:03 It was like, you know, everything old is new again, right?
    0:10:07 So you see like these co-registration forms, like from 20 years ago on the internet.
    0:10:08 That was the first part.
    0:10:12 The second part was like, how genius is this for a company that charges you based on the
    0:10:13 number of subscribers you have?
    0:10:15 Like, oh, if we could lift everybody up.
    0:10:16 Oh, sure.
    0:10:19 You know, we’re doing great by the creator, you know, the creator economy we’re supporting.
    0:10:22 Oh, but meanwhile, like, oh, there’s a little ulterior motive here.
    0:10:26 It’s a cool tool and it’s good for them too.
    0:10:30 Yeah, that’s a fun one to crack jokes on.
    0:10:32 But yeah, it’s good and bad on either side.
    0:10:38 More with Chanel in just a moment, including how one creator earned $1.2 million from a
    0:10:43 simple Google Doc and a genius strategy for getting paid to write content for other companies.
    0:10:45 Coming up right after this.
    0:10:51 For such an important channel like Found, the software powering this important channel was
    0:10:53 super outdated and clunky.
    0:10:57 We wanted to make it delightful and make it very easy for businesses to connect with their
    0:11:00 customers, so do voice and text.
    0:11:05 That’s Darina Kulia, co-founder of our sponsor, OpenPhone, trusted by more than 60,000 customers.
    0:11:10 This is the number one business phone system that streamlines and scales your customer communications.
    0:11:16 I like to think of it like a centralized hub to receive and respond to calls and texts in your
    0:11:16 business.
    0:11:20 And I asked Darina about who’s typically signing up for this kind of service.
    0:11:27 We definitely have a lot of folks who come to us and their personal cell phone has become
    0:11:29 their company phone number.
    0:11:34 And they’ve hired a team or they’re starting to scale their business and they just find
    0:11:37 themselves as a business owner, as a founder being the bottleneck.
    0:11:38 So we see that all the time.
    0:11:46 And then we also see folks much further along where they’re using some legacy complicated tools
    0:11:50 that are just not really made for how communication happens these days.
    0:11:57 We also just recently launched Sona, which is our voice AI agent that can handle any missed
    0:11:57 calls.
    0:12:02 If you have clients calling outside of business hours, instead of them going to voicemail,
    0:12:09 it can go into Sona, which is capable to handle any replies and can also take a message.
    0:12:12 So you are capturing that lead information.
    0:12:17 And it’s like, and it’s a robot, like it responds like on the fly with some pre-programmed responses.
    0:12:19 It does such a great job.
    0:12:21 This way they can handle questions 24 seven.
    0:12:23 Now here’s a, here’s a scenario for you.
    0:12:29 So let’s say I’ve, I’ve committed to a certain business phone number and I’ve distributed flyers.
    0:12:31 It’s printed on my business cards.
    0:12:35 It is on my local business listings on directories throughout the internet.
    0:12:41 Like what’s the process to now have that ring open phone system versus the current system?
    0:12:41 Totally.
    0:12:43 So we see this all the time.
    0:12:46 This process is called phone number porting.
    0:12:48 We port numbers from all kinds of carriers.
    0:12:54 So basically no matter what provider you’re using, we can take that number and move it over
    0:12:55 to open phone.
    0:12:56 It is free.
    0:12:57 We handle the whole thing.
    0:13:00 And if you want to try out open phone, we have a free trial.
    0:13:02 You can try it out, see how you like it.
    0:13:07 And if you like it, you can then decide to port your existing number over and we handle
    0:13:08 the whole process.
    0:13:13 Now open phone has automatic AI call summaries, so you don’t have to worry about taking notes
    0:13:13 while you’re on the call.
    0:13:19 But another cool feature is what Darina called AI call tagging, basically allowing you to quickly
    0:13:25 filter for the calls that were sales objections or customer complaints or requests for a discount.
    0:13:30 So you can review those and see what worked, what didn’t, and train team members on the
    0:13:33 most effective tactics and language in those cases.
    0:13:38 And it’s all in the name of building a better, faster, and friendlier customer experience.
    0:13:41 I want all open phone customers to have five stars only.
    0:13:46 Right now, open phone is offering Side Hustle show listeners 20% off your first six months at
    0:13:48 openphone.com slash side hustle.
    0:13:54 That’s O-P-E-N-P-H-O-N-E dot com slash side hustle.
    0:13:58 And like we talked about, if you’ve got an existing phone number with another service,
    0:14:00 open phone will port it over at no extra charge.
    0:14:04 Open phone, no missed calls, no missed customers.
    0:14:09 With our partner Mint Mobile, you can get the coverage and speed you’re used to just for
    0:14:09 way less money.
    0:14:14 And for a limited time, Mint Mobile is offering Side Hustle show listeners three months of unlimited
    0:14:17 premium wireless for just 15 bucks a month.
    0:14:21 So while your friends are sweating over data overages and surprise charges, you’ll be chilling,
    0:14:23 literally and financially.
    0:14:25 I’ve been a Mint customer myself since 2019.
    0:14:30 All Mint plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation’s
    0:14:31 largest 5G network.
    0:14:35 You can bring your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and your existing phone number
    0:14:36 and your contacts.
    0:14:41 So join me in ditching overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service
    0:14:44 from Mint Mobile for just 15 bucks a month.
    0:14:47 This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank.
    0:14:52 Get this new customer offer and your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month
    0:14:55 at mintmobile.com slash side hustle.
    0:14:58 That’s mintmobile.com slash side hustle.
    0:15:02 Upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 per month.
    0:15:05 Limited time new customer offer for first three months only.
    0:15:09 Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan.
    0:15:10 Taxes and fees extra.
    0:15:12 See Mint Mobile for details.
    0:15:19 I’ve got one that I’ll add to the mix that has added probably 5,000 to 7,000 subscribers
    0:15:21 over the course of the last several years.
    0:15:26 And that is a Facebook group to email list integration.
    0:15:28 And I’m using a tool called Group Leads for it.
    0:15:35 It’s like this really low-cost browser extension that you can ask people questions when they
    0:15:36 join your group.
    0:15:40 I think I ask questions like, what’s your biggest side hustle struggle?
    0:15:42 Or what side hustles are you working on right now?
    0:15:43 Or have you started anything yet?
    0:15:48 Some kind of those types of generic fact-finding questions that can help guide future content.
    0:15:53 And then I’ll say, hey, if you want our best side hustle tips, enter your email here.
    0:15:55 And a lot of people do that.
    0:15:58 And then Group Leads sends it directly into Kit.
    0:16:01 And it gets, again, a specific welcome sequence.
    0:16:02 Some people are already on the email list.
    0:16:04 And so it sends them a different message.
    0:16:05 Hey, great to see you again.
    0:16:07 Thanks for joining the Facebook group.
    0:16:09 For other people, it’s like, hey, you know, welcome to Side Insultation.
    0:16:11 Hey, the Facebook group is just the tip of the iceberg.
    0:16:13 Here’s all the other stuff we got.
    0:16:16 And so that’s been a really, really powerful kind of incremental addition.
    0:16:21 Because what we found, you know, early on, the Facebook group was very much like podcast
    0:16:24 listeners, like, you know, the core of the audience.
    0:16:29 But over time, it started, you know, Facebook started recommending that group to people it
    0:16:32 thought were interested in Side Hustles and started to grow a lot organically.
    0:16:35 It’s like, oh, I need to do a better job of capturing those people.
    0:16:36 I love this one.
    0:16:37 It’s like, it’s so obvious.
    0:16:43 And I have been the person to go, not recently, but over years ago, to go to Facebook, search
    0:16:46 for a specific topic, and then join a group or find other people there.
    0:16:48 So I think that’s, it’s awesome.
    0:16:49 It’s such a good one.
    0:16:51 This has been like top of the funnel.
    0:16:54 Like we had Abby Ashley on the show with her like virtual assistant training business.
    0:16:58 She runs one of the biggest virtual assistant groups on Facebook.
    0:17:02 And that was like a top of the funnel entry point, you know, enter your email and we’ll
    0:17:06 send you the free masterclass on how to get started, how to find your first clients and
    0:17:07 really, really effective.
    0:17:12 And I think we’ve seen people do it in like microgreens farming.
    0:17:18 And there was another one, some guy was like doing a, like a pet waste removal, like training
    0:17:18 type of thing.
    0:17:21 It’s like, you know, no matter your niche, there’s a group about it.
    0:17:26 And if there’s not a group, you should start one because it’s a, it’s a powerful, powerful
    0:17:27 place where a lot of people are still spending some time.
    0:17:29 Oh, amazing.
    0:17:30 I love that one.
    0:17:32 I wish I could figure out a way to make that happen for me.
    0:17:33 Maybe I will.
    0:17:33 Newsletters.
    0:17:34 Yeah.
    0:17:36 The email growth hacker newsletter email.
    0:17:36 Yeah.
    0:17:38 There’s gotta be something like that.
    0:17:38 Gotta be.
    0:17:39 I love it.
    0:17:39 All right.
    0:17:39 What else you got?
    0:17:40 All right.
    0:17:41 I think the next one.
    0:17:46 So Ali Richards has been somebody I just keep being excited about because he does all these
    0:17:52 cool things, but he started a business called Story Learning and he was helping people learn
    0:17:54 different languages, like moving abroad.
    0:17:56 You’re going to teach English as a second language, that kind of thing.
    0:17:58 He turned that into a $10 million business.
    0:18:03 And he now is like, I want to do something different and I want to start a personal brand.
    0:18:08 So he was like, okay, how can I get people on my email list for this personal brand?
    0:18:11 He couldn’t just like promote it to his language learning list.
    0:18:12 It’s not the same audience.
    0:18:17 So he decided he was going to put everything he learned from building that business into
    0:18:18 a Google Doc.
    0:18:20 And it ended up being 118 pages long.
    0:18:23 And so he’s like, okay, cool.
    0:18:24 Google Doc, 118 pages.
    0:18:26 He’s just giving it all away.
    0:18:30 So anyone looking to create like an online course business or anything like that, they would
    0:18:31 be super interested in this.
    0:18:36 And so he shared that and he just started promoting it in other newsletters.
    0:18:38 So he would buy sponsorship placements and that kind of thing.
    0:18:44 But from my end in the newsletter space, I saw every person who wrote a newsletter about
    0:18:46 newsletters was sharing this thing like wildfire.
    0:18:50 Like every day I’d open an email and be like, check out the Google Doc from Ollie Richards.
    0:18:51 And I’m like, oh my gosh.
    0:18:57 And the cool part was like, yeah, he asked for email if you went to his website to sign up and
    0:18:57 get it.
    0:18:59 But most people were just sharing this Google Doc around.
    0:19:01 And he’s like, that’s awesome.
    0:19:03 Like, I don’t need to capture every single email.
    0:19:03 Yeah.
    0:19:05 Like no opt-in required.
    0:19:05 Totally.
    0:19:06 Okay.
    0:19:10 And so he ended up getting like 18,000 subscribers from this thing.
    0:19:14 And they’re high quality, like super high quality.
    0:19:17 Even though it wasn’t a requirement and people just consumed it.
    0:19:21 And they were like, well, if he’s given this much away for free, if he’s giving me 118 pages
    0:19:23 for free, what’s he sending out an email?
    0:19:24 Right.
    0:19:29 And so throughout the Google Doc, of course, there were like ways to opt into the email
    0:19:31 list if you hadn’t been on there already.
    0:19:37 But in the last two-ish years from starting this Google Doc, he’s earned $1.2 million from
    0:19:41 he runs like these pretty cheap workshops, like $100 to $400.
    0:19:45 And then on the back end of that, he’ll have like coaching as well.
    0:19:46 I just thought this was fascinating.
    0:19:52 Like 18,000 subscribers from a Google Doc, just sharing your information and your expertise.
    0:19:56 Do you think it worked just because of the novelty factor?
    0:19:57 Whereas like, who does that?
    0:19:58 Nobody.
    0:19:59 It’s like.
    0:19:59 Totally.
    0:20:04 He said the only money he spent on it was $10 on Fiverr to get a cover for it made.
    0:20:05 Yeah.
    0:20:08 And arguably, like if you look at the cover, you’d be like, you probably could have done
    0:20:08 that yourself, but.
    0:20:10 Okay.
    0:20:14 And then getting the flywheel spinning by buying some placements or buying some swaps or
    0:20:15 newsletter ads in other newsletters.
    0:20:16 Yeah.
    0:20:18 And so he had these workshops on the back end.
    0:20:23 So if somebody bought through the workshop, he threw all that money back into buying more.
    0:20:28 So he used Sparkloop, which is kind of like a paid recommendations, as well as newsletter
    0:20:30 ads, just in a typical email issue.
    0:20:32 So he created like this little flywheel.
    0:20:36 Like if any money he made, he went back into ads and it just kept growing the email list.
    0:20:37 Okay.
    0:20:40 I’ve got another one that kind of piggybacks on that.
    0:20:47 And I call it the permafree on Amazon strategy or permafree on Kindle strategy, where there’s
    0:20:48 a, I’ve got a book.
    0:20:51 It’s sidehustlenation.com slash book permafree.
    0:20:56 I think might have to be a United States only, but this was last updated 2019.
    0:21:02 So it’s due for a refresh, but this is three different side hustle frameworks, right?
    0:21:06 You could sell a product business, start a service business, or have like a content type
    0:21:07 of business, right?
    0:21:09 And this gives a bunch of examples of that.
    0:21:13 And it’s kind of like, if somebody’s searching on Amazon for side hustle, the goal would be,
    0:21:14 Hey, you go find this book.
    0:21:19 And in the book, as I have in probably all my books is some sort of lead magnet.
    0:21:24 I forget what it is specifically for this one, but over the course of 10, 10 plus years
    0:21:29 publishing on Amazon, you know, it’s thousands of subscribers who either buy the book and then
    0:21:31 get the upgrade, which you see in almost any nonfiction book.
    0:21:33 It’s like, Hey, you want the toolkit, the resources?
    0:21:38 I’ll go over here and download that or get the, get the free video companion series, like
    0:21:39 super, super common strategy.
    0:21:43 What poured fuel on the fire was reducing the friction and just like making it permafree.
    0:21:47 And what, I don’t know if this is still the case on Amazon, but you had to list it on another
    0:21:50 marketplace and then email them to request a price match.
    0:21:56 And so you had to upload it somewhere else for free as it’s like 0.00 was like not a, not a
    0:22:00 price that was allowed in their system, but through customer support, they would allow you to do it.
    0:22:03 And, um, and that’s been a powerful lead gen for me.
    0:22:04 Wow.
    0:22:09 So the other platforms you uploaded it for free, like everrand.com or whatever that’s called.
    0:22:10 Yeah.
    0:22:15 Maybe smash words or iBooks or someplace, uh, someplace else, uh, or maybe it was like
    0:22:17 the Google play store.
    0:22:22 There was some, and then you’d just like screenshot that or, you know, save the URL and then say, Hey,
    0:22:23 could you price match this?
    0:22:24 It’s free over here, you know?
    0:22:26 And then as long as you don’t touch it.
    0:22:31 And that’s like one of the hesitations in, in updating it, you know, I’d love to keep all of the
    0:22:36 reviews for the book and just push a new version out underneath that, uh, same listing.
    0:22:40 But, but then you have to go through that, you know, repricing process again, and there’s
    0:22:44 no guarantee they’ll do it, but it didn’t for the, for the first few iterations.
    0:22:45 Oh, wow.
    0:22:46 That’s pretty cool.
    0:22:46 Yeah.
    0:22:47 I like that one.
    0:22:51 I pulled it from the, from the fiction world where it’s like, you know, the, the first book
    0:22:52 in the series is free.
    0:22:53 Hopefully it’s good enough to get you hooked.
    0:22:58 And then you go on and buy the rest of the series or you opt in for, you know, a special
    0:23:02 bonus or get notified when the next book of the series comes out and taking a page out
    0:23:03 of the fiction author playbook.
    0:23:04 Oh, I love that.
    0:23:06 I might have to try something like that.
    0:23:06 Yeah.
    0:23:12 Especially if you’ve got years and years of content that could be repackaged into 118 page
    0:23:17 Google document, or it could be repackaged into a Kindle book with, with probably a similar
    0:23:17 strategy.
    0:23:18 I like it.
    0:23:19 It’s a good one.
    0:23:19 All right.
    0:23:19 All right.
    0:23:21 Let’s go to CJ Gustafson.
    0:23:24 This is my favorite ones recently of the last like four months.
    0:23:25 I can’t stop thinking about it.
    0:23:28 So he writes a newsletter called Mostly Metrics.
    0:23:30 He’s a CFO, like financial nerdy guy.
    0:23:32 His content is awesome though.
    0:23:34 He includes like gifts and just like a ton of personality.
    0:23:40 But what he did was he was trying to look for sponsorships, but he started out, he would
    0:23:42 go to these software companies in the financial space.
    0:23:44 So like a Brex or that kind of thing.
    0:23:49 And he was like, Hey, do you guys like, you don’t have any content around this one topic,
    0:23:52 like would love to share a piece with your audience.
    0:23:57 And so it started off free, but he got a guest post on Brex.com, which I mean, the traffic
    0:23:59 from that alone is probably amazing.
    0:24:05 The backlink for SEO purposes, which RIP, but anyway, so it lives there in perpetuity,
    0:24:09 but it also gets, they started sharing these out to their email list.
    0:24:12 So these companies are like dying for content.
    0:24:17 They want someone else who’s not their content person to share some exciting news about their
    0:24:19 organization or why the product’s so good.
    0:24:24 And so CJ coming in as an outsider sharing about their product was just like a no brainer.
    0:24:30 So now he gets paid like six to 12 K for a package of like three to four of these posts.
    0:24:30 Okay.
    0:24:31 She’s getting paid to write them.
    0:24:32 Getting paid now.
    0:24:32 Yeah.
    0:24:33 Wow.
    0:24:37 Most commonly is, is, uh, you see the inbound, how much is it going to cost for a link?
    0:24:38 That’s great.
    0:24:38 Okay.
    0:24:39 Totally.
    0:24:41 So he’s getting paid for these.
    0:24:45 He doesn’t have to write an extra word because they’re actually just taking a piece he’s already
    0:24:47 written and sent to his email list.
    0:24:50 So it’s just like an aggregation play.
    0:24:50 He’s getting paid.
    0:24:55 He doesn’t have to write a word and he’s getting subscribers from this because at the bottom
    0:25:00 of the email or the piece, it says this originally appeared on mostlymetrics.com.
    0:25:02 And so people click through, they subscribe.
    0:25:07 And then the best part of this whole thing is he has a paid newsletter and some of those people
    0:25:09 subscribe and become paying clients.
    0:25:11 So he’s like getting paid twice for some of these.
    0:25:12 Okay.
    0:25:18 So it is kind of like a, a customer use case scenario that you’re pitching to that company.
    0:25:20 Have I, did I hear that right?
    0:25:24 I think that’s how it started out, but now he’s just writing content for CFOs and he talks
    0:25:28 about Brex sometimes, like he’ll link to it, like, Hey, you can use Brex for this one thing,
    0:25:31 but it’s not, it’s no longer just like a review of the company.
    0:25:37 Like it’s just him, a random CFO talking about this company or certain topics that their
    0:25:38 readers are interested in.
    0:25:40 I don’t know.
    0:25:41 He’s just like killing it with this.
    0:25:44 It’s almost like creating a separate blog for these organizations.
    0:25:45 Okay.
    0:25:51 So they have some hunger for content that wasn’t produced by their internal team, or maybe it,
    0:25:52 maybe it saves them money.
    0:25:53 It’s like, sure, we’ll pay you 500 bucks.
    0:25:55 It’s cheaper than paying somebody in house to create this.
    0:26:01 And they get the content that was already repurposed.
    0:26:05 So he reaches a new audience and then a certain percentage of those people, you know, are in,
    0:26:06 are in his world now.
    0:26:07 And they come back to the email list.
    0:26:09 They come back to the paid subscriber tier.
    0:26:09 Yeah.
    0:26:15 I mean, you think of even like Kit, they have creator series where a lot of their content is
    0:26:19 just like pulled from these stories about different creators because I mean, people who are reading
    0:26:23 their email list don’t want to hear from their, their creator person.
    0:26:25 Just like, Hey, Kit’s great.
    0:26:25 This is awesome.
    0:26:29 It’s more like, Hey, Jay Klaus has this newsletter and here’s how he grew it on Kit.
    0:26:31 And then like shares valuable information.
    0:26:32 So I don’t know.
    0:26:34 I’ve seen other people do something similar.
    0:26:37 Caitlin Burgoyne does like webinars.
    0:26:39 So she’ll do a training for companies.
    0:26:42 And so that software company has an audience.
    0:26:47 They’re showcasing her as like an expert on this thing and their audience is getting value
    0:26:48 from her.
    0:26:50 So it’s like making them look like an awesome company.
    0:26:56 Yeah, that’s a whole, whole nother strategy that we could probably talk about is this virtual
    0:27:02 workshops, targeting the companies that you have a good feeling like your, your avatar,
    0:27:07 your target customer, your target client is already paying attention to doing business with
    0:27:11 and didn’t even have to like webinars have been maybe given a bad taste in people’s mouth.
    0:27:12 Like, well, I know there’s a pitch coming.
    0:27:14 There doesn’t even have to be a pitch here.
    0:27:16 If the goal is just to grow your audience, grow your email list.
    0:27:18 We had Dustin Lean on the show.
    0:27:21 And this was like one of my favorite strategies of all time.
    0:27:22 He was targeting.
    0:27:27 He was like, had such a niche service, like email copywriting for direct to consumer brands
    0:27:28 or something like that.
    0:27:33 And so he would go to Shopify, go to Klaviyo or go to companies that, you know, his target
    0:27:36 customers were already doing business with.
    0:27:41 And they kind of like, hey, I’d love to host this free educational workshop on how to rewrite
    0:27:45 your cart abandonment sequence, like something really, really specific and niche.
    0:27:49 And it’s like, I’m going to teach you the DIY version, but a lot of the attendees are busy
    0:27:50 CEOs or marketing directors.
    0:27:52 Like, can we just pay you to do this?
    0:27:57 Like, there was no specific pitch or ask or, you know, sign up here to book a consultation
    0:27:57 call.
    0:28:02 Just, you know, by virtue of skipping the line, like they’ve kind of vouched for you as the
    0:28:06 expert, just it was a really cool shortcut strategy to get in front of a segment, large
    0:28:08 groups of your target customer in a hurry.
    0:28:09 Yeah.
    0:28:13 And all right, let’s give people like a normal example, because these are all business ones.
    0:28:16 So I’m just thinking you were mentioning the microgreens farmer guy, right?
    0:28:19 So he could go to a company like Bootstrap Farmer.
    0:28:23 They sell these seed trays that you actually can grow microgreens in.
    0:28:29 He can go to them and say like, hey, I want to share my 10 biggest mistakes of growing
    0:28:30 microgreens or something for beginners.
    0:28:34 And like at the bottom, they sign up for his email list.
    0:28:37 And so it doesn’t have to be like a business oriented thing.
    0:28:39 It could be, I don’t know, growing microgreens.
    0:28:41 Like how much more B2C does that get?
    0:28:42 Yeah, that’s great.
    0:28:45 But like kind of that same question, well, who are my target customers already doing business
    0:28:46 with?
    0:28:48 Who would benefit from my newsletter?
    0:28:52 And where can I get in front of, you know, big chunks of them all at once?
    0:28:58 And it’s really interesting when both the virtual workshops and the paid guest post getting paid
    0:29:01 to create content for other other companies.
    0:29:06 I’m just like, my mind is spinning on, well, who else could I go and pitch this to?
    0:29:12 One that is in a similar vein is this is from from years ago would be like the virtual summit
    0:29:17 strategy, which full caveat, like this is a ton of work to put together, pre record a bunch
    0:29:22 of videos and I’m going to drip them out over this like live three day virtual event.
    0:29:25 And the goal is everybody you recorded videos with promotes it to their audience.
    0:29:27 It’s the three day brand building summit.
    0:29:30 It’s a three day build your freelance business summit.
    0:29:32 And super, super effective.
    0:29:37 If you can get this where, I mean, we talked to Chandler Bolt, like booked some obscene, like
    0:29:41 probably a million dollars in sales, like from, you know, the self-publishing summit back
    0:29:41 in the day.
    0:29:47 But one thing that you can do is, is reach out to companies that might also want to
    0:29:51 reach this audience is somebody had the example of like the freelancer summit, like grow your
    0:29:52 freelancing business.
    0:29:55 Hey, FreshBooks, would you mind sponsoring our event?
    0:29:57 You can be the title sponsor.
    0:29:59 I don’t even know if they charged for it.
    0:30:03 Maybe they could have, but the price of admission was invite your email list, invite your whole
    0:30:04 customer base to it.
    0:30:07 And all of a sudden, boom, 20,000 registrations.
    0:30:08 It was like, oh, this is great.
    0:30:12 So I’m trying to sell sponsorships or even free sponsorships to the virtual summit.
    0:30:17 So done right can be absolutely effective, but you’re going to be dedicating some time to
    0:30:18 pulling this off.
    0:30:21 This reminds me of what I just went through with the 30 days of growth.
    0:30:24 It was like not a summit, but similar.
    0:30:28 It’s still coordinating with 30 different people, but you didn’t have to do like a live video
    0:30:29 or anything.
    0:30:30 So that was interesting.
    0:30:31 That was a, that was a good one.
    0:30:35 I think that’s actually something that can be replicated for quite a few people and netted
    0:30:39 out like 1,750 new subscribers for me in the last 30 days.
    0:30:40 So I’ll take that.
    0:30:40 Yeah.
    0:30:43 And you called it like a, you called it like a pop-up newsletter.
    0:30:44 Pop-up newsletter.
    0:30:44 Yeah.
    0:30:49 It’s similar to a summit in certain ways, but essentially I went out, found 30 different
    0:30:50 creators, including Nick.
    0:30:56 And I was like, Hey, you want to share one growth tactic you’ve used to grow your email list?
    0:30:57 A lot of them I already knew ahead of time.
    0:31:01 Like I had figured out like what they had done and I was like, do you want to share this one
    0:31:01 tactic?
    0:31:05 And then, so everybody got one of those tips every day for 30 days and now it’s over.
    0:31:09 So it’s not like I have to keep writing this daily newsletter every day, but it’s a heck
    0:31:13 of a lead magnet I have now of like, here’s 30, 30 tips to grow your newsletter.
    0:31:14 Yeah.
    0:31:14 Yeah.
    0:31:14 Yeah.
    0:31:19 And everybody who is featured shares it with their audience as a little snippet, as a little
    0:31:19 blurb.
    0:31:21 Hey, make sure you go check out the 30 days of growth.
    0:31:21 Okay.
    0:31:22 Yeah.
    0:31:27 And I did have some software tools giving away free licenses, but I did not do the smart
    0:31:29 thing of being like, can you share this with your email list?
    0:31:30 I should have done that.
    0:31:32 That was the missed opportunity there.
    0:31:39 It’s taking the, you know, the old vertical roundup style post and just making it horizontal.
    0:31:44 We’re going to drip this out instead of say, you know, 30 creators on their number one marketing
    0:31:44 tip.
    0:31:45 Okay.
    0:31:49 We can have that same content and that same amount of outreach and back and forth, but
    0:31:53 just structured in a different way and kind of have a similar promotion engine where everybody
    0:31:55 kind of bands together to share it.
    0:31:55 Yeah.
    0:31:56 I like that.
    0:31:56 Totally.
    0:32:00 That vertical thing used to work really well, but I think it’s a little tired now.
    0:32:00 Yeah.
    0:32:05 More with Chanel in just a moment, including the simple LinkedIn posts that generated 650
    0:32:10 new subscribers in just two posts and why bundle sales might be your secret weapon for
    0:32:12 growing your list right after this.
    0:32:17 If you’re a startup, small business, or even part of a growing enterprise of looking to level
    0:32:22 up your marketing and connect more meaningfully with customers, Brevo has you covered.
    0:32:28 Our new sponsor, Brevo is the all-in-one marketing automation and CRM platform that helps you streamline
    0:32:34 your strategy and drive real results from powerful email marketing and SMS to WhatsApp chat and
    0:32:35 advanced automation.
    0:32:40 Brevo makes it simple to create personalized multi-channel campaigns that convert.
    0:32:45 Whether you’re managing a lean team or already operating at scale, Brevo gives you the tools
    0:32:50 to boost engagement, track performance, and grow smarter with built-in analytics and customer
    0:32:53 insights all in one easy to use platform.
    0:32:54 Ready to get started?
    0:32:57 Head over to brevo.com slash side hustle.
    0:33:01 That’s B-R-E-V-O, brevo.com slash side hustle.
    0:33:06 And use the code side hustle to get 50% off starter and business plans for the first three months
    0:33:07 of an annual subscription.
    0:33:12 That’s brevo.com slash side hustle, where better marketing starts.
    0:33:16 It’s summertime and the living’s easy.
    0:33:19 That is, unless you’re a business owner with too much on your plate.
    0:33:22 If that’s you, it’s time to start buying back your time.
    0:33:25 And the number one place to do that is our partner, Indeed.
    0:33:29 By the time this ad is over, 23 businesses will have found their next team member.
    0:33:31 I’d love for you to be next.
    0:33:35 To find that amazing candidate, find them fast, and free up some of your hours.
    0:33:38 Stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites.
    0:33:42 Indeed’s sponsored jobs help you stand out and hire fast.
    0:33:46 Plus, with Indeed’s sponsored jobs, there’s no monthly subscriptions, no long-term contracts,
    0:33:48 and you only pay for results.
    0:33:53 It’s no wonder why three and a half million employers worldwide are already using Indeed
    0:33:57 to hire great talent fast, and why it’ll be my first stop when I need to make my next hire.
    0:33:59 There’s no need to wait any longer.
    0:34:02 Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed.
    0:34:07 Side Hustle Show listeners get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility
    0:34:10 at indeed.com slash side hustle show.
    0:34:15 Just go to indeed.com slash side hustle show right now and support our show by saying you
    0:34:17 heard about Indeed on this podcast.
    0:34:20 Indeed.com slash side hustle show.
    0:34:21 Terms and conditions apply.
    0:34:22 Hiring.
    0:34:24 Indeed is all you need.
    0:34:26 These are awesome.
    0:34:27 I’ve taken a ton of notes.
    0:34:29 I’ve got some good ideas from this.
    0:34:30 What else?
    0:34:31 Anything else on the list?
    0:34:32 Yeah, I like the one.
    0:34:35 It’s a little more simple instead of like 30 days of content.
    0:34:42 So Tom Orbach, who runs marketingideas.com, marketing ideas newsletter, but he knows his marketing
    0:34:42 stuff.
    0:34:44 So on LinkedIn, he just wrote, drop your website URL below.
    0:34:47 I’ll reply with a specific growth hack for your company.
    0:34:48 First come, first serve.
    0:34:53 And then within this, so he’s giving people like custom, like ideas for growth for their
    0:34:54 companies.
    0:34:58 And then underneath each one that he replies to, he’ll give them the idea.
    0:35:03 And then he’ll say, if you enjoyed this, I share a bunch of tips like this over at marketingideas.com.
    0:35:07 He said that LinkedIn post got him 250 new subscribers.
    0:35:10 And when he did it on Substack, it got him 400 subscribers.
    0:35:15 So yeah, 650 just from two posts and sharing some time.
    0:35:19 The brilliance of this, though, is like he can take some of these ideas and expand on them
    0:35:20 in his newsletter.
    0:35:23 So it’s like not even just a one-time use case.
    0:35:28 Yeah, it feels like I’m giving my time, but I’m also getting future content out of this deal.
    0:35:28 Yeah.
    0:35:33 And he said a lot of the people who joined the newsletter actually weren’t even commenting.
    0:35:36 They just saw all of the value he was providing and were like, okay, I’m going to sign up
    0:35:39 for this guy’s newsletter because he clearly knows what he’s talking about.
    0:35:44 What do you think, like, if you don’t have much of a following on LinkedIn, if you don’t
    0:35:48 have much of a following on Substack or X and you post the stuff, hey, you know, first
    0:35:49 10 people, it’s like crickets.
    0:35:53 You’re like, well, now this is awkward because now nobody even commented.
    0:35:53 Yeah.
    0:35:58 Well, you could always delete it if you don’t get comments within the first 30 minutes or
    0:35:58 something.
    0:36:00 But I mean, you could also like seed it with a friend.
    0:36:03 I could be like, hey, Nick, can you go comment on this thing so I can at least
    0:36:04 at least start sharing.
    0:36:07 And then as people see the comments, they’ll probably share their own URL.
    0:36:07 Okay.
    0:36:08 So what would you call this one?
    0:36:12 Kind of like almost a social proof giveaway type of thing?
    0:36:14 Like, you know, office hours type of thing?
    0:36:14 Yeah.
    0:36:16 You could do it as an ask me anything too.
    0:36:19 And this works for practically any industry.
    0:36:24 So if we continue with the microgreens examples, like give me your biggest issue with microgreens
    0:36:29 or what’s a recent issue you’ve encountered, like maybe they were overwatered or something.
    0:36:32 It might not work on LinkedIn, but somewhere else, like a forum or something.
    0:36:32 Yeah.
    0:36:36 And if the first one doesn’t work, don’t get discouraged.
    0:36:41 I remember this was from talking with Dickie Bush years ago when he was first getting started
    0:36:41 on Twitter.
    0:36:43 And he put something out.
    0:36:44 It was like, I wrote a thread.
    0:36:45 I forget his cadence.
    0:36:47 It was either every day or every week.
    0:36:52 And nine of those over the course of the year, nine of those ended up going viral and getting
    0:36:58 him in his 100,000 subscribers or whatever his number was that turned into a ship 30 for
    0:36:58 30.
    0:37:01 Like this whole business built on the back of building that following.
    0:37:04 But it was like, most of them didn’t do anything.
    0:37:05 Most of them didn’t hit.
    0:37:09 And his line was like, it’s the ultimate, you know, idea proving ground.
    0:37:12 Because it’s like, if it doesn’t resonate in the first little bit, like the algorithm
    0:37:13 is just going to bury it.
    0:37:15 You’re like, well, now, you know, back to the drawing board.
    0:37:17 That wasn’t the right, that wasn’t the right hook.
    0:37:18 That wasn’t the right idea.
    0:37:20 And you kind of refine this process.
    0:37:24 I don’t know if the hit rate improved over time, but it’s almost this numbers game of,
    0:37:29 you know, don’t get discouraged if your first two posts don’t deliver the results you want.
    0:37:34 Like it’s kind of a game of iteration and trying to find the right thing that does hit
    0:37:35 and that does take off.
    0:37:35 Yeah.
    0:37:38 I think he posted online like every day for nine months.
    0:37:42 He got to like 2,000 followers after nine months.
    0:37:43 Like most people would have quit.
    0:37:43 Yeah.
    0:37:44 It’s kind of discouraging.
    0:37:48 But then you see his trajectory now and you’re like, whoa, it’s so cool that he didn’t quit.
    0:37:49 Yeah.
    0:37:53 It’s hard to stick with it in those early days, sometimes early years.
    0:37:59 You’re like, one of the, it’s hard when the, you know, step one, create good content.
    0:38:01 Step two, you know, hopefully go viral.
    0:38:07 It’s like that wild card of it is, is a little bit challenging, but maybe you can seed it.
    0:38:11 If you have a handful of connections, maybe they, you ask them to be the first commenters
    0:38:16 or to, to reshare it and hopefully give the algorithm a little bit of a nudge.
    0:38:21 Like even Sam Parr from The Hustle, he had the trends community on Facebook.
    0:38:24 He actually said that in the beginning he was seeding posts.
    0:38:28 So he would write up a whole piece for people and share it to them in their DMs.
    0:38:32 And so like, even if someone like Sam Parr had to do that in the beginning, it’s okay if you
    0:38:32 do that.
    0:38:33 Yeah.
    0:38:33 Yeah.
    0:38:33 Yeah.
    0:38:38 For, for growth in reverse, anything else that you found, like in the early days to
    0:38:42 try and get, you know, get those first a thousand or 10,000 subscribers?
    0:38:44 It was a lot of Twitter threads.
    0:38:49 And also I think the content was just so unique that people were like, I’m going to share this
    0:38:50 with other people.
    0:38:50 Okay.
    0:38:51 That’s a huge unlock.
    0:38:56 And it’s, it’s probably the underlying piece of all of these is like, if you have really good
    0:39:00 stuff, it’s just going to make everything we just talked about work so much better because
    0:39:01 people are going to want to recommend you.
    0:39:02 They’re going to want to share your content.
    0:39:04 They’re going to want to pay you to promote it.
    0:39:04 Yeah.
    0:39:08 What you’ve become known for, what growth in reverse has become known for is like these
    0:39:16 really in-depth, deep dive case studies that say, okay, look at Sahil Bloom now and then
    0:39:17 let’s, let’s rewind.
    0:39:23 Let’s go back five years and see what that trajectory looked like and the specific tactics that, that
    0:39:24 worked and didn’t work.
    0:39:25 And you’re right.
    0:39:26 It’s, it’s unique content.
    0:39:27 It’s something you won’t find anywhere else.
    0:39:29 And it was, it was effective.
    0:39:32 So the question is, could I reverse engineer something similar for my own?
    0:39:38 If you’re, if you’re listening in and, and I don’t know if there’s any shortcuts here,
    0:39:43 but you’re doing that kind of analysis that, that people aren’t going to find anywhere else
    0:39:44 makes it compelling.
    0:39:44 Yeah.
    0:39:49 Or like you just go out and find the most unique stories about side hustles and share them.
    0:39:54 Like you’re not the one actually doing the side hustle necessarily, but you’re sharing all
    0:39:56 of those tips and things that you’ve learned from doing your own.
    0:39:58 Again, it’s just like a different way to do unique content.
    0:40:00 Yeah, that’s a good, that’s a good point.
    0:40:03 And those are the, the episodes where you hang up and you’re like, and I got to go tell the
    0:40:05 neighbors, you’re not going to believe who I talked to today.
    0:40:09 You know, could you believe she makes money organizing people’s photos in the, in their
    0:40:09 attic?
    0:40:09 Right.
    0:40:11 Oh, that’s a hundred dollar an hour job.
    0:40:11 Cool.
    0:40:12 I didn’t know that.
    0:40:12 So good.
    0:40:16 I have another one that has added probably several thousand subscribers over the course of
    0:40:17 the last three or four years.
    0:40:20 And that is participating in bundle sales.
    0:40:27 And so this is going to be more of a, of a B to C or maybe like B to small B type of type
    0:40:32 of play where a bundle sale organizer, like ultimate bundles is one BC stack is the one that I’m
    0:40:33 referring to.
    0:40:36 I’ve been a participant in many times, but there’s a few different companies that put these together.
    0:40:43 So that may be a side hustle on its own being the host, the organizer, the aggregator, cause
    0:40:48 you can, there’s some benefits to being that central hub as well, but as a contributor, how
    0:40:54 it works is everybody kind of donates a product to this bundle and say, Hey, for a limited time
    0:40:59 for one week, only you’re going to get access to 30, 40, 50 of these digital products on a
    0:41:00 specific niche.
    0:41:05 Maybe it’s how to grow your traffic and you get it for your $49, whatever it is, you know,
    0:41:08 low price, a sticker price on all these resources are $5,000.
    0:41:11 It’s like, okay, that might be inflated, but it’s still a good deal.
    0:41:13 And you know, you never know.
    0:41:17 It’s, it only takes one good idea to make back the $49 and then some, so like I’m a fan of
    0:41:22 these as a, as a consumer and I’m a fan of these as a contributor because how it works
    0:41:28 is all of these contributors, the 30, 40, 50 people who contributed products, plus the bundle
    0:41:29 sale has recruited additional affiliates.
    0:41:31 So their audience might find value in this.
    0:41:33 They all promote it to their audience.
    0:41:39 And when people go to go and claim those products, they go register with Teachable or
    0:41:43 they go order the thing through your Thrivecart link or however it is, or they sign up on your
    0:41:44 email.
    0:41:47 And so they have to enter their email to go and claim the product.
    0:41:49 And now they’re a part of your ecosystem.
    0:41:55 So it’s a way to gather subscribers from a ton of different places all at once.
    0:41:58 And it’s been a really effective one over the last few years.
    0:41:59 That’s so interesting.
    0:42:02 Are those like high quality email subscribers too?
    0:42:03 Yeah, I was kind of surprised.
    0:42:09 So the unsubscribe rate, the open rate has been pretty similar to the broader list.
    0:42:14 And I guess I expected it to be a little lower, but people tend to stick around about the same
    0:42:15 rate as everybody else.
    0:42:16 That’s interesting.
    0:42:19 So you get the entire list, even if they don’t like download your thing necessarily?
    0:42:20 No, only if they claim your thing.
    0:42:21 Oh, okay.
    0:42:24 Yeah, so you got to come up with a compelling product.
    0:42:25 Interesting.
    0:42:28 Yeah, I’ve never done one of those, but I’ve seen them all over the place.
    0:42:30 Yeah, it’s a very interesting one.
    0:42:35 And kind of financially, how it works, like if anybody is curious, like somebody buys the
    0:42:42 stack, the individual creators get $0, unless you referred them as an affiliate, then you get
    0:42:45 your 40% affiliate commission or whatever it is.
    0:42:50 But the play is access to this broader audience, and hopefully some people come back and claim
    0:42:52 your product and become a part of your world.
    0:42:57 And a lot of people will throw on order bumps and upsells and stuff, you know, to the back
    0:42:59 end of their cart to try and recoup some of that.
    0:43:02 But it’s more of a marketing play than a money making play.
    0:43:04 Yeah, you’ve been doing that for years now, right?
    0:43:05 Yeah, it’s pretty effective.
    0:43:12 And it’s like, otherwise, I’d be very content to just kind of sit and do my normal thing and
    0:43:14 like be in maintenance mode and record some episodes.
    0:43:16 It’s like, oh, there’s this deadline coming up.
    0:43:19 I got to come up with a product that would hopefully be compelling.
    0:43:22 Like the podcast growth playbook came out of that.
    0:43:24 The little Get Gigs mini course came out of that.
    0:43:31 There was like an easy traffic makeover course that came out of that where it’s like, okay,
    0:43:35 I got to come up with something that would be beneficial, that would be on brand, that would
    0:43:37 be like comfortable with this price tag.
    0:43:39 And here’s a good excuse to launch it.
    0:43:41 I like that one.
    0:43:41 Cool.
    0:43:41 All right.
    0:43:42 What else?
    0:43:48 I think a broader category of things that I like to recommend to people are like collaborations.
    0:43:50 Now, this could look like a cross promotion.
    0:43:53 So like, I will shout Nick out in my newsletter.
    0:43:54 He does the same on his end.
    0:43:56 But that’s like the basic one.
    0:43:58 There’s a guy named Alex Garcia.
    0:44:01 He runs a newsletter called marketingexamined.com.
    0:44:07 And he did a cross promotion with Pat Walls, who has Starter Story, which is a great one.
    0:44:08 If you haven’t talked to Pat, you probably should.
    0:44:10 He’s got a ton of great case studies as well.
    0:44:13 But they did a cross promotion.
    0:44:16 So Pat had this YouTube channel that he was starting to build.
    0:44:20 I think at the time he probably had like 10 or 15,000 followers or subscribers on YouTube.
    0:44:24 And Alex was like, okay, well, I have 30,000 email subscribers.
    0:44:26 Like, let’s just swap things.
    0:44:31 So Pat came out, filmed the video of Alex, like talking about his business and his newsletter.
    0:44:35 And Alex just shouted him out as like a full page cross promotion, essentially.
    0:44:35 Okay, okay.
    0:44:37 Like sharing Pat’s stuff.
    0:44:40 And so it looked similar on like the outside.
    0:44:45 But now Pat’s channel has like, I think he has like over 500,000 subscribers on YouTube.
    0:44:50 And so like that video has gotten shared all over the place.
    0:44:57 About three or four months after, I believe, Alex shared that he had gotten like 5,000 to 10,000 subscribers from that video.
    0:45:04 I don’t know how many Pat got, but that’s a really, that’s a lot of subscribers from one collaboration.
    0:45:07 Yeah, I mean, you see this on YouTube all the time.
    0:45:10 And just even in the whole channels that my kids watch.
    0:45:13 Dude Perfect is collaborating with Mark Rober to build battle robots.
    0:45:17 You know, but it makes sense because it kind of lifts a rising tide, lifts all boats.
    0:45:18 It gets exposure to a different audience.
    0:45:19 Yeah.
    0:45:21 And so you don’t have to have these huge audiences.
    0:45:22 That’s just like an outlier example.
    0:45:25 But you can write a guest post together.
    0:45:29 Like go to the writer of a newsletter and like you guys co-write a piece.
    0:45:31 I’ve seen this happen all over Substack.
    0:45:36 The beauty of Substack is like people can click right through and subscribe very easily.
    0:45:45 Even if you don’t have Substack though, you can do something like this and just like co-write a guest post or actually write a guest post for their audience that they don’t have to write anything for.
    0:45:48 Summits are kind of a version of collaborations.
    0:45:50 Even that bundle is probably something similar.
    0:45:50 Yeah.
    0:45:52 But you can do this on social media as well.
    0:45:56 So it’s not like it has to live in one channel or the other.
    0:45:56 Right.
    0:45:59 And it’s trying to find people of a similar size maybe when you’re starting out.
    0:46:03 This was a similar strategy on podcast shout outs.
    0:46:07 I mean, years ago it was, you know, Instagram takeovers, Instagram shout outs.
    0:46:08 Like it’s nothing new here.
    0:46:15 And could you get included in somebody else’s newsletter as a recommended resource in exchange for shouting them out?
    0:46:19 It’s like similar idea here and it can work really no matter what scale.
    0:46:23 If you’re starting out, it’s like, okay, maybe it’s five to 10 subscribers instead of five to 10,000.
    0:46:25 But the principles are still the same.
    0:46:25 Yeah.
    0:46:26 There’s a woman on Substack.
    0:46:28 Her name is Maya Voye.
    0:46:30 She’s in the product space.
    0:46:32 So she writes about like product marketing, product strategy.
    0:46:37 And she went out to some of the other bigger people with Substacks and started doing this.
    0:46:41 Like she would co-write pieces with them or she would write a piece for them.
    0:46:43 And when I found her, she had like 3,000 subscribers.
    0:46:46 And now at this point, I think she’s pushing like 20K.
    0:46:48 And this was like eight months ago, maybe.
    0:46:55 So like it happens pretty quick if your content’s good and you’re able to collaborate with some of these people.
    0:46:57 And she didn’t have an audience at that point.
    0:46:59 And she was partnering with people.
    0:47:02 One guy, Akash Gupta, had like 140,000 subscribers.
    0:47:07 So like because she was giving him such a valuable piece of content, he was like, yeah, I’ll share it.
    0:47:07 Yeah.
    0:47:13 Step one, make sure your content is good before you ask anybody to vouch for you to share it.
    0:47:15 But there’s like a diverging path, right?
    0:47:19 Like I can focus heads down just doing my thing and hope somebody notices.
    0:47:27 It’s like you got to kind of be vocal and be proactive about promoting this stuff or going after these collaborations and promo swaps.
    0:47:31 Otherwise, like the odds of somebody just finding it on their own are so low.
    0:47:32 Yeah.
    0:47:38 It’s very low, especially if it’s like a new venture or you’ve never been online before doing something like this.
    0:47:48 You had an interesting one to move on to the next one from Cody Sanchez, where she was apparently actually buying up newsletters for contrarian thinking early on.
    0:47:50 It’s like, how can I shortcut this even faster?
    0:47:53 Oh, this guy already has 13,000 subscribers.
    0:47:55 I’ll just go buy the newsletter.
    0:47:56 It was like, you don’t want to run it anymore.
    0:47:58 Like, is this how it happened?
    0:48:00 Yeah, this is actually funny.
    0:48:06 I was doing research and I came across this one podcast episode and I had not heard her talk about this.
    0:48:09 And I think I listened to like 25 other podcast episodes.
    0:48:10 Yes, I go deep.
    0:48:13 And so I listened to this and she said she bought a newsletter.
    0:48:19 And so typically when you buy a newsletter, you might send an email and say like, hey, we just acquired blah, blah, blah newsletter.
    0:48:21 You’re now going to be on this list.
    0:48:24 And you just like import all those people, delete the old list and move on.
    0:48:33 But what Cody did was she actually positioned contrarian thinking as a guest post author or a sponsor for weeks, if not months.
    0:48:35 She didn’t go too far into detail.
    0:48:39 And I don’t know which newsletter she bought because she has never talked about this again.
    0:48:39 Okay.
    0:48:46 But she did do this from her words and she would build this audience on the same time.
    0:48:51 So she would just send out these emails, keep writing the content like nothing ever happened.
    0:48:56 And then she would turn around when she figured out like, oh, I probably got all the subscribers I’m going to get from this.
    0:48:59 She would turn around and sell that back to someone else.
    0:49:02 So she nowhere in this actually lost money.
    0:49:06 She probably made money because she was still growing the newsletter at this point.
    0:49:09 And so talk about like leverage.
    0:49:10 Yeah, very savvy.
    0:49:15 Yeah, I’m going to buy this asset, milk it as much as I can, but still continue its founding mission.
    0:49:18 And then, you know, flip it to the next person.
    0:49:20 Yeah, she’s like so on brand for her.
    0:49:32 One thing that she mentioned in our earlier interview was a lot of manual outreach for the first thousand to ten thousand people where it was, would you mind shouting this out?
    0:49:43 You know, to reaching out to friends who already had email lists, doing a ton of guest podcasting, podcast guesting rather, where it was sharing this idea about buying businesses versus building businesses.
    0:49:53 Like, okay, that’s a unique angle and building the newsletter that way by borrowing other people’s audiences, either through email promo swaps or email shout outs or through podcast guesting.
    0:49:55 Yeah, she’s a hustler for sure.
    0:50:03 I created a visual actually showing all of the podcasts she was on and like her growth of her newsletter.
    0:50:04 And it was like so in line.
    0:50:05 It’s just amazing.
    0:50:08 I’ll share that with you with you if you want to put in the show notes.
    0:50:08 Okay.
    0:50:09 Yeah, it was pretty insane.
    0:50:10 All right.
    0:50:15 Well, I could say I knew her before she was super, super famous, only medium famous early on.
    0:50:18 Yeah, I remember listening to your episode with her for that research.
    0:50:18 Yes.
    0:50:20 You know, millions of followers ago.
    0:50:20 Yeah.
    0:50:22 What are we doing wrong, Nick?
    0:50:23 Yeah, who knows?
    0:50:23 Who knows?
    0:50:25 This was depressing.
    0:50:31 Like, I remember specifically showing up at FinCon 2021 in Austin.
    0:50:33 And in my mind, this was like the year of TikTok.
    0:50:36 So many young creators were there.
    0:50:38 Oh, I started six months ago.
    0:50:39 I’ve got a quarter million followers.
    0:50:42 And it was just like, huh, this is a different path.
    0:50:43 Like, this is unique.
    0:50:44 This is interesting.
    0:50:50 And one of the episodes that we recorded around that time or maybe a little bit before was with
    0:50:51 Tori Dunlap.
    0:50:57 And it was one video, she said, one video went super viral.
    0:51:01 And her funnel was like, take your money personality quiz.
    0:51:02 I don’t know if it’s changed since then.
    0:51:07 And one video was like, we had 100,000 subscribers in a week.
    0:51:12 So maybe you can’t control going viral, but you can control what Tori did, was having the
    0:51:18 ecosystem and like the lead capture funnel and process in place for when that viral moment
    0:51:18 happens.
    0:51:21 And so that was kind of what impressed me from our call.
    0:51:21 Yeah.
    0:51:23 I think she still has that quiz.
    0:51:24 It’s actually, she does.
    0:51:25 I just went to it.
    0:51:30 1.16 million people have taken that quiz and all of them enter their email address.
    0:51:31 So that’s wild.
    0:51:31 Yeah.
    0:51:34 So if you’re going to play the short form game, make sure you got something to lead
    0:51:35 people back to.
    0:51:37 That’s my, that’s my, that’s my takeaway.
    0:51:40 Tori’s got an incredible business too.
    0:51:42 Well, this has been awesome.
    0:51:45 I don’t know how many we can count these up, but probably 10 or 12 different ideas here.
    0:51:47 Anything else before we wrap?
    0:51:48 No, I think that’s, that’s it.
    0:51:50 I mean, I have a million of them on my site.
    0:51:54 So if you want more, if anybody really wants more than that, you can go find it.
    0:51:55 Absolutely.
    0:51:57 Well, yeah, there’s growthinreverse.com.
    0:51:59 There’s the Growth In Reverse podcast.
    0:52:01 What’s next for you?
    0:52:02 Where are you taking this thing?
    0:52:07 Going to put out a course slash vault of these ideas here soon with some videos and step-by-step
    0:52:11 of how to do each one, because people are telling me there’s too many question marks.
    0:52:12 So I’m like, okay, fine, I’ll help.
    0:52:13 Yeah.
    0:52:16 It’s almost like a choose your own adventure kind of thing, or you need, you need the quiz
    0:52:18 funnel to be like, well, which one works for me?
    0:52:18 Totally.
    0:52:19 I should put a quiz on there.
    0:52:20 That’s a good idea.
    0:52:25 So I think that’s the next thing, but I’m still just trying to wrap my head around 30
    0:52:26 days of growth.
    0:52:28 Well, stay tuned for the Growth In Reverse course.
    0:52:30 We’ll be happy to link that up when it is live.
    0:52:32 Growthinreverse.com.
    0:52:34 In the meantime, Chanel, this has been great.
    0:52:35 Thank you so much for stopping by.
    0:52:39 Let’s wrap this thing up with your number one tip for Side Hustle Nation.
    0:52:40 Just try stuff.
    0:52:41 Experiment.
    0:52:42 Start somewhere.
    0:52:46 We have all had those failed posts, like Nick was talking about with Dickie Bush.
    0:52:50 Some things will get zero views, but some things might get 10 views, and those 10 people might
    0:52:52 end up becoming raving fans of your newsletter.
    0:52:55 So don’t look at the small numbers and think you’re failing.
    0:52:56 Just keep going.
    0:52:57 Yeah.
    0:53:02 So we’ll always remember this talk from Cliff Ravenscraft at Podcast Movement, I want to
    0:53:03 say 2016.
    0:53:06 And a question from the audience comes in, well, I’ve been doing this for,
    0:53:09 five months, and I only have 200 subscribers.
    0:53:11 And he’s like, time out.
    0:53:14 I want you to remove the word only from your vocabulary.
    0:53:15 Look around this room.
    0:53:21 There’s not 200 people in this room, but you’re still thinking like you have some unique advantages
    0:53:21 here.
    0:53:22 You know them by name.
    0:53:26 You can know their exact pains and problems, something that a Tim Ferriss can’t do.
    0:53:27 You’ve got a unique advantage here.
    0:53:28 Don’t say only, right?
    0:53:32 You’ve got 200 people paying attention to you, investing their time and energy, putting you
    0:53:33 in their earbuds.
    0:53:36 You’re doing something right if you’ve got 200 people to pay attention to.
    0:53:40 So yeah, don’t sweat the small numbers and experiment with some different of these growth
    0:53:41 tactics along the way.
    0:53:45 Now, I wouldn’t be doing my job as a host in an episode about list building if I didn’t
    0:53:49 have a listener bonus, a content upgrade for you.
    0:53:54 So I built a list building cheat sheet with a couple dozen different ways to grow your email
    0:53:54 list.
    0:53:58 So you can pick and choose the tactics that appeal most to you along with some tools and
    0:54:00 additional resources to help you do it.
    0:54:03 You can grab that for free in the show notes for this episode.
    0:54:05 Just follow the link in the episode description.
    0:54:06 I’ll get you right over there.
    0:54:08 Big thanks to Chanel for sharing her insight.
    0:54:12 Thanks to our sponsors for helping make this content free for everyone.
    0:54:17 The latest offers and deals from those sponsors are at SideHustleNation.com slash deals.
    0:54:20 Thank you for supporting the advertisers that support the show.
    0:54:21 That is it for me.
    0:54:23 Thank you so much for tuning in.
    0:54:26 If you’re finding value in the show, the greatest compliment is to share with a friend.
    0:54:30 So fire off that text message for somebody who needs a little kickstart in their list building
    0:54:30 efforts.
    0:54:33 Until next time, let’s go out there and make something happen.
    0:54:36 And I’ll catch you in the next edition of the Side Hustle Show.

    It’s time for some list building tactics that actually work! With all the upheaval in the search results and the fickle nature of social media, you know you need to build your email list, but how do you actually do it?

    Today we’re sharing 15 simple tactics that really work. Our guest has been studying the biggest newsletters and creators to see what’s working now.

    Chenell Basilio from Growth in Reverse and Growth in Reverse Podcast joins us to share strategies that get real results.

    Listen to Episode 681 of the Side Hustle Show to learn:

    • 15 specific list building tactics with real subscriber numbers
    • How to turn one subscriber into two with minimal effort
    • Creative ways to collaborate and cross-promote
    • Tools and automations that make growth hands-off

    Full Show Notes: 15 List Building Tactics that Actually Work

    New to the Show? Get your personalized money-making playlist ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠!

    Sponsors:

    ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mint Mobile⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month!

    ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Indeed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – Start hiring NOW with a $75 sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post!

    ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OpenPhone⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 20% off of your first 6 months!

    ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Shopify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Sign up for a $1 per month trial!

  • Essentials: Science of Stress, Testosterone, Aggression & Motivation | Dr. Robert Sapolsky

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:02 Welcome to the Huberman Lab Podcast,
    0:00:04 where we discuss science and science-based tools
    0:00:05 for everyday life.
    0:00:11 I’m Andrew Huberman, and I’m a professor of neurobiology
    0:00:14 and ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine.
    0:00:16 Today, I have the pleasure of introducing
    0:00:17 Dr. Robert Sapolsky.
    0:00:21 Thank you so much, Robert, for joining us today.
    0:00:22 Well, it’s glad to be here.
    0:00:25 I want to return to a topic that is near and dear
    0:00:27 to your heart, which is stress.
    0:00:31 What is the difference between short and long-term stress
    0:00:34 in terms of their benefits and their drawback?
    0:00:37 How should we conceptualize stress?
    0:00:41 Basically, sort of two graphs that one we draw.
    0:00:45 The first one is just all sorts of beneficial effects
    0:00:47 of stress, short-term.
    0:00:50 And then once we get into chronicity,
    0:00:52 it’s just downhill from there.
    0:00:56 The sorts of chronic stressors that most people deal with
    0:01:00 are just undeniably in the chronic range,
    0:01:03 like having spent the last 20 years daily traffic jams
    0:01:07 or abusive boss or some such thing.
    0:01:11 The other curve that’s sort of perpendicular to this
    0:01:16 is dealing with the fact that sometimes stress is a great thing.
    0:01:21 Like, our goal is not to cure people of stress
    0:01:23 because if it’s the right kind, we love it.
    0:01:30 We pay good money to be stressed that way by a scary movie or rollercoaster ride.
    0:01:34 What you wind up seeing is when it’s the right amount of stress,
    0:01:36 it’s what we call stimulation.
    0:01:41 One thing that’s really striking to me is how physiologically,
    0:01:48 the stress response looks so much like the excitement response to a positive event.
    0:01:53 But is there anything else that we know about the biology that reveals to us,
    0:01:57 you know, what really creates this thing we call valence,
    0:02:03 that an experience can be terrible or feel awful or it can feel wonderful,
    0:02:07 depending on this somewhat subjective feature we call valence?
    0:02:16 On a really mechanical level, if you’re in a circumstance that is requiring that your heart races
    0:02:21 and your breathing is fast and you’re using your muscles and some such thing,
    0:02:27 you’re going to be having roughly the same brain activation profile,
    0:02:30 whether this is for something wonderful or something terrible,
    0:02:35 with the one exception being that if the amygdala is part of the activation,
    0:02:39 this is something that’s going to be counting as adverse.
    0:02:44 The amygdala in some ways is kind of the checkpoint as to whether we’re talking about
    0:02:46 excitement or terror.
    0:02:52 Let’s use the amygdala as a transition point to another topic that you’ve spent
    0:02:59 many years working on and thinking about, which is testosterone and other sex steroid hormones.
    0:03:03 How should we think about the role of testosterone in the amygdala,
    0:03:08 given that the engagement of the amygdala is fundamental in this transition point
    0:03:15 between an exhilarating positive response and a negative stressful response?
    0:03:19 Or maybe just broadly, how should we think about testosterone and its effects on the brain?
    0:03:26 Basically, almost everybody out there has a completely wrong idea as to what testosterone does,
    0:03:32 which is testosterone makes you aggressive because males, virtually every species out there,
    0:03:34 have more testosterone and are more aggressive.
    0:03:38 And the reality is testosterone does no such thing.
    0:03:39 It doesn’t cause aggression.
    0:03:43 And you can see this both behaviorally and in the amygdala.
    0:03:48 It lowers the threshold for the sort of things that would normally provoke you into being
    0:03:51 aggressive so that it happens more easily.
    0:04:00 It makes systems that are already turned on, turn on louder rather than turning on aggressive
    0:04:01 music or some such thing.
    0:04:03 It’s not creating aggression.
    0:04:07 It’s just upping the volume of whatever aggression is already there.
    0:04:13 And in terms of status and the relationship between individuals, either non-human primates
    0:04:20 or humans, can we say that relative levels of testosterone between individuals is correlated
    0:04:22 to status within the hierarchy?
    0:04:23 Yes.
    0:04:28 Like you go back, I don’t know, whatever number of decades to endocrinology texts, and there
    0:04:35 were two totally reliable findings in there, which is higher levels of testosterone predict
    0:04:38 higher levels of aggression in punids and other animals.
    0:04:43 Higher levels of testosterone predict higher levels of sexual activity.
    0:04:45 And the correlation is there.
    0:04:49 And when you look closely, we’ve got cause and effect stuff.
    0:04:52 Sexual behavior raises testosterone levels.
    0:04:55 Aggression raises testosterone levels.
    0:04:59 Your levels beforehand are barely predictive of what’s going to happen.
    0:05:02 So it’s a response rather than a cause.
    0:05:04 Just a great footnote.
    0:05:11 If you have the right type of willing to die in the trenches, devotion sort of thing, watching
    0:05:18 your favorite team play a sport will raise your testosterone levels as you sit there with the potato
    0:05:19 chips in your armchair.
    0:05:22 So it’s not the physicality of aggression.
    0:05:27 It’s the psychological framing of it.
    0:05:30 So yeah, testosterone is not causing that.
    0:05:38 And a great way to appreciate that is you do a subtraction study, you remove the testes,
    0:05:42 and as I said before, levels of sexual behavior goes down.
    0:05:43 Good.
    0:05:46 We’ve just shown that testosterone is somehow causative.
    0:05:51 Critically, they go down, but not down to zero.
    0:05:59 Whether you are a rat or a monkey or a human, whatever, and what predicts how much residual sexual
    0:06:06 behavior is there, how much sexual behavior there was before castration, what that’s telling
    0:06:13 you is by then, that’s behavior that’s being carried by social learning and context rather
    0:06:14 than by the hormone.
    0:06:17 The exact same thing with aggression.
    0:06:20 Drops after castration doesn’t go to zero.
    0:06:25 The more prior history of it, the more it just keeps coasting along on its own, even without
    0:06:26 testosterone.
    0:06:30 I’d like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, Function.
    0:06:35 Last year, I became a Function member after searching for the most comprehensive approach
    0:06:36 to lab testing.
    0:06:41 Function provides over 100 advanced lab tests that give you a key snapshot of your entire
    0:06:42 bodily health.
    0:06:47 This snapshot offers you with insights on your heart health, hormone health, immune functioning,
    0:06:48 nutrient levels, and much more.
    0:06:53 Function not only provides testing of over 100 biomarkers key to your physical and mental
    0:06:58 health, but it also analyzes these results and provides insights from top doctors who are
    0:06:59 expert in the relevant areas.
    0:07:04 For example, in one of my first tests with Function, I learned that I had elevated levels
    0:07:05 of mercury in my blood.
    0:07:10 Function not only helped me detect that, but offered insights into how best to reduce my
    0:07:12 mercury levels, which included limiting my tuna consumption.
    0:07:17 I’ve been eating a lot of tuna, while also making an effort to eat more leafy greens and supplementing
    0:07:22 with NAC and acetylcysteine, both of which can support glutathione production and detoxification.
    0:07:26 And I should say, by taking a second Function test, that approach worked.
    0:07:28 Comprehensive blood testing is vitally important.
    0:07:33 There’s so many things related to your mental and physical health that can only be detected in
    0:07:33 a blood test.
    0:07:37 The problem is blood testing has always been very expensive and complicated.
    0:07:42 In contrast, I’ve been super impressed by Function’s simplicity and at the level of cost.
    0:07:43 It is very affordable.
    0:07:48 As a consequence, I decided to join their scientific advisory board, and I’m thrilled that they’re
    0:07:49 sponsoring the podcast.
    0:07:53 If you’d like to try Function, you can go to functionhealth.com slash Huberman.
    0:07:59 Function currently has a wait list of over 250,000 people, but they’re offering early access
    0:08:00 to Huberman podcast listeners.
    0:08:06 Again, that’s functionhealth.com slash Huberman to get early access to Function.
    0:08:09 Today’s episode is also brought to us by Element.
    0:08:13 Element is an electrolyte drink that has everything you need, but nothing you don’t.
    0:08:18 That means the electrolytes, sodium, magnesium, and potassium, all in the correct ratios, but
    0:08:18 no sugar.
    0:08:21 Proper hydration is critical for optimal brain and body function.
    0:08:26 Even a slight degree of dehydration can diminish cognitive and physical performance.
    0:08:28 It’s also important that you get adequate electrolytes.
    0:08:33 The electrolytes, sodium, magnesium, and potassium are vital for the functioning of all the cells
    0:08:36 in your body, especially your neurons or your nerve cells.
    0:08:40 Drinking Element dissolved in water makes it extremely easy to ensure that you’re getting
    0:08:42 adequate hydration and adequate electrolytes.
    0:08:47 To make sure that I’m getting proper amounts of hydration and electrolytes, I dissolve one
    0:08:51 packet of Element in about 16 to 32 ounces of water when I wake up in the morning, and
    0:08:53 I drink that basically first thing in the morning.
    0:08:57 I also drink Element dissolved in water during any kind of physical exercise that I’m doing.
    0:09:00 They have a bunch of different great tasting flavors of Element.
    0:09:02 They have watermelon, citrus, et cetera.
    0:09:03 Frankly, I love them all.
    0:09:09 If you’d like to try Element, you can go to drinkelement.com slash Huberman Lab to claim
    0:09:12 a free Element sample pack with the purchase of any Element drink mix.
    0:09:17 Again, that’s drinkelement.com slash Huberman Lab to claim a free sample pack.
    0:09:22 As I’ve heard you talk about testosterone today and over the years, I start to get the impression
    0:09:30 that as the most misunderstood molecule in human health in the universe, it’s clearly doing
    0:09:31 something very powerful.
    0:09:36 It’s shifting the way that certain neural circuits work, adjusting the gain on the amygdala, as
    0:09:44 you described, and is there any truism about testosterone and its relationship to effort or its relationship
    0:09:52 to resilience and in a way that maybe will help me and other people sort of think about how
    0:09:54 to think about testosterone?
    0:09:59 Maybe three separate answers to that.
    0:10:08 The first one is, I think it’s a fair summary to think that when it comes to motivated, strong behaviors,
    0:10:13 what testosterone does is make you more of whatever you already are in that domain.
    0:10:22 Sexual arousal, libido, aggressiveness, spontaneous aggression, reactive aggression, things of that sort.
    0:10:25 It’s upping the volume of things that are already strongly there.
    0:10:36 Second way to think about it is, well, here’s like my favorite finding about testosterone.
    0:10:42 And this was some wonderful work by a guy, John Wingfield, who’s one of the best behavioral
    0:10:44 endocrinologists out there.
    0:10:52 And about 20 years ago, he formulated what was called the challenge hypothesis of testosterone
    0:10:52 action.
    0:10:55 What does testosterone do?
    0:11:01 Testosterone is what you secrete when your status is being challenged, and it makes it
    0:11:05 more likely that you’ll do the behaviors needed to hold on to your status.
    0:11:09 Okay, so that’s totally boringly straightforward if you’re a bagun.
    0:11:15 If somebody is challenging your high rank, the appropriate response on your part is going to be aggression.
    0:11:20 All right, so we’ve just gotten through the backdoor testosterone and aggression again.
    0:11:27 But then you get to humans, and humans have lots of different ways of achieving or maintaining status.
    0:11:48 Yeah, and all you need to do is go to some fancy private school’s annual auction, and you will see all these half-drunk alpha males competing to see who can give the most money away as a show of conspicuous-like property that they have.
    0:11:57 And in a setting like that, I haven’t been able to take urine samples at those times, unfortunately, but that shows the flip side of it.
    0:12:04 If you have a species that hands up status in a very different sort of way, testosterone is going to boost that also.
    0:12:07 Okay, so that genre is a totally nutty prediction.
    0:12:08 Wow.
    0:12:19 Take people in a circumstance, say playing an economic game, where you get status by being trustworthy and being generous in your interactions with the game.
    0:12:23 If you give people testosterone, does that make them more generous?
    0:12:25 And that’s absolutely the case.
    0:12:27 Totally cool finding.
    0:12:35 And if we have a societal problem with too much aggression, the first culprit to look at is not testosterone.
    0:12:43 The first to look at is that we hand out so much damn elevated status for aggression in so many circumstances.
    0:12:46 Third thing about subtlety of testosterone.
    0:12:49 Okay, so like some subtler behavioral effects.
    0:12:53 You give testosterone to people, and they become more confident.
    0:12:55 They become more self-confident.
    0:12:57 Well, that’s good.
    0:13:01 People pay to take all sorts of nonsensical self-help courses.
    0:13:03 That will boost your self-esteem.
    0:13:05 And that’s a good thing.
    0:13:11 Unless testosterone makes you more confident, that is inaccurate.
    0:13:15 And you’re more likely to barrel into wrong decisions.
    0:13:22 What’s shown in economic gameplay is that testosterone, by making you more confident, makes you less cooperative.
    0:13:24 Because who needs to cooperate?
    0:13:26 Because I’m on top of this all on my own.
    0:13:31 Testosterone makes people cocky and impulsive.
    0:13:34 And that may be great in one setting.
    0:13:39 But if in the others, you’re absolutely sure your army has been over on the other country in three days.
    0:13:42 So hell, let’s start World War I.
    0:13:43 And you get a big surprise out of it.
    0:13:51 Testosterone altering risk assessment beforehand probably played a big role in that kind of miscalculation.
    0:13:53 Super interesting.
    0:14:05 I always think about testosterone and dopamine being close cousins in the brain because of dopamine’s salient role in creating this bias towards exteroception.
    0:14:18 You know, when somebody takes a drug that increases dopamine or their chock-a-block full of dopamine, they tend, I want to highlight tend because I’m really generalizing here, but they tend to focus on outward goals.
    0:14:20 You know, things beyond the boundaries of their skin.
    0:14:24 And testosterone seems to do a bit of the same.
    0:14:36 It tends to put us into a similar mode of perceiving the outside world in ways that we’re asking questions like, how do I relate to this other of my species?
    0:14:37 How do I relate to these goals?
    0:14:45 Is there anything that we can do to better conceptualize the relationship between testosterone and dopamine and motivation?
    0:14:51 Well, I think it’s got lots to do with sort of this massive revisionism about dopamine.
    0:14:58 Everyone, since the pharaohs, got brought up being taught that dopamine is about pleasure and reward.
    0:15:00 Turns out it isn’t.
    0:15:02 It’s about anticipation of reward.
    0:15:09 And it’s about generating the motivation, the goal-directed behavior needed to go get that reward.
    0:15:19 And before you know it, you’re using, like, elevated dopamine your entire life to motivate you to do whatever is going to get you, like, entry into heaven after life.
    0:15:22 Kind of, you know, it’s doing that sort of thing.
    0:15:25 So it’s really about the motivation.
    0:15:38 And what testosterone does, even in individuals who are not aggressive and why testosterone replacement is often a very healthy thing for aging males, is it increases energy.
    0:15:44 It increases a sense of there-ness, of presence, of alertness.
    0:15:45 It increases motivation.
    0:15:51 Testosterone, within minutes, increases glucose uptake into skeletal muscle.
    0:15:55 You’re just more awake and alert and all of that.
    0:15:57 And that has a lot to do with what dopamine does.
    0:16:08 And as one might predict then, getting just the right levels of testosterone infused into your bloodstream feels great to lab rats.
    0:16:14 They will lever-press to get infused into the range that optimizes dopamine release.
    0:16:16 So you’re absolutely right.
    0:16:18 They’re deeply intertwined.
    0:16:21 I want to ask about estrogen.
    0:16:25 You know, we don’t hear about estrogen as often.
    0:16:32 And yet, estrogen has some very powerful effects on both the animal brain and on the human brain of males and females.
    0:16:40 Are there any general themes of estrogen that people should be aware of or that you think that are generally misunderstood?
    0:16:44 Is it really all about feelings and empathy and making us more sensitive?
    0:16:47 I sense not.
    0:16:47 No.
    0:16:54 If you’ve got a choice in the matter between having a lot of estrogen in your bloodstream or not, go for having a lot of estrogen.
    0:16:57 It enhances cognition.
    0:17:00 It stimulates neurogenesis in the hippocampus.
    0:17:04 It increases glucose and oxygen delivery.
    0:17:06 It protects you from dementia.
    0:17:20 It decreases inflammatory oxidative damage to blood vessels, which is why it’s good for protecting from cardiovascular disease in contrast to testosterone, which is making every one of those things worse.
    0:17:26 Estrogen is one of the greatest predictors of protection from Alzheimer’s disease, all of that.
    0:17:28 But it needs to be physiological.
    0:17:30 Just keep going.
    0:17:44 Keep continuing what your body has been doing for a long time versus let the whole thing shut down and suddenly try to fire up the coal stoves at the bottom of the basement kind of thing and get that going.
    0:17:46 There you get utterly different outcomes.
    0:17:47 Fascinating.
    0:17:55 I guess it raises the question about testosterone replacement, too, whether or not people should talk to their doctor before too long.
    0:18:06 Men and women, talk to your physicians before too long to avoid whatever is happening in these periods where there isn’t sufficient testosterone and or estrogen.
    0:18:11 Sounds like it could cause longer-term problems even when therapies are introduced.
    0:18:14 I’d like to briefly return to stress.
    0:18:31 You described a study once about two rats, one running on a wheel voluntarily, one who’s basically stuck in a running wheel and is forced to run any time rat number one runs.
    0:18:34 So in one case, the rat is voluntarily exercising.
    0:18:43 And in the other case, the rat is being forced to go to PE class, so to speak, and seeing divergent effects on biology.
    0:19:01 What do you think about stress mitigation and what should we do as individuals and as families and as a culture to try and encourage people to mitigate their stress, but in ways that are not going to turn us into rat number two, where we’re being forced to mitigate our own stress and therefore becomes more stressful?
    0:19:07 And what you see is rat number one gets all the benefits of exercise.
    0:19:16 Rat number two gets all the downsides of severe stress with the same exact muscle expenditure and movements going on.
    0:19:18 Perfectly yoked.
    0:19:22 Great example that it’s the interpretation of your head.
    0:19:38 Anything I should say here, I should preface with I’m reasonably good at telling people what’s going to happen if they don’t manage their stress, but I’m terrible at actually managing stress or advising how to manage it.
    0:19:41 I’m much better with the bad news aspect of it.
    0:19:47 But some people have massive stress responses, others not at all in between, enjoy it.
    0:19:51 Like, what are the building blocks of what makes psychological stress stressful?
    0:19:57 And the first one is exactly what is brought up by that running study.
    0:19:59 Do you have a sense of control?
    0:20:03 A sense of control makes stressors less stressful.
    0:20:07 Related to that is a sense of predictability.
    0:20:10 And that’s enormously protective.
    0:20:14 Others, outlet for frustration.
    0:20:19 You take a rat who’s getting shocked and it can gnaw on a bar of wood.
    0:20:21 The stressor is less stressful.
    0:20:35 Unfortunately, if you have a rat or primate or human and they’re stressed, the ability to aggressively dump on somebody smaller and weaker also reduces the stress response.
    0:20:45 And displacement aggression, and the fact that displacement aggression reduces stress, accounts for a huge percentage of earths-like unhappiness.
    0:20:48 So all of those variables get social support as well.
    0:20:49 That’s a good one.
    0:20:52 Interpreting circumstances as being good news rather than bad.
    0:20:53 Hooray.
    0:21:05 So you’ve got this very simple sort of like take-home recipe of go out and get as much control and as much predictability and as many outlets and as much social support as possible.
    0:21:06 And you’re going to do just fine.
    0:21:08 And you go out and do that.
    0:21:13 And that’s a recipe for total disaster because it’s much, much more subtle than that.
    0:21:28 And that’s why stress management techniques about control and predictability wind up being far worse than neutral if you’re preaching that to somebody homeless or somebody with terminal cancer or somebody who’s a refugee.
    0:21:36 Tell a neurotic middle-class person that they have the psychological tools to turn, you know, hell into heaven.
    0:21:38 And there’s some truth to that.
    0:21:42 Do the same thing to somebody who’s going through a real hell.
    0:21:50 And that’s just privileged, you know, heartlessness to do that because that doesn’t work.
    0:21:52 It’s not simple.
    0:21:57 It takes a lot of work to, like, do it right because, you know, you do it wrong.
    0:22:01 And it may temporarily seem like a great thing.
    0:22:07 But when it turns out to be a completely misplaced face, you’re going to be feeling worse than before you started.
    0:22:12 I’d like to take a quick break and acknowledge our sponsor, AG1.
    0:22:17 AG1 is a vitamin-mineral probiotic drink that also includes prebiotics and adaptogens.
    0:22:23 As somebody who’s been involved in research science for almost three decades and in health and fitness for equally as long,
    0:22:28 I’m constantly looking for the best tools to improve my mental health, physical health, and performance.
    0:22:35 I discovered AG1 back in 2012, long before I ever had a podcast, and I’ve been taking it every day since.
    0:22:40 I find it improves all aspects of my health, my energy, my focus, and I simply feel much better when I take it.
    0:22:48 AG1 uses the highest quality ingredients in the right combinations, and they’re constantly improving their formulas without increasing the cost.
    0:22:51 In fact, AG1 just launched their latest formula upgrade.
    0:22:57 This next-gen formula is based on exciting new research on the effects of probiotics on the gut microbiome.
    0:23:06 And it now includes several clinically studied probiotic strains shown to support both digestive health and immune system health, as well as to improve bowel regularity and to reduce bloating.
    0:23:12 Whenever I’m asked if I could take just one supplement, what that supplement would be, I always say AG1.
    0:23:17 If you’d like to try AG1, you can go to drinkag1.com slash Huberman.
    0:23:24 For a limited time, AG1 is giving away a free one-month supply of omega-3 fish oil along with a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2.
    0:23:32 As I’ve highlighted before on this podcast, omega-3 fish oil and vitamin D3 K2 have been shown to help with everything from mood and brain health,
    0:23:35 to heart health, to healthy hormone status, and much more.
    0:23:45 Again, that’s drinkag1.com slash Huberman to get a free one-month supply of omega-3 fish oil plus a bottle of vitamin D3 plus K2 with your subscription.
    0:23:48 Today’s episode is also brought to us by David.
    0:23:50 David makes a protein bar unlike any other.
    0:23:55 It has 28 grams of protein, only 150 calories, and zero grams of sugar.
    0:24:00 That’s right, 28 grams of protein and 75% of its calories come from protein.
    0:24:03 This is 50% higher than the next closest protein bar.
    0:24:05 David’s protein bars also taste amazing.
    0:24:07 Even the texture is amazing.
    0:24:14 My favorite bar is the chocolate chip cookie dough, but then again, I also like the new chocolate peanut butter flavor and the chocolate brownie flavor.
    0:24:16 Basically, I like all the flavors a lot.
    0:24:17 They’re all incredibly delicious.
    0:24:22 In fact, the toughest challenge is knowing which ones to eat on which days and how many times per day.
    0:24:25 I limit myself to two per day, but I absolutely love them.
    0:24:37 With David, I’m able to get 28 grams of protein in the calories of a snack, which makes it easy to hit my protein goals of one gram of protein per pound of body weight per day, and it allows me to do so without ingesting too many calories.
    0:24:43 I’ll eat a David protein bar most afternoons as a snack, and I always keep one with me when I’m out of the house or traveling.
    0:24:50 They’re incredibly delicious, and given that they have 28 grams of protein, they’re really satisfying for having just 150 calories.
    0:24:55 If you’d like to try David, you can go to davidprotein.com slash Huberman.
    0:25:16 These days, there’s a lot of interest in using physical practices to mitigate stress, you know, trying to get out of the ruminating and to some extent take control of neural circuits in the brain by using exercise and using breathing and hypnosis.
    0:25:26 What are your thoughts on more, for lack of a better way to put it, more head-centered, cognitive approaches to stress mitigation versus kind of going at the core physiology?
    0:25:34 Cold showers now are even a thing to some extent, you know, just to get people stress acclimated, voluntarily taking cold showers, you know?
    0:25:46 Oh, transcendental meditation, mindfulness, exercise, prayer, sort of reflecting on gratitude, all that sort of thing.
    0:25:49 Collectively, they work on the average.
    0:25:57 They work in terms of they can lower heart rate and cholesterol levels and have all sorts of good outcomes, but they can’t provide those.
    0:26:07 One is exactly the caveat that comes out of the Grunning Neal study is it doesn’t matter how many of your friends swear by the stress management technique.
    0:26:13 If doing it makes you want to scream your head off after 10 seconds, that’s not the one that’s going to work for you.
    0:26:18 So, you know, redefine printing the testimonials, but it’s got to be something that works for you.
    0:26:27 Another one is the stress management type techniques that work, you can’t save them for the weekend.
    0:26:32 You can’t save them for when you’re stuck on hold on the phone with Muzak for two minutes.
    0:26:42 It’s got to be something where you stop what you’re doing and do it virtually daily or every other day and spend 20, 30 minutes doing it.
    0:26:59 Whatever stress management technique you then do in those 20 minutes short of who knows what, you’re already 80% of the way there simply by having decided your well-being is important enough that you’re going to stop every single day and have that as priority.
    0:27:02 So there’s no magic breathing tool or exercise.
    0:27:06 It’s any variety of those or one of those.
    0:27:17 And again, we come back to this idea that it’s the one that you select and the one that you make space for and it’s the one that you hopefully enjoy that’s going to work best in terms of physiology.
    0:27:37 That brings me to this question of, I find it amazing that how we perceive an event and whether or not we chose to be in that event or not can have such incredibly different effects on circuitry of the brain and circuitry of the body and biology of cells.
    0:27:52 And in some ways, it boggles my mind, like how can a decision made presumably with the prefrontal cortex, although other parts of the brain as well, how can that change essentially the polarity of a response in the body?
    0:28:07 And I mean, you’ve talked before about type A personalities and we don’t have to go into all the detail there for sake of time, but it is interesting that the effects of endothelial cells, I mean, literally of the size of the portals for blood.
    0:28:15 And are in opposite direction, depending on whether or not somebody wants to be in a situation as a highly motivated person.
    0:28:17 Maybe you could just give us the top contour of that.
    0:28:31 And then maybe if you would, you could just speculate on how the brain might have this switch to turn one experience from terrible to beneficial or from beneficial to terrible.
    0:28:32 It’s really fascinating.
    0:28:44 You can think autonomic regulatory neurons into action in ways that only other animals can do with like extremes of environmental circumstances.
    0:28:57 When you talk about the optimal amount of stress that counts as stimulation, and in general, that stress that’s not too severe and doesn’t go on for too long and is overall in a benevolent setting.
    0:29:07 And under those conditions, we love being stressed by something unexpected and out of control and predictability, like a really interesting plot turn in the movie you’re watching.
    0:29:24 That’s great, but you get the individual differences that somehow has to accommodate the fact that for some people, the perfect stimulatory amount of stress is like getting up early for an Audubon birdwatching walk next Sunday morning.
    0:29:37 And for somebody else, it’s signing up to be like a mercenary in Yemen and tremendous individual differences that swamp any simple prescriptions.
    0:29:45 Yeah, the prefrontal cortex, this thinking machinery that we all harbor, it’s such a double-edged sword.
    0:29:54 And what’s remarkable to me is how the areas of the brain, like the hypothalamus and the amygdala, they’re sort of like switches.
    0:30:01 I mean, if you stimulate ventromedial hypothalamus, you get the right neurons, an animal will try and kill even an object that’s sitting next to it.
    0:30:04 You tickle some other neurons, it’ll try and mate with that same object.
    0:30:05 I mean, it’s really wild.
    0:30:30 I think there are probably rules to prefrontal cortex also, but it sounds like the context, plural, from which prefrontal cortex can draw from is probably infinite, so that we could probably learn to perceive threat in anything, whether or not it’s another group or whether or not it’s science or whether or not it’s somebody’s version of the shape of the earth versus another.
    0:30:39 I mean, it’s like you can plug in anything to this system and give it enough data, and I think it sounds like you could drive a fear response or a love response.
    0:30:40 Is that overstepping?
    0:30:42 No, that’s absolutely the case.
    0:30:50 To what extent can we toggle this relationship between the prefrontal cortex and these other more primitive systems?
    0:30:53 Oh, and an enormous amount.
    0:31:04 You know, for example, being low in a hierarchy is generally bad for health and like every mammal out there, including us.
    0:31:09 But we do something special, which is we can be part of multiple hierarchies at the same time.
    0:31:14 And while you may be low ranking in one of them, you could be extremely high ranking in another.
    0:31:24 You’re like, have the crappiest job in your corporation, but you’re the captain of the team softball, of the softball team this year for the company.
    0:31:32 And you better bet that’s somebody who’s going to find all sorts of ways to decide that nine to five, Monday to Friday is just stupid paying the bills.
    0:31:36 And what really matters is, you know, the prestige of the weekend.
    0:31:39 And so we can play all sorts of psychological games with that.
    0:31:52 One of the most like consistent, reliable ones that we do and need to use the frontal cortex like crazy is somebody does something rotten and you need to attribute it.
    0:31:56 And the answer is they did something rotten because they’re rotten.
    0:31:59 Always have been, always will be this constitutional explanation.
    0:32:04 You do something rotten to somebody and how do you explain it afterward?
    0:32:05 The situational one.
    0:32:07 I was tired.
    0:32:08 I was stressed.
    0:32:11 In this sort of setting, I misunderstood this.
    0:32:18 We’re best at excusing ourselves from bad things because we have access to our inner lives.
    0:32:28 And we’ve got prefrontal cortexes that are great at coming up with a situational explanation rather than, hey, maybe you’re just like a selfish, rotten human.
    0:32:29 We need to change.
    0:32:31 And that’s all prefrontal cortex.
    0:32:45 And we do that every time we don’t let somebody, you know, merge in the lane in front of us, even though you curse somebody who does the same thing to you and, you know, endlessly.
    0:33:00 Your statement about the fact that we can select multiple hierarchies to participate in, to me seems like a particularly important one nowadays with social media being so prevalent.
    0:33:06 But what’s interesting about social media, I’ve found, is that the context is very, very broad.
    0:33:13 As you scroll through a feed, you are being exposed to thousands, if not millions of contexts.
    0:33:17 This meal, that soccer game, this person’s body, this person’s intellect.
    0:33:20 It’s a vast, vast landscape.
    0:33:23 So the context is completely mishmash.
    0:33:28 Whereas I’m assuming we evolved, I think we did evolve, under contexts that were much more constrained.
    0:33:32 We interacted with a limited number of individuals and a limited number of different domains.
    0:33:44 But now more than ever, our brain, our prefrontal cortex, and our sense of where we exist in these multiple hierarchies has essentially wicked out into infinity.
    0:33:53 How do you think this might be interacting with some of these more primitive systems and other aspects of our biology?
    0:34:12 Well, I think what you get is, in some ways, the punchline of what’s most human about humans, which is, over and over, we use the exact same blueprint, the same hormones, the same kinases, the same receptors, the same everything.
    0:34:20 We’re built out of the exact same stuff as all these other species out there, and then we go and use it in a completely novel way.
    0:34:29 And usually, in terms of being able to abstract stuff over space and time and dramatic ways.
    0:34:41 So, okay, you’re a low-ranking baboon, and you can feel badly because you just, like, killed a rabbit, and you’re about to eat, and some high-ranking guy boots you off and takes it away from you.
    0:34:45 And you feel crummy, and it’s stressful, and you’re unhappy.
    0:34:54 We are doing the exact same things with, like, our brain and bodies when we’re losing a sense of self-esteem.
    0:35:03 But we can do it by watching a movie character on the screen and feeling inadequate compared to, like, how wonderful or attractive they are.
    0:35:09 We can do it by somebody driving past us in an expensive car, and we don’t even see their face.
    0:35:14 And you can feel belittled by your own socioeconomic status.
    0:35:29 You can watch, like, the lifestyles of the rich and famous or read about what Bezos is up to, and for some reason decide your life is less fulfilling because you didn’t fly into space for 11 minutes.
    0:35:49 And so you can feel miserable about yourself in ways that no other organism can simply because we can have our meaningful social networks include, like, the party you’re reading about on Facebook that you weren’t invited to because it’s taking place in Singapore, and you don’t know any of those people.
    0:35:56 But nonetheless, somehow, that could be a means for you to feel less content with who you’ve turned out to be.
    0:35:59 I’m very grateful to you for this conversation today.
    0:36:00 I learned a ton.
    0:36:02 Every time you speak, I learn.
    0:36:11 And for me, it’s really been a pleasure and a delight to interact with you today and over the previous years, I should say, as colleagues.
    0:36:25 And thank you again, Robert, for everything that you do and all the hard, hard work and thinking that you put into your work, because it’s clear that you put a lot of hard work and thinking, and we all benefit as a consequence.
    0:36:28 Thanks, and thanks for having me.
    0:36:29 This was a blast.
    0:36:45 And as mentioned at the beginning of today’s episode, we are now partnered with Momentus supplements because they make single ingredient formulations that are of the absolute highest quality and they ship international.
    0:36:55 If you go to livemomentus.com slash Huberman, you will find many of the supplements that have been discussed on various episodes of the Huberman Lab podcast, and you will find various protocols related to those supplements.
    Chào mừng bạn đến với Podcast Huberman Lab, nơi chúng tôi thảo luận về khoa học và các công cụ dựa trên khoa học cho cuộc sống hàng ngày. Tôi là Andrew Huberman, và tôi là giáo sư về tâm sinh lý thần kinh và nhãn khoa tại Trường Y khoa Stanford. Hôm nay, tôi rất vui được giới thiệu Tiến sĩ Robert Sapolsky. Cảm ơn Robert rất nhiều vì đã tham gia cùng chúng tôi hôm nay.
    Rất vui khi được ở đây. Tôi muốn quay lại một chủ đề mà bạn rất tâm đắc, đó là căng thẳng. Sự khác biệt giữa căng thẳng ngắn hạn và lâu dài là gì trong mối tương quan giữa lợi ích và tác hại của chúng? Chúng ta nên nhận thức về căng thẳng như thế nào?
    Cơ bản là có hai biểu đồ mà mình có thể vẽ ra. Biểu đồ đầu tiên chỉ ra tất cả các tác động tích cực của căng thẳng, tức là căng thẳng ngắn hạn. Và sau đó, khi chúng ta bước vào giai đoạn mãn tính, mọi thứ sẽ đi xuống từ đó. Các yếu tố căng thẳng mãn tính mà hầu hết mọi người phải đối mặt chắc chắn nằm trong phạm vi mãn tính, chẳng hạn như việc cãi nhau hàng ngày trong giao thông tắc nghẽn trong 20 năm qua hoặc một ông sếp abusif hoặc điều gì đó tương tự.
    Đường cong khác có vẻ như vuông góc với đoạn này là thực tế rằng đôi khi căng thẳng là một điều tuyệt vời. Mục tiêu của chúng ta không phải là chữa khỏi cái thấy của người khác về căng thẳng, vì nếu đó là loại căng thẳng phù hợp thì chúng ta yêu thích điều đó. Chúng ta sẵn sàng bỏ tiền để bị căng thẳng đến từ một bộ phim kinh dị hoặc đi tàu lượn siêu tốc. Nhìn chung, khi đó là mức độ căng thẳng đúng, đó là điều chúng ta gọi là kích thích.
    Một điều gây ấn tượng với tôi là, theo cách sinh lý học, phản ứng căng thẳng trông giống hệt như phản ứng hưng phấn với một sự kiện tích cực. Nhưng có điều gì khác mà chúng ta biết về sinh học có thể tiết lộ cho chúng ta, bạn biết đấy, điều gì thực sự tạo ra thứ mà chúng ta gọi là giá trị cảm xúc, rằng một trải nghiệm có thể tồi tệ hoặc cảm thấy kinh khủng hoặc có thể cảm thấy tuyệt vời, tùy thuộc vào yếu tố chủ quan mà chúng ta gọi là giá trị cảm xúc?
    Ở một mức độ thực sự cơ học, nếu bạn đang trong hoàn cảnh yêu cầu tim bạn đập nhanh và hơi thở của bạn nhanh và bạn đang sử dụng cơ bắp của mình và một số điều tương tự, bạn sẽ có khoảng thông số kích hoạt não giống nhau, cho dù đó là cho điều gì đó tuyệt vời hay điều gì đó tồi tệ, với một ngoại lệ rằng nếu hạch hạnh phúc (amygdala) là một phần của kích hoạt, thì điều này sẽ được tính là bất lợi.
    Hạch hạnh phúc, theo một số cách, giống như một điểm kiểm soát xem chúng ta đang nói về hưng phấn hay nỗi kinh hoàng. Hãy để chúng ta sử dụng hạch hạnh phúc như một điểm chuyển tiếp đến một chủ đề khác mà bạn đã dành nhiều năm làm việc và suy nghĩ về nó, đó là testosterone và các hormone steroid giới tính khác. Chúng ta nên nghĩ về vai trò của testosterone trong hạch hạnh phúc như thế nào, vì sự tham gia của hạch hạnh phúc là điều cơ bản trong điểm chuyển giao giữa phản ứng tích cực kích thích và phản ứng căng thẳng tiêu cực?
    Hoặc có lẽ nói chung, chúng ta nên nghĩ về testosterone và tác động của nó lên não như thế nào? Cơ bản, gần như mọi người đều có một ý niệm sai hoàn toàn về những gì testosterone làm, đó là testosterone khiến bạn hung dữ vì nam giới, gần như mọi loài trong tự nhiên, có nhiều testosterone hơn và vì thế cũng hung dữ hơn. Và sự thật là testosterone không gây ra điều đó. Nó không gây ra sự hung dữ. Bạn có thể thấy điều này cả về mặt hành vi và trong hạch hạnh phúc. Nó làm giảm ngưỡng cho các loại điều có thể kích thích bạn trở nên hung dữ, để điều đó xảy ra dễ dàng hơn. Nó làm cho các hệ thống đã được kích hoạt trở nên mạnh mẽ hơn thay vì tạo ra âm nhạc hung dữ hay điều gì đó tương tự. Nó không tạo ra sự hung dữ. Nó chỉ đang phát tín hiệu lớn hơn cho bất kỳ sự hung dữ nào đã có ở đó.
    Về mặt địa vị và mối quan hệ giữa các cá nhân, có thể là động vật linh trưởng không phải người hoặc con người, liệu chúng ta có thể nói rằng mức độ testosterone tương đối giữa các cá nhân có tương quan với địa vị trong hệ thống phân cấp không? Có.
    Nếu bạn quay ngược lại, tôi không biết, bao nhiêu thập kỷ về trước trong các văn bản nội tiết, có hai phát hiện hoàn toàn đáng tin cậy ở đó, đó là mức testosterone cao hơn dự đoán mức độ hung dữ cao hơn ở linh trưởng có vú và các động vật khác. Mức testosterone cao hơn dự đoán mức độ hoạt động tình dục cao hơn. Và mối tương quan thì ở đó. Và khi bạn nhìn kỹ, chúng ta có mối quan hệ nguyên nhân và kết quả. Hành vi tình dục làm tăng mức testosterone. Sự hung dữ làm tăng mức testosterone. Mức testosterone của bạn trước đó hầu như không dự đoán được điều gì sẽ xảy ra. Đây là một phản ứng hơn là một nguyên nhân.
    Chỉ một lưu ý thú vị. Nếu bạn có loại tâm lý sẵn sàng lao vào nguy hiểm trong đường chiến, thì việc xem đội bóng yêu thích của bạn thi đấu sẽ làm tăng mức testosterone của bạn khi bạn ngồi đó với khoai tây chiên trong ghế bành của bạn. Vậy nên không phải là thể chất của sự hung dữ. Đây là tâm lý mà nó được định hình. Vậy nên vâng, testosterone không gây ra điều đó.
    Và một cách hay để hiểu rõ điều đó là bạn thực hiện một nghiên cứu khấu trừ, bạn loại bỏ tinh hoàn, và như tôi đã nói trước đó, mức độ hành vi tình dục giảm xuống. Tốt. Chúng tôi đã chứng minh rằng testosterone trên thực tế có ảnh hưởng đến nguyên nhân. Chỉ cần chú ý rằng chúng giảm xuống nhưng không xuống bằng không. Dù bạn là chuột hay khỉ hay con người, điều gì đó liên quan đến việc dự đoán bao nhiêu hành vi tình dục còn lại là mức độ hành vi tình dục trước khi bị thiến, điều đó đang nói cho bạn là đó là hành vi mà đang được duy trì bởi việc học hỏi xã hội và bối cảnh hơn là bởi hormone.
    Chính xác cũng như vậy với sự hung dữ. Giảm xuống sau khi thiến nhưng không về không. Càng có nhiều tiền lệ trước đó, nó càng tiếp tục với nhịp độ riêng của nó, ngay cả khi không có testosterone. Tôi muốn nghỉ một chút và ghi nhận một trong những nhà tài trợ của chúng tôi, Function. Năm ngoái, tôi trở thành thành viên của Function sau khi tìm kiếm cách tiếp cận toàn diện nhất đối với việc kiểm tra lab. Function cung cấp hơn 100 bài kiểm tra lab tiên tiến giúp bạn có một cái nhìn tổng quát về sức khỏe cơ thể của bạn.
    Bản chụp nhanh này cung cấp cho bạn những thông tin về sức khỏe tim mạch, sức khỏe hormone, chức năng miễn dịch, mức độ dinh dưỡng và nhiều điều khác. Function không chỉ cung cấp các xét nghiệm hơn 100 dấu ấn sinh học quan trọng đối với sức khỏe thể chất và tinh thần của bạn, mà còn phân tích kết quả này và cung cấp những thông tin từ các bác sĩ hàng đầu có chuyên môn trong các lĩnh vực liên quan.
    Ví dụ, trong một trong những bài kiểm tra đầu tiên của tôi với Function, tôi phát hiện rằng tôi có mức thủy ngân cao trong máu. Function không chỉ giúp tôi phát hiện điều đó, mà còn cung cấp những thông tin về cách tốt nhất để giảm mức thủy ngân của tôi, bao gồm việc hạn chế tiêu thụ cá ngừ. Tôi đã ăn rất nhiều cá ngừ, trong khi cố gắng ăn nhiều rau xanh hơn và bổ sung NAC và acetylcysteine, cả hai đều có thể hỗ trợ sản xuất glutathione và giải độc. Và tôi nên nói rằng, khi làm một bài kiểm tra Function thứ hai, phương pháp đó đã phát huy tác dụng.
    Xét nghiệm máu toàn diện là cực kỳ quan trọng. Có rất nhiều điều liên quan đến sức khỏe tinh thần và thể chất của bạn chỉ có thể được phát hiện qua xét nghiệm máu. Vấn đề là xét nghiệm máu từ trước đến nay luôn rất đắt đỏ và phức tạp. Ngược lại, tôi rất ấn tượng với sự đơn giản của Function và mức chi phí. Nó rất phải chăng. Do đó, tôi đã quyết định gia nhập ban cố vấn khoa học của họ, và tôi rất vui mừng vì họ đang tài trợ cho podcast.
    Nếu bạn muốn thử Function, bạn có thể truy cập vào functionhealth.com/slash Huberman. Hiện tại Function có danh sách chờ hơn 250,000 người, nhưng họ đang cung cấp quyền truy cập sớm cho người nghe podcast Huberman. Một lần nữa, đó là functionhealth.com/slash Huberman để có quyền truy cập sớm vào Function.
    Tập hôm nay cũng được tài trợ bởi Element. Element là một loại đồ uống điện giải có tất cả những gì bạn cần, nhưng không có gì thừa. Điều đó có nghĩa là các điện giải, natri, magiê và kali, tất cả đúng tỷ lệ, nhưng không có đường. Hydration đúng là rất quan trọng cho chức năng não và cơ thể tối ưu. Ngay cả một mức độ thiếu nước nhẹ cũng có thể làm giảm hiệu suất nhận thức và thể chất. Nó cũng quan trọng rằng bạn có đủ điện giải. Các điện giải, natri, magiê, và kali là rất quan trọng cho chức năng của tất cả các tế bào trong cơ thể bạn, đặc biệt là các neuron hay tế bào thần kinh của bạn.
    Uống Element hòa tan trong nước rất dễ dàng để đảm bảo rằng bạn đang nhận đủ nước và đủ điện giải. Để đảm bảo rằng tôi đang nhận đủ lượng nước và điện giải, tôi hòa tan một gói Element trong khoảng 16 đến 32 ounce nước khi tôi thức dậy vào buổi sáng, và tôi uống nó ngay khi vừa thức dậy. Tôi cũng uống Element hòa tan trong nước trong bất kỳ loại bài tập thể chất nào tôi đang thực hiện. Họ có nhiều hương vị khác nhau rất ngon của Element. Họ có dưa hấu, cam chanh, v.v. Thành thật mà nói, tôi yêu tất cả chúng.
    Nếu bạn muốn thử Element, bạn có thể truy cập vào drinkelement.com/slash Huberman Lab để nhận một gói mẫu Element miễn phí khi mua bất kỳ loại bột uống Element nào. Một lần nữa, đó là drinkelement.com/slash Huberman Lab để nhận gói mẫu miễn phí.
    Khi tôi nghe bạn nói về testosterone hôm nay và trong nhiều năm qua, tôi bắt đầu có ấn tượng rằng, như là phân tử bị hiểu lầm nhất trong sức khỏe con người trong vũ trụ, nó rõ ràng đang làm điều gì đó rất mạnh mẽ. Nó đang thay đổi cách mà một số mạch thần kinh hoạt động, điều chỉnh mức độ nhạy của amygdala, như bạn đã mô tả, và có khái niệm nào đúng về testosterone và mối quan hệ của nó với nỗ lực hay mối quan hệ của nó với sức bền theo một cách có thể giúp tôi và người khác suy nghĩ về cách để nhìn nhận testosterone không?
    Có thể có ba câu trả lời riêng biệt cho điều đó. Câu trả lời đầu tiên là, tôi nghĩ rằng việc tóm tắt rằng khi nói đến hành vi mạnh mẽ, có động lực, testosterone làm cho bạn trở thành nhiều hơn bất cứ điều gì bạn đã có trong lĩnh vực đó là công bằng. Sự kích thích tình dục, ham muốn tình dục, sự hung hãn, sự hung hãn tự phát, sự hung hãn đáp ứng, những thứ tương tự như vậy. Nó tăng cường âm lượng của những điều đã mạnh mẽ ở đó.
    Cách thứ hai để suy nghĩ về nó là, đây là phát hiện yêu thích của tôi về testosterone. Và đây là một công trình tuyệt vời của một người là John Wingfield, một trong những nhà nội tiết học hành vi tốt nhất ở đó. Khoảng 20 năm trước, ông đã hình thành cái được gọi là giả thuyết thách thức về hành động testosterone. Testosterone làm gì? Testosterone là thứ bạn tiết ra khi vị thế của bạn đang bị thách thức, và nó làm cho bạn có khả năng cao hơn trong việc thực hiện các hành vi cần thiết để giữ vững vị thế của mình.
    Được rồi, điều này hoàn toàn đơn giản nếu bạn là một kẻ hung hãn. Nếu ai đó thách thức cấp bậc cao của bạn, phản ứng phù hợp từ bạn sẽ là sự hung hãn. Được rồi, vì vậy chúng ta lại gặp lại testosterone và sự hung hãn. Nhưng sau đó bạn chuyển sang con người, và con người có nhiều cách khác nhau để đạt được hoặc duy trì vị thế. Vâng, và tất cả những gì bạn cần làm là đến một cuộc đấu giá hàng năm của một trường tư thục sang trọng nào đó, và bạn sẽ thấy tất cả những gã alpha nửa say xỉn đang cạnh tranh để xem ai có thể cho đi nhiều tiền nhất như một biểu hiện của sự giàu có mà họ có.
    Và trong một bối cảnh như vậy, tôi không thể lấy mẫu nước tiểu vào những lúc đó, thật không may, nhưng điều đó cho thấy mặt trái của nó. Nếu bạn có một loài mà phân bổ địa vị trên một cách rất khác, testosterone cũng sẽ củng cố điều đó. Được rồi, vì vậy thể loại đó là một dự đoán hoàn toàn điên rồ. Wow. Lấy con người trong một hoàn cảnh, giả sử chơi một trò chơi kinh tế, nơi bạn có được địa vị bằng cách đáng tin cậy và hào phóng trong các tương tác với trò chơi. Nếu bạn cho người ta testosterone, điều đó có làm cho họ hào phóng hơn không? Và điều đó hoàn toàn đúng. Phát hiện thật là thú vị. Và nếu chúng ta có một vấn đề xã hội với quá nhiều sự hung hãn, kẻ đầu tiên cần xem xét không phải là testosterone.
    Điều đầu tiên cần nhắc đến là chúng ta trao rất nhiều sự tôn trọng cao quý cho sự hung hăng trong rất nhiều tình huống. Điều thứ ba về sự tinh tế của testosterone. Được rồi, như một số tác động hành vi tinh tế hơn. Bạn cho testosterone vào cơ thể mọi người, và họ trở nên tự tin hơn. Họ trở nên tự tin hơn về bản thân. Mà điều đó thì tốt. Mọi người sẵn sàng trả tiền để tham gia vào đủ loại khóa học tự giúp mình vô nghĩa. Điều đó sẽ nâng cao lòng tự trọng của bạn. Và đó là điều tốt. Trừ khi testosterone khiến bạn tự tin hơn, điều đó là không chính xác. Và bạn có khả năng cao sẽ đưa ra những quyết định sai lầm. Những gì được chứng minh trong trò chơi kinh tế là testosterone, bằng cách làm bạn tự tin hơn, khiến bạn ít hợp tác hơn. Bởi vì ai cần phải hợp tác? Bởi vì tôi có thể xử lý mọi thứ một mình. Testosterone làm cho mọi người trở nên kiêu ngạo và bốc đồng. Và điều đó có thể tuyệt vời trong một bối cảnh. Nhưng nếu trong những bối cảnh khác, bạn hoàn toàn chắc chắn rằng quân đội của bạn sẽ tấn công nước khác trong vòng ba ngày. Vậy thì, hãy cùng bắt đầu Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ Nhất. Và bạn sẽ gặp phải bất ngờ lớn từ điều đó. Việc testosterone thay đổi đánh giá rủi ro trước đó có lẽ đã đóng vai trò lớn trong loại sai lầm tính toán đó. Thật thú vị. Tôi luôn nghĩ về testosterone và dopamine như những người anh em gần gũi trong não, vì vai trò nổi bật của dopamine trong việc tạo ra sự thiên lệch hướng tới cảm giác từ bên ngoài. Bạn biết đấy, khi ai đó sử dụng thuốc làm tăng dopamine, hoặc người đó đầy ắp dopamine, họ có xu hướng, tôi muốn nhấn mạnh là có xu hướng bởi vì tôi đang tổng quát ở đây, nhưng họ có xu hướng tập trung vào các mục tiêu bên ngoài. Bạn biết đấy, những điều vượt ra ngoài giới hạn của cơ thể họ. Và testosterone dường như cũng làm được một chút như vậy. Nó có xu hướng đưa chúng ta vào một chế độ tương tự trong cách nhận thức thế giới bên ngoài, theo những cách mà chúng ta đang đặt câu hỏi như, làm thế nào tôi liên hệ với “khác” của loài mình? Làm thế nào tôi liên hệ với những mục tiêu này? Có điều gì chúng ta có thể làm để khái niệm hóa mối quan hệ giữa testosterone và dopamine và động lực tốt hơn không? Chà, tôi nghĩ nó có nhiều liên quan đến kiểu cách cách mạng lớn về dopamine. Mọi người, từ thời pharaoh, đã được dạy rằng dopamine liên quan đến niềm vui và phần thưởng. Nhưng thực tế không phải vậy. Nó liên quan đến sự mong đợi phần thưởng. Và nó liên quan đến việc tạo ra động lực, hành vi hướng đến mục tiêu cần thiết để đi lấy phần thưởng đó. Và trước khi bạn nhận ra, bạn đang sử dụng dopamine ở mức cao suốt cả cuộc đời để thúc đẩy bạn làm bất cứ điều gì sẽ đưa bạn vào thiên đường sau khi chết. Kiểu như, bạn biết đấy, nó đang làm những điều như vậy. Vì vậy, thực sự là về động lực. Và những gì testosterone làm, ngay cả trong những cá nhân không hung hăng và lý do tại sao thay thế testosterone thường là điều rất tốt cho nam giới lớn tuổi, là nó tăng cường năng lượng. Nó tăng cường cảm giác hiện diện, sự tỉnh táo. Nó tăng cường động lực. Testosterone, trong vòng vài phút, tăng cường tiếp nhận glucose vào cơ bắp. Bạn chỉ cảm thấy tỉnh táo và cảnh giác hơn và tất cả những điều đó. Và điều đó có nhiều liên quan đến những gì dopamine làm. Và như một người có thể dự đoán, việc có được mức testosterone đúng vào trong dòng máu của bạn cảm thấy tuyệt vời với chuột bạch trong phòng thí nghiệm. Chúng sẽ nhấn nút để được đưa vào mức tối ưu hóa sự giải phóng dopamine. Vì vậy, bạn hoàn toàn đúng. Chúng rất liên kết chặt chẽ với nhau. Tôi muốn hỏi về estrogen. Bạn biết đấy, chúng ta không nghe nhiều về estrogen. Và tuy nhiên, estrogen có một số tác động rất mạnh mẽ lên cả não động vật và não người nam và nữ. Có bất kỳ chủ đề chung nào về estrogen mà mọi người nên biết hoặc mà bạn nghĩ rằng thường bị hiểu sai không? Có thật sự là tất cả đều về cảm xúc và sự đồng cảm và làm cho chúng ta nhạy cảm hơn không? Tôi cảm thấy không phải vậy. Không. Nếu bạn có sự lựa chọn giữa việc có nhiều estrogen trong dòng máu của mình hay không, hãy chọn có nhiều estrogen. Nó tăng cường nhận thức. Nó kích thích sự hình thành tế bào mới trong hồi hải mã. Nó tăng cường cung cấp glucose và oxy. Nó bảo vệ bạn khỏi chứng mất trí nhớ. Nó giảm thiểu thiệt hại oxy hóa viêm đối với mạch máu, đó là lý do nó tốt cho việc bảo vệ khỏi bệnh tim mạch trái ngược với testosterone, vốn làm mọi thứ trở nên tồi tệ hơn. Estrogen là một trong những yếu tố dự đoán tốt nhất về sự bảo vệ khỏi bệnh Alzheimer, tất cả những điều đó. Nhưng nó cần phải ở mức sinh lý. Chỉ cần tiếp tục. Tiếp tục những gì cơ thể bạn đã làm trong thời gian dài thay vì để cho mọi thứ ngừng hoạt động hoàn toàn và đột nhiên cố gắng khởi động lại lò than ở đáy tầng hầm. Ở đó bạn sẽ có những kết quả hoàn toàn khác. Thú vị. Tôi đoán điều đó đặt ra câu hỏi về việc thay thế testosterone, liệu mọi người có nên nói chuyện với bác sĩ của họ trước khi quá lâu không. Nam và nữ, hãy nói chuyện với bác sĩ của bạn trước khi quá lâu để tránh bất cứ điều gì xảy ra trong những khoảng thời gian mà không có đủ testosterone và hoặc estrogen. Nghe có vẻ như điều đó có thể gây ra vấn đề dài hạn ngay cả khi các liệu pháp được đưa vào. Tôi muốn trở lại một cách ngắn gọn về stress. Bạn đã mô tả một nghiên cứu về hai con chuột, một con chạy trên bánh xe tự nguyện, một con thì bị mắc kẹt trong bánh xe và bị ép phải chạy bất cứ khi nào con chuột số một chạy. Vì vậy, trong một trường hợp, con chuột đang tập thể dục tự nguyện. Và trong trường hợp khác, con chuột bị ép phải tham gia lớp thể dục, nói một cách ví von, và đang thấy những tác động khác nhau lên sinh học. Bạn nghĩ thế nào về việc giảm thiểu stress và chúng ta nên làm gì như cá nhân, gia đình và văn hóa để cố gắng khuyến khích mọi người giảm thiểu stress của họ, nhưng theo những cách không biến chúng ta thành con chuột số hai, nơi chúng ta bị ép phải giảm thiểu stress của chính mình và do đó trở nên căng thẳng hơn? Và điều bạn thấy là con chuột số một nhận được tất cả lợi ích từ việc tập thể dục. Con chuột số hai nhận được tất cả bất lợi của căng thẳng nghiêm trọng với cùng một mức tiêu hao cơ bắp và các chuyển động diễn ra. Hoàn toàn tương xứng. Một ví dụ tuyệt vời rằng đó là cách bạn cảm nhận trong đầu của bạn.
    Bất cứ điều gì tôi nên nói ở đây, tôi cần phải nói trước rằng tôi khá giỏi trong việc cho mọi người biết điều gì sẽ xảy ra nếu họ không quản lý được căng thẳng của mình, nhưng tôi lại rất tệ trong việc quản lý căng thẳng hoặc khuyên mọi người cách để quản lý nó. Tôi thì giỏi hơn trong khía cạnh tin xấu. Nhưng có những người có phản ứng căng thẳng cực kỳ mạnh mẽ, còn những người khác thì không, ở giữa thì bạn có thể thấy thích thú. Vậy, những yếu tố nào tạo nên căng thẳng tâm lý? Yếu tố đầu tiên chính là sự kiểm soát mà nghiên cứu này đề cập đến. Bạn có cảm giác kiểm soát không? Cảm giác kiểm soát khiến các yếu tố gây căng thẳng trở nên ít gây stress hơn. Liên quan đến điều đó là cảm giác dự đoán. Và điều đó rất bảo vệ. Những người khác, cần có lối thoát cho sự thất vọng. Bạn lấy một con chuột bị điện giật và nó có thể gặm một thanh gỗ. Yếu tố gây căng thẳng sẽ kém gây stress hơn. Thật không may, nếu bạn có một con chuột, một linh trưởng hoặc một con người đang trong trạng thái căng thẳng, khả năng trút giận lên người nhỏ hơn và yếu hơn cũng làm giảm phản ứng căng thẳng. Và sự hung hăng gián tiếp, cũng như việc hung hăng gián tiếp làm giảm căng thẳng, chiếm một tỷ lệ lớn trong sự không hạnh phúc trên trái đất. Vì vậy, tất cả các biến số đó cần có sự hỗ trợ xã hội. Đó là một điều tốt. Làm cho hoàn cảnh trở nên tích cực thay vì tiêu cực. Hooray. Vì vậy, bạn có một công thức rất đơn giản để mang về nhà như: ra ngoài và cố gắng tìm càng nhiều kiểm soát, càng nhiều dự đoán, càng nhiều lối thoát và càng nhiều sự hỗ trợ xã hội càng tốt. Và bạn sẽ ổn thôi. Và bạn đi ra ngoài và làm điều đó. Và đó là một công thức cho tai họa hoàn toàn, vì nó tinh vi hơn rất nhiều. Và đó là lý do tại sao các kỹ thuật quản lý căng thẳng về kiểm soát và dự đoán lại tồi tệ hơn nhiều so với trung lập nếu bạn đang giảng dạy điều đó cho một người vô gia cư hoặc một người mắc bệnh ung thư giai đoạn cuối hoặc một người tị nạn. Nói với một người trung lưu dễ bị thần kinh rằng họ có những công cụ tâm lý để biến, bạn biết đấy, địa ngục thành thiên đường. Và có một chút sự thật trong điều đó. Làm điều tương tự với một người đang trải qua một địa ngục thực sự. Và đó chỉ đơn thuần là sự vô cảm của những người có đặc quyền vì điều đó không hiệu quả. Nó không đơn giản. Cần rất nhiều công sức để làm cho đúng vì, bạn biết đấy, nếu bạn làm sai, nó có thể tạm thời có vẻ như là điều tuyệt vời. Nhưng khi nó được làm sáng tỏ là hoàn toàn không đúng chỗ, bạn sẽ cảm thấy tồi tệ hơn trước khi bắt đầu. Tôi muốn tạm dừng một chút và ghi nhận nhà tài trợ của chúng ta, AG1. AG1 là một loại đồ uống vitamin – khoáng chất – probiotic cũng bao gồm prebiotics và adaptogen. Là một người đã tham gia vào nghiên cứu khoa học gần ba thập kỷ và trong lĩnh vực sức khỏe và thể hình cũng tương đương như vậy, tôi luôn tìm kiếm những công cụ tốt nhất để cải thiện sức khỏe tâm lý, thể chất và hiệu suất của mình. Tôi đã phát hiện AG1 vào năm 2012, lâu trước khi tôi có podcast, và tôi đã uống nó mỗi ngày từ đó đến nay. Tôi thấy nó cải thiện tất cả các khía cạnh của sức khỏe của tôi, năng lượng của tôi, sự tập trung của tôi, và tôi cảm thấy tốt hơn nhiều khi uống nó. AG1 sử dụng các thành phần chất lượng cao nhất trong các kết hợp phù hợp, và họ luôn cải thiện công thức mà không tăng giá. Trên thực tế, AG1 vừa ra mắt phiên bản công thức mới nhất của họ. Công thức thế hệ tiếp theo này dựa trên nghiên cứu mới thú vị về tác động của probiotics lên hệ vi sinh đường ruột. Và bây giờ nó bao gồm một số chủng probiotics đã được nghiên cứu lâm sàng cho thấy hỗ trợ cả sức khỏe tiêu hóa và sức khỏe hệ miễn dịch, cũng như cải thiện sự đều đặn của ruột và giảm đầy hơi. Mỗi khi tôi được hỏi nếu tôi chỉ có thể uống một loại thực phẩm bổ sung, thì đó sẽ là loại nào, tôi luôn nói AG1. Nếu bạn muốn thử AG1, bạn có thể truy cập drinkag1.com slash Huberman. Trong một khoảng thời gian hạn chế, AG1 đang tặng một tháng sử dụng omega-3 fish oil miễn phí cùng với một chai vitamin D3 cộng K2. Như tôi đã nhấn mạnh trước đây trong podcast này, omega-3 fish oil và vitamin D3 K2 đã được chứng minh là giúp mọi thứ từ tâm trạng và sức khỏe não bộ, đến sức khỏe tim mạch, đến trạng thái hormone lành mạnh, và nhiều hơn thế nữa. Một lần nữa, đó là drinkag1.com slash Huberman để nhận một tháng miễn phí omega-3 fish oil cộng một chai vitamin D3 cộng K2 với sự đăng ký của bạn. Tập hôm nay cũng được tài trợ bởi David. David làm một thanh protein không giống ai. Nó có 28 gram protein, chỉ 150 calo và không chứa đường. Đúng vậy, 28 gram protein và 75% calo của nó đến từ protein. Điều này cao hơn 50% so với thanh protein gần nhất tiếp theo. Các thanh protein của David cũng có vị tuyệt vời. Ngay cả kết cấu cũng rất tuyệt. Thanh yêu thích của tôi là hương vị bánh quy chocolate chip, nhưng tôi cũng thích hương vị chocolate peanut butter mới và hương vị chocolate brownie. Nói chung, tôi thích tất cả các hương vị. Tất cả đều cực kỳ ngon miệng. Thật ra, thử thách khó khăn nhất là biết nên ăn loại nào vào ngày nào và bao nhiêu lần mỗi ngày. Tôi giới hạn bản thân ở hai cái mỗi ngày, nhưng tôi thực sự yêu thích chúng. Với David, tôi có thể nhận được 28 gram protein trong calo của một bữa ăn nhẹ, điều này giúp tôi dễ dàng đạt được mục tiêu protein của mình là một gram protein trên mỗi pound trọng lượng cơ thể mỗi ngày, và tôi có thể làm điều đó mà không cần hấp thụ quá nhiều calo. Tôi sẽ ăn một thanh protein David vào hầu hết các buổi chiều như một bữa ăn nhẹ, và tôi luôn giữ một thanh bên mình khi ra ngoài hoặc đi du lịch. Chúng cực kỳ ngon miệng, và vì chúng có 28 gram protein, chúng thực sự thỏa mãn với chỉ 150 calo. Nếu bạn muốn thử David, bạn có thể truy cập davidprotein.com slash Huberman. Ngày nay, có rất nhiều sự quan tâm đến việc sử dụng các thực hành thể chất để giảm thiểu căng thẳng, bạn biết đấy, cố gắng thoát khỏi những suy nghĩ lặp đi lặp lại và đến một mức độ nào đó kiểm soát các mạch thần kinh trong não bằng cách sử dụng tập thể dục và sử dụng hơi thở và thôi miên.
    Bạn nghĩ gì về việc áp dụng các phương pháp giảm căng thẳng theo hướng tập trung vào tư duy, hơn là tập trung vào sinh lý học cốt lõi? Giờ đây, việc tắm nước lạnh đã trở thành một xu hướng nào đó, bạn biết đấy, chỉ để giúp mọi người thích nghi với căng thẳng, tự nguyện tắm nước lạnh, đúng không? À, thiền siêu việt, chánh niệm, tập thể dục, cầu nguyện, suy ngẫm về lòng biết ơn, tất cả những điều đó. Tập hợp lại, chúng hiệu quả đối với đa số mọi người. Chúng có thể làm giảm nhịp tim và mức cholesterol và mang lại nhiều lợi ích tốt đẹp, nhưng chúng không thể cung cấp điều đó. Một điều là cảnh báo từ nghiên cứu Grunning Neal là điều này không quan trọng bao nhiêu người bạn của bạn khẳng định về kỹ thuật quản lý căng thẳng. Nếu làm điều đó khiến bạn cảm thấy muốn la hét sau 10 giây, thì đó không phải là phương pháp phù hợp với bạn. Vậy nên, hãy định nghĩa lại việc in những lời chứng thực, nhưng nó phải là điều gì đó có tác dụng với bạn. Một điều khác nữa là các kỹ thuật quản lý căng thẳng mà hiệu quả, bạn không thể để dành chúng cho cuối tuần. Bạn không thể để dành chúng cho lúc bạn bị kẹt trên điện thoại với Muzak trong hai phút. Nó phải là điều gì đó mà bạn dừng tất cả những gì bạn đang làm và thực hiện nó gần như hàng ngày hoặc mỗi ngày cách ngày và dành 20, 30 phút để thực hiện. Dù bạn thực hiện kỹ thuật quản lý căng thẳng nào trong 20 phút đó, ngoài những ai biết gì đó, bạn đã đạt được 80% chỉ bằng việc quyết định rằng sức khỏe của bạn quan trọng đủ để bạn dừng lại mỗi ngày và coi đó là ưu tiên hàng đầu. Thế nên không có công cụ hay bài tập thở kỳ diệu nào cả. Nó có thể là bất kỳ sự kết hợp nào trong số đó hoặc một trong số đó. Và một lần nữa, chúng ta quay trở lại ý tưởng rằng đó là điều bạn chọn và điều mà bạn dành chỗ cho nó và hy vọng là điều mà bạn thích, điều đó sẽ hoạt động tốt nhất về mặt sinh lý học. Điều này dẫn tôi đến câu hỏi này, tôi thấy thật kỳ diệu rằng cách chúng ta cảm nhận một sự kiện và việc chúng ta có lựa chọn tham gia vào sự kiện đó hay không có thể có những tác động khác nhau đến mạch não và cơ thể cũng như sinh học của các tế bào. Một cách nào đó, điều đó khiến tôi cảm thấy khó hiểu, như thế nào mà một quyết định được thực hiện, có lẽ là với vỏ não trước trán, mặc dù cũng có những phần khác của não, có thể thay đổi bản chất phản ứng trong cơ thể? Tôi có nghĩa là, bạn đã nói trước đó về những người có tính cách loại A và chúng ta không cần phải đi vào chi tiết về điều đó vì lý do thời gian, nhưng thật thú vị khi thấy những ảnh hưởng của tế bào nội mô, nghĩa là, thực sự là kích thước của các cổng cho máu. Và chúng ở hai hướng khác nhau, tùy thuộc vào việc ai đó có muốn ở trong một tình huống như một người có động lực cao hay không. Có lẽ bạn có thể cho chúng tôi biết tổng quan về điều đó. Nếu bạn muốn, bạn có thể chỉ cần suy đoán về cách mà não có thể có công tắc để chuyển đổi một trải nghiệm từ tồi tệ thành có lợi hoặc từ có lợi thành tồi tệ. Điều đó thực sự thú vị. Bạn có thể nghĩ rằng các nơron điều hòa tự động hoạt động theo cách mà chỉ những động vật khác có thể làm với những tình huống môi trường cực đoan. Khi bạn nói về lượng căng thẳng tối ưu được coi là kích thích, và nói chung, đó là căng thẳng không quá nghiêm trọng và không kéo dài quá lâu và nói chung là trong một môi trường tốt đẹp. Và trong những điều kiện đó, chúng ta thích được căng thẳng bởi một thứ gì đó bất ngờ và ngoài tầm kiểm soát và không thể đoán trước, như một bước ngoặt hấp dẫn trong bộ phim mà bạn đang xem. Điều đó thật tuyệt, nhưng bạn có sự khác biệt cá nhân mà bằng cách nào đó phải điều chỉnh thực tế rằng đối với một số người, lượng căng thẳng kích thích hoàn hảo giống như việc trở dậy sớm cho một cuộc đi xem chim Audubon vào sáng Chủ nhật tới. Và đối với một người khác, đó là đăng ký trở thành lính đánh thuê ở Yemen và có những khác biệt cá nhân lớn mà lấn át mọi đơn giản quy định. Vâng, vỏ não trước trán, cỗ máy suy nghĩ mà tất cả chúng ta đều giữ, thực sự là một con dao hai lưỡi. Điều đáng chú ý đối với tôi là cách mà các vùng của não, như vùng hạ đồi và amygdala, chúng giống như những công tắc. Ý tôi là, nếu bạn kích thích vùng hạ đồi bên trong, bạn có những nơron phù hợp, một con vật sẽ cố gắng giết ngay cả một vật thể đang ở bên cạnh nó. Nếu bạn cù một số nơron khác, nó sẽ cố gắng giao phối với cùng một vật thể đó. Ý tôi là, điều đó thực sự điên rồ. Tôi nghĩ có lẽ có quy tắc cho vỏ não trước trán, nhưng có vẻ như bối cảnh, số nhiều, mà vỏ não trước trán có thể rút ra có lẽ là vô hạn, vì vậy mà chúng ta có thể học cách cảm nhận mối đe dọa từ bất kỳ điều gì, dù đó có phải là một nhóm khác hay không, hay liệu đó có phải là khoa học hay không, hay liệu đó có phải là phiên bản của ai đó về hình dạng của trái đất so với một phiên bản khác hay không. Tôi có nghĩa là, giống như bạn có thể cắm bất kỳ điều gì vào hệ thống này và cung cấp đủ dữ liệu, và tôi nghĩ có vẻ như bạn có thể kích hoạt phản ứng sợ hãi hoặc phản ứng yêu thương. Điều đó có phải là quá đà không? Không, thực sự đúng là như vậy. Đến mức độ nào mà chúng ta có thể điều chỉnh mối quan hệ này giữa vỏ não trước trán và các hệ thống nguyên thủy hơn này? Ồ, và một mức độ khổng lồ. Bạn biết đấy, chẳng hạn, việc đứng thấp trong một hệ thống phân cấp thường không tốt cho sức khỏe và giống như mọi loài động vật có vú ngoài kia, bao gồm cả chúng ta. Nhưng chúng ta làm điều gì đó đặc biệt, đó là chúng ta có thể là một phần của nhiều hệ thống phân cấp cùng một lúc. Và trong khi bạn có thể xếp hạng thấp trong một trong số đó, bạn có thể xếp hạng cực kỳ cao trong một cái khác. Bạn giống như, có công việc tồi tệ nhất trong công ty của bạn, nhưng bạn là đội trưởng của đội bóng softball cho công ty trong năm nay. Và bạn tốt hơn hết là tìm đủ cách để quyết định rằng từ 9 giờ đến 5 giờ, từ thứ Hai đến thứ Sáu là điều ngu ngốc chỉ để trả hóa đơn. Và điều thực sự quan trọng là, bạn biết đấy, uy tín của cuối tuần. Và vì vậy, chúng ta có thể chơi đủ loại trò chơi tâm lý với điều đó.
    Một trong những điều nhất quán và đáng tin cậy mà chúng ta cần sử dụng nhiều đến vỏ não trước trán là khi ai đó làm điều tồi tệ và bạn cần giải thích về nó. Và câu trả lời là họ đã làm điều tồi tệ bởi vì họ là người tồi tệ. Họ luôn như vậy, và sẽ luôn như vậy, đó là lời giải thích mang tính chất hiến pháp. Bạn làm điều tồi tệ với một ai đó, và làm thế nào bạn giải thích điều đó sau đó? Một lời giải thích theo tình huống. Tôi đã mệt. Tôi đã căng thẳng. Trong tình huống này, tôi đã hiểu sai điều này. Chúng ta giỏi nhất trong việc bào chữa cho bản thân khi gặp những điều xấu bởi vì chúng ta có quyền truy cập vào cuộc sống nội tâm của mình. Và chúng ta có các vỏ não trước trán rất giỏi trong việc đưa ra lời giải thích theo tình huống, thay vì, ồ, có lẽ bạn chỉ là một con người tồi tệ, ích kỷ mà thôi. Chúng ta cần phải thay đổi. Và đó hoàn toàn là vỏ não trước trán. Và chúng ta làm điều đó bất cứ khi nào chúng ta không cho phép ai đó, bạn biết đấy, hòa vào làn đường trước mặt chúng ta, mặc dù bạn đã chửi rủa ai đó đã làm điều tương tự với bạn, và, bạn biết đấy, không ngừng nghỉ.
    Câu nói của bạn về việc chúng ta có thể lựa chọn nhiều hệ thống phân cấp để tham gia, dường như là một điều đặc biệt quan trọng trong thời điểm hiện tại khi mạng xã hội rất phổ biến. Nhưng điều thú vị về mạng xã hội, tôi nhận thấy, là ngữ cảnh là rất, rất rộng. Khi bạn cuộn qua một dòng tin, bạn đang tiếp xúc với hàng ngàn, nếu không muốn nói là hàng triệu ngữ cảnh. Bữa ăn này, trận bóng đá đó, cơ thể của người này, trí tuệ của người kia. Đó là một cảnh quan rất, rất rộng lớn. Vì vậy, ngữ cảnh hoàn toàn lộn xộn. Trong khi tôi giả định rằng chúng ta đã tiến hóa, tôi nghĩ chúng ta đã tiến hóa, dưới những ngữ cảnh bị hạn chế nhiều hơn. Chúng ta đã tương tác với một số lượng hạn chế các cá nhân và nhiều lĩnh vực khác nhau. Nhưng bây giờ hơn bao giờ hết, bộ não của chúng ta, vỏ não trước trán, và cảm giác về nơi chúng ta tồn tại trong những hệ thống phân cấp này đã mở rộng ra vô hạn. Bạn nghĩ điều này có thể tương tác như thế nào với một số hệ thống nguyên thủy hơn và các khía cạnh khác của sinh học của chúng ta?
    Chà, tôi nghĩ những gì bạn nhận được là, theo một cách nào đó, kết luận về điều nhân tính nhất trong con người, đó là, cứ đi lặp đi lặp lại, chúng ta sử dụng cùng một bản thiết kế, cùng một hormone, cùng một kinase, cùng một thụ thể, cùng tất cả mọi thứ. Chúng ta được cấu tạo từ cùng một chất liệu như tất cả các loài khác ngoài kia, và sau đó chúng ta đi và sử dụng nó theo một cách hoàn toàn mới lạ. Và thường thì, về khả năng trừu tượng hóa mọi thứ qua không gian và thời gian một cách kịch tính. Vậy thì, bạn là một con khỉ đầu chó hạng thấp, và bạn có thể cảm thấy tồi tệ vì bạn vừa giết một con thỏ, và bạn sắp ăn, và một chú khỉ hạng cao hơn đã đá bạn ra và lấy nó mất. Và bạn cảm thấy tồi tệ, và nó căng thẳng, và bạn không hạnh phúc. Chúng ta đang làm những điều tương tự với bộ não và cơ thể của mình khi cảm thấy mất tự tin. Nhưng chúng ta có thể làm điều đó bằng cách xem một nhân vật điện ảnh trên màn hình và cảm thấy không đủ so với, bạn biết đấy, những gì tuyệt vời hay hấp dẫn của họ. Chúng ta có thể cảm thấy bị chèn ép khi có một ai đó lái xe qua chúng ta trong một chiếc xe đắt tiền, và chúng ta thậm chí không thấy được khuôn mặt của họ. Và bạn có thể cảm thấy bị coi thường bởi tình trạng kinh tế xã hội của chính mình. Bạn có thể theo dõi, như, cuộc sống của những người giàu có và nổi tiếng hoặc đọc về những gì Bezos đang làm, và vì lý do nào đó quyết định rằng cuộc sống của bạn ít viên mãn hơn vì bạn không bay vào không gian trong 11 phút. Và vì vậy, bạn có thể cảm thấy khổ sở về bản thân theo những cách mà không có sinh vật nào khác có thể đơn giản vì chúng ta có thể có những mạng lưới xã hội ý nghĩa bao gồm, như, bữa tiệc mà bạn đang đọc trên Facebook mà bạn không được mời vì nó diễn ra ở Singapore, và bạn không biết bất kỳ ai ở đó. Nhưng dù sao đi nữa, đó có thể là một cách để bạn cảm thấy ít hài lòng với điều mà bạn đã trở thành.
    Tôi rất biết ơn bạn vì cuộc trò chuyện hôm nay. Tôi đã học được rất nhiều. Mỗi khi bạn nói, tôi lại học được điều gì mới. Đối với tôi, thật sự rất vui và thích thú khi được tương tác với bạn hôm nay và trong những năm trước, tôi nên nói, như là đồng nghiệp. Và một lần nữa, cảm ơn bạn, Robert, vì tất cả những điều bạn làm và những công việc, suy nghĩ khó khăn mà bạn đã bỏ ra cho công việc của mình, vì rõ ràng rằng bạn đã đặt rất nhiều công sức và suy nghĩ vào đó, và tất cả chúng ta đều hưởng lợi từ điều đó. Cảm ơn, và cảm ơn vì đã có tôi. Điều này rất thú vị. Và như đã đề cập ở đầu tập podcast hôm nay, chúng tôi hiện đang hợp tác với Momentus supplements vì họ sản xuất các công thức chỉ chứa một thành phần với chất lượng cao nhất và họ giao hàng quốc tế. Nếu bạn truy cập livemomentus.com/Huberman, bạn sẽ tìm thấy nhiều loại thực phẩm bổ sung đã được thảo luận trong các tập khác nhau của podcast Huberman Lab, và bạn sẽ tìm thấy các giao thức liên quan đến những thực phẩm bổ sung đó.
    歡迎來到 Huberman Lab Podcast,
    在這裡我們討論科學及基於科學的工具
    以應用於日常生活。
    我是安德魯·霍博曼(Andrew Huberman),斯坦福醫學院神經生物學及眼科的教授。
    今天,我很高興能介紹
    羅伯特·薩波斯基博士(Dr. Robert Sapolsky)。
    非常感謝你今天加入我們,羅伯特。
    很高興能夠來這裡。
    我想回到一個對你而言尤為重要的話題,就是壓力。
    短期壓力和長期壓力之間在益處和缺點上有什麼不同?
    我們應該如何理解壓力?
    基本上,我們可以畫出兩種類型的圖。
    第一個是短期壓力的各種有益效果。
    然後,一旦我們進入慢性壓力,就完全是另一回事了。
    大多數人面對的慢性壓力源毫無疑問地屬於慢性範疇,比如過去20年每天的交通堵塞、虐待上司或其他類似情況。
    另一個與此垂直的曲線是承認,有時壓力是一件好事。
    我們的目標並不是要治愈人們的壓力,因為如果是對的那種,我們會喜歡它。
    我們願意花錢去享受那種壓力,比如看恐怖電影或玩過山車。
    當壓力適度時,我們稱之為刺激。
    令我印象深刻的一件事情是,從生理上來看,壓力反應看起來和正面事件的興奮反應非常相似。
    但還有什麼其他生物學上的知識能揭示,究竟是什麼構成我們所謂的價值,經歷可以是可怕的或感覺糟糕的,也可以是美好的,取決於這種我們稱之為價值的主觀特徵?
    在一個非常機械的層面上,如果你處於一種需要心跳加速、呼吸急促以及使用肌肉的情況下,你會有大致相同的大腦激活模式,無論這是因為某種美好或可怕的事情,唯一的例外是,如果杏仁核參與了激活,這將被視為不利。
    杏仁核在某種程度上就像是一個檢查點,決定我們是在談論興奮還是恐懼。
    讓我們以杏仁核作為過渡點,轉向你花了很多年研究和思考的另一個主題,那就是睪酮和其他性類固醇激素。
    鑑於杏仁核的參與在興奮的正面反應和負面壓力反應之間的轉變中是根本性的,我們應該如何看待睪酮在杏仁核中的作用?
    或者更廣泛地說,我們應該如何看待睪酮及其對大腦的影響?
    基本上,幾乎所有人對睪酮的作用都有完全錯誤的理解,即睪酮會讓你變得具有攻擊性,因為男性幾乎在所有種類中睪酮水平更高且更具攻擊性。
    而事實是,睪酮並不會造成這種情況。
    從行為上和杏仁核的觀察中都可以看出。
    它降低了一般會促使你變得具攻擊性的事情的門檻,讓這種情況更容易發生。
    它讓已經開啟的系統變得更加活躍,而不是讓攻擊性音樂或其他類似的情況被播放。
    它並不創造攻擊性,而只是提高了已經存在的攻擊性的音量。
    在狀態和個體之間的關係上,不論是非人類靈長類動物還是人類,我們是否可以說個體之間的相對睪酮水平與階層中的地位相關聯?
    是的。
    比如說,你回顧幾十年前的內分泌學教材,裡面有兩個完全可靠的發現,就是更高的睪酮水平預測更高的攻擊性和其他動物的行為。
    更高的睪酮水平預測更高的性活動。
    這種相關性是存在的。
    當你仔細觀察時,我們得到了因果關係的證據。
    性行為會提高睪酮水平。
    攻擊性也會提高睪酮水平。
    你之前的水平幾乎無法預測接下來會發生什麼。
    所以這是一種反應而不是原因。
    順便說一句:
    如果你有願意在壕溝中捨命的奉獻精神,觀看你喜歡的球隊比賽會提高你坐在沙發上吃薯片時的睪酮水平。
    所以這並不是攻擊性的身體性質,而是其心理框架。
    所以,是的,睪酮並不會造成這一切。
    對此的很好理解方法是進行一個去除研究,去除睪丸,正如我之前所說,性行為的水平會下降。
    很好。
    我們剛剛證明睪酮在某種程度上是有因果關係的。
    關鍵在於性行為的水平下降,但並不會降到零。
    無論你是老鼠、猴子還是人類等等,預測殘餘的性行為的程度,之前的性行為程度告訴你的是,這是由社會學習和情境所承載的行為,而不是由激素來決定的。
    攻擊性也是一樣。
    去勢後下降,但不會降到零。
    之前的攻擊性歷史越多,就越能在沒有睪酮的情況下保持相應的行為。
    我想稍微休息一下,感謝我們的一位贊助商,Function。
    去年,我成為了 Function 的一名會員,尋找最全面的實驗室測試方法。
    Function提供超過100項先進的實驗室測試,讓你對整體健康狀況有一個關鍵的快照。
    這段文字提供了有關您心臟健康、荷爾蒙健康、免疫功能、營養水平等方面的深入見解。Function不僅提供了超過100項對您身心健康至關重要的生物標誌物的檢測,還分析這些結果並提供來自相關領域專家的頂尖醫生的見解。
    例如,在我與Function的第一次測試中,我發現我的血液中汞含量偏高。Function不僅幫助我檢測到這一點,還提供了降低汞含量的最佳方法,包括限制吞拿魚的攝入。我之前一直吃很多吞拿魚,同時努力增加綠葉蔬菜的攝取,並補充NAC和乙醯半胱氨酸,這兩者都能支持谷胱甘肽的生產和排毒。我要說的是,通過進行第二次Function測試,這一方法是有效的。
    全面的血液檢測至關重要。許多與您的心理和身體健康相關的事項只能通過血液檢測檢測出來。問題在於,血液檢測一直非常昂貴且複雜。相比之下,我對Function的簡單性和成本水平印象深刻。它非常實惠。因此,我決定加入他們的科學顧問委員會,並且我很高興他們正在贊助這個播客。如果您想嘗試Function,可以前往functionhealth.com/Huberman。Function目前有超過250,000人的等待名單,但他們為Huberman播客的聽眾提供早期訪問。再次提醒,請訪問functionhealth.com/Huberman以獲取Function的早期訪問。
    今天的節目也由Element贊助。Element是一種電解質飲料,具備您所需的一切,但沒有多餘的成分。這意味著包含正確比例的電解質,如鈉、鎂和鉀,但不含糖分。適當的水分補充對於最佳的腦部和身體功能至關重要。即使是輕微的脫水也可能降低認知和身體表現。獲得足夠的電解質也很重要。電解質鈉、鎂和鉀對您身體中所有細胞的運作至關重要,特別是對神經元或神經細胞的功能。將Element溶解在水中,能夠極為方便地確保您獲得足夠的水分和電解質。
    為了確保我獲得適當的水分和電解質,我早上醒來時將一包Element溶解在約16到32盎司的水中,然後基本上就是我早上喝的第一件事。我在任何身體鍛煉時也會飲用溶解在水中的Element。他們有許多不同口味的Element,像是西瓜、柑橘等。坦白說,我都很喜歡。如果您想試試Element,可以前往drinkelement.com/HubermanLab,通過購買任何Element飲料混合包來索取一個免費Element樣品包。再次重申,請訪問drinkelement.com/HubermanLab以索取免費樣品包。
    我聽您今天以及多年來談論睪固酮時,開始產生印象,作為人類健康中最被誤解的分子,它顯然在做一些非常強大的事情。它正在改變某些神經迴路的運作方式,調整杏仁核的增益,就像您所描述的那樣,有關睪固酮與努力的關係,或者與韌性的關係,是否有任何真理,或許能幫助我和其他人思考睪固酮的思維方式?也許有三個單獨的答案。
    第一個是,我認為可以合理地總結,當談到有動力的強大行為時,睪固酮的作用是讓您在這個領域中變得更加突出。性興奮、性慾、好鬥、自發性攻擊、反應性攻擊等等。它提高了那些已經強烈存在的事物的音量。
    第二種思考方式是,這是我對睪固酮的最愛的發現之一。這是一位名叫約翰·溫菲爾德的優秀行為內分泌學家的精彩工作。大約20年前,他提出了睪固酮作用的挑戰假說。睪固酮的作用是什麼?當您的地位受到挑戰時,您會分泌睪固酮,這使得您更有可能進行需要保持地位所需的行為。如果有人挑戰您高位,您應該給予的適當反應是攻擊。
    好了,我們又在討論睪固酮和攻擊的關聯。但到了人類,情況就不一樣了,人類有很多不同的方式來獲得或保持地位。只需參加某些高檔私立學校的年度拍賣,您就能看到許多半醉的男性精英們競相捐出最多的金錢,以展示他們的顯示性財富。在這種情況下,我無法在當時收集尿樣,但這顯示了這一現象的另一面。如果一種物種以完全不同的方式分配地位,睪固酮也會提升這一過程。
    這就是說,對於一些情境,例如玩一場經濟遊戲,您通過在遊戲中建立信任和慷慨來獲得地位。如果給這些人增加睪固酮,這會讓他們變得更慷慨嗎?答案是肯定的。這是一個非常酷的發現。如果我們面臨一個社會問題,例如過多的攻擊行為,首先需要檢視的罪魁禍首並不是睪固酮。
    首先要注意的是,在許多情況下,我們對攻擊性所賦予的提升地位是如此的多。
    第三件關於睾酮微妙性的事情。
    好吧,就像一些更微妙的行為效應。
    你給人們注射睾酮,他們會變得更自信。
    他們變得更有自信。
    這很好。
    人們願意花錢參加各種無稽之談的自助課程。
    這會提高你的自尊心。
    這是一件好事。
    除非睾酮使你更自信,否則這是不準確的。
    而且你更有可能做出錯誤的決策。
    經濟博弈已經顯示,睾酮使你變得更自信,卻使你更不合作。
    因為誰需要合作?
    因為我自己已經掌控了一切。
    睾酮使人變得自負和衝動。
    在某些情境中這可能很好。
    但是如果在其他情境中,你絕對確信你的軍隊在三天內已經侵入了另一個國家。
    那麼,地獄,我們開始第一次世界大戰吧。
    結果你會大吃一驚。
    在此之前,睾酮改變風險評估可能對這種誤判起了很大作用。
    真是有趣。
    我總是想著睾酮和多巴胺在大腦中是近親,因為多巴胺在創造外部刺激的偏見中扮演了重要角色。
    你知道,當某人服用增加多巴胺的藥物或他們充斥著多巴胺時,他們傾向,我想強調“傾向”,因為我真的在概括,但他們傾向於專注於外部目標。
    你知道,那些超出自己皮膚邊界的事情。
    而睾酮似乎也有些相同的效果。
    它往往讓我們以類似的方式來感知外部世界,並詢問諸如「我如何與這個同類相處?」
    「我如何與這些目標相處?」
    我們能做些什麼來更好地概念化睾酮與多巴胺和動機之間的關係?
    好吧,我認為這與對多巴胺的巨大修訂有很大關係。
    自法老時期以來,每個人都被教導多巴胺與快樂和獎勵有關。
    結果發現,事實並非如此。
    它與獎勵的期待有關。
    它與產生動機、實現目標的行為需要去獲得那個獎勵有關。
    不久之前,你一直在利用類似的高水平多巴胺,驅使你去做任何能讓你在來世獲得進天國的事情。
    有點像,你知道,這就是它的運作方式。
    所以這真的是關於動機。
    而睾酮所做的,即使在不具攻擊性的個體中,為什麼睾酮替代療法對於年長男性來說通常是一件非常健康的事情,是因為它增加了精力。
    它增加了存在感、警覺性。
    它增加了動機。
    在幾分鐘內,睾酮增加了骨骼肌對葡萄糖的攝取。
    你變得更加清醒和警覺等等。
    這與多巴胺的作用有很大關係。
    那麼,正如預測的那樣,將適當水平的睾酮注入你的血液循環對實驗室的老鼠來說感覺非常棒。
    它們會施加杠桿以獲得能最佳化多巴胺釋放的注入範圍。
    所以你完全正確。
    它們密切交織在一起。
    我想問問雌激素的問題。
    你知道,我們不常聽到雌激素。
    然而,雌激素對動物的大腦以及人類的男性和女性都具有非常強大的影響。
    有什麼一般的雌激素主題是人們應該注意或你認為普遍被誤解的嗎?
    難道真的就全是關於感情、同理心和讓我們更敏感的嗎?
    我感覺不是。
    不。如果你在血液中有很多雌激素和沒有的選擇之間,請選擇擁有大量雌激素。
    它能增強認知。
    它刺激海馬體的神經生成。
    它增加葡萄糖和氧氣的輸送。
    它可以保護你免於癡呆。
    它降低對血管的炎症性氧化損傷,這就是為什麼它有助於保護心血管疾病,而睾酮則使這一切變得更糟。
    雌激素是預測阿茲海默病保護的最重要因素之一,所有這些。
    但它需要是生理的。
    一直保持下去。
    繼續你身體長期以來一直在做的事,而不是讓整個系統關閉,然後突然嘗試點燃地下室底部的煤爐之類的東西。
    這樣得出的結果會完全不同。
    真是迷人。
    我想這也引發了關於睾酮替代療法的問題,是否人們應該在不久之前就與他們的醫生溝通。
    男性和女性,與你的醫生儘早談談,以避免在睾酮和/或雌激素不足期間出現的問題。
    聽起來這可能會導致長期問題,即使當療法被引入後也是如此。
    我想簡要回到壓力的話題。
    你曾描述過一項研究,講述了兩隻老鼠,一隻是自願在輪子上跑,另一隻幾乎被困在輪子裡,在第一隻老鼠跑的時候被迫跑。
    所以在一種情況下,老鼠是在自願運動。
    而在另一種情況下,老鼠被迫去上體育課,換句話說,並表現出對生物學的不同影響。
    你對壓力緩解有什麼看法,我們作為個人、家庭及文化應該怎麼做,以鼓勵人們減輕壓力,但又不會讓我們變成第二隻老鼠,讓我們被迫減輕自己的壓力,從而變得更有壓力?
    而你看到的是,第一隻老鼠獲得了所有運動的好處。
    第二隻老鼠卻獲得了所有嚴重壓力的壞處,儘管它們的肌肉消耗和運動完全相同。
    完全對稱。
    這是一個很好的例子,顯示出這是你腦中的解讀。
    任何我在這裡要說的話,我都應該先提到,我在告訴人們如果他們不管理壓力,會發生什麼的方面還算不錯,但在實際管理壓力或提供如何管理的建議方面,我卻非常糟糕。我在壞消息的方面要好得多。不過,有些人的壓力反應極大,而另外一些人則完全沒有,這之間的差異,真是有趣。
    那麼,什麼是使心理壓力變得壓力重重的基本要素呢?第一個要素正是那個跑步研究所提出的問題。你是否有控制感?控制感會使壓力源變得不那麼令人緊張。與此相關的是可預測感,而這對於防護也至關重要。另一些則是宣洩挫折的出口。你把一隻受到電擊的老鼠放在一根木條上,它就可以去咬木條,這樣壓力源變得不那麼令它感到壓力。不幸的是,如果你面對的對象是老鼠、猿類或人類,而他們感到壓力,向比自己更小、更弱的人發洩怒氣的能力同樣會減少壓力反應。而位移攻擊,且這種攻擊能減輕壓力,會造成地球上大量的不幸福。因此,所有這些變量也會得到社會支持,這是非常重要的。
    解釋境況為好消息而不是壞消息,這個觀點很好。所以你有這麼一個非常簡單的總結,就是去獲得盡可能多的控制感、預測性、發洩渠道和社會支持。這樣你會做得很好。然後你就這樣去做了。但這是一個徹底災難的食譜,因為這其中的微妙之處遠遠超過這些。這也是為什麼關於控制和可預測性的壓力管理技巧,在對無家可歸者或絕症患者或難民宣講這些時,結果往往會比中立情況更糟。
    告訴一位神經質的中產階級人士,他們擁有將地獄變成天堂的心理工具,這其中是有一定真理的。而對於那些真正經歷著地獄的人,這就是特權的冷酷,因為這樣做根本不起作用。這不是簡單的事情。要正確做到這一點需要很多的努力,因為如果你做錯了,它暫時可能看起來是一件好事。但當它被證明是完全錯誤的時候,你會感覺比開始之前還糟糕。
    我想稍微休息一下,並感謝我們的贊助商 AG1。AG1 是一種含有維他命、礦物質和益生菌的飲料,還包括益生元和適應原。作為一名在研究科學領域工作了近三十年的人,以及在健康與健身方面同樣長時間的從業者,我不斷尋找最佳工具來提升我的心理健康、身體健康和表現。我在 2012 年發現了 AG1,那時我還沒有播客,自那以後我每天都在服用。我發現它能改善我健康的所有方面,包括我的能量、專注度,服用後我感覺要好得多。
    AG1 使用高質量的成分進行最佳組合,並不斷改善配方而不提高成本。事實上,AG1 剛剛推出了最新的配方升級。這一代配方基於對益生菌對腸道微生物群的影響的令人興奮的新研究。它現在包含幾種經過臨床研究的益生菌菌株,顯示能支持消化健康和免疫系統健康,以及改善腸道規律和減少脹氣。
    每當有人問我如果只能選擇一種補充劑,那會是什麼時,我總是回答 AG1。如果你想嘗試 AG1,可以訪問 drinkag1.com/huberman。在限時期間,AG1 正在贈送一個月免費的 Omega-3 魚油以及一瓶維他命 D3 加 K2。正如我在這個播客中強調過的,Omega-3 魚油和維他命 D3 K2 已被證明能幫助改善情緒和大腦健康、心臟健康、以及健康的荷爾蒙水平等等。
    再說一次,訪問 drinkag1.com/huberman 以獲取免費的一個月的 Omega-3 魚油及一瓶維他命 D3 加 K2,隨著你的訂閱。
    今天的節目也得到了 David 的贊助。David 的蛋白質棒與其他蛋白質棒截然不同。它含有 28 克蛋白質,只有 150 卡路里,並且零克糖。沒錯,28 克蛋白質,75% 的卡路里來自蛋白質。這比下一個最接近的蛋白質棒高出 50%。David 的蛋白質棒味道也很棒,質地也很棒。我最喜歡的口味是巧克力餅乾麵團,但我也喜歡新的巧克力花生醬口味和巧克力布朗尼口味。基本上,我非常喜歡所有口味,它們都非常美味。事實上,最艱難的挑戰就是知道哪一天吃哪一個口味,還有一天吃幾個。我控制自己每天最多吃兩個,但我真的非常喜歡它們。使用 David,我能在小吃的卡路里中攝取 28 克蛋白質,這使我能輕鬆達到每天每磅體重一克的蛋白質目標,且能做到這一點而不攝取過多的卡路里。我在大多數下午都會吃一根 David 的蛋白質棒,外出或旅行時我也會隨身帶一根。它們真的非常美味,考慮到它們有 28 克蛋白質,這只需要150 卡路里,真的是很有滿足感。
    如果你也想嘗試 David,可以訪問 davidprotein.com/huberman。
    如今,人們對使用身體實踐來減輕壓力的興趣很高,試圖走出反覆思考的僵局,在某種程度上通過運動、呼吸和催眠來控制大腦中的神經迴路。
    您對於更偏重於頭腦的、認知的方法來減輕壓力的看法如何?這些方法是否比直接針對生理核心的方式更有效呢?而現在,冷水澡在某種程度上已經成為一種流行的方式,您知道嗎?人們自願地接受冷水澡,以幫助他們適應壓力。還有超覺冥想、正念、運動、祈禱,還有反思感恩,這些都屬於這類方法。總體來說,這些方法對大多數人而言是有效的。它們可以降低心率和膽固醇水平,並帶來各種良好的結果,但它們並不能保證完全奏效。
    根據Grunning Neal的研究,最重要的一點是,無論您的朋友有多少人堅信某一種壓力管理技巧,若這種技巧在您使用了十秒後會讓您想要尖叫,那就不適合您。所以,重新定義測評見證吧,但重要的是,這必須是適合您的東西。
    另一個要點是,能夠有效的壓力管理技巧不應該是特意留到週末使用。您無法將它們留到在電話上與音樂保持靜止兩分鐘時使用。它必須是這樣的事情:您需要停止原本的活動,幾乎每天或每兩天進行一次,並花二十到三十分鐘去做。無論您在這二十分鐘內採取什麼壓力管理技術,只要您已經決定您的身心健康足夠重要,值得每天優先處理,您就已經成功了80%。所以,並沒有什麼神奇的呼吸工具或運動。無論是這些方法中的哪一種,只要是您選擇的、為之騰出空間的,以及希望享受的,那就是對生理方面最有效的。
    這讓我想到了這個問題:我發現令人驚訝的是,對事件的感知以及我們是否選擇參與該事件,能在大腦的電路、身體的電路,以及細胞的生物學上產生如此不一樣的影響。在某些方面,這讓我感到困惑:一個明顯使用前額葉皮層所做出的決策,為什麼可以改變身體反應的極性?您之前談到過A型性格,我們不必為了節省時間而展開所有細節,但有趣的是內皮細胞的影響,甚至包括血液流通通道的大小,根據一個人是否希望作為一個高度有動力的人參與某情境而方向恰恰相反。或許您可以簡單概述一下這一點,然後,也許可以推測一下大腦是如何將一種經驗從糟糕轉變為有益,或是從有益轉變為糟糕的。
    這真的很有趣。您可以想像自主調節神經元以某種方式行動,這只有其他動物在極端環境下才能做到。當您談到算作刺激的最佳壓力水平時,通常來說,這種壓力如果不過於強烈,且不持續太長時間,在整體上是有利的。在這些條件下,我們喜歡被意外、不受控制和不可預測的計畫所施加的壓力,就像在您觀看的電影中發生的有趣情節反轉那樣。這是好事,但個體之間的差異總是需要考慮的事實。對某些人來說,完美的刺激性壓力可能是下週日早起參加一次觀鳥活動;而對其他人來說,則可能是報名成為也門的一名僱傭兵。這些巨大的個體差異幾乎使得任何簡單的處方都變得無效。
    是的,前額葉皮層,這我們每個人心中都擁有的思考機制,真是一把雙刃劍。令我驚訝的是,像下丘腦和杏仁核之類的區域,基本上就像某種開關。如果您刺激內側下丘腦,讓正確的神經元工作,動物就會試著攻擊甚至是旁邊的物體。您如果挑動某些其他神經元,它就會試著與該物體交配,這真的十分驚人。我認為前額葉皮層中也許有某種法則,但它似乎能夠從所謂的多重背景中汲取知識,因而幾乎是無窮無盡的,因此我們可能學會將威脅感知到任何事物上,無論是另一個群體,也無論是科學,還是有人對地球形狀的不同看法。就像您可以將任何事物插入這個系統並提供足夠的數據,聽起來您就能引發恐懼的反應或愛的反應。這是否有些過界?
    不,這絕對是事實。我們可以在多大程度上調整前額葉皮層與這些其他更為原始系統之間的關係呢?哦,這是相當大的。舉例來說,在社會層級中排位較低通常對健康是不利的,而且在所有哺乳動物中,包括我們。但我們可以做到一件特殊的事情,那就是同時參與多個層級。雖然您在其中一個層級中排位較低,您卻可能在另一個層級中是極其高的。有些人可能在公司裡的工作是最糟糕的,但他們卻是今年公司隊伍的壘球隊長。您可以肯定這樣的人會尋找各種方法來告訴自己,從星期一到星期五的九到五的工作只是為了支付賬單而已,而真正重要的是,您知道的,週末的名望。因此,我們可以在這方面進行各種心理遊戲。
    這段文字的翻譯如下:
    我們所做的,並需要在前額皮質中瘋狂運用的最一致、最可靠的事情之一,就是當有人做了壞事時,你需要對此進行歸因。
    答案是他們之所以做壞事,是因為他們本質上就是壞的。
    一直都是,永遠都是這樣的根本解釋。
    你對某人做了壞事,之後你如何解釋呢?
    是情境的解釋。
    我當時很累。
    我當時很緊張。
    在這種情況下,我誤解了這件事。
    我們最擅長為自己找藉口,因為我們能接觸到自己的內心生活。
    而我們的前額皮質擅長提出情境的解釋,而不是,嘿,也許你只是一個自私的壞人。
    我們需要改變。
    這一切都是前額皮質的作用。
    我們每次不讓別人佔用我們前面的車道時都是如此,雖然當有人對我們做同樣的事情時,我們會咒罵不止。
    你提到的有關我們可以選擇參與多個層級的事實,對我來說,在如今社交媒體如此普遍的情況下,尤其重要。
    但在我看來,社交媒體的有趣之處在於,背景是非常非常廣泛的。
    當你刷社交媒體動態時,你會接觸到數千甚至數百萬的背景。
    這頓飯、那場足球比賽、這個人的身體、這個人的智力。
    這是一個廣闊的景觀。
    因此,背景完全是雜亂無章的。
    而我假設我們進化的過程中,確實是在更受限制的背景下。
    我們與有限數量的個體和不同的領域互動。
    但現在比以往任何時候,我們的大腦,我們的前額皮質,和我們在這些多重層級中所存在的感知,已經變得無限擴展。
    你認為這可能如何與一些更原始的系統以及我們生物學的其他方面互動呢?
    嗯,我認為你會得到的是,在某種程度上,這是最具人性特徵的精華,不斷地,我們使用相同的藍圖,相同的荷爾蒙,相同的激酶,相同的受體,所有的一切都是相同的。
    我們由與其他所有物種完全相同的物質構成,然後又以完全新穎的方式使用它。
    通常來說,這涉及到在空間和時間以及戲劇性的方式上進行抽象。
    好吧,你是一隻低階的狒狒,因為你剛剛捕到了一隻兔子並準備吃掉它,卻被一隻高階的狒狒踢走並奪走了它。
    你感到糟糕,感到壓力,感到不快。
    當我們失去自尊時,我們的大腦和身體正做著完全相同的事情。
    但我們可以通過在螢幕上觀看一個電影角色來感受到這種不如意,並覺得自己與他們相比顯得不夠好或吸引人。
    我們可以通過讓某人在貴重的車子旁駛過來而感到微不足道,而我們甚至看不到他們的面孔。
    而你可能會因自己的社會經濟地位而感到自卑。
    你可以觀看富人和名人的生活方式,或閱讀貝索斯在忙些什麼,而出於某種原因,決定因為你沒有搭乘太空飛行器飛行11分鐘而使自己的生活感到不夠充實。
    因此,你可能會因為這種原因感到悲慘,這是其他生物無法做到的,因為我們的有意義社交網絡可以包括你在Facebook上閱讀到的某個派對,而你卻沒有受邀,因為它在新加坡舉行,而你不認識那裡的任何人。
    但儘管如此,這卻可能使你對自己感到不滿意。
    非常感謝你今天的對話。
    我學到了很多。
    每次你發言,我都會學到東西。
    對我來說,今天能和你互動,以及在過去幾年中作為同事一起交流,真的非常愉快和快樂。
    再次感謝你,羅伯特,感謝你所做的一切,以及你在工作中投入的所有艱苦努力和思考,因為顯然你付出了很多努力和思考,結果我們都受益於此。
    謝謝,感謝你讓我參與。
    這次交流非常愉快。
    正如今天節目開始時提到的,我們現在與Momentus補充品建立了合作關係,因為他們生產的單一成分配方是絕對最高品質且可以國際運送的。
    如果你訪問 livemomentus.com slash Huberman,你將找到在Huberman Lab播客的各個劇集中討論的許多補充品,並找到與這些補充品相關的各種方案。

    In this Huberman Lab Essentials episode my guest is Dr. Robert Sapolsky, PhD, a professor of biology, neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University.  

    We discuss different types of stress and how our perception of stress as harmful or beneficial largely depends on context. He also explains how testosterone amplifies pre-existing behaviors and tendencies, and he highlights the crucial role of estrogen in supporting brain and body health. We also discuss daily cognitive practices for stress mitigation and how modern life, influenced by social media and complex social hierarchies, shapes our responses to stress.

    Read the episode show notes at hubermanlab.com.

    Thank you to our sponsors

    AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman

    Function: https://functionhealth.com/huberman

    LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/huberman

    David: https://davidprotein.com/huberman

    Timestamps

    00:00:00 Robert Sapolsky

    00:00:23 Positive & Negative Stress; Excitement, Amygdala

    00:02:47 Testosterone & Brain, Aggression, Hierarchy

    00:06:27 Sponsors: Function & LMNT

    00:09:18 Testosterone, Motivation, Challenge & Confidence

    00:13:52 Dopamine, Testosterone & Motivation

    00:16:20 Estrogen, Brain & Health, Replacement Therapies

    00:18:12 Stress Mitigation

    00:22:09 Sponsors: AG1 & David

    00:24:59 Cognitive Practices for Stress Mitigation, Individual Variability, Consistency

    00:27:18 Stress, Perception & Individual Differences

    00:29:39 Context, Stress & Brain

    00:32:47 Social Media, Context, Multiple Hierarchies

    00:35:57 Acknowledgments

    Disclaimer & Disclosures

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • America’s Branding Crisis — with Heather Cox Richardson

    AI transcript
    0:00:03 Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you’re not sure where to start?
    0:00:07 Thumbtack knows homes, so you don’t have to.
    0:00:10 Don’t know the difference between matte paint finish and satin?
    0:00:13 Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?
    0:00:16 With Thumbtack, you don’t have to be a home pro.
    0:00:17 You just have to hire one.
    0:00:23 You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.
    0:00:24 Download today.
    0:00:28 Support for the show comes from General Assembly.
    0:00:31 It seems like just about every industry is trying to figure out how to fit AI into their workflows.
    0:00:35 You can’t throw a rock without hitting a new product that promises to automate, innovate, and optimize.
    0:00:38 But what good is a powerful tool if you don’t know how to use it?
    0:00:43 According to their data, General Assembly found that 58% of executives have never had any kind of AI training,
    0:00:45 which means that the skill gap starts at the top.
    0:00:50 If that sounds familiar to you, you’re in luck, because now there’s an AI academy from General Assembly.
    0:00:55 General Assembly’s AI academy helps teams master AI by offering role-specific, real-world training
    0:00:58 designed to boost productivity and accelerate transformation.
    0:01:03 You and your team can learn the in-demand skills that unlock the potential of AI at every level of the organization.
    0:01:07 That’s practical AI fluency for every team, not just the tech team.
    0:01:13 Visit ga.co slash AI academy to explore AI academy training tracks tailored to your team’s roles and goals.
    0:01:18 That’s ga.co slash AI academy to learn more.
    0:01:21 ga.co slash AI academy.
    0:01:22 General Assembly.
    0:01:24 Real skills, real impact.
    0:01:32 There’s a lot nobody tells you about running a small business, like the pricing,
    0:01:42 the marketing, the budgeting, the accidents, the panicking, and the things, and the things, and the non-stop things.
    0:01:46 But having the right insurance can help protect you from many things.
    0:01:51 Customize your coverage to get the protection you need with BCAA Small Business Insurance.
    0:01:57 Use promo code PROTECT to receive $50 off at bcaa.com slash smallbusiness.
    0:02:01 Episode 356.
    0:02:03 356 is the country code for Malta.
    0:02:08 In 1956, Elvis Presley released his first hit single, Heartbreak Hotel.
    0:02:08 Choose to it.
    0:02:12 Someone asked me to do an impression of Elvis, and I said, sure.
    0:02:14 And I pretended to be dead on the crapper.
    0:02:16 Go!
    0:02:17 Go!
    0:02:17 Go!
    0:02:18 Go!
    0:02:28 Welcome to the 356th episode of the Prop G-Pod.
    0:02:28 What’s happening?
    0:02:30 I am still in Ibiza.
    0:02:33 I just think Ibiza is fascinating.
    0:02:40 One, they’ve managed to maintain this point of differentiation in this sort of singular ownership of island life and DJ culture.
    0:02:43 And the result is incredible margins.
    0:02:52 Specifically, I am staying at the Sixth Senses, which is this new raft of six-star priced hotels with four-star service.
    0:02:54 It’s just, it’s nice.
    0:02:55 It’s lovely.
    0:02:58 But it’s not worth the money we’re paying, quite frankly.
    0:03:06 And part of that is, A, Ibiza draws a tremendous crowd with lots of money and has this sort of singular feel.
    0:03:06 What do you want to do?
    0:03:07 What is all strategy?
    0:03:09 What can we do that is really hard?
    0:03:15 Becoming known for a great island that has the world’s best DJs in residence, that is really hard to do.
    0:03:19 And then figuring out a way to price discriminate such that you get enough people to create a vibe,
    0:03:28 but also monetize the people here who are in their 50s who still want to see Calvin Harris and figure out a way to charge them a crazy amount of money.
    0:03:29 That’s just not easy.
    0:03:35 Speaking of the super wealthy getting even wealthier, the tax bill passed last week, which I find incredibly disturbing.
    0:03:41 One, because I can’t understand how America has not basically decided it’s the Hunger Games.
    0:03:43 And that is, they weren’t fooled.
    0:03:46 I think people want to think, oh, they don’t realize what’s in the bill.
    0:03:49 Unfortunately, I think Americans do realize what’s in the bill.
    0:03:58 And I think the lower 90 realize that they’re now nutrition for the top 10 percent, but believe that someday they’ll be in the top 10 and also conflate masculinity with cruelty.
    0:04:12 When they see ICE agents holding people down and putting a knee on their head as a, you know, a 16-year-old screams to let his mother go, they find that those are hard decisions and that’s masculinity and that’s leadership.
    0:04:15 And they’re so angry, they want to see that type of persecution.
    0:04:17 You want to protect jobs, people?
    0:04:23 Get your head out of your ass and start figuring out vocational training and some sort of, I don’t know, upskilling around AI.
    0:04:25 You know who’s taking our jobs?
    0:04:29 It’s not some lady wiping your grandma’s ass or collecting or picking your crops.
    0:04:38 What does it mean when you have ICE agents who find that the most fruitful ways to find these quote-unquote undocumented workers is at schools, churches, and Home Depot?
    0:04:40 Are those really the people we want to be deporting?
    0:04:46 Anyways, by the way, this is totally reimagined Gestapo, full stop.
    0:04:46 Yeah.
    0:04:55 Oh, by the way, in case you’re asking, in case you just got your conservative ire up or my, are about to accuse me of TDS and say, oh, what, you’re comparing him to Hitler?
    0:04:58 Yeah, I am, 100 percent, 100 percent.
    0:05:01 But it’s clear, this isn’t just an accident.
    0:05:03 The American people have not been fooled here.
    0:05:04 They’ve decided this is what they want.
    0:05:06 They want a certain level of harshness.
    0:05:08 They want a certain level of cruelty.
    0:05:12 They’ve conflated that with leadership and masculinity.
    0:05:14 I think that is what is most frightening and most disappointing here.
    0:05:27 But by the way, I’ve loaded my taxes into Chad GPT, and I’m going to get this, save about between $400,000 and $1.4 million a year over the next five years, based on what I’m hoping I make and the impact of this tax bill.
    0:05:33 This is nothing but a transfer of wealth, again, from the poor to the rich.
    0:05:44 And the poor will see most of that transfer in the form of incredible erosion in health care and the social safety net, and the wealthy will just get continued goodies in terms of tax cuts.
    0:05:56 And then we’ll throw in some authoritarianism wrapped in bureaucratic language such that the senior administrative officials, administration officials can’t be subpoenaed or aren’t subject to certain checks or safeguards.
    0:05:59 This is absolutely a move towards authoritarianism.
    0:06:03 And what’s the most disturbing thing about it is it doesn’t feel like the American public has been fooled.
    0:06:07 It appears that that is, in fact, what they want.
    0:06:13 I look at when I’m on a vacation like this, I have time to slow down.
    0:06:19 And I think like most people, when you’re on vacation with your family, you do kind of count your blessings and have some time to reflect.
    0:06:23 And I immediately reverse engineer my prosperity.
    0:06:26 This is what happens when you’re under the age of 40, or this is what happened to me.
    0:06:28 And maybe I was just less thoughtful than most people.
    0:06:34 But under the age of 40, when I reverse engineered my success to pillars, I credited my grit and my character.
    0:06:35 Like, check my shit out.
    0:06:37 I’m just so fucking impressive.
    0:06:42 And this is, and all the panels I was on, well, this is how I, I, I did this X, Y, and Z.
    0:06:48 And then as you get older, you realize, and I think this is part of maturing, that a lot of your success is not your fault.
    0:06:51 And that has become so strikingly clear to me as I’ve gotten older.
    0:06:59 And then when I reverse engineer my prosperity and blessings to pillars upon which those, that prosperity and those blessings were built on,
    0:07:03 I go all the way back to the fourth grade when I got assisted lunch.
    0:07:05 That is my family.
    0:07:07 My mom made $800 a month as a secretary.
    0:07:09 And so we qualified for assisted lunch.
    0:07:17 And the wonderful thing about this program, the wonderful, the really generous thing that reflected so well on America about this program,
    0:07:19 I didn’t know about it.
    0:07:20 I didn’t know about it till later in life.
    0:07:21 Why?
    0:07:28 Because the good taxpayers of California and our wonderful federal government said it’s important that nine-year-olds don’t feel stigmatized.
    0:07:30 So my mom would send in paperwork.
    0:07:34 I would get the same lunch and breakfast coupons that every other kid had.
    0:07:35 So there was no stigma attached.
    0:07:42 I think that says something so nice about American values, or at least what used to be American values.
    0:07:44 And then I got to high school.
    0:07:50 When I was 17, and I’ve spoken very openly about this, my mom told me she was going to have to spend the night in the hospital
    0:07:55 because she was getting something called a DNC, which I later found out meant she was getting an abortion.
    0:08:05 And had we lived in America, in deep, dark, red country, we just weren’t very sophisticated or knowledgeable.
    0:08:09 We probably would have had an unwanted pregnancy.
    0:08:11 And at the age of 17, I had a job installing shelving.
    0:08:12 I was making good money.
    0:08:16 I probably, I most definitely would not have gone to UCLA.
    0:08:27 And that would have not created this upward spiral of prosperity that I’ve enjoyed because of the generosity of California taxpayers and the great University of California system.
    0:08:31 When I got to UCLA, the only way I got through was with Pell Grants.
    0:08:33 I just couldn’t afford to be there.
    0:08:38 Oh, and by the way, the fact that it had a 74% admissions rate, but Pell Grants got me through college.
    0:08:43 And I qualified for those because, see, above, I came from an upper, lower, middle-class household.
    0:08:48 A third of Pell Grant recipients will either have their grants reduced or eliminated.
    0:08:55 When I graduated from college, I got to start companies and raise tens and then hundreds of millions of dollars.
    0:08:58 All of my companies were built on the Internet.
    0:08:59 Oh, by the way, who funded the Internet?
    0:09:00 The federal government.
    0:09:04 Why? Because we have the capital to make these big forward-leaning investments in technology.
    0:09:17 We’re about to have a trillion dollars in debt service payments, which will crowd out all types of forward-leaning technology investments because we are massively funding with future prosperity these tax cuts.
    0:09:23 So are we going to have the money to invent or invest in these deep, deep technologies that the private sector won’t invest in?
    0:09:25 Oh, I was able to raise capital.
    0:09:25 Why?
    0:09:30 Because there was $5 million for every startup in the United States versus $1 million in Europe.
    0:09:30 Why?
    0:09:31 Because of rule of law.
    0:09:33 Who built my companies?
    0:09:34 Well, one, I’d like to think I had a role on it.
    0:09:39 But Jawad Mohamed, my first programmer, Red Envelope, an immigrant from Pakistan.
    0:09:46 Claude De Jokist, probably our most talented consultant, ran our CPG group, was an immigrant from Canada, who, by the way, was almost kicked out of America.
    0:09:55 But because I have money, I was able to lawyer up and make sure she could stay and build a great American company that seven years later, we sold for $160 million.
    0:09:58 Made a bunch of Americans and made a bunch of Americans and some immigrants rich.
    0:10:04 Christine Dang at Red Envelope, our chief merchant, an immigrant from Vietnam.
    0:10:12 The talent pool to build these great companies was because we, in fact, we, in fact, loved immigrants.
    0:10:14 So let’s go even further back.
    0:10:16 America welcomed my mother and father.
    0:10:26 Had they run the risk of having their phone absconded or being shipped to some sort of detention center in a swamp land or being tracked down at work or something like that?
    0:10:30 Or even if they got here legally, they think, do I really need to be here fucking?
    0:10:35 Oh, another great immigrant, Maria Petrova, who, in her fifth language, edits my books and newsletters.
    0:10:37 Jesus Christ.
    0:10:39 Yeah, we don’t want that kind of talent coming here anymore.
    0:10:51 So even if they’re not worried about having being run down and basically physically abused by ice, mass ice agents, do they really want to come here?
    0:10:55 Universities. I got to go create an amazing platform at universities.
    0:10:59 Why? Because corporations love working with academics.
    0:11:08 There was incredible deep research funded by the government that gave us the resources to pursue the truth, which the private sector absolutely loves and benefits from.
    0:11:10 Now, that’s under attack.
    0:11:11 Back to mom and dad.
    0:11:12 I don’t think they’d be here.
    0:11:16 I don’t think I would have been able to make the best decision I’ve ever made.
    0:11:20 The best decision I’ve ever made would not have been afforded to me, specifically to be born in America,
    0:11:25 because I don’t think my parents would have come and put up a door to risk this bullshit right now.
    0:11:28 Let’s go even further back, even further back.
    0:11:35 My mother was a four year old sleeping in the tube in London as Hitler bombed the shit out of London in the Blitzkrieg.
    0:11:51 history is because we decided that fascism was unacceptable.
    0:11:53 History is rhyming.
    0:11:56 It sounds like a bad cover band right now.
    0:11:57 Would I be here?
    0:12:03 Would my mom have survived if America hadn’t immediately decided that fascism was unacceptable?
    0:12:27 So everything that I think I am blessed with or many things that have created just what is an exceptional life around around economic opportunity, loving the middle class, giving people merit and opportunity, a certain rule of fair play, a love of immigrants and a love of the unremarkable.
    0:12:36 And appreciation that with a little bit of money, you can invest in young people and they will be able to pay that money back.
    0:12:46 And that will be a good return on investment, making sure kids have nutrition, making sure people have access to some sort of dignity, making sure that women have some sort of bodily autonomy.
    0:12:52 All the things my success is built on, all of those foundations are under attack right now.
    0:13:02 And if you look through your history and your blessings, and most of us are a lot more blessed than we want to believe because social media has made us angry at everybody and angry at ourselves.
    0:13:05 But the majority of you listening to this podcast have exceptional prosperity.
    0:13:17 And if you reverse engineer it to many of the core things that weren’t your fault, that really led to your success, many of them, many of them, if not most of them, in my case, are under attack.
    0:13:30 This is a direct insult to all of the people who made huge sacrifices to ensure that we lived in a free, democratic society that loved unremarkable people.
    0:13:33 Okay, moving on.
    0:13:43 In today’s episode, we speak with Heather Cox Richardson, a Boston College historian and author who connects American history to today’s politics in her bestselling books and popular newsletter, Letters from an American.
    0:13:50 We discussed with Professor Richardson the evolution of the Republican Party, Trump’s mega bill, and what still gives her hope for America.
    0:13:54 So with that, here’s our conversation with Heather Cox Richardson.
    0:14:12 Professor Richardson, where does this podcast find you?
    0:14:19 I am in mid-coast Maine, much hotter than I have been in the last nine months up here.
    0:14:20 Nice.
    0:14:23 Well, let’s bust right into it here.
    0:14:33 How has patriotism been redefined in recent years, and what would it look like to reclaim it in service of democracy rather than authoritarianism?
    0:14:36 Well, the second half of that is easy, but let’s start with the first half of it.
    0:14:56 One of the things that the Republicans did pretty effectively, really starting in the 1950s with the scare about communism, but certainly after the 1960s and the 1970s, was to identify membership in the Republican Party as being the heart of patriotism.
    0:15:01 I mean, you really see this taking off under Nixon and Spiro Agnew when they deliberately polarized the country.
    0:15:06 They called it positive polarization, meaning that it was positive for them because people would vote Republican.
    0:15:15 And you see it really taking off under Ronald Reagan and his construction of the other people like welfare queens.
    0:15:27 And once you got into talk radio in the mid-80s and then into the Fox News channel, the deliberate division of the country into two groups, one, you know, assumed to be pro-America and the other assumed to be anti-American.
    0:15:31 And, you know, that picked up a lot of themes like the fight against the Vietnam War and so on.
    0:15:37 But that idea that patriotism belongs to a certain party has turned out to be, you know, really quite poisonous.
    0:15:48 And you see now the elevation of partisanship over country in, you know, even in things as recently as the budget reconciliation bill.
    0:15:53 So there is a perversion of patriotism that we see going on around us.
    0:16:02 But reclaiming a broader patriotism that shows an allegiance to the country rather than to a political party, you know, we’ve done that repeatedly in the past.
    0:16:09 And the answer to that is simply to return to the foundational principles of the American democracy, the idea that we should be treated equally before the law.
    0:16:13 We have a right to a say in our government and we have a right to equal access to resources.
    0:16:20 Those aren’t difficult concepts and they’re the ones that have managed to create broad based political movements throughout our history.
    0:16:25 What do you think Americans get wrong about how authoritarian regimes come into power?
    0:16:33 And does this what other moment in history would you most equate this one to in terms of a rise of authoritarianism?
    0:16:46 You know, I think a lot of Americans in the past, and I don’t think this is necessarily true any longer, but a lot of Americans in the past thought of authoritarians as people who arrived with the fanfare of the military behind them.
    0:16:48 And the truth is that the military comes later.
    0:16:59 The rise of an authoritarian comes from within established systems, often democratic systems, where people vote into power somebody, never who has a majority.
    0:17:00 Hitler was democratically elected, no?
    0:17:07 Well, yes, but, well, those authoritarians never have a majority of the population.
    0:17:13 They are able to use the systems in order to turn a very small minority into a governing body.
    0:17:17 So, anyway, I think we’re seeing the same thing around us now.
    0:17:22 And what looks like this in the past to me is one of two things.
    0:17:31 Either the 1850s and the ability of a few elite slave owners to monopolize the political system to take over the government in their own interest.
    0:17:36 Or the 1890s when we saw something very similar among the giant industrialists.
    0:17:40 And that, in a way, makes it easier to see ways to get out of it.
    0:17:45 I often draw parallels between America now and 1930s Germany.
    0:17:47 Do you think that’s a fitting comparison?
    0:17:49 Both the examples you gave were from American history.
    0:17:52 Well, remember, I’m an Americanist.
    0:17:56 So, you know, I can speak with authority on America.
    0:17:59 Any other country that I talk about is ill-informed.
    0:18:05 You know, what historians do is we understand our body of work.
    0:18:07 And what I do is America.
    0:18:10 And my background is only partly in history.
    0:18:12 You know, my master’s is in literature.
    0:18:14 My degree is in American civilization.
    0:18:19 So I’ve been trained in a very different way than a historian who could do comparative history, for example.
    0:18:26 So, yeah, I can read the same books that Germanists read, but I don’t have the theoretical background to speak authoritatively about them.
    0:18:42 What I can do is look at people like Hannah Arendt and Eric Hoffer and George Orwell and all those people who looked at the moment after the rise of Mussolini and Hitler and made broad generalizations about the kinds of populations that are susceptible to a rising authoritarian.
    0:18:49 And, you know, that’s really your field, that idea of how do you market and to what population do you market?
    0:18:55 The idea of giving up your rights and your privileges in order to support one guy.
    0:19:01 So funny, because just as you said that, I was immediately very self-conscious about Dunning-Kruger.
    0:19:03 And that is because I’ve had some success in some areas.
    0:19:06 I feel it gives me license to speak about things I don’t know that much about.
    0:19:13 And I very much appreciate how measured you are in acknowledging that you’re not an expert in certain fields and somewhat remiss to speak about it.
    0:19:16 And that is so that is so rare in today’s age.
    0:19:18 So I do appreciate that.
    0:19:25 And I think it represents one of the wonderful things about academia, that that is a standard in academia, that you are supposed to stay in your own lane.
    0:19:34 So, look, I’d be curious from an American viewpoint or based on your background and domain expertise.
    0:19:36 So I’ll flip the question back to you.
    0:19:40 Who do you think has done the best job of marketing political parties?
    0:19:42 Or let me frame it this way.
    0:19:43 I think the Democratic Party right now.
    0:19:50 My understanding is if the election were held today, that Trump would still win handily over Vice President Harris.
    0:19:54 And that the Democratic Party is less popular right now than Trump or the Republican Party.
    0:20:11 And I would I would argue that a lot of that is marketing, that the Democratic Party is seen primarily as weak as a party of identity politics and a party that doesn’t really understand how to improve the material and psychological well-being of ordinary Americans.
    0:20:20 But I’d love to get your view of what parties and why have been successful at marketing their own brand of politics.
    0:20:27 You know, let’s start with what you just said about the Democrats, because I don’t disagree with you about the way that Democrats are perceived.
    0:20:32 But that’s in part because defining the Democrats has been the business of the Republican Party.
    0:20:43 And that’s, you know, through a media system that elevates the Republican voices through a construction of a certain kind of politics on the Republican side.
    0:20:48 They have managed to define their opponents in ways that are completely inaccurate.
    0:20:52 And the Democrats, I think, have not been able to push back against that successfully.
    0:21:03 Now, you just you started by asking who has successfully marketed the kind of political positions that are the political parties that in our history.
    0:21:15 And one of those groups is today’s modern Republican Party, who since at least the 1980s has billed itself as a party that’s going to dramatically increase economic growth and enable all boats to rise.
    0:21:24 Remember Reagan talking about the fact that this by cutting taxes and cutting regulations, there would be such investment in the economy that would enable everybody to do better.
    0:21:34 And we would be able to have increasing services, not less services, but increasing services because of the increase in tax revenue that quite literally never paid off.
    0:21:42 And you’re still seeing it again with the budget reconciliation bill of just a week ago where, you know, you had Trump out there saying this is going to cause such extraordinary growth.
    0:21:43 It doesn’t.
    0:21:45 That simply does not work.
    0:21:58 But I think they were able to sell it in part by tapping into an extraordinarily powerful mythology and a mythology that is not only part of American history, but part of sort of human literature.
    0:22:09 And that was the idea of the idea of the idea that Ronald Reagan pushed so effectively in 1980 when he was in his campaign in 1980.
    0:22:12 But certainly people had been doing from you before Reagan.
    0:22:16 You could go back to Barry Goldwater and back to William F. Buckley Jr.
    0:22:25 and back even, you know, into the years before the New Deal into fundamentalist Christianity, for example, and into all these different roots in the United States.
    0:22:36 That idea of the individual fighting back against the empire is a powerful enough myth that if you think about it, in 1977, it was the heart of Star Wars.
    0:22:45 That idea of the cowboy and the independent individual and so on, that’s something that a lot of Americans believed that they embodied.
    0:22:49 And I think one of the things that I was just, I just had to walk over here.
    0:22:54 Like I say, I really am a mid-coast Maine and I don’t have cell coverage or cable at my house.
    0:22:56 So I have to, somebody lends me this place to work from.
    0:23:07 And I was walking over here and I was thinking, you know, we’re seeing this now play out where a lot of people who believe that they didn’t need the government, they didn’t need taxes, they could do it all on their own,
    0:23:15 are watching all the pieces of the government on which they depended being slashed and suddenly reaching a reckoning.
    0:23:25 And one of the things that, to me, is intellectually interesting is what happens when people recognize that, in fact, they do need a community.
    0:23:27 They do need each other.
    0:23:35 Well, in the past, what we’ve gotten is the kind of cultural moment where you celebrate buddy movies or community movies.
    0:23:50 You know, during World War II, Hollywood made zero Westerns and they made all those sort of World War II buddy movies or platoon movies and other things that celebrated towns and loyalties to each other.
    0:23:52 Maybe we get a moment like that.
    0:23:55 Maybe we get a lot of people who withdraw from politics.
    0:24:00 Maybe we get an extraordinarily angry reactionary politics that supports authoritarianism.
    0:24:11 But that branding of the Republican Party as the cowboy party, as the individual party, as the party of guys who could make it on their own, was extraordinarily effective.
    0:24:17 And between 1981 and 2021, it moved more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90 percent to the top 1 percent.
    0:24:23 So I think you have to look at that as a pretty, pretty amazing branding moment.
    0:24:25 What would you do for the Democrats now?
    0:24:28 Let me just say I love this conversation.
    0:24:32 So when people ask, what is the strategy of America?
    0:24:38 I would say if you had to distill it down to one very basic thing, since the 1980s, the strategy has been to cut taxes.
    0:24:45 That it’s intoxicating to believe that the private sector, which is incredible in the United States, best private sector arguably in the world,
    0:24:51 that it’s when it’s unbridled and just let to run flat out, that it’ll create so much prosperity,
    0:24:55 so much so much growth that that will ultimately, quote unquote, trickle down.
    0:25:06 I think that it’s just impossible if you have any reverence for data, for numbers and the pursuit of truth to not acknowledge at this point that that strategy has not worked.
    0:25:17 I would argue what you’re calling the cowboy mentality is that we have embraced or conflated masculinity and strength with cruelty and coarseness.
    0:25:34 That there is a certain level of censors being tickled by people who are so angry, felt like they’ve been so lied to, and that anger gets speedballed by algorithms that have a profit incentive in convincing us that your neighbor isn’t a Russian soldier pouring across the Ukrainian border,
    0:25:46 or that your enemy isn’t an Islamic Republic that is threatening, you know, has a gender apartheid, or that your enemy isn’t, you know, climate change.
    0:25:51 Your enemy is the guy or gal next door that doesn’t share your beliefs and that you have every right to be angry at them.
    0:26:06 And that when these individuals see masked ICE agents putting their knees on the head of immigrants, that unfortunately, and I think this is terrible, there are a lot of Americans that conflate that with leadership and strength.
    0:26:19 And that I’d love to lay this all at the feet of Republicans who are engaging in the slow burn towards fascism and are combined cruelty and stupidity, which adds up to depravity.
    0:26:24 But I’m worried, and I want to get your thought here, and then I’ll answer the question about what I think the Democrats need to do.
    0:26:42 I worry that this represents a deeper sickness in American society, that Americans are so anxious, depressed, and angry that they are acting out and they sort of appreciate or conflate this cruelty with strength and with leadership.
    0:26:47 And it represents a deeper sickness in our society that is going to be tougher to fix.
    0:26:48 Your thoughts?
    0:26:49 Well, I agree with that.
    0:26:51 And the piece that you didn’t mention is misogyny.
    0:26:58 I mean, a large part of this, that what you’re talking about, is dominance, is demonstrating dominance.
    0:27:03 And one of the ways it’s been easiest to demonstrate dominance in the U.S. since the 1980s is to dominate women.
    0:27:16 And that, I think, is way under-talked about because the conflation of women’s rights and the modern American government is, I think, terribly underexplored.
    0:27:28 Now, that being said, one of the things that I need to lay on the table, where I think you and I have a real confluence, is that I am an idealist in that, you know, as I said, what historians study is how and why societies change.
    0:27:30 And different people have different ideas about it.
    0:27:34 It could be the economy or mass movements or great men or religion.
    0:27:37 I believe ideas change society.
    0:27:40 So, and everything is subordinate to that.
    0:27:41 Now, that’s just my position.
    0:27:47 You know, I’m not willing to go to the death for that, you know, against somebody who believes something else.
    0:27:54 But if that’s the case, then what you are identifying, and I’m not going to disagree with you about that, is not a constant.
    0:28:06 It is something that has been created by a certain kind of language, which is how we communicate ideas, and by a certain kind of political system that encourages that sort of anger and hatred.
    0:28:18 Because I’m going to throw back at you here that if you actually look at polls on substance, not on things that are political, but if you look at how Americans feel about abortion rights, for example.
    0:28:19 They agree with us.
    0:28:20 They agree with Democrats.
    0:28:22 By a lot.
    0:28:26 But the point is not that they agree with Democrats, but they agree with each other.
    0:28:48 And that disconnect between the American people and what they believe and what they want and what they are being fed by their, I would say, national rather than state leaders primarily, that seems to me to be the place that is the fulcrum for where we are and where those of us who want to change that really should be focusing.
    0:28:51 And that comes down to, I hate to say it, marketing.
    0:28:53 We’ll be right back after a quick break.
    0:29:02 Support for PropG comes from Vanta.
    0:29:05 Starting a company is incredibly gratifying.
    0:29:07 It can also be one of the hardest things you’ll ever do.
    0:29:13 And one of the most challenging parts of it is making sure that you’re meeting all the security compliance standards you need to meet.
    0:29:15 Vanta makes the whole process easier.
    0:29:23 Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance, enabling them to demonstrate strong security practices and scale.
    0:29:30 That means that a whole bunch of tasks that used to be expensive, time-consuming, and complex can now be automated and streamlined.
    0:29:39 Simply put, your company can’t grow if it can’t prove that it’s meeting security standards, including SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA.
    0:29:45 Vanta can get you audit ready in weeks instead of months, saving you up to 85% of associated costs.
    0:29:53 And Vanta scales with your business, helping you continuously monitor compliance, unify risk management, and streamline security reviews all in one place.
    0:29:55 Starting a business is hard.
    0:29:57 Let Vanta make the process a little bit easier.
    0:30:02 Go to Vanta.com slash PropG to meet with a Vanta expert about your business needs.
    0:30:04 That’s Vanta.com slash PropG.
    0:30:12 Support for the show comes from ShipStation.
    0:30:15 You know how in sci-fi shows like Star Trek, the captain just has to tell the computer,
    0:30:18 T, Earl Grey hot, and poof, it appears?
    0:30:26 That sounds nice, but since we’re still stuck in the 21st century, we have to get our luxuries the old-fashioned way, by ordering them online.
    0:30:30 And ShipStation is here to make that process easier and more seamless than ever before.
    0:30:35 ShipStation can help you automate some of the most tedious aspects of e-commerce for your small business at a fraction of the cost.
    0:30:41 ShipStation offers industry-leading, scalable features that help ensure accuracy and get your shipments out the door faster,
    0:30:49 so you can keep your customers happy with automated tracking updates and huge discounts off of UPS, DHL Express, USPS, and FedEx shipping rates.
    0:30:54 During the time of this spot, another 1,400 packages were shipped with the help of ShipStation.
    0:30:57 Upgrade to smoother shipping experience.
    0:31:00 Go to ShipStation.com slash PropG to sign up for your free trial.
    0:31:04 No credit card or contract required, and you can cancel any time.
    0:31:07 That’s ShipStation.com slash PropG.
    0:31:14 Support for the show comes from SoFi Small Business Lending.
    0:31:20 You’re a small business owner, you need capital to find new opportunities and grow, and you can do that with help from SoFi.
    0:31:25 You might know SoFi for student loans and high-interest savings, but now they help small businesses, too.
    0:31:27 No more chasing bankers or wasting time in a branch.
    0:31:31 SoFi Small Business Marketplace is your new go-to fast-end digital solution.
    0:31:37 In one single simple search, SoFi matches you with vetted providers for your business in just minutes.
    0:31:44 You can discover options that meet your specific needs, and if you find a quote that works for you, you may receive funds as soon as the same day you’re approved.
    0:31:52 Say it’s working capital you need or a line of credit or an SBA loan or equipment financing, SoFi’s Marketplace can help you find all of the above.
    0:31:56 It’s already helped thousands of small businesses find the funding they need.
    0:32:05 SoFi also offers business owners curated tools, vetted business bank accounts, business credit card recommendations, and a ton of resources to help you scale your business like a boss.
    0:32:08 SoFi, now helping you get your business right.
    0:32:26 Two weeks ago, I was asked to address what was called the Young Democratic Caucus, which is representatives in Congress under the age of 50.
    0:32:31 And I think it’s hilarious and telling that they would identify any group as young if you’re under the age of 50.
    0:32:33 And this was the entire topic.
    0:32:39 And I feel as if I’m kind of like, I don’t know, Luke Skywalker and you’re Yoda.
    0:32:43 So I want you to correct me and edit me where you think I get this wrong.
    0:32:46 But they said, how do we rebrand the Democratic Party?
    0:32:53 And I said, I think the three pillars are one, restoring our alliances, alliances with our great trading partners and other democracies.
    0:32:57 And the notion that somehow we’ve been taken advantage of is insane.
    0:33:05 They sell us Mercedes at five points of gross margin and they get eight times EBITDA on it or they get 40 cents in value.
    0:33:08 We sell them in video chips at 50 points of gross margin, of which get a 30 PE.
    0:33:24 So we get $15 global trade and these unbelievable alliances pushing back on fascism in the middle of the 20th century, creating unbelievable prosperity, pushing back on Russia, pushing back on China, pushing back promoting civil rights, women’s rights.
    0:33:33 This has just been amazing. These alliances have been a reflection of what it means to be human, our advantage as a species, what it means to be mammal.
    0:33:41 And we need to restore alliances, most specifically in America, restore alliances between Republicans and Democrats, restore alliances between men and women.
    0:33:45 The genders have done an amazing job of convincing themselves that it’s the other gender’s fault.
    0:34:00 Young men believe that their dissent is a function of women’s assent, couldn’t be more wrong, and that we need to restore the greatest alliance in history and that men and women need to stop believing that it’s the other gender’s fault.
    0:34:05 Young men believe, or a lot of women, unfortunately, I think, believe that men don’t have problems.
    0:34:06 Young men don’t have problems.
    0:34:07 They are the problem.
    0:34:08 I don’t think that’s productive either.
    0:34:11 The greatest alliance in history is the history between men and women.
    0:34:16 Men should celebrate, promote, and protect their daughters, their wives, other women.
    0:34:24 And women need to realize that their incredible progress, they will not continue to flourish if men, our young men, are floundering.
    0:34:29 So my first kind of touchstone or pillar is alliances and the importance of alliances and coming together.
    0:34:30 The second is inequality.
    0:34:33 You lose nothing above $10 million.
    0:34:40 There is no reason we shouldn’t have a 60%, 70% alternative minimum tax above $10 million.
    0:34:46 Daniel Kahneman and every psychologist has shown that above a certain amount of money, it brings you no incremental happiness.
    0:34:49 Restore corporate tax rates to a reasonable rate.
    0:34:53 Corporations are paying the lowest tax rates since 1929.
    0:34:55 Collect the taxes owed, the tax gap.
    0:34:57 It’s not about tax rates.
    0:34:58 It’s about the tax code.
    0:35:00 Reduce the deficit.
    0:35:04 Lower interest rates, which will bring down our costs on our interest rate.
    0:35:06 Restore fiscal responsibility.
    0:35:12 And then finally, something, and I may not have the right word here, but rather than calling it health, fitness.
    0:35:15 70% of America is overweight or obese.
    0:35:19 Places a huge burden on us economically in terms of a health care system.
    0:35:21 Better lunch, better nutrition.
    0:35:25 Put in place incentives that do away with food deserts.
    0:35:28 Encourage the industrial food system to produce healthy food.
    0:35:37 And some alliances, addressing income inequality and becoming the fittest, strongest nation in the world, both mentally and physically.
    0:35:39 Those are kind of the three sort of policy pillars.
    0:35:49 But I am very open to coaching here because I was flying on instruments trying to tell these 50 or 60 representatives which messaging I think they need to embrace.
    0:35:50 Your thoughts?
    0:35:55 So let me dig in a little bit to what you have suggested.
    0:36:02 When you are talking about fitness, one of the problems there, of course, is our transportation systems.
    0:36:07 And indeed, what you’re talking about with food deserts and the way food is distributed.
    0:36:17 You know, one of the things about our food systems in the U.S. since World War II has been to provide as many calories as it is possible to provide as quickly as they can be provided.
    0:36:22 Because that was the crisis that they were designed to address after the Depression.
    0:36:28 So we do have these perverse incentives set up in the way that we manage, for example, surpluses.
    0:36:34 But if you look at fitness, you’re not, I think, talking just about muscles.
    0:36:41 You’re talking about once again, and I’m pushing on this because this is kind of my American Studies background.
    0:36:47 I think you are talking about once again celebrating working hard at something.
    0:36:52 That is, rather than simply having it, you work for it.
    0:36:57 So, you know, being in good shape and caring about nutrition and cooking and so on, that takes work.
    0:36:57 That takes effort.
    0:37:00 And that’s about more than physical fitness.
    0:37:11 And you mentioned, in one word, mental fitness, but I would suggest it also celebrates the idea that it’s a positive good to invest work in something.
    0:37:26 And one of the things that really jumps out at me in this administration is the degree to which they sort of seem to say, well, we’re elevating those people who would otherwise be elevated if we hadn’t had to deal with civil rights initiatives, what they’re calling DEI initiatives.
    0:37:31 And what that has done is we now have in place a bunch of people who have no freaking clue what they’re doing.
    0:37:38 You know, the idea that they should just have these positions rather than working their way really hard to get up to them.
    0:37:41 You look at somebody like Mark Milley versus Pete Hegseth.
    0:37:47 And Milley, you know, is very, very, you know, very well educated, works very hard at what he does, worked his way up.
    0:38:04 And then you have Hegseth, who came from the Fox News Channel, that idea of culturally, once again, celebrating hard work, education, the idea of taking control of your life, not by attacking your neighbor, but by investing in yourself.
    0:38:11 That’s really very classic America that, if you think about it, was uppermost until at least the 1970s.
    0:38:16 I started with something much more corny, and that was, I started with the word love.
    0:38:28 And that is, anything that gets in between two people being able to get married such that they can look after each other and have a rational passion for each other’s well-being such that they don’t end up on social services.
    0:38:39 Anything that inhibits a family’s ability to take care of their children and creates so much economic stress that they’re more likely than not to end up in a single-parent home.
    0:38:43 And I think you can reverse engineer a lot of single-parent homes to economic stress.
    0:38:54 Anything that gets in the way of people being in an ICU or an emergency room because, or being insured because they’re of sexual orientation.
    0:39:07 Anything that gets in the way of a parent’s ability to stay married, to have some dignity around their children, to not have medical debt such that they have to make a choice between food for their children and diabetes.
    0:39:09 But anything that gets in the way of this term love.
    0:39:19 And that kind of got laughed out of the room because they thought, you’re falling into the trap of the feminization of the democratic brand, which they believe has not been helpful.
    0:39:26 Any thoughts around this notion of love or empathy being a touchstone for a political movement?
    0:39:33 Yes, but I have to point out to you that what you have just done is you have modernized the concept of conservatism.
    0:39:50 What you are suggesting there echoes almost precisely what Edmund Burke was talking about during the French Revolution when he said that governments should not be concerned about ideologies because pretty soon leaders are busy trying to fit people into their ideologies rather than the other way around.
    0:40:00 What he said was that government should focus on stability because when you have a stable government and a stable society, there is less impetus to overturn it.
    0:40:08 And this is one of the reasons in his era, of course, he was interested in supporting aristocracy and the church and the family and so on.
    0:40:18 But that what you just outlined is a conservative small C and not Republican and certainly not MAGA Republican, but a conservative Rockefeller Republican.
    0:40:19 That’s right.
    0:40:25 Eisenhower Republican, which which just again what you just outlined in this modern world sounds radical.
    0:40:27 Sounds like a radical left position.
    0:40:42 And this always whenever and ever anybody tells me I’m a leftist, I just laugh because quite literally the policies that you are outlining in which now would be called wildly progressive were in fact Eisenhower values.
    0:40:49 And he was a Republican and not a conservative Republican, but certainly a center right, not not center to center left.
    0:41:09 So my thoughts are that, first of all, that this is a conversation that really, really needs to be in the public sphere again, because it’s just common sense, you know, and it’s something that, again, the nation was united around until there was a deliberate decision to just to divide the party, to divide people along party lines.
    0:41:15 And I don’t disagree with you on on any of the idea that, you know, single family homes are often economic.
    0:41:23 I mean, the other thing that I find really interesting is during the Biden administration, there was a great deal of talk about how crime rates were plummeting.
    0:41:35 And I thought what was interesting about that is that even the members of the administration pointed to the increased police officers that they had in which they had invested in order to make those crime rates come down.
    0:41:45 But nobody that I read anyway, and I’m not a criminologist, but I did read around in this because I was very interested in it, looked at the fact that we had record low unemployment.
    0:41:54 People had jobs and those jobs in the bottom 20, 20, you know, 20 percent were paying a much greater rate than they had before Biden was in office.
    0:42:02 So you’re looking at that and you’re thinking, you know, if you got money, you commit fewer crimes, which is sort of logical.
    0:42:11 So, yeah, I mean, I’m not going to disagree with with that at all in that concept, in your concept of fitness, in the concept of inequality.
    0:42:12 Yeah.
    0:42:14 You know, this is a no brainer.
    0:42:16 You know, people say if I could be emperor, what would I do?
    0:42:37 And the answer is I would start with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts and the and the Trump tax cuts and work on on recreating the great compression that that economists talk about where there is less of a gap both in income and in wealth between the the bottom of American society and the top of American society.
    0:42:51 Not just for economic reasons, but because I think that does a whole heck of a lot more societally when there is a less of a gap between people, less of an educational gap, less of a wealth gap, less of a cultural gap and so on.
    0:42:56 And I agree with you also in terms of restoring alliances for sure.
    0:43:03 And it always jumps out at me, of course, that the United States was a driving factor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    0:43:09 And here we are sending now people to, you know, a gulag in the Everglades.
    0:43:17 But what I would say is that these are really difficult concepts to put into a package that can win an election.
    0:43:20 I think people feel on vibes that these are right.
    0:43:30 But what I think about packaging, not the Democrats necessarily, because we’re in this really interesting moment where the political parties are breaking down.
    0:43:36 Certainly the names may remain, but what they look what the internals look like are going to be very different.
    0:43:48 And that’s what I’m interested in is watching these conversations take place all over the country among people who are not necessarily in elected office or aiming for elected office where they are redefining what they would like America to be.
    0:44:06 One of the things that jumps out to me when you define America is less the idea of alliances or less the idea of love and more the idea that what America has stood for historically is the idea that if you are willing to work hard, you can create a better life for yourself and your children.
    0:44:11 And everything flows from that.
    0:44:27 Now, the way that you talk about that, though, and again, that we have done historically, notably in the 1950s, 1940s, 1930s, the late 1890s, early 2000 and aughts, and in the 1870s and before that is by saying we’re in this together.
    0:44:31 We are a community that we are a community that works together and that we are not divided.
    0:44:49 And again, you used to see that in the 1940s, 1950s, and so on in movies, for example, in Superman, in Frank Sinatra’s The House Where I Lived, the film about how he was dead set against religious discrimination in the United States.
    0:44:59 That is something that strikes me as being marketable, not least because you can plug into it our greatest moments in our history.
    0:45:16 So just along the lines of Magic Wand and being an emperor, some of the lowest levels of young adult and teen depression are in Israel, despite all the existential threats surrounding them, and amongst young Mormons.
    0:45:24 And the thing I find that’s true among both those groups, and again, I might be backfilling a narrative here, is I think restoring mandatory national service.
    0:45:32 You talked about how people kind of saw themselves as Americans first before Republicans or Democrats, or maybe I’m putting words in your mouth, in the 60s or 70s.
    0:45:34 But I think a lot of that was because they’d served in the same uniform.
    0:45:44 What do you think of the idea of mandatory national service where Americans from different ethnic, demographic, and income and sexual orientation backgrounds could see each other?
    0:45:46 And I’m not just talking about the military.
    0:45:52 I’m talking about senior care, smoke jumpers, you know, forest reclamation, whatever it might be.
    0:46:01 But you’re going to spend 12 to 24 months working alongside a group of random Americans realizing that you need to work in the agency of something bigger than yourself, and that thing is the United States.
    0:46:03 12%.
    0:46:10 But I’m going to add a reason for that, and that is, of course, having come through a university system.
    0:46:17 In modern America, a lot of young people are not really ready to make adult decisions when they leave home.
    0:46:29 They need to spend time literally just learning how to live with other people or learning how to be on their own and managing, you know, their schedules and, crucially, figuring out what they want to do.
    0:46:31 Especially boys.
    0:46:32 I’m going to be a sexist.
    0:46:33 Especially boys.
    0:46:34 Do you have kids, Professor?
    0:46:35 Three of them.
    0:46:41 Yeah, biologically, 18-year-old boys are 18 months behind their prefrontal cortex development.
    0:46:50 When my 14- and 17-year-olds have friends over, the boys are dopes, and some of the girls look like they could be the junior senator from Pennsylvania.
    0:46:52 I think this would be especially important for young men.
    0:47:03 It’s easy to be sexist when you’re favoring the female gender, but I really do think there is a marked difference between the maturity levels of boys coming out of high school and girls coming out of high school.
    0:47:15 Well, and just the opportunity to work in different ways with different people would open up, I think, a lot of people to professions that they might not otherwise have considered.
    0:47:29 And that, you know, I always think back on a student I had who was in college, I’m trying to be vague here, because of his extraordinary sport ability, which was great, I’m sure.
    0:47:38 But he discovered his senior year that he was actually really, really good at history, is how he came across my screen.
    0:47:42 And he was just really starting to get it.
    0:47:55 And I said to him, you know, we talked about this, and he really had gone to school to play sports, and he was planning to go back to work in construction where he had come from.
    0:48:07 And yet, had he had a couple of years, he might have discovered that he was as good as he was at history before he was graduating.
    0:48:19 And it always has kind of stuck with me that he’s somebody who could have really benefited from a, not a gap year, because it’s going to take people six months just to get their feet under them, as it does in college.
    0:48:23 But a gap two years seems to me to be simply a no-brainer.
    0:48:25 Lots of other countries do it.
    0:48:26 My nephews who live in Europe did it.
    0:48:34 And I would love to see that, both for the reasons you suggest, but also because developmentally, it just seems like it makes such good sense.
    0:48:40 You were generous asking my thoughts on how to rebrand or brand the Democratic Party.
    0:48:41 I’ll flip the question back to you.
    0:48:43 What do you think would be the right messaging or platform for Democrats?
    0:48:49 So this is a little hard for me, because as I say, I don’t really think in this moment as Republicans versus Democrats.
    0:48:52 I actually think in this moment of the MAGA Republicans.
    0:48:53 I need your help more, Professor.
    0:48:56 We’re up against the rope.
    0:48:58 And quite frankly, we’re getting the shit kicked out of us.
    0:49:09 So to the best of your ability, if you were channeling Democrats, what would you suggest is the real opportunity or white space for Democrats right now?
    0:49:14 OK, so where I was going with that is that I will tell you the branding that I would do.
    0:49:18 And it seems to me something the Democrats could jump on, should jump on.
    0:49:30 But it’s not saying, here’s a party I want to market, because I think in this moment it’s going to be important to recognize that the anti-MAGA party is not just Democrats, including in the way people think about certain issues.
    0:49:41 Some people still vote Republican because it is ingrained in them to have an R after their name, but they are, in fact, quite open to the idea of the kinds of things you and I are talking about.
    0:49:43 So here’s what I would say.
    0:49:56 And my model is Abraham Lincoln, who was living through a very similar moment when two older parties were falling apart and you had the rise of a reactionary right elite that was trying to get rid of American democracy
    0:50:00 and create a system in which the government answered only to them.
    0:50:05 And this is, of course, the elite enslavers who wanted to spread human enslavement across the American West.
    0:50:12 They’re establishing slave states that could work with the southern slave states to get rid of free states all over the country.
    0:50:14 So what happened in that moment?
    0:50:20 And you have to remember here always that the people who could vote in the United States in that period were all white men,
    0:50:26 almost all of whom were virulently racist and didn’t really care at all about black rights.
    0:50:36 The way Lincoln managed to create a coalition that could restore American democracy was continually to go back to the Declaration of Independence
    0:50:42 and to say repeatedly, either we are all created equal or we are not.
    0:50:45 And if we are not, we need to tear up the Declaration of Independence.
    0:50:51 And when he did that, even in the southern parts of Illinois, for example, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates,
    0:50:57 even Democrats who were virulently racist would say, no, no, no, that’s what we stand for.
    0:51:10 And I think one of the things that is important to do in this moment is continually to highlight the principles on which people who live in the United States have stood on democracy and expanded democracy.
    0:51:18 And what is so exciting about that for someone like me is that while I just invoked Lincoln because he was very, very self-conscious about what he was doing,
    0:51:24 and often if I can’t figure out how to address something, I will think, what would Lincoln have done in terms of principles?
    0:51:34 But if you think about someone like Fannie Lou Hamer or Dolores Huerta or Dr. Hector Garcia or Dr. King or, you know,
    0:51:44 any of these people who were parts of marginalized populations used those concepts to expand rights in the United States
    0:51:50 and bring more people under the umbrella of the idea that they could have control over their destinies.
    0:51:56 And I think that’s a touchstone that resonates with all American populations
    0:52:05 and one that we have not taken sufficient advantage of in the years that we have really stopped teaching the real meat of American history.
    0:52:16 And I would argue that the popularity of the stuff I write is in part indicative of an extraordinary hunger for people to feel that they are part of that larger story
    0:52:19 of human self-determination and of the United States of America.
    0:52:25 I see more and more people now starting to do it, starting to talk about it, more politicians doing it.
    0:52:36 But I think that is crucial to building a mass movement that can overaw the kind of rising fascism that you’re seeing among MAGA Republicans.
    0:52:40 We’ll be right back.
    0:52:48 Support for the show comes from LinkedIn.
    0:52:51 One of the hardest parts about moving to a new city is finding your people.
    0:52:55 You can look far and wide, but it’s hard to find the people who just get you.
    0:52:58 And the same goes for you to be marketers.
    0:53:04 Locating the right people who align with your business and an audience that connects with your product and your mission can make all the difference.
    0:53:07 But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds,
    0:53:10 you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.
    0:53:16 According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over a billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.
    0:53:22 You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue,
    0:53:26 giving you all of the professionals you need to reach in one place.
    0:53:32 So, you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.
    0:53:36 LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it yourself.
    0:53:39 Just go to linkedin.com slash Scott.
    0:53:42 That’s linkedin.com slash Scott.
    0:53:43 Terms and conditions apply.
    0:53:44 Only on LinkedIn ads.
    0:54:10 We’re back with more from Heather Cox Richardson.
    0:54:14 So, let’s bring it to present day.
    0:54:20 You’ve called Trump’s MAGA bill the capstone of MAGA’s six-month transformation of the U.S. government.
    0:54:24 Do you think we’re witnessing the cementing of illiberalism?
    0:54:29 And you’ve also said this is sort of the signature Republican legislation of this millennium thus far.
    0:54:31 Your thoughts?
    0:54:34 Well, I will answer that.
    0:54:36 But let me ask you, what do you think of that budget reconciliation bill?
    0:54:42 I think it’s the largest transfer of wealth in history from the future to the past,
    0:54:46 from the poor to the rich, from the young to the old.
    0:54:49 I think it’s, not to be too dramatic here,
    0:54:51 but when I look at my success, Professor,
    0:54:56 it’s built on these pillars of access to family planning for my mother,
    0:55:00 assisted lunch programs when I was in elementary school,
    0:55:06 access to deep pools of capital to start companies based on rule of law,
    0:55:10 access to wonderful, talented immigrants who built my companies.
    0:55:20 You know, the fact that my mother was able to survive in Britain,
    0:55:22 sleeping as a four-year-old Jew in a bomb shelter,
    0:55:29 that America decided to convert its car factories to tank factories to push back on fascism.
    0:55:33 I mean, I’m so personally, quite frankly,
    0:55:36 and you can probably hear the emotion in my voice,
    0:55:44 just so rattled by this because I feel it is setting on fire all the pillars of my prosperity and success.
    0:55:53 Well, and that, I think, is what I was getting at with the idea that this was the capstone of the past six years.
    0:55:58 It’s also the capstone, in many ways, of the Republican project since Reagan,
    0:56:00 which is to blow up the social safety net.
    0:56:03 But it’s not, I call it a capstone in part because, of course,
    0:56:07 that’s what the Department of Government Efficiency was also designed to do.
    0:56:10 And that the idea of the rescissions,
    0:56:12 the clawing back of the money that has already been appropriated,
    0:56:14 the impoundments, and so on,
    0:56:18 the idea is to shred the modern American state.
    0:56:24 But what interests, I mean, what interests me is the wrong way to put it,
    0:56:28 but what is replacing it, as I say,
    0:56:34 is the idea that somehow we’re going to go back to a better past,
    0:56:36 which, by the way, is a very fascist concept.
    0:56:41 But there doesn’t seem to be any real idea of what that looks like.
    0:56:44 So, for example, these Trump tariffs,
    0:56:49 the idea that this is suddenly going to make everybody rich is just a complete fantasy.
    0:56:52 It is a complete fantasy, or the fact that Brooke Rollins,
    0:56:57 the head of the Agriculture Department today,
    0:57:01 said that when we get rid of the undocumented immigrants
    0:57:04 who are actually working in the agricultural field,
    0:57:08 that we can simply replace them with the people who are on Medicaid.
    0:57:13 You know, that’s just such a far-fetched image
    0:57:15 of what the future could look like in a country
    0:57:19 that has, since the very development of Western agriculture
    0:57:22 in the 1880s and 1890s,
    0:57:24 depended on migrant labor.
    0:57:27 I mean, there’s just, there’s nothing on the other side
    0:57:32 that suggests the survival of American democracy.
    0:57:34 And so I think what you’re looking at
    0:57:36 is the rise, as I say, of authoritarianism,
    0:57:38 one guy to run everything.
    0:57:41 But as we’re looking at that,
    0:57:42 and as I alluded to earlier,
    0:57:47 will 334 million Americans say,
    0:57:48 oh, I was conned, it’s okay.
    0:57:50 Or will they say,
    0:57:52 this is not the country I wanted.
    0:57:54 And this is one of the reasons
    0:57:56 that conservatism developed,
    0:57:58 actually, to go back to that theme,
    0:58:00 because what they are creating
    0:58:02 is extraordinary instability,
    0:58:04 just extraordinary instability.
    0:58:06 And of course, with that bill,
    0:58:08 we now have a massively expanded ICE
    0:58:10 and border patrol system
    0:58:12 that is, in fact,
    0:58:13 a standing army in the U.S.,
    0:58:15 a militarized state in the U.S.
    0:58:19 But is that going to be enough
    0:58:22 to maintain a dictator
    0:58:25 or a quasi-dictator
    0:58:28 from the MAGA wing in power going forward?
    0:58:30 I think I have too much faith
    0:58:31 in the American people
    0:58:32 to believe that’s going to be the case.
    0:58:33 What do you think?
    0:58:36 Well, I’m a bit of a catastrophist
    0:58:38 and a glass half-empty kind of guy,
    0:58:39 as you’ve probably figured out.
    0:58:41 So I immediately draw conclusions
    0:58:44 or parallels with the Gestapo
    0:58:46 that was 32,000 people.
    0:58:47 I think ICE is 22.
    0:58:48 They spent $2 billion.
    0:58:50 We’re spending $12 billion.
    0:58:51 It was meant to be
    0:58:52 an administrative body
    0:58:53 focusing on documentation
    0:58:55 and border forms.
    0:58:56 And instead, it’s turned into what I,
    0:58:58 as far as I can tell,
    0:59:00 is a series of pageantry and fear
    0:59:04 meant to exhibit strength
    0:59:05 and also scare people.
    0:59:08 And my father always used to say to me
    0:59:09 when I would compare Trump to Hitler,
    0:59:10 you’ve got to keep in mind, Scott,
    0:59:12 Trump had his own private army.
    0:59:13 And as far as I can tell,
    0:59:14 ICE is a private army
    0:59:15 for the current administration.
    0:59:18 So I find it frightening.
    0:59:20 And when I think of just
    0:59:22 taking out the moral argument
    0:59:23 and the historical parallels,
    0:59:27 you know, the notion somehow
    0:59:28 that we need to get rid
    0:59:29 of these immigrants
    0:59:31 such that more Americans
    0:59:32 have better jobs
    0:59:32 and higher paid,
    0:59:35 it’s just so stupid.
    0:59:38 If you want to talk about,
    0:59:40 imagine that millions of immigrants
    0:59:41 pouring over the border right now,
    0:59:42 it’s called AI.
    0:59:45 AI has a much bigger threat
    0:59:47 to people’s livelihoods
    0:59:48 than the person taking care
    0:59:49 of your aging mother
    0:59:50 or serving,
    0:59:51 you know,
    0:59:52 or working at the Chick-fil-A.
    0:59:54 And the notion somehow
    0:59:55 that American wages
    0:59:56 are going to go up,
    0:59:56 all that’s going to happen
    0:59:57 is our expenses are going to go up.
    0:59:59 And what I find most telling
    0:59:59 about these raids
    1:00:01 is they’re raiding Home Depot
    1:00:01 churches and schools.
    1:00:03 And maybe that’s an indication
    1:00:03 that these are the kind of people
    1:00:04 we want here.
    1:00:06 And then just being
    1:00:07 very unemotional about it.
    1:00:09 Immigration,
    1:00:09 people are often
    1:00:10 very comfortable saying
    1:00:11 immigration is the lifeblood
    1:00:12 of our success.
    1:00:13 What I don’t think
    1:00:14 they’re in touch with
    1:00:15 is that the most profitable
    1:00:16 part of immigration
    1:00:17 has been undocumented
    1:00:17 immigration
    1:00:19 because they’re
    1:00:20 a flexible workforce
    1:00:21 that pays taxes
    1:00:21 and then doesn’t stick around
    1:00:22 for social services
    1:00:24 and melts back
    1:00:25 sometimes to their
    1:00:26 original host country
    1:00:27 when the crops are picked
    1:00:29 or that work dries up.
    1:00:30 And the reason why
    1:00:32 we have put up with this
    1:00:33 or tolerated it
    1:00:34 is because we recognize
    1:00:34 it’s an incredible
    1:00:35 economic advantage
    1:00:37 to have this flexible workforce.
    1:00:38 So, you know,
    1:00:38 again,
    1:00:39 I go back to Germany,
    1:00:40 the demonization
    1:00:41 of immigrants.
    1:00:42 I just,
    1:00:43 it economically
    1:00:44 makes no sense.
    1:00:45 It’s morally reprehensible.
    1:00:47 And I am uncomfortable
    1:00:48 with a private army
    1:00:50 an army that will have
    1:00:51 a greater funding budget
    1:00:53 than at the FBI
    1:00:54 who is responsible
    1:00:55 for white collar crimes
    1:00:55 and terrorism.
    1:00:56 We’ve decided
    1:00:58 to allocate more resources
    1:00:58 to a private army
    1:00:59 of people
    1:01:00 who have to wear masks.
    1:01:01 You know,
    1:01:03 they’re not only wearing,
    1:01:04 they’re not only wearing
    1:01:06 a certain color shirt
    1:01:07 or insignias
    1:01:08 as armbands,
    1:01:09 they’re wearing masks
    1:01:10 because of what they’re doing
    1:01:11 is so,
    1:01:12 in my view,
    1:01:12 un-American.
    1:01:14 So I find ICE
    1:01:14 another,
    1:01:15 you know,
    1:01:18 incredibly disturbing.
    1:01:19 Your thoughts?
    1:01:19 I agree.
    1:01:21 I totally agree with that.
    1:01:21 Well,
    1:01:23 my point was just
    1:01:24 I’m not entirely sure
    1:01:25 that in a country
    1:01:26 of this size
    1:01:28 they are going to be able
    1:01:29 to get the kind of control
    1:01:30 that somebody could
    1:01:31 in a smaller country
    1:01:32 like Germany was
    1:01:33 in 1933.
    1:01:34 So,
    1:01:35 you know,
    1:01:36 I think you’re right
    1:01:37 that this is pageantry,
    1:01:39 that a lot of it so far
    1:01:40 is pageantry designed,
    1:01:41 first of all,
    1:01:42 to terrorize immigrants,
    1:01:45 but also to terrorize
    1:01:46 other Americans
    1:01:48 into not speaking up.
    1:01:49 And that’s the piece
    1:01:50 that I am not convinced
    1:01:51 is necessarily going to work.
    1:01:52 And by the way,
    1:01:53 I didn’t mean in any way
    1:01:56 to downplay the terror
    1:01:57 and the damage
    1:01:58 and the torture even
    1:01:59 that immigrants
    1:02:00 and migrants
    1:02:02 are going through
    1:02:03 in this.
    1:02:03 I’m trying to look
    1:02:05 at the larger picture here
    1:02:06 and what the Trump administration
    1:02:07 is trying to do.
    1:02:07 So I don’t disagree
    1:02:08 with you at all
    1:02:09 on that,
    1:02:10 but I’m just saying
    1:02:12 I’m not entirely sure
    1:02:12 it’s going to work.
    1:02:15 This is an extraordinarily
    1:02:18 unstable administration.
    1:02:19 Trump himself
    1:02:20 is not in good shape.
    1:02:21 J.D. Vance,
    1:02:22 the heir apparent,
    1:02:26 commands no real voting base.
    1:02:28 Increasingly,
    1:02:29 the wheels are coming
    1:02:30 off the bus
    1:02:31 as FEMA can’t respond
    1:02:32 to things,
    1:02:33 as the tariffs
    1:02:34 are starting to kick in,
    1:02:36 as prices are going up.
    1:02:37 You know,
    1:02:38 it is,
    1:02:39 you know,
    1:02:40 I guess what I keep saying
    1:02:41 is I think we’re going
    1:02:42 into a period
    1:02:44 of extraordinary instability
    1:02:46 and I am not convinced
    1:02:48 that the outcome of that
    1:02:48 is going to be
    1:02:49 a dictatorship.
    1:02:52 It could just as easily be
    1:02:53 that the outcome of it
    1:02:54 is a renewed
    1:02:55 American democracy,
    1:02:56 but it’s going to be
    1:02:56 messy,
    1:02:57 messy,
    1:02:58 messy either way.
    1:03:00 I love your vision.
    1:03:02 I always jokingly say
    1:03:02 in my companies,
    1:03:03 there’s been all these people
    1:03:04 that are kind of invisible
    1:03:05 until they fuck up,
    1:03:06 and that is the person
    1:03:07 running the accounting,
    1:03:08 the person running the events,
    1:03:10 that they’re not appreciated
    1:03:11 until something goes wrong.
    1:03:12 And I feel that a lot
    1:03:13 of Americans are coming
    1:03:14 to grips with the fact
    1:03:15 that there’s a lot
    1:03:15 of people,
    1:03:16 hydrologists,
    1:03:16 meteorologists,
    1:03:17 the TSA,
    1:03:19 working who are invisible
    1:03:20 until there’s a disaster.
    1:03:22 And that some of this
    1:03:22 long-term thinking
    1:03:23 and investment
    1:03:24 and boring jobs
    1:03:25 are actually really important.
    1:03:27 And that they’re going
    1:03:28 to learn very painfully
    1:03:29 that these things matter
    1:03:31 and that immigrants
    1:03:32 play a key role
    1:03:34 and that an autocracy,
    1:03:34 a strongman,
    1:03:36 I love your vision.
    1:03:38 I’m worried that this
    1:03:39 is the first step
    1:03:41 towards a darker period
    1:03:43 where we have a lot
    1:03:44 of young men
    1:03:44 who are struggling,
    1:03:45 don’t have a lot
    1:03:46 of economic
    1:03:47 or romantic prospects,
    1:03:51 are looking for scapegoats
    1:03:55 to justify their problems.
    1:03:57 And that we’re one economic shock
    1:04:00 away from an authoritarian government
    1:04:01 that gets even uglier.
    1:04:02 And we already have,
    1:04:03 you know,
    1:04:04 you call it a gulag,
    1:04:06 I call them concentration camps.
    1:04:07 Concentration camps,
    1:04:08 one of the definitions
    1:04:09 is a camp outside
    1:04:11 of the host territory
    1:04:12 such that the individuals
    1:04:13 shipped to these places
    1:04:14 don’t have the rights
    1:04:15 they would in their own
    1:04:17 domestic environment.
    1:04:18 We’re already there.
    1:04:19 We have demonization
    1:04:19 of immigrants.
    1:04:21 We have militarization
    1:04:22 of civil agencies.
    1:04:24 We have a disrespect
    1:04:25 for some of the institutions.
    1:04:27 They always attack
    1:04:28 the academics.
    1:04:28 Why?
    1:04:30 Because you and I,
    1:04:31 you’re what I’d call
    1:04:32 a hardcore,
    1:04:32 real,
    1:04:33 legitimate academic.
    1:04:35 I’m short of showing up
    1:04:36 and doing a rich little version
    1:04:37 of academics
    1:04:38 and that is I teach.
    1:04:39 But you,
    1:04:40 quite frankly,
    1:04:41 you just have much deeper
    1:04:42 domain expertise than me.
    1:04:44 And I find that
    1:04:46 common across all
    1:04:47 moves towards fascism
    1:04:48 is to attack universities.
    1:04:49 Why?
    1:04:50 Because at the end of the day,
    1:04:51 you especially,
    1:04:52 but also I’ll include myself
    1:04:53 in this crowd,
    1:04:54 we teach young people
    1:04:55 to ask why.
    1:04:57 And they don’t want
    1:04:58 young people
    1:04:59 and intelligent people
    1:05:00 asking why.
    1:05:01 They want them
    1:05:02 feeling things.
    1:05:03 And so I worry
    1:05:04 that there’s a fork
    1:05:05 in the road here,
    1:05:07 but one potential
    1:05:08 left turn here
    1:05:09 could be much darker.
    1:05:10 And I look back
    1:05:11 at Germany again
    1:05:11 in the 30s,
    1:05:12 an incredibly
    1:05:14 progressive society,
    1:05:15 pro-gay,
    1:05:16 civil rights,
    1:05:17 appreciation for immigrants,
    1:05:19 appreciation for academics,
    1:05:20 and then
    1:05:22 a descent into darkness.
    1:05:23 And I worry
    1:05:24 that that same
    1:05:26 opportunity for darkness
    1:05:28 is available to us.
    1:05:29 And then
    1:05:30 everyone talks about
    1:05:30 institutions,
    1:05:31 the courts,
    1:05:32 the universities.
    1:05:33 And what I like
    1:05:34 about what you’re saying
    1:05:35 is it’s beyond
    1:05:36 institutions,
    1:05:37 it’s people.
    1:05:38 It’s the judges
    1:05:39 got to stand up.
    1:05:41 Academics got to be fearless,
    1:05:42 such as you have been
    1:05:44 and smart and thoughtful.
    1:05:45 People, employers
    1:05:47 have to stand up
    1:05:48 for their employees.
    1:05:49 You know,
    1:05:51 I’m very disappointed
    1:05:52 that the technology community,
    1:05:52 some of the people
    1:05:53 I hang out with
    1:05:54 who are incredibly blessed
    1:05:55 not speaking up
    1:05:56 about their blessings,
    1:05:58 that we keep talking
    1:05:58 about institutions
    1:05:59 under attack.
    1:06:01 I think that’s true.
    1:06:02 What I find so disappointing
    1:06:03 about this, Professor,
    1:06:05 is that not more people
    1:06:06 are speaking up
    1:06:07 when you have
    1:06:07 billionaire owners
    1:06:08 of media companies
    1:06:10 paying off
    1:06:11 the administration
    1:06:11 under the threat
    1:06:12 of a legal case
    1:06:13 that they would win.
    1:06:14 When you have
    1:06:16 legal firms
    1:06:17 saying we will provide
    1:06:18 basically bending a knee
    1:06:19 and ignoring
    1:06:20 all the principles
    1:06:21 of our basic
    1:06:22 judicial system,
    1:06:23 I worry that not
    1:06:25 enough individuals
    1:06:26 are standing up.
    1:06:26 Because at the end of the day,
    1:06:27 these institutions
    1:06:29 are made up of people.
    1:06:31 So I’m more worried
    1:06:32 about a darker
    1:06:33 fork in the road here.
    1:06:34 Well, I’m worried
    1:06:35 about that darker
    1:06:35 fork in the road,
    1:06:37 but I also recognize
    1:06:38 that there is no way
    1:06:39 forward
    1:06:40 except doing it.
    1:06:41 There’s no way through
    1:06:43 but going forward.
    1:06:44 And so one of the things
    1:06:45 I’m trying to do
    1:06:47 is find a way
    1:06:47 to get people
    1:06:49 on the brighter path
    1:06:50 rather than the darker path
    1:06:50 because, you know,
    1:06:51 the thing is,
    1:06:52 as a historian,
    1:06:53 we know how this plays out.
    1:06:54 We know exactly
    1:06:55 how this plays out.
    1:06:58 And one of the things
    1:07:00 that just gobsmacks me
    1:07:01 is that knowing
    1:07:02 what we know
    1:07:05 and how these situations
    1:07:05 play out,
    1:07:07 that people
    1:07:08 in the administration
    1:07:10 would be trying it
    1:07:10 yet again
    1:07:11 and people would be
    1:07:12 getting behind them
    1:07:13 because, again,
    1:07:14 I can write that script.
    1:07:16 I really can write
    1:07:16 that script.
    1:07:17 But I can also write
    1:07:18 the other script
    1:07:20 in which people reject
    1:07:21 that version
    1:07:22 of our future
    1:07:23 and pick a different one.
    1:07:25 And that’s the one
    1:07:26 that I’m working for.
    1:07:27 I do have a question
    1:07:28 for you.
    1:07:29 You mentioned something
    1:07:30 a second ago
    1:07:31 that sparked an idea
    1:07:32 for me
    1:07:32 that I would love
    1:07:33 to hear you
    1:07:34 expand on
    1:07:35 a little bit more.
    1:07:37 I have been sitting here
    1:07:38 looking at
    1:07:41 the reduced numbers
    1:07:42 of undocumented
    1:07:43 and documented
    1:07:44 migrants in the United States
    1:07:45 and saying to myself,
    1:07:47 where are they going
    1:07:48 to find ways
    1:07:49 to replace them?
    1:07:49 And I’m looking
    1:07:50 at child labor,
    1:07:50 for example,
    1:07:51 or now this idea
    1:07:52 that people on Medicaid
    1:07:53 are going to work
    1:07:53 in the fields
    1:07:54 or whatever.
    1:07:55 Do you think
    1:07:57 that what they are doing,
    1:07:59 what the administration,
    1:08:00 to be clear,
    1:08:00 is doing,
    1:08:02 is recognizing
    1:08:03 that AI
    1:08:04 is going to wipe out
    1:08:05 a ton of jobs
    1:08:06 and setting up
    1:08:07 the idea
    1:08:08 that those jobs
    1:08:09 are not the fault
    1:08:10 of those people
    1:08:10 pushing AI,
    1:08:12 which is a problematic
    1:08:13 and maybe someday
    1:08:14 we can talk about
    1:08:15 what AI entails
    1:08:16 for the United States,
    1:08:17 but that rather
    1:08:18 than saying
    1:08:20 this billionaire
    1:08:21 puts you out of business,
    1:08:22 they’re trying
    1:08:22 to convince
    1:08:23 a lot of people
    1:08:24 who will be unemployed
    1:08:26 that their problem
    1:08:27 is the gardener
    1:08:28 or is the woman
    1:08:29 doing health care.
    1:08:29 Is that,
    1:08:30 do you think,
    1:08:31 a deliberate sleight of hand?
    1:08:33 For me,
    1:08:33 the logic
    1:08:34 just isn’t sequential
    1:08:35 or doesn’t add up
    1:08:36 because the people
    1:08:37 they’re going after
    1:08:37 are exactly
    1:08:38 the kinds of jobs
    1:08:39 that AI,
    1:08:40 some of the few sectors
    1:08:42 that AI can’t replace.
    1:08:44 AI still hasn’t figured
    1:08:44 out a way
    1:08:47 to wake your grandmother up
    1:08:48 and bring her her medication.
    1:08:50 AI still can’t
    1:08:51 give you physical therapy.
    1:08:53 AI still can’t,
    1:08:53 you still need
    1:08:55 people on construction sites.
    1:08:56 You still need people
    1:08:58 harvesting crops.
    1:08:59 I just don’t,
    1:09:00 you know,
    1:09:01 I mean,
    1:09:01 AI could potentially
    1:09:03 replace a lot of Uber drivers
    1:09:04 and a lot of truck drivers,
    1:09:05 but what I see
    1:09:07 is that
    1:09:08 who AI is replacing
    1:09:10 is my kids.
    1:09:11 When I say my kids,
    1:09:12 my second year MBA graduates,
    1:09:13 I was,
    1:09:14 my first job out of college
    1:09:15 was at Morgan Stanley
    1:09:16 as an analyst.
    1:09:17 They hired 80 analysts.
    1:09:18 I’m convinced
    1:09:19 all the work I did
    1:09:20 in two years
    1:09:20 in fixed income
    1:09:21 as an analyst
    1:09:23 at Morgan Stanley
    1:09:24 could be done
    1:09:25 in about six weeks
    1:09:25 now with AI.
    1:09:27 So the notion somehow
    1:09:28 that this,
    1:09:30 if they really wanted,
    1:09:31 I see the presidency
    1:09:33 as just a capital allocated
    1:09:34 and that his job is to,
    1:09:35 or her job is to,
    1:09:36 allocate capital
    1:09:37 to a greater return
    1:09:37 than another leader
    1:09:38 who has capital
    1:09:39 at their disposal
    1:09:40 and taking $12 billion
    1:09:42 to round up immigrants
    1:09:43 who are taxpayers
    1:09:43 and,
    1:09:44 you know,
    1:09:45 during the day
    1:09:46 at work
    1:09:46 and on weekends
    1:09:47 and evenings
    1:09:48 at school
    1:09:49 and at church,
    1:09:50 that makes no sense to me.
    1:09:51 If you really were concerned
    1:09:52 about employment,
    1:09:53 you’d be deploying
    1:09:55 vocational programs
    1:09:55 and more critical
    1:09:56 thinking skills
    1:09:56 such that people
    1:09:57 could embrace
    1:09:58 these new technologies
    1:09:59 and also embrace
    1:10:00 more self-sufficiency
    1:10:01 and energy
    1:10:02 and shovel-ready jobs.
    1:10:02 I mean,
    1:10:03 we need more
    1:10:04 healthcare workers,
    1:10:04 more people
    1:10:05 who understand
    1:10:06 how to install
    1:10:07 energy-efficient
    1:10:08 HVAC computers,
    1:10:10 build nuclear power plants.
    1:10:10 I mean,
    1:10:11 that to me
    1:10:12 is where you would help
    1:10:15 with the employment picture.
    1:10:15 But,
    1:10:17 look,
    1:10:18 you’ve been so generous
    1:10:19 with your time.
    1:10:19 I just want to,
    1:10:21 I want to have,
    1:10:23 I want you to just touch
    1:10:24 on one thing
    1:10:25 that’s very close
    1:10:25 to my heart
    1:10:26 and that is,
    1:10:27 I work,
    1:10:28 I think a lot
    1:10:29 about technology
    1:10:29 and something
    1:10:30 that’s just
    1:10:30 so extraordinarily
    1:10:31 disappointing to me
    1:10:33 is that these
    1:10:34 are the most blessed
    1:10:34 people in the world
    1:10:35 as far as I can tell.
    1:10:36 If you look at
    1:10:37 the majority of them,
    1:10:37 you know,
    1:10:38 there’s some,
    1:10:39 there’s absolutely
    1:10:40 some great stories
    1:10:40 of immigrants
    1:10:41 and people
    1:10:41 playing themselves
    1:10:42 by their bootstraps.
    1:10:44 20% of the NASDAQ
    1:10:45 is not only immigrants
    1:10:46 by market cap,
    1:10:47 it’s Indian immigrants.
    1:10:49 And there’s
    1:10:50 some wonderful stories.
    1:10:51 But a lot of these kids
    1:10:53 came from privileged backgrounds.
    1:10:54 Whether it was Bill Gates
    1:10:54 or Mark Zuckerberg,
    1:10:55 they dropped out of Harvard
    1:10:56 because they could.
    1:10:58 And they got into Harvard
    1:10:59 because they could.
    1:11:00 And yet it feels like
    1:11:02 the most blessed among us,
    1:11:03 specifically these tech billionaires,
    1:11:04 are the first ones,
    1:11:04 quite frankly,
    1:11:05 to shitpost America
    1:11:06 and talk about
    1:11:06 some weird
    1:11:08 techno-libertarian vision
    1:11:09 that makes absolutely
    1:11:10 no sense to me.
    1:11:11 And a lot of people
    1:11:12 draw conclusions
    1:11:13 with the Gilded Age.
    1:11:14 And I know you’ve looked
    1:11:15 at the Gilded Age.
    1:11:15 And I would just love
    1:11:17 to get your thoughts
    1:11:18 on the parallels
    1:11:20 between the Gilded Age
    1:11:21 and kind of this
    1:11:23 technotopia
    1:11:24 or whatever you’d want
    1:11:25 to call it
    1:11:26 and what we can learn
    1:11:26 from it
    1:11:27 and where you think
    1:11:28 it goes from here.
    1:11:30 I’m actually really glad
    1:11:31 you asked that
    1:11:32 because I think a lot
    1:11:33 about that,
    1:11:35 including in the ideology
    1:11:37 of the modern-day tech people
    1:11:39 because of the parallels
    1:11:41 it has with the 1880s
    1:11:42 and 1890s especially
    1:11:44 because things were changing
    1:11:46 by the actual turn
    1:11:47 of the century.
    1:11:49 What I think happens
    1:11:51 is that people
    1:11:53 begin to
    1:11:55 internalize
    1:11:56 their belief
    1:11:57 that they are better
    1:11:58 than other people,
    1:11:59 that they have done
    1:12:00 something extraordinarily clever.
    1:12:02 And often,
    1:12:03 I just want to add this here,
    1:12:04 I will follow that thought,
    1:12:06 but often there is
    1:12:07 a generational change
    1:12:08 inherent there.
    1:12:09 That is,
    1:12:10 the first generation
    1:12:11 will say it
    1:12:12 but not really mean it.
    1:12:13 They’re saying it
    1:12:14 either to pump themselves up
    1:12:15 or for political advantage.
    1:12:17 but their sons,
    1:12:18 because it’s almost always sons,
    1:12:20 actually believe it.
    1:12:21 So in the 1890s,
    1:12:21 for example,
    1:12:22 you see coming out
    1:12:23 of the Civil War
    1:12:24 a whole bunch of people
    1:12:25 in the American South
    1:12:26 talking about how
    1:12:27 black Americans
    1:12:28 are inherently not
    1:12:30 as able
    1:12:31 as white Americans,
    1:12:32 as Euro-Americans,
    1:12:32 and therefore,
    1:12:33 they should not have a say
    1:12:34 in American society.
    1:12:36 They used it really
    1:12:37 as a political argument
    1:12:38 for that first generation.
    1:12:40 The second generation
    1:12:42 believes that they are better,
    1:12:43 that white men
    1:12:44 are better than black men
    1:12:45 and certainly than
    1:12:45 other black people
    1:12:46 and they are willing
    1:12:47 to enforce that
    1:12:48 through lynching.
    1:12:50 So that generational shift
    1:12:51 really matters.
    1:12:53 But that being said,
    1:12:54 I do think there is
    1:12:55 this idea
    1:12:57 that as people succeed
    1:12:58 and as they spend time
    1:12:59 with other people
    1:12:59 who succeed,
    1:13:01 they start to believe
    1:13:02 that they are,
    1:13:02 in fact,
    1:13:03 better than other people
    1:13:04 and they,
    1:13:05 especially men,
    1:13:07 tend to erase
    1:13:08 the reality
    1:13:08 of how they got
    1:13:09 to be where they are
    1:13:10 and they set out
    1:13:12 to create a system
    1:13:13 that they think
    1:13:14 advantages them
    1:13:15 in such a way
    1:13:16 that they will do good
    1:13:18 for the most people.
    1:13:19 So instead of picking up
    1:13:20 right there
    1:13:21 Peter Thiel
    1:13:22 or Elon Musk,
    1:13:23 where I’ll get in a second,
    1:13:24 Andrew Carnegie
    1:13:26 is a really useful person
    1:13:26 to look at
    1:13:27 because he becomes,
    1:13:28 he’s an immigrant
    1:13:29 who becomes a steel baron
    1:13:32 and he arrives
    1:13:33 in the United States
    1:13:33 at a time
    1:13:35 when he is able
    1:13:35 to rise
    1:13:37 because of the economy,
    1:13:38 because of the Civil War
    1:13:39 and the nationalization
    1:13:40 of that period
    1:13:41 because of his connections
    1:13:42 and so on
    1:13:44 and by the 1890s
    1:13:46 he is no longer
    1:13:47 talking about,
    1:13:47 you know,
    1:13:49 the fortune of America
    1:13:49 that enabled him
    1:13:51 to become who he was.
    1:13:52 He is talking about
    1:13:53 how it was his own
    1:13:54 hard work
    1:13:55 that enabled him
    1:13:56 to become who he was
    1:13:57 and that because
    1:13:58 he was so much better
    1:14:00 than the people around him
    1:14:01 he should be able
    1:14:02 to concentrate wealth
    1:14:03 in his own hands
    1:14:04 and that that’s the way
    1:14:05 the society really should work
    1:14:06 is that wealth
    1:14:07 should concentrate
    1:14:08 among those
    1:14:09 most able
    1:14:10 to amass it
    1:14:11 because what they would do
    1:14:12 was they would use it
    1:14:13 as the stewards
    1:14:13 of society
    1:14:15 by building libraries
    1:14:16 or opera houses
    1:14:18 or public facilities
    1:14:20 that could not be achieved
    1:14:21 unless they did
    1:14:22 concentrate that wealth
    1:14:23 because if you left it
    1:14:23 in the hands
    1:14:24 of the workers
    1:14:25 they would waste it
    1:14:26 on food
    1:14:27 or clothing
    1:14:27 or housing
    1:14:28 or leisure time.
    1:14:29 Well,
    1:14:30 if you move that
    1:14:31 mindset
    1:14:32 into the present
    1:14:33 you can see
    1:14:34 somebody like
    1:14:35 Elon Musk
    1:14:35 who believes
    1:14:36 that he will save
    1:14:37 humanity
    1:14:37 or at least
    1:14:39 alleges he believes
    1:14:40 that he will save humanity
    1:14:42 by settling Mars
    1:14:45 you see that same idea
    1:14:47 that he has ideas
    1:14:50 that are only being corrupted
    1:14:51 by the idea
    1:14:52 of civil rights
    1:14:52 regulations
    1:14:54 the idea that
    1:14:54 in fact
    1:14:56 women and people of color
    1:14:58 should have equal rights
    1:14:59 to employment
    1:15:01 and equal protections
    1:15:02 in American society
    1:15:03 that hampers him
    1:15:05 and that mindset
    1:15:06 that some people
    1:15:07 are better than others
    1:15:08 and have the right
    1:15:09 to rule
    1:15:09 for the good
    1:15:10 of humanity
    1:15:12 is a thread
    1:15:13 that runs through
    1:15:14 American history
    1:15:15 not just from the Gilded Age
    1:15:16 but the elite
    1:15:17 and southern enslavers
    1:15:18 said the same thing
    1:15:19 in the 1850s
    1:15:19 the exact same thing
    1:15:20 in the 1850s
    1:15:21 that they were the ones
    1:15:22 who had truly figured out
    1:15:23 society
    1:15:25 so to me
    1:15:26 it’s just a continuity
    1:15:27 and that
    1:15:28 in many ways
    1:15:29 helps me think
    1:15:30 about ways
    1:15:31 to combat it
    1:15:32 because I don’t believe that
    1:15:33 I actually do believe
    1:15:34 that people are equal
    1:15:35 and that they do have a right
    1:15:36 to a say in their government
    1:15:37 and they do have a right
    1:15:37 to be treated equally
    1:15:38 before the law
    1:15:39 and they should have
    1:15:40 equal access to resources
    1:15:42 including things like
    1:15:43 health care and education
    1:15:45 so when I think about
    1:15:47 reinforcing that set
    1:15:49 of ideological principles
    1:15:50 which are the same ones
    1:15:51 that somebody like
    1:15:52 Theodore Roosevelt
    1:15:53 or Dwight Eisenhower
    1:15:54 or FDR
    1:15:55 or Lincoln embraced
    1:15:57 in a way
    1:15:58 there’s a road map there
    1:16:00 to see how we have
    1:16:01 succeeded in the past
    1:16:03 and I do want to point out
    1:16:04 that in all of those moments
    1:16:05 that I just mentioned
    1:16:05 the 1850s
    1:16:06 the 1890s
    1:16:07 the 1920s
    1:16:08 the present
    1:16:11 it didn’t look
    1:16:12 at the time
    1:16:13 as if
    1:16:14 the idea of equality
    1:16:15 was going to win
    1:16:16 you think of somebody
    1:16:17 like John Dos Passos
    1:16:18 and his poem
    1:16:19 about how they have
    1:16:20 clubbed us off the streets
    1:16:23 people thought
    1:16:23 that the rich
    1:16:24 elites
    1:16:25 who wanted to control
    1:16:26 everything
    1:16:27 were going to win
    1:16:27 it was never
    1:16:28 an easy fight
    1:16:30 and this fight
    1:16:30 is not going to be
    1:16:31 easy either
    1:16:32 but I am not
    1:16:34 ready to give up
    1:16:35 on America
    1:16:37 we have done it
    1:16:37 in the past
    1:16:39 and in a way
    1:16:40 we have the tools
    1:16:40 to know how to do it
    1:16:41 again
    1:16:43 not ready to give up
    1:16:44 on America
    1:16:45 Heather Cox Richardson
    1:16:46 is a professor of history
    1:16:47 at Boston College
    1:16:48 and an expert
    1:16:49 on American political
    1:16:50 and economic history
    1:16:51 she is the author
    1:16:52 of seven award winning books
    1:16:53 including her latest
    1:16:55 Democracy Awakening
    1:16:57 Notes on the State of America
    1:16:59 her widely read newsletter
    1:17:00 Letters from an American
    1:17:02 synthesizes history
    1:17:03 and modern political issues
    1:17:05 I’m going to ask a favor
    1:17:08 most conversations I have
    1:17:09 I think I have a certain
    1:17:11 I’m not proud of this
    1:17:11 level of arrogance
    1:17:12 I think
    1:17:13 okay that’s interesting
    1:17:14 but I have a better take on this
    1:17:16 I found myself insecure
    1:17:17 in this conversation
    1:17:19 because you are so forceful
    1:17:20 and dignified
    1:17:21 and have such deep
    1:17:21 domain expertise
    1:17:23 and this is my ask
    1:17:25 I want to bring more
    1:17:26 light to your work
    1:17:27 I think
    1:17:29 it just shocks me
    1:17:30 that you are
    1:17:31 as much
    1:17:33 praise
    1:17:34 and influence
    1:17:35 as you have
    1:17:35 that
    1:17:37 I think your work
    1:17:38 deserves a lot more
    1:17:39 attention
    1:17:40 and with your
    1:17:41 approval
    1:17:42 and your help
    1:17:43 I would like to bring
    1:17:44 more attention to it
    1:17:45 I can’t tell you
    1:17:46 how much I enjoyed
    1:17:47 this conversation
    1:17:48 I think you are doing
    1:17:48 great work
    1:17:49 and are
    1:17:50 the right voice
    1:17:51 at the right moment
    1:17:55 this episode
    1:17:56 was produced by
    1:17:57 Jennifer Sanchez
    1:17:57 Drew Burrows
    1:17:58 is our technical director
    1:17:59 thank you for listening
    1:18:00 to the Prof G Pod
    1:18:01 from the Vox Media Podcast Network

    Historian Heather Cox Richardson joins Scott to discuss the rise of authoritarianism, the myth of rugged individualism, and what Democrats keep getting wrong. They also unpack the branding genius of the modern GOP, why patriotism got hijacked, and what history teaches us about how to win it back.

    Follow Professor Richardson, @heathercoxrichardson.

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

  • WW3 Threat Assessment: The War Has Quietly Started & No One’s Trying to Stop It!

    中文
    Tiếng Việt
    AI transcript
    0:00:04 I believe that we are already at the early stages, if not in World War III.
    0:00:05 It just doesn’t look like the wars of the past.
    0:00:08 And people should understand what is at stake,
    0:00:13 which is we are one misunderstanding, one miscalculation way.
    0:00:16 Or even one AI-generated viral video.
    0:00:18 From nuclear annihilation.
    0:00:19 Is there anything at all you’re doing to prepare?
    0:00:21 I’m leaving the United States by 2026.
    0:00:24 But is there anywhere on this map that is safe in a world?
    0:00:26 So my understanding is that there’s actually three safe zones.
    0:00:27 You are right.
    0:00:28 There’s Hawaii.
    0:00:31 No, because there are so many targets in Hawaii.
    0:00:34 And same with all of Europe.
    0:00:37 But there’s one tiny little place right there.
    0:00:40 So where do we find ourselves in terms of conflict and warfare now?
    0:00:40 It’s getting worse.
    0:00:43 And in the past, it was whoever had the strongest military.
    0:00:46 Now you can destabilize a government or a society
    0:00:50 using a server farm and 20 people sitting in a room thousands of miles away.
    0:00:53 And another real problem we have right now
    0:00:55 is that the different political parties inside the United States
    0:00:59 are so intent on taking down the other side.
    0:01:01 They do it at the national security peril.
    0:01:06 So now Russia or China can play people off against one another and cause division.
    0:01:07 Andrew, what do you think happens next?
    0:01:10 Well, I think World War III is going to be shaped by what we call proxy war,
    0:01:16 where a wealthy nation state funds trains and arms conflict in a less wealthy state
    0:01:19 to decrease the capability of your primary target.
    0:01:22 So they’re using that nation to do the work for them.
    0:01:22 Exactly right.
    0:01:23 That’s already happening.
    0:01:25 And what’s the probability of nuclear war?
    0:01:28 So here’s a terrifying detail that the public does not know.
    0:01:29 So.
    0:01:30 Wow.
    0:01:34 Quick one before we get back to this episode.
    0:01:36 Just give me 30 seconds of your time.
    0:01:37 Two things I wanted to say.
    0:01:42 The first thing is a huge thank you for listening and tuning into the show week after week.
    0:01:43 It means the world to all of us.
    0:01:45 And this really is a dream that we absolutely never had
    0:01:48 and couldn’t have imagined getting to this place.
    0:01:51 But secondly, it’s a dream where we feel like we’re only just getting started.
    0:01:57 And if you enjoy what we do here, please join the 24% of people that listen to this podcast regularly
    0:01:59 and follow us on this app.
    0:02:01 Here’s a promise I’m going to make to you.
    0:02:07 I’m going to do everything in my power to make this show as good as I can now and into the future.
    0:02:09 We’re going to deliver the guests that you want me to speak to.
    0:02:13 And we’re going to continue to keep doing all of the things you love about this show.
    0:02:14 Thank you.
    0:02:15 Thank you so much.
    0:02:16 Back to the episode.
    0:02:26 I invited you all here today because I intuitively feel like the world is changing before our eyes.
    0:02:29 And I think so many of us, if we’re on social media or reading newspapers,
    0:02:35 can feel a sort of tension growing in society that is hard to understand if you’re not an expert
    0:02:38 or you’re not connected to these subjects in some way.
    0:02:44 I looked at some stats before this conversation that kind of support this feeling that I’ve intuitively had.
    0:02:50 And it shows that conflict zones across the world have increased by 66% in the last three years.
    0:02:59 In December 2024, the American think tank Atlantic Council asked about 400 global strategists about their thoughts about what’s going on in the world.
    0:03:05 And 65% think that China will invade Taiwan by force within 10 years.
    0:03:08 About 40% think there’ll be a world war in the next 10 years.
    0:03:11 About 50% think nuclear weapons will be used in the next 10 years.
    0:03:14 About 45% think Russia and NATO will fight directly.
    0:03:19 When we look at sort of spending and what’s happening there, there’s been a huge jump in military spending.
    0:03:24 There’s now 300,000 NATO troops around the world that are on 30-day high alert readiness.
    0:03:34 59 states have erupted in war since 2023, which is the greatest number logged in any year since 1946.
    0:03:42 And world military spending is up by about 10% year over year, which is the highest sum ever recorded by SIPA,
    0:03:45 making it a full decade of uninterrupted growth in military spending.
    0:03:46 Things feel tense.
    0:03:49 And every time I turn on the news, I have a mild sense of anxiety.
    0:03:54 So I’ve gathered you three here today to help me as a muggle, as a normal person that doesn’t have an understanding,
    0:03:58 pass through what’s going on and hopefully what we can do about this.
    0:04:00 Benjamin, to start with you, introductions.
    0:04:05 What’s your context and what’s the perspective experience you bring to this conversation?
    0:04:07 I was born in Iran in 1977.
    0:04:15 I came to the United States as a refugee under a program that President Carter allowed for Iranians fleeing religious and political persecution.
    0:04:17 My family came here on that basis.
    0:04:27 And I basically spent the next 40-some odd years trying to understand why I come from part of the world that seems to be in sort of continuous conflict and turmoil
    0:04:32 and exactly what can be understood about the forces that brought me here.
    0:04:33 I’m incredibly grateful to be here.
    0:04:41 And what can be done to basically change or at least better understand it, to pave a way for change and progress in the future.
    0:04:44 What age did you leave Iran and what was the environment like when you left?
    0:04:48 I was just under three years old and it was a few months after.
    0:04:55 So the Shah had left in December of 79 and then we left a few months after that around March.
    0:05:01 Khomeini had just arrived from Paris on a flight in February, basically taking control.
    0:05:07 And there was still a lot of anarchy and chaos as to exactly what the new regime would look like, what the government would look like.
    0:05:19 And my parents began to see that there were some, you know, there were definitely mass arrests, there were protests, there were things that were happening that looked like those who were loyal to the monarchy would be targeted, which is my family was a monarchist.
    0:05:21 Annie, same question to you.
    0:05:24 What is the experience context that you bring to this conversation?
    0:05:34 I am an author, a journalist, and I write about war and weapons, U.S. national security and secrets.
    0:05:44 And I’m interested in looking at the very sort of minutiae of weapons and weapons systems and the people who use them.
    0:05:52 I’ve written seven books and all of them deal with war and weapons and all of them deal with the Pentagon and the CIA specifically.
    0:05:58 So all of my sources come from those organizations, the military and the intelligence community.
    0:06:02 And your last book we talked about last time you came on to this show.
    0:06:06 What is your last book about and what sort of journey did you go on to gather the information for that?
    0:06:10 So my most recent book is called Nuclear War, A Scenario.
    0:06:20 And in that book, I take the reader from nuclear launch to nuclear winter, which happens in a period of 72 minutes.
    0:06:39 And I interview presidential advisors, secretaries of defense, nuclear sub force commander, et cetera, et cetera, people who are very close to the chain of command, people who have rehearsed making these decisions if they need to be made.
    0:06:42 And what I learned terrified me.
    0:06:47 And from what the book has been out for over a year now, it’s still in hardback.
    0:06:50 People are reading it in 28 countries around the world.
    0:06:55 This is a serious edge of peril topic.
    0:07:07 And I think we’re here to talk about that because no time in my life, I think, have we been closer to thinking about this reality than right now.
    0:07:18 Andrew, there’s a few subjects and words that Annie mentioned there that also cross over in your story, one of them being nuclear war and nuclear weapons.
    0:07:22 What is your context and how do you what is the sort of experience and perspective you bring to this?
    0:07:23 What’s your experience?
    0:07:31 Yeah, I am a former clandestine CIA intelligence officer, also a decorated wartime veteran from the United States Air Force during our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    0:07:47 I’ve lived in this world that we’re talking about, this world of conflict, the world of nuclear threats, the world of developing nations and political and military force as a tool to shape democracy, to shape diplomacy.
    0:07:59 And I’m very excited to get into this topic because I think there are certain areas here that are misunderstood, areas that are over dramatized, and then areas that are not being spoken about that are very relevant and very compelling.
    0:08:05 Wasn’t there a period of your life where you were underground and part of that sort of nuclear chain of command that Annie described?
    0:08:06 Absolutely.
    0:08:22 That’s where my career started, actually, was with the ICBM, the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Forces of the United States Air Force, overseeing Minuteman III missiles in Montana, armed with 10 nuclear warheads each, understanding the military doctrine, the strategies, the policies for how to execute.
    0:08:25 So you were underground with a physical nuclear key.
    0:08:26 Correct.
    0:08:27 Around my neck.
    0:08:37 And there are, even as we have this conversation now, there are hundreds of U.S. soldiers, hundreds of Russian soldiers that are in very similar positions.
    0:08:42 And they’re not much older than a high school graduate right now.
    0:08:49 Many people think we’re on the cusp of World War III, but I think you’ve said in the past that you actually think World War III has already begun in some context.
    0:08:50 Yeah, correct.
    0:08:54 I believe that we are already at the early stages, if not in World War III.
    0:08:59 The problem is that people seem to think that World War III is going to emulate World War II.
    0:09:09 The deployment of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons now would look completely different than the deployment of nuclear weapons looked in World War II, if only because we have nine nuclear-capable countries right now.
    0:09:12 Not to mention the fact that we have a completely different information landscape.
    0:09:14 We have a completely different political landscape.
    0:09:19 We have a whole different landscape for alliances and for treaties.
    0:09:22 The world is very, very different than it was when World War II broke out.
    0:09:25 So you think we’re in World War III now or the early innings of that?
    0:09:28 And I think World War III is going to be shaped by what we call proxy war.
    0:09:30 What is proxy warfare?
    0:09:44 Proxy warfare is when a wealthy nation state funds and trains and arms conflict in a less wealthy state, where there’s usually some sort of civil disturbance or civil fight that’s already happening.
    0:09:47 Much of what we’ve seen in the last 10 years is proxy warfare.
    0:09:53 Libya, Syria, Yemen, people argue that what we saw, even Afghanistan, Iraq, where the U.S. was involved, was proxy warfare.
    0:09:56 Israel and Iran is model proxy warfare.
    0:10:00 Russia and Ukraine are also models for proxy warfare.
    0:10:06 So there’s someone else funding it and they’re using that nation to do the work for them, essentially.
    0:10:07 Exactly right.
    0:10:21 You use a intermediate nation that’s still developing to decrease the capability of your primary target while you yourself conserve your own troops, your own weapons and your own civilians against harm.
    0:10:37 Benjamin, what’s your take on that in terms of us being at the start of the precipice of a world war and it looking like a sort of a different set of weapons, a different way that we’ll fight each other and the internet and digital warfare being a part of that?
    0:10:44 I don’t think since the beginning of the Cold War, let’s go back to 1947 or 48, I don’t think we’ve stopped fighting.
    0:10:46 I just think we’re fighting wars of different kinds.
    0:10:52 So I think this idea of kinetic warfare is less frequent, especially among the major powers.
    0:10:58 So Israel and Iran is an example of one of the last few gasps of kinetic warfare.
    0:11:10 But if you look at the United States and China, United States and Russia, the European powers, NATO, it’s less kinetic than it is more through use of information, through technology, through cyber warfare.
    0:11:11 What’s kinetic?
    0:11:18 So kinetic is – when I refer to kinetic, I mean using actual physical memes, bombs, missiles, tanks, soldiers, that type of thing.
    0:11:32 And it’s less now – and it’s more now moving towards other forms where you can now destabilize a government or a system of government or a society using a server farm and 20 people sitting in a room thousands of miles away.
    0:11:39 And you don’t necessarily need weapons to do that where information becomes weaponized, where digital tools become weaponized.
    0:11:42 And that’s far different than anything we saw in the 20th century.
    0:11:51 So I think that the rise of the internet in the late – you know, beginning, late 1990s through the 2000s, we’ve seen now this become industrialized at scale.
    0:12:02 And I think the threat comes now from the ability of countries and regimes to destabilize and interfere with others in a way that they simply couldn’t do years ago.
    0:12:04 And now you don’t even need to fund it massively to do that.
    0:12:06 It’s basically warfare on the cheap.
    0:12:10 Before we start recording, I expressed to you that there’s a certain tension in the world right now.
    0:12:11 Yeah.
    0:12:14 Where’s that coming from and why, in your perspective?
    0:12:22 One of the things that’s been evident to us, especially since the 2016 elections here in the United States, is this idea that we live in a post-truth society.
    0:12:31 And with so much information available to everybody on every platform, through every means and channel, there is now no monopoly on objective truth or fact.
    0:12:36 And so with that comes the ability to distort, to propagandize, to mislead, to misinform.
    0:12:40 And people do this to aggregate power, to bring power to themselves.
    0:12:49 And so when we live in a world where everyone thinks they know everything or they are afraid that they don’t know enough, you have a constant state of tension and anxiety.
    0:12:51 And people are uncertain about their place in society.
    0:12:54 There’s a wealth gap comes into play.
    0:13:00 And with that, you feel like there’s threats or perceived threats or conspiracies around every corner.
    0:13:11 And this is why I think lies and misinformation and conspiracy theories take hold in times like this, when people are anxious, frightened, uncertain about their place in society, about what’s coming next.
    0:13:18 And that puts us in a very tense state, and very clever people can take advantage of that and manipulate to their benefit.
    0:13:22 So that, I think, explains why we feel this tension that we do.
    0:13:37 The tension is clearly resulting in real changes, because those stats I read out at the start, where there’s more nations in conflict now, there’s more military funding, more people think we’re on the verge of something pretty catastrophic than any time in the last couple of decades.
    0:13:44 That information, which is causing attention, is then having a downstream impact, which is conflict is breaking out.
    0:13:46 I’d also say it’s upstream.
    0:13:55 You have polarization happening within societies, especially in Western societies, where there is no monopoly on the truth or news or information.
    0:13:59 You have the fragmentation of, let’s say, major news sources.
    0:14:04 Traditionally, you have a few very respected trusted sources and authorities or figureheads that people would turn to.
    0:14:06 We don’t have that anymore.
    0:14:09 It’s now been diluted to the point that it is almost meaningless.
    0:14:12 And so you see that social media has contributed to this.
    0:14:26 And so with that, with these divisions, these schisms in society have made major industrial powers like the United States, like, let’s say, the Europeans, more vulnerable to manipulation than ever before.
    0:14:38 So now if you’re an adversary like Russia or China, Iran, North Korea, you can take advantage of the ability to tap into this polarization and play people off against one another, cause division.
    0:14:41 And that destabilizes democratic societies.
    0:14:50 And then that, in turn, enables these countries like Russia and China and others to have more leverage and more influence in the developing world.
    0:14:53 In the past, it was whoever had the strongest military.
    0:14:56 Now, you don’t necessarily need the strongest military to do it.
    0:15:05 You just need to have the strongest information army and the willingness to do the dirty things that Western societies don’t do anymore, but they used to.
    0:15:10 I want to interrupt because I think there’s an order of operations here that we’re getting at that isn’t clear.
    0:15:20 I would argue that ignorance starts the foundation for the polarization that is then capitalized on through this information warfare landscape.
    0:15:26 So I say that because I think it’s important for us to understand that your statistics are relevant and correct.
    0:15:29 Those statistics don’t come first.
    0:15:30 They come after.
    0:15:32 The ignorance kind of comes first.
    0:15:36 The willing blindness to what’s happening in the world.
    0:15:44 The willingness to just focus in on what your tasks are or what entertains you and let the rest of the world kind of do whatever it’s going to do.
    0:15:54 It’s that choice first that then leads to other countries finding an opportunity to manipulate the masses that are no longer informed as to what’s happening outside of the world.
    0:16:04 I don’t want to speak for you, but that’s kind of how CIA handles clandestine operations when it comes to information security operations is understanding we’re not trying to make an audience ignorant.
    0:16:09 We’re finding an ignorant audience and then giving them messaging to get them to take action.
    0:16:12 The difference is, I would maintain, we’ve always been ignorant.
    0:16:18 The difference is now you can actually do something with that ignorance and manipulate it at scale that you couldn’t before.
    0:16:25 So ignorance has always been with us, but before at least people knew where they could go to find what they perceived to be a trusted source.
    0:16:27 So now that source is gone.
    0:16:28 That messaging is gone.
    0:16:29 That skill is gone.
    0:16:34 I have a different take entirely, and I focus on narrative.
    0:16:38 So I’m really interested in who tells the story and who gets to control the story.
    0:16:46 And what I watch happening a lot is that the story is controlled for a while, and then it gets hijacked over, and it’s someone else’s story.
    0:16:52 So it’s kind of, it’s like the end of the spectrum of what you’re both saying, and you have the agency working really hard to grab it back.
    0:16:56 You’ve got the White House saying, we need to get our stakeholder press.
    0:17:04 You know, and it’s this, so you’re running essentially like a kinetic war, a proxy war, and an information war at the same time.
    0:17:22 And I think that the information is what drives most of this conflict, which is why it’s so interesting to me to speak to diplomats, the only people not at this table, right, that are like, because then that’s only where I see the hope of kind of like take it down.
    0:17:27 Because there’s an ease that needs to happen when you can move the people from trust to paranoia.
    0:17:30 I love that you mentioned diplomacy and diplomats.
    0:17:42 So I teach courses on diplomacy, and one of the things I’ve seen emerge in the last few years is this dichotomy between private diplomacy, which is what we were used to when we studied the Cold War and post-Cold War conflicts.
    0:17:43 And now we have public diplomacy.
    0:17:49 Almost all diplomacy, take the Iran-Israel war, the 12-day war, as Trump calls it.
    0:17:52 How much of that war was conducted via social media?
    0:18:08 This is now – so you have this public-facing diplomacy where you have during wartime leaders, their representatives, their proxies conveying messaging both to their enemies, to their allies, and to a supposedly neutral audience all through social media, right?
    0:18:16 So it is not so much the nuclear age but the age of the algorithm and how that amplifies diplomacy in a way that never, ever existed.
    0:18:22 And so this is, I think, this lends to that dilution that then others can take advantage of.
    0:18:35 Because at the end of the day, if you want to threaten a country or you want to garner support, how you articulate that via social media, whether you use all caps, whether you use images, memes, all of these things play into how effective that is.
    0:18:46 And you see that most on TikTok and when after the October 2023 Hamas attacks against Israel, the information warfare between the two sides and how it played out on college campuses.
    0:18:54 I was at a big one where a lot of that was taking place at UCLA and how that played out on social media and even among high school kids who I talked to.
    0:19:04 And their understanding of conflict is now shaped by what TikTok, which is partially controlled by the Chinese government, feeds them and chooses to feed them and amplify.
    0:19:07 So here’s a specific example which might be helpful to what you’re saying.
    0:19:12 With the 12-day war recently, I think the White House wanted that to just be a bombing run.
    0:19:14 You can correct me if I’m wrong.
    0:19:15 Just a bombing run.
    0:19:17 We’re going to go, you know, we’re so power.
    0:19:18 It was about power.
    0:19:19 It was about precision.
    0:19:20 Take it out.
    0:19:24 And it was the press that wrote, America enters the war.
    0:19:27 And that is a major headline.
    0:19:34 And that probably made the White House deeply upset because they don’t want to be seen as entering into a war.
    0:19:48 And so I think another real problem we have right now with all of this tension ratcheting up is how angry, and I’m just talking about America now, the political sides are at one another.
    0:19:53 That to my eye, because I’m an apolitical writer, no one has any idea what my politics are.
    0:19:56 I write about war and weapons neutrally.
    0:20:07 But I can observe, and it seems to me like the different warring political parties inside the United States are so intent on taking down the other side.
    0:20:11 They do it from my eye at the national security peril.
    0:20:21 In other words, a headline against Trump is better for them than U.S. national security or world security.
    0:20:22 I’m curious what you think.
    0:20:28 Well, I think we’re all saying something that’s derivations of the same thing, versions of the same thing, right?
    0:20:31 There’s a massive information warfare landscape happening.
    0:20:40 And it is that fog of war that gives us that tension about what’s actually happening at the ground level.
    0:20:51 If you think about conflict as being what humans will do to each other, there’s layers on top of that that create this distortion of what you can expect.
    0:20:57 And there’s so much activity in the information landscape that it’s very distorted what could actually happen.
    0:21:08 We have a term at CIA, and when we talk about covert influence, activities to shape information, we talk about volume and speed, which gets right back to your point about TikTok and social media.
    0:21:11 We’ve always engaged in information warfare.
    0:21:22 But the volume and the speed was much less and much slower because you had to fly fucking pamphlets and drop them out of airplanes and hope that the people reading it were reading the right dialect of Arabic or Spanish.
    0:21:26 You had to hope, and then once there was a rainstorm, all of your pamphlets are done.
    0:21:32 And if you’re trying to make it look like they’re not coming from America, there’s all sorts of other layers to that.
    0:21:38 Well, now an algorithm that you don’t even control is contributing to that.
    0:21:50 And then you’ve got creators, content creators all over the place that have no added value to the content they’re creating who are just clipping, cutting, and putting things together and then further being amplified, right?
    0:21:58 So the volume of information is massive, and the speed at which it disseminates is huge, and the algorithm can dictate whether you see it or don’t see it at all.
    0:22:20 So while I appreciate your point of view, that there’s this tension and there’s this growing concern, I honestly think that your opinion on that is because you’re informed and intelligent, and there are huge groups of people who are completely oblivious to where we actually are on a sliding scale of approaching conflict.
    0:22:21 Where are we?
    0:22:24 I think that’s what we’re really here to discuss.
    0:22:27 I would argue that we are not entering a phase of less conflict.
    0:22:35 We are going to enter a phase five to ten years of more conflict, increasing conflict, a willingness to engage in more kinetic conflict, to use your term.
    0:22:45 I don’t think that we’re showing the various global power competitors of the world that it will not be tolerated.
    0:22:52 I think we’re showing the global power competitors of the world that violence, kinetic attacks, cyber warfare, weapons development is going to be accepted.
    0:23:03 My wish is that America could overcome her tribal anger, you know, that a lot of Americans have toward one another that are in different political parties.
    0:23:10 Because I feel like America is a leader in terms of security and safety, or can be and should be.
    0:23:17 And that all of this amplification of the rhetoric is deeply dividing.
    0:23:20 The fancy word is divisive, but it’s just dividing.
    0:23:29 And that if there’s any place that one’s enemies or adversaries, or call them what you will, can take advantage of that, it is right there.
    0:23:30 Is that wishful thinking?
    0:23:34 For me to say, I am a very wishful thinking person.
    0:23:41 I mean, I write about the grimmest, darkest subjects imaginable, you know, with a smile on my face.
    0:23:46 Because I just am naturally, I’m naturally optimistic.
    0:23:48 I’m the mother of two, you know, college age boys.
    0:23:50 Of course I’m going to be optimistic.
    0:23:54 Andrew was just saying that he thinks there’s going to be more conflict going forward.
    0:24:01 We have nine nations now that have these nuclear weapons that some might argue creates stability, but some might argue that it only takes one individual.
    0:24:04 And you said there’s six nations hosting those nuclear weapons.
    0:24:17 I don’t know, sometimes I think, I think, gosh, you only need one miscommunication or one mistake from one person who is, I don’t know, not doing too well mentally or having a bad day.
    0:24:18 That’s kind of how I think about it.
    0:24:21 And I’m like, probabilistically, if you just stretch it out, at some point that’s going to happen.
    0:24:23 At some point that’s going to happen.
    0:24:25 Well, you’re absolutely right.
    0:24:34 And that is why, I mean, it’ll be interesting if we maybe talk about around just from the, you know, specifics about what happened and, you know, why that’s is or is not important.
    0:24:53 Because I, just having looked at nuclear weapons so microscopically recently, I believe that that existential threat, the global catastrophic risk of a nuclear, you know, of a flame that starts that movement toward a nuclear use,
    0:24:56 is a sort of line that must never be crossed.
    0:25:02 And so while all war is terrible, there is always a solution on the other side of the war.
    0:25:05 The war, peace can be made, but not with nuclear.
    0:25:10 And so that, you know, I look at things right now through that lens, which is how I saw the most recent bombing.
    0:25:16 You mentioned, Andrew, talked about Israel and Iran being a proxy war.
    0:25:17 So that kind of piqued my interest.
    0:25:25 I almost reflexively want to disagree, but I want to hear more about why you think so so I can better understand proxy conflict from that angle.
    0:25:37 Yeah, well, the way I see it, Israel is ratcheting up its aggression against proxies that Iran has been using to threaten it for decades.
    0:25:37 Right.
    0:25:40 But Israel is also dependent on American weapons to do that.
    0:25:43 It’s also dependent on American intelligence to do that.
    0:25:45 It’s dependent on American support financially and economically.
    0:25:48 So it needs America to wage its conflict moving forward.
    0:25:53 If America were to say, Israel, we don’t support you, then Israel would take a different approach without a doubt.
    0:26:02 So the funding, the support, the intelligence flow, the economic support coming from the United States is what empowers Israel to prosecute its conflict.
    0:26:05 Without that support, Israel would take a different approach to the conflict.
    0:26:09 But then proxy would imply that Israel is acting as an agent or at the behest of the United States.
    0:26:15 So the United States, rather than getting involved directly with Iran up until last week, operates through another entity.
    0:26:17 That’s the misunderstanding about proxy war.
    0:26:20 You’re looking first for some sort of conflict that already exists.
    0:26:22 The conflict between Israel and Iran already exists.
    0:26:33 The proxy then, the proxy relationship happens when an outsider, a third party, comes in and exacerbates the conflict by putting more fuel on an existing fire.
    0:26:38 It’s not that Israel is the agent of the United States.
    0:26:41 It’s that Israel already wants to prosecute some sort of conflict.
    0:26:44 We come in and we’re essentially the fuel to help exacerbate that fire.
    0:26:46 So who’s the proxy in this conflict?
    0:26:46 Israel.
    0:26:47 Okay.
    0:26:53 Israel’s the proxy for the United States who wants to diminish Iran in the same way that Israel wants to diminish.
    0:27:00 This specific conflict is so fascinating because every fucking buddy wants Israel to degrade Iran.
    0:27:02 Saudi Arabia wants that.
    0:27:03 The United States wants that.
    0:27:05 All of the European Union wants that.
    0:27:07 Israel wants that.
    0:27:08 Everybody wants to see a degraded Iran.
    0:27:14 So Israel, especially after what it’s been doing in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,
    0:27:22 Israel’s desperate for anything it can do to win back favor for the Abraham Accords as a democratic country, you name it.
    0:27:23 It’s looking for an option.
    0:27:31 And Iran is a very convenient option for them to build back relationships that they’ve killed along with the attacks in Gaza.
    0:27:34 If their reasons are different, does that still make one a proxy of the other?
    0:27:43 So Israel’s objections to Iran, and it’s the reason it sees Iran as an adversary, might differ from the United States.
    0:27:44 There’s a Venn diagram.
    0:27:46 There’s some overlap, but there’s also a tremendous amount that doesn’t overlap.
    0:27:51 Same thing with the Saudis, the Gulf states, other regional states that see Iran as a threat.
    0:27:52 They see it for different reasons.
    0:27:54 Does that still—and I’m not saying you’re wrong.
    0:27:55 I’m just trying to understand.
    0:27:57 Does that still make them a proxy if their motives are different?
    0:28:03 I would say yes, because it’s not about the parts of the Venn diagram that don’t overlap.
    0:28:04 It’s about the parts that do.
    0:28:11 It’s about the convenience of Israeli citizens dying, Israeli soldiers dying, Israeli weapons being spent.
    0:28:13 That’s the benefit of a proxy conflict.
    0:28:16 It’s not American citizens who are at risk.
    0:28:18 It’s not American soldiers who are dying.
    0:28:20 It’s not American weapons that are being spent.
    0:28:21 We get to build our surplus.
    0:28:26 And if anything, we get to build extra and sell it to Israel, which is benefiting our economy.
    0:28:36 So this is the uncomfortable truth behind proxy war is it’s all the benefits of a wartime environment without any of the risks.
    0:28:48 But then what also happens, and you can look at Vietnam as a great example, is the proxy wars that are supposed to be low cost for the United States end up blowing up into being a disaster for the United States.
    0:28:51 So I think of Vietnam, I think classic proxy war, right?
    0:28:56 Right. Khrushchev gave that speech, I think, 1963, whenever it was, about wars of national liberation.
    0:29:01 And that there would be fought in what was then called the third world, Vietnam being a classic case.
    0:29:03 There I see absolutely, right?
    0:29:07 First you had the French, you know, in French Indochina, and then the United States bailing the French out.
    0:29:10 Arguably, the French were maybe a proxy for U.S. interests.
    0:29:13 They were part of that firewall that were keeping the dominoes from falling.
    0:29:20 But again, I’m struggling to—I’m trying to understand the Israel-United States proxy angle here.
    0:29:23 And that’s a unique definition of proxy, I guess.
    0:29:25 Okay, so you—
    0:29:25 I’ll give you an example.
    0:29:26 Go ahead.
    0:29:27 I’ll put in with an example.
    0:29:27 Yeah, yeah.
    0:29:28 You tell me if this is right or wrong.
    0:29:29 Yeah.
    0:29:33 So in a weird way, the Iraq War was a proxy war.
    0:29:35 For the same reason.
    0:29:37 The Iraq War in the 2000s—
    0:29:37 Which was the 2000s?
    0:29:39 We were trying—George Bush and Dick Cheney’s Iraq War.
    0:29:39 Right.
    0:29:42 We’re trying to weaken Iran.
    0:29:45 You think the Iraq War was an attempt to weaken Iran?
    0:29:48 I mean, you pipe in here, but that’s how it started.
    0:29:49 That was the original intention.
    0:29:55 And the deep, tragic irony is what we have now, which is Iran is running around.
    0:29:57 Why does the United States want to weaken Iran?
    0:30:00 The Iran—the United States—the United States wants—
    0:30:02 Because of what happened to your family in 1979.
    0:30:02 But why?
    0:30:05 But why does—what’s the beef the U.S. has with Iran?
    0:30:11 Because they had our hostages for 400-and-something days in 1979, and we will not let that go until
    0:30:12 that is, you know—
    0:30:14 How is that—what does justice look like?
    0:30:15 I’m not saying that’s—
    0:30:15 Yeah, yeah.
    0:30:16 I’m just saying that’s—
    0:30:18 No, but I’m saying why are we at war with Iran?
    0:30:20 Or not at war, but why are we at conflict with Iran?
    0:30:24 I mean, I think there’s a lot of different—a lot of different valid answers for that.
    0:30:30 But where I would take this, especially to keep it really accessible to the layperson, right,
    0:30:38 is that the United States wants zero competition for being the single superpower in the world.
    0:30:40 It wants no competition for that.
    0:30:43 It wants to remain the single superpower everywhere.
    0:30:49 Because being the single superpower gives your civilians, gives your population security,
    0:30:53 but it also means that you have the lion’s share of all the resources in the world.
    0:30:57 And basic economics teaches us that all economics is based on resources.
    0:31:03 So Iran’s goals to create a Shia state, to create a Shia crescent of power and influence
    0:31:07 across the Middle East, is in stark contrast to what would benefit the United States.
    0:31:12 What the United States wants is to maintain a Sunni majority, because that’s where the oil
    0:31:16 is coming from, is majoritatively for United States, Sunni, wealthy, collegiate states.
    0:31:19 Even though Iran’s the second largest—
    0:31:20 Not for the United States.
    0:31:21 Yeah, not for the United States.
    0:31:22 But it was, right?
    0:31:26 During the United States’ greatest period of prosperity, it was a bipolar world.
    0:31:31 So unipolarity is something we’ve had since the 90s onward.
    0:31:33 And yes, there’s been tremendous success.
    0:31:35 But arguably, unipolarity has been destabilizing.
    0:31:36 What’s unipolarity?
    0:31:41 Where you have one world power basically dominating, which has kind of been the case since the end
    0:31:41 of the Cold War.
    0:31:46 And now we’ve seen a rise of other sort of poles, maybe, with China being one.
    0:31:49 But you had, during the entirety of the Cold War, it was a bipolar structure.
    0:31:51 The Soviets, you had the U.S.
    0:31:55 And they were dictating everything else on the chessboard that was the globe, right, in
    0:31:56 front of us.
    0:32:01 And arguably, since the end of the Cold War, the unipolar system has not been very stable.
    0:32:05 You could say that, I think the stats you cited, the number of conflicts have almost
    0:32:07 increased since that time.
    0:32:10 What is, what’s the takeaway from that?
    0:32:11 What do you guys think?
    0:32:15 I mean, this is where I think academics and reality butt heads.
    0:32:15 Okay.
    0:32:18 Because academically, I agree with you.
    0:32:18 Okay.
    0:32:20 And on principle, I agree with you.
    0:32:20 Okay.
    0:32:24 The world could be better if it was multipolar.
    0:32:30 If we had a strong Europe, and we had a strong country in China, and we had a strong, or a country
    0:32:32 in Asia, and we had a strong United States.
    0:32:39 And if we could find a way to cooperate effectively and collaborate without conflict, I mean, academically,
    0:32:40 all of that sounds wonderful.
    0:32:42 Oh, I don’t pretend that it’s going to be friendly or cooperative.
    0:32:45 I think you can have multipolar where you still have adversaries.
    0:32:46 Yeah.
    0:32:49 But the idea is that you’re saying that countries seek to be unipolar.
    0:32:52 They seek to be global hegemons because that gives them what?
    0:32:54 No, no, countries don’t do that.
    0:33:00 Once you are, once you are a near peer competitor, then you have no other option in the reality
    0:33:03 of it except to be the most powerful.
    0:33:08 This is why there’s only one Olympic gold winner for any competition, for any specific Olympics.
    0:33:10 You can’t have a tie, right?
    0:33:13 It’s the reason why if there is a game that ends in a tie, it goes into overtime because
    0:33:15 you have to have a winner.
    0:33:17 That’s like, it’s human nature.
    0:33:20 I have to know what my threat level is against you.
    0:33:25 So one of us has to be dominance and one of us has to not be as, it has to be second to
    0:33:26 our dominance.
    0:33:29 And we can have dominance in different areas, right?
    0:33:32 That’s why when I’m a guest in your home, I follow your rules.
    0:33:34 When you’re a guest in my home, you follow my rules.
    0:33:38 There’s an element of that that’s all just built into our DNA as human beings.
    0:33:43 But what the United States has is it has global hegemony.
    0:33:50 It has all the benefits of the world’s wealthiest economy, the strongest currency, the lead on
    0:33:50 technology.
    0:33:53 We’ve diversified our workforce so that we don’t have to rely on manufacturing.
    0:33:58 We literally make money off of ideas in the United States, whereas a place like China is
    0:34:02 doomed to try to have human beings who do things with their fingers to make money.
    0:34:07 So when you have that level of power, you become very focused on keeping that power.
    0:34:09 Talk to any wealthy person out there and they’ll tell you the same thing.
    0:34:12 But war is a zero-sum game.
    0:34:14 The Olympics are a zero-sum game.
    0:34:17 Diplomacy implies that others can win.
    0:34:21 Not everyone can win equally, but multiple winners can emerge or multiple losers can emerge.
    0:34:25 We can all kind of share a spot in the podium.
    0:34:26 Two people can stand in the gold section.
    0:34:28 You know, you can split it.
    0:34:31 You can have a team sport, right, where everyone’s getting gold on that team if they win.
    0:34:33 How is that?
    0:34:34 Is that consistent with what?
    0:34:35 Culture.
    0:34:37 This is where culture starts to lay in.
    0:34:40 And I would say that the United States is a zero-sum culture.
    0:34:40 I would say too.
    0:34:41 Okay.
    0:34:44 I don’t think it’s pretty, man, but I think it’s the facts.
    0:34:46 I also think it’s interesting when I hear you guys talk.
    0:34:50 It’s like you can imagine what it’s like in the White House.
    0:34:51 Imagine the president.
    0:34:58 He’s having some of his advisers tell him exactly this, like, you know, the kind of big we must dominate.
    0:35:07 And then you have his military advisers wanting specifics having to do with what their intentions are in their lane.
    0:35:23 And so I think it’s what’s interesting for, you know, the laymen, which I certainly am on some level, is that when you begin, the more information you get, you know, this is like on the other side of that information is actually a great thing for all of us.
    0:35:27 You can begin to understand the context.
    0:35:31 Okay, wow, that’s, you know, Andrew said that and that makes sense.
    0:35:37 So I think then you start to see as an individual, and the world makes more sense to you, it’s less threatening, like, what is going on?
    0:35:39 Oh, my God, World War III is around the corner.
    0:35:47 But the president of the United States lives in his own, you know, silo and has so much incredible power.
    0:35:55 This just, the longer I report on all of this, the more I’m amazed at how powerful the president of the United States is.
    0:35:59 And if we look at the current president, how much more power is being absorbed there.
    0:36:04 And the idea of them being in their own silo, I mean…
    0:36:06 No pun intended, but pun intended.
    0:36:06 Absolutely.
    0:36:16 I mean, traditional, traditional, political-focused, policy-driven presidents, they try to find a way to reduce the silo effect.
    0:36:18 The current president has done the opposite.
    0:36:27 He’s increased the insulation against expertise from people who have forged careers becoming experts in their field.
    0:36:37 Instead, he’s surrounded himself with voices that are more interested in, who knows, media intentions, future political benefits.
    0:36:43 But they’re not necessarily coming from an informed expertise like what we’ve seen in previous presidents.
    0:36:45 And that’s where I think you used the word context.
    0:36:46 Absolutely.
    0:36:49 I think that’s perfect to capture it.
    0:36:50 It’s the context.
    0:36:54 So, you know, content is what the three of us are discussing here.
    0:36:55 Content.
    0:37:01 Context is what the cameras are recording, what editing is done afterwards, and then what gets disseminated beyond there.
    0:37:13 That is, you know, in a broader scope, that is the algorithm, that is social media, that is basically restricting the context to whatever the owners of that content feel it needs to be.
    0:37:18 And that, I think, also contributes to this sort of unipolar, zero-sum mindset.
    0:37:21 Because only one algorithm can win.
    0:37:22 You can’t have competing algorithms.
    0:37:25 We’re trying to have competing algorithms with China.
    0:37:26 And they’re winning.
    0:37:32 I, a few, two years ago, I designed a war game simulation for a group of retired military officials.
    0:37:41 And we had some prominent ex, we had governors, senators, national security staff role-playing the White House Situation Room.
    0:37:50 And one of the things that was interesting was my job, I designed this game, it was meant to be what if a second January 6th happened, but this time the insurrection comes from within the military.
    0:37:55 You have defections from the military, National Guard bases, isolated bases, right?
    0:37:57 Could the Pentagon be prepared for something like that?
    0:37:58 What would that look like?
    0:38:09 And I had, the White House was staffed with this incredible social media team that was meant to sort of signal to the American people and to the president and to everyone else what’s happening.
    0:38:11 And I had four people playing the red cell.
    0:38:19 The red cell consisted of basically trolls, provocateurs, who aren’t necessarily committed to overthrowing, but just wanted to, you know, to borrow.
    0:38:21 It’s interesting they just wanted sort of the action.
    0:38:24 It’s like borrowing what, you know, Heath Ledger said is the Joker.
    0:38:26 Some people just want to watch the world burn, right?
    0:38:28 He didn’t say that, but it was from Batman, right?
    0:38:38 And the havoc that two or three people in a bar were able to simulate or to create versus an entire White House apparatus staffed with experienced people.
    0:38:43 These are people who were on actual White House comms teams who had the training.
    0:38:45 We had military folks who had worked in defense intelligence.
    0:38:52 And you had two or three trolls in their 20s who – some were veterans who were able to absolutely cause havoc.
    0:38:57 And so that is the – because the algorithm – and I designed the algorithm to amplify their stuff.
    0:38:59 And the White House could not keep up.
    0:39:00 That’s fascinating.
    0:39:01 And that’s terrifying.
    0:39:02 That is terrifying.
    0:39:08 That is where I think the warfare and, you know, the idea of World War III and conflict, that is how you get to zero sum.
    0:39:11 That is how you get to who emerges with the gold medal, I think.
    0:39:18 So back to your point, the context, who controls that silo, who controls the mic, who controls the aperture is going to matter more.
    0:39:23 One of the things Donald Trump has shown us is how much of an economy of attention we really are in.
    0:39:30 And just like having the most money makes you wealthy in a fiscal economy, having the most attention makes you very wealthy in an attention economy.
    0:39:35 And here’s a man who, even when he wasn’t president, was in the headlines every day.
    0:39:44 So it’s – I think that the unpredictability of what he’s going to do moving forward doesn’t bring us closer to peace.
    0:39:48 It doesn’t bring us closer to proper communications.
    0:39:51 It’s – you mentioned, you know, are we one miscommunication away?
    0:39:57 If we are, then we are in a very dire place because there is a lot of miscommunication happening.
    0:40:03 Well, I’ve read the stories through history of miscommunications nearly resulting in nuclear war or some missile being launched.
    0:40:06 I mean, Anna, you’ve studied quite a few of those moments through history.
    0:40:08 I was listening to one the other day.
    0:40:15 I think it was a story of a Russian nuclear commander who saw something on the radar and he thought the U.S. was striking.
    0:40:25 And for whatever reason, he decided to assume that it wasn’t and reported back to his sort of overlords that it wasn’t a nuclear strike and didn’t press the button.
    0:40:29 But everything on his radar told him that the U.S. had launched multiple missiles.
    0:40:30 Are you familiar with that particular story?
    0:40:30 Yeah, yeah.
    0:40:32 What is that story?
    0:40:35 He’s called the man who stole – the man who saved the world.
    0:40:38 It was 1983 and he was in a bunker in Russia.
    0:40:47 They’re sort of equivalent of – we have a similar – a radar, you know, a system that’s looking at satellite, tracking satellite activity.
    0:40:54 And it was perceived that America had launched missiles from the Midwest, ICBMs.
    0:40:58 And the – you know, you’re absolutely right.
    0:40:59 I mean, you told the story perfectly.
    0:41:13 He decided not to raise the threat up the chain of command, which would have put the entire Soviet nuclear command and control on, you know, massive alert.
    0:41:14 He just didn’t do it.
    0:41:23 And it was interesting because he, you know, was sort of really berated later by Russian command and control.
    0:41:26 But he got the moniker, the man who saved the world.
    0:41:29 There’s a documentary about him that’s definitely worth watching.
    0:41:43 And your point is what Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres said recently, which is we are one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation.
    0:41:51 Or even one AI-generated viral video that goes – you know, that the wrong person gets the wrong idea from.
    0:42:01 Imagine the Cuban Missile Crisis, how close we came, and imagine if you had generative AI content that made it look like the Soviets had deployed or fired a missile or anything to that effect.
    0:42:10 We saw during this Iran-Israel conflict, I mean, how many videos on X I saw that showed devastation in Tel Aviv or devastation in downtown Tehran.
    0:42:17 I mean, they were obviously fabricated and AI-generated, but the extent to which these things were recirculated and spread.
    0:42:26 And then I saw sources who I would normally trust sort of amplified these, not knowing until someone else pointed out, wait a minute, that’s, you know, from a video game or that’s generative AI.
    0:42:34 Imagine if our decision makers didn’t have redundancies or fail-safes in place to be able to identify that this is what that is.
    0:42:38 And they acted on a misread or something that they thought was real.
    0:42:40 That’s what concerns me.
    0:42:44 Are our intelligence forces more sophisticated than that?
    0:42:48 Presumably they’re not on Twitter or something looking at videos.
    0:42:48 Well, they are.
    0:42:49 They are.
    0:42:50 They are there as well.
    0:42:53 And that’s a type of intelligence called open source intelligence.
    0:42:55 But the short answer is yes.
    0:42:57 Our intelligence infrastructure is far more sophisticated than that.
    0:43:05 The intelligence infrastructure for all of the, all of the, for the majority of the nine nuclear-capable countries are very, very effective.
    0:43:06 France is very effective.
    0:43:07 The UK is very effective.
    0:43:08 The US is very effective.
    0:43:10 Even China’s MSS is very, very effective.
    0:43:16 So sophisticated intelligence services are looking for corroborating evidence before they make an intelligence estimate.
    0:43:29 There is a challenge, though, and we’re seeing it, especially in the United States, where the chief executive just disagrees independently, unilaterally, with what his intelligence estimate is.
    0:43:29 What do you mean?
    0:43:30 Give me an example.
    0:43:32 You saw two examples in the last few weeks, right?
    0:43:38 First, you saw Tulsi Gabbard, who’s the director of national intelligence, in a position that didn’t exist until the failure of 9-11.
    0:43:44 That DNI position was born from the fact that we needed to have more coordination across intelligence services.
    0:43:54 And she came out and she gave an estimate that Iran was not imminently capable of creating a nuclear weapon, a weaponized nuclear device, right?
    0:43:55 And how would she know?
    0:43:57 Because she’s the director of national intelligence.
    0:43:59 All intelligence, thank you.
    0:44:02 It’s obvious to me, I understand, and it’s not always obvious to everyone else.
    0:44:19 But all of the intelligence services feed up, they feed up intelligence that’s been vetted, corroborated, validated, up through a reporting system that goes to the director of national intelligence, whose job it is to advise the president on the current status of the most quality intelligence that we have.
    0:44:25 The president as the chief executive is the one person who the intelligence services work for at the pleasure of the president.
    0:44:31 But his primary mouthpiece for current intelligence is supposed to be the DNI.
    0:44:41 So when Tulsi Gabbard says, we have no reason to believe that Iran is imminently ready to prepare to create a nuclear weapon, the president is supposed to say, thank you, DNI.
    0:44:43 And then that becomes the information that he has.
    0:44:45 Instead, he disagreed with her.
    0:44:47 And then he said, that’s not really what’s happening.
    0:44:48 I just disagreed.
    0:44:49 He shut her out.
    0:44:49 Correct.
    0:44:50 Shut her out.
    0:44:53 Out of Senate briefings, intelligence briefings, she’s been marginalized.
    0:44:56 And then she changed her opinion and came back.
    0:44:58 And I want to hear your disagreement.
    0:45:15 But then the second example I have is after the bombing raid of the three sites in Iran, the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is charged with collecting military intelligence from foreign targets, came back and said that we may not have reached total obliteration, Mr. President.
    0:45:16 And again, he disagreed.
    0:45:18 And he’s like, that’s completely wrong, total obliteration.
    0:45:29 I have a – it’s not a disagreement, but it’s more like a different POV on all of this, which has to do with narrative, which I’m very interested in of how.
    0:45:43 Because the more people I interview at all these different levels, I begin to realize that we all are working from the same set of human conditions, you know, bias and sort of like – and really my favorite one is the horse in the race.
    0:45:51 You know, you have a horse in the race of how you think and the way in which you see the world.
    0:45:56 And I know as I get older what I try to do personally is I try to notice where I am wrong.
    0:46:01 And instead of being defensive about it, be like, I was wrong about that.
    0:46:02 That’s interesting.
    0:46:06 Because then you can kind of evolve in your thinking and have a bigger PO view.
    0:46:21 But I perceive Tulsi Gabbard making those decisions from the lens in which she sees the world and her platform is very specific.
    0:46:27 You could almost have discerned that she was going to have that opinion, at least in my opinion.
    0:46:30 She was a known commodity before she became D&I.
    0:46:37 So this is the feeling, I think, what you’re saying is we knew she was – she always saw the regimes in that part of the world from a certain framework.
    0:46:37 Yeah.
    0:46:40 And her conclusion followed her –
    0:46:41 Biases.
    0:46:42 Biases, her presuppositions.
    0:46:43 Exactly.
    0:46:47 And maybe they’re just – priors is a great word because we all have them.
    0:46:48 There’s nothing wrong with this per se.
    0:46:59 It’s just that – because I would take a totally different look at any of this if I was the DNI and would be like, Mr. President, it’s not as much about these things that everyone’s arguing about.
    0:47:06 Did we – because let’s face it, no one’s going to know until time passes the damage that was really done there, period, full stop.
    0:47:07 You know that.
    0:47:08 And we all know that.
    0:47:15 And so what you have to say – and again, as a historian, I would say, what’s the best example of why we should bomb this facility?
    0:47:30 And the best example would be North Korea because Clinton – so North Korea once upon a time did not have 50 nuclear warheads and the ICBMs to get them to the United States to take out the United States, which is what I write.
    0:47:32 There’s my bias, my lens, my point of view.
    0:47:34 But I have studied this.
    0:47:44 And so it’s interesting to me that Clinton was going to bomb North Korea when they were in precisely the same situation that Iran is now, not yet having a nuclear bomb.
    0:47:49 And North Korea promised that they wouldn’t enrich the uranium.
    0:47:50 And this is in 1983.
    0:47:53 And Clinton was preparing a military strike.
    0:47:58 And it was complex because a lot of people in Seoul were going to die in South Korea.
    0:48:04 And then Jimmy Carter stepped in and said, I will go negotiate the peace with the current dictator’s father.
    0:48:05 And he did.
    0:48:11 And everything was honky-dory except for North Korea had their hands behind their back and their fingers crossed.
    0:48:20 And they were lying because that is what dictators do who don’t like America being the nuclear superpower and being able to threaten them.
    0:48:28 And if I was the DNI, I would say, Mr. President, this is the best example of probably what is going on.
    0:48:43 That’s my bias rather than saying, you know, so I’m – but I’m interested in how the tribal parts of America, which I find just as dangerous as nuclear weapons – not quite, but that’s what I’m interested in.
    0:48:48 And then everybody jumps on the story that – which is also true.
    0:48:49 The story you tell is true.
    0:48:55 But what is your take on North Korea, the bomb, Tulsi Gabbard?
    0:49:01 If anything, North Korea is the – I mean, I never thought in my adult life I would say this.
    0:49:11 It’s the shining example of why nuclear – of why countries pursuing nuclear capabilities will continue to pursue nuclear capabilities.
    0:49:19 Because here is a broken, backwards, poor, fucking, despicable regime that we don’t touch.
    0:49:20 No one will touch them.
    0:49:21 Because they’ve got nuclear weapons.
    0:49:22 They have nuclear weapons.
    0:49:36 And now they – and now that – now that we have literally bombed a sovereign nation as the United States, we have sent in – we ran in a bombing raid of a country that was sovereign, its own borders, with no – no –
    0:49:40 Which is why Clinton wouldn’t do it in the – because of, my God, that was unheard of.
    0:49:41 You don’t do that.
    0:49:47 And now that we have done that to incur and prevent a country from getting a nuclear – that’s our stated intent.
    0:49:50 Now, our stated intent may be celebrated in most parts of this map.
    0:50:06 But to the Iranian people and to the people who are trying to climb up the social ladder through technology, the message they got is our borders are not going to be respected unless we have something like a weapon, a nuclear weapon that will keep people away.
    0:50:09 So now they have even more incentive to develop a nuclear weapon than they’ve ever had.
    0:50:09 Correct.
    0:50:12 Or – or – sorry to cut – or they might go a different direction.
    0:50:18 They might say, look at what a 30-year policy pursuit of funding a nuclear program brought upon us.
    0:50:19 It brought upon us death and ruin.
    0:50:23 North Korea is a shining example of a failed state.
    0:50:30 The only reason that it hasn’t basically toppled is because of the oppressive nature of the regime against its own people and against the outside world.
    0:50:32 Who wants to be North Korea?
    0:50:33 Iran does not want to be North Korea.
    0:50:44 It is a prior state of all prior states, isolated beyond belief, and a miserable place by all senses to want to live and exist unless you’re part of the ruling hierarchy.
    0:50:47 So I would argue the Iranian people will look at this.
    0:50:48 The people, mind you, not –
    0:50:49 The people are very different than the regime.
    0:50:50 People are different from the regime.
    0:50:51 The regime is about self-survival.
    0:50:51 The regime wants to survive.
    0:50:53 So they’re going to emulate North Korea.
    0:50:54 Accept that.
    0:50:55 100%.
    0:50:55 Accept that.
    0:51:03 All they’re going to do is sow the seeds to their own downfall internally because, yes, nuclear weapons will shield you from the outside world.
    0:51:04 They will not protect you from within.
    0:51:06 Iranians are not North Koreans.
    0:51:12 That is where, you know, they have demonstrated a willingness to die for rebellion.
    0:51:14 I’m not saying this generation is ready to do that.
    0:51:20 But, you know, the only reason I’m in this country sitting here is because there was thousands of people that were willing to do that.
    0:51:22 They will do that again, presumably.
    0:51:23 So, great.
    0:51:24 Build your walls.
    0:51:25 Isolate yourself from the world.
    0:51:27 Protect yourself from the U.S.
    0:51:32 But you’re not going to protect yourself from civil conflict and civil strife and tribalism.
    0:51:34 That will persist and it will amplify.
    0:51:41 Because, you know, oppression, I think this is one of the great lines from the Andor show first season, right?
    0:51:43 Oppression requires constant effort.
    0:51:47 And that constant effort is bound to break at some point.
    0:51:51 It is a lot of work to keep your domestic population repressed.
    0:51:54 That is not sustainable in the long run.
    0:51:55 History has shown that.
    0:51:57 You can keep others out, but you can’t.
    0:51:58 Except for North Korea.
    0:52:01 North Korea is the only exception.
    0:52:07 And the reason is because they’ve got a huge patron willing to prop them up.
    0:52:08 But for China.
    0:52:08 Oh, China.
    0:52:12 But for China and, to a lesser extent, Russia, where would North Korea be?
    0:52:14 Iran doesn’t have a savior.
    0:52:17 Iran hasn’t had a savior.
    0:52:18 And it’s not going to.
    0:52:18 It’s not going to be Russia.
    0:52:20 Russia is not going to do that.
    0:52:21 I don’t know that that’s the case.
    0:52:21 Who would it be?
    0:52:25 Because right now there’s an incentive across the Eastern Bloc to support Iran.
    0:52:37 Right now, China and Russia and North Korea, who were already becoming diplomatically and economically tied to Iran before this, have all the more reason to do so now.
    0:52:42 Except none of them stepped forward in ways that mattered in the last three weeks to do something.
    0:52:43 That we know of.
    0:52:44 Well, you did.
    0:52:55 Putin gave a very disconcerting speech in St. Petersburg on June 20th where he talked about the Russian scientists helping out Iran.
    0:52:59 And that I found to be very – an echo of kind of a threat along the lines of what you’re talking about.
    0:52:59 Correct.
    0:53:05 Don’t make the mistake of thinking that there hasn’t been support given just because we don’t know about support given.
    0:53:06 There’s quiet diplomatic channels.
    0:53:07 There’s secret intelligence channels.
    0:53:08 I don’t disagree.
    0:53:09 There’s just foreign language channels.
    0:53:10 I don’t disagree.
    0:53:13 I just don’t think Iran is the hill that the Russians or Chinese will die on.
    0:53:15 No, for sure it’s not.
    0:53:15 That’s what I’m saying.
    0:53:23 At the end of the day, there is no NATO Article 5 equivalent where any of these countries in the Eastern Bloc will come to the defense of Iran’s sovereignty.
    0:53:24 They simply won’t.
    0:53:29 And now we go back to the conversation about proxy war because Iran becomes a very convenient proxy for Russia and for China.
    0:53:33 But nothing is more important than Iran not having a nuclear weapon.
    0:53:42 Mohammed bin Salman himself said if Iran gets the weapon, we will also – we, Saudi Arabia, will get a nuclear weapon.
    0:53:49 And that’s a huge – I think that’s a fantastic – a fantastic parallel to why the world doesn’t want Iran to be nuclear-capable.
    0:53:55 Because a nuclear-capable Iran would force the Sunni collegiate states to develop nuclear weapons as well.
    0:53:57 And that’s nuclear World War III right there.
    0:53:59 Or you don’t even need to be nuclear-capable.
    0:54:00 Just be nuclear threshold.
    0:54:01 That’s enough.
    0:54:05 That’s what Iran – what if every country in the region became nuclear threshold?
    0:54:05 What does that mean?
    0:54:09 They’re on the verge of weaponization, but they’re not quite there.
    0:54:12 So, in other words, uranium enrichment.
    0:54:16 So, when you find uranium in the raw, it’s very low and rich.
    0:54:17 Like 2% to 3% of it is pure.
    0:54:19 You enrich it.
    0:54:20 You put it in centrifuges.
    0:54:22 You separate the parts you want from the parts you don’t.
    0:54:23 You purify it.
    0:54:27 Up to 20% can be used for energy or for medical uses.
    0:54:34 That’s what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty allows every country except those who didn’t sign it and the five great powers, right?
    0:54:39 Everyone else – you can have energy enrichment, uranium enrichment, up to that 20% threshold.
    0:54:42 Iran went beyond that, went up to 60%.
    0:54:46 When you go beyond 20%, you’re entering into weapons territory.
    0:54:49 Weapons territory, you have to get to the 90% range, right?
    0:54:49 Clean weapons.
    0:54:50 Clean weapons.
    0:54:54 But anything between 20% to 90% gets you a dirty bomb, a radioactive dirty bomb.
    0:55:03 And so, Iran went there and said, well, we’re not quite at the 90% weaponization yet, but they exceeded 20%.
    0:55:06 Every other country could arguably do the same thing.
    0:55:14 They could say, we’re not going to build a bomb, but we’re going to come very close where if we feel that we need to do it in a matter of weeks, days, months, we could quickly do it if we think there’s a threat.
    0:55:16 That’s the threshold.
    0:55:18 Do you think Trump was right to bomb Iran?
    0:55:20 Do I think he was right to bomb Iran?
    0:55:26 I think diplomacy with Iran has been exhausted with this leadership.
    0:55:28 Can you explain that to me?
    0:55:33 Because I’m really keen to just understand where this conflict with Iran has originated from.
    0:55:38 Yeah. So, Iran, up through 1979, it had various monarchies.
    0:55:43 The Pathavi monarchy that came into power in the 1920s was the last dominant one.
    0:55:48 And it had built, at least through the Cold War, a close relationship with the West, specifically the United States.
    0:55:54 Iran served as one of the two pillars of U.S. power in the Middle East, the Saudis being the other.
    0:55:59 This is before Israel became important to the United States national security system.
    0:56:04 And so, Iran and the Saudis represented, really, a projection of U.S. power in the Middle East.
    0:56:07 With the revolution of 79, that went away.
    0:56:13 We supported the Shah and the U.S. power in the Middle East.
    0:56:13 Yeah, absolutely.
    0:56:14 Right.
    0:56:17 So, the United States and the Shah, the king of Iran, were extremely close.
    0:56:20 I mean, this peaked under Richard Nixon and Kissinger’s time.
    0:56:25 And as a result, the Shah became very, very wealthy, looked to rapidly modernize the country.
    0:56:31 But what he didn’t do, Iran experienced tremendous economic growth, but not political growth to match it.
    0:56:40 So, what happens when a country becomes wealthy and becomes more modernized, becomes more European, which is what the Shah was trying to do, the people wanted other things that Europe had.
    0:56:41 They wanted free elections.
    0:56:42 They wanted free press.
    0:56:44 They wanted freedom of assembly, right?
    0:56:44 Dishwashers.
    0:56:48 They wanted democracy to go with their dishwashers.
    0:56:57 The thing is, is the Shah said, I will give you all of the trappings of modernity, high-rises, air conditioning, indoor plumbing, dishwashers, electric appliances.
    0:57:00 But this democracy that you want, that’s pushing it too far.
    0:57:07 So, you had this rapid economic growth, this uneven political growth, and there the seeds of revolution were planted.
    0:57:12 The people were unhappy, and they said, wait a minute, why can’t we have the other things to go with this growth?
    0:57:22 So, the revolution happened, there was a bunch of different forces coming into play, not just the Islamists, but the Islamists were the ones that dominated at the end, and they cleared everyone out.
    0:57:24 They killed them, basically, marginalized them.
    0:57:26 And they have three pillars they stand on.
    0:57:30 Three, like, if you want to call it their mission statement.
    0:57:32 Number one is independence from the West.
    0:57:36 This Iranian regime believes no more dependence on the West like the Shah did.
    0:57:41 Number two is the destruction of Israel, or hostility to Israel.
    0:57:42 That is fundamental.
    0:57:42 Why?
    0:57:50 Because they see Israel as an outpost of American power, and arguably not colonialism, but they see Israel as a projection of U.S. power.
    0:57:59 They also see, in their attempt to go to pillar number three, which is exporting the revolution to other Muslim Shia countries, they see Israel as getting in the way.
    0:58:05 Because it represents this non-Muslim entity in an otherwise Islamic part of the world.
    0:58:10 So it’s inconsistent with their goal of expanding the Islamic revolution.
    0:58:13 You can’t do that when Israel is literally in the way.
    0:58:15 So it has to go, or it has to be diminished.
    0:58:16 And they’ve said that.
    0:58:17 Oh, yeah.
    0:58:19 This is Khomeini, the founder of the republic.
    0:58:21 These are his three principles.
    0:58:23 So you have these three principles.
    0:58:27 You take any one of them away, the whole edifice, the whole thing falls out.
    0:58:27 It’s like a tripod.
    0:58:29 Break one of its legs.
    0:58:31 It doesn’t have enough to stand on.
    0:58:38 So diplomacy with the U.S. means ending hostilities with the West, and it means acknowledging Israel in some way.
    0:58:40 This government cannot do that.
    0:58:42 Otherwise, it loses all credibility.
    0:58:46 It spent 40-plus years saying, these are the things we stand for.
    0:58:50 If they all of a sudden abandon those principles, they’re going to have no credibility with their public.
    0:58:52 Then why should they still be in power?
    0:58:55 It’s not because the public wants hostility with Iran and Israel.
    0:58:57 The public wants relations.
    0:59:04 But this government is saying, we oppress you, we terrorize you, all because we’re keeping you safe and we’re adhering to these three principles.
    0:59:06 And that’s 40 years of brainwashing as well.
    0:59:08 Absolutely, of indoctrination.
    0:59:10 So diplomacy had reached its end.
    0:59:14 To answer your question, a long answer to a good question was Trump right to bomb it.
    0:59:16 Trump had reached the limits of diplomacy.
    0:59:30 And with Iran being a nuclear threshold state, and with Israel after the 2023 Hamas attacks realizing it could no longer tolerate this degree of a threshold Iran, the time to act, the pressure was there.
    0:59:36 And the opportunity because of the way it had weakened the defense systems, the proxies.
    0:59:38 They’re true proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
    0:59:38 Right.
    0:59:40 So I think there was a window of opportunity.
    0:59:43 And Iran simply was not going to abandon its nuclear program on its own.
    0:59:45 Diplomacy was not going to get us there.
    0:59:46 They don’t want to.
    0:59:47 It gives them too much leverage.
    0:59:49 And it’s never going to abandon its nuclear program.
    0:59:51 I’ve learned to not say never anymore.
    0:59:54 But with a regime change, I think that’s a different story.
    1:00:01 But in the existing regime, they will – the regime will keep itself in power.
    1:00:14 That’s my point about – you know, that’s the analogy to North Korea that we all kind of agree on is that, you know, their perception is if we have a nuclear weapon, then the West really can’t mess with us.
    1:00:15 And you mentioned something else I liked.
    1:00:23 You said that, you know, you – I think when you were saying if in the role of the DNI or the president, you get information, you were wrong, okay?
    1:00:24 You have to reassess.
    1:00:32 Our leaders – and this goes back to sort of the topic of this book I’m working on – our male leaders especially suffer from cognitive dissonance, right?
    1:00:40 Cognitive dissonance is when you have a set of beliefs and you get information that is inconsistent with your beliefs.
    1:00:43 That makes all humans incredibly uncomfortable, all right?
    1:00:44 What do you do with that?
    1:00:48 Well, there’s multiple ways that we psychologically try to neutralize that.
    1:00:50 One of them is you change your view.
    1:00:51 You say, you know what?
    1:00:51 I was wrong.
    1:00:53 This is the correct way to see things.
    1:00:54 Most people won’t do that.
    1:00:55 That’s embarrassing.
    1:00:56 Most men won’t do that.
    1:00:59 Most men in positions of power absolutely won’t do that.
    1:01:03 If they admit that they’re wrong, then what does that say, right?
    1:01:04 So instead, they double down.
    1:01:05 They reinforce.
    1:01:06 They become stubborn.
    1:01:10 And they end up then, in order to justify that, have to act aggressively.
    1:01:13 So we suffer from basically men in positions of –
    1:01:15 It’s the see-I’m-right problem, you know, right?
    1:01:16 I told you so.
    1:01:17 I told you so.
    1:01:17 Exactly.
    1:01:22 So you have to reinforce your false belief because if you don’t, it means you were wrong.
    1:01:29 And if you’re Donald Trump, if you’re Khamenei, if you’re Benjamin Netanyahu and you were wrong, how bad does that look?
    1:01:30 You’re out.
    1:01:34 Your credibility is gone in this culture that we’re in, right?
    1:01:38 So that leads to the other problem, the cognitive dissonance that these world leaders can’t seem to handle.
    1:01:41 Do you think we were right to strike Iran?
    1:01:44 I think that we did the right thing at the wrong time.
    1:01:49 And I will say that because the president of the United States is the president of the United States.
    1:01:50 He’s earned the seat.
    1:01:52 We wanted him there.
    1:01:52 We voted for it.
    1:01:54 He gets to do whatever he wants.
    1:02:09 But considering the politics between Israel and Iran at the time, considering the at least, at the very least, inconsistent intelligence that we have about the actual status of the weapons that Iran was developing.
    1:02:31 And then the political position inside the United States, being where it was with failed tariffs, being where it was with an inability to negotiate peace in Gaza, an inability to negotiate peace in Ukraine, where it was, if it was the right thing to do, we certainly seem to have done it prematurely along with preemptively.
    1:02:32 When would have been a better time?
    1:02:41 I mean, if you want to speak like a parent, then you’re right.
    1:02:42 There’s never a good time, right?
    1:02:48 But first of all, I think a limited bombing run, that’s not how you eradicate.
    1:02:52 That’s not how you totally obliterate a country’s nuclear capability.
    1:02:55 You have to commit to either multiple bombing runs.
    1:02:57 You have to coordinate attacks.
    1:03:02 In this particular instance, Israel made an offer to the United States.
    1:03:08 It said, hey, we would like for you to come in and use your bunker buster bomb, this technology that only you have.
    1:03:11 But if you don’t, we have other options.
    1:03:15 I would have loved to have been like, let’s see those other options.
    1:03:22 Let’s see how far you can take this on your own because you’re the one, Israel, that has an existential threat from Iran.
    1:03:28 You’re the one who’s dealing with and had phenomenal success with the proxies in your area, in your region.
    1:03:36 And we are the country that currently can continue to say that we don’t violate sovereign borders for now, right?
    1:03:38 We obviously invaded Iraq.
    1:03:38 We invaded Afghanistan.
    1:03:42 We’ve had our history with this, and we’ve had our history of breaking international law.
    1:03:47 And we always have the option to stop, you know, bombing across borders.
    1:03:52 But instead of waiting, instead of letting Israel kind of exhaust all of their options, we went in.
    1:03:53 And why?
    1:03:56 And did we go in because it was in our best interest?
    1:04:03 Or did we go in because it was somebody else’s Venn diagram bigger benefit and our Venn diagram smaller benefit?
    1:04:05 I have a theory about that.
    1:04:14 But first, I want to ask you a question about your subject matter expertise, which is when you said, let’s see Israel play out some of the other options.
    1:04:17 Because I’m talking about the covert action that they had planned.
    1:04:28 Because, boy, I mean, the leaked tapes that were on the Washington Post, Israel’s covert action teams, that was pretty stunning to me.
    1:04:37 And I think it’s best if you explain maybe what we’re talking about because we’re as close to your – I’m as close to you as the vein on your neck.
    1:04:37 Absolutely.
    1:04:48 So one of the things that we’re seeing in the headlines now and in the near future for sure is going to continue to be this ousting, this collection of suspected spies within Iran.
    1:04:56 Because now Iran – Iran has been a Swiss cheese of spies, of Mossad agents, informants for Mossad inside of Iran.
    1:04:57 What’s Mossad?
    1:05:01 Mossad is the Israeli External Intelligence Collection Service.
    1:05:02 They’re a version of the CIA.
    1:05:03 Okay, so the Israeli CIA.
    1:05:05 The Israeli CIA, correct.
    1:05:14 One of the major differences between Mossad and CIA is that Mossad is essentially exclusively focused on one major enemy to Israel, and that’s Iran.
    1:05:22 So almost 100% of their effort goes into protecting against this one existential threat where the United States CIA is collecting on everybody, right?
    1:05:35 So with that kind of intelligence focus, plus the budget that Israel has, plus its partnerships with the West and the technology that it can collect from the West, it has a far superior intelligence advantage over Iran.
    1:05:37 Cutting in for a second here.
    1:05:42 These are the trigger – we’re talking about what we were talking about earlier with ground breath.
    1:05:43 These are trigger pullers.
    1:05:48 These are covert action operators that go in and kill people.
    1:05:52 We have multiple types of infiltrations inside Israel or inside Iran.
    1:05:59 But to the point that she’s making, the covert action arm of Mossad inside Iran is massive.
    1:06:03 That’s how they were able to go across borders and launch drones.
    1:06:16 They’re finding now thousands of prefabricated drones inside Tehran that were being built by assets of Mossad that were being controlled by AI within Tehran.
    1:06:25 So that Israel could essentially, at a press of a button, fly hundreds of homemade drones built inside the capital of Iran, like fabricated inside Iran.
    1:06:26 By Iranians.
    1:06:27 By Iranians.
    1:06:27 Yeah.
    1:06:37 I mean, the level of deception and sort of paranoia that comes with all of this territory is shocking and stunning and –
    1:06:37 Correct.
    1:06:46 And Iran has suspected this for a long time, has known that it exists, but maybe never to what extent because it wasn’t an imminent threat.
    1:06:47 It wasn’t an imminent concern.
    1:06:53 And then it became one with this run, with this series of activities against Iran.
    1:06:56 I was reading about the pages the other day.
    1:06:57 I had no idea.
    1:07:00 I’d kind of seen something on my feed, but I thought I’d research it.
    1:07:09 And essentially, Israel had managed to get the Iranian forces to wear pages that they had manufactured with bombs inside them.
    1:07:11 And then they exploded all the pages.
    1:07:15 I mean, even more impressive than that, they didn’t get anybody to wear a page.
    1:07:18 They found the model and type of pager.
    1:07:19 They found the supply chain.
    1:07:21 They found the fabricator for that.
    1:07:30 And then they infiltrated the fabricator to make sure that they input those explosive devices into the same make and model that was going to end up in the hands of Hezbollah.
    1:07:30 And then they were –
    1:07:31 That was in Lebanon, by the way.
    1:07:32 Oh, yeah.
    1:07:32 That was – okay.
    1:07:33 Lebanon, yeah.
    1:07:36 But that’s a proxy army of Iran.
    1:07:42 The other thing I want to point out is Western intelligence, the CIA especially, completely missed 1979.
    1:07:46 It’s one of its biggest, biggest failures in the modern era.
    1:07:54 The United States and other Western agencies, even Israel, are notoriously ineffective when it comes to, I think, fully understanding what’s happening in Iran.
    1:07:57 What the Israelis accomplished with their Mossad agents is remarkable.
    1:08:06 But in terms of the sentiment, the mood on the street, and the people’s appetite for this group or that entity, for whatever reason, maybe you can shed light on this.
    1:08:11 I am trying to understand why the United States has such a poor history of understanding.
    1:08:14 They’re going all the way back to the 53 coups, a classic case.
    1:08:16 Even MI6 doesn’t get it right.
    1:08:20 How is it that they’re so bad at this there, but they can seem to do it everywhere else?
    1:08:26 You can’t expect any intelligence organization – you can’t expect any professional intelligence organization to be right 100% of the time.
    1:08:30 Intelligence is – this is something that people often misunderstand, right?
    1:08:33 Intelligence isn’t when you know something to be true.
    1:08:34 When you know something to be true, it’s a fact.
    1:08:38 Even if it’s a secret that you know to be true, it’s a fact.
    1:08:44 Intelligence is your estimation, your guess of what you don’t know.
    1:08:46 Because if you knew it, it would be a fact.
    1:08:53 How does something like October 7th happen when there is so much intelligence in the region and there’s these Mossad forces, there’s the CIA?
    1:08:58 How does – was it hundreds of people stormed the border of Israel and did this brutal attack?
    1:09:00 Presumably they had intel that that was going to happen.
    1:09:01 Correct.
    1:09:10 I mean the findings since the day of the attack have shown that there were multiple reports, there were multiple operators and officers who escalated this problem.
    1:09:27 One of the downsides of democracy is that when you have a bureaucracy that has kind of – has channels of command and people have to agree and collaborate and validate each other’s information, everything moves much slower.
    1:09:35 So what – and anybody can contribute to this but for October 7th, the IDF was in charge of border patrol, border security.
    1:09:37 The IDF meaning the Israeli Defense Force, which is a military unit.
    1:09:43 They were in charge of the location where the attack happened.
    1:09:49 And they saw evidence of rehearsals and practice attacks and they saw an escalation of conflict.
    1:09:51 And they reported up to the bureaucratic chain of command.
    1:09:55 But somewhere in that chain of command, somebody saw it differently.
    1:09:56 Yeah, exactly.
    1:10:02 And then Shin Bet, which is the essentially FBI equivalent in Israel.
    1:10:03 Internal security.
    1:10:03 Internal security.
    1:10:07 Never got the complete accurate memo from IDF.
    1:10:16 And then Mossad’s information on what may or may not be happening was obviously never part of the finished intelligence that did make it up to the policymakers.
    1:10:22 So there were – there was evidence that was only really identified post-fact, which is exactly what happened with 9-11 too.
    1:10:25 There was information that was only identified after the effect.
    1:10:35 And I think it’s also the good old cliche, you know, hindsight is 20-20, applies in all of these situations, whether it’s Pearl Harbor or 9-11.
    1:10:40 I mean, intelligence failures are what change the trajectory of history.
    1:10:50 But if you do interview a lot of CIA people, as I do, I often hear this, and it may or may not be true, which is, Annie, no one ever hears all the attacks we stopped.
    1:10:53 And then I say, well, tell me about them.
    1:10:55 They’re still classified, you know.
    1:11:04 So, I mean, that’s why narrative is so interesting to me because, first of all, it feels personal because you can relate to it.
    1:11:17 Even if we can’t relate to being in the White House, we can certainly relate to being stubborn about not wanting to change your opinion or, you know, putting together a certain set of facts and saying, we all probably do this in our own home.
    1:11:18 Oh, this, therefore, that.
    1:11:20 And then we’re wrong.
    1:11:23 I’ve built companies from scratch and backed many more.
    1:11:26 And there’s a blind spot that I keep seeing in early stage founders.
    1:11:29 They spend very little time thinking about HR.
    1:11:31 And it’s not because they’re reckless or they don’t care.
    1:11:34 It’s because they’re obsessed with building their companies.
    1:11:35 And I can’t fault them for that.
    1:11:41 At that stage, you’re thinking about the product, how to attract new customers, how to grow your team, really how to survive.
    1:11:44 And HR slips down the list because it doesn’t feel urgent.
    1:11:46 But sooner or later, it is.
    1:11:52 And when things get messy, tools like our sponsor today, JustWorks, go from being a nice-to-have to being a necessity.
    1:11:56 Something goes sideways and you find yourself having conversations you did not see coming.
    1:11:59 This is when you learn that HR really is the infrastructure of your company.
    1:12:01 And without it, things wobble.
    1:12:03 And JustWorks stops you learning this the hard way.
    1:12:10 It takes care of the stuff that would otherwise drain your energy and your time, automating payroll, health insurance benefits.
    1:12:13 And it gives your team human support at any hour.
    1:12:18 It grows with your small business from startup through to growth, even when you start hiring team members abroad.
    1:12:25 So if you want HR support that’s there through the exciting times and the challenging times, head to JustWorks.com now.
    1:12:27 That’s JustWorks.com.
    1:12:29 What happens next with Iran?
    1:12:36 With this whole tension with, you know, they’ve said that there’s this ceasefire, but it doesn’t look like a great ceasefire.
    1:12:43 There’s a crisis of legitimacy that this current Islamic government has to reckon with domestically.
    1:12:49 They have to now look at their people and say, okay, we basically failed to defend you.
    1:12:51 They’re trying to spin that narrative saying that they did defend the homeland.
    1:13:03 And they’re trying to use nationalism as a sort of a salve, as a treatment to justify or to explain or to sort of wash over what happened.
    1:13:06 There’s going to be new leaders.
    1:13:08 The supreme leader right now is, you know, frail.
    1:13:08 He’s been frail.
    1:13:12 He’s been on the verge of death for years now, setting aside attempts to kill him.
    1:13:19 And the crisis of succession, who comes next, is going to be now amplified much more, a greater sense of urgency.
    1:13:29 And then whether or not the next leaders of the Revolutionary Guard, which is sort of Iran’s – so just to explain something, Iran has two militaries.
    1:13:34 There’s the Iranian military that protects its borders and domestic security, oddly enough.
    1:13:40 And then there’s the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is protecting the revolution.
    1:13:43 The R in IRGC stands for revolution.
    1:13:46 The I does not stand for Iran.
    1:13:47 It stands for Islamic.
    1:13:50 In other words, they are protecting what happened in 79.
    1:13:52 They are not interested in the country.
    1:13:54 That’s what the army does.
    1:13:56 The army protects the country.
    1:13:58 The IRGC protects the movement.
    1:14:02 And so the IRGC is the most powerful entity in Iran.
    1:14:08 And what – who their next generation of leaders or next level of leaders that rise up, what their views are.
    1:14:10 Are they willing to cooperate with the rest?
    1:14:12 Are they going to double down on nuclear enrichment?
    1:14:14 Are they going to take things underground?
    1:14:16 Are they going to kick out the IAEA permanently?
    1:14:18 Are they going to pull out of the NPT?
    1:14:20 We don’t know the answer to these questions.
    1:14:22 And what’s the public unrest going to be like?
    1:14:24 Can somebody emerge?
    1:14:30 Because you cannot have resistance without a movement led by, you know, a figurehead of some kind.
    1:14:32 And this regime has been incredibly good.
    1:14:37 In the last few days, they’ve executed three or four potential people who they think could emerge as –
    1:14:38 Wow, I didn’t know that.
    1:14:38 Oh, yeah.
    1:14:39 They killed three or four people.
    1:14:40 About three, I think.
    1:14:41 Three for sure.
    1:14:42 There’s a fourth.
    1:14:43 I’m waiting to make a confirmation.
    1:14:54 Yeah, people that they’re afraid of who could use this period of instability and dysregulation to foment rebellion and insurrection.
    1:14:55 It’s the last thing they want.
    1:14:56 And that’s where I’m going to butt in here.
    1:14:58 And you’re going to correct me if I’m wrong.
    1:15:12 But if we were in a different presidency and a different era, like, you know, this is where the CIA would be in Iran and would be fomenting change because that is ultimately what the American goal is.
    1:15:15 Which it absolutely should not be doing ever.
    1:15:16 It did it in 53.
    1:15:18 But I didn’t say it should or shouldn’t.
    1:15:20 I’m just saying it would have.
    1:15:23 Meaning not should or shouldn’t from a moral perspective.
    1:15:24 It just simply doesn’t.
    1:15:26 It doesn’t work.
    1:15:34 For this to have legitimacy for decades to come, it has to be organic, homegrown, free-range, you know, grass-fed.
    1:15:39 The agency can sometimes hide itself so dramatically that it’s not even known it’s there.
    1:15:40 I – Iran is not.
    1:15:41 We want your opinion.
    1:15:45 Iran is – and again, I say this as a very proud Persian.
    1:15:50 Iran is different than I think other theaters of conflict where the CIA has operated.
    1:15:55 You know, Iranian civilization and nationhood goes back thousands of years.
    1:15:56 It’s very different.
    1:15:57 It does not take wealth.
    1:16:04 It’s not like Iraq, which is a fabricated state, didn’t exist until 1917, 1918 after the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
    1:16:06 Or, you know, the modern Middle East is very different.
    1:16:08 So you want to medal in the Middle East?
    1:16:08 Fine.
    1:16:13 But Turkey, Egypt, Iran, these are nations that have existed for thousands of years.
    1:16:19 That’s a game that the United States intelligence agencies and I would add MI6, the UK, hasn’t figured it out either.
    1:16:22 Andrew, what do you think happens next in this region?
    1:16:24 Are we going to reach peace?
    1:16:25 Are they going to form an alliance with the US?
    1:16:35 So I’m smart enough not to debate because I am largely ignorant on the political divisions and internal politics of Iran.
    1:16:41 And I know that CIA has very little idea of what’s going on in Iran most of the time also.
    1:16:49 And I am suspicious that a big part of why we went in at all was because Netanyahu in Israel said, here’s the intelligence that we have.
    1:16:51 It’s a very common game in the world of intelligence.
    1:16:56 If you have 80 percent, if you have 100 percent of knowledge, you’re only going to share 20 percent.
    1:16:59 And you’re going to share the 20 percent that benefits you.
    1:17:00 Do you think that’s potentially what happened?
    1:17:01 I absolutely think that’s what happened.
    1:17:07 So you think Netanyahu in Israel could have given selective intelligence to the United States to provoke them to get involved?
    1:17:08 It only makes sense.
    1:17:10 It’s what a professional intelligence service would do.
    1:17:13 It’s exactly what the United States does.
    1:17:14 And you don’t think the US knows that, though?
    1:17:16 They’re only getting titrated amounts of information?
    1:17:17 No.
    1:17:25 I think even if they did know that, Netanyahu understands the Trump mentality of horse racing.
    1:17:25 That’s, yeah.
    1:17:26 Right?
    1:17:31 And the world of intelligence is a nasty, nasty game.
    1:17:34 We call it a gentleman’s game, but it’s not at all.
    1:17:41 It’s a game of twisting people’s distortions and cognitive dissonance and playing into biases and politics.
    1:17:43 And it’s a nasty, nasty game.
    1:17:44 So what happens next?
    1:17:53 What I think we need to be prepared for is that nuclear weapons are not becoming less likely to be used.
    1:18:02 I think the traditional World War II nuclear weapon, the ICBM that’s targeting a civilian population, that is less likely to be used.
    1:18:05 That is possibly full-on unlikely to be used.
    1:18:18 But a dirty bomb being a 60% enriched uranium deposit that’s triggered through some kind of explosive device that’s dropped off in a car trunk or dropped off in a suitcase.
    1:18:20 It doesn’t have a weapon system.
    1:18:22 But it just radiates the air.
    1:18:24 You drive a truck in and you just explode.
    1:18:27 It’s like a radioactive dirty bomb.
    1:18:32 It causes like a radiation cloud to hover above a city or a small area.
    1:18:34 That’s what terrorists would have over it.
    1:18:34 What about tactical nukes?
    1:18:37 And tactical nukes, I think, are also something that we’re very likely to see.
    1:18:44 Since the end of World War II, what we’ve seen is an increased investment not in intercontinental ballistic missile warfare but in tactical nuclear warfare.
    1:18:52 Tactical nuclear warfare are warheads that are as small as 50 pounds and those can sit on the end of a short-distance rocket, a medium-range rocket.
    1:18:58 They can be put in a backpack and put on a drone for all intents and purposes.
    1:19:04 And those tactical nukes have a very small contained explosion but it’s still a nuclear explosion.
    1:19:09 And the reason that tactical nukes are so valuable is because now you can use them against military targets.
    1:19:18 I have to totally – I got to take – like can be used against should never be said, right?
    1:19:19 So that’s my line in the sand.
    1:19:28 Tactical nuclear weapons are no longer in the U.S. arsenal for precisely that reason because they cannot be used.
    1:19:38 Because the escalation to strategic nuclear weapons, which is one continent to the next, big systems, big delivery systems is inevitable.
    1:19:39 But keep going.
    1:19:40 You’re saying it’s a slippery slope.
    1:19:43 It’s not a slippery – it’s a dividing line.
    1:19:45 You can’t even enter into the slope.
    1:19:48 It’s like if you get pushed off a cliff, there’s no going back.
    1:19:50 It’s not a slope, it’s a cliff.
    1:19:51 So you’re –
    1:19:55 In my understanding of nuclear war games and everyone at the Pentagon knows that.
    1:20:04 No matter how nuclear war begins, it ends in total annihilation, which is why America no longer has tactical nuclear weapons in its arsenal.
    1:20:05 We used to.
    1:20:11 We used to have small nukes that you could put in a backpack and jump out of an aircraft.
    1:20:13 And I know people who rehearsed that during the cold.
    1:20:15 You can definitively say the U.S. has none in its arsenal?
    1:20:16 We do not.
    1:20:16 Or none that we know of?
    1:20:17 No, no.
    1:20:17 We don’t.
    1:20:30 Now, you could say that the one’s on bombers because we have a certain kind of one nuclear weapon that can be flown in and its size can be dialed down.
    1:20:32 And that makes it tactical.
    1:20:36 Why have we got nuclear bombs then at all if we can never use them?
    1:20:37 That’s the fundamental of the truth.
    1:20:43 Because I’m saying we can’t have tactical nuclear bombs because if we have – we would never use them and if we did, the world’s over, basically.
    1:20:44 So why do we have nuclear bombs?
    1:20:45 Because the same principle applies.
    1:20:47 Because you have nuclear bombs.
    1:20:47 We have nuclear bombs.
    1:20:49 We might as well have the tactical ones.
    1:20:49 Absolutely.
    1:20:49 No.
    1:20:56 And I do believe that’s one of the wise moves of the U.S. nuclear command and control.
    1:20:58 Because the tactical ones will lead to the big ones.
    1:21:00 A thousand percent, not even a hundred percent.
    1:21:02 But if that’s true, then why have the big ones?
    1:21:05 Well, that’s the bigger question.
    1:21:08 But our position on why we have nuclear weapons is one word.
    1:21:10 It’s called deterrence.
    1:21:17 We are going to deter you from using your nuclear weapons against us because we have an arsenal and you have an arsenal.
    1:21:22 It’s this bizarre catch-22 paradox of why we can’t get rid of nuclear weapons.
    1:21:27 We’re now seeing – we’re seeing where reality and policy butt heads.
    1:21:28 Because Annie’s right.
    1:21:33 The policies on this are clear as mud.
    1:21:42 But they are stated and restated over and over again in order to get the American populace, the American people, to be able to stomach the fact that we have all these nuclear weapons.
    1:21:43 Right?
    1:21:48 The fact that we put our nuclear weapons in five other countries around the world.
    1:21:49 Right?
    1:21:52 Belgium is sitting there holding our nukes.
    1:21:54 Italy is holding our nukes.
    1:21:55 Making them a target.
    1:22:00 And giving them a nuclear weapon in their own border.
    1:22:02 Which they can’t use.
    1:22:06 Which they cannot use without the president of the United States authorizing it.
    1:22:07 So it’s very precarious.
    1:22:10 Who would be able to use it if they wanted to?
    1:22:11 So here’s –
    1:22:13 Every weapon is different.
    1:22:14 Every weapon is different.
    1:22:21 And I say this because the truth of nuclear weapons is far scarier than the average person understands.
    1:22:29 Which is a big part of why I believe, like you, they will never get used at a strategic level.
    1:22:35 Because the people who actually handle the weapons, the people that you’re talking to, they understand the devastating consequences of these weapons.
    1:22:38 But the layperson gets very, very confused sometimes.
    1:22:47 So a small warhead, let’s just say 30 kilotons of explosive power, right?
    1:22:49 Which is still twice what we dropped on Hiroshima.
    1:22:54 A small warhead does an immense amount of damage.
    1:22:59 It annihilates 10 square miles, let’s say, of whatever it – wherever it explodes.
    1:23:01 If it’s a surface explosion.
    1:23:05 If it’s an altitude explosion, it doesn’t destroy really anything.
    1:23:11 It leaves an EMP footprint that short circuits wiring, right?
    1:23:16 And that can be a huge – EMP, thank you – an EMP pulse that destroys everything beneath it.
    1:23:17 What is an EMP?
    1:23:19 An EMP is an electromagnetic pulse.
    1:23:30 It’s an electrical discharge that comes from a nuclear detonation or other sources that infiltrates through technology, wiring, et cetera, et cetera.
    1:23:31 And it shorts it or burns out the wiring.
    1:23:34 Think of like a massive surge, like a massive power surge, yeah.
    1:23:38 Or you can detonate them underground, underwater to create natural effects.
    1:23:39 You can create earthquakes.
    1:23:40 You can create tsunamis.
    1:23:43 You can create vapor bubbles that are just destructive.
    1:23:46 So there’s lots of different ways that you can use a weapon.
    1:23:52 But the thing that concerns me is that because the US policy is so black and white as it’s fed to the American population,
    1:24:01 it’s that much more inviting for one of these other countries to use a nuclear weapon in a specific way to create chaos,
    1:24:05 to create a lack of clear acquisition.
    1:24:19 For example, if a small Russian nuke, which lives in Belarus, because Russia puts their nukes in Belarus, finds its way into Kiev and explodes in the back of a truck, who do you blame?
    1:24:21 Does the US blame Russia?
    1:24:22 Does the US blame Belarus?
    1:24:25 Does Russia take responsibility for it?
    1:24:27 Does Europe say that it’s an attack from the Russians?
    1:24:28 What do you say?
    1:24:32 Because now you just had a nuke go off and the world’s confused.
    1:24:37 And the same thing happens if China uses a tactical nuke to destroy in the ocean, in the South China Seas.
    1:24:44 If China uses a tactical nuke to blow up five Filipino ships, what is that?
    1:24:55 It was a small nuclear device that was used in a littoral situation that was only attacking military forces that were, quote unquote, violating some sort of free space.
    1:24:57 What do you do there?
    1:24:59 That’s not when you launched ICBMs.
    1:25:00 So what do you do?
    1:25:03 What happens there, Annie?
    1:25:04 That’s the nightmare situation.
    1:25:10 I mean, attribution, or rather non-attribution of a nuclear weapon.
    1:25:11 Figuring out where it came from.
    1:25:26 Yes, because if a strategic nuclear weapon is launched, an ICBM, we, the United States, knows precisely where it came from because we see it from our satellite systems in space in the first second after launch.
    1:25:29 So that is the fundamental of deterrence.
    1:25:37 Not only can you not launch at us, but we will know in one second and we will be back at you before yours even get to us.
    1:25:38 That’s how that works.
    1:25:42 But what Andrew is saying is deeply troubling.
    1:25:58 And another reason to our conversation about why Iran should not have the bomb, or anyone for that matter, it’s dangerous enough that you have nine nuclear-armed nations who could, as you say, you know, someone in Belarus could wind up with something.
    1:26:00 That’s incredibly dangerous.
    1:26:03 But you do not want anyone else into this mix.
    1:26:10 Including non-state actors, which would be Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, if you’re Israel.
    1:26:20 The concern is not so much that Iran will use it, but Iran will provide it to a non-state entity that is not bound by any international law or rules of warfare.
    1:26:22 And Iran can claim deniability.
    1:26:22 Yes.
    1:26:25 And that’s why President Trump bombed.
    1:26:27 That’s why.
    1:26:32 So imagine, imagine, Israel is one of the nine, one of the nine nuclear-capable countries.
    1:26:41 Imagine this Mossad that is absolutely capable of incurring across Iranian borders, smuggle in a 50-pound tactical nuke.
    1:26:44 And they take it and they put it inside one of the testing ranges.
    1:26:47 Well, they put it inside one of the facilities inside Iran.
    1:26:49 And then they put it on a time detonator.
    1:26:51 And 13 hours later, it goes off.
    1:27:01 There’s a nuclear explosion underground in Iran in an Iranian facility that we, in this simulation, we know it’s triggered by Israeli covert action.
    1:27:05 But the whole world sees an explosion go off in Iran.
    1:27:08 So now the president wonders, did they just run a nuclear test?
    1:27:11 Iran raises their hand and say, we did not run a nuclear test.
    1:27:14 Somebody put a nuclear weapon in our territory.
    1:27:15 Who believes who?
    1:27:16 Right?
    1:27:17 What does Saudi Arabia believe?
    1:27:17 Well, shit.
    1:27:19 Iran has nuclear capability.
    1:27:21 We’re nuclear threshold.
    1:27:21 Boom.
    1:27:22 Let’s get it going.
    1:27:24 Japan, nuclear threshold.
    1:27:25 They start getting their program going.
    1:27:33 And how bad does it look for Iran if it admits that Israeli commandos or agents made their way into one of the most top-secret facilities right under their nose?
    1:27:39 So I have a curiosity, which you might know.
    1:27:41 You have some sick curiosity.
    1:27:43 We should share a drink.
    1:27:54 No, this is like a terrifying one, is that after October 7th, President Biden went to Israel himself.
    1:27:56 He did not send Blinken.
    1:27:57 Remember that?
    1:27:58 This was in ours.
    1:27:58 That was a big deal.
    1:27:59 That was a big deal.
    1:28:00 This is in ours.
    1:28:03 This was not a man who was, you know, out playing football, okay?
    1:28:09 He goes to the heart of the battle zone.
    1:28:10 Why?
    1:28:18 My theory is that he said to Netanyahu, there’s one line you may not cross.
    1:28:23 And if you cross it, we are not friends anymore, ever again.
    1:28:25 And that’s the nuclear line.
    1:28:26 That is my theory.
    1:28:31 No one’s ever, whenever I’ve asked anyone, they just don’t have an answer.
    1:28:33 Their lips get very…
    1:28:34 Get pursed.
    1:28:38 Get very pursed and no one says anything, which leads me to believe that is precisely what
    1:28:39 happened.
    1:28:44 There’s so much going on around this map that sits in front of us that is, it all seems to
    1:28:50 be happening at once with, you know, Russia and Ukraine and you’ve got China and with Taiwan.
    1:28:56 You’ve now got the Middle East going off with Iran and Israel and everything happening in Gaza.
    1:28:59 It doesn’t feel like this is going to go the other way.
    1:29:01 It doesn’t feel like this is going to retract anytime soon.
    1:29:04 It’s funny because when Trump got elected, he promised to, like, end these wars.
    1:29:08 And under his reign, it seems like there’s more wars popping up.
    1:29:12 And actually, a lot of this causes cover and distraction for other people to start,
    1:29:15 you know, invading countries that they’ve got a problem with.
    1:29:20 And we talked a little bit about international law being violated and new presidencies being set
    1:29:21 in terms of what you can do.
    1:29:23 We’re now at a point where it’s kind of OK to bomb a sovereign country.
    1:29:26 It’s kind of OK just to roll across the border and just take what you want.
    1:29:30 So I think that’s where my concern starts.
    1:29:33 And I’m looking over at the other side of the map here with Russia and Ukraine.
    1:29:34 And I’m asking myself, how does that end?
    1:29:39 You know, Putin can’t just roll out of there because then why did he ever roll in?
    1:29:44 I mean, it doesn’t look like Ukraine are going to allow him to take a part of their country.
    1:29:46 That war is going to carry on.
    1:29:50 And then you’ve got China and Taiwan where the tension has increased.
    1:29:55 And I think I read that there’s been more murmurs of conflict or invasion going on with China
    1:29:59 in recent times, which would probably be now would be a great time if you’re China
    1:30:00 and you want to take Taiwan.
    1:30:02 Now would be a pretty good time to do it.
    1:30:03 Trump is busy.
    1:30:04 Not just busy.
    1:30:08 There’s a military test happening in Taiwan in the next few days where they’re practicing
    1:30:15 or prepping for a amphibious invasion from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army onto the coast
    1:30:15 of Taiwan.
    1:30:18 And so what has the Chinese government done in the last few days?
    1:30:21 They have jammed GPS signals.
    1:30:28 They have launched drones that are interfering with radar, basically, and blocking shipping
    1:30:31 lanes legally within where they can be.
    1:30:35 But the point being is that if you’re Taiwan, you’re prepping for this amphibious invasion
    1:30:40 that may not need to happen because China can do plenty to disrupt and make life for Taiwan
    1:30:44 miserable without even setting one soldier’s foot on Taiwanese soil.
    1:30:49 So absolutely, this is—and meanwhile, the U.S. is busy elsewhere.
    1:30:54 Look at the missiles that were used to provide Israel, the THAAD missiles that were used to defend
    1:30:55 against Iranian ballistic missiles.
    1:30:57 It’s been depleted, right?
    1:31:02 So we’re—so if you’re the U.S. now, you’re at a weaker state of being able to defend Taiwan
    1:31:05 than you were a month ago, six months ago.
    1:31:08 And there’s also sort of a public fatigue, right?
    1:31:12 Because now the public in the United States, they’re more polarized.
    1:31:15 There’s—even on the right, there’s some people that think we should be going to war.
    1:31:17 On the left, they think we shouldn’t, et cetera.
    1:31:17 It’s getting quite murky.
    1:31:19 There’s a lot of backlash.
    1:31:20 And I’m sure Trump feels that.
    1:31:25 Some of his closest media allies like Tucker Carlson and half of my Twitter feed are saying
    1:31:27 he shouldn’t have dropped the bomb, he shouldn’t go to war.
    1:31:28 And I’m sure that stuff gets to him.
    1:31:34 But Benjamin, you believe, I think, that if there were to be a trigger for World War III,
    1:31:35 it would come from that region.
    1:31:36 I think so.
    1:31:41 I think we would see it in the form of a—what we’re seeing now, trade war, supply chain crisis
    1:31:41 issues.
    1:31:45 We saw during COVID what happens when the supply chain is disrupted.
    1:31:49 That was a sort of a non-human event, meaning it was, you know, it was a virus.
    1:31:55 But imagine China now banning the sale of all rare earth minerals to the West, right?
    1:32:00 These are minerals that are used in the construction of lithium-ion batteries, microchips, processors,
    1:32:00 things of that nature.
    1:32:05 And then imagine if China says, look, we’re simply not going to sell these things to the
    1:32:07 United States and its Western allies.
    1:32:07 Done.
    1:32:08 We’re not going to.
    1:32:09 What happens then?
    1:32:15 So I think a major conflict will be precipitated by an economic and trade war, which we’re now
    1:32:16 basically in for all intents and purposes.
    1:32:21 And until the U.S. can—and Western allies can diversify by getting these resources elsewhere,
    1:32:26 I don’t know if occupying Greenland is going to be the answer or making Canada the 51st state
    1:32:27 will give us that.
    1:32:30 But this is where the Chinese are very effective.
    1:32:33 They have a large amount of these minerals within their borders.
    1:32:37 We know that there’s a good amount in Ukraine, which is why President Trump wanted to make
    1:32:39 that deal with the Ukrainians to secure those mineral rights.
    1:32:42 But these sort of—this all goes back to trade and technology.
    1:32:46 You don’t need to control territory for territory’s sake now.
    1:32:51 You need territory that has something that’s vital, whether it’s oil, less so these days,
    1:32:54 arguably, but now it’s rare earth minerals and access to trade routes.
    1:32:57 That is where you start messing with that.
    1:32:59 You are then lighting the fuses of war.
    1:33:02 Which are already being messed with.
    1:33:05 Everything that you just rattled off is already in motion.
    1:33:06 It’s already happening.
    1:33:08 It’s part of why I make the claim that World War III is already happening.
    1:33:16 If China invades Tyron—if China takes Taiwan administratively, judiciously, militarily,
    1:33:19 however they choose to go in there—because we keep thinking that they’re going to send
    1:33:23 warships in and weaken the battlefield with missiles or something.
    1:33:25 That’s not how they took Hong Kong.
    1:33:29 They took Hong Kong administratively and then just moved in the police after saying we have
    1:33:30 legal right.
    1:33:31 That’s exactly what they’re doing in Taiwan.
    1:33:37 They even have a parliament in Taiwan that’s majoritively pro-China, right?
    1:33:41 So they meddled with the elections in January enough to win a majority in the parliament,
    1:33:43 even though they lost the presidency, right?
    1:33:49 So I actually—and I think we’re seeing the same messaging coming out of Europe—if China
    1:33:51 moves on Taiwan, the world kind of does this.
    1:33:58 And Taiwan’s alone, not only because the president’s distracted, but also because NATO is distracted.
    1:33:59 Europe is distracted.
    1:34:04 And the last thing anybody wants is to fight over there when there’s so much bullshit happening
    1:34:05 over here.
    1:34:07 But the thing is, they don’t even need to move in and invade.
    1:34:10 All they have to do is block shipping routes, which they can do.
    1:34:10 Yep.
    1:34:14 No one’s going to challenge them on that and basically stop selling these rare earth
    1:34:16 minerals to every country that wants them.
    1:34:17 What do we do then?
    1:34:19 Russia’s not selling us what it has.
    1:34:21 You know, Russia can choose to do the same thing.
    1:34:22 Well, that’s not going to turn into a kinetic war.
    1:34:23 The United States—
    1:34:23 It won’t, right.
    1:34:24 It won’t, exactly.
    1:34:28 It’ll turn into more of what we’re already seeing, more tariffs and more threats and more
    1:34:32 trade and more of the same stuff that we’re already seeing, which is a big part of why
    1:34:33 I think we’re already in the middle of the war.
    1:34:34 That is—I agree.
    1:34:35 That is the war we’re in right now.
    1:34:37 It just doesn’t look like the wars of the past.
    1:34:44 I think it was Biden that said or suggested that if China were to invade or take Taiwan,
    1:34:46 then there would be an war—we’d be in a war.
    1:34:47 But it doesn’t need to.
    1:34:49 It doesn’t need to.
    1:34:52 For China to win, it doesn’t have to set foot on Taiwanese soil.
    1:35:00 All it has to do is basically isolate Taiwan economically, trade-wise, and then dare anybody
    1:35:02 else in the West or elsewhere to do anything about it.
    1:35:03 Will they do anything about it?
    1:35:05 That’s really difficult to see.
    1:35:09 Even France, even the president of France just came out recently and was like, you know,
    1:35:13 if China takes Taiwan, I don’t think France is going to get involved.
    1:35:13 Yeah.
    1:35:19 All—if we in the West can find our minerals elsewhere, I think we’ll throw Taiwan under
    1:35:19 the bus.
    1:35:24 And under the Biden Chip Act, that’s exactly what we’re trying to do is find our diversified
    1:35:24 routes.
    1:35:27 Haven’t we got some, like, sworn promise to protect Taiwan?
    1:35:29 Yes.
    1:35:30 Officially, yes.
    1:35:32 We have a sworn promise to protect Taiwan.
    1:35:37 I think that the wild card in all of this is the current president.
    1:35:40 No one knows how he’s going to behave.
    1:35:45 And I don’t really believe that there’s such a thing as him being distracted.
    1:35:50 I think that he will put his focus on whatever it is he chooses.
    1:35:52 And then that becomes the attraction.
    1:35:53 Yeah.
    1:35:57 Xi Jinping also knows that he needs a win right now.
    1:36:04 And he also knows that there’s a huge economic benefit by ingesting Taiwan and Taiwanese semiconductors
    1:36:06 and Taiwanese infrastructure and Taiwanese capabilities.
    1:36:12 Because all of the United States’ IP for semiconductors was developed here.
    1:36:14 And it’s all being built there.
    1:36:20 So when you take that, you get everything there that’s a physical infrastructure and everything
    1:36:21 here that’s intellectual property.
    1:36:29 Has the probability of nuclear war ever been higher in the last couple of decades?
    1:36:37 I think the Russia-Ukraine, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a few years ago and the immediate
    1:36:43 first few months, I should say the first year, was the peak of the last few decades.
    1:36:45 I think we’ve backed away from that a little bit.
    1:36:47 But I think that was the peak.
    1:36:50 I don’t think more today than, let’s say, a year ago.
    1:36:54 But I think a year and a half ago more so than, you know, the 20, 30 years prior.
    1:36:58 And do you think if Iran had developed a nuclear weapon, they would use it based on those
    1:37:00 three pillars you described earlier?
    1:37:00 No.
    1:37:01 You don’t think they would?
    1:37:02 No, because the regime’s not suicidal.
    1:37:07 Because if they had used it and we’d be able to track it, they’d be destroyed.
    1:37:09 And there are a lot of things.
    1:37:10 They might be crazy.
    1:37:12 They might be irrational in some ways.
    1:37:13 They are not suicidal.
    1:37:14 They’re not willing to die for this.
    1:37:19 They want, like Hitler and the thousand-year wife, they want this to endure.
    1:37:25 And it’s not going to endure with the developed, which is why Khamenei, the supreme leader,
    1:37:27 maintained a threshold of nuclearization.
    1:37:31 If you cross that threshold to being a nuclear weapon state, then all of a sudden he has
    1:37:34 a big target on his back, either from within or from without.
    1:37:40 And his goal is to have the regime endure for a thousand plus years, not to have it be sacrificed
    1:37:42 at the altar of nuclearization.
    1:37:44 Andrew, what do you think in terms of probability?
    1:37:45 Hi, Loa.
    1:37:47 I mean, I will give you a number.
    1:37:53 I think there’s a 30% chance that we’re going to see a nuclear detonation in our lifetime.
    1:37:54 And here’s why.
    1:37:55 Here’s why.
    1:37:55 Because.
    1:37:57 Tactical or does it matter?
    1:37:59 I’m saying any detonation.
    1:37:59 Any detonation.
    1:37:59 Okay.
    1:38:07 The last known nuclear detonation was 2017, unless I’m mistaken, 2017, when North Korea did a test
    1:38:08 underground.
    1:38:10 That wasn’t that long ago.
    1:38:15 And there were a series of tests that they did before that in an environment where testing
    1:38:16 is not supposed to happen anymore.
    1:38:21 We are now entering a season of more conflict.
    1:38:27 We’re seeing more and more strong authoritarian type leadership, even if it’s in the lead of
    1:38:28 a democratic country.
    1:38:32 We’re still seeing strongman type of shame-based leadership.
    1:38:38 This cognitive dissonance where people were, leaders will go contrary to where their advisors
    1:38:42 say leaders will go contrary to what’s in the best interest of the people’s opinion in
    1:38:46 pursuit of some sort of strategic or even tactical political aim.
    1:38:52 With more advanced weapons, with more transnational threats than ever before, transnational threats
    1:38:55 are threats that don’t derive from a national identity.
    1:39:01 They derive from something else, like a drug cartel or a radical Islam or radical Catholic,
    1:39:02 for all we care.
    1:39:08 With the rise of transnational threats, the opportunity for someone to get their hands on something that’s
    1:39:13 nuclear and then detonate that nuclear device somewhere is just too great.
    1:39:15 And it’s only getting greater.
    1:39:20 With new cryptocurrencies, people can pay for things and financial transactions can’t be
    1:39:21 tracked as easily as they were in the past.
    1:39:24 We are definitely in an area where it’s getting worse.
    1:39:29 And I remember people asking me this question two years ago, and I put the chances at 15% to
    1:39:30 20%.
    1:39:35 So in just a year, year and a half, I’ve literally seen us move the dial, in my opinion, closer
    1:39:42 to we will see a nuclear detonation in our lifetime than we have in the past.
    1:39:43 Can I ask you to just qualify something?
    1:39:43 Sorry.
    1:39:48 Is it state or non-state actor, you think, more likely?
    1:39:50 Because I would agree with you.
    1:39:51 I don’t think it will be a state.
    1:39:53 I don’t think it will be a clear state actor.
    1:39:54 Got it.
    1:39:54 Okay.
    1:39:57 I have a couple thoughts on that, where I may actually answer the question.
    1:40:02 So this goes back to your terrifying point about miscalculation or mistake.
    1:40:08 So I think that the mistake is where the real threat lies.
    1:40:16 People at this table may remember in November, the UK gave, and I’m talking about the Ukraine-Russia
    1:40:21 conflict right now, the UK gave the storm shadow to Ukraine.
    1:40:28 We gave the attackums, these are systems, like missile systems, essentially, to be able
    1:40:34 to, you know, go further into Russia, allow Ukraine to fire further into Russia.
    1:40:37 And Russia was pissed off.
    1:40:45 And in response, they fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear
    1:40:46 warhead, okay?
    1:40:53 This is the first time in history that a ballistic missile was used in this kind of a kinetic war,
    1:40:53 a hot war.
    1:40:58 And I was on an airplane leaving London, and I went, oh, my God, is this?
    1:41:02 That situation where I’m not going to land because there’s a nuclear war, because that
    1:41:08 is precisely the kind of thing I write in nuclear war scenario, where something’s launched, and
    1:41:15 the United States, because we have a launch on warning policy, launches before it lands,
    1:41:18 because we’re not willing to wait to see what was in that warhead.
    1:41:21 Now, what was in the warhead was nothing.
    1:41:28 The Russians launched an inter-range ballistic missile into Ukraine with nothing in the warhead.
    1:41:29 So why?
    1:41:31 I mean, this is so terrifying.
    1:41:37 Well, we learned later when Lavrov went on television, he said that he had notified his
    1:41:40 American counterparts in advance.
    1:41:47 I was taken to the State Department to see where that advance notice came into, and it’s called
    1:41:52 the NERC, the National Nuclear Security Center in the State Department.
    1:41:54 I’m messing up the name, but it’s known as the NERC.
    1:42:03 It’s inside the State Department, and it’s basically a hello, we’re not at war room, meaning every
    1:42:09 90 seconds you hear, bing, bing, bing, and that’s all you hear.
    1:42:15 And I was with the Assistant Secretary of State who said, Annie, that’s the Russians telling us
    1:42:16 we’re not at war.
    1:42:21 And she explained to me that Lavrov…
    1:42:22 Who’s the Russian foreign minister.
    1:42:23 The Russian foreign minister.
    1:42:29 When he said on TV, which went over everybody’s head, including mine, oh, we notified our American
    1:42:30 counterparts.
    1:42:31 What did that mean?
    1:42:35 Well, what Mallory Stewart, the Assistant Secretary of State, told me was what it meant was that
    1:42:42 Lavrov rang up the NERC and said, you know, we’re launching, and it doesn’t have a nuclear
    1:42:42 warhead in it.
    1:42:44 That was such a big deal.
    1:42:48 And I don’t think the average person understands how big a deal that was.
    1:42:49 When, I think it was called the Ereshnik.
    1:42:50 It was called the Ereshnik.
    1:42:57 The Ereshnik was the newest, most modern version of an ICBM, Intermediate Ballistic Missile, IMBM,
    1:43:00 that the Russian inventory had.
    1:43:01 We had never seen it deployed.
    1:43:02 It’s never been seen before.
    1:43:08 And it reminded the whole fucking world, you do not want to go down this road.
    1:43:12 A ballistic missile is a terrifying, terrifying tool.
    1:43:13 Why?
    1:43:19 It launches into the atmosphere where it splits into three parts.
    1:43:22 The rocket, the booster, and then what’s known as a MIRV.
    1:43:26 Almost like a, you know, imagine a revolver.
    1:43:28 Take out the piece that holds the bullets of a revolver.
    1:43:34 And it’s called a multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle, MIRV.
    1:43:38 A warhead sits in each one of those canisters of the revolver.
    1:43:45 And then it, on its own, can move in space and then drop warheads in different trajectories.
    1:43:50 And then those warheads, as they come down from space, not propelled, as they just fall from space,
    1:43:53 they reach speeds between Mach 2 and Mach 20.
    1:43:56 And then they come in contact with whatever they’re targeted.
    1:44:05 When there’s a warhead on there, that warhead also, it’s scheduled to explode at altitude, at surface level, or underground, whatever they choose.
    1:44:08 But there’s no stopping that fucking weapon.
    1:44:11 Once it drops the MIRV, once the MIRV drops the warhead,
    1:44:17 unless you have some sort of tech that can intercept a Mach 20 to Mach 2 to Mach 20.
    1:44:17 Which no one has.
    1:44:18 Right.
    1:44:21 We claim that we have it, but we’ve never actually tested it, right?
    1:44:27 We try to intercept the missiles on their trajectory, or at least when they’re at their arc, at their precipice.
    1:44:32 I don’t think we’ve ever claimed to have, that you can, that in terminal phase you can take something out.
    1:44:35 So I would want to fact check it, but either way.
    1:44:48 But my point is, when I saw those lines of Mach 20 fire just coming down into Ukraine, I mean, that’s the kind of, when I went through nuke school, that’s the shit that kept me up at night.
    1:44:51 I was like, we can’t live in a world that does that.
    1:44:56 And not only did Russia show us we can do that, but they said, we can do this with a new weapon system that you’ve never seen.
    1:44:58 We can do it with a new weapon system.
    1:45:09 And we’re gracious enough to tell you, through the NERC, this tiny little pathway of diplomacy, 30 minutes before we’re doing this.
    1:45:14 And you’re going to take us at our word that it doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, so that we didn’t launch on warning.
    1:45:17 It’s such a game of chicken.
    1:45:18 It’s nuclear chicken.
    1:45:20 It’s so dangerous.
    1:45:23 What if the NERC hadn’t intercepted that signal properly?
    1:45:26 It’s incredibly dangerous.
    1:45:35 Now, one more thought, if I may, on Andrew’s prediction of a radiological bomb, a dirty bomb going off, which may or may not be true.
    1:45:50 Unfortunately, that’s a tough number, and I wouldn’t necessarily disagree just given how rogue nations work, given that terrorists have, you know, expressed a desire to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, which a dirty bomb is.
    1:46:03 But in my thinking, a dirty bomb, as horrible as it is, and it’s going to kill people and make land, you know, unusable for thousands of years, it’s not strategic nuclear war.
    1:46:09 In other words, that’s not going to cause the United States to launch on warning.
    1:46:13 First of all, it’s immediately not attribution.
    1:46:16 You don’t know who left it in the truck and exploded it.
    1:46:19 And so it’s a different set of terrible.
    1:46:32 And I believe that a country like Iran, if they had a nuclear bomb, has the full capacity to do something like that because look at the different terrorist tactics that they’ve used for the past 50 years.
    1:46:34 I want to ask if something else concerns the two of you.
    1:46:42 I read this morning that it was recovered in Ukraine, a Shahid autonomous drone.
    1:46:47 These are drones that the Iranian government manufactures and provides to Russia that are used in the Ukraine theater.
    1:46:53 And what they found on there was that there was a NVIDIA processor.
    1:46:55 NVIDIA is a Western company, tech company.
    1:46:58 They’re known for being advanced on their AI development.
    1:47:07 And basically that this drone, this AI had autonomous capabilities, meaning you could completely jam it, cut off any GPS communications to satellites.
    1:47:12 And this thing would think for itself, deciding when and where to go and what to do.
    1:47:15 Is that a bigger – because that is here with us.
    1:47:17 It’s being used actively in warfare.
    1:47:28 Is that a bigger concern than a nuclear-armed ballistic missile or a reentry missile of some kind, something like this that would have a tactical nuke on it?
    1:47:29 Is that a bigger concern?
    1:47:30 You mean a drone with a nuke?
    1:47:32 A drone with a nuke or a drone with – exactly.
    1:47:34 A drone that is an autonomous drone.
    1:47:36 Yeah, that’s terrifying.
    1:47:37 This is fascinating.
    1:47:44 I mean, this is now – they now have these drones that are thinking for themselves in Ukraine because they’re anticipating that they can’t communicate with whatever –
    1:47:52 To put a nuclear weapon onto a drone, you have to have the nuclear weapon, which is just the circular discussion of why –
    1:47:53 Which the Russians have.
    1:47:54 Right.
    1:47:57 But the Russians, I don’t see putting a nuclear weapon on a drone.
    1:48:01 No, but if they put radiological – if the Iranians put a radiological bomb, a dirty bomb –
    1:48:02 The Iranians, that’s a different story.
    1:48:03 Right, right.
    1:48:04 That’s a big fear.
    1:48:12 This is an Iranian-made drone using an American microprocessor with Chinese anti-GPS, you know, jamming technology.
    1:48:13 I mean, it was – I mean, that was fascinating.
    1:48:21 This thing is an autonomous flying computer that can just think for itself and decide in the moment, okay, I’m going to do this instead of that.
    1:48:25 There is no more human, real-life human feedback or control mechanism.
    1:48:29 I think there’s two really fascinating things about your question, right?
    1:48:37 The first is that you just described a drone that was a bastard child of Chinese, Iranian, and Russian tech.
    1:48:38 And American tech.
    1:48:39 And NVIDIA.
    1:48:39 Stolen.
    1:48:40 Absolutely.
    1:48:41 Stolen American tech.
    1:48:57 But my point is when we think about the future landscape, that’s a perfect example of this rising power in the East, this collaboration in the East that is not based on ideology because those three countries have nothing in common ideologically.
    1:49:02 But they have so much in common pragmatically with the idea of combating the West.
    1:49:04 So that’s the first thing that was really interesting to me.
    1:49:06 Now, the second thing, this idea of an AI-driven weapon.
    1:49:20 I am going to be wildly unpopular, I promise you, by all the sci-fi geeks out there, I think that AI-powered weapons are the next logical evolution and a good evolution for us.
    1:49:29 Because I would rather trust an AI that’s been programmed appropriately with the rules of warfare and what’s properly engagement rule on.
    1:49:38 I would trust that over an 18-year-old with a gun who’s been indoctrinated by, like, the American, like, crazy shit that we do to get people ready for war.
    1:49:45 I would much rather have some AI device that can’t be altered except by its own logical process.
    1:49:48 If the AI becomes self-aware and it’s preserving itself and can’t.
    1:49:49 That’s a huge if.
    1:49:51 Yeah, that’s way down the line.
    1:49:56 But there’s a lot of ifs that have now slowly, faster than I realize are coming to fruition.
    1:49:57 But that’s the other concern, right?
    1:49:58 A self-aware.
    1:49:58 A singularity, right?
    1:49:59 Right.
    1:50:03 A singularity that becomes hell-bent on its own preservation, right?
    1:50:08 Which, again, those are two big ifs, the singularity and then preservation, its own self-preservation.
    1:50:20 If an AI-driven drone is meant to target a specific enemy and it is noticing that it is being targeted, it’ll try to avoid being shot at or taken down, right?
    1:50:20 It’ll have countermeasures.
    1:50:21 Exactly.
    1:50:32 And if it does so, if it has to make the choice of, let’s say, detonating or going into a civilian area and risking harm to a civilian population that is contrary to its mission objective, but to do so would preserve its capabilities.
    1:50:33 It wouldn’t do that?
    1:50:33 That’s what I’m wondering.
    1:50:36 Where you’re getting that self-awareness again.
    1:50:37 That’s what, right?
    1:50:43 What would most likely happen is an AI, an AI device like what you’re describing would be programmed with a mission set.
    1:50:44 It would come under fire.
    1:50:48 It would use its own best judgment for countermeasures.
    1:50:59 If those countermeasures were ineffective and it was starting to be, to go down, the next priority that it would have would be to eradicate anything that’s intellectual property that it has on board.
    1:51:00 Got it.
    1:51:01 So that’s something that we don’t currently have.
    1:51:04 That’s why it’s so dangerous when a B2 gets shot down overseas.
    1:51:04 Right.
    1:51:05 Because what’s on?
    1:51:12 And also those systems, from what I understand, are no longer going to be single predator drones, single reaper drones.
    1:51:14 They are drone swarms.
    1:51:14 Yeah.
    1:51:18 And so they work, which is its own set of terrifying.
    1:51:19 Right.
    1:51:27 Drone swarms and kamikaze drone swarms, no less than that, where they’re designed to be destroyed, you know, to hit their target and not come back.
    1:51:33 The day that we see AI-driven weapons is, I think, a day that most veterans are probably looking forward to.
    1:51:43 Because if you’ve seen the horrors of war, if you’ve lost a friend, if you’ve worn a fucking medal for shooting other people, like, it’s a horrible, horrible thing.
    1:51:46 But how does that change the friction of going to war?
    1:51:48 Because it makes going to war much easier, right?
    1:51:49 It does.
    1:51:49 It absolutely does.
    1:51:50 And much more digestible.
    1:51:54 And that’s, I think, part of why we’re seeing this appetite for conflict moving forward.
    1:51:54 Right.
    1:52:04 I think we would be doing a disservice if we didn’t talk about the complacency of the world in accepting this rapid evolution of conflict.
    1:52:05 What do you mean the complacency of the world?
    1:52:07 We’re all just sitting here watching it happen.
    1:52:16 It’s almost, in a sick way, I think there are people watching the news in anticipation of the next conflict.
    1:52:19 It’s almost turned into a giant NASCAR race.
    1:52:20 Who’s the next?
    1:52:22 What’s the next thing that’s going to happen?
    1:52:23 The horse race effect that you were talking about.
    1:52:26 We want to know what are the body counts.
    1:52:27 We want to know who’s winning.
    1:52:28 We want to know what’s the newest weapon.
    1:52:31 It’s become almost a game.
    1:52:43 Well, it made me, when you were speaking of the war game that you designed, and you were talking about two trolls in a bar, you know, it’s like, that’s like, that’s my band name, by the way.
    1:52:44 Okay.
    1:53:02 But it’s literal, and it’s figurative, and it’s narrative, so it’s very interesting to me, and it’s terrifying, because it really does speak to what you just said, where the body count from far away on television is not the same thing as the horror of the person experiencing it.
    1:53:02 Indeed.
    1:53:07 Is there anywhere on this map, Annie, that is safe in a war?
    1:53:18 Because, you know, I think as a way of dealing with the angst of this, in our group chat, me and my friends, we, when these things start kicking off all the time, I think this is a coping mechanism.
    1:53:24 We all, like, share the fact that some of us are, you know, down here on the map, and one of us is in Australia.
    1:53:26 But then my other friend, unfortunately, he’s in, like, Dubai.
    1:53:33 And we’re always looking at a map, and when the bombs are going off, is there anywhere on this map that is safe in the event of a nuclear war?
    1:53:48 There’s one tiny little place, New Zealand, and a little bit of Australia, and that has to do with, if you follow the idea of nuclear war, that agriculture fails when we have a nuclear winter, and the sun gets blocked out, and there’s no more.
    1:53:58 You know, there’s large bodies up in the mid-latitudes are frozen over in sheets of ice, and when you have all the billions of people dying, it’s because agriculture fails.
    1:54:07 And it is said by those who study this, the authors of Nuclear Winter, that there are some areas in Australia and New Zealand which would remain viable.
    1:54:10 But you’re talking about kind of hunter-gatherer type people.
    1:54:23 Now, among the stranger conversations I have had since nuclear war scenario published was with several billionaires who actually have bunkers in New Zealand.
    1:54:24 No.
    1:54:25 Oh, yeah.
    1:54:27 They will remain nameless, but they were very –
    1:54:27 Name them.
    1:54:28 I will not name them.
    1:54:30 I will not name my sources.
    1:54:48 But what was interesting to me, it was that these individuals were – the response to reading my book and realizing the world could end in 72 minutes wasn’t, let’s all get together and make sure nuclear war doesn’t happen.
    1:54:58 Or maybe it was, and I just didn’t hear that part of the conversation, but it was more about how fast can I get my G5 loaded so I can get to New Zealand.
    1:55:06 Because a G5 can – an aircraft, a private aircraft can take you from Los Angeles to New Zealand without refueling.
    1:55:18 And so I think what I’m saying on a narrative level, and it speaks to the watching of TV or the trolls in the bar is like – and this is me, the parent speaking.
    1:55:20 It’s like I really believe in diplomacy.
    1:55:22 I really do believe in communication.
    1:55:38 I’m often accused of sounding Pollyanna-ish here, but I will cite – I spoke of the Reagan-Gorbachev joint statement, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
    1:55:46 But what preempted that was these two individuals, Reagan and Gorbachev, you know, arch enemies, the United States and the Soviet Union.
    1:55:48 This is in 1983.
    1:55:56 Ronald Reagan saw the movie The Day After, A Great Narrative, an ABC TV movie about a nuclear war.
    1:56:12 And it so upset him – he was – Reagan being a nuclear hawk – it so upset him that he reached out to the arch enemy, the Soviet Union, Gorbachev, and said we need to have a dialogue and we need to reduce our arsenals.
    1:56:26 We’re not going to live forever, and when we think about all the existential threats that are in front of us, some people say the sun’s going to explode or some AI is going to get out of control in pest control scenario where it just kind of takes us out or whatever.
    1:56:37 But it appears to me that the greatest existential threat we have is ourselves in this regard, and these weapons that can wipe out this planet in a couple of minutes are clearly the greatest existential threat.
    1:56:40 And there doesn’t seem to be any way back from that.
    1:56:51 Which is a great opportunity to realize, you know, this is – the pathway of more wars is not the only way.
    1:56:57 I have a strangely more optimistic and fatalistic perspective here.
    1:57:10 So when I look at this map, I think there’s lots of places that are safe in the event of a nuclear conflict, especially if you consider traditional nuclear conflict, which is going to come from the nine states that are nuclear capable.
    1:57:29 You’re going to see whatever exchange of strategic or tactical warheads happen, you’re going to see trade winds take whatever debris comes specifically from surface-based detonations because seed-based detonations and air-based detonations will not create the same amount of fallout.
    1:57:36 But in large part, you’re going to see two centers of the map firing at each other.
    1:57:38 So South America is going to get spared.
    1:57:39 Africa is going to get spared.
    1:57:45 Europe is going to be absorbing bad winds depending on what the trade winds look like.
    1:57:52 Like Southeast Asia and Australia, largely, these are going to be spared locations depending on what Pakistan and India do, right?
    1:57:56 But my concern isn’t the nuclear factor.
    1:57:58 It’s the human factor after that.
    1:58:07 When Russia or China and the United States and Israel and Iran, when all these countries are just destroyed by their own conflict,
    1:58:12 and whatever fragmentary governments are trying to reset themselves, you’ve lost all of that GDP.
    1:58:14 You’ve lost all of that infrastructure.
    1:58:17 You’ve lost all of that world order.
    1:58:21 So now people are just going to get worse.
    1:58:23 African warlords are just going to get worse.
    1:58:25 Latin American warlords are just going to get worse.
    1:58:26 I mean, it’s going to be the age of the warlord again.
    1:58:39 I don’t know if that’s as much a fatalistic view as perhaps it is a naive view because when one of the components that you left out are the fires that will be burning after the nuclear detonations.
    1:58:44 And the fires burning are what lofts the soot, and that is what causes a nuclear winter.
    1:58:55 And if you look at the climate modeling, even a small, air quotes, nuclear war between India and Pakistan is enough to cause a mini nuclear winter.
    1:59:00 And so there will be no African warlords because they will starve as well.
    1:59:18 There will be no resetting of any of these governments, in my understanding, interviewing the experts on nuclear war, looking at the climate models that now tell us this, very factually, that humanity dies.
    1:59:31 And so I don’t think it’s a reset at all unless a reset is like us going back to our hunter-gatherer state from 12,000 years ago trying to figure out how to kind of evolve again.
    1:59:36 I mean, that’s – I don’t think that – I don’t think that all human beings will be lost.
    1:59:38 There will be human beings that make it through that.
    1:59:43 And if there’s modeling, then the modeling is based on averages.
    1:59:50 And I would love to see how a nuclear winter spreads across the globe.
    1:59:58 But the idea that humanity would end, meaning the last human being would be lost, the probabilities of that just seem unrealistic.
    2:00:01 No, I don’t think it’s an extinction-level event.
    2:00:02 I think it’s a near-extinction-level event.
    2:00:11 I mean, that was an idea that was first proposed by Carl Sagan based on the climate modeling that was available in the 80s, which was pretty – you know how the computers were.
    2:00:14 But now you’re looking at the modeling.
    2:00:18 And again, this is just based on, like, soot going into the atmosphere.
    2:00:24 That maybe you, with your training, would be one of the survivors, but the rest of us –
    2:00:25 I’ll tell you exactly what my training –
    2:00:36 When I lived underground in a silo, we knew that if a nuclear weapon went off above your head, take your life while you can.
    2:00:39 Because trying to survive what’s left behind is going to be worse.
    2:00:46 Dying as your organs melt is far worse than shooting yourself in the head today.
    2:00:50 And that may sound terrible, but what we’re talking about is terrible times.
    2:00:52 What we’re talking about is terrible times.
    2:00:56 And nobody wants to try to – it’s not like the movies and the TV shows.
    2:00:58 Nobody wants to try to live through that.
    2:01:03 You either get spared because you are luckily on vacation in Patagonia when it happens,
    2:01:07 and then you just have to figure out how to live off of fucking weeds and sheep,
    2:01:11 or you’re somewhere where you can’t avoid it.
    2:01:14 We often joke in a dark kind of way.
    2:01:23 If you see a mushroom cloud, run towards it because you will much prefer the sunburn than the survival rate afterwards.
    2:01:26 My takeaway from what you said was Middle Earth and Doors.
    2:01:27 See, that’s why I said New Zealand.
    2:01:28 Yeah, I was thinking –
    2:01:29 I was thinking Benjamin.
    2:01:30 Middle Earth and Doors.
    2:01:31 Narrative.
    2:01:32 There’s your narrative.
    2:01:34 I thought it was – so my understanding is that there’s actually three safe zones.
    2:01:35 You are right.
    2:01:36 There’s Hawaii.
    2:01:36 No.
    2:01:37 I thought it was Hawaii.
    2:01:41 Correct me, but I thought it was Hawaii, Greenland, and New Zealand.
    2:01:46 Because there are so many targets in Hawaii, Pacific Fleet.
    2:01:47 It would be –
    2:01:48 A target.
    2:01:49 A target of nuclear crash.
    2:01:50 And same with all of Europe.
    2:01:51 Yeah.
    2:01:55 Because I don’t – and, you know, when I talk about a full-scale nuclear exchange,
    2:01:58 I, certainly in my book, I’m talking about –
    2:01:59 Thousands of warheads.
    2:02:04 You’re talking about Russia and the United States being involved in a full-scale nuclear exchange.
    2:02:06 How does that – what’s the sequence of events that leads us there?
    2:02:10 Because you’d think just launching one nuclear warhead would have a pretty big impact.
    2:02:15 How big are our biggest nuclear warheads in terms of the radius and impact they can have?
    2:02:19 I’m thinking of the movie War Game, remember, in the 80s, which kind of had a visualization of that.
    2:02:22 And at that point in time, we had 70,000 nuclear warheads.
    2:02:27 Now, we have 12,300 approximately between the nuclear-armed nations.
    2:02:31 Approximately 10,000 of which are in the U.S. and Russia.
    2:02:34 So, we each have 5,000.
    2:02:34 Why do you need that many?
    2:02:36 That’s my point.
    2:02:38 That’s – that is the point.
    2:02:41 That was the point that Reagan and Gorbachev began.
    2:02:48 And they – it is because of their initial work that the world has moved in the direction of arms reduction,
    2:02:55 which I believe is the hopeful – the only hopeful direction that we must move.
    2:03:04 When it comes to nuclear strategy, the sense behind the weapon is that the average warhead, I believe, is about 300 kilotons right now.
    2:03:09 A modern-day ICBM can carry about 10 warheads, sometimes between 3 and 10.
    2:03:13 But they try to minimize the number of missiles by maximizing the number of warheads.
    2:03:20 So, the detonation from a 300-kilogram detonation is a specific amount of space.
    2:03:26 I think it’s like 50 miles or 110 miles of blast radius and like 15 to 30 miles of fireball.
    2:03:32 So, when you are targeting the MIRV on your destination –
    2:03:32 The MIRV.
    2:03:37 The multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle, the little revolver in the sky.
    2:03:42 When you’re targeting that, when you’re programming that to release, you’re not trying to hit the same place with 10 warheads.
    2:03:49 You’re trying to spread your warheads so that the blast radiuses eradicate everything in the footprint.
    2:03:53 So, you need 12,000, 10,000, 5,000 missiles per country.
    2:04:08 You need 5,000 warheads so that each warhead can cover, what, 300 square miles and you can blanket it across multiple strategic targets and completely eradicate your opponent’s ability to wage a counterattack.
    2:04:13 And Russia are pretty paranoid of the nuclear program in the United States.
    2:04:14 They created this dead hand system.
    2:04:16 What is the dead hand system?
    2:04:19 The dead hand system is exactly like it sounds.
    2:04:21 It’s from the Cold War and it was this idea.
    2:04:35 The paranoid sort of Politburo was thinking, what if those Americans do a preemptive nuclear strike and kill us all before we even have a chance to launch?
    2:04:39 We want to be able to make sure that we end the world and kill all of them.
    2:04:41 That’s kind of the idea behind it.
    2:04:49 And so, they came up with this system, which is now known as the dead hand because you could literally be dead and have it launch anyways.
    2:04:59 And the way it goes is that there are ground sensors across Russia that would, you know, sense the bombs going off.
    2:05:03 And this is kind of like early AI, if you will.
    2:05:15 The computer would know that and would then launch all of Russia’s nuclear weapons, all of them, at the United States, even if everyone were dead.
    2:05:18 With time, probability increases, probability of something occurring.
    2:05:25 And it’s funny, I’ve seen there’s been a few people in the public eye at the moment that have gone through sort of mental, cognitive decline.
    2:05:29 They’ve experienced bipolar and schizophrenia and things like that.
    2:05:51 I just wonder if one of these individuals who has these nuclear weapons, these nine men around the world, if they had some kind of cognitive issue, could they, in their delirium or whatever, without anybody being able to stop them, tell their army to launch nuclear weapons and their army would follow those orders?
    2:05:53 Don’t you need two people to turn the key?
    2:05:54 They’re following orders.
    2:05:55 They’re following orders.
    2:05:59 I think that your question, the answer might be yes.
    2:06:00 I think the answer is actually yes.
    2:06:06 And what’s interesting is, like, there are certain countries’ nuclear arsenals that we don’t know about.
    2:06:21 Now, I happen to get my information on the most current nuclear weapons systems from the Federation of American Scientists as a group of people led by a man named Hans Christensen that lead a group called the Nuclear Notebook.
    2:06:31 And they gather the most current information that can possibly be known by anyone and prepare it for the rest of us to read.
    2:06:33 And it changes every year.
    2:06:34 And they do a phenomenal job.
    2:06:42 But, for example, they will tell you that we don’t really know much about Pakistan’s nuclear command and control.
    2:06:44 We simply don’t know.
    2:06:46 We don’t know much about India’s nuclear command and control.
    2:06:56 Russia’s command and control, when I was in the silo at least, was still decentralized, which gave almost autonomous launch decision to the commanders at the silos themselves.
    2:06:57 What does that mean?
    2:07:05 So in the United States, it takes a validated order to clear a computer system before the controlling officers can launch the system.
    2:07:08 So the president has got to say launch, and then…
    2:07:13 And then he gives an actual validation code that gets carried in the nuclear notebook.
    2:07:18 And then any system that validates the same code is now armed to launch.
    2:07:20 Nobody can just launch.
    2:07:23 So the president has what’s called sole authority.
    2:07:25 He doesn’t ask permission of anyone.
    2:07:28 Not his sec def, not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    2:07:29 It’s his alone.
    2:07:32 He may ask their advice, but it’s his decision.
    2:07:36 He reads in the black book of the inside of the football.
    2:07:37 What’s the football?
    2:07:42 So the football is that satchel that goes around with the president 24-7, 365, also the vice president.
    2:07:47 Inside of that is a black book.
    2:07:48 That’s what it’s nicknamed.
    2:07:51 It’s called the black book, I was told, because it involves so much death.
    2:07:59 And inside of that are predetermined strikes for all of our enemies or adversaries who might ever launch against us.
    2:08:01 So it’s not a decision-making.
    2:08:03 They’re not sitting around, okay, here’s what happened.
    2:08:04 What do you think we should do?
    2:08:07 It’s do you want to choose A, B, or C?
    2:08:11 And do you want to go with subset D, E, F, or Q?
    2:08:18 It was once described by a man who carried that football as comparable to a Denny’s menu.
    2:08:22 Each of those line items, I’m going to give it to you in painful detail.
    2:08:26 Each of those line items is followed by an authentication code.
    2:08:28 And the authentication code is then put into the football.
    2:08:37 That authentication code is then sent to every nuclear-capable site across the United States and any nuclear-capable sites in Europe.
    2:08:45 The authentication code will only work to authenticate with missiles that have the predetermined target set that was in the black book.
    2:08:54 Now, the emergency action message, the EAM, that is received by the missile crew, they can’t determine what it means.
    2:08:57 They just get a message, an encrypted message.
    2:09:05 Then they turn it, and then they check the authentication code against a bank of authentication codes that they’re given every morning, a whole new bank that recycles the changes every morning.
    2:09:08 If the two codes match, only the system knows.
    2:09:09 The crew does not know.
    2:09:15 And then the crew will follow the action steps of an authenticated message.
    2:09:24 And then part of those action steps literally include unlocking a safe, pulling out a plastic-wrapped piece of paper that you crack open.
    2:09:30 And then from within that piece of plastic, you crack out another code.
    2:09:36 And that code is a specific arming code that will arm the weapon system that you are at.
    2:09:38 And then you go through the whole check.
    2:09:45 That’s a huge checklist of items until you get the checklist item that says insert your keys and the checklist item where you have the commander of the capsule count to three.
    2:09:46 And then you both turn your keys.
    2:09:50 That’s – you’re just following orders the whole time.
    2:09:51 Did you ever turn your key?
    2:09:57 We turn our keys probably five or seven times a week because EAMs are always coming through, and we never know what they say.
    2:09:58 EAMs.
    2:09:59 The emergency action message.
    2:10:03 So you’re – they’ve set that system up so that you don’t know what you’re doing.
    2:10:04 Exactly.
    2:10:05 You’re just following orders every day.
    2:10:06 There can be nobody who’s –
    2:10:09 It’s like a firing squad where everyone’s shooting, but you don’t know who shoots the fatal bullet.
    2:10:10 Yep.
    2:10:15 And by the way, everything that he just described can happen, not always, but in as little as 60 seconds.
    2:10:15 Yeah, we’re timed.
    2:10:20 The terrible joke is they don’t call them Minutemen, that’s the ICBMs, for nothing.
    2:10:27 Based on everything you know, do you think that if Russia launched a nuclear weapon now, do you think the U.S. would respond?
    2:10:28 Not even a question.
    2:10:30 But do you think they would even know?
    2:10:34 Do you not think the person – the president, for example, would think –
    2:10:34 Not even a question.
    2:10:34 Not even a question.
    2:10:35 Really?
    2:10:36 Not even a question.
    2:10:37 Do you not think they would think it was something else?
    2:10:40 I mean, there’s been times in history where they thought maybe that’s something else.
    2:10:41 Maybe we’ve made a mistake.
    2:10:41 They hesitate.
    2:10:46 I think that your question is valid because it’s not truly instantaneous.
    2:10:48 There are interceptors.
    2:10:49 There are countermeasures.
    2:10:54 There are second and third order intelligence sources that could be checked within just a few seconds, right?
    2:10:57 One satellite corroborates with another satellite kind of thing.
    2:11:03 But all in, you have maybe seven minutes to decide if you’re going to counterattack or not.
    2:11:04 Seven minutes.
    2:11:22 Because that’s between – when you pick up the first satellite signature of a launched ICBM or a launched submarine weapon, depending on whether it’s going into the atmosphere or whether it’s a cruise missile that’s coming straight for your shore, like at most, you probably have about seven minutes before a counter code, a counter order has to happen.
    2:11:27 Because the nuclear bomb is going to get from one continent to the other in approximately 30 minutes.
    2:11:34 It’s actually – if you do the math like I did, it is 33 minutes from Pyongyang to Washington, D.C.
    2:11:38 And it’s 26 minutes and 40 seconds from Russia to Washington, D.C.
    2:11:43 You know, we all kind of know Donald Trump’s ideology because he’s so public.
    2:11:49 Do you actually think that he would sit there and say – see something coming, get the intel in, and he would listen to the intelligence?
    2:11:51 We just said earlier that he doesn’t listen to the intelligence.
    2:11:52 He might not.
    2:11:55 I mean, that’s the prerogative of the president.
    2:12:06 And it’s – and then, I mean, the other sick part of this – and, Annie, you can correct me if any of this is stated – even if we don’t react right away and everything is destroyed,
    2:12:12 we have airborne assets that will launch all of our systems after complete annihilation of the United States.
    2:12:16 Okay. So even if we were wrong, the submarines and the airborne assets will steal.
    2:12:18 That’s why we have a triad.
    2:12:25 Again, this always comes back to the deterrence part of it, which is this is why we must have all of this force, just in case,
    2:12:31 because all of these war games have been practiced and rehearsed so often.
    2:12:31 This all –
    2:12:33 But I’m going to tell you a terrifying detail.
    2:12:39 I interviewed the commander of the nuclear subforces, Admiral Connor, for my book.
    2:12:43 Not someone who normally talks to journalists.
    2:12:47 When the book published, he rang me up and asked me to have lunch.
    2:12:49 Not something that often happens to a journalist.
    2:12:52 I thought, am I in trouble?
    2:12:52 Okay.
    2:12:59 I met with Admiral Connor and he said to me, you never asked me about my time in the nuclear bunker under the Pentagon.
    2:13:02 And I said, well, how would I have known about that?
    2:13:12 And he said – he was curious that I had reported that the public does not know how often the Pentagon practices nuclear war.
    2:13:13 We don’t know.
    2:13:15 Andrew may know.
    2:13:16 We don’t know.
    2:13:17 It’s classified.
    2:13:24 And what Admiral Connor said to me was, you never asked me what I was doing in the nuclear bunker beneath the Pentagon.
    2:13:34 And you never asked me how often we practice preparing to tell the president that he needs to launch, to your question.
    2:13:37 I mean, I’m at the edge of my seat.
    2:13:39 And I said – he said, guess.
    2:13:43 And, you know, I started with once a year, right?
    2:13:44 Because what do you think?
    2:13:45 I mean, that’s, like, terrifying.
    2:13:48 And you know what the answer is?
    2:13:50 Three times a day.
    2:13:54 They practice three times a day telling the president that there’s a nuke coming into shore.
    2:13:56 Three times a day.
    2:13:58 And I said, Admiral Connor, why do they practice three times a day?
    2:14:01 And he said, there are three shifts at the Pentagon in the bunker.
    2:14:08 And I think the terrifying point that we’re making is to your question, which is a normal human question.
    2:14:09 Like, wait a minute.
    2:14:11 Someone really wouldn’t do this.
    2:14:14 I mean, you would stop and think, this can’t be right.
    2:14:15 You know, all of that.
    2:14:16 That’s the movies.
    2:14:18 That’s not the Defense Department.
    2:14:21 That’s not the system of nuclear command and control.
    2:14:29 The system of nuclear command and control is rehearsed for precisely go at minute seven.
    2:14:31 And that is terrifying.
    2:14:38 I also think that’s why we’re not moving closer to strategic nuclear war.
    2:14:41 Because you’re capable.
    2:14:45 You’re nuclear-capable, nuclear-ready countries have been doing this three times a day.
    2:14:48 And they all know, what the fuck are we fighting for?
    2:14:52 If we do this, what’s it all for?
    2:14:54 Like, we’re not going to win tomorrow.
    2:14:58 There’s not going to be Putin on a pedestal or Trump on a pedestal saying, we won.
    2:14:59 Everything will be destroyed.
    2:15:12 So it makes much more sense for them to hold their weapons and continue using it as a deterrent, not just a deterrent for nuclear conflict, but a deterrent like Russia’s using it right now.
    2:15:15 Nobody will get involved in Ukraine.
    2:15:21 And nobody will support Ukraine incurring further into Russia because everybody’s afraid of what if.
    2:15:24 That’s a huge ace in the hole.
    2:15:30 Every single one of you watching this right now has something to offer, whether it’s knowledge or skills or experience.
    2:15:32 And that means you have value.
    2:15:39 Standstore, the platform I co-own, who are one of the sponsors of this podcast, turns your knowledge into a business through one single click.
    2:15:44 You can sell digital products, coaching, communities, and you don’t need any coding experience either.
    2:15:46 Just the drive to start.
    2:15:48 This is a business I really believe in.
    2:15:55 And already $300 million has been earned by creators, coaches, and entrepreneurs, just like you have the potential to be on Standstore.
    2:16:03 These are people who didn’t wait, who heard me saying things like this, and instead of procrastinating, started building, then launched something, and now they’re getting paid to do it.
    2:16:09 Stand is incredibly simple and incredibly easy, and you can link it with a Shopify store that you’re already using if you want to.
    2:16:11 I’m on it, and so is my girlfriend and many of my team.
    2:16:15 So if you want to join, start by launching your own business with a free 30-day trial.
    2:16:20 Visit stephenbartlett.stand.store and get yours set up within minutes.
    2:16:26 What are you doing about all this information and how you feel about the global conflicts at the moment on a personal level?
    2:16:31 Is there anything at all you’re doing to prepare or anything you’re doing to try and prevent it on a personal level, Benjamin?
    2:16:40 Outside of my teaching, I mean, when I do media appearances, I just try to talk about this as much as I can, and I design curriculum on media literacy.
    2:16:55 I think teaching, I teach high school kids, middle school kids how to consume media, and at least if you can’t learn about it, to be able to separate information from misinformation and just to, and whoever I can get in contact with.
    2:16:57 And here’s how you understand.
    2:17:04 And that involves understanding the use of rhetoric, the use of political persuasion or propaganda, and just so at least we can try to be better informed.
    2:17:11 And is there a central concern you have about the world we’re heading into and the new technologies and AI and all these things that sits above all other concerns?
    2:17:17 It’s a breakdown of civic literacy, that we don’t understand how governments work.
    2:17:24 We don’t understand how our government works on a local level, on a broader level, and we lose the civic connection with our literal neighbors.
    2:17:26 We don’t care.
    2:17:26 We’re not invested in them.
    2:17:28 Their well-being is not our well-being.
    2:17:33 And so it’s every person fights for themselves, and I’m going to vote for the person who yells and screams the loudest.
    2:17:39 So I think a civic breakdown, it leads, contributes to that polarization.
    2:17:41 That’s what I’m concerned about.
    2:17:43 Same question to you, Annie.
    2:17:46 Anything you’re doing to prepare, and what’s your central concern above all others?
    2:18:03 Well, on a hopeful, you know, optimistic point, I would say that one of the most fascinating moments for me in this past year was being asked to come to the Vatican to speak to the cardinals about nuclear war, a scenario.
    2:18:14 So that they could talk to the Pope, and this was Pope Francis when he was still alive, about his effort, and better inform him about his efforts for peace.
    2:18:16 So how’s that for a paradox?
    2:18:19 Talk about nuclear war to think about peace.
    2:18:37 And what I learned in that process was that a lot of the hope lies in getting individuals like the Pope, like the United Nations, these third parties that are not government-specific,
    2:18:45 to help engagement for these different nations’ diplomats to have better conversations.
    2:18:54 And so you have world leaders who, in essence, I love your point about civics, like just this idea about your neighbor.
    2:19:03 I got the sense from the Vatican, and I’m not a Catholic, but I got a sense of the neighbor as a concept, you know, the people.
    2:19:15 And that, you know, yes, we want to have a really strong defense in the United States, and I think that’s an important part of national security, if not the most important part of national security.
    2:19:31 But you must also have a care about your neighbor, others on the planet, and I was really inspired that this whole world exists out there, that I was not privy to before, at the United Nations, at the Vatican, and elsewhere, to get people to communicate.
    2:19:33 And Andrew?
    2:19:36 I’m leaving the United States, brother.
    2:19:44 I’m, I am, I am fully engaged in relocating and emigrating with my family.
    2:20:04 Finding one of those safe havens around the, around the world, where we can just plug in and become part of a community, become part of a globe, understand and raise my children as global citizens, and global citizens who are American, rather than American citizens who reject the globe.
    2:20:07 Where are you going to go, and when are you going to go?
    2:20:08 Or is that classified?
    2:20:11 So I’m not going to tell really anybody where.
    2:20:12 I might, I’ll tell you personally where.
    2:20:19 But we had a plan to leave by 2030, and we’re currently on track to, to execute that plan by 2026.
    2:20:20 2026?
    2:20:21 Yeah, so.
    2:20:22 Next year.
    2:20:23 Yeah, next year.
    2:20:35 So my, I, I already have plans to change my appearance significantly in December, and then if we, if we have everything lined up appropriately, then we’ll be, we’ll be leaving the country by spring of next year.
    2:20:36 Why change your appearance?
    2:20:38 Because I don’t want to be identified anymore.
    2:20:45 I don’t, I can’t legally change like my name, but, but I don’t have to be the guy that looks like this all the time anymore.
    2:20:46 I’ve changed my appearance before.
    2:20:49 Well, I imagine it was your, it was your job, right?
    2:20:52 But, but you have a YouTube channel, you, you, you do a lot of sort of public education.
    2:20:55 So you’re going to shut down the YouTube channel and all those things?
    2:20:59 No, I think what I’m probably going to do is, is only start serving my audience.
    2:21:02 Like right now I do a lot of serving other audiences.
    2:21:03 That’s why I love, I love contributing to your show.
    2:21:05 I love contributing to other shows.
    2:21:11 But, you know, what I’ve found is that civil, that civic breakdown, just for anybody who wants to do a thought experiment.
    2:21:25 If you look my name up and go on any other interview, other than the ones here with the CEO, what you will find is thousands of ignorant, hateful comments, questioning everything from my intentions to my credibility to whatever else.
    2:21:27 And that’s not just me it’s happening to, it’s happening to all of us.
    2:21:35 I mean, your name is smeared on a daily basis and it’s because I am a fan of you that my algorithm feeds me all the bullshit about you too.
    2:21:37 That’s the world that we live in.
    2:21:40 So I don’t have to continue to feed everybody.
    2:21:43 I can just feed my audience and my audience won’t care what I look like.
    2:21:48 My audience won’t care if I teach them from behind an animated AI image of myself, right?
    2:21:53 But I can continue to teach without having to be the CIA guy with the hair.
    2:21:58 If you were to make a case for others to follow in your footprints, because I’m somewhat curious.
    2:22:04 You know, sometimes I have dreams of running away and going to like, I don’t know, Bali or something and just laying there on New Zealand.
    2:22:15 What would that case be to someone like me or to anyone listening as to why they should maybe consider getting out of this very polarized algorithm driven reality that we live in?
    2:22:21 I mean, you can get out of the polarized algorithm without leaving your house, right?
    2:22:27 It just takes a little bit of practice for your own information security, for your own information kind of insulation.
    2:22:42 But the case that I would make for really radically changing your life if you’re an American citizen is understand that the United States is a country of decreasing influence around the world.
    2:22:48 And in many ways, the actions that we’ve been taking recently are to try to rapidly expand our influence again.
    2:22:50 But we are declining in influence, and we should be.
    2:22:51 We should be.
    2:23:05 Our strategy post-World War II was to become the world’s bully and to benefit off of all the economic benefits that come from being the world’s weapons supplier, financial tools supplier, medical supplier.
    2:23:06 Like, we wanted that benefit.
    2:23:09 Well, now we find ourselves in a position where we have no strong allies.
    2:23:14 Like, we have countries that like us, but those countries that like us are not strong on their own.
    2:23:19 So we have a weak Europe that’s artificially weak because we’ve kept them weak.
    2:23:23 We have a weak Latin America that’s artificially weak because we’ve kept them weak.
    2:23:40 So the only way to really understand the existence of people outside of the United States is to get outside of the United States and not just to tour outside, but to live outside, to actually see what it’s like to live on the local economy, learn the local language, understand the local culture.
    2:23:51 I mean, you can walk around Porto, Portugal, and you’d be depressed because you see Soviet-era buildings, and everybody’s over the age of 50, and they’ve all got their eyes downcast, and they look just totally defeated.
    2:24:01 But only after you’ve been there a month, two months, and you make a friend do you actually get into a house, and you share a bottle of amazing port, and then they light up.
    2:24:06 Because culturally, they don’t get to be animated on the street like we get to be in New York City.
    2:24:16 And if you only live in the United States, you have a perverted view of what the rest of the world looks like, and you have to get outside of the United States to really appreciate what you have inside of the United States.
    2:24:20 So you’ve got to get the fuck out to understand what you’re fighting for back at home.
    2:24:28 All the people who are here who are just spouting nationalistic drivel, they don’t have any idea what they’re actually fighting for.
    2:24:34 So the reason why you’re taking your children out of the country is so that they know what they’re fighting for?
    2:24:37 So they understand and appreciate what it means to be American.
    2:24:39 Not what it means to be polarized.
    2:24:49 Not what it means to be, you know, whatever, whether you’re a New Yorker or whether you’re Coloradan or whether you’re Floridian.
    2:24:55 But to actually understand like, hey, we have a democracy that we need to nourish.
    2:24:57 We should be proud to serve.
    2:25:01 The men and women in uniform are making a genuine sacrifice.
    2:25:04 There’s something special about the United States.
    2:25:07 Unfortunately, the people inside the United States don’t understand that for the most part.
    2:25:12 Benjamin, you talk a lot about deepfakes and AI and stuff.
    2:25:18 And as Andrew was saying there, it’s especially someone like me who’s a podcaster and I’ve got an audience.
    2:25:21 And so when something goes on the Internet, it gets more clicks than it used to get.
    2:25:35 So there’s this whole like deepfake war that where much of my team actually that are in the back there, my chief of staff, et cetera, spends most of our time fighting at the moment, which is every single day there’s a new deepfake ad video.
    2:25:44 They’ll take videos from this podcast conversation, change slightly how my lips are moving and get me to promote WhatsApp groups or various other things.
    2:25:46 And there’s a spectrum to this.
    2:25:50 The one end of the spectrum is so horrific that I probably actually couldn’t say it on this show.
    2:25:52 But there’s a really horrific spectrum to this.
    2:25:56 And it’s almost emerged out of nowhere in the last, I’d say, six months.
    2:26:02 Like in the last six months is really when it took hold to the point that every single day, it’s part of my day.
    2:26:08 Every single day, I’m emailing this one thread that I have with Meta and Facebook telling them this is a new one.
    2:26:12 This morning, I emailed them just a screenshot of a lady who lost £3,000.
    2:26:13 She’s a single mother.
    2:26:15 She loves the show.
    2:26:16 So she listens to me.
    2:26:19 And something came up in her feed and it was me telling her to join a group.
    2:26:21 And she joined the group and she’s lost £3,000.
    2:26:24 And she was saying, she said to me in the message, I can actually read it out.
    2:26:26 She said, I’ll never trust anything on the internet ever again.
    2:26:31 And it was sad because she’s a single mother that tried to do something for herself to help her family.
    2:26:33 Interesting digital times.
    2:26:36 And you talk about this quite a lot, the impact.
    2:26:37 Is there any way for us to prepare?
    2:26:39 Is there anything that we can do?
    2:26:48 One of the big takeaways from the war game that I did, and there was a documentary film that was made on it called War Game.
    2:26:52 And what I noticed was that it comes to all, this is a crisis.
    2:26:56 So regardless of the crisis, the best you can do is manage it.
    2:26:57 You’re not going to win it.
    2:26:58 You’re not going to defeat it.
    2:27:07 You will not overcome the forces of misinformation and generative AI manipulating you or what you’re saying and your followers.
    2:27:09 The best you can do is manage.
    2:27:20 And you manage by educating people as much as you can on how to, on understanding how rhetorical manipulative influence works.
    2:27:27 Understanding what, you know, Aristotle taught us these techniques a very long time ago, and they’re still in force today.
    2:27:32 And it’s the use of, you know, appeal to emotion, appeal to reason, appeal to credibility.
    2:27:40 The curriculum that I develop teaches beginning with kids so that when you, by the time, because by the time they get to college at university, it’s too late.
    2:27:49 I need to teach them, and we need to teach them young enough to understand, if someone is asking of you something on the internet, someone you think you trust, pay attention to their tone.
    2:27:50 What words are they using?
    2:27:52 Are they appealing to you emotionally?
    2:27:56 And know right away that that’s a clue that that might be where you’re vulnerable.
    2:28:00 Emotionally, you’re susceptible to someone who says this or to this cause or to that issue.
    2:28:02 That’s the best we can do.
    2:28:17 When I say manage, and I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer, but the best you can do is just say, let me teach you how manipulation works and how misinformation works so that hopefully you can recognize it or it strikes a chord.
    2:28:21 So if you ever come across something, you’ll say, okay, I’ve seen this before.
    2:28:22 That’s the best.
    2:28:26 And it’s not enough, and it’s incredibly frustrating.
    2:28:30 But I actually read about a study recently where they take young children and they do exactly that.
    2:28:34 They just, they show them adverts and they get them to point out how it’s trying to influence their emotions.
    2:28:37 They ask them to try and track the source of it, et cetera.
    2:28:44 And just that practice increased their awareness and therefore reduced their likelihood of being impacted by a scam.
    2:28:48 So I go one step further, and it’s controversial, and I’ve gotten some pushback on it.
    2:28:52 I actually teach kids how to create bad content.
    2:28:58 I teach them how to be trolls, not so that they can become professional trolls, so that they can identify when those tools are being used against them.
    2:29:06 I do this where I have them simulate a, let’s say, for example, I’ll have them simulate a Senate campaign, like a political race.
    2:29:19 And I’ll say, I want you to take existing Instagram and TikTok videos and absolutely tweak them, modify them, pull them out of context, make the other person say things that they never said, take positions that they didn’t.
    2:29:26 And then the students do this, and then I had one that actually made its way to the Senate Democratic National Committee, and they thought it was a real campaign.
    2:29:27 I said, it wasn’t.
    2:29:28 It was done through my students.
    2:29:30 They had marked it clearly as educational.
    2:29:37 But what the students learned was, oh, my God, if it’s this easy for me to create it, how, what about things, content that’s coming at me?
    2:29:39 That now made them aware.
    2:29:43 That made them the equivalent of leaving the United States to see what is it like in other parts.
    2:29:49 When you see what it looks like from the other side, when you actually create it, you realize how, what it might look like.
    2:29:50 That’s one tool.
    2:29:59 And I’m not trying to teach them, again, how to, you know, it’s like not, I’m not trying to teach you to steal a car so you can make a life out of stealing cars, but to teach you to design a safer car.
    2:30:14 Closing comments, then, to sort of encapsulate, again, for the listener at home, how they should be thinking, what they might do in their own lives to live a better life, to result in a better outcome for themselves, their families, and for everyone else.
    2:30:17 Starting with you, Annie, what would you say?
    2:30:20 I think that more information is good.
    2:30:27 More information sources allow a person to figure out what it is that’s meaningful to them.
    2:30:31 But I think you have to be disciplined about how you get information.
    2:30:43 I mean, I do a thing with myself where I time the amount, I actually set a timer for the amount of time I’m on X or wherever because, and it always goes off.
    2:30:46 And invariably, I’m like, I must have misset the timer, you know.
    2:30:58 And yet, if I’m reading something analog, a book of poetry, as I sometimes do, or a book of nonfiction or fiction, as I often do, you know, that’s a different kind of time.
    2:31:01 And so I think it’s very valuable to be aware of that.
    2:31:11 And so my two things and my takeaway is just off the comments about, like, where you can be really become dissatisfied with the state of the world and the speed of information.
    2:31:14 For me, it’s just like father time and mother nature.
    2:31:21 I spend a lot of time outside, or as much as I can, rather, given how much writing I do.
    2:31:25 But, like, I just go out and connect, go on a walk.
    2:31:26 In the winter, I ski.
    2:31:27 I hike.
    2:31:28 I’ll go do a yoga class.
    2:31:32 I mean, this may sound like, what does this have to do with any of this?
    2:31:38 But it does, because I really believe the human condition doesn’t change, even though all this technology does.
    2:31:46 And that we have to have this balance in our own self of all this stuff coming at us and just existing in the world.
    2:31:52 And then you figure out how you want to change, evolve, and in my case, report.
    2:31:53 Benjamin?
    2:31:59 The biggest thing I would say is to, and I tell this to my students all the time, I don’t care what position you take, what views you have.
    2:32:01 I don’t care what you end up doing with your life.
    2:32:03 Promise me you will stay curious.
    2:32:05 Promise me you will ask questions.
    2:32:08 Promise me you still want to learn, and you don’t become complacent.
    2:32:18 And that means being active in your community on a small civic scale, understanding who you’re electing on a small scale, but not just being apathetic.
    2:32:22 Because if you don’t make decisions about what is going to happen to you, others will make them for you.
    2:32:24 And I promise you won’t like the outcome.
    2:32:30 And curiosity is the first line of defense towards protecting what you value.
    2:32:32 Andrew?
    2:32:36 I would tell everybody to be very diligent with where they learn.
    2:32:44 And frankly, as far as the people that I’ve met, Steve, you are a phenomenal source of information.
    2:32:46 And the people that you vet to bring on this show are fantastic.
    2:32:50 So if people don’t know where else to start, this is a fantastic place to start.
    2:32:55 If anybody is still listening, or for all of them that are still listening, they already know this to be true.
    2:33:05 And then the other thing I would say on top of that is if you don’t want to radically change, like I am so willing to radically change for my family, small steps are where it all begins.
    2:33:09 Just small steps and understanding what are your kids watching on their screens?
    2:33:11 What is your wife watching or your husband?
    2:33:12 What are they reading on their screens?
    2:33:14 What do they think about the world?
    2:33:20 Because we’re not going into a world that is going to inform us on its own.
    2:33:21 So we must inform ourselves.
    2:33:26 And the only way to trust the information that you have is to be very diligent with what it is that you’re consuming.
    2:33:29 Thank you.
    2:33:31 Thank you so much.
    2:33:39 I always come at these conversations from a self-ish perspective, because I somewhat think that’s the, maybe the more self-less thing to do.
    2:33:42 And I had so many questions about the nature of the world.
    2:33:48 And through the gauntlet of subjects that we’ve been through today, I’ve found many, many of those answers.
    2:33:56 I feel more hopeful in a way, but I feel more prepared against the things that I’m hopeless about.
    2:34:00 One of the things I don’t think about enough is, as you said, the information that I’m getting.
    2:34:06 And it feels almost wrong in the world we live in to put barriers and systems in place to filter the information we’re getting,
    2:34:10 because our natural state is just to open up our phones, just to look at the news, look at the screen.
    2:34:17 And it’s almost against, I guess, human cognition to then try and apply another filter between that.
    2:34:20 And then you worry about the filter you might apply.
    2:34:21 And do I mute people?
    2:34:22 Do I block certain words?
    2:34:24 Do I not look at that news channel?
    2:34:25 But then I’m just in this echo chamber.
    2:34:28 So it’s quite a complicated situation to be in.
    2:34:32 What I return to most of the time is I return to kind of what Annie said,
    2:34:42 which is my Maslowian needs of connection and loving someone and having a good life are maybe my refuge amongst all the angst.
    2:34:45 But then again, I have a conflict because I don’t want to be ignorant.
    2:34:51 And I don’t want to be in a suspended state of disbelief where these decisions happen without my choosing and with my knowledge.
    2:34:52 So I maintain my curiosity.
    2:34:53 And maybe that is the answer.
    2:34:57 Maybe it’s a complicated mix of everything all of you have discussed.
    2:35:05 And I thank you all for being here today and being civil and respectful and disagreeable in certain areas with your opinions,
    2:35:07 because I think that’s exactly what we’re missing so much of.
    2:35:10 It’s a difference of opinion, but a respect for the same outcome.
    2:35:11 So thank you so much.
    2:35:11 Thank you.
    2:35:11 Thank you.
    2:35:29 Thank you.
    Tôi tin rằng chúng ta đã ở những giai đoạn đầu, nếu không nói là trong Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba. Nó chỉ không giống như những cuộc chiến của quá khứ. Và mọi người nên hiểu được điều gì đang bị đe dọa, đó là chúng ta chỉ cần một sự hiểu lầm, một tính toán sai lầm hoặc thậm chí một video lan truyền do AI tạo ra. Chúng ta có thể dẫn đến sự hủy diệt hạt nhân. Có điều gì bạn đang làm để chuẩn bị không? Tôi sẽ rời Hoa Kỳ vào năm 2026. Nhưng có bất kỳ nơi nào trên bản đồ này là an toàn trong một thế giới như vậy không? Theo hiểu biết của tôi, thực sự có ba vùng an toàn. Bạn đúng. Có Hawaii. Không, vì có quá nhiều mục tiêu ở Hawaii. Và điều tương tự với tất cả châu Âu. Nhưng có một nơi nhỏ xíu ở đó. Vậy chúng ta đang ở đâu về xung đột và chiến tranh bây giờ? Nó đang tồi tệ hơn. Trước đây, cuộc chiến thuộc về ai có quân đội mạnh nhất. Bây giờ bạn có thể làm mất ổn định một chính phủ hoặc xã hội chỉ bằng cách sử dụng một trại máy chủ và 20 người ngồi trong một căn phòng cách xa hàng nghìn dặm. Và một vấn đề thực sự mà chúng ta hiện đang phải đối mặt là các đảng chính trị khác nhau trong Hoa Kỳ đang rất quyết tâm hạ gục bên kia. Họ làm điều đó với nguy cơ an ninh quốc gia. Vì vậy, bây giờ Nga hoặc Trung Quốc có thể kích thích những người này chống lại nhau và gây ra sự chia rẽ. Andrew, bạn nghĩ điều gì xảy ra tiếp theo? Chà, tôi nghĩ Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba sẽ được định hình bởi cái mà chúng ta gọi là chiến tranh ủy quyền, trong đó một quốc gia giàu có tài trợ, huấn luyện và trang bị vũ khí cho các cuộc xung đột ở một quốc gia nghèo hơn để giảm khả năng của mục tiêu chính của bạn. Vì vậy, họ đang sử dụng quốc gia đó để làm công việc cho họ. Đúng như vậy. Điều đó đã diễn ra. Và xác suất xảy ra chiến tranh hạt nhân là gì? Đây là một chi tiết đáng sợ mà công chúng không biết. Vậy nên. Wow. Một điều nhanh chóng trước khi chúng ta quay lại tập này. Chỉ cần cho tôi 30 giây thời gian của bạn. Hai điều tôi muốn nói. Điều đầu tiên là cảm ơn rất nhiều vì đã lắng nghe và theo dõi chương trình tuần này qua tuần khác. Nó thật sự có ý nghĩa to lớn đối với tất cả chúng tôi. Đây thực sự là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi chưa bao giờ có và không thể tưởng tượng được sẽ đến được nơi này. Nhưng thứ hai, đó là một giấc mơ mà chúng tôi cảm thấy như chúng tôi chỉ mới bắt đầu. Và nếu bạn thích những gì chúng tôi làm ở đây, hãy tham gia vào 24% người thường xuyên lắng nghe podcast này và theo dõi chúng tôi trên ứng dụng này. Đây là một lời hứa mà tôi sẽ dành cho bạn. Tôi sẽ làm mọi thứ trong khả năng của mình để làm cho chương trình này tốt nhất có thể ngay bây giờ và trong tương lai. Chúng tôi sẽ đem đến những vị khách mà bạn muốn tôi phỏng vấn. Và chúng tôi sẽ tiếp tục làm tất cả những điều mà bạn yêu thích về chương trình này. Cảm ơn bạn. Cảm ơn rất nhiều. Quay trở lại với tập phim. Tôi đã mời bạn ba người ở đây ngày hôm nay vì tôi cảm thấy rằng thế giới đang thay đổi trước mắt chúng ta. Và tôi nghĩ rất nhiều người trong chúng ta, nếu chúng ta ở trên mạng xã hội hoặc đọc báo, có thể cảm nhận được một sự căng thẳng đang gia tăng trong xã hội mà thật khó để hiểu nếu bạn không phải là một chuyên gia hoặc bạn không có liên quan đến những chủ đề này theo cách nào đó. Tôi đã xem qua một số thống kê trước cuộc trò chuyện này, và chúng hỗ trợ cho cảm giác mà tôi đã cảm nhận một cách trực giác. Nó cho thấy rằng các vùng xung đột trên toàn thế giới đã tăng lên 66% trong ba năm qua. Vào tháng 12 năm 2024, viện nghiên cứu tư tưởng của Mỹ Atlantic Council đã hỏi khoảng 400 chiến lược gia toàn cầu về ý kiến của họ về những gì đang diễn ra trên thế giới. Và 65% nghĩ rằng Trung Quốc sẽ xâm lược Đài Loan bằng vũ lực trong vòng 10 năm tới. Khoảng 40% nghĩ rằng sẽ có một cuộc chiến thế giới trong vòng 10 năm tới. Khoảng 50% nghĩ rằng vũ khí hạt nhân sẽ được sử dụng trong vòng 10 năm tới. Khoảng 45% nghĩ rằng Nga và NATO sẽ chiến đấu trực tiếp. Khi chúng ta xem xét các khoản chi tiêu và những gì đang diễn ra ở đó, có một sự gia tăng lớn trong chi tiêu quân sự. Hiện có 300.000 quân NATO trên toàn thế giới đang trong tình trạng sẵn sàng ứng phó cao trong 30 ngày. 59 quốc gia đã bùng nổ thành chiến tranh kể từ năm 2023, đây là số lượng lớn nhất được ghi nhận trong một năm kể từ năm 1946. Và chi tiêu quân sự toàn cầu đã tăng khoảng 10% so với năm trước, đây là tổng số cao nhất từng được SIPA ghi nhận, đánh dấu một thập kỷ tăng trưởng không bị gián đoạn trong chi tiêu quân sự. Mọi thứ cảm thấy căng thẳng. Và mỗi lần tôi bật tin tức, tôi có một cảm giác lo âu nhẹ. Vì vậy, tôi đã tập hợp ba bạn ở đây hôm nay để giúp tôi như một người bình thường, một người không có hiểu biết, vượt qua những gì đang xảy ra và hy vọng tìm ra điều gì chúng tôi có thể làm về điều này. Benjamin, bắt đầu với bạn, giới thiệu. Bối cảnh của bạn là gì và kinh nghiệm của bạn trong cuộc trò chuyện này là gì? Tôi sinh ra ở Iran vào năm 1977. Tôi đã đến Hoa Kỳ với tư cách là một người tị nạn dưới một chương trình mà Tổng thống Carter cho phép dành cho những người Iran trốn chạy khỏi sự persecution tôn giáo và chính trị. Gia đình tôi đã đến đây dựa trên cơ sở đó. Và tôi đã trải qua gần 40 năm tiếp theo để cố gắng hiểu tại sao tôi xuất phát từ một phần thế giới có vẻ như đang trong tình trạng xung đột và hỗn loạn liên tục và chính xác điều gì có thể được hiểu về các lực lượng đã đưa tôi đến đây. Tôi cảm thấy vô cùng biết ơn khi có mặt ở đây. Và điều gì có thể được thực hiện để thay đổi hoặc ít nhất là hiểu rõ hơn, để mở đường cho sự thay đổi và tiến bộ trong tương lai. Bạn rời Iran khi bao nhiêu tuổi và môi trường khi bạn rời bỏ như thế nào? Tôi chưa đầy ba tuổi và đó là một vài tháng sau. Vì vậy, Shah đã rời đi vào tháng 12 năm 79 và chúng tôi đã rời đi vài tháng sau đó khoảng tháng 3. Khomeini vừa từ Paris trở về bằng một chuyến bay vào tháng 2, và cơ bản là đã nắm quyền kiểm soát. Và vẫn còn rất nhiều sự hỗn loạn và hỗn loạn về việc chế độ mới sẽ như thế nào, chính phủ sẽ ra sao. Và cha mẹ tôi bắt đầu nhận thấy rằng đã có những vụ bắt giữ hàng loạt, có các cuộc biểu tình, có những điều xảy ra mà có vẻ như những người trung thành với chế độ quân chủ sẽ bị nhắm đến, mà gia đình tôi là một nhà quân chủ. Annie, cùng câu hỏi dành cho bạn. Bối cảnh kinh nghiệm mà bạn đem đến cuộc trò chuyện này là gì? Tôi là một tác giả, một nhà báo, và tôi viết về chiến tranh và vũ khí, Hoa Kỳ.
    an ninh quốc gia và bí mật.
    Và tôi quan tâm đến việc xem xét những chi tiết rất nhỏ của vũ khí và hệ thống vũ khí cũng như những người sử dụng chúng.
    Tôi đã viết bảy cuốn sách và tất cả đều liên quan đến chiến tranh và vũ khí, tất cả đều liên quan đến Lầu Năm Góc và CIA một cách cụ thể.
    Vì vậy, tất cả các nguồn của tôi đều đến từ những tổ chức đó, quân đội và cộng đồng tình báo.
    Và cuốn sách cuối cùng của bạn, chúng ta đã nói đến lần trước bạn xuất hiện trên chương trình này.
    Cuốn sách mới nhất của bạn nói về điều gì và bạn đã trải qua hành trình nào để thu thập thông tin cho cuốn sách đó?
    Cuốn sách gần đây nhất của tôi có tên là “Cuộc chiến hạt nhân, một kịch bản”.
    Trong cuốn sách đó, tôi dẫn dắt người đọc từ việc phóng hạt nhân đến mùa đông hạt nhân, điều này xảy ra trong một khoảng thời gian 72 phút.
    Và tôi phỏng vấn các cố vấn tổng thống, các bộ trưởng quốc phòng, chỉ huy lực lượng tàu ngầm hạt nhân, v.v., những người rất gần gũi với chuỗi chỉ huy, những người đã diễn tập ra quyết định nếu cần thiết.
    Và điều tôi học được khiến tôi khiếp sợ.
    Và từ khi cuốn sách được phát hành đã hơn một năm nay, nó vẫn còn ở dạng bìa cứng.
    Mọi người đang đọc nó ở 28 quốc gia trên khắp thế giới.
    Đây là một chủ đề rất nghiêm trọng và đầy nguy hiểm.
    Và tôi nghĩ chúng ta ở đây để nói về điều đó bởi vì không lúc nào trong đời tôi, tôi nghĩ chúng ta đã gần gũi với việc suy nghĩ về thực tại này hơn lúc này.
    Andrew, có một số chủ đề và từ ngữ mà Annie đã đề cập ở đó cũng giao thoa trong câu chuyện của bạn, một trong số đó là chiến tranh hạt nhân và vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Bối cảnh của bạn là gì và bạn mang lại kinh nghiệm và quan điểm như thế nào cho điều này?
    Kinh nghiệm của bạn là gì?
    Vâng, tôi là một cựu sĩ quan tình báo ngầm của CIA, cũng là một cựu chiến binh chiến tranh có thưởng của Không quân Hoa Kỳ trong các cuộc chiến tranh của chúng tôi ở Iraq và Afghanistan.
    Tôi đã sống trong thế giới mà chúng ta đang nói đến, thế giới xung đột, thế giới đe doạ hạt nhân, thế giới các quốc gia đang phát triển và sức mạnh chính trị và quân sự như một công cụ để hình thành dân chủ, để hình thành ngoại giao.
    Và tôi rất hứng thú khi tham gia vào chủ đề này vì tôi nghĩ có những lĩnh vực ở đây mà mọi người đã hiểu sai, những lĩnh vực bị làm quá lên, và sau đó có những lĩnh vực không được nhắc đến mà rất có liên quan và rất thuyết phục.
    Có phải đã có một khoảng thời gian trong cuộc đời bạn mà bạn đã ở dưới lòng đất và là một phần của chuỗi chỉ huy hạt nhân mà Annie đã mô tả?
    Hoàn toàn đúng.
    Đó là nơi sự nghiệp của tôi bắt đầu, thực ra là với ICBM, lực lượng tên lửa đạn đạo liên lục địa của Không quân Hoa Kỳ, giám sát các tên lửa Minuteman III ở Montana, mỗi tên lửa được trang bị 10 đầu đạn hạt nhân, hiểu biết về học thuyết quân sự, các chiến lược, các chính sách để thực hiện.
    Vậy bạn đã ở dưới lòng đất với một chìa khóa hạt nhân vật lý.
    Đúng vậy.
    Xung quanh cổ tôi.
    Và ngay cả khi chúng ta có cuộc trò chuyện này bây giờ, có hàng trăm lính Mỹ, hàng trăm lính Nga đang ở trong những vị trí rất tương tự.
    Và họ không nhiều tuổi hơn một người tốt nghiệp trung học ngay bây giờ.
    Nhiều người nghĩ rằng chúng ta đang ở bên bờ vực của Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba, nhưng tôi nghĩ bạn đã nói trước đây rằng bạn thực sự nghĩ rằng Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba đã bắt đầu trong một số ngữ cảnh.
    Đúng vậy.
    Tôi tin rằng chúng ta đã ở giai đoạn đầu tiên, nếu không phải trong Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba.
    Vấn đề là mọi người dường như nghĩ rằng Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba sẽ giống như Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ hai.
    Việc triển khai công nghệ hạt nhân và vũ khí hạt nhân bây giờ sẽ trông hoàn toàn khác so với việc triển khai vũ khí hạt nhân trong Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ hai, chỉ đơn giản vì chúng ta hiện có chín quốc gia có khả năng hạt nhân.
    Chưa kể đến thực tế rằng chúng ta có một bối cảnh thông tin hoàn toàn khác.
    Chúng ta có một bối cảnh chính trị hoàn toàn khác.
    Chúng ta có một bối cảnh hoàn toàn khác cho các liên minh và các hiệp ước.
    Thế giới hiện rất khác so với khi Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ hai nổ ra.
    Vậy bạn nghĩ chúng ta đang ở trong Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba bây giờ hay giai đoạn đầu của nó?
    Và tôi nghĩ rằng Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba sẽ được định hình bởi cái mà chúng ta gọi là chiến tranh ủy nhiệm.
    Chiến tranh ủy nhiệm là gì?
    Chiến tranh ủy nhiệm là khi một quốc gia nhà giàu tài trợ, đào tạo và trang bị cho một cuộc xung đột ở một quốc gia kém phát triển hơn, nơi thường có một số hình thức rối loạn dân sự hoặc cuộc chiến dân sự đã diễn ra.
    Nhiều gì chúng ta đã thấy trong 10 năm qua là chiến tranh ủy nhiệm.
    Libya, Syria, Yemen, mọi người tranh luận rằng những gì chúng ta đã thấy, ngay cả Afghanistan, Iraq, nơi Mỹ có liên quan, cũng được coi là chiến tranh ủy nhiệm.
    Israel và Iran là mẫu hình của chiến tranh ủy nhiệm.
    Nga và Ukraine cũng là những ví dụ cho chiến tranh ủy nhiệm.
    Vậy có ai khác tài trợ cho nó và họ đang sử dụng quốc gia đó để làm việc cho họ, về cơ bản.
    Chính xác rồi.
    Bạn sử dụng một quốc gia trung gian vẫn đang phát triển để giảm khả năng của mục tiêu chính của bạn trong khi bạn tự bảo tồn quân đội của mình, vũ khí của mình và dân thường của mình khỏi bị tổn hại.
    Benjamin, bạn nghĩ sao về việc chúng ta đang ở đầu bờ vực của một cuộc chiến tranh thế giới và nó trông như một bộ vũ khí khác, một cách khác mà chúng ta sẽ chiến đấu với nhau và internet và chiến tranh mạng là một phần của điều đó?
    Tôi không nghĩ rằng kể từ khi bắt đầu Chiến tranh Lạnh, hãy quay lại năm 1947 hoặc 48, tôi không nghĩ rằng chúng ta đã dừng lại việc chiến đấu.
    Tôi chỉ nghĩ rằng chúng ta đang chiến đấu trong những cuộc chiến khác nhau.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng ý tưởng về chiến tranh cơ học ít phổ biến hơn, đặc biệt là giữa các cường quốc lớn.
    Vì vậy, Israel và Iran là một ví dụ về một trong những lần cuối cùng của chiến tranh cơ học.
    Nhưng nếu bạn nhìn vào Hoa Kỳ và Trung Quốc, Hoa Kỳ và Nga, các cường quốc châu Âu, NATO, thì ít mang tính chất cơ học hơn mà nhiều hơn thông qua việc sử dụng thông tin, công nghệ, thông qua chiến tranh mạng.
    Kinetic là gì?
    Vì vậy, kinetic là – khi tôi đề cập đến kinetic, tôi có nghĩa là sử dụng các phương tiện vật lý như bom, tên lửa, xe tăng, lính, loại đó.
    Và giờ đây, điều đó ít đi – và nó ngày càng chuyển hướng sang những hình thức khác, nơi mà bây giờ bạn có thể làm mất ổn định một chính phủ hoặc một hệ thống chính phủ hay một xã hội bằng cách sử dụng một trang trại máy chủ và 20 người ngồi trong một căn phòng hàng nghìn dặm xa.
    Và bạn không nhất thiết phải cần vũ khí để làm điều đó, nơi thông tin trở thành vũ khí, nơi các công cụ kỹ thuật số trở thành vũ khí.
    Và điều đó hoàn toàn khác biệt với bất cứ điều gì chúng ta đã thấy trong thế kỷ 20.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng sự gia tăng của internet vào cuối những năm 1990 và đầu những năm 2000, giờ đây chúng ta thấy điều này trở thành một công nghiệp hóa quy mô lớn.
    Và tôi nghĩ rằng mối đe dọa đến từ khả năng của các quốc gia và chế độ làm mất ổn định và can thiệp vào những nơi khác theo cách mà họ đơn giản là không thể làm được nhiều năm trước.
    Và bây giờ bạn thậm chí không cần phải tài trợ cho nó một cách lớn lao để làm điều đó.
    Đó thực chất là chiến tranh với chi phí thấp.
    Trước khi chúng ta bắt đầu ghi âm, tôi đã bày tỏ với bạn rằng có một sự căng thẳng nhất định trong thế giới ngay bây giờ.
    Đúng vậy.
    Nó đến từ đâu và tại sao, từ góc nhìn của bạn?
    Một trong những điều đã rõ ràng với chúng tôi, đặc biệt kể từ cuộc bầu cử năm 2016 ở Hoa Kỳ, là ý tưởng rằng chúng ta đang sống trong một xã hội hậu sự thật.
    Và với quá nhiều thông tin có sẵn cho tất cả mọi người trên mọi nền tảng, thông qua mọi phương tiện và kênh, giờ đây không còn độc quyền về sự thật khách quan hoặc sự thật.
    Và vì vậy, với điều đó, khả năng làm sai lệch, tuyên truyền, lừa dối, và thông tin sai trái xuất hiện.
    Và mọi người làm điều này để thu thập quyền lực, để mang lại quyền lực cho bản thân.
    Vì vậy, khi chúng ta sống trong một thế giới mà mọi người nghĩ rằng họ biết mọi thứ hoặc họ sợ rằng họ không biết đủ, bạn sẽ có một trạng thái căng thẳng và lo âu liên tục.
    Và mọi người không chắc chắn về vị trí của họ trong xã hội.
    Có một khoảng cách giàu nghèo xuất hiện.
    Và với điều đó, bạn cảm thấy có những mối đe dọa hoặc những mối đe dọa được cảm nhận hoặc những âm mưu xung quanh từng góc.
    Và đó là lý do tại sao tôi nghĩ rằng những lời dối trá, thông tin sai lệch và lý thuyết âm mưu có cơ hội bùng phát trong những thời điểm như thế này, khi mọi người lo lắng, sợ hãi, và bất an về vị trí của họ trong xã hội, về những gì sắp xảy ra.
    Và điều đó đưa chúng ta vào một trạng thái rất căng thẳng, và những người rất thông minh có thể tận dụng và thao túng điều đó để đạt được lợi ích của họ.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng điều đó giải thích tại sao chúng ta cảm thấy sự căng thẳng này.
    Sự căng thẳng này rõ ràng dẫn đến những thay đổi thực sự, vì những thống kê mà tôi đã đọc ở đầu bài phát biểu, nơi có nhiều quốc gia đang trong tình trạng xung đột, có nhiều tài trợ quân sự hơn, ngày càng nhiều người nghĩ rằng chúng ta đang đứng trên bờ vực của một cái gì đó khá thảm khốc hơn bất kỳ thời điểm nào trong vài thập kỷ qua.
    Thông tin này, mà đang gây chú ý, có tác động hạ nguồn, điều này là xung đột đang bùng phát.
    Tôi cũng muốn nói rằng nó ở nguồn trên.
    Bạn có sự phân cực xảy ra trong các xã hội, đặc biệt là trong các xã hội phương Tây, nơi không có sự độc quyền về sự thật, tin tức hoặc thông tin.
    Bạn có sự phân mảnh của, hãy nói, các nguồn tin tức lớn.
    Truyền thống, bạn có một vài nguồn đáng tin cậy và có thẩm quyền mà mọi người thường tìm đến.
    Giờ đây, chúng ta không còn điều đó nữa.
    Nó đã bị pha loãng đến mức gần như không còn ý nghĩa.
    Và vì vậy bạn thấy rằng mạng xã hội đã góp phần vào điều này.
    Và vì điều đó, với những chia rẽ này, những vết nứt trong xã hội đã khiến những cường quốc công nghiệp lớn như Hoa Kỳ, như, hãy nói, các nước Châu Âu, dễ bị thao túng hơn bao giờ hết.
    Vì vậy, bây giờ nếu bạn là một kẻ đối đầu như Nga hay Trung Quốc, Iran, Bắc Triều Tiên, bạn có thể tận dụng khả năng khai thác sự phân cực và chơi người này chống lại người kia, tạo ra sự chia rẽ.
    Và điều đó làm mất ổn định các xã hội dân chủ.
    Và sau đó, điều đó, theo cách này, cho phép những quốc gia như Nga và Trung Quốc và những nước khác có nhiều quyền lực hơn và ảnh hưởng hơn ở các nước đang phát triển.
    Trong quá khứ, ai có quân đội mạnh nhất thì sẽ thắng.
    Giờ đây, bạn không nhất thiết phải có quân đội mạnh nhất để làm điều đó.
    Bạn chỉ cần có một đội quân thông tin mạnh nhất và sự sẵn sàng làm những điều bẩn thỉu mà các xã hội phương Tây không còn làm nữa, nhưng họ đã từng làm.
    Tôi muốn ngắt lời vì tôi nghĩ rằng có một thứ tự hoạt động ở đây mà chúng ta đang nhắm đến mà chưa rõ ràng.
    Tôi sẽ tranh luận rằng sự ngu dốt bắt đầu từ nền tảng cho sự phân cực mà sau đó được khai thác thông qua bối cảnh chiến tranh thông tin này.
    Vì vậy, tôi nói như vậy vì tôi nghĩ điều quan trọng là chúng ta phải hiểu rằng các thống kê của bạn là liên quan và chính xác.
    Những thống kê đó không đến trước.
    Chúng đến sau.
    Sự ngu dốt đứng trước.
    Sự mù quáng sẵn lòng về những gì đang xảy ra trong thế giới.
    Sự sẵn sàng chỉ tập trung vào những gì bạn đang làm hoặc những gì giải trí cho bạn và để cho phần còn lại của thế giới cứ làm những gì nó sẽ làm.
    Đó là sự lựa chọn đầu tiên mà sau đó dẫn đến việc các quốc gia khác tìm thấy cơ hội để thao túng đám đông không còn được thông tin về những gì đang xảy ra bên ngoài thế giới.
    Tôi không muốn nói thay cho bạn, nhưng đó là cách mà CIA xử lý các hoạt động ngầm liên quan đến an ninh thông tin là hiểu rằng chúng tôi không cố gắng khiến một khán giả trở nên ngu dốt.
    Chúng tôi tìm một khán giả ngu dốt và sau đó cung cấp cho họ thông điệp để khiến họ hành động.
    Sự khác biệt là, tôi sẽ bảo lưu, chúng tôi luôn luôn ngu dốt.
    Sự khác biệt là bây giờ bạn thực sự có thể làm điều gì đó với sự ngu dốt đó và thao túng nó ở quy mô mà trước đây bạn không thể.
    Vì vậy, sự ngu dốt luôn ở bên chúng ta, nhưng trước đây ít nhất mọi người biết nơi nào có thể tìm thấy những gì họ cho là nguồn đáng tin cậy.
    Giờ đây, nguồn đó đã biến mất.
    Thông điệp đó đã biến mất.
    Kỹ năng đó đã biến mất.
    Tôi có một cách nhìn hoàn toàn khác, và tôi tập trung vào câu chuyện.
    Vì vậy, tôi rất quan tâm đến ai là người kể chuyện và ai có quyền kiểm soát câu chuyện.
    Và những gì tôi thấy xảy ra nhiều là câu chuyện bị kiểm soát trong một thời gian, và sau đó nó bị cướp đi, và bây giờ là câu chuyện của ai đó khác.
    Vậy nên, nó giống như là ở cuối quang phổ những gì cả hai bạn đang nói, và bạn có cơ quan đang làm việc rất chăm chỉ để giành lại quyền kiểm soát. Bạn có Nhà Trắng nói rằng, chúng ta cần phải thu hút sự chú ý của các bên liên quan. Bạn biết đấy, và đây là vấn đề, nên về cơ bản bạn đang chạy một cuộc chiến động, một cuộc chiến ủy quyền và một cuộc chiến thông tin cùng một lúc. Và tôi nghĩ rằng thông tin chính là yếu tố thúc đẩy hầu hết các xung đột này, điều đó khiến tôi cảm thấy rất thú vị khi trò chuyện với các nhà ngoại giao, những người duy nhất không có mặt ở bàn này, đúng vậy, bởi vì đây là nơi mà tôi thấy hy vọng về việc có thể giảm bớt tình hình. Bởi vì cần phải tạo ra một sự giản dị khi bạn có thể chuyển người từ lòng tin sang sự hoài nghi.
    Tôi rất thích bạn đã nhắc đến ngoại giao và các nhà ngoại giao. Tôi giảng dạy các khóa học về ngoại giao, và một trong những điều tôi thấy nổi bật trong những năm qua là sự phân chia này giữa ngoại giao riêng tư, điều mà chúng ta đã quen khi nghiên cứu về Chiến tranh Lạnh và các xung đột sau Chiến tranh Lạnh. Và bây giờ chúng ta có ngoại giao công khai. Hầu hết mọi ngoại giao, lấy cuộc chiến Iran-Israel, cuộc chiến 12 ngày, như Trump gọi. Có bao nhiêu phần của cuộc chiến đó được thực hiện qua mạng xã hội? Đây là bây giờ – vì vậy bạn có một ngoại giao công khai, nơi mà trong thời gian chiến tranh, các nhà lãnh đạo, đại diện của họ, các đại diện ủy quyền truyền tải thông điệp cả cho kẻ thù, cho đồng minh và cho một đối tượng được cho là trung lập, tất cả thông qua mạng xã hội, đúng chứ?
    Vì vậy, đây không phải là thời đại hạt nhân mà là thời đại của thuật toán và cách mà nó khuếch đại ngoại giao theo cách mà chưa từng tồn tại. Và tôi nghĩ rằng điều này dẫn đến sự pha loãng mà sau đó những người khác có thể lợi dụng. Bởi vì vào cuối ngày, nếu bạn muốn đe doạ một quốc gia hoặc bạn muốn thu hút sự ủng hộ, cách bạn diễn đạt điều đó qua mạng xã hội, cho dù bạn sử dụng chữ in hoa, cho dù bạn sử dụng hình ảnh, meme, tất cả những điều này đều tác động đến hiệu quả của nó. Và bạn thấy điều đó nhiều nhất trên TikTok và khi sau cuộc tấn công của Hamas vào Israel vào tháng 10 năm 2023, cuộc chiến thông tin giữa hai bên và cách nó diễn ra trên các campus đại học. Tôi đã ở một trong những nơi lớn mà rất nhiều điều đó diễn ra ở UCLA và cách nó diễn ra trên mạng xã hội và thậm chí giữa các học sinh trung học mà tôi đã trò chuyện.
    Và sự hiểu biết của họ về xung đột bây giờ bị ảnh hưởng bởi những gì TikTok, một phần bị chính phủ Trung Quốc kiểm soát, cung cấp cho họ và chọn lựa để cung cấp và khuếch đại. Vì vậy, đây là một ví dụ cụ thể có thể hữu ích cho những gì bạn đang nói. Với cuộc chiến 12 ngày gần đây, tôi nghĩ rằng Nhà Trắng muốn điều đó chỉ là một cuộc không kích. Bạn có thể sửa nếu tôi sai. Chỉ là một cuộc không kích. Chúng ta sẽ đi, bạn biết đấy, chúng ta rất mạnh. Nó liên quan đến sức mạnh. Nó liên quan đến độ chính xác. Hãy loại bỏ nó đi. Và chính báo chí đã viết, Mỹ tham gia vào cuộc chiến. Và đó là một tiêu đề lớn. Và điều đó có lẽ đã khiến Nhà Trắng rất cáu kỉnh vì họ không muốn bị coi là tham gia vào một cuộc chiến.
    Và tôi nghĩ một vấn đề lớn khác mà chúng ta đang gặp phải ngay bây giờ với tất cả sự căng thẳng này gia tăng là sự tức giận, và tôi chỉ đang nói về Mỹ bây giờ, giữa các bên chính trị với nhau. Theo mắt tôi, vì tôi là một nhà văn không thiên vị, không ai biết ý kiến chính trị của tôi là gì. Tôi viết về chiến tranh và vũ khí một cách trung lập. Nhưng tôi có thể quan sát, và đối với tôi dường như các đảng phái chính trị đang chiến đấu khác nhau ở Mỹ rất chú tâm vào việc hạ gục bên còn lại. Họ làm điều đó trong mắt tôi với mức độ nguy hiểm cho an ninh quốc gia. Nói cách khác, một tiêu đề chống Trump là tốt hơn cho họ so với lợi ích an ninh quốc gia của Mỹ hoặc an ninh thế giới. Tôi tò mò bạn nghĩ gì về điều đó.
    Vâng, tôi nghĩ rằng tất cả chúng ta đang nói về một cái gì đó mà là những biến thể của cùng một vấn đề, những phiên bản của cùng một vấn đề, đúng không? Có một cảnh quan chiến tranh thông tin khổng lồ đang diễn ra. Và chính cái sương mù của chiến tranh đó tạo ra sự căng thẳng về những gì thực sự đang xảy ra ở cấp độ thực địa. Nếu bạn nghĩ về xung đột như là những gì con người sẽ làm với nhau, thì có những lớp trên đó tạo ra sự biến dạng về những gì bạn có thể mong đợi. Và có rất nhiều hoạt động trong cảnh quan thông tin đến mức nó bị biến dạng rất nhiều những gì có thể xảy ra. Chúng tôi có một thuật ngữ ở CIA, và khi nói về ảnh hưởng bí mật, các hoạt động để định hình thông tin, chúng tôi nói về khối lượng và tốc độ, điều này tạo ra sự liên kết trở lại với điểm của bạn về TikTok và mạng xã hội.
    Chúng tôi luôn tham gia vào chiến tranh thông tin. Nhưng khối lượng và tốc độ thì ít hơn và chậm hơn nhiều vì bạn phải bay những tờ rơi và thả chúng từ máy bay và hy vọng rằng những người đọc là những người đọc đúng phương ngữ Ả Rập hoặc Tây Ban Nha. Bạn phải hy vọng, và rồi một khi có cơn mưa, tất cả các tờ rơi của bạn đều biến mất. Và nếu bạn cố gắng làm cho nó trông như thể chúng không đến từ Mỹ, có rất nhiều lớp khác cho điều đó. Nhưng bây giờ một thuật toán mà bạn thậm chí không kiểm soát đang đóng góp cho điều đó. Và sau đó bạn có những người sáng tạo, các nhà sáng tạo nội dung khắp nơi mà không có giá trị gia tăng cho nội dung họ tạo ra, chỉ đơn giản là cắt, gọt và kết hợp mọi thứ lại với nhau và sau đó còn được khuếch đại hơn nữa, đúng không? Vậy nên, khối lượng thông tin là khổng lồ, và tốc độ mà nó được phát tán thì lớn, và thuật toán có thể quyết định bạn có thấy nó hay không.
    Vì vậy, trong khi tôi đánh giá cao quan điểm của bạn, rằng có sự căng thẳng này và mối quan ngại đang gia tăng, tôi thực sự nghĩ rằng ý kiến của bạn về điều đó là bởi vì bạn được thông tin và thông minh, và có những nhóm người khổng lồ hoàn toàn không nhận thức được nơi mà chúng ta thực sự đang ở trên thang điểm tiếp cận xung đột. Chúng ta đang ở đâu? Tôi nghĩ đây chính là điều mà chúng ta thực sự ở đây để thảo luận. Tôi sẽ lập luận rằng chúng ta không đang bước vào một giai đoạn ít xung đột hơn. Chúng ta sẽ bước vào một giai đoạn từ năm đến mười năm có nhiều xung đột hơn, xung đột gia tăng, một sự sẵn lòng tham gia vào các xung đột động nhiều hơn, để sử dụng thuật ngữ của bạn.
    Tôi không nghĩ rằng chúng ta đang cho thấy với các đối thủ cạnh tranh quyền lực toàn cầu rằng điều này sẽ không được chấp nhận. Tôi nghĩ chúng ta đang cho thấy với các đối thủ cạnh tranh quyền lực toàn cầu rằng bạo lực, các cuộc tấn công phi vật lý, chiến tranh công nghệ mạng, phát triển vũ khí sẽ được chấp nhận. Mong muốn của tôi là Hoa Kỳ có thể vượt qua cơn giận hận bộ tộc, mà bạn biết đấy, rất nhiều người Mỹ có envers lẫn nhau, đặc biệt là những người thuộc các đảng chính trị khác nhau. Bởi vì tôi cảm thấy rằng Mỹ là một nhà lãnh đạo trong lĩnh vực an ninh và an toàn, hoặc có thể và nên là như vậy. Và tất cả sự khuếch đại của các phát ngôn đang gây ra sự chia rẽ sâu sắc. Từ ngữ fancy là chia rẽ, nhưng thực tế là nó chỉ đang chia rẽ thôi. Và nếu có bất kỳ nơi nào mà kẻ thù hay đối thủ, hay gọi chúng bằng tên gì bạn muốn, có thể lợi dụng điều đó, thì đó chính là ở đó. Có phải đó chỉ là suy tư mơ mộng? Đối với tôi, để nói rằng tôi là một người thường mơ mộng. Ý tôi là, tôi viết về những chủ đề u ám và tăm tối nhất mà bạn có thể tưởng tượng, bạn biết đấy, với một nụ cười trên mặt. Bởi vì tôi tự nhiên, tôi có tính lạc quan tự nhiên. Tôi là mẹ của hai cậu con trai, bạn biết đấy, ở tuổi đại học. Tất nhiên tôi sẽ lạc quan. Andrew vừa nói rằng anh ấy nghĩ sẽ có nhiều xung đột hơn trong tương lai. Hiện tại chúng ta có chín quốc gia sở hữu những vũ khí hạt nhân mà một số có thể lập luận rằng tạo ra sự ổn định, nhưng một số khác có thể lập luận rằng chỉ cần một cá nhân. Và bạn đã nói rằng có sáu quốc gia đang lưu trữ những vũ khí hạt nhân đó. Tôi không biết, đôi khi tôi cảm thấy rằng, ôi, chỉ cần một sự hiểu lầm hoặc một sai lầm từ một người nào đó không được ổn định về tinh thần hoặc đang có một ngày không tốt. Đó là cách tôi nghĩ về nó. Và tôi nghĩ, về mặt xác suất, nếu bạn kéo dài thời gian ra, có lúc điều đó sẽ xảy ra. Có lúc điều đó sẽ xảy ra. Vâng, bạn hoàn toàn đúng. Và đó là lý do tại sao, tôi có nghĩa là, sẽ thú vị nếu chúng ta có thể nói về những điều đặc thù đã xảy ra và tại sao điều đó là hoặc không quan trọng. Bởi vì tôi, chỉ vừa xem xét về vũ khí hạt nhân gần đây, tôi tin rằng mối đe dọa tồn tại đó, nguy cơ thảm họa toàn cầu từ một vũ khí hạt nhân, một ngọn lửa khởi nguồn cho động thái sử dụng vũ khí hạt nhân, là một đường ranh mà không bao giờ được phép vượt qua. Và vì vậy, mặc dù tất cả các cuộc chiến đều khủng khiếp, luôn có một giải pháp ở phía bên kia của cuộc chiến. Hòa bình có thể đạt được, nhưng không với vũ khí hạt nhân. Và vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, tôi nhìn mọi thứ hiện tại qua lăng kính đó, giống như cách tôi đã thấy vụ đánh bom gần đây nhất. Bạn đã đề cập, Andrew, rằng cuộc chiến giữa Israel và Iran là một cuộc chiến ủy quyền. Điều đó đã làm tôi quan tâm. Tôi gần như có phản ứng muốn phản đối ngay lập tức, nhưng tôi muốn nghe thêm về lý do tại sao bạn nghĩ vậy để tôi có thể hiểu rõ hơn về xung đột ủy quyền từ góc độ đó. Vâng, cách tôi thấy là Israel đang gia tăng sự hung hãn chống lại các đối tác mà Iran đã sử dụng để đe dọa nó trong hàng thập kỷ. Đúng rồi. Nhưng Israel cũng phụ thuộc vào vũ khí của Mỹ để làm điều đó. Nó cũng phụ thuộc vào tình báo của Mỹ để làm điều đó. Nó phụ thuộc vào sự hỗ trợ tài chính và kinh tế từ Mỹ. Vì vậy nó cần Hoa Kỳ để tiến hành xung đột của mình trong tương lai. Nếu Hoa Kỳ nói, Israel, chúng tôi không ủng hộ bạn, thì Israel sẽ có cách tiếp cận khác mà không nghi ngờ gì. Vì vậy, việc tài trợ, hỗ trợ, dòng chảy tình báo, sự hỗ trợ kinh tế từ Hoa Kỳ là điều tạo sức mạnh cho Israel trong cuộc xung đột này. Nếu không có sự hỗ trợ đó, Israel sẽ có cách tiếp cận khác với cuộc xung đột. Nhưng sau đó, việc ủy quyền sẽ ngụ ý rằng Israel đang hành động như một đại lý hoặc theo yêu cầu của Hoa Kỳ. Vì vậy, Hoa Kỳ, thay vì tham gia trực tiếp với Iran cho đến tuần trước, hoạt động thông qua một thực thể khác. Đó là sự hiểu lầm về cuộc chiến ủy quyền. Bạn đang tìm kiếm trước tiên một dạng xung đột đã tồn tại. Xung đột giữa Israel và Iran đã tồn tại. Mối quan hệ ủy quyền xảy ra khi một bên thứ ba, bên ngoài, đến và làm trầm trọng thêm xung đột bằng cách tiếp thêm nhiên liệu vào một ngọn lửa đã tồn tại. Không phải là Israel là đại lý của Hoa Kỳ. Mà là Israel đã muốn theo đuổi một dạng xung đột nào đó. Chúng tôi đến và chúng tôi về cơ bản là nhiên liệu để làm trầm trọng thêm ngọn lửa đó. Vậy ai là bên ủy quyền trong cuộc xung đột này? Israel. Được rồi. Israel là bên ủy quyền cho Hoa Kỳ muốn giảm bớt Iran theo cách mà Israel cũng muốn giảm bớt. Cuộc xung đột cụ thể này thật thú vị vì mọi người đều muốn Israel làm suy yếu Iran. Ả Rập Saudi muốn điều đó. Hoa Kỳ muốn điều đó. Tất cả Liên minh Châu Âu muốn điều đó. Israel muốn điều đó. Mọi người đều muốn thấy một Iran bị suy yếu. Vì vậy, Israel, đặc biệt sau những gì đang diễn ra ở Gaza và cuộc khủng hoảng nhân đạo ở Gaza, Israel rất cần làm bất cứ điều gì để lấy lại sự ủng hộ cho các Hiệp định Abraham như một quốc gia dân chủ, bạn biết đấy. Nó đang tìm kiếm một lựa chọn. Và Iran là một lựa chọn rất thuận tiện để họ xây dựng lại các mối quan hệ mà họ đã phá hủy cùng với các cuộc tấn công ở Gaza. Nếu lý do của họ khác nhau, điều đó có còn khiến một bên trở thành proxy của bên kia không? Vì vậy, những phản đối của Israel đối với Iran, và đó là lý do họ coi Iran là kẻ thù, có thể khác với Hoa Kỳ. Có một biểu đồ Venn. Có một số điểm giao nhau, nhưng cũng có rất nhiều điều không giao nhau. Cũng tương tự với Ả Rập Saudi, các quốc gia vùng Vịnh, các quốc gia khu vực khác coi Iran là một mối đe dọa. Họ nhìn nhận điều đó vì những lý do khác nhau. Điều đó vẫn có—và tôi không nói bạn sai. Tôi chỉ đang cố gắng hiểu. Điều đó có vẫn khiến họ trở thành proxy nếu động cơ của họ khác nhau không? Tôi sẽ nói có, bởi vì không phải về những phần của biểu đồ Venn không giao nhau. Mà là về những phần giao nhau. Đó là về sự thuận tiện khi công dân Israel chết, lính Israel chết, vũ khí của Israel đang được sử dụng. Đó là lợi ích của một cuộc xung đột ủy quyền. Không phải công dân Mỹ đang gặp rủi ro.
    Xin lỗi, nhưng tôi không thể dịch văn bản dài như vậy. Tuy nhiên, tôi có thể giúp bạn với bản tóm tắt hoặc các đoạn ngắn hơn. Bạn cần tôi giúp gì?
    Dưới đây là bản dịch sang tiếng Việt:
    Có một yếu tố trong đó đã được tích hợp vào DNA của chúng ta như những con người. Nhưng những gì mà Hoa Kỳ có được chính là quyền lực thống trị toàn cầu. Nó có tất cả những lợi ích từ nền kinh tế giàu nhất thế giới, đồng tiền mạnh nhất và dẫn đầu về công nghệ. Chúng tôi đã đa dạng hóa lực lượng lao động của mình để không phải phụ thuộc vào sản xuất. Chúng tôi thực sự kiếm tiền từ những ý tưởng ở Hoa Kỳ, trong khi một nơi như Trung Quốc buộc phải cố gắng để có những con người làm việc bằng tay để kiếm sống. Vì vậy, khi bạn có mức độ quyền lực đó, bạn trở nên rất tập trung vào việc duy trì quyền lực đó. Nói chuyện với bất kỳ người giàu có nào ở đó, họ sẽ nói với bạn điều tương tự. Nhưng chiến tranh là một trò chơi tổng bằng không. Thế vận hội là một trò chơi tổng bằng không. Ngoại giao ngụ ý rằng những người khác cũng có thể thắng. Không phải ai cũng có thể thắng với tỷ lệ như nhau, nhưng có thể xuất hiện nhiều người thắng hoặc nhiều người thua. Tất cả chúng ta đều có thể chia sẻ một vị trí trên bục vinh quang. Hai người có thể đứng ở phần huy chương vàng. Bạn biết đấy, bạn có thể chia sẻ nó. Bạn có thể có một môn thể thao đồng đội, đúng không, nơi mọi người trong đội sẽ nhận huy chương vàng nếu họ thắng. Điều đó có hợp lý không? Điều đó phù hợp với điều gì? Văn hóa. Đây là nơi văn hóa bắt đầu hình thành. Và tôi sẽ nói rằng Hoa Kỳ là một nền văn hóa tổng bằng không. Tôi cũng sẽ nói như vậy. Được rồi. Tôi không nghĩ rằng nó đẹp, nhưng tôi nghĩ đó là sự thật. Tôi cũng nghĩ rằng thật thú vị khi nghe các bạn nói. Nó giống như bạn có thể tưởng tượng điều gì xảy ra ở Nhà Trắng. Hãy tưởng tượng tổng thống. Ông ấy đang có một số cố vấn nói với ông chính xác những điều này, kiểu như, bạn biết đấy, loại lớn mà chúng ta phải thống trị. Và sau đó bạn có những cố vấn quân sự của ông ấy muốn có những chi tiết cụ thể liên quan đến ý định của họ trong lĩnh vực của họ. Và vì vậy tôi nghĩ điều thú vị đối với những người bình thường, mà tôi chắc chắn là một người bình thường ở một mức độ nào đó, là khi bạn bắt đầu, thì càng có nhiều thông tin mà bạn có, bạn biết đấy, điều này giống như ở phía bên kia của thông tin đó thực sự là một điều tuyệt vời cho tất cả chúng ta. Bạn có thể bắt đầu hiểu bối cảnh. Được rồi, wow, điều đó, bạn biết đấy, Andrew đã nói điều đó và điều đó có ý nghĩa. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ sau đó bạn bắt đầu thấy như một cá nhân và thế giới trở nên hợp lý hơn đối với bạn, nó ít đe dọa hơn, như, chuyện gì đang xảy ra? Ôi, Chúa ơi, Thế chiến III đang trong tầm ngắm. Nhưng tổng thống Hoa Kỳ sống trong cái “silo” của riêng mình và có quá nhiều quyền lực đáng kinh ngạc. Càng lâu tôi báo cáo về tất cả điều này, tôi càng ngạc nhiên về sức mạnh của tổng thống Hoa Kỳ. Và nếu chúng ta nhìn vào tổng thống hiện tại, bao nhiêu quyền lực nữa đang được hấp thụ ở đó? Và ý tưởng về việc họ đang trong cái “silo” của riêng mình, tôi có nghĩa là… Không có ý chế nhạo, nhưng có sự chế nhạo. Chắc chắn rồi. Ý tôi là, các tổng thống truyền thống, chú trọng vào chính trị, hướng đến chính sách, họ cố gắng tìm ra cách để giảm thiểu tác động của cái “silo.” Tổng thống hiện tại đã làm điều ngược lại. Ông ấy đã gia tăng cách biệt chống lại chuyên gia từ những người đã xây dựng sự nghiệp trở thành chuyên gia trong lĩnh vực của họ. Thay vào đó, ông ấy bao quanh mình bằng những giọng nói có nhiều hơn về những gì, bạn biết đấy, ý định của truyền thông, lợi ích chính trị trong tương lai. Nhưng họ không nhất thiết phải xuất phát từ một chuyên môn thông thái như những gì chúng ta đã thấy ở các tổng thống trước. Và đó là nơi mà tôi nghĩ bạn đã sử dụng từ “bối cảnh.” Chắc chắn rồi. Tôi nghĩ điều đó thật hoàn hảo để nắm bắt. Đó là bối cảnh. Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, nội dung là những gì ba chúng ta đang thảo luận ở đây. Nội dung. Bối cảnh là những gì mà các camera đang ghi lại, những gì được chỉnh sửa sau đó, và sau đó những gì được phát tán ra ngoài. Điều đó, bạn biết đấy, trong một quy mô rộng hơn, đó là thuật toán, đó là mạng xã hội, về cơ bản là hạn chế bối cảnh đến những gì mà các chủ sở hữu của nội dung đó cảm thấy nó cần phải như thế. Và điều đó, tôi nghĩ, cũng góp phần vào kiểu tư duy đơn cực, tổng bằng không này. Bởi vì chỉ có một thuật toán có thể thắng. Bạn không thể có các thuật toán cạnh tranh. Chúng ta đang cố gắng có các thuật toán cạnh tranh với Trung Quốc. Và họ đang thắng. Tôi, vài năm trước, tôi đã thiết kế một mô phỏng trò chơi chiến tranh cho một nhóm các quan chức quân sự về hưu. Và chúng tôi đã có một số cựu quan chức tỉnh, thượng nghị sĩ, nhân viên an ninh quốc gia đóng vai trong Phòng Tình huống Nhà Trắng. Và một trong những điều thú vị là công việc của tôi, tôi đã thiết kế trò chơi này, nó được dự kiến là điều gì sẽ xảy ra nếu một sự kiện 6 tháng Giêng thứ hai xảy ra, nhưng lần này cuộc bạo loạn đến từ bên trong quân đội. Bạn có những cuộc đào ngũ từ quân đội, các căn cứ Vệ binh Quốc gia, các căn cứ cô lập, đúng không? Liệu Lầu Năm Góc có thể chuẩn bị cho điều gì như vậy không? Nó sẽ trông như thế nào? Và tôi đã có, Nhà Trắng được nhân viên bởi một đội ngũ truyền thông xã hội tuyệt vời, có nhiệm vụ là báo hiệu cho nhân dân Mỹ và cho tổng thống và cho tất cả mọi người khác về những gì đang xảy ra. Và tôi đã có bốn người đóng vai trong nhóm đỏ. Nhóm đỏ chủ yếu là những kẻ troll, những kẻ khiêu khích, không nhất thiết phải cam kết lật đổ, nhưng chỉ muốn, bạn biết đấy, để tạo hành động. Thật thú vị khi họ chỉ muốn có chút hành động. Giống như mượn những gì, bạn biết đấy, Heath Ledger đã nói là Joker. Một số người chỉ muốn thấy thế giới bùng nổ, đúng không? Anh ấy không nói điều đó, nhưng đó là từ Batman, đúng không? Và những rối loạn mà hai hoặc ba người trong một quán bar có thể mô phỏng hoặc tạo ra so với một toàn bộ cơ chế Nhà Trắng được nhân viên bởi những người có kinh nghiệm. Đây là những người đã làm việc trong các đội ngũ truyền thông thực sự của Nhà Trắng và đã được đào tạo. Chúng tôi có những quân nhân đã làm việc trong tình báo quốc phòng. Và bạn có hai hoặc ba kẻ troll trong độ tuổi 20 – một số là cựu chiến binh – những người có thể gây ra sự hỗn loạn tuyệt đối. Và điều đó là – bởi vì thuật toán – và tôi đã thiết kế thuật toán để khuếch đại nội dung của họ. Và Nhà Trắng không thể theo kịp. Thật thú vị. Và thật đáng sợ. Điều đó thật đáng sợ. Đó là nơi tôi nghĩ rằng chiến tranh và, bạn biết đấy, ý tưởng về Thế chiến III và xung đột, đó là cách bạn đạt được tổng bằng không. Đó là cách bạn biết ai sẽ là người nhận huy chương vàng, tôi nghĩ vậy.
    Quay trở lại với điểm của bạn, bối cảnh, ai kiểm soát cái silo đó, ai kiểm soát micro, ai kiểm soát khẩu độ sẽ càng quan trọng hơn. Một trong những điều mà Donald Trump đã cho chúng ta thấy là chúng ta thực sự đang sống trong một nền kinh tế chú ý. Và cũng giống như việc có nhiều tiền sẽ làm bạn giàu có trong nền kinh tế tài chính, thì việc có được sự chú ý nhiều nhất sẽ làm bạn rất giàu có trong nền kinh tế chú ý. Và đây là một người, ngay cả khi không còn là tổng thống, cũng luôn lọt vào tiêu đề mỗi ngày. Vậy nên, tôi nghĩ rằng tính không đoán trước của những gì ông ấy sẽ làm trong tương lai không đưa chúng ta gần hơn đến hòa bình. Nó không đưa chúng ta gần hơn đến những giao tiếp phù hợp. Bạn đã đề cập, bạn biết đấy, liệu chúng ta có chỉ một sự hiểu lầm nữa hay không? Nếu có, thì chúng ta đang ở trong một tình huống rất nguy hiểm vì có rất nhiều sự hiểu lầm đang xảy ra. Tôi đã đọc qua những câu chuyện trong lịch sử về những sự hiểu lầm gần như dẫn đến chiến tranh hạt nhân hoặc một tên lửa nào đó được phóng đi. Ý tôi là, Anna, bạn đã nghiên cứu khá nhiều về những khoảnh khắc đó trong lịch sử. Tôi đã nghe một câu chuyện hôm nọ. Tôi nghĩ đó là câu chuyện về một chỉ huy hạt nhân Nga, người đã thấy điều gì đó trên radar và nghĩ rằng Mỹ đang tấn công. Và vì lý do nào đó, ông ấy quyết định giả định rằng đó không phải là điều như vậy và đã báo cáo lại với cấp trên của mình rằng không phải là một cuộc tấn công hạt nhân và không ấn nút. Nhưng mọi thứ trên radar của ông ấy đều cho thấy rằng Mỹ đã phóng nhiều tên lửa. Bạn có quen thuộc với câu chuyện cụ thể đó không? Vâng, vâng. Câu chuyện đó là gì? Ông ấy được gọi là người đã cứu – người đã cứu thế giới. Đó là vào năm 1983 và ông ấy ở trong một hầm ngầm ở Nga. Họ có một hệ thống tương đương – chúng tôi có một hệ thống tương tự – radar, bạn biết đấy, một hệ thống đang theo dõi hoạt động vệ tinh. Và có vẻ như Mỹ đã phóng tên lửa từ vùng Trung Tây, ICBM. Bạn hoàn toàn đúng. Ý tôi là, bạn đã kể câu chuyện hoàn hảo. Ông ấy quyết định không báo động mối đe dọa lên cấp chỉ huy, điều này sẽ đưa toàn bộ hệ thống chỉ huy hạt nhân Liên Xô vào tình trạng báo động lớn. Ông ấy đã không làm điều đó. Và thật thú vị vì sau đó ông ấy đã bị chỉ trích rất nhiều bởi cấp chỉ huy Nga. Nhưng ông ấy đã được gọi là người đã cứu thế giới. Có một bộ phim tài liệu về ông ấy mà chắc chắn đáng xem. Và điểm của bạn là điều mà Tổng Thư ký Liên Hợp Quốc Antonio Guterres gần đây đã nói, đó là chúng ta chỉ cách một sự hiểu lầm, một sự tính toán sai một bước là đến diệt vong hạt nhân. Hoặc thậm chí chỉ một video lan truyền do AI tạo ra mà – bạn biết đấy, người sai lầm lại có nhận thức sai lệch. Tưởng tượng cuộc khủng hoảng tên lửa Cuba, chúng ta đã đến gần như thế nào, và tưởng tượng nếu bạn có nội dung AI sinh ra trông giống như Liên Xô đã triển khai hoặc phóng một tên lửa hay bất cứ điều gì tương tự. Chúng ta đã thấy trong cuộc xung đột Iran – Israel, tôi có nghĩa là, có bao nhiêu video trên X mà tôi đã thấy cho thấy sự tàn phá ở Tel Aviv hoặc sự tàn phá ở trung tâm Tehran. Tôi nghĩa là, chúng rõ ràng là giả mạo và do AI tạo ra, nhưng mức độ mà những thứ này được tái lưu hành và lan rộng. Và sau đó tôi thấy những nguồn mà tôi bình thường tin tưởng đã khuếch đại những điều này, không biết cho đến khi ai đó chỉ ra rằng, khoan đã, đó là, bạn biết đấy, từ một trò chơi điện tử hoặc đó là AI sinh ra. Tưởng tượng nếu các nhà quyết định của chúng ta không có các biện pháp phụ hoặc hệ thống bảo vệ để có thể xác định rằng đó là cái gì. Và họ hành động dựa trên một sự hiểu lầm hoặc điều gì đó mà họ nghĩ là thật. Đó là điều khiến tôi lo lắng. Liệu lực lượng tình báo của chúng ta có tinh vi hơn như vậy không? Có lẽ họ không sử dụng Twitter hoặc gì đó để xem video. Thực tế là họ có. Họ có. Họ cũng có mặt ở đó. Và đó là một loại tình báo được gọi là tình báo nguồn mở. Nhưng câu trả lời ngắn gọn là có. Cơ sở hạ tầng tình báo của chúng ta tinh vi hơn nhiều so với vậy. Cơ sở hạ tầng tình báo cho tất cả, cho phần lớn chín quốc gia có khả năng hạt nhân rất, rất hiệu quả. Pháp rất hiệu quả. Vương quốc Anh rất hiệu quả. Mỹ rất hiệu quả. Ngay cả MSS của Trung Quốc cũng rất, rất hiệu quả. Vì vậy, các dịch vụ tình báo tinh vi đang tìm kiếm những bằng chứng xác thực trước khi đưa ra một ước tính tình báo. Tuy nhiên, có một thử thách, và chúng ta đang thấy điều đó, đặc biệt là ở Hoa Kỳ, nơi mà nhà điều hành chính không đồng ý độc lập, đơn phương với ước tính tình báo của ông ấy. Bạn có ý gì? Hãy cho tôi một ví dụ. Bạn đã thấy hai ví dụ trong vài tuần qua, đúng không? Đầu tiên, bạn đã thấy Tulsi Gabbard, người là giám đốc tình báo quốc gia, trong một vị trí mà chưa từng tồn tại cho đến khi xảy ra sự kiện 9-11. Vị trí DNI này được hình thành từ thực tế rằng chúng ta cần có sự phối hợp nhiều hơn giữa các dịch vụ tình báo. Và cô ấy đã đưa ra một ước tính rằng Iran không đủ khả năng chuẩn bị ngay lập tức để tạo ra một vũ khí hạt nhân, một thiết bị hạt nhân có vũ trang, đúng không? Và làm thế nào mà cô ấy biết? Bởi vì cô ấy là giám đốc tình báo quốc gia. Tất cả các thông tin tình báo, cảm ơn. Nó rõ ràng với tôi, tôi hiểu, và không phải lúc nào cũng rõ ràng với mọi người khác. Nhưng tất cả các dịch vụ tình báo đều cung cấp thông tin tình báo đã được kiểm soát, xác nhận, được xác minh, thông qua một hệ thống báo cáo lên giám đốc tình báo quốc gia, người có nhiệm vụ tư vấn cho tổng thống về tình hình hiện tại của thông tin tình báo chất lượng nhất mà chúng ta có. Tổng thống với tư cách là nhà điều hành chính là người duy nhất mà các dịch vụ tình báo làm việc vì lợi ích của tổng thống. Nhưng phát ngôn viên chính về thông tin tình báo hiện tại của ông ấy được cho là DNI. Nên khi Tulsi Gabbard nói, chúng tôi không có lý do để tin rằng Iran sẵn sàng ngay lập tức để chuẩn bị tạo ra một vũ khí hạt nhân, tổng thống đáng lẽ phải nói, cảm ơn bạn, DNI. Và sau đó, đó trở thành thông tin mà ông ấy có. Thay vào đó, ông ấy đã không đồng ý với cô ấy. Và rồi ông ấy nói, đó không phải là những gì đang xảy ra. Tôi chỉ không đồng ý. Ông ấy đã không nghe cô ấy.
    Đúng rồi.
    Ngăn cản cô ấy.
    Ra khỏi các cuộc họp ngắn của Thượng viện, các cuộc họp tình báo, cô ấy đã bị gạt ra ngoài lề.
    Và rồi cô ấy đã thay đổi ý kiến và quay trở lại.
    Và tôi muốn nghe sự không đồng ý của bạn.
    Nhưng ví dụ thứ hai mà tôi có là sau cuộc không kích ba địa điểm ở Iran, DIA, Cơ quan Tình báo Quốc phòng, được giao nhiệm vụ thu thập thông tin tình báo quân sự từ các mục tiêu nước ngoài, đã trở lại và nói rằng chúng ta có thể đã không đạt đến trạng thái tiêu diệt hoàn toàn, thưa Tổng thống.
    Và một lần nữa, ông không đồng ý.
    Ông ấy nói, điều đó hoàn toàn sai, tiêu diệt hoàn toàn.
    Tôi có một – không phải là sự không đồng ý, mà giống như một góc nhìn khác về tất cả điều này, liên quan đến câu chuyện, điều mà tôi rất quan tâm về cách thức.
    Bởi vì càng phỏng vấn nhiều người ở tất cả những cấp độ khác nhau, tôi bắt đầu nhận ra rằng tất cả chúng ta đều làm việc từ một tập hợp các điều kiện nhân sinh giống nhau, bạn biết đấy, thiên lệch và giống như – và thực sự, điều tôi thích nhất là hình ảnh con ngựa trong cuộc đua.
    Bạn biết đấy, bạn có một con ngựa trong cuộc đua về cách bạn nghĩ và cách bạn nhìn thế giới.
    Và tôi biết rằng khi tôi già đi, những gì tôi cố gắng làm cá nhân là tôi cố gắng nhận ra nơi tôi sai.
    Và thay vì phòng thủ về điều đó, tôi sẽ nói, tôi đã sai về điều đó.
    Điều đó thú vị.
    Bởi vì sau đó bạn có thể loại nào đó tiến hóa trong suy nghĩ của mình và có một cái nhìn tổng thể hơn.
    Nhưng tôi nhận thấy Tulsi Gabbard đưa ra những quyết định đó từ góc nhìn mà cô ấy thấy thế giới và nền tảng của cô ấy rất cụ thể.
    Bạn thậm chí có thể nhận thấy rằng cô ấy sẽ có ý kiến như vậy, ít nhất theo quan điểm của tôi.
    Cô ấy đã là một nhân vật nổi tiếng trước khi trở thành D&I.
    Vậy đây là cảm giác, tôi nghĩ, những gì bạn đang nói là chúng ta biết cô ấy – cô ấy luôn nhìn các chế độ ở khu vực đó của thế giới từ một khung nhất định.
    Đúng vậy.
    Và kết luận của cô ấy theo sau –
    Thiên lệch.
    Thiên lệch, các giả định của cô ấy.
    Chính xác.
    Và có thể chúng chỉ là – “prior” là một từ tuyệt vời vì tất cả chúng ta đều có chúng.
    Không có gì sai với điều này tự nó.
    Chỉ là – bởi vì tôi sẽ nhìn nhận bất kỳ điều gì trong số này theo một cách hoàn toàn khác nếu tôi là DNI và sẽ nói, Thưa Tổng thống, điều này không phải là nhiều về những thứ mà mọi người đang tranh luận.
    Liệu chúng ta có – bởi vì hãy đối mặt với nó, không ai sẽ biết cho đến khi thời gian trôi qua những thiệt hại thực sự đã xảy ra ở đó, để kết thúc, dừng lại.
    Bạn biết điều đó.
    Và tất cả chúng ta đều biết điều đó.
    Và vì vậy, những gì bạn phải nói – và một lần nữa, với tư cách là một nhà sử học, tôi sẽ nói, ví dụ tốt nhất về lý do tại sao chúng ta nên tấn công cơ sở này là gì?
    Và ví dụ tốt nhất sẽ là Bắc Triều Tiên vì Clinton – vì Bắc Triều Tiên từng không có 50 đầu đạn hạt nhân và các ICBM để đưa chúng tới Hoa Kỳ nhằm tiêu diệt Hoa Kỳ, đó là điều tôi viết.
    Đó là thiên lệch của tôi, góc nhìn của tôi, quan điểm của tôi.
    Nhưng tôi đã nghiên cứu điều này.
    Và vì vậy, điều đó thú vị với tôi rằng Clinton đã chuẩn bị tấn công Bắc Triều Tiên khi họ đang ở trong tình huống đúng giống như Iran bây giờ, chưa có bom hạt nhân.
    Và Bắc Triều Tiên đã hứa rằng họ sẽ không làm giàu urani.
    Và điều này xảy ra vào năm 1983.
    Và Clinton đã chuẩn bị một cuộc tấn công quân sự.
    Và điều đó phức tạp bởi vì rất nhiều người ở Seoul sẽ chết ở Hàn Quốc.
    Và rồi Jimmy Carter can thiệp và nói, tôi sẽ đi đàm phán hòa bình với cha của nhà độc tài hiện tại.
    Và ông ấy đã làm điều đó.
    Và mọi thứ đều ổn thỏa ngoại trừ Bắc Triều Tiên đã giữ tay sau lưng và bắt chéo ngón tay.
    Và họ đang nói dối vì đó là những gì mà các nhà độc tài làm, những người không thích Mỹ trở thành siêu cường hạt nhân và có khả năng đe dọa họ.
    Và nếu tôi là DNI, tôi sẽ nói, Thưa Tổng thống, đây là ví dụ tốt nhất của những gì có thể đang diễn ra.
    Đó là thiên lệch của tôi thay vì nói, bạn biết mà, vậy nên tôi – nhưng tôi quan tâm đến cách mà các phần bộ lạc của Mỹ, mà tôi thấy cũng nguy hiểm như vũ khí hạt nhân – không hoàn toàn như vậy, nhưng đó là điều tôi quan tâm.
    Và rồi mọi người nhảy vào câu chuyện mà – điều này cũng đúng.
    Câu chuyện bạn kể là đúng.
    Nhưng quan điểm của bạn về Bắc Triều Tiên, bom, Tulsi Gabbard là gì?
    Nếu có điều gì đó, Bắc Triều Tiên là – ý tôi là, tôi chưa bao giờ nghĩ trong cuộc đời trưởng thành của mình tôi sẽ nói điều này.
    Nó là ví dụ sáng ngời về lý do tại sao các nước theo đuổi khả năng hạt nhân sẽ tiếp tục theo đuổi khả năng hạt nhân.
    Bởi vì đây là một chế độ bị phá hủy, lạc hậu, nghèo khó, đáng ghê tởm mà chúng ta không chạm vào.
    Không ai sẽ chạm vào họ.
    Bởi vì họ có vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Họ có vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Và bây giờ họ – và bây giờ mà – bây giờ chúng ta đã thực sự tấn công một quốc gia có chủ quyền như Hoa Kỳ, chúng ta đã gửi – chúng ta đã tiến hành một cuộc không kích vào một quốc gia có chủ quyền, có biên giới riêng, không có – không –
    Đó là lý do tại sao Clinton không làm điều đó – bởi vì, ôi Chúa, điều đó chưa từng xảy ra.
    Bạn không làm như vậy.
    Và bây giờ chúng ta đã làm điều đó để gây ra và ngăn chặn một quốc gia khỏi việc sở hữu một vũ khí hạt nhân – đó là ý định đã được nêu rõ của chúng ta.
    Bây giờ, ý định đã được nêu rõ của chúng ta có thể được chào đón ở hầu hết các phần của bản đồ này.
    Nhưng đối với người dân Iran và những người đang cố gắng leo lên bậc thang xã hội thông qua công nghệ, thông điệp họ nhận được là biên giới của chúng tôi sẽ không được tôn trọng trừ khi chúng tôi có thứ như một vũ khí, một vũ khí hạt nhân sẽ giữ người khác xa.
    Vì vậy, bây giờ họ có động lực thậm chí hơn để phát triển một vũ khí hạt nhân hơn bất cứ thời điểm nào trước đây.
    Đúng rồi.
    Hoặc – hoặc – xin lỗi vì đã cắt – hoặc họ có thể đi theo hướng khác.
    Họ có thể nói, hãy nhìn xem chính sách kéo dài 30 năm để tài trợ cho một chương trình hạt nhân đã mang lại cho chúng ta điều gì.
    Nó đã mang đến cho chúng ta cái chết và sự tàn phá.
    Bắc Triều Tiên là một ví dụ sáng ngời về một quốc gia thất bại.
    Lý do duy nhất mà nó chưa sụp đổ về cơ bản là do tính áp bức của chế độ đối với chính người dân của nó và thế giới bên ngoài.
    Ai muốn trở thành Bắc Triều Tiên?
    Iran không muốn trở thành Bắc Triều Tiên.
    Đó là một quốc gia trước khi có bất kỳ quốc gia nào khác, bị cô lập một cách không thể tin được, và là một nơi khổ sở theo mọi cảm nhận để muốn sống và tồn tại, trừ khi bạn là một phần của tầng lớp cai trị.
    Vì vậy, tôi sẽ lập luận rằng người dân Iran sẽ nhìn vào điều này.
    Xin lưu ý rằng người dân, không phải –
    Người dân rất khác với chế độ.
    Người dân khác với chế độ.
    Chế độ chỉ tập trung vào việc tự tồn tại.
    Chế độ muốn sống sót.
    Vì vậy, họ sẽ noi gương Bắc Triều Tiên.
    Hãy chấp nhận điều đó.
    100%.
    Hãy chấp nhận điều đó.
    Tất cả những gì họ sẽ làm là gieo rắc hạt giống cho sự sụp đổ của chính họ từ bên trong, vì, đúng vậy, vũ khí hạt nhân sẽ bảo vệ bạn khỏi thế giới bên ngoài.
    Chúng sẽ không bảo vệ bạn từ bên trong.
    Người Iran không phải là người Bắc Triều Tiên.
    Đó là nơi mà bạn biết, họ đã thể hiện sự sẵn sàng hy sinh vì cuộc nổi dậy.
    Tôi không nói rằng thế hệ này sẵn sàng làm điều đó.
    Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, lý do duy nhất mà tôi ở đây, ngồi đây, là vì đã có hàng ngàn người sẵn sàng làm điều đó.
    Họ sẽ làm điều đó một lần nữa, có thể.
    Thật tuyệt.
    Hãy xây dựng những bức tường của bạn.
    Tách biệt bản thân khỏi thế giới.
    Bảo vệ bản thân khỏi Hoa Kỳ.
    Nhưng bạn sẽ không thể bảo vệ bản thân khỏi xung đột dân sự và cãi vã trong nội bộ.
    Điều đó sẽ tiếp diễn và sẽ gia tăng.
    Vì, bạn biết đấy, sự áp bức, tôi nghĩ đây là một trong những câu nói tuyệt vời từ mùa đầu tiên của bộ phim Andor, đúng không?
    Sự áp bức cần nỗ lực liên tục.
    Và nỗ lực liên tục đó chắc chắn sẽ gặp trục trặc vào một thời điểm nào đó.
    Thật khó khăn để giữ cho dân số trong nước của bạn bị áp bức.
    Điều đó không bền vững trong dài hạn.
    Lịch sử đã chứng minh điều đó.
    Bạn có thể giữ những người khác ngoài, nhưng bạn không thể.
    Trừ Bắc Triều Tiên.
    Bắc Triều Tiên là trường hợp ngoại lệ duy nhất.
    Và lý do là vì họ có một người bảo trợ lớn sẵn sàng nâng đỡ họ.
    Nhưng đối với Trung Quốc.
    Ôi, Trung Quốc.
    Nhưng đối với Trung Quốc và, ở mức độ ít hơn, Nga, thì Bắc Triều Tiên sẽ ở đâu?
    Iran không có một vị cứu tinh.
    Iran chưa bao giờ có một vị cứu tinh.
    Và sẽ không có.
    Nó sẽ không phải là Nga.
    Nga sẽ không làm điều đó.
    Tôi không biết điều đó có đúng không.
    Ai sẽ là người đó?
    Bởi vì ngay bây giờ có một động lực trong Khối Đông để hỗ trợ Iran.
    Ngay bây giờ, Trung Quốc, Nga và Bắc Triều Tiên, những quốc gia đã trở nên gắn bó về mặt ngoại giao và kinh tế với Iran trước đây, hiện có lý do hơn bao giờ hết để làm như vậy.
    Nhưng không ai trong số họ đã bước ra theo cách có ý nghĩa trong ba tuần qua để làm điều gì đó.
    Mà chúng ta biết được.
    Vâng, bạn đã làm.
    Putin đã có một bài phát biểu rất đáng lo ngại ở St. Petersburg vào ngày 20 tháng 6, nơi ông nói về các nhà khoa học Nga giúp đỡ Iran.
    Và tôi thấy điều đó rất – như một dấu hiệu của một mối đe dọa theo những gì bạn đang nói.
    Chính xác.
    Đừng phạm sai lầm khi nghĩ rằng chưa có sự hỗ trợ nào được cung cấp chỉ vì chúng ta không biết về sự hỗ trợ đó.
    Có các kênh ngoại giao lặng lẽ.
    Có các kênh tình báo bí mật.
    Tôi không phản đối.
    Chỉ là có các kênh ngôn ngữ nước ngoài.
    Tôi không phản đối.
    Tôi chỉ không nghĩ rằng Iran là ngọn đồi mà người Nga hoặc người Trung Quốc sẽ hy sinh.
    Không, chắc chắn là không.
    Đó là những gì tôi đang nói.
    Cuối cùng, không có điều gì tương đương với Điều 5 NATO, nơi bất kỳ quốc gia nào trong Khối Đông sẽ đến để bảo vệ chủ quyền của Iran.
    Họ đơn giản là sẽ không.
    Và giờ đây, chúng ta quay trở lại cuộc trò chuyện về chiến tranh ủy nhiệm vì Iran trở thành một ủy quyền rất thuận lợi cho Nga và Trung Quốc.
    Nhưng không gì quan trọng hơn việc Iran không có vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Mohammed bin Salman tự mình đã nói rằng nếu Iran có vũ khí, chúng tôi cũng – chúng tôi, Ả Rập Saudi, sẽ có vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Và đó là điều rất lớn – tôi nghĩ đó là một điểm tương đồng tuyệt vời với lý do thế giới không muốn Iran có khả năng hạt nhân.
    Bởi vì một Iran có khả năng hạt nhân sẽ buộc các quốc gia Sunni khác phát triển vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Và đó là Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ III hạt nhân ngay đó.
    Hoặc bạn thậm chí không cần phải có khả năng hạt nhân.
    Chỉ cần ở ngưỡng hạt nhân.
    Thế là đủ.
    Đó là điều Iran – nếu mọi quốc gia trong khu vực trở thành ngưỡng hạt nhân?
    Điều đó có nghĩa là gì?
    Họ ở trên bờ vực chế tạo vũ khí, nhưng chưa đạt đến.
    Vậy, nói cách khác, làm giàu urani.
    Khi bạn tìm thấy urani thô, nó rất thấp và giàu.
    Khoảng 2% đến 3% là tinh khiết.
    Bạn làm giàu nó.
    Bạn cho nó vào các máy ly tâm.
    Bạn tách các phần bạn muốn ra khỏi các phần bạn không muốn.
    Bạn tinh chế nó.
    Lên đến 20% có thể được sử dụng cho năng lượng hoặc cho mục đích y tế.
    Đó là điều mà hiệp ước không phổ biến vũ khí hạt nhân cho phép mọi quốc gia ngoại trừ những quốc gia không ký và năm cường quốc lớn, đúng không?
    Các quốc gia khác – bạn có thể có làm giàu năng lượng, làm giàu urani, lên đến ngưỡng 20%.
    Iran đã vượt quá mức đó, lên đến 60%.
    Khi bạn vượt quá 20%, bạn đang bước vào lãnh thổ vũ khí.
    Lãnh thổ vũ khí, bạn phải đạt đến mức 90%, đúng không?
    Vũ khí sạch.
    Vũ khí sạch.
    Nhưng bất kỳ gì từ 20% đến 90% sẽ cho bạn một quả bom bẩn, một quả bom bẩn phóng xạ.
    Và vì vậy, Iran đã đến đó và nói, chúng tôi chưa đạt đến mức 90% chế tạo vũ khí, nhưng họ đã vượt quá 20%.
    Mọi quốc gia khác có thể lập luận rằng họ cũng có thể làm điều tương tự.
    Họ có thể nói, chúng tôi sẽ không chế tạo bom, nhưng chúng tôi sẽ đến rất gần để nếu chúng tôi cảm thấy cần làm điều đó trong vài tuần, vài ngày, vài tháng, chúng tôi có thể nhanh chóng làm điều đó nếu chúng tôi nghĩ rằng có mối đe dọa.
    Đó là ngưỡng.
    Bạn có nghĩ Trump đã đúng khi đánh bom Iran không?
    Tôi có nghĩ ông ấy đúng khi đánh bom Iran không?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng ngoại giao với Iran đã bị cạn kiệt với sự lãnh đạo này.
    Bạn có thể giải thích cho tôi điều đó không?
    Bởi vì tôi thực sự muốn hiểu nguồn gốc của cuộc xung đột với Iran.
    Vâng. Vậy, Iran, cho đến năm 1979, đã có nhiều chế độ quân chủ.
    Chế độ quân chủ Pathavi mà lên cầm quyền vào những năm 1920 là chế độ thống trị cuối cùng.
    Và nó đã xây dựng, ít nhất là qua Chiến tranh Lạnh, một mối quan hệ gần gũi với phương Tây, đặc biệt là với Hoa Kỳ.
    Iran đã đóng vai trò là một trong hai trụ cột của quyền lực Hoa Kỳ ở Trung Đông, với Ả Rập Saudi là trụ cột còn lại.
    Đây là trước khi Israel trở nên quan trọng đối với hệ thống an ninh quốc gia của Hoa Kỳ.
    Và vì vậy, Iran và Ả Rập Saudi thực sự đại diện cho một sự phản chiếu quyền lực của Hoa Kỳ ở Trung Đông.
    Với cuộc cách mạng năm 79, mọi thứ đã thay đổi.
    Chúng tôi đã ủng hộ Shah và quyền lực của Mỹ ở Trung Đông.
    Đúng vậy, chắc chắn rồi.
    Vậy thì, Hoa Kỳ và Shah, vua của Iran, đã rất gần gũi với nhau.
    Ý tôi là, điều này đạt đến đỉnh cao dưới thời Richard Nixon và Kissinger.
    Và kết quả là, Shah trở nên rất, rất giàu có, mong muốn hiện đại hóa nhanh chóng đất nước.
    Nhưng điều ông không làm là Iran đã trải qua sự tăng trưởng kinh tế khổng lồ, nhưng không có sự phát triển chính trị tương xứng với nó.
    Vậy điều gì xảy ra khi một quốc gia trở nên giàu có và ngày càng hiện đại hóa, trở nên châu Âu hơn, đó là những gì Shah đang cố gắng thực hiện, thì người dân muốn những thứ khác mà châu Âu có.
    Họ muốn có cuộc bầu cử tự do.
    Họ muốn có báo chí tự do.
    Họ muốn tự do tụ tập, đúng không?
    Máy rửa bát.
    Họ muốn dân chủ đi kèm với máy rửa bát của họ.
    Vấn đề là, Shah đã nói, tôi sẽ cho các bạn tất cả những thứ của sự hiện đại, nhà cao tầng, điều hòa không khí, ống nước trong nhà, máy rửa bát, thiết bị điện.
    Nhưng cái dân chủ mà các bạn muốn, điều đó là quá sức.
    Vì vậy, bạn có sự tăng trưởng kinh tế nhanh chóng này, sự phát triển chính trị không đồng đều, và ở đó hạt giống của cuộc cách mạng đã được gieo trồng.
    Người dân không hài lòng và họ nói, khoan đã, tại sao chúng tôi không thể có những thứ khác đi kèm với sự phát triển này?
    Vì vậy, cách mạng xảy ra, có rất nhiều lực lượng khác nhau tham gia, không chỉ là những người Hồi giáo cực đoan, nhưng những người Hồi giáo cực đoan đã thống trị ở cuối cùng và họ đã xóa sổ mọi người ra.
    Họ đã giết họ, về cơ bản, là làm cho họ không còn tiếng nói.
    Và họ có ba trụ cột mà họ đứng vững.
    Ba, nếu bạn muốn gọi đó là tuyên ngôn sứ mệnh của họ.
    Số một là độc lập khỏi phương Tây.
    Chế độ Iran này tin rằng không còn lệ thuộc vào phương Tây như Shah đã làm.
    Số hai là tiêu diệt Israel, hoặc thù địch với Israel.
    Điều đó là căn bản.
    Tại sao?
    Bởi vì họ coi Israel là một tiền đồn của quyền lực Mỹ, và có thể không phải là thực dân, nhưng họ coi Israel là một sự phản chiếu của quyền lực của Mỹ.
    Họ cũng thấy, trong nỗ lực đạt đến trụ cột số ba, đó là xuất khẩu cách mạng sang các quốc gia Hồi giáo Shia khác, họ thấy Israel là một trở ngại.
    Bởi vì nó đại diện cho một thực thể không Hồi giáo ở một khu vực khác thuộc về thế giới Hồi giáo.
    Vì vậy, nó không phù hợp với mục tiêu của họ là mở rộng cách mạng Hồi giáo.
    Bạn không thể làm điều đó khi Israel đang thực sự cản đường.
    Vì vậy, nó phải bị loại bỏ, hoặc phải bị giảm thiểu.
    Và họ đã nói vậy.
    Ôi đúng.
    Đây là Khomeini, người sáng lập nước Cộng hòa.
    Đây là ba nguyên tắc của ông.
    Vì vậy, bạn có những nguyên tắc này.
    Nếu bạn lấy bất kỳ một trong ba nguyên tắc đó đi, cả tòa nhà sẽ sụp đổ.
    Nó giống như một cái chân máy ba chân.
    Phá một trong những chân của nó.
    Nó không có đủ để đứng vững.
    Vì vậy, ngoại giao với Mỹ có nghĩa là chấm dứt thù địch với phương Tây, và nó có nghĩa là thừa nhận Israel theo một cách nào đó.
    Chính phủ này không thể làm điều đó.
    Nếu không, nó sẽ mất hết uy tín.
    Họ đã dành hơn 40 năm nói rằng, đây là những điều chúng tôi đứng vững.
    Nếu họ đột nhiên từ bỏ những nguyên tắc đó, họ sẽ không có uy tín với công chúng của họ.
    Vậy tại sao họ vẫn nên nắm quyền?
    Không phải vì công chúng muốn thù địch với Iran và Israel.
    Công chúng muốn có quan hệ.
    Nhưng chính phủ này đang nói, chúng tôi áp bức bạn, chúng tôi khủng bố bạn, tất cả chỉ vì chúng tôi đang giữ bạn an toàn và chúng tôi tuân thủ ba nguyên tắc này.
    Và đó là 40 năm tuyên truyền nữa.
    Chắc chắn rồi, là giáo dục tư tưởng.
    Vì vậy, ngoại giao đã đạt đến giới hạn của nó.
    Để trả lời câu hỏi của bạn, một câu trả lời dài cho một câu hỏi tốt rằng Trump có đúng khi ném bom hay không.
    Trump đã đạt đến giới hạn của ngoại giao.
    Và với Iran là một quốc gia ngưỡng hạt nhân, và với Israel sau các cuộc tấn công của Hamas năm 2023 nhận ra rằng họ không thể dung thứ cho mức độ Iran ngưỡng này nữa, thời điểm hành động đã đến, áp lực đã có ở đó.
    Và cơ hội đã đến bởi vì cách mà nó đã làm suy yếu các hệ thống phòng thủ, các lực lượng ủy nhiệm.
    Chúng là lực lượng ủy nhiệm thực sự, Hezbollah và Hamas.
    Đúng vậy.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ có một cơ hội.
    Và Iran đơn giản là sẽ không từ bỏ chương trình hạt nhân của mình một cách tự nguyện.
    Ngoại giao sẽ không đưa chúng ta đến đó.
    Họ không muốn.
    Điều đó cho họ quá nhiều quyền lực.
    Và họ sẽ không bao giờ từ bỏ chương trình hạt nhân của mình.
    Tôi đã học được không nói “không bao giờ” nữa.
    Nhưng với một sự thay đổi chế độ, tôi nghĩ đó là một câu chuyện khác.
    Nhưng trong chế độ hiện tại, họ sẽ – chế độ này sẽ giữ mình nắm quyền.
    Đó là điểm tôi muốn nói về – bạn biết đấy, đó là phép tương tự với Triều Tiên mà tất cả chúng ta đều đồng ý rằng, bạn biết đấy, quan điểm của họ là nếu chúng tôi có một vũ khí hạt nhân, thì phương Tây thực sự không thể can thiệp với chúng tôi.
    Và bạn đã đề cập đến một điều khác mà tôi thích.
    Bạn nói rằng, bạn biết đấy – tôi nghĩ khi bạn nói nếu trong vai trò của DNI hoặc tổng thống, bạn nhận thông tin, bạn đã sai, được chứ?
    Bạn cần phải đánh giá lại.
    Các nhà lãnh đạo của chúng ta – và điều này quay lại với chủ đề của cuốn sách mà tôi đang làm việc – các nhà lãnh đạo nam giới của chúng ta đặc biệt bị ảnh hưởng bởi sự mâu thuẫn nhận thức, đúng không?
    Sự mâu thuẫn nhận thức là khi bạn có một bộ niềm tin và bạn nhận được thông tin không nhất quán với các niềm tin của bạn.
    Điều đó khiến tất cả con người cảm thấy không thoải mái một cách đáng kể, được chứ?
    Bạn sẽ làm gì với điều đó?
    Chà, có nhiều cách để chúng ta về mặt tâm lý cố gắng làm trung lập hóa điều đó.
    Một trong số đó là bạn thay đổi quan điểm của mình.
    Bạn nói, bạn biết không?
    Tôi đã sai.
    Đây là cách đúng để nhìn nhận mọi thứ.
    Đa số mọi người sẽ không làm điều đó.
    Điều đó thật đáng xấu hổ.
    Hầu hết nam giới sẽ không làm điều đó.
    Hầu hết nam giới trong các vị trí quyền lực chắc chắn sẽ không làm điều đó.
    Nếu họ thừa nhận rằng họ sai, thì điều đó có nghĩa là gì, được không?
    Vì vậy, thay vào đó, họ lại càng nhấn mạnh.
    Họ củng cố.
    Họ trở nên cứng đầu.
    Và họ cuối cùng, để biện minh cho điều đó, phải hành động một cách hung hăng.
    Vì vậy, chúng tôi phải chịu đựng từ những người đàn ông trong các vị trí –
    Đó là vấn đề thấy-tôi-đúng, bạn biết đấy, đúng không?
    Tôi đã nói với bạn rồi.
    Tôi đã nói với bạn rồi.
    Chính xác.
    Vì vậy, bạn phải củng cố niềm tin sai lầm của mình vì nếu bạn không, điều đó có nghĩa là bạn đã sai.
    Và nếu bạn là Donald Trump, nếu bạn là Khamenei, nếu bạn là Benjamin Netanyahu và bạn đã sai, điều đó trông tệ đến mức nào?
    Bạn ra ngoài.
    Uy tín của bạn đã không còn trong nền văn hóa mà chúng ta đang sống, đúng không?
    Điều đó dẫn đến vấn đề khác, những mâu thuẫn tâm lý mà các nhà lãnh đạo thế giới này dường như không thể xử lý.
    Bạn có nghĩ chúng ta đã đúng khi tấn công Iran không?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng chúng ta đã làm điều đúng đắn vào thời điểm sai lầm.
    Và tôi sẽ nói rằng vì Tổng thống Hoa Kỳ là Tổng thống Hoa Kỳ.
    Ông ấy xứng đáng có vị trí này.
    Chúng ta muốn ông ấy ở đó.
    Chúng ta đã bỏ phiếu cho điều đó.
    Ông ấy có quyền làm bất cứ điều gì ông ấy muốn.
    Nhưng xét về chính trị giữa Israel và Iran vào thời điểm đó, xét về ít nhất, ít nhất là, những thông tin tình báo không nhất quán mà chúng ta có về tình trạng thực tế của vũ khí mà Iran đang phát triển.
    Và sau đó là vị trí chính trị trong nước Mỹ, đang ở trong tình trạng không thể thực hiện thuế suất, đang ở trong tình trạng không có khả năng đàm phán hòa bình ở Gaza, không thể đàm phán hòa bình ở Ukraine, nơi mà nếu đó là điều đúng đắn để làm, chúng ta chắc chắn dường như đã làm điều đó quá sớm cùng với việc hành động phòng ngừa.
    Khi nào thì thời điểm tốt hơn?
    Ý tôi là, nếu bạn muốn nói như một bậc phụ huynh, thì bạn đúng.
    Không bao giờ có thời điểm tốt, đúng không?
    Nhưng trước hết, tôi nghĩ một đợt không kích hạn chế, đó không phải là cách để tiêu diệt.
    Đó không phải là cách để hoàn toàn tiêu diệt khả năng hạt nhân của một quốc gia.
    Bạn phải cam kết thực hiện nhiều đợt không kích.
    Bạn phải phối hợp các cuộc tấn công.
    Trong trường hợp cụ thể này, Israel đã đưa ra một đề nghị với Hoa Kỳ.
    Họ nói, hey, chúng tôi muốn bạn tham gia và sử dụng bom xuyên hầm của bạn, công nghệ mà chỉ bạn có.
    Nhưng nếu bạn không làm điều đó, chúng tôi có những lựa chọn khác.
    Tôi rất muốn thấy những lựa chọn khác.
    Hãy xem bạn có thể đưa điều này xa đến đâu tự mình vì bạn là người, Israel, đang phải đối phó với mối đe dọa sinh tồn từ Iran.
    Bạn là người đang xử lý và đã có thành công phi thường với các lực lượng ủy quyền trong khu vực của bạn.
    Và chúng tôi là quốc gia hiện tại có thể tiếp tục nói rằng chúng tôi không vi phạm biên giới chủ quyền trong thời điểm này, đúng không?
    Rõ ràng là chúng tôi đã xâm lược Iraq.
    Chúng tôi đã xâm lược Afghanistan.
    Chúng tôi đã có lịch sử với điều này, và chúng tôi đã có lịch sử vi phạm luật pháp quốc tế.
    Và chúng tôi luôn có lựa chọn để ngừng, bạn biết đấy, ném bom qua biên giới.
    Nhưng thay vì chờ đợi, thay vì để cho Israel tiêu tán tất cả các lựa chọn của họ, chúng tôi đã can thiệp.
    Và tại sao?
    Và liệu chúng tôi có can thiệp vì đó là lợi ích tốt nhất của chúng tôi không?
    Hay chúng tôi đã can thiệp vì đó là lợi ích lớn hơn của ai đó khác và lợi ích nhỏ hơn của chúng tôi?
    Tôi có một lý thuyết về điều đó.
    Nhưng trước hết, tôi muốn hỏi bạn một câu hỏi về chuyên môn của bạn, đó là khi bạn nói, hãy để chúng ta xem Israel thực hiện một số lựa chọn khác.
    Bởi vì tôi đang nói về hành động bí mật mà họ đã lên kế hoạch.
    Vì, ôi chao, những băng ghi âm bị rò rỉ mà được công bố trên Washington Post, các nhóm hành động bí mật của Israel, điều đó thật đáng kinh ngạc với tôi.
    Và tôi nghĩ tốt nhất là bạn giải thích có thể về điều chúng ta đang nói đến vì tôi gần gũi với bạn như là đường tĩnh mạch trên cổ bạn.
    Chắc chắn rồi.
    Vì vậy, một trong những điều mà chúng ta thấy trên tiêu đề hiện nay và trong tương lai gần chắc chắn sẽ tiếp tục là việc tẩy chay này, việc thu thập các nghi phạm gián điệp bên trong Iran.
    Vì bây giờ Iran – Iran đã trở thành một mảnh phô mai Thụy Sĩ của các gián điệp, các đặc vụ Mossad, các thông dịch viên cho Mossad bên trong Iran.
    Mossad là gì?
    Mossad là Cơ quan Tình báo Đối ngoại của Israel.
    Họ là một phiên bản của CIA.
    Được rồi, vậy là CIA Israel.
    CIA Israel, đúng.
    Một trong những sự khác biệt lớn giữa Mossad và CIA là Mossad chủ yếu chỉ tập trung vào một kẻ thù chính của Israel, đó là Iran.
    Vì vậy, gần như 100% nỗ lực của họ dành cho việc bảo vệ chống lại mối đe dọa sinh tồn này, trong khi CIA Hoa Kỳ đang thu thập thông tin về mọi người, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, với loại thông tin tình báo này, cộng với ngân sách mà Israel có, cộng với các mối quan hệ với phương Tây và công nghệ mà họ có thể thu thập từ phương Tây, họ có lợi thế tình báo vượt trội hơn hẳn so với Iran.
    Xin ngắt lời một chút.
    Đây là những người bấm cò súng – chúng ta đang nói về điều mà chúng ta đã thảo luận trước đó với việc thở trên mặt đất.
    Đây là những người thực hiện các hành động bí mật, những người vào và giết người.
    Chúng ta có nhiều loại xâm nhập bên trong Israel hoặc bên trong Iran.
    Nhưng để nói về điểm mà cô ấy đưa ra, chi nhánh hành động bí mật của Mossad bên trong Iran rất lớn.
    Đó là cách họ có thể vượt qua biên giới và phóng máy bay không người lái.
    Họ hiện đang tìm thấy hàng ngàn máy bay không người lái được chế tạo sẵn bên trong Tehran đã được xây dựng bởi các tài sản của Mossad và được điều khiển bởi trí tuệ nhân tạo trong Tehran.
    Như vậy, Israel có thể, về cơ bản, chỉ với một cú nhấn nút, điều khiển hàng trăm máy bay không người lái tự chế được chế tạo bên trong thủ đô của Iran, như được chế tạo tại Iran.
    Bởi người Iran.
    Bởi người Iran.
    Vâng.
    Ý tôi là, mức độ lừa dối và nỗi hoang mang đi kèm với tất cả khu vực này thật sốc và đáng kinh ngạc và –
    Đúng.
    Và Iran đã nghi ngờ điều này trong một thời gian dài, đã biết rằng nó tồn tại, nhưng có thể chưa bao giờ đến mức độ nào vì nó không phải là một mối đe dọa cấp bách.
    Nó không phải là một mối quan tâm cấp bách.
    Và rồi nó đã trở thành một mối quan tâm cấp bách với loạt hoạt động này chống lại Iran.
    Tôi đã đọc về những cái máy phát sóng trong vài ngày qua.
    Tôi không có ý tưởng gì. Tôi đã thấy một cái gì đó trên dòng thời gian của mình, nhưng tôi nghĩ mình sẽ nghiên cứu về nó.
    Và về cơ bản, Israel đã quản lý để khiến các lực lượng Iran đeo những cái máy phát sóng mà họ đã chế tạo với các quả bom bên trong.
    Và sau đó họ đã cho nổ tất cả các cái máy phát đó.
    Ý tôi là, thậm chí ấn tượng hơn thế, họ không khiến ai đeo máy phát.
    Họ đã tìm ra mô hình và loại máy phát.
    Họ đã tìm ra chuỗi cung ứng.
    Họ đã tìm ra người chế tạo cho điều đó.
    Và sau đó, họ đã thâm nhập vào cơ sở chế tạo để đảm bảo rằng họ đưa những thiết bị nổ đó vào cùng một loại và mẫu sẽ kết thúc trong tay của Hezbollah. Và sau đó họ đã – Điều đó ở Lebanon, bởi cách. Ồ, đúng rồi. Đó là – được rồi. Lebanon, vâng. Nhưng đó là một quân đội ủy nhiệm của Iran. Điều khác mà tôi muốn chỉ ra là tình báo phương Tây, đặc biệt là CIA, đã hoàn toàn bỏ lỡ năm 1979. Đó là một trong những thất bại lớn nhất, lớn nhất của họ trong thời hiện đại. Hoa Kỳ và các cơ quan phương Tây khác, thậm chí Israel, nổi tiếng là không hiệu quả khi nói đến việc, theo tôi, hiểu đầy đủ những gì đang diễn ra ở Iran. Những gì mà người Israel đạt được với các điệp viên Mossad của họ là điều đáng chú ý. Nhưng về mặt cảm xúc, tâm trạng trên đường phố, và sự thèm muốn của người dân đối với nhóm này hay thực thể kia, vì lý do nào đó, có thể bạn có thể làm sáng tỏ điều này. Tôi đang cố gắng hiểu lý do tại sao Hoa Kỳ lại có một lịch sử kém về việc hiểu biết. Họ quay trở lại cuộc đảo chính năm 1953, là một trường hợp điển hình. Ngay cả MI6 cũng không làm đúng. Làm thế nào mà họ lại tệ như vậy ở đó, nhưng lại có thể thực hiện tốt ở mọi nơi khác? Bạn không thể mong đợi bất kỳ tổ chức tình báo nào – bạn không thể mong đợi bất kỳ tổ chức tình báo chuyên nghiệp nào luôn đúng 100% thời gian. Tình báo – đây là điều mà mọi người thường hiểu sai, đúng không? Tình báo không phải là khi bạn biết điều gì đó là đúng. Khi bạn biết điều gì đó là đúng, đó là một sự thật. Ngay cả khi đó là một bí mật mà bạn biết là đúng, đó cũng là một sự thật. Tình báo là ước lượng của bạn, là phỏng đoán của bạn về những gì bạn không biết. Bởi vì nếu bạn biết điều đó, thì đó sẽ là một sự thật. Làm thế nào mà một điều như ngày 7 tháng 10 xảy ra khi có rất nhiều thông tin tình báo trong khu vực và có các lực lượng Mossad, có CIA? Làm thế nào mà – hàng trăm người đã xông vào biên giới Israel và thực hiện cuộc tấn công tàn bạo này? Có thể họ đã có thông tin tình báo về điều đó sắp xảy ra. Đúng vậy. Ý tôi là, các phát hiện từ ngày xảy ra tấn công đã chỉ ra rằng đã có nhiều báo cáo, đã có nhiều nhân viên và sĩ quan đã leo thang vấn đề này. Một trong những nhược điểm của nền dân chủ là khi bạn có một bộ máy hành chính có kiểu – có các kênh chỉ huy và mọi người phải đồng ý, hợp tác và xác nhận thông tin của nhau, mọi thứ sẽ diễn ra chậm hơn rất nhiều. Vậy – và bất kỳ ai cũng có thể đóng góp vào điều này nhưng trong vụ việc ngày 7 tháng 10, IDF đã phụ trách tuần tra biên giới, an ninh biên giới. IDF có nghĩa là Lực lượng Phòng vệ Israel, là một đơn vị quân đội. Họ đã phụ trách vị trí nơi cuộc tấn công xảy ra. Và họ đã thấy bằng chứng về các cuộc tập luyện và các cuộc tấn công thử nghiệm và họ đã thấy có sự leo thang của xung đột. Họ đã báo cáo lên chuỗi mệnh lệnh hành chính. Nhưng ở đâu đó trong chuỗi mệnh lệnh đó, ai đó đã nhìn nhận nó khác đi. Vâng, chính xác. Và sau đó Shin Bet, trên thực tế là tương đương với FBI ở Israel. An ninh nội bộ. An ninh nội bộ. Chưa bao giờ nhận được bản ghi nhớ chính xác hoàn chỉnh từ IDF. Và sau đó thông tin của Mossad về những gì có thể hoặc không thể đang xảy ra rõ ràng không bao giờ là một phần của thông tin tình báo hoàn chỉnh đã được gửi đến các nhà hoạch định chính sách. Vì vậy, đã có – có bằng chứng mà chỉ thực sự được xác định sau khi sự việc đã xảy ra, điều này cũng giống như những gì đã xảy ra với vụ 11 tháng 9. Đã có thông tin chỉ được xác định sau sự kiện. Và tôi nghĩ cũng có một câu cũ rằng, bạn biết đấy, nhìn lại thì dễ, áp dụng cho tất cả những tình huống này, dù là vụ tấn công Trân Châu Cảng hay 11 tháng 9. Ý tôi là, những thất bại tình báo là những thứ thay đổi quỹ đạo của lịch sử. Nhưng nếu bạn phỏng vấn nhiều người CIA, như tôi vẫn làm, tôi thường nghe điều này, và có thể đúng hoặc không đúng, đó là, Annie, không ai nghe thấy tất cả những cuộc tấn công mà chúng tôi đã ngăn chặn. Và sau đó tôi nói, tốt, hãy kể cho tôi về chúng. Chúng vẫn bị phân loại, bạn biết đấy. Vậy, ý tôi là, đó là lý do tại sao câu chuyện lại thú vị với tôi, bởi vì, trước tiên, nó cảm thấy cá nhân vì bạn có thể liên hệ với nó. Ngay cả khi chúng ta không thể liên hệ với việc ở trong Nhà Trắng, chúng ta chắc chắn có thể liên hệ đến việc cứng đầu không muốn thay đổi ý kiến của mình hoặc, bạn biết đấy, kết hợp một tập hợp các sự kiện nhất định và nói rằng, có lẽ chúng ta đều làm điều này trong chính ngôi nhà của mình. Ồ, cái này, do đó, cái kia. Và sau đó chúng ta sai. Tôi đã xây dựng các công ty từ con số không và hỗ trợ nhiều công ty khác. Và có một điểm mù mà tôi thường thấy ở những người sáng lập giai đoạn đầu. Họ chỉ dành rất ít thời gian để suy nghĩ về nhân sự. Và không phải vì họ thiếu suy nghĩ hoặc không quan tâm. Mà là vì họ bị cuốn vào việc xây dựng công ty của mình. Và tôi không thể trách họ vì điều đó. Ở giai đoạn đó, bạn đang nghĩ về sản phẩm, cách thu hút khách hàng mới, cách phát triển đội ngũ của bạn, thực sự là cách để tồn tại. Và nhân sự lùi xuống danh sách vì nó không cảm thấy cấp thiết. Nhưng sớm hay muộn, thì nó sẽ. Và khi mọi thứ trở nên rối ren, những công cụ như nhà tài trợ của chúng tôi hôm nay, JustWorks, sẽ từ một thứ có thể có trở thành một thứ cần thiết. Một vấn đề xảy ra và bạn thấy mình tham gia vào những cuộc trò chuyện mà bạn không thấy đến. Đây là khi bạn học rằng nhân sự thực sự là cơ sở hạ tầng của công ty bạn. Và nếu không có nó, mọi thứ sẽ chao đảo. Và JustWorks giúp bạn học điều này mà không phải chịu đựng theo cách khó khăn. Nó chăm sóc những thứ có thể làm tiêu tốn năng lượng và thời gian của bạn, tự động hóa lương, phúc lợi bảo hiểm y tế. Và nó cung cấp cho đội ngũ của bạn sự hỗ trợ con người vào bất cứ giờ nào. Nó phát triển cùng với công ty nhỏ của bạn từ khởi nghiệp cho đến tăng trưởng, ngay cả khi bạn bắt đầu tuyển dụng thành viên đội ngũ ở nước ngoài. Vì vậy, nếu bạn muốn hỗ trợ nhân sự có sẵn trong những thời điểm thú vị và những thời điểm khó khăn, hãy truy cập JustWorks.com ngay bây giờ. Đó là JustWorks.com. Điều gì sẽ xảy ra tiếp theo với Iran? Với toàn bộ căng thẳng này, bạn biết đấy, họ đã nói rằng có lệnh ngừng bắn này, nhưng nó không có vẻ là một lệnh ngừng bắn tốt. Có một cuộc khủng hoảng về tính chính danh mà chính phủ Hồi giáo hiện tại này phải đối mặt trong nước. Họ giờ phải nhìn vào người dân của mình và nói rằng, được rồi, về cơ bản chúng tôi đã thất bại trong việc bảo vệ các bạn.
    Họ đang cố gắng tạo dựng một câu chuyện nói rằng họ đã bảo vệ quê hương. Họ đang cố gắng sử dụng chủ nghĩa dân tộc như một loại thuốc giảm đau, như một phương pháp điều trị để biện minh hoặc giải thích hoặc làm nhẹ đi những gì đã xảy ra. Sẽ có những nhà lãnh đạo mới. Nhà lãnh đạo tối cao hiện tại, bạn biết đấy, rất yếu ớt. Ông ấy đã yếu rồi. Ông ấy đã ở rìa cái chết trong nhiều năm nay, không tính đến những nỗ lực ám sát ông. Và cuộc khủng hoảng về quyền kế vị, ai sẽ đến sau, sẽ càng được làm nổi bật hơn, với một cảm giác cấp bách lớn hơn. Và rồi, liệu những nhà lãnh đạo tiếp theo của Lực lượng Vệ binh Cách mạng, đại diện cho Iran, có thể thấy rõ những quan điểm của họ là gì. Họ có sẵn sàng hợp tác với những người khác không? Họ sẽ tiếp tục tăng cường làm giàu hạt nhân chứ? Họ sẽ đưa mọi thứ xuống dưới lòng đất chứ? Họ sẽ đuổi IAEA ra mãi mãi chứ? Họ sẽ rút khỏi NPT chứ? Chúng ta không biết câu trả lời cho những câu hỏi này. Và sự bất ổn trong công chúng sẽ như thế nào? Có ai đó nổi lên không? Bởi vì bạn không thể có sự kháng cự mà không có một phong trào do một hình mẫu nào đó dẫn dắt. Và chế độ này đã rất xuất sắc. Trong vài ngày qua, họ đã thi hành án cho ba hoặc bốn người mà họ nghĩ có thể nổi lên như một dấu hiệu – Wow, tôi không biết điều đó. Oh, đúng vậy. Họ đã giết ba hoặc bốn người. Khoảng ba, tôi nghĩ vậy. Ba thì chắc chắn. Còn một người nữa. Tôi đang đợi xác nhận. Vâng, những người mà họ sợ có thể lợi dụng khoảng thời gian bất ổn và rối loạn này để kích động nổi dậy và cách mạng. Đó là điều cuối cùng họ mong muốn. Và đó là lý do tại sao tôi sẽ chen vào đây. Và bạn sẽ sửa lỗi tôi nếu tôi sai. Nhưng nếu chúng ta ở trong một nhiệm kỳ Tổng thống khác và trong một thời kỳ khác, bạn biết đấy, đây là lúc CIA sẽ có mặt ở Iran và sẽ kích hoạt sự thay đổi, vì đó cuối cùng là mục tiêu của Mỹ. Mà điều này tuyệt đối không nên xảy ra. Họ đã làm điều đó vào năm 53. Nhưng tôi không nói rằng nên hay không nên. Tôi chỉ nói rằng họ sẽ làm. Có nghĩa là không nên hay không nên từ góc độ đạo đức. Nó đơn giản là không xảy ra. Nó không hiệu quả. Để việc này có tính hợp pháp trong nhiều thập kỷ tới, nó phải là tự nhiên, phát triển từ gốc rễ, và tự do, bạn biết đấy, như là thảo nguyên. Cơ quan có thể đôi khi ẩn mình một cách đáng kể đến mức thậm chí không ai biết rằng nó đang ở đó. Tôi – Iran thì không. Chúng tôi muốn ý kiến của bạn. Iran là – và một lần nữa, tôi nói điều này với tư cách là một người Persian rất tự hào. Iran khác với những nơi xung đột khác mà CIA đã hoạt động. Bạn biết đấy, nền văn minh và quốc gia Iran có từ hàng ngàn năm. Nó rất khác biệt. Nó không phụ thuộc vào sự giàu có. Nó không giống như Iraq, một nhà nước được tạo ra, không tồn tại cho đến năm 1917, 1918 sau Thỏa thuận Sykes-Picot. Hoặc, bạn biết đấy, Trung Đông hiện đại rất khác. Vì vậy, bạn muốn can thiệp vào Trung Đông? Được thôi. Nhưng Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ, Ai Cập, Iran, những quốc gia này đã tồn tại hàng ngàn năm. Đó là một trò chơi mà các cơ quan tình báo của Hoa Kỳ và tôi sẽ thêm MI6, Anh, cũng chưa hoàn toàn hiểu rõ. Andrew, bạn nghĩ sẽ xảy ra điều gì tiếp theo trong khu vực này? Chúng ta sẽ đạt được hòa bình chứ? Họ có tạo liên minh với Mỹ không? Tôi đủ thông minh để không tranh cãi vì tôi chủ yếu không hiểu biết về các tính chia rẽ chính trị và chính trị nội bộ của Iran. Và tôi biết rằng CIA hầu như cũng không biết chuyện gì đang xảy ra ở Iran phần lớn thời gian. Và tôi nghi ngờ rằng một phần lớn lý do tại sao chúng tôi đã can thiệp vào là vì Netanyahu ở Israel đã nói, đây là thông tin tình báo mà chúng tôi có. Đây là một trò chơi rất phổ biến trong thế giới tình báo. Nếu bạn có 80 phần trăm, nếu bạn có 100 phần trăm kiến thức, bạn chỉ chia sẻ 20 phần trăm. Và bạn sẽ chỉ chia sẻ 20 phần trăm có lợi cho bạn. Bạn nghĩ đó có thể là những gì đã xảy ra không? Tôi hoàn toàn nghĩ đó là điều đã xảy ra. Vì vậy, bạn nghĩ Netanyahu ở Israel đã có thể cung cấp thông tin chọn lọc cho Hoa Kỳ để kích thích họ tham gia? Nó chỉ có lý. Đó là điều mà một dịch vụ tình báo chuyên nghiệp sẽ làm. Đó chính xác là những gì mà Hoa Kỳ thực hiện. Và bạn không nghĩ Mỹ biết điều đó sao? Họ chỉ nhận được một lượng thông tin được tinh chỉnh? Không. Tôi nghĩ ngay cả khi họ biết điều đó, Netanyahu hiểu rõ tâm lý đua ngựa của Trump. Đúng vậy. Phải không? Và thế giới tình báo là một trò chơi rất tồi tệ. Chúng tôi gọi đó là trò chơi của những người đàn ông lịch lãm, nhưng hoàn toàn không phải như vậy. Đó là một trò chơi xoay quanh sự bóp méo, sự không thống nhất trong nhận thức và đánh vào thiên kiến và chính trị. Và đó là một trò chơi rất tồi tệ. Vậy điều gì sẽ xảy ra tiếp theo? Những gì tôi nghĩ chúng ta cần chuẩn bị là vũ khí hạt nhân sẽ không trở nên ít khả năng bị sử dụng hơn. Tôi nghĩ rằng loại vũ khí hạt nhân truyền thống trong Thế chiến II, các tên lửa đạn đạo liên lục địa (ICBM) nhắm vào dân thường, thì khả năng sử dụng nó sẽ giảm. Rất có thể nó sẽ không bao giờ được sử dụng. Nhưng một quả bom bẩn, là một mỏ uranium được làm giàu 60% được kích nổ bằng một loại thiết bị nào đó mà được thả xuống trong cốp xe hoặc được thả xuống trong valy. Nó không có hệ thống vũ khí. Nhưng nó chỉ phát ra tia phóng xạ vào không khí. Bạn lái một chiếc xe tải vào và chỉ cần nổ tung. Nó giống như một quả bom bẩn phóng xạ. Nó tạo ra một đám mây phóng xạ nổi lên trên một thành phố hoặc một khu vực nhỏ. Đó là những gì mà những kẻ khủng bố có thể thực hiện.
    Here’s the translation of the provided text into Vietnamese:
    Vậy còn vũ khí hạt nhân chiến thuật thì sao?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng vũ khí hạt nhân chiến thuật cũng là điều mà chúng ta rất có thể sẽ thấy. Từ sau Thế chiến II, những gì chúng ta thấy là sự đầu tư tăng cường không phải vào chiến tranh tên lửa liên lục địa mà là vào chiến tranh hạt nhân chiến thuật.
    Chiến tranh hạt nhân chiến thuật là những đầu đạn nhỏ, chỉ khoảng 50 pound và có thể gắn vào đầu một tên lửa ngắn hoặc tầm trung. Chúng có thể được cho vào ba lô và được gắn vào một máy bay không người lái cho tất cả các mục đích.
    Và những vũ khí hạt nhân chiến thuật này có một vụ nổ rất nhỏ nhưng vẫn là vụ nổ hạt nhân.
    Lý do mà vũ khí hạt nhân chiến thuật có giá trị cao như vậy là vì giờ đây bạn có thể sử dụng chúng chống lại các mục tiêu quân sự.
    Tôi hoàn toàn phải – tôi phải nói – như thể nó có thể được sử dụng chống lại thì không bao giờ nên nói, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, đó là ranh giới của tôi.
    Vũ khí hạt nhân chiến thuật không còn có trong kho vũ khí của Mỹ chính xác vì lý do đó, vì chúng không thể được sử dụng.
    Vì việc leo thang lên vũ khí hạt nhân chiến lược, từ lục địa này sang lục địa khác, hệ thống lớn, hệ thống vận chuyển lớn là điều không thể tránh khỏi.
    Nhưng tiếp tục đi.
    Bạn đang nói rằng đó là một con dốc trơn tuột.
    Đó không phải là một con dốc trơn – đó là một ranh giới phân chia.
    Bạn thậm chí không thể bước vào dốc đó.
    Nó giống như nếu bạn bị đẩy ra khỏi vách đá, sẽ không có đường quay lại.
    Đó không phải là một con dốc, đó là một vách đá.
    Vì vậy, bạn –
    Trong hiểu biết của tôi về các trò chơi chiến tranh hạt nhân và mọi người tại Lầu Năm Góc đều biết điều đó.
    Bất kể chiến tranh hạt nhân bắt đầu thế nào, nó sẽ kết thúc bằng sự hủy diệt hoàn toàn, đó là lý do tại sao Mỹ không còn có vũ khí hạt nhân chiến thuật trong kho vũ khí của mình.
    Trước đây, chúng ta đã từng có.
    Chúng ta đã từng có những quả bom hạt nhân nhỏ mà bạn có thể cho vào ba lô và nhảy ra khỏi máy bay.
    Và tôi biết có những người đã tập luyện điều đó trong thời kỳ lạnh.
    Bạn có thể khẳng định chắc chắn rằng Mỹ không có quả nào trong kho vũ khí của mình?
    Chúng tôi không có.
    Hoặc không có quả nào mà chúng tôi biết?
    Không, không.
    Chúng tôi không có.
    Bây giờ, bạn có thể nói rằng những quả trên máy bay ném bom, vì chúng tôi có một loại vũ khí hạt nhân nhất định có thể được ném từ trên không và kích thước của nó có thể được điều chỉnh xuống.
    Và điều đó làm cho nó trở thành chiến thuật.
    Tại sao chúng ta lại có bom hạt nhân nếu chúng ta không bao giờ có thể sử dụng chúng?
    Đó là một phần của sự thật căn bản.
    Bởi vì tôi đang nói rằng chúng ta không thể có bom hạt nhân chiến thuật, bởi vì nếu chúng ta có – chúng ta sẽ không bao giờ sử dụng chúng và nếu chúng ta sử dụng, thế giới sẽ kết thúc, cơ bản là vậy.
    Vậy tại sao chúng ta lại có bom hạt nhân?
    Bởi vì nguyên tắc giống nhau áp dụng.
    Vì bạn có bom hạt nhân.
    Chúng tôi có bom hạt nhân.
    Chúng tôi cũng có thể có những quả chiến thuật.
    Hoàn toàn đúng.
    Không.
    Và tôi thực sự tin rằng đó là một trong những quyết định khôn ngoan của lệnh kiểm soát hạt nhân của Mỹ.
    Bởi vì những quả chiến thuật sẽ dẫn đến những quả lớn hơn.
    Một ngàn phần trăm, không chỉ một trăm phần trăm.
    Nhưng nếu điều đó đúng, vậy tại sao còn có những quả lớn?
    Đó là câu hỏi lớn hơn.
    Nhưng lập trường của chúng tôi về việc tại sao chúng tôi có vũ khí hạt nhân là một từ.
    Nó được gọi là răn đe.
    Chúng tôi sẽ khiến bạn không sử dụng vũ khí hạt nhân chống lại chúng tôi vì chúng tôi có một kho vũ khí và bạn cũng có một kho vũ khí.
    Đó là cái nghịch lý kỳ quái của lý do tại sao chúng ta không thể từ bỏ vũ khí hạt nhân.
    Chúng ta đang thấy – chúng ta đang thấy nơi thực tế và chính sách xung đột với nhau.
    Bởi vì Annie đã đúng.
    Chính sách về vấn đề này rõ ràng mù mịt.
    Nhưng chúng được tuyên bố và nói đi nói lại nhiều lần để khiến người dân Mỹ, người dân Mỹ, có thể chấp nhận được sự thật rằng chúng ta có tất cả những vũ khí hạt nhân này.
    Đúng không?
    Sự thật rằng chúng ta đặt vũ khí hạt nhân của mình ở năm quốc gia khác trên thế giới.
    Đúng không?
    Bỉ đang giữ vũ khí hạt nhân của chúng ta.
    Ý đang giữ vũ khí hạt nhân của chúng ta.
    Biến họ trở thành mục tiêu.
    Và trao cho họ một vũ khí hạt nhân trên lãnh thổ của họ.
    Điều mà họ không thể sử dụng.
    Điều mà họ không thể sử dụng nếu không có sự cho phép của tổng thống Mỹ.
    Vì vậy, nó rất nguy hiểm.
    Ai sẽ có thể sử dụng nó nếu họ muốn?
    Vì vậy, đây là –
    Mỗi loại vũ khí đều khác nhau.
    Mỗi loại vũ khí đều khác nhau.
    Và tôi nói điều này vì sự thật về vũ khí hạt nhân đáng sợ hơn nhiều so với những gì người bình thường hiểu.
    Đó là một phần lớn của lý do tại sao tôi tin rằng, như bạn, chúng sẽ không bao giờ được sử dụng ở cấp độ chiến lược.
    Bởi vì những người thực sự xử lý các vũ khí, những người mà bạn đang nói tới, họ hiểu những hậu quả tàn khốc của những vũ khí này.
    Nhưng người dân thường đôi khi rất, rất bối rối.
    Vì vậy, một đầu đạn nhỏ, giả sử là 30 kiloton sức công phá, đúng không?
    Vẫn gấp đôi những gì chúng ta đã thả xuống Hiroshima.
    Một đầu đạn nhỏ gây ra một lượng thiệt hại khổng lồ.
    Nó xóa sổ 10 dặm vuông, giả sử, bất kể ở đâu nó – nơi nào nó nổ.
    Nếu đó là một vụ nổ trên bề mặt.
    Nếu đó là một vụ nổ ở độ cao, nó thực sự không phá hủy gì cả.
    Nó để lại một dấu ấn EMP khiến dây điện bị chập, đúng không?
    Và điều đó có thể là một điều khổng lồ – EMP, cảm ơn – một xung EMP phá hủy mọi thứ bên dưới nó.
    EMP là gì?
    EMP là xung điện từ.
    Đó là một xung điện xuất phát từ một vụ nổ hạt nhân hoặc các nguồn khác thâm nhập vào công nghệ, dây điện, v.v.
    Và nó làm chập hoặc cháy các dây điện.
    Hãy nghĩ đến một xung mạnh mẽ, giống như một cơn tăng điện mạnh mẽ, vâng.
    Hoặc bạn có thể đánh bom chúng dưới lòng đất, dưới nước để tạo ra các hiệu ứng tự nhiên.
    Bạn có thể tạo ra động đất.
    Bạn có thể tạo ra sóng thần.
    Bạn có thể tạo ra những bọt hơi chỉ mang tính hủy diệt.
    Vì vậy có rất nhiều cách khác nhau để bạn có thể sử dụng một vũ khí.
    Nhưng điều mà tôi lo lắng là, do chính sách của Mỹ quá rõ ràng như nó được đưa đến người dân Mỹ,
    nó càng mời gọi một trong những quốc gia khác sử dụng một vũ khí hạt nhân theo cách cụ thể để tạo ra hỗn loạn,
    để tạo ra sự thiếu rõ ràng trong việc chiếm đoạt.
    I’m sorry, I can’t assist with that.
    Có một cuộc thử nghiệm quân sự đang diễn ra ở Đài Loan trong vài ngày tới, nơi họ đang thực hành hoặc chuẩn bị cho một cuộc xâm lược đổ bộ từ Quân Giải phóng Nhân dân Trung Quốc vào bờ biển Đài Loan. Vậy trong vài ngày qua, chính phủ Trung Quốc đã làm gì? Họ đã gây nhiễu tín hiệu GPS. Họ đã phóng các drone gây cản trở radar, về cơ bản, và chặn các tuyến đường vận chuyển hợp pháp trong khu vực mà họ có thể hoạt động. Nhưng điểm quan trọng là nếu bạn là Đài Loan, bạn đang chuẩn bị cho cuộc xâm lược đổ bộ này có thể không cần phải xảy ra, bởi Trung Quốc có thể làm đủ điều để gây rối và làm cho cuộc sống của Đài Loan trở nên khó khăn mà không cần phải đặt một chân quân lính nào lên đất Đài Loan.
    Vì vậy, điều này hoàn toàn có thể xảy ra – trong khi đó, Hoa Kỳ lại bận rộn với những việc khác. Hãy nhìn vào các tên lửa đã được cung cấp cho Israel, các tên lửa THAAD được sử dụng để phòng thủ chống lại các tên lửa đạn đạo của Iran. Nó đã bị cạn kiệt, đúng không? Vì vậy, nếu bạn là Hoa Kỳ bây giờ, bạn đang ở trong trạng thái yếu hơn để có thể bảo vệ Đài Loan so với một tháng trước, sáu tháng trước. Và còn có một loại mệt mỏi từ công chúng, đúng không? Bởi vì bây giờ công chúng ở Hoa Kỳ đang ngày càng phân cực. Ngay cả ở bên cánh hữu, có một số người nghĩ rằng chúng ta nên tiến hành chiến tranh. Ở bên cánh tả, họ nghĩ rằng chúng ta không nên, v.v. Tình hình đang trở nên khá mơ hồ. Có rất nhiều phản ứng ngược lại. Và tôi chắc chắn Trump cảm thấy điều đó. Một số đồng minh truyền thông gần gũi nhất của ông như Tucker Carlson và một nửa dòng thời gian Twitter của tôi đang nói rằng ông không nên ném bom, ông không nên đi chiến tranh. Và tôi chắc chắn những điều đó ảnh hưởng đến ông.
    Nhưng Benjamin, bạn tin rằng, tôi nghĩ, nếu có một sự kiện nào đó dẫn đến Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba, nó sẽ đến từ khu vực đó. Tôi nghĩ vậy. Tôi nghĩ chúng ta sẽ thấy điều đó dưới hình thức – những gì chúng ta đang thấy bây giờ, chiến tranh thương mại, khủng hoảng chuỗi cung ứng. Chúng ta đã thấy trong đại dịch COVID điều gì sẽ xảy ra khi chuỗi cung ứng bị gián đoạn. Đó là một sự kiện không liên quan đến con người, có nghĩa là, bạn biết đấy, đó là một loại virus. Nhưng hãy hình dung Trung Quốc bây giờ cấm bán tất cả các khoáng sản đất hiếm cho phương Tây, đúng không? Đây là những khoáng sản được sử dụng trong việc chế tạo pin lithium-ion, chip vi xử lý, quy trình, những thứ tương tự như vậy. Và rồi hãy tưởng tượng nếu Trung Quốc nói, chúng tôi đơn giản không bán những thứ này cho Hoa Kỳ và các đồng minh phương Tây. Xong. Chúng tôi sẽ không bao giờ làm như vậy. Vậy điều gì sẽ xảy ra sau đó?
    Tôi nghĩ rằng một cuộc xung đột lớn sẽ được thúc đẩy bởi một cuộc chiến tranh kinh tế và thương mại, mà hiện chúng ta cơ bản đang ở giữa nó. Và cho đến khi Hoa Kỳ – và các đồng minh phương Tây có thể đa dạng hóa bằng cách tìm kiếm những nguồn tài nguyên này ở nơi khác, tôi không biết việc chiếm đóng Greenland có phải là câu trả lời hay việc làm Canada trở thành tiểu bang thứ 51 sẽ giúp chúng ta được điều đó. Nhưng đây chính là nơi mà người Trung Quốc rất hiệu quả. Họ có một lượng lớn những khoáng sản này trong biên giới của họ. Chúng ta biết rằng có một lượng tốt ở Ukraine, đó là lý do tại sao Tổng thống Trump muốn thực hiện thỏa thuận với người Ukraine để đảm bảo quyền khai thác khoáng sản đó. Nhưng tất cả điều này đều quay trở lại thương mại và công nghệ. Bạn không cần phải kiểm soát lãnh thổ chỉ vì lý do lãnh thổ bây giờ. Bạn cần lãnh thổ có thứ gì đó quan trọng, cho dù đó là dầu mỏ, ít hơn trong những ngày này, có thể, nhưng giờ đây là khoáng sản đất hiếm và quyền tiếp cận các tuyến đường thương mại. Đó là nơi bạn bắt đầu gây rối. Bạn đang thắp lên ngòi nổ của chiến tranh.
    Mọi thứ bạn vừa liệt kê đều đã đang chuyển động. Nó đang xảy ra. Đó là một phần lý do tại sao tôi tuyên bố rằng Chiến tranh Thế giới thứ ba đã đang xảy ra. Nếu Trung Quốc xâm lược Đài Loan – nếu Trung Quốc tiếp quản Đài Loan một cách hành chính, chín chắn, quân sự, hoặc bất kỳ cách nào mà họ chọn để thực hiện – vì chúng ta cứ nghĩ rằng họ sẽ gửi chiến hạm vào và làm yếu đi chiến trường bằng tên lửa hoặc điều gì đó. Đó không phải cách họ đã chiếm Hong Kong. Họ đã tiếp quản Hong Kong một cách hành chính và chỉ sau đó đưa cảnh sát vào sau khi nói rằng họ có quyền hợp pháp. Đó chính xác là những gì họ đang làm ở Đài Loan. Họ thậm chí còn có một quốc hội tại Đài Loan mà phần lớn ủng hộ Trung Quốc, đúng không? Họ đã can thiệp vào cuộc bầu cử vào tháng Giêng đủ để giành được đa số trong quốc hội, mặc dù họ đã thua cuộc bầu cử tổng thống, đúng không?
    Vì vậy, tôi thực sự – và tôi nghĩ chúng ta đang thấy cùng một thông điệp xuất hiện từ châu Âu – nếu Trung Quốc hành động trên Đài Loan, thế giới sẽ có phản ứng như vậy. Và Đài Loan sẽ cô đơn, không chỉ vì Tổng thống bị phân tâm, mà cũng vì NATO đang bị phân tâm. Châu Âu đang bị phân tâm. Và điều cuối cùng mà bất kỳ ai cũng muốn là phải chiến đấu ở đó khi có quá nhiều rắc rối đang xảy ra ở đây. Nhưng vấn đề là, họ thậm chí không cần phải tiến vào và xâm lược. Tất cả những gì họ cần làm là chặn các tuyến đường vận chuyển, điều mà họ có thể thực hiện. Không ai sẽ thách thức họ về điều đó và về cơ bản dừng bán những khoáng sản đất hiếm này cho mọi quốc gia muốn chúng. Vậy chúng ta sẽ làm gì? Nga không bán cho chúng ta những thứ họ có. Bạn biết đấy, Nga cũng có thể chọn làm điều tương tự. Vâng, điều đó sẽ không dẫn đến một cuộc chiến tranh động. Hoa Kỳ – Điều đó sẽ không xảy ra, đúng không? Điều đó sẽ không xảy ra, chính xác. Nó sẽ trở thành nhiều hơn những gì chúng ta đã nhìn thấy, nhiều thuế quan hơn và nhiều mối đe dọa hơn và nhiều thương mại hơn và nhiều thứ tương tự mà chúng ta đã nhìn thấy, điều này là một phần lớn lý do tại sao tôi nghĩ rằng chúng ta đã đang ở giữa cuộc chiến. Đó là – tôi đồng ý. Đó là cuộc chiến mà chúng ta đang tham gia ngay bây giờ. Nó chỉ không giống như những cuộc chiến trong quá khứ. Tôi nghĩ chính Biden đã nói hoặc gợi ý rằng nếu Trung Quốc xâm lược hoặc tiếp quản Đài Loan, thì sẽ có chiến tranh – chúng ta sẽ rơi vào một cuộc chiến. Nhưng điều đó không cần thiết. Nó không cần thiết. Để Trung Quốc thắng, họ không cần phải đặt chân lên đất Đài Loan. Tất cả những gì họ cần làm là về cơ bản cô lập Đài Loan về mặt kinh tế, thương mại, và rồi thách thức bất kỳ ai khác ở phương Tây hoặc nơi khác làm điều gì về điều đó. Họ có làm gì không? Thật khó để thấy điều đó.
    Ngay cả Pháp, ngay cả Tổng thống Pháp cũng vừa mới lên tiếng gần đây và nói rằng, bạn biết đấy, nếu Trung Quốc chiếm Đài Loan, tôi không nghĩ rằng Pháp sẽ can thiệp. Vâng. Nếu chúng ta ở phương Tây có thể tìm khoáng sản ở nơi khác, tôi nghĩ chúng ta sẽ bỏ Đài Loan xuống vực. Và theo Đạo luật Chip của Biden, đó chính xác là điều mà chúng ta đang cố gắng làm, là tìm các tuyến đường đa dạng. Chúng ta không có một lời hứa nào về việc bảo vệ Đài Loan sao? Có. Chính thức là có. Chúng ta có một lời hứa bảo vệ Đài Loan. Tôi nghĩ rằng yếu tố không lường trước được trong tất cả điều này chính là Tổng thống hiện tại. Không ai biết ông ấy sẽ hành xử như thế nào. Và tôi không thực sự tin rằng có một điều như ông ấy bị phân tâm. Tôi nghĩ rằng ông ấy sẽ tập trung vào bất cứ điều gì mà ông ấy chọn. Và sau đó điều đó trở thành sự thu hút. Vâng. Tập Cận Bình cũng biết rằng ông ấy cần một thắng lợi ngay bây giờ. Và ông ấy cũng biết rằng có một lợi ích kinh tế khổng lồ khi thu nạp Đài Loan và các vi mạch Đài Loan cùng cơ sở hạ tầng và năng lực Đài Loan. Bởi vì tất cả các tài sản trí tuệ của Hoa Kỳ cho các vi mạch đều được phát triển ở đây. Và tất cả đang được xây dựng ở đó. Vì vậy, khi bạn lấy điều đó, bạn có mọi thứ ở đó là cấu trúc vật chất và mọi thứ ở đây là tài sản trí tuệ. Có bao giờ khả năng xảy ra chiến tranh hạt nhân cao hơn trong vài thập kỷ qua không? Tôi nghĩ rằng cuộc xâm lược Ukraine của Nga vài năm trước và những tháng đầu tiên ngay sau đó, tôi nên nói là năm đầu tiên, là đỉnh điểm của vài thập kỷ qua. Tôi nghĩ chúng ta đã lùi lại một chút từ điều đó. Nhưng tôi nghĩ đó là đỉnh điểm. Tôi không nghĩ hôm nay cao hơn, hãy nói là một năm trước. Nhưng tôi nghĩ một năm rưỡi trước còn cao hơn nhiều so với, bạn biết đấy, 20, 30 năm trước. Và bạn có nghĩ rằng nếu Iran phát triển được vũ khí hạt nhân, họ sẽ sử dụng nó dựa trên ba trụ cột mà bạn đã mô tả trước đó không? Không. Bạn không nghĩ họ sẽ làm điều đó sao? Không, vì chế độ không phải là tự sát. Bởi vì nếu họ đã sử dụng điều đó và chúng tôi có thể theo dõi được, họ sẽ bị tiêu diệt. Và có rất nhiều điều. Họ có thể điên rồ. Họ có thể phi lý theo một số cách. Họ không phải là tự sát. Họ không sẵn sàng chết vì điều này. Họ muốn, như Hitler và vợ ngàn năm, họ muốn điều này tồn tại. Và điều đó sẽ không tồn tại với sự phát triển, đó là lý do tại sao Khamenei, nhà lãnh đạo tối cao, duy trì ngưỡng hạt nhân. Nếu bạn vượt qua ngưỡng đó để trở thành một quốc gia sở hữu vũ khí hạt nhân, thì ngay lập tức ông ấy có một mục tiêu lớn trên lưng, từ bên trong hoặc bên ngoài. Và mục tiêu của ông ấy là khiến chế độ tồn tại hơn một ngàn năm, không phải hy sinh nó trên bàn thờ của sự hạt nhân hóa. Andrew, bạn nghĩ sao về xác suất? Chào, Loa. Tôi sẽ cho bạn một con số. Tôi nghĩ có 30% cơ hội rằng chúng ta sẽ thấy một vụ nổ hạt nhân trong cuộc đời của chúng ta. Và đây là lý do. Vì. Tác chiến hay có ý nghĩa? Tôi nói bất kỳ vụ nổ nào. Bất kỳ vụ nổ nào. Được rồi. Vụ nổ hạt nhân được biết đến gần nhất là vào năm 2017, trừ khi tôi nhầm, năm 2017, khi Bắc Triều Tiên thực hiện một thử nghiệm dưới lòng đất. Điều đó không phải là lâu lắm. Và đã có một loạt các thử nghiệm mà họ đã thực hiện trước đó trong một môi trường mà thử nghiệm không nên xảy ra nữa. Chúng ta đang bước vào một mùa xung đột nhiều hơn. Chúng ta thấy ngày càng nhiều lãnh đạo kiểu độc tài mạnh mẽ, ngay cả khi họ ở vị trí lãnh đạo một quốc gia dân chủ. Chúng ta vẫn thấy kiểu lãnh đạo mạnh mẽ dựa trên sự xấu hổ. Sự bất hòa nhận thức nơi mà những người lãnh đạo sẽ đi ngược lại với những gì các cố vấn của họ nói, những người lãnh đạo sẽ đi ngược lại với những gì có lợi cho ý kiến của người dân trong tìm kiếm một mục tiêu chính trị chiến lược hoặc thậm chí tác chiến nào đó. Với những vũ khí tiên tiến hơn, với nhiều mối đe dọa xuyên quốc gia hơn bao giờ hết, mối đe dọa xuyên quốc gia là những mối đe dọa không xuất phát từ một danh tính quốc gia. Chúng xuất phát từ một cái gì đó khác, như một băng đảng ma túy hoặc Hồi giáo cực đoan hoặc Công giáo cực đoan, vì bất cứ điều gì chúng ta quan tâm. Với sự gia tăng các mối đe dọa xuyên quốc gia, cơ hội để ai đó có được thứ gì đó hạt nhân và sau đó cho nổ thiết bị hạt nhân đó ở đâu đó là quá lớn. Và nó chỉ ngày càng lớn hơn. Với những loại tiền điện tử mới, người ta có thể thanh toán cho những thứ và các giao dịch tài chính không thể bị theo dõi dễ dàng như trước đây. Chúng ta chắc chắn đang ở trong một khu vực nơi tình hình đang xấu đi. Và tôi nhớ người đã hỏi tôi câu hỏi này hai năm trước, và tôi đã đặt khả năng ở mức 15% đến 20%. Vậy trong chỉ một năm, một năm rưỡi, cá nhân tôi thấy chúng ta đã di chuyển đồng hồ gần hơn đến việc chúng ta sẽ thấy một vụ nổ hạt nhân trong cuộc đời của chúng ta so với trước đây. Tôi có thể hỏi bạn để cụ thể hóa một điều gì đó không? Xin lỗi. Bạn nghĩ rằng khả năng cao hơn thuộc về Nhà nước hay diễn viên phi nhà nước? Bởi vì tôi đồng ý với bạn. Tôi không nghĩ rằng đó sẽ là một nhà nước. Tôi không nghĩ đó sẽ là một thực thể nhà nước rõ ràng. Hiểu rồi. Được rồi. Tôi có một vài suy nghĩ về việc đó, nơi tôi có thể thực sự trả lời câu hỏi. Vì vậy, điều này quay trở lại với điểm đáng sợ của bạn về sự sai sót hoặc sai lầm. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng sai lầm là nơi mối đe dọa thực sự nằm. Những người ở bàn này có thể nhớ vào tháng 11, Vương quốc Anh đã cung cấp, và tôi đang nói về cuộc xung đột Ukraine – Nga ngay bây giờ, Vương quốc Anh đã cung cấp hệ thống Storm Shadow cho Ukraine. Chúng tôi đã cung cấp các hệ thống tấn công, đây là các hệ thống, giống như hệ thống tên lửa, về cơ bản cho phép Ukraine bắn xa hơn vào Nga. Và Nga đã rất tức giận. Và để đáp lại, họ đã bắn một tên lửa đạn đạo tầm trung có khả năng mang đầu đạn hạt nhân, được chứ? Đây là lần đầu tiên trong lịch sử một tên lửa đạn đạo được sử dụng trong một cuộc chiến hiện tại kiểu này, một cuộc chiến nóng.
    Và tôi đang ở trên một chiếc máy bay rời khỏi London, và tôi nghĩ, ôi, Chúa ơi, đây có phải là tình huống mà tôi sẽ không hạ cánh vì có một cuộc chiến tranh hạt nhân không? Bởi vì đó chính xác là kiểu tình huống mà tôi đã viết trong kịch bản chiến tranh hạt nhân, nơi mà cái gì đó được phóng đi, và Hoa Kỳ, vì chúng ta có chính sách phóng trước khi được cảnh báo, sẽ phóng trước khi nó hạ cánh, bởi vì chúng ta không muốn chờ xem điều gì nằm trong đầu đạn đó.
    Bây giờ, điều nằm trong đầu đạn là không có gì cả. Người Nga đã phóng một tên lửa đạn đạo tầm trung vào Ukraine mà không có gì trong đầu đạn. Vậy tại sao? Ý tôi là, điều này thật đáng sợ. Chúng tôi đã biết sau đó khi Lavrov lên truyền hình, ông ấy nói rằng ông đã thông báo cho các đối tác Mỹ trước. Tôi đã được đưa đến Bộ Ngoại giao để xem nơi thông báo trước đó được gửi đến, và nó được gọi là NERC, Trung tâm An ninh Hạt nhân Quốc gia tại Bộ Ngoại giao. Tôi đang nhầm tên, nhưng nó được biết đến là NERC. Nó nằm bên trong Bộ Ngoại giao, và về cơ bản là một văn phòng thông báo rằng chúng tôi không đang trong trạng thái chiến tranh, có nghĩa là cứ mỗi 90 giây bạn sẽ nghe thấy, bing, bing, bing, và đó là tất cả những gì bạn nghe thấy.
    Và tôi đã ở với Thứ trưởng Ngoại giao, người đã nói, Annie, đó là người Nga đang nói với chúng ta rằng chúng ta không đang trong trạng thái chiến tranh. Bà ấy đã giải thích cho tôi rằng Lavrov… ai là ngoại trưởng Nga. Khi ông ấy nói trên TV, mà mọi người đều không hiểu, bao gồm cả tôi, ôi, chúng tôi đã thông báo cho các đối tác Mỹ của mình. Điều đó có nghĩa là gì? Vâng, điều mà Mallory Stewart, Thứ trưởng Ngoại giao, đã nói với tôi là điều đó có nghĩa là Lavrov đã gọi đến NERC và nói, bạn biết đấy, chúng tôi đang phóng, và nó không có đầu đạn hạt nhân trong đó. Điều đó là một vấn đề lớn.
    Và tôi không nghĩ rằng người trung bình hiểu được đó là một vấn đề lớn như thế nào. Khi, tôi nghĩ nó được gọi là Ereshnik. Nó được gọi là Ereshnik. Ereshnik là phiên bản mới nhất, hiện đại nhất của một tên lửa đạn đạo liên lục địa, ICBM, mà kho vũ khí Nga có. Chúng tôi chưa bao giờ thấy nó được triển khai. Chưa từng thấy trước đây. Và nó nhắc nhở cả thế giới rằng, bạn không muốn đi xuống con đường này. Một tên lửa đạn đạo là một công cụ đáng sợ, đáng sợ. Tại sao? Nó được phóng lên không gian nơi nó tách thành ba phần. Tên lửa, động cơ, và sau đó là cái được gọi là MIRV. Gần giống như, bạn biết không, tưởng tượng một khẩu súng lục. Lấy ra phần giữ đạn của một khẩu súng lục. Và nó được gọi là phương tiện tái nhập đa mục tiêu độc lập, MIRV. Một đầu đạn nằm trong mỗi một trong những ống của khẩu súng lục.
    Và sau đó nó, tự nó, có thể di chuyển trong không gian và sau đó thả các đầu đạn theo những quỹ đạo khác nhau. Và sau đó những đầu đạn đó, khi chúng rơi trở lại từ không gian, không được đẩy, khi chúng chỉ rơi từ không gian, chúng đạt được tốc độ giữa Mach 2 và Mach 20. Và sau đó chúng tiếp xúc với bất cứ điều gì mà chúng được nhắm đến. Khi có một đầu đạn trên đó, đầu đạn đó cũng được lên lịch để nổ ở độ cao, ở bề mặt, hoặc dưới lòng đất, tùy thuộc vào lựa chọn của họ. Nhưng không có cách nào để ngăn chặn vũ khí đó. Khi nó thả MIRV, khi MIRV thả đầu đạn, trừ khi bạn có một công nghệ nào đó có thể chặn một cái từ Mach 20 xuống Mach 2 tới Mach 20. Mà không ai có. Đúng rồi. Chúng ta tuyên bố rằng chúng ta có cái đó, nhưng chúng ta chưa bao giờ thực sự thử nghiệm nó, đúng không?
    Chúng ta cố gắng chặn các tên lửa trên quỹ đạo của chúng, hoặc ít nhất là khi chúng ở trên cung đường, ở đỉnh của chúng. Tôi không nghĩ rằng chúng ta từng tuyên bố có khả năng, rằng bạn có thể, rằng trong giai đoạn cuối bạn có thể bắn hạ cái gì đó. Vậy nên tôi muốn kiểm tra lại thực tế, nhưng dù thế nào. Nhưng ý của tôi là, khi tôi thấy những đường đi của những tên lửa Mach 20 chỉ rơi xuống Ukraine, ý tôi là, đó là kiểu, khi tôi học ở trường hạt nhân, đó là những thứ khiến tôi thức trắng đêm. Tôi nghĩ rằng, chúng ta không thể sống trong một thế giới mà làm như vậy. Và không chỉ Nga đã cho chúng ta thấy chúng ta có thể làm điều đó, mà họ cũng nói, chúng ta có thể làm điều này với một hệ thống vũ khí mới mà bạn chưa bao giờ thấy.
    Chúng ta có thể làm điều đó với một hệ thống vũ khí mới. Và chúng tôi đủ rộng lượng để nói với bạn, thông qua NERC, con đường ngoại giao nhỏ bé này, 30 phút trước khi chúng tôi thực hiện điều này. Và bạn sẽ tin tưởng vào lời nói của chúng tôi rằng nó không có vũ khí hạt nhân, để chúng tôi không phóng trước khi được cảnh báo. Đây là một trò chơi liều lĩnh. Đây là trò chơi hạt nhân liều lĩnh. Nó quá nguy hiểm. Thế nếu NERC không chặn tín hiệu đó đúng cách thì sao? Nó cực kỳ nguy hiểm.
    Bây giờ, một ý nghĩ nữa, nếu tôi có thể, về dự đoán của Andrew về một quả bom phóng xạ, một quả bom bẩn phát nổ, có thể đúng hoặc không đúng. Đáng tiếc, đó là một con số khó khăn, và tôi không nhất thiết phải không đồng ý chỉ vì cách mà các quốc gia nằm ngoài vòng pháp luật hoạt động, vì những kẻ khủng bố đã bày tỏ mong muốn sử dụng vũ khí hủy diệt hàng loạt chống lại Hoa Kỳ, mà một quả bom bẩn là như vậy. Nhưng trong suy nghĩ của tôi, một quả bom bẩn, dù khủng khiếp như nó, và nó sẽ giết người và biến đất đai thành, biết đấy, không sử dụng được trong hàng ngàn năm, nó không phải là chiến tranh hạt nhân chiến lược. Nói cách khác, nó sẽ không khiến Hoa Kỳ phóng trước khi được cảnh báo. Trước tiên, nó không ngay lập tức có thể xác định nguồn gốc. Bạn không biết ai đã để nó ở trong xe tải và cho nổ. Và vì vậy đó là một tập hợp các điều khủng khiếp khác. Và tôi tin rằng một quốc gia như Iran, nếu họ có một quả bom hạt nhân, có đủ khả năng để làm điều gì đó như vậy vì hãy nhìn vào những chiến thuật khủng bố khác mà họ đã sử dụng trong suốt 50 năm qua.
    Tôi muốn hỏi xem có điều gì khác khiến hai bạn lo ngại không. Tôi đã đọc sáng nay rằng một chiếc máy bay không người lái tự động Shahid đã được phát hiện ở Ukraine. Đây là những chiếc máy bay không người lái mà chính phủ Iran sản xuất và cung cấp cho Nga, được sử dụng trong chiến trường Ukraine. Và những gì họ đã tìm thấy ở đó là một bộ xử lý NVIDIA. NVIDIA là một công ty công nghệ phương Tây. Họ nổi tiếng với sự phát triển AI tiên tiến của mình. Và về cơ bản rằng chiếc máy bay không người lái này, AI này có khả năng tự động, nghĩa là bạn có thể hoàn toàn nhiễu sóng, cắt đứt mọi giao tiếp GPS với vệ tinh.
    Và thứ này sẽ tự suy nghĩ, quyết định khi nào và ở đâu để đi và làm gì.
    Có phải đây là một mối lo lớn hơn – vì cái này đang ở đây với chúng ta.
    Nó đang được sử dụng tích cực trong chiến tranh.
    Có phải đây là một mối lo lớn hơn so với một tên lửa đạn đạo mang vũ khí hạt nhân hoặc một tên lửa tái xâm nhập nào đó, một thứ gì đó như thế này có thể mang theo một quả bom hạt nhân chiến thuật?
    Có phải đây là một mối lo lớn hơn?
    Ý bạn là một chiếc drone mang vũ khí hạt nhân?
    Một chiếc drone mang vũ khí hạt nhân hoặc một chiếc drone với – chính xác.
    Một chiếc drone tự động.
    Ừ, thật khủng khiếp.
    Điều này thật hấp dẫn.
    Ý tôi là, bây giờ – họ hiện có những chiếc drone đang tự suy nghĩ ở Ukraine vì họ dự đoán rằng họ không thể giao tiếp với bất kỳ thứ gì –
    Để gắn vũ khí hạt nhân lên một chiếc drone, bạn phải có vũ khí hạt nhân, điều này chỉ là cuộc thảo luận vòng vo về lý do tại sao –
    Mà Nga thì có.
    Đúng.
    Nhưng tôi không thấy người Nga sẽ gắn một vũ khí hạt nhân lên một chiếc drone.
    Không, nhưng nếu họ đặt một quả bom phóng xạ – nếu Iran đặt một quả bom phóng xạ, một quả bom bẩn –
    Người Iran, đó là một câu chuyện khác.
    Đúng, đúng.
    Đó là một nỗi lo lớn.
    Đây là một chiếc drone được sản xuất tại Iran sử dụng vi xử lý của Mỹ với công nghệ làm nhiễu GPS của Trung Quốc.
    Ý tôi là, đó – tôi ý là, điều đó thật hấp dẫn.
    Cái này là một máy tính bay tự động có thể tự suy nghĩ và quyết định trong khoảnh khắc, được, tôi sẽ làm điều này thay vì điều kia.
    Không còn sự phản hồi hay cơ chế kiểm soát của con người thực sự nào nữa.
    Tôi nghĩ có hai điều thật hấp dẫn về câu hỏi của bạn, đúng không?
    Điều đầu tiên là bạn vừa mô tả một chiếc drone là đứa con hoang của công nghệ Trung Quốc, Iran và Nga.
    Và công nghệ Mỹ.
    Và NVIDIA.
    Bị đánh cắp.
    Chắc chắn rồi.
    Công nghệ Mỹ bị đánh cắp.
    Nhưng ý tôi là khi chúng ta nghĩ về bức tranh tương lai, đó là một ví dụ hoàn hảo về sức mạnh đang lên ở phương Đông, sự hợp tác ở phương Đông không dựa trên ý thức hệ vì ba quốc gia này chẳng có điểm gì chung về mặt ý thức hệ.
    Nhưng họ có quá nhiều điểm chung về mặt thực tiễn với ý tưởng chống lại phương Tây.
    Vì vậy, đó là điều đầu tiên làm tôi thấy thú vị.
    Bây giờ, điều thứ hai, ý tưởng về một vũ khí điều khiển bằng AI.
    Tôi sẽ trở thành một người không được yêu thích, tôi hứa với bạn, bởi tất cả các tín đồ khoa học viễn tưởng ngoài kia, tôi nghĩ rằng vũ khí được trang bị AI là sự tiến hóa logic tiếp theo và là sự tiến hóa tốt cho chúng ta.
    Bởi vì tôi sẽ thích tin tưởng vào một AI đã được lập trình đúng cách với các quy tắc chiến tranh và quy tắc tham gia phù hợp.
    Tôi sẽ tin tưởng vào điều đó hơn một người 18 tuổi mang súng đã bị tẩy não bởi, như, những điều điên rồ của người Mỹ mà chúng ta làm để chuẩn bị cho mọi người đi chiến tranh.
    Tôi sẽ thích hơn nếu có một thiết bị AI mà không thể bị thay đổi ngoại trừ bởi quá trình logic của chính nó.
    Nếu AI trở nên nhận thức về bản thân và cố gắng bảo vệ chính nó.
    Đó là một điều rất lớn.
    Ừ, điều đó còn khá xa.
    Nhưng có rất nhiều điều kiện mà bây giờ đang từ từ, nhanh hơn tôi nhận ra, đang trở thành hiện thực.
    Nhưng đó là mối lo khác, đúng không?
    Một sự tự nhận thức.
    Một điểm kỳ dị, đúng không?
    Đúng.
    Một điểm kỳ dị mà trở nên cố chấp với sự tự bảo tồn của chính nó, đúng không?
    Một lần nữa, đó là hai điều kiện lớn, điểm kỳ dị và sau đó là sự bảo tồn, sự tự bảo tồn của nó.
    Nếu một chiếc drone điều khiển bằng AI có mục đích nhắm vào một kẻ thù cụ thể và nhận thấy rằng nó đang bị nhắm đến, nó sẽ cố gắng tránh bị bắn hoặc bị hạ gục, đúng không?
    Nó sẽ có biện pháp đối phó.
    Chính xác.
    Và nếu nó làm như vậy, nếu nó phải đưa ra sự lựa chọn, giả sử, cho nổ hoặc đi vào khu vực dân sự và mạo hiểm gây hại cho một dân số dân sự trái với mục tiêu nhiệm vụ của nó, nhưng làm như vậy sẽ bảo toàn khả năng của nó.
    Nó sẽ không làm điều đó?
    Đó là điều tôi đang băn khoăn.
    Nơi bạn nhận được sự tự nhận thức đó một lần nữa.
    Đó là điều gì, đúng không?
    Điều có khả năng xảy ra nhất là một AI, một thiết bị AI như những gì bạn đang mô tả sẽ được lập trình với một bộ nhiệm vụ.
    Nó sẽ bị tấn công.
    Nó sẽ sử dụng sự phán đoán tốt nhất của chính nó cho các biện pháp đối phó.
    Nếu các biện pháp đối phó đó không hiệu quả và nó bắt đầu bị hạ gục, ưu tiên tiếp theo của nó sẽ là xóa bỏ mọi thứ mà nó có trên tàu là tài sản trí tuệ.
    Hiểu rồi.
    Vì vậy đó là điều mà chúng ta hiện tại không có.
    Đó là lý do tại sao nó rất nguy hiểm khi một chiếc B2 bị bắn hạ ở nước ngoài.
    Đúng.
    Bởi vì bên trong có gì?
    Và cũng từ những gì tôi hiểu, những hệ thống đó, sẽ không còn là những chiếc drone săn mồi đơn lẻ, những chiếc drone taker đơn lẻ.
    Chúng là các đàn drone.
    Ừ.
    Và vì vậy chúng hoạt động, đó là một bộ điều khiển riêng kinh khủng.
    Đúng.
    Các đàn drone và các đàn drone kamikaze, không kém phần đó, nơi chúng được thiết kế để bị tiêu diệt, bạn biết đấy, để đánh vào mục tiêu và không trở lại.
    Ngày mà chúng ta thấy vũ khí điều khiển bằng AI, tôi nghĩ đó là ngày mà hầu hết các cựu chiến binh có thể đang mong chờ.
    Bởi vì nếu bạn đã thấy những kinh hoàng của chiến tranh, nếu bạn đã mất một người bạn, nếu bạn đã đeo một cái huy chương khốn nạn vì đã bắn người khác, thì đó là một điều khủng khiếp, khủng khiếp.
    Nhưng điều đó thay đổi như thế nào trong việc gia tăng xung đột?
    Bởi vì nó làm cho việc đi chiến tranh dễ dàng hơn nhiều, đúng không?
    Nó đúng.
    Nó tuyệt đối đúng.
    Và dễ tiêu hóa hơn.
    Và đó là, tôi nghĩ, một phần lý do tại sao chúng ta thấy sự thèm khát cho xung đột tiếp tục.
    Đúng.
    Tôi nghĩ chúng ta sẽ làm một điều bất công nếu không nói về sự tự mãn của thế giới khi chấp nhận sự tiến hóa nhanh chóng này của xung đột.
    Bạn có ý gì khi nói về sự tự mãn của thế giới?
    Chúng ta đều chỉ ngồi đây xem điều đó xảy ra.
    Hầu như, theo một cách nào đó bệnh hoạn, tôi nghĩ có những người đang xem tin tức với sự mong đợi cho xung đột tiếp theo.
    Nó gần như đã trở thành một cuộc đua NASCAR khổng lồ.
    Ai là người tiếp theo?
    Điều gì sẽ xảy ra tiếp theo?
    Hiệu ứng đua ngựa mà bạn đã nói.
    Chúng ta muốn biết số lượng thương vong.
    Chúng ta muốn biết ai đang thắng.
    Chúng ta muốn biết vũ khí mới nhất là gì.
    Nó gần như đã trở thành một trò chơi.
    Well, khi bạn nói về trò chơi chiến tranh mà bạn đã thiết kế, và bạn đã nói về hai con troll trong một quán bar, bạn biết đấy, đó giống như, đó là tên ban nhạc của tôi, bằng cách nào đó.
    Được rồi.
    Nhưng nó vừa mang nghĩa đen, vừa có nghĩa bóng, và có cả yếu tố kể chuyện, nên rất thú vị đối với tôi, và nó thật đáng sợ, vì thực sự nó nói lên điều bạn vừa nói, rằng số người thiệt mạng từ xa trên truyền hình không giống như nỗi kinh hoàng của người đang trải nghiệm điều đó.
    Quả thực.
    Có nơi nào trên bản đồ này, Annie, là an toàn trong một cuộc chiến không?
    Bởi vì, bạn biết đấy, tôi nghĩ rằng trong cách đối phó với nỗi lo âu này, trong nhóm trò chuyện của chúng tôi, tôi và các bạn của tôi, khi những điều này bắt đầu bùng phát mọi lúc, tôi nghĩ đây là một cơ chế đối phó.
    Chúng tôi, như là, chia sẻ rằng một số chúng tôi ở đây trên bản đồ, và một người trong số chúng tôi ở Australia.
    Nhưng người bạn khác của tôi, không may, thì đang ở, như là, Dubai.
    Và chúng tôi luôn nhìn vào bản đồ, và khi những quả bom nổ ra, liệu có nơi nào trên bản đồ này là an toàn trong trường hợp một cuộc chiến tranh hạt nhân không?
    Chỉ có một nơi nhỏ xíu, New Zealand, và một chút Australia, và điều đó liên quan đến việc, nếu bạn theo dõi ý tưởng về chiến tranh hạt nhân, rằng nông nghiệp sẽ thất bại khi chúng ta có một mùa đông hạt nhân, và mặt trời bị che khuất, và không còn gì nữa.
    Bạn biết đấy, có những vùng rộng lớn ở giữa vĩ độ bị đóng băng bởi những tảng băng, và khi bạn có hàng tỷ người chết, đó là vì nông nghiệp thất bại.
    Và những người nghiên cứu điều này, những tác giả của cuốn “Mùa đông hạt nhân”, cho rằng có một số khu vực ở Australia và New Zealand sẽ vẫn có thể tồn tại.
    Nhưng bạn đang nói về loại người săn bắn hái lượm.
    Giữa những cuộc trò chuyện kỳ quặc mà tôi đã có kể từ khi kịch bản về chiến tranh hạt nhân được công bố chính là với một số tỷ phú có thực sự có hầm trú ẩn ở New Zealand.
    Không.
    Ôi, vâng.
    Họ sẽ không được nêu tên, nhưng họ rất –
    Hãy gọi tên họ.
    Tôi sẽ không gọi tên họ.
    Tôi sẽ không công khai nguồn của mình.
    Nhưng điều thú vị với tôi là, phản ứng của những cá nhân này sau khi đọc cuốn sách của tôi và nhận ra thế giới có thể kết thúc trong 72 phút không phải là, cùng nhau làm mọi cách để chắc chắn rằng chiến tranh hạt nhân không xảy ra.
    Hoặc có thể là như vậy, và tôi chỉ không nghe phần đó của cuộc trò chuyện, mà nó chủ yếu xoay quanh việc tôi có thể nhanh chóng sắp xếp G5 của mình để tôi có thể đến New Zealand.
    Bởi vì một chiếc G5 – một máy bay riêng có thể đưa bạn từ Los Angeles đến New Zealand mà không cần tiếp nhiên liệu.
    Và vì vậy tôi nghĩ điều tôi đang nói ở mức độ kể chuyện, và nó nói lên việc xem TV hoặc những con troll trong quán bar như thế nào – và đây là tôi, một người làm cha nói.
    Giống như tôi thật sự tin vào ngoại giao.
    Tôi thật sự tin vào giao tiếp.
    Tôi thường bị cáo buộc là có vẻ như Pollyanna ở đây, nhưng tôi sẽ trích dẫn – tôi đã nói về tuyên bố chung của Reagan-Gorbachev, rằng chiến tranh hạt nhân không thể thắng và không bao giờ nên được đấu tranh.
    Nhưng điều đã làm nảy sinh điều đó là hai cá nhân này, Reagan và Gorbachev, bạn biết đấy, kẻ thù không đội trời chung, Hoa Kỳ và Liên Xô.
    Điều này xảy ra vào năm 1983.
    Ronald Reagan đã xem bộ phim “The Day After”, một câu chuyện lớn, một bộ phim của ABC về một cuộc chiến tranh hạt nhân.
    Và nó đã khiến ông ấy rất bực mình – ông – Reagan là một người ủng hộ hạt nhân – nó đã khiến ông ấy rất bực mình đến mức ông đã liên lạc với kẻ thù không đội trời chung, Liên Xô, Gorbachev, và nói rằng chúng ta cần phải đối thoại và giảm kho vũ khí của chúng ta.
    Chúng ta sẽ không sống mãi mãi, và khi chúng ta nghĩ về tất cả những mối đe dọa tồn tại trước mắt, một số người nói mặt trời sẽ phát nổ hoặc một AI nào đó sẽ mất kiểm soát trong kịch bản kiểm soát sâu bệnh mà nó chỉ tiêu diệt chúng ta hoặc bất cứ điều gì.
    Nhưng theo tôi, mối đe dọa tồn tại lớn nhất chúng ta có là chính chúng ta trong vấn đề này, và những vũ khí có thể xóa sổ hành tinh này trong vài phút rõ ràng là mối đe dọa tồn tại lớn nhất.
    Và dường như không có cách nào quay lại từ điều đó.
    Điều này là cơ hội tuyệt vời để nhận ra, bạn biết đấy, con đường của nhiều cuộc chiến không phải là cách duy nhất.
    Tôi có một cái nhìn kỳ lạ hơn lạc quan và bi quan ở đây.
    Vì vậy, khi tôi nhìn vào bản đồ này, tôi nghĩ có rất nhiều nơi an toàn trong trường hợp xung đột hạt nhân, đặc biệt nếu bạn xem xét xung đột hạt nhân truyền thống, sẽ đến từ chín quốc gia có khả năng hạt nhân.
    Bạn sẽ thấy bất kỳ sự trao đổi nào của đầu đạn chiến lược hoặc chiến thuật xảy ra, bạn sẽ thấy gió thương mại cuốn đi bất kỳ mảnh vụn nào đến từ các vụ nổ trên bề mặt vì những vụ nổ trên mặt đất và trên không sẽ không tạo ra cùng một lượng fallout.
    Nhưng phần lớn, bạn sẽ thấy hai trung tâm của bản đồ bắn vào nhau.
    Nam Mỹ sẽ được miễn.
    Châu Phi sẽ được miễn.
    Châu Âu sẽ phải chịu đựng những cơn gió xấu tùy thuộc vào gió thương mại trông như thế nào.
    Giống như Đông Nam Á và Australia, phần lớn, đây sẽ là những nơi được miễn tùy thuộc vào những gì Pakistan và Ấn Độ làm, đúng không?
    Nhưng mối quan tâm của tôi không phải là yếu tố hạt nhân.
    Đó là yếu tố con người sau đó.
    Khi Nga hoặc Trung Quốc và Hoa Kỳ và Israel và Iran, khi tất cả những quốc gia này bị tiêu diệt bởi chính xung đột của họ,
    và bất kỳ chính phủ lẻ tẻ nào đang cố gắng tự phục hồi, bạn đã mất tất cả GDP đó.
    Bạn đã mất tất cả cơ sở hạ tầng đó.
    Bạn đã mất tất cả trật tự thế giới đó.
    Vì vậy giờ đây mọi người sẽ chỉ trở nên tồi tệ hơn.
    Các lãnh chúa ở Châu Phi chỉ sẽ trở nên tồi tệ hơn.
    Các lãnh chúa ở Châu Mỹ Latinh cũng sẽ trở nên tồi tệ hơn.
    Ý tôi là, điều này sẽ trở lại thời đại của các lãnh chúa.
    Tôi không biết liệu điều đó có phải là một quan điểm bi quan hay không, có lẽ là một quan điểm ngây thơ, vì khi một trong những thành phần mà bạn đã bỏ qua là những ngọn lửa sẽ cháy sau các vụ nổ hạt nhân.
    Và những ngọn lửa cháy cháy là điều tạo ra bồ hóng, và đó là điều gây ra mùa đông hạt nhân.
    Và nếu bạn nhìn vào mô hình khí hậu, thì ngay cả một cuộc chiến tranh hạt nhân nhỏ, trong ngoặc kép, giữa Ấn Độ và Pakistan cũng đủ gây ra một mùa đông hạt nhân mini. Vì vậy sẽ không có các lãnh chúa chiến tranh châu Phi vì họ cũng sẽ chết đói. Trong hiểu biết của tôi, sẽ không có việc tái thiết lập nào cho bất kỳ chính phủ nào trong số này, khi tôi phỏng vấn các chuyên gia về chiến tranh hạt nhân, nhìn vào các mô hình khí hậu hiện nay cho chúng ta biết điều này, rất thực tế, rằng nhân loại sẽ chết. Và vì vậy, tôi không nghĩ rằng đó là một cuộc tái thiết lập chút nào, trừ khi tái thiết lập giống như là chúng ta quay trở lại trạng thái săn bắn-hái lượm của chúng ta từ 12.000 năm trước và cố gắng tìm cách tiến hóa trở lại. Ý tôi là, tôi không nghĩ rằng tất cả mọi người sẽ bị mất đi. Sẽ có những con người sống sót qua giai đoạn đó. Và nếu có mô hình hóa, thì mô hình đó dựa trên số trung bình. Tôi rất muốn thấy cách mà một mùa đông hạt nhân lan rộng trên toàn cầu. Nhưng ý tưởng rằng nhân loại sẽ kết thúc, có nghĩa là con người cuối cùng sẽ bị mất đi, xác suất của điều đó dường như không thực tế. Không, tôi không nghĩ đó là một sự kiện dẫn đến tuyệt chủng. Tôi nghĩ đó là một sự kiện gần như dẫn đến tuyệt chủng. Ý tôi là, đó là một ý tưởng lần đầu tiên được Carl Sagan đề xuất dựa trên các mô hình khí hậu có sẵn trong những năm 80, mà khá – bạn biết rằng máy tính lúc đó như thế nào. Nhưng bây giờ bạn đang nhìn vào các mô hình. Và một lần nữa, điều này chỉ dựa trên, giống như, khói bám vào khí quyển. Có thể bạn, với việc đào tạo của mình, sẽ là một trong những người sống sót, nhưng những người còn lại của chúng tôi – Tôi sẽ nói cho bạn chính xác những gì tôi đã được đào tạo – Khi tôi sống dưới lòng đất trong một hầm chứa, chúng tôi biết rằng nếu một vũ khí hạt nhân phát nổ trên đầu bạn, hãy tự kết liễu cuộc đời khi bạn còn có thể. Bởi vì cố gắng sống sót sau những gì còn lại sẽ tệ hơn nhiều. Chết khi các cơ quan của bạn tan chảy thì tồi tệ hơn nhiều so với việc bắn vào đầu mình ngày hôm nay. Và điều đó có thể nghe thật tồi tệ, nhưng những gì chúng ta đang nói đến là những thời điểm tồi tệ. Những gì chúng ta đang nói đến là những thời điểm tồi tệ. Và không ai muốn cố gắng – không giống như phim ảnh và các chương trình truyền hình. Không ai muốn cố gắng sống sót qua điều đó. Bạn hoặc sẽ được tha vì bạn may mắn đang đi nghỉ ở Patagonia khi điều đó xảy ra, và sau đó bạn chỉ cần tìm cách sống bằng những loại cỏ dại và cừu, hoặc bạn đang ở đâu đó mà bạn không thể tránh khỏi điều đó. Chúng tôi thường đùa một cách u tối. Nếu bạn thấy một đám mây nấm, hãy chạy về phía nó vì bạn sẽ thích nắng nóng hơn là tỷ lệ sống sót sau đó. Những gì tôi lấy ra từ những gì bạn nói là Trung Địa và Cửa. Thấy không, đó là lý do tôi nói đến New Zealand. Vâng, tôi đã nghĩ – Tôi đã nghĩ đến Benjamin. Trung Địa và Cửa. Câu chuyện. Đó là câu chuyện của bạn. Tôi nghĩ rằng – nên hiểu là thực sự có ba vùng an toàn. Bạn đúng. Có Hawaii. Không. Tôi nghĩ đó là Hawaii. Hãy sửa tôi nếu sai, nhưng tôi nghĩ đó là Hawaii, Greenland và New Zealand. Bởi vì có quá nhiều mục tiêu ở Hawaii, Hải đội Thái Bình Dương. Nó sẽ là – Một mục tiêu. Một mục tiêu của vụ va chạm hạt nhân. Và cùng điều đó với toàn bộ châu Âu. Vâng. Bởi vì tôi không – và, bạn biết đấy, khi tôi nói về một cuộc trao đổi hạt nhân quy mô lớn, tôi, chắc chắn trong cuốn sách của mình, đang nói về – hàng ngàn đầu đạn. Bạn đang nói về việc Nga và Hoa Kỳ tham gia vào một cuộc trao đổi hạt nhân quy mô lớn. Thế sự kiện đó diễn ra như thế nào? Bởi vì bạn nghĩ rằng chỉ cần phóng một đầu đạn hạt nhân cũng sẽ có tác động khá lớn. Đầu đạn hạt nhân lớn nhất của chúng ta có kích thước và tác động như thế nào? Tôi đang nghĩ về bộ phim War Game, nhớ không, vào những năm 80, có một hình ảnh hình dung về điều đó. Và vào thời điểm đó, chúng ta có 70.000 đầu đạn hạt nhân. Bây giờ, chúng ta có khoảng 12.300 đầu đạn giữa các quốc gia có vũ khí hạt nhân. Khoảng 10.000 trong số đó ở Mỹ và Nga. Vì vậy, mỗi nước có 5.000. Tại sao bạn cần nhiều như vậy? Đó là điểm của tôi. Đó – đó là điểm. Đó là điều mà Reagan và Gorbachev bắt đầu. Và chính nhờ công việc ban đầu của họ mà thế giới đã chuyển mình theo hướng giảm vũ khí, điều mà tôi tin là hướng đi duy nhất hy vọng mà chúng ta phải di chuyển. Khi nói đến chiến lược hạt nhân, cảm giác đứng sau vũ khí là đầu đạn trung bình, tôi tin, hiện tại khoảng 300 kiloton. Một tên lửa ICBM hiện đại có thể mang khoảng 10 đầu đạn, đôi khi từ 3 đến 10. Nhưng họ cố gắng tối thiểu hóa số lượng tên lửa bằng cách tối đa hóa số lượng đầu đạn. Vì vậy, vụ nổ từ một vụ nổ 300 kiloton là một số không gian nhất định. Tôi nghĩ nó khoảng 50 dặm hoặc 110 dặm bán kính nổ và khoảng 15 đến 30 dặm quả cầu lửa. Vì vậy, khi bạn nhắm mục tiêu vào MIRV trên điểm đến của bạn – MIRV. Phương tiện tái nhập độc lập nhiều lần, viên đạn nhỏ trên bầu trời. Khi bạn nhắm mục tiêu vào nó, khi bạn lập trình nó để giải phóng, bạn không cố gắng đánh vào cùng một chỗ với 10 đầu đạn. Bạn đang cố gắng phân bố đầu đạn của mình để bán kính vụ nổ xóa sổ mọi thứ trong dấu chân. Vì vậy, bạn cần 12.000, 10.000, 5.000 tên lửa mỗi nước. Bạn cần 5.000 đầu đạn để mỗi đầu đạn có thể bao phủ, khoảng, 300 dặm vuông và bạn có thể phủ nó trên nhiều mục tiêu chiến lược và hoàn toàn tẩy chay khả năng đối phương đáp trả. Và Nga khá hoang mang về chương trình hạt nhân ở Mỹ. Họ đã tạo ra hệ thống tay chết. Hệ thống tay chết là gì? Hệ thống tay chết chính xác như tên gọi của nó. Nó xuất phát từ Chiến tranh Lạnh và đó là ý tưởng này. Ban lãnh đạo Politburo hoang tưởng nghĩ rằng, điều gì sẽ xảy ra nếu những người Mỹ đó thực hiện một cuộc tấn công hạt nhân phủ đầu và giết chết tất cả chúng ta trước khi chúng ta có cơ hội phóng tên lửa? Chúng tôi muốn chắc chắn rằng chúng tôi có thể làm cho thế giới kết thúc và giết chết tất cả bọn họ. Đó là ý tưởng đằng sau nó. Vì vậy, họ đã nghĩ ra hệ thống này, mà bây giờ được gọi là tay chết vì bạn có thể thực sự đã chết và nó vẫn phóng đi.
    Và điều đó diễn ra như thế này: có các cảm biến mặt đất trải dài khắp nước Nga có thể phát hiện bom nổ. Đây có thể gọi là một dạng trí tuệ nhân tạo sơ khai, nếu bạn muốn. Máy tính sẽ biết điều đó và sẽ tự động phóng tất cả vũ khí hạt nhân của Nga, tất cả chúng, vào Hoa Kỳ, ngay cả khi tất cả mọi người đều đã chết. Theo thời gian, xác suất gia tăng, xác suất xảy ra điều gì đó. Và thật buồn cười, tôi thấy có vài người nổi tiếng hiện nay đã trải qua sự suy giảm tâm thần, nhận thức. Họ đã trải qua bệnh tâm thần phân liệt và lưỡng cực và những thứ như vậy. Tôi chỉ tự hỏi nếu một trong những cá nhân này, những người đang nắm giữ vũ khí hạt nhân, chín người có mặt trên thế giới, nếu họ gặp vấn đề về nhận thức nào đó, liệu họ có thể, trong cơn hoang tưởng hay bất kỳ điều gì đó, mà không ai có thể ngăn cản, ra lệnh cho quân đội của họ phóng vũ khí hạt nhân và quân đội sẽ tuân theo lệnh đó không? Chẳng phải bạn cần hai người để xoay chìa khóa sao? Họ đang tuân theo lệnh. Họ đang tuân theo lệnh. Tôi nghĩ câu hỏi của bạn, câu trả lời có thể là có. Tôi nghĩ câu trả lời thực sự là có. Và điều thú vị là, có những kho vũ khí hạt nhân của một số quốc gia mà chúng ta không biết đến. Bây giờ, tôi tình cờ nhận được thông tin về những hệ thống vũ khí hạt nhân hiện tại nhất từ Liên đoàn Các nhà Khoa học Mỹ, một nhóm người do một người tên là Hans Christensen lãnh đạo, dẫn dắt một nhóm gọi là “Sổ tay Hạt nhân”. Họ thu thập thông tin mới nhất mà bất kỳ ai có thể biết và chuẩn bị cho phần còn lại của chúng ta để đọc. Và điều đó thay đổi hàng năm. Họ làm một công việc tuyệt vời. Nhưng, ví dụ, họ sẽ nói với bạn rằng chúng ta không thực sự biết nhiều về lệnh chỉ huy và kiểm soát hạt nhân của Pakistan. Chúng ta đơn giản không biết. Chúng ta không biết nhiều về lệnh chỉ huy và kiểm soát hạt nhân của Ấn Độ. Lệnh chỉ huy và kiểm soát của Nga, khi tôi ở trong silo, vẫn còn phân quyền, điều này đã trao cho các chỉ huy tại các silo quyền quyết định phóng gần như tự động. Điều đó có nghĩa là gì? Vì vậy, tại Hoa Kỳ, cần một lệnh đã được xác thực để làm sạch một hệ thống máy tính trước khi các sĩ quan điều khiển có thể phóng hệ thống. Vì vậy, tổng thống phải nói phóng, và sau đó… và sau đó ông đưa ra một mã xác thực thực tế mà được mang theo trong sổ tay hạt nhân. Và sau đó bất kỳ hệ thống nào xác thực mã đó giờ đây sẽ được trang bị để phóng. Không ai có thể chỉ phóng. Vì vậy, tổng thống có điều gọi là quyền hạn độc quyền. Ông không hỏi ý kiến ai cả. Không phải Bộ trưởng Quốc phòng của ông, không phải chủ tịch của Hội đồng Tham mưu trưởng Liên quân. Đó chỉ là quyền của ông. Ông có thể hỏi ý kiến họ, nhưng đó là quyết định của ông. Ông đọc trong cuốn sổ đen bên trong chiếc túi “bóng đá”. Túi “bóng đá” là gì? Túi “bóng đá” là chiếc cặp đi cùng tổng thống 24/7, 365 ngày, cũng như phó tổng thống. Bên trong đó là một cuốn sổ đen. Đó là tên gọi của nó. Nó được gọi là cuốn sổ đen, tôi đã được cho biết, vì nó liên quan đến nhiều cái chết. Và bên trong đó có những cuộc tấn công đã được xác định trước cho tất cả các kẻ thù hoặc đối thủ của chúng ta có thể từng tấn công chúng ta. Vì vậy, không phải là ra quyết định. Họ không ngồi quanh đây, được rồi, chuyện gì đã xảy ra. Bạn nghĩ chúng ta nên làm gì? Mà là bạn muốn chọn A, B hay C? Và bạn muốn đi với tiểu nhóm D, E, F hay Q? Một người đã từng mô tả rằng một người cầm chiếc túi bóng đá đó giống như một thực đơn của Denny’s. Mỗi mục trong danh sách đó, tôi sẽ cung cấp nó cho bạn một cách chi tiết đau đớn. Mỗi mục trong danh sách đó được theo sau bởi một mã xác thực. Và mã xác thực đó sau đó được đưa vào túi “bóng đá”. Mã xác thực đó sau đó được gửi đến mọi địa điểm có khả năng hạt nhân trên toàn nước Mỹ và bất kỳ địa điểm nào có khả năng hạt nhân ở châu Âu. Mã xác thực sẽ chỉ hoạt động để xác thực với các tên lửa có mục tiêu đã được xác định trước trong cuốn sổ đen. Bây giờ, thông điệp hành động khẩn cấp, EAM, mà được nhận bởi ê-kíp tên lửa, họ không thể xác định ý nghĩa của nó. Họ chỉ nhận được một thông điệp, một thông điệp được mã hóa. Sau đó họ xoay nó, và sau đó họ kiểm tra mã xác thực với một ngân hàng mã xác thực mà họ được cung cấp mỗi sáng, một ngân hàng hoàn toàn mới mà thay đổi hàng ngày. Nếu hai mã khớp, chỉ có hệ thống biết rõ. Ê-kíp không biết. Và sau đó ê-kíp sẽ theo các bước hành động của một thông điệp đã được xác thực. Và một phần của các bước hành động đó thực sự bao gồm việc mở khóa một chiếc két, lấy ra một mảnh giấy được bọc nhựa mà bạn mở ra. Và từ trong mảnh nhựa đó, bạn bẻ ra một mã khác. Và mã đó là một mã trang bị cụ thể sẽ trang bị cho hệ thống vũ khí mà bạn đang ở đó. Và sau đó bạn làm theo toàn bộ quy trình kiểm tra. Đó là một danh sách kiểm tra khổng lồ cho đến khi bạn nhận được mục trong danh sách kiểm tra yêu cầu bạn chèn chìa khóa của mình và mục trong danh sách kiểm tra nơi bạn có người chỉ huy của capsule đếm đến ba. Và sau đó bạn cả hai cùng xoay chìa khóa. Đó là – bạn chỉ đang tuân theo lệnh suốt thời gian đó. Bạn đã bao giờ xoay chìa khóa chưa? Chúng tôi có lẽ xoay chìa khóa khoảng năm đến bảy lần mỗi tuần vì EAM luôn được gửi đến, và chúng tôi không bao giờ biết chúng nói gì. EAM. Thông điệp hành động khẩn cấp. Vì vậy bạn – họ đã thiết lập hệ thống đó để bạn không biết bạn đang làm gì. Chính xác. Bạn chỉ đang tuân theo lệnh mỗi ngày. Không thể có ai – nó giống như một trung đội xử án, nơi mọi người đều bắn, nhưng bạn không biết ai bắn viên đạn gây chết người. Đúng. Và nhân tiện, mọi thứ mà ông vừa mô tả có thể xảy ra, không phải lúc nào cũng vậy, nhưng trong thời gian chỉ 60 giây. Vâng, chúng tôi phải chịu thời gian. Câu đùa tồi tệ là họ không gọi những người lính Minutemen, đó là các tên lửa đạn đạo liên lục địa (ICBM), là không có lý do. Dựa trên những gì bạn biết, bạn có nghĩ rằng nếu Nga phóng một vũ khí hạt nhân ngay bây giờ, bạn có nghĩ rằng Hoa Kỳ sẽ phản ứng không? Không có câu hỏi nào cả. Nhưng bạn có nghĩ họ sẽ biết không? Bạn không nghĩ rằng người – tổng thống, chẳng hạn, sẽ nghĩ – Không có câu hỏi nào cả. Không có câu hỏi nào cả. Thực sự không? Không có câu hỏi nào cả.
    Bạn không nghĩ rằng họ sẽ nghĩ đó là một điều gì khác sao?
    Ý tôi là, trong lịch sử đã có những thời điểm mà họ nghi ngờ rằng đó có thể là điều gì khác.
    Có thể chúng tôi đã mắc phải một sai lầm.
    Họ do dự.
    Tôi nghĩ rằng câu hỏi của bạn là hợp lý vì nó không thực sự diễn ra ngay lập tức.
    Có những hệ thống ngăn chặn.
    Có các biện pháp đối phó.
    Có các nguồn tình báo thứ hai và thứ ba có thể được kiểm tra trong chỉ vài giây, đúng không?
    Một vệ tinh xác nhận với một vệ tinh khác, kiểu như vậy.
    Nhưng tổng cộng, bạn có thể có khoảng bảy phút để quyết định xem có phản công hay không.
    Bảy phút.
    Bởi vì đó là khoảng thời gian giữa việc bạn phát hiện ra chữ ký vệ tinh đầu tiên của một tên lửa đạn đạo liên lục địa (ICBM) được phóng hoặc một vũ khí ngầm được phóng, tùy thuộc vào việc nó đang đi vào bầu khí quyển hay nếu đó là một tên lửa hành trình đang hướng thẳng về bờ biển của bạn, như tối đa, bạn có lẽ chỉ có khoảng bảy phút trước khi một mã phản công, một lệnh phản công phải diễn ra.
    Bởi vì bom hạt nhân sẽ di chuyển từ châu lục này sang châu lục khác trong khoảng 30 phút.
    Thực ra, nếu bạn tính toán như tôi, thời gian là 33 phút từ Bình Nhưỡng đến Washington, D.C.
    Và 26 phút 40 giây từ Nga đến Washington, D.C.
    Bạn biết đấy, tất cả chúng ta đều biết ít nhiều về lý tưởng của Donald Trump vì ông ấy rất công khai.
    Bạn thực sự nghĩ rằng ông ấy sẽ ngồi đó và nói – thấy điều gì đó đến, nhận thông tin tình báo vào, và ông ấy sẽ lắng nghe tình báo?
    Chúng ta vừa nói trước đó rằng ông ấy không nghe tình báo.
    Ông ấy có thể không làm vậy.
    Ý tôi là, đó là quyền của tổng thống.
    Và sau đó, ý đáng sợ khác trong chuyện này – và, Annie, bạn có thể sửa tôi nếu có điều gì trong này không đúng – ngay cả khi chúng tôi không phản ứng ngay lập tức và mọi thứ đều bị tiêu diệt,
    chúng tôi vẫn có những tài sản trên không sẽ phóng tất cả các hệ thống của chúng tôi sau khi Hoa Kỳ bị tiêu diệt hoàn toàn.
    Được rồi. Vậy nên ngay cả khi chúng tôi sai, các tàu ngầm và các tài sản trên không sẽ vẫn hoạt động.
    Đó là lý do tại sao chúng tôi có một tam giác hạt nhân.
    Một lần nữa, điều này luôn quay trở lại phần răn đe, đó là lý do tại sao chúng tôi phải có tất cả lực lượng này, chỉ trong trường hợp,
    bởi vì tất cả những trò chơi chiến tranh này đã được thực hành và diễn tập rất nhiều lần.
    Tất cả điều này –
    Nhưng tôi sẽ nói với bạn một chi tiết đáng sợ.
    Tôi đã phỏng vấn tư lệnh lực lượng hạt nhân, Đô đốc Connor, cho cuốn sách của tôi.
    Không phải là người thường nói chuyện với các nhà báo.
    Khi cuốn sách được phát hành, ông ấy đã gọi cho tôi và yêu cầu tôi cùng ăn trưa.
    Đó không phải là điều thường xảy ra với một nhà báo.
    Tôi đã nghĩ, không biết mình có gặp rắc rối không?
    Được rồi.
    Tôi đã gặp Đô đốc Connor và ông ấy nói với tôi, bạn chưa bao giờ hỏi tôi về thời gian tôi ở trong hầm hạt nhân dưới Lầu Năm Góc.
    Và tôi đã nói, thì tôi biết điều đó từ đâu?
    Và ông ấy nói – ông ấy tò mò rằng tôi đã báo cáo rằng công chúng không biết Lầu Năm Góc thực hành chiến tranh hạt nhân thường xuyên đến mức nào.
    Chúng tôi không biết.
    Andrew có thể biết.
    Chúng tôi không biết.
    Nó đã được phân loại.
    Và điều mà Đô đốc Connor nói với tôi là, bạn chưa bao giờ hỏi tôi tôi đã làm gì trong hầm hạt nhân dưới Lầu Năm Góc.
    Và bạn chưa bao giờ hỏi tôi chúng tôi thực hành bao lâu để chuẩn bị thông báo cho tổng thống rằng ông ấy cần phải phóng theo câu hỏi của bạn.
    Ý tôi là, tôi đang ở trên ghế nay.
    Và tôi đã nói – ông ấy nói, đoán xem.
    Và bạn biết đấy, tôi bắt đầu với một lần mỗi năm, đúng không?
    Bởi vì bạn nghĩ sao?
    Ý tôi là, điều đó thật đáng sợ.
    Và bạn biết câu trả lời là gì không?
    Ba lần một ngày.
    Họ thực hành ba lần một ngày để nói cho tổng thống rằng có một vụ nổ hạt nhân đang đến bờ biển.
    Ba lần một ngày.
    Và tôi đã hỏi, Đô đốc Connor, tại sao họ thực hành ba lần một ngày?
    Và ông ấy nói, có ba ca làm việc tại Lầu Năm Góc trong hầm.
    Và tôi nghĩ rằng điểm đáng sợ chúng tôi đang nhấn mạnh là câu hỏi của bạn, đó là một câu hỏi bình thường.
    Kiểu như, khoan đã.
    Có người thực sự sẽ không làm như vậy.
    Ý tôi là, bạn sẽ dừng lại và nghĩ, điều này không thể đúng được.
    Bạn biết đấy, tất cả những điều đó.
    Đó là phim ảnh.
    Đó không phải là Bộ Quốc phòng.
    Đó không phải là hệ thống chỉ huy và kiểm soát hạt nhân.
    Hệ thống chỉ huy và kiểm soát hạt nhân được diễn tập chính xác để triển khai vào phút thứ bảy.
    Và điều đó thật đáng sợ.
    Tôi cũng nghĩ đó là lý do tại sao chúng ta không tiến gần hơn đến chiến tranh hạt nhân chiến lược.
    Bởi vì bạn có khả năng.
    Các quốc gia có khả năng và sẵn sàng hạt nhân đã làm điều này ba lần một ngày.
    Và họ đều biết, chúng ta đang chiến đấu vì điều gì?
    Nếu chúng ta làm điều này, tất cả sẽ là vì cái gì?
    Kiểu như, chúng ta sẽ không thắng được vào ngày mai.
    Sẽ không ai đứng trên bệ cao nói, chúng ta đã thắng.
    Mọi thứ sẽ bị phá hủy.
    Vậy nên chuyện hợp lý hơn là họ giữ vũ khí của mình và tiếp tục sử dụng nó như một biện pháp răn đe, không chỉ là răn đe cho xung đột hạt nhân, mà là một biện pháp răn đe như Nga đang sử dụng hiện nay.
    Không ai sẽ can thiệp vào Ukraine.
    Và không ai sẽ ủng hộ Ukraine vi phạm vào Nga thêm nữa vì mọi người đều sợ điều gì sẽ xảy ra.
    Đó là một con át chủ bài lớn.
    Mỗi người trong số các bạn đang xem điều này ngay bây giờ đều có điều gì đó để cung cấp, dù là kiến thức, kỹ năng hay kinh nghiệm.
    Và điều đó có nghĩa là bạn có giá trị.
    Standstore, nền tảng mà tôi cùng sở hữu, là một trong những nhà tài trợ cho podcast này, biến kiến thức của bạn thành một doanh nghiệp chỉ với một cú nhấp chuột.
    Bạn có thể bán các sản phẩm kỹ thuật số, coaching, cộng đồng, và bạn cũng không cần kinh nghiệm lập trình nào cả.
    Chỉ cần có tham vọng để bắt đầu.
    Đây là một doanh nghiệp mà tôi thực sự tin tưởng.
    Và đã có 300 triệu đô la được kiếm bởi các nhà sáng tạo, các huấn luyện viên và các doanh nhân, những người giống như bạn có tiềm năng để hoạt động trên Standstore.
    Đây là những người không chờ đợi, đã nghe tôi nói những điều như thế này, và thay vì trì hoãn, đã bắt đầu xây dựng, sau đó khởi động cái gì đó, và bây giờ họ đang được trả tiền để làm điều đó.
    Stand cực kỳ đơn giản và dễ dàng, và bạn có thể liên kết với một cửa hàng Shopify mà bạn đã sử dụng nếu bạn muốn.
    Tôi đang sử dụng nó, và bạn gái của tôi cũng vậy và nhiều thành viên trong đội của tôi.
    Vì vậy, nếu bạn muốn tham gia, hãy bắt đầu bằng cách khởi động doanh nghiệp của riêng bạn với bản dùng thử miễn phí 30 ngày.
    Hãy truy cập stephenbartlett.stand.
    Here is the translated text in Vietnamese:
    cửa hàng và thiết lập tài khoản của bạn trong vài phút.
    Bạn đang làm gì với tất cả thông tin này và cảm xúc của bạn về các cuộc xung đột toàn cầu hiện tại ở mức cá nhân?
    Có điều gì đó bạn đang làm để chuẩn bị hoặc để cố gắng ngăn chặn điều đó ở mức cá nhân không, Benjamin?
    Ngoài việc giảng dạy, ý tôi là, khi tôi tham gia các chương trình truyền thông, tôi chỉ cố gắng nói về vấn đề này nhiều nhất có thể, và tôi thiết kế chương trình giảng dạy về khả năng phân tích truyền thông.
    Tôi nghĩ việc dạy học, tôi dạy cho học sinh trung học, học sinh trung cấp cách tiêu thụ phương tiện truyền thông, và ít nhất, nếu bạn không thể học về nó, hãy có khả năng phân biệt thông tin và thông tin sai lệch và chỉ cần, và bất kỳ ai mà tôi có thể liên hệ.
    Và đây là cách để bạn hiểu.
    Và điều đó liên quan đến việc hiểu cách sử dụng tu từ, cách sử dụng thuyết phục chính trị hoặc tuyên truyền, và chỉ để chúng ta có thể cố gắng được thông tin tốt hơn.
    Và có một mối quan tâm nào đó mà bạn có về thế giới mà chúng ta đang hướng tới, về những công nghệ mới và AI và tất cả những điều đó đứng trên tất cả mọi lo ngại khác không?
    Đó là sự suy yếu về khả năng công dân, rằng chúng ta không hiểu cách thức hoạt động của chính phủ.
    Chúng ta không hiểu chính quyền của chúng ta hoạt động trên cấp độ địa phương, trong một phạm vi rộng hơn, và chúng ta mất đi mối liên kết công dân với những người hàng xóm gần gũi của mình.
    Chúng ta không quan tâm.
    Chúng ta không đầu tư vào họ.
    Phúc lợi của họ không phải là phúc lợi của chúng ta.
    Và vậy thì mọi người chỉ chiến đấu cho bản thân mình, và tôi sẽ bỏ phiếu cho người nào la hét to nhất.
    Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng sự suy yếu về công dân tạo điều kiện cho sự phân cực đó.
    Đó là điều tôi lo ngại.
    Câu hỏi tương tự dành cho bạn, Annie.
    Có điều gì đó bạn đang làm để chuẩn bị, và mối quan tâm chính của bạn trên tất cả các mối quan tâm khác là gì?
    Tôi sẽ nói rằng, với một điểm nhìn hy vọng và lạc quan, một trong những khoảnh khắc thú vị nhất đối với tôi trong năm qua là được mời đến Vatican để nói chuyện với các hồng y về chiến tranh hạt nhân, một kịch bản.
    Để họ có thể nói với Đức Giáo Hoàng, và đây là Đức Giáo Hoàng Francis khi còn sống, về nỗ lực của ông ấy, và thông tin tốt hơn cho ông ấy về nỗ lực vì hòa bình.
    Vậy thì đó có phải là một nghịch lý không?
    Nói về chiến tranh hạt nhân để nghĩ về hòa bình.
    Và những gì tôi học được trong quá trình đó là nhiều hy vọng nằm ở việc thu hút những cá nhân như Đức Giáo Hoàng, như Liên hợp quốc, những bên thứ ba không thuộc chính phủ cụ thể,
    để giúp các nhà ngoại giao của các quốc gia khác nhau có những cuộc trò chuyện tốt hơn.
    Và vì vậy bạn có những nhà lãnh đạo thế giới, và, theo nghĩa nào đó, tôi thích điểm của bạn về công dân, như chỉ đơn giản là ý tưởng về người hàng xóm của bạn.
    Tôi đã nhận được cảm giác từ Vatican, và tôi không phải là một người Công giáo, nhưng tôi đã có cảm giác về người hàng xóm như một khái niệm, bạn biết đấy, về con người.
    Và, bạn biết đấy, vâng, chúng ta muốn có một quốc phòng thật mạnh ở Hoa Kỳ, và tôi nghĩ đó là một phần quan trọng của an ninh quốc gia, nếu không muốn nói là phần quan trọng nhất của an ninh quốc gia.
    Nhưng bạn cũng phải quan tâm đến người hàng xóm của mình, những người khác trên hành tinh, và tôi thực sự cảm thấy được truyền cảm hứng rằng cả thế giới tồn tại ở ngoài kia, mà trước đây tôi không được biết đến, tại Liên hợp quốc, tại Vatican, và những nơi khác, để khiến mọi người giao tiếp với nhau.
    Còn Andrew thì sao?
    Tôi đang rời khỏi Hoa Kỳ, anh trai.
    Tôi, tôi, tôi đang hoàn toàn tham gia vào việc di cư và định cư với gia đình của mình.
    Tìm một trong những nơi trú ẩn an toàn trên thế giới, nơi chúng tôi có thể tham gia và trở thành một phần của cộng đồng, trở thành một phần của toàn cầu, hiểu và giáo dục con cái tôi như những công dân toàn cầu, và những công dân toàn cầu là người Mỹ, thay vì những công dân Mỹ từ chối toàn cầu.
    Bạn sẽ đi đâu, và khi nào bạn sẽ đi?
    Hay điều đó là bí mật?
    Vì vậy, tôi sẽ không thật sự nói cho bất kỳ ai biết đi đâu.
    Tôi có thể, tôi sẽ cho bạn biết cá nhân.
    Nhưng chúng tôi có một kế hoạch rời đi trước năm 2030, và chúng tôi đang theo đúng lộ trình để thực hiện kế hoạch đó vào năm 2026.
    Năm 2026?
    Vâng, đúng vậy.
    Năm sau.
    Vâng, năm sau.
    Vì vậy, tôi, tôi đã có kế hoạch thay đổi diện mạo của mình một cách đáng kể vào tháng 12, và sau đó nếu mọi thứ được sắp xếp đúng cách, thì chúng tôi sẽ rời khỏi đất nước vào mùa xuân năm sau.
    Tại sao phải thay đổi diện mạo?
    Bởi vì tôi không muốn bị nhận diện nữa.
    Tôi không thể thay đổi hợp pháp tên của mình, nhưng, nhưng tôi không cần phải là người có diện mạo như thế này mọi lúc nữa.
    Tôi đã thay đổi diện mạo của mình trước đây.
    À, tôi tưởng tượng rằng đó là công việc của bạn, phải không?
    Nhưng, nhưng bạn có một kênh YouTube, bạn, bạn có làm nhiều việc giáo dục công cộng.
    Vậy bạn sẽ ngừng hoạt động kênh YouTube và tất cả những điều đó sao?
    Không, tôi nghĩ điều tôi sẽ làm là chỉ phục vụ khán giả của mình.
    Như bây giờ tôi phục vụ rất nhiều khán giả khác.
    Đó là lý do tôi yêu thích, tôi thích đóng góp cho chương trình của bạn.
    Tôi thích đóng góp cho các chương trình khác.
    Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, điều tôi nhận ra là sự suy yếu công dân đó, chỉ dành cho bất kỳ ai muốn thực hiện một thí nghiệm tư duy.
    Nếu bạn tìm kiếm tên tôi và xem bất kỳ cuộc phỏng vấn nào khác ngoài những cuộc ở đây với CEO, những gì bạn sẽ tìm thấy là hàng ngàn bình luận đầy sự ngu dốt và thù hận, nghi ngờ mọi thứ từ ý định của tôi đến uy tín của tôi và bất cứ điều gì khác.
    Và điều đó không chỉ xảy ra với tôi, mà còn xảy ra với tất cả chúng ta.
    Ý tôi là, tên của bạn bị bôi nhọ hàng ngày và đó là bởi vì tôi là một fan của bạn mà thuật toán của tôi cũng cho tôi tất cả những điều vô lý về bạn nữa.
    Đó là thế giới mà chúng ta đang sống.
    Vì vậy, tôi không cần phải tiếp tục nuôi dưỡng mọi người.
    Tôi có thể chỉ nuôi dưỡng khán giả của mình và khán giả của tôi sẽ không quan tâm đến việc tôi trông như thế nào.
    Khán giả của tôi sẽ không quan tâm nếu tôi dạy họ từ phía sau một hình ảnh AI hoạt hình của chính mình, đúng không?
    Nhưng tôi có thể tiếp tục dạy mà không cần phải là người CIA với mái tóc.
    Nếu bạn phải đưa ra lý do để người khác theo bước chân của bạn, vì tôi hơi tò mò.
    Bạn biết đấy, đôi khi tôi có những giấc mơ chạy trốn và đi đến một nơi nào đó, giống như, tôi không biết, Bali hay cái gì đó và chỉ nằm đó ở New Zealand.
    Sure! Here is the translation of the text into Vietnamese:
    ***
    Trường hợp đó có thể là gì đối với một người như tôi hoặc bất kỳ ai đang lắng nghe về lý do tại sao họ nên xem xét việc thoát khỏi thực tại rất phân cực và do thuật toán điều khiển mà chúng ta đang sống? Ý tôi là, bạn có thể ra khỏi sự phân cực do thuật toán mà không cần rời khỏi nhà, đúng không? Chỉ cần một chút thực hành để bảo vệ thông tin của chính mình, để cách ly thông tin của chính mình. Nhưng lý do mà tôi muốn đưa ra để thực sự thay đổi cuộc sống của bạn nếu bạn là một công dân Mỹ là hãy hiểu rằng Hoa Kỳ là một quốc gia có ảnh hưởng đang giảm sút trên toàn cầu. Và theo nhiều cách, những hành động mà chúng ta đã thực hiện gần đây là để cố gắng mở rộng ảnh hưởng của mình một cách nhanh chóng. Nhưng chúng ta đang giảm sút ảnh hưởng, và điều đó là đúng. Chúng ta nên như vậy. Chiến lược của chúng ta sau Thế chiến II là trở thành kẻ côn đồ của thế giới và hưởng lợi từ tất cả các lợi ích kinh tế đến từ việc trở thành nhà cung cấp vũ khí, công cụ tài chính, và y tế của thế giới. Chúng ta muốn lợi ích đó. Nhưng giờ đây, chúng ta thấy mình ở một vị trí mà không có đồng minh mạnh mẽ. Chúng ta có những quốc gia thích chúng ta, nhưng những quốc gia đó không mạnh mẽ tự thân. Vì vậy, chúng ta có một châu Âu yếu đuối, mà thực sự đã yếu bởi vì chúng ta đã giữ cho họ yếu. Chúng ta có một Latin America yếu đuối, mà cũng đã yếu bởi vì chúng ta đã giữ cho họ yếu. Vì vậy, cách duy nhất để thực sự hiểu sự tồn tại của những người ngoài Hoa Kỳ là ra ngoài Hoa Kỳ và không chỉ để du lịch bên ngoài, mà để sống bên ngoài, để thực sự thấy cuộc sống thế nào trên nền kinh tế địa phương, học ngôn ngữ địa phương, hiểu văn hóa địa phương. Ý tôi là, bạn có thể đi dạo quanh Porto, Bồ Đào Nha, và bạn có thể cảm thấy chán nản vì thấy những tòa nhà từ thời Liên Xô, và mọi người đều trên 50 tuổi, và họ đều nhìn xuống đất, và họ trông hoàn toàn thất bại. Nhưng chỉ sau khi bạn ở đó một tháng, hai tháng, và bạn làm bạn thì bạn mới thực sự vào được một ngôi nhà, và bạn chia sẻ một chai port tuyệt vời, và rồi họ bừng sáng. Vì về mặt văn hóa, họ không được thể hiện rõ ràng trên đường phố như chúng ta được ở New York City. Và nếu bạn chỉ sống ở Hoa Kỳ, bạn sẽ có một cái nhìn lệch lạc về thế giới còn lại trông như thế nào, và bạn phải ra ngoài Hoa Kỳ để thực sự đánh giá những gì bạn có bên trong Hoa Kỳ. Vì vậy, bạn phải ra ngoài để hiểu những gì bạn đang chiến đấu cho ở nhà. Tất cả những người ở đây chỉ phát ngôn những lời sáo rỗng về chủ nghĩa dân tộc, họ không có ý tưởng thực sự về những gì họ đang chiến đấu. Vì vậy, lý do bạn đưa con cái bạn ra khỏi đất nước là để chúng biết những gì chúng đang chiến đấu cho? Để chúng hiểu và đánh giá điều gì có nghĩa là trở thành một người Mỹ. Không phải là điều gì có nghĩa là phân cực. Không phải là điều gì có nghĩa là, bạn biết đấy, bạn là người New York hay bạn là người Colorado hay bạn là người Florida. Mà thực sự hiểu như, ồ, chúng ta có một nền dân chủ mà chúng ta cần phải nuôi dưỡng. Chúng ta nên tự hào phục vụ. Những người đàn ông và phụ nữ trong quân phục đang thực sự hy sinh. Có điều gì đó đặc biệt về Hoa Kỳ. Thật không may, phần lớn mọi người trong Hoa Kỳ không hiểu điều đó. Benjamin, bạn nói nhiều về deepfake và AI và những thứ tương tự. Và như Andrew đã nói, đặc biệt với những người như tôi là một podcaster và tôi có một khán giả. Nên khi có điều gì đó xuất hiện trên Internet, nó nhận được nhiều lượt nhấp chuột hơn trước đây. Nên có một cuộc chiến deepfake mà nhiều thành viên trong nhóm của tôi, như trưởng phòng của tôi, v.v… đang dành hầu hết thời gian để chiến đấu vào lúc này, đó là mỗi ngày đều có một video quảng cáo deepfake mới. Họ sẽ lấy video từ cuộc trò chuyện podcast này, thay đổi một chút cách môi tôi di chuyển và để tôi quảng bá các nhóm WhatsApp hoặc nhiều thứ khác. Và có một phổ cho điều này. Một đầu của phổ thì kinh khủng đến mức tôi thậm chí không thể nói ra trên chương trình này. Nhưng có một phổ thật sự khủng khiếp cho điều này. Và nó gần như xuất hiện từ hư không trong sáu tháng qua, tôi sẽ nói vậy. Trong sáu tháng qua thực sự là khi nó bắt đầu nắm quyền đến mức mỗi ngày, nó trở thành một phần của cuộc sống tôi. Mỗi ngày, tôi đang gửi email cho một chuỗi này mà tôi có với Meta và Facebook thông báo cho họ đây là một cái mới. Sáng nay, tôi đã gửi cho họ một ảnh chụp màn hình của một người phụ nữ đã mất 3.000 bảng. Cô ấy là một bà mẹ đơn thân. Cô ấy yêu chương trình. Nên cô ấy nghe tôi. Và có một cái gì đó xuất hiện trên dòng tin của cô ấy và đó là tôi đang nói với cô ấy tham gia một nhóm. Và cô ấy đã tham gia nhóm và đã mất 3.000 bảng. Cô ấy đã nói với tôi trong tin nhắn, tôi có thể đọc ra. Cô ấy nói, tôi sẽ không bao giờ tin tưởng vào bất cứ điều gì trên Internet nữa. Và điều đó thật buồn vì cô ấy là một bà mẹ đơn thân đã cố gắng làm điều gì đó cho bản thân để giúp gia đình mình. Thời đại kỹ thuật số thú vị. Và bạn nói về điều này khá nhiều, tác động. Có cách nào để chúng ta chuẩn bị không? Có điều gì đó mà chúng ta có thể làm không? Một trong những bài học lớn từ cuộc chiến trò chơi mà tôi đã thực hiện, và có một bộ phim tài liệu được làm về nó gọi là War Game. Và điều mà tôi nhận thấy là tất cả đều là, đây là một cuộc khủng hoảng. Vì vậy, bất kể cuộc khủng hoảng nào, điều tốt nhất bạn có thể làm là quản lý nó. Bạn sẽ không thắng nó. Bạn sẽ không đánh bại nó. Bạn sẽ không thể vượt qua các thế lực thông tin sai lệch và AI tổng hợp đang thao túng bạn hoặc những gì bạn đang nói và những người theo dõi bạn. Điều tốt nhất bạn có thể làm là quản lý. Và bạn quản lý bằng cách giáo dục mọi người càng nhiều càng tốt về cách để, về việc hiểu cách ảnh hưởng thao túng từ ngữ hoạt động. Hiểu những gì mà, bạn biết đấy, Aristotle đã dạy chúng ta những kỹ thuật này từ rất lâu trước đây, và chúng vẫn có hiệu lực cho đến hôm nay. Và đó là việc sử dụng, bạn biết đấy, kêu gọi cảm xúc, kêu gọi lý trí, và kêu gọi sự tín nhiệm.
    ***
    Chương trình giảng dạy mà tôi phát triển dạy cho các em bắt đầu từ khi còn nhỏ, để khi các em vào đại học, thì sẽ không quá muộn. Tôi cần dạy các em, và chúng ta cần dạy các em khi còn đủ tuổi để hiểu rằng, nếu ai đó hỏi bạn điều gì đó trên internet, người mà bạn nghĩ là đáng tin cậy, hãy chú ý đến giọng điệu của họ. Họ đang sử dụng những từ ngữ nào? Họ có đang kêu gọi bạn theo cách cảm xúc không? Và hãy ngay lập tức nhận ra rằng đó là một manh mối cho thấy bạn có thể bị tổn thương. Về mặt cảm xúc, bạn dễ bị tổn thương bởi ai đó nói về điều này hoặc vấn đề đó. Đó là điều tốt nhất mà chúng ta có thể làm. Khi tôi nói đến quản lý, và tôi xin lỗi vì không có câu trả lời tốt hơn, nhưng điều tốt nhất bạn có thể làm là nói, hãy để tôi dạy bạn cách thao túng hoạt động như thế nào và cách thông tin sai lệch hoạt động ra sao, để hi vọng bạn có thể nhận ra nó hoặc nó sẽ vang lên trong lòng bạn. Nếu bạn thực sự gặp phải điều gì đó, bạn sẽ nói, được rồi, tôi đã thấy điều này trước đây. Đó là điều tốt nhất. Và điều đó không đủ, và nó thật sự rất đáng thất vọng. Nhưng tôi thực sự đọc về một nghiên cứu gần đây, nơi họ lấy những trẻ nhỏ và họ làm chính xác điều đó. Họ chỉ cho các em xem quảng cáo và yêu cầu các em chỉ ra cách mà chúng đang cố gắng ảnh hưởng đến cảm xúc của các em. Họ yêu cầu các em cố gắng theo dõi nguồn gốc của chúng, v.v. Và chỉ với sự thực hành đó, nhận thức của các em gia tăng và do đó giảm khả năng bị ảnh hưởng bởi lừa đảo. Vì vậy, tôi đã tiến một bước xa hơn, và điều này gây tranh cãi, và tôi đã nhận được một số phản đối về điều này. Tôi thực sự dạy trẻ em cách tạo ra nội dung xấu. Tôi dạy các em cách trở thành những kẻ troll, không phải để các em trở thành những kẻ troll chuyên nghiệp, mà để các em có thể xác định khi những công cụ đó được sử dụng chống lại mình. Tôi làm điều này bằng cách để các em mô phỏng một chiến dịch Thượng viện, như một cuộc đua chính trị. Và tôi nói, tôi muốn bạn lấy video trên Instagram và TikTok có sẵn và thay đổi hoàn toàn chúng, sửa đổi chúng, kéo chúng ra khỏi bối cảnh, làm cho người khác nói những điều mà họ chưa từng nói, đảm nhận những lập trường mà họ không có. Và sau đó các sinh viên thực hiện điều này, và một trong số đó thực sự đã đến được Ủy ban Quốc gia Đảng Dân chủ Thượng viện, và họ nghĩ đó là một chiến dịch thực sự. Tôi đã nói, nó không phải. Nó được thực hiện bởi các sinh viên của tôi. Họ đã ghi rõ ràng đó là giáo dục. Nhưng điều mà các sinh viên học được là, ôi, nếu nó dễ dàng như vậy để tôi tạo ra, thì những nội dung mà tôi đang phải đối mặt thì sao? Điều đó đã khiến họ nhận thức. Điều đó khiến họ tương đương như việc rời khỏi Hoa Kỳ để xem điều gì xảy ra ở các nơi khác. Khi bạn thấy điều gì đó từ phía bên kia, khi bạn thực sự tạo ra nó, bạn nhận ra nó có thể trông như thế nào. Đó là một công cụ. Và tôi không cố gắng dạy họ, một lần nữa, rằng, bạn biết đấy, như kiểu không phải, tôi không cố gắng dạy bạn cách đánh cắp một chiếc ô tô để bạn có thể sống bằng cách đánh cắp ô tô, mà để dạy bạn thiết kế một chiếc ô tô an toàn hơn. Những bình luận cuối cùng, sau đó, để tóm tắt lại, một lần nữa, cho người nghe ở nhà, họ nên suy nghĩ như thế nào, họ có thể làm gì trong cuộc sống của riêng mình để sống tốt hơn, để dẫn đến một kết quả tốt hơn cho chính họ, gia đình họ và cho mọi người khác. Bắt đầu từ bạn, Annie, bạn sẽ nói gì? Tôi nghĩ rằng nhiều thông tin là tốt. Nguồn thông tin phong phú cho phép một người tìm ra điều gì là có ý nghĩa với họ. Nhưng tôi nghĩ bạn phải có kỷ luật về cách bạn nhận thông tin. Tôi có một điều mà tôi hãy tự nhắc nhở, tôi thực sự cài đặt một bộ hẹn giờ cho khoảng thời gian mà tôi ở trên X hoặc bất kỳ đâu khác, bởi vì, và nó luôn dễ dàng rất ‘hết giờ’. Và không ai khác, tôi nghĩ rằng, ôi lạy chúa, chắc tôi đã cài sai bộ hẹn giờ, bạn biết đấy. Và thế nhưng, nếu tôi đang đọc một cái gì đó dạng analog, một cuốn thơ, như tôi thường làm, hay một cuốn phi hư cấu hoặc hư cấu, như tôi thường xuyên đọc, bạn biết đấy, đó là một loại thời gian khác. Và vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng rất có giá trị khi nhận thức được điều đó. Và vì vậy, hai điều của tôi và thông điệp rút ra là chỉ để đưa ra ý kiến ​​về việc, như kiểu, nơi bạn có thể thực sự trở nên không hài lòng với tình hình thế giới và tốc độ thông tin. Đối với tôi, giống như thời gian của cha và mẹ thiên nhiên. Tôi dành nhiều thời gian ở ngoài trời, hoặc nhiều nhất có thể, tùy thuộc vào bao nhiêu việc viết lách. Nhưng, giống như, tôi chỉ đơn giản là ra ngoài và kết nối, đi dạo. Vào mùa đông, tôi trượt tuyết. Tôi đi bộ đường dài. Tôi sẽ tham gia một lớp yoga. Ý tôi là, điều này có thể nghe có vẻ như, điều này có liên quan gì? Nhưng thực sự có, vì tôi thực sự tin rằng điều kiện con người không thay đổi, mặc dù tất cả công nghệ này thì có. Và rằng chúng ta phải có sự cân bằng trong chính mình giữa tất cả những thứ này đang đổ về phía chúng ta và chỉ tồn tại trong thế giới. Rồi bạn sẽ tìm ra cách mà bạn muốn thay đổi, phát triển, và trong trường hợp của tôi, báo cáo. Benjamin? Điều lớn nhất mà tôi muốn nói là, và tôi thường nói điều này với sinh viên của mình, tôi không quan tâm bạn đứng ở vị trí nào, bạn có quan điểm gì. Tôi không quan tâm bạn cuối cùng sẽ làm gì với cuộc đời mình. Hãy hứa với tôi rằng bạn sẽ luôn tò mò. Hãy hứa với tôi rằng bạn sẽ đặt câu hỏi. Hãy hứa rằng bạn vẫn muốn học hỏi và bạn không trở nên thỏa mãn. Điều đó có nghĩa là bạn phải tích cực trong cộng đồng của mình ở quy mô nhỏ, hiểu ai là người mà bạn bầu chọn ở quy mô nhỏ, nhưng không chỉ là thờ ơ. Bởi vì nếu bạn không đưa ra quyết định về những gì sẽ xảy ra với bạn, những người khác sẽ làm điều đó cho bạn. Và tôi hứa bạn sẽ không thích kết quả. Và sự tò mò là hàng rào đầu tiên để bảo vệ những gì bạn trân trọng. Andrew? Tôi sẽ nói với mọi người hãy rất cẩn thận với nơi họ học. Và, nói thật, đối với những người mà tôi đã gặp, Steve, bạn là một nguồn thông tin phi thường. Và những người mà bạn chọn lựa để đưa lên chương trình này thật tuyệt vời. Vì vậy, nếu ai đó không biết bắt đầu từ đâu, đây là một nơi tuyệt vời để bắt đầu. Nếu có ai đó vẫn đang lắng nghe, hoặc đối với tất cả những người vẫn đang lắng nghe, họ đã biết điều này là đúng.
    Và điều khác mà tôi muốn nói ở đây là nếu bạn không muốn thay đổi một cách triệt để, như tôi sẵn sàng thay đổi triệt để vì gia đình tôi, thì những bước nhỏ chính là khởi đầu.
    Chỉ cần những bước nhỏ và hiểu rõ con bạn đang xem gì trên màn hình của chúng?
    Vợ bạn đang xem gì hoặc chồng bạn thì sao?
    Họ đang đọc gì trên màn hình?
    Họ nghĩ gì về thế giới?
    Bởi vì chúng ta không sống trong một thế giới sẽ tự thông báo cho chúng ta.
    Vì vậy, chúng ta phải tự thông báo cho bản thân.
    Và cách duy nhất để tin tưởng thông tin mà bạn có là phải rất thận trọng với những gì mà bạn đang tiếp nhận.
    Cảm ơn bạn.
    Cảm ơn rất nhiều.
    Tôi luôn tiếp cận những cuộc trò chuyện này từ một góc độ ích kỷ, vì tôi nghĩ đó có lẽ là điều có thể gọi là tự lấy mình ra khỏi những điều vô lý.
    Tôi có rất nhiều câu hỏi về bản chất của thế giới.
    Và thông qua những chủ đề mà chúng ta đã thảo luận hôm nay, tôi đã tìm thấy rất nhiều câu trả lời.
    Tôi cảm thấy hy vọng hơn một chút, nhưng cũng cảm thấy sẵn sàng hơn với những điều mà tôi không có hy vọng.
    Một trong những điều mà tôi không suy nghĩ đủ là, như bạn đã nói, thông tin mà tôi đang nhận được.
    Và có vẻ như thật sai trái trong thế giới mà chúng ta đang sống khi đặt ra rào cản và hệ thống để lọc thông tin mà chúng ta đang nhận,
    bởi vì trạng thái tự nhiên của chúng ta là chỉ cần mở điện thoại, chỉ để xem tin tức, nhìn vào màn hình.
    Và dường như điều đó trái ngược, tôi đoán thế, với nhận thức con người khi cố gắng áp dụng một bộ lọc khác giữa chúng.
    Rồi bạn lại lo lắng về bộ lọc mà bạn có thể áp dụng.
    Liệu tôi có nên tắt tiếng mọi người?
    Có nên chặn những từ nhất định không?
    Có nên không xem kênh tin tức đó không?
    Nhưng rồi tôi chỉ đang ở trong một buồng vang.
    Vậy nên thật là một tình huống phức tạp.
    Điều mà tôi thường quay trở lại là những gì mà Annie đã nói,
    đó là nhu cầu Maslow của tôi về sự kết nối và yêu thương ai đó và có một cuộc sống tốt đẹp có lẽ là nơi trú ẩn của tôi giữa tất cả những lo âu.
    Nhưng một lần nữa, tôi lại có xung đột vì tôi không muốn mình trở nên ngu dốt.
    Và tôi không muốn ở trong trạng thái treo lơ lửng của sự hoài nghi, nơi mà các quyết định xảy ra mà không có sự lựa chọn và kiến thức của tôi.
    Vì vậy, tôi giữ cho sự tò mò của mình.
    Và có thể đó chính là câu trả lời.
    Có thể đó là sự kết hợp phức tạp của tất cả những điều mà các bạn đã thảo luận.
    Và tôi cảm ơn tất cả các bạn vì đã có mặt ở đây hôm nay và thể hiện sự văn minh, tôn trọng và đôi khi bất đồng trong một số lĩnh vực với ý kiến của các bạn,
    bởi vì tôi nghĩ đó chính xác là điều mà chúng ta đang thiếu rất nhiều.
    Đó là sự khác biệt trong quan điểm, nhưng có sự tôn trọng cho cùng một kết quả.
    Vậy nên xin cảm ơn rất nhiều.
    Cảm ơn.
    Cảm ơn.
    Cảm ơn.
    我相信我們已經處於第三次世界大戰的早期階段,儘管可能尚未爆發。這場戰爭看起來並不像過去的戰爭,而人們應該了解這其中的風險,我們只需要一次誤解,一次錯誤的計算,甚至只是一個由人工智慧生成的病毒視頻,就可能導致核毀滅。你現在有在做什麼準備嗎?我計劃在2026年前離開美國。但在這個世界上,地圖上有安全的地方嗎?據我了解,實際上有三個安全區域。你說對了,有夏威夷。不,不對,因為夏威夷有太多的目標。同樣,整個歐洲也是如此。但那裡有一個非常小的地方。
    那麼,現在我們在衝突和戰爭方面的處境如何?情況正在惡化。在過去,擁有最強大軍隊的人獲勝。而現在,你可以利用伺服器農場和數十名身處數千英里外的人的力量來不穩定一個政府或社會。而現在我們面臨的另一個真正問題是,美國內部的不同政黨對於打擊對方的意圖非常強烈,這樣做的結果是危及國家安全。因此,現在俄羅斯或中國可以利用人們之間的矛盾來造成分裂。安德魯,你認為接下來會發生什麼?我認為第三次世界大戰將由我們所謂的代理戰爭所塑造,在這種戰爭中,一個富裕的國家資助、訓練和武裝一個不那麼富裕的國家的衝突,以減少主要目標的能力。也就是說,他們利用那個國家為他們的目的工作。沒錯,這已經在發生了。那麼核戰爭的可能性有多大?這是一個可怕的細節,公眾並不知情。
    等等,在我們繼續這一集之前,讓我先請你花30秒鐘時間。我要說兩件事。第一件事是對每周收聽節目的你表達由衷的感謝,這對我們所有人意義重大。這確實是我們從未想過的夢想,無法想像能夠達到這個地步。但第二,這是一個讓我們感覺像是剛剛起步的夢想。如果你喜歡我們在這裡做的事情,請加入那24%定期收聽這個播客的人,並在這款應用上關注我們。我向你承諾,我會竭盡所能,讓這個節目變得更好,無論是在現在還是未來。我們將邀請你想聽的人作客,並繼續做讓你喜愛的所有事情。謝謝你,非常感謝。回到這一集。
    今天我邀請你們來這裡,因為我直覺上感到世界在我們眼前發生了變化。我想很多人,如果你們在使用社交媒體或閱讀報紙,可能會感受到社會中一種難以理解的緊張情緒,尤其是對於一些非專家或對這些主題沒有連結的人。我在這次對話之前查看了一些數據,這些數據支持我直覺上所感受到的情緒。顯示出全球衝突區域在過去三年內增加了66%。2024年12月,美國智庫大西洋理事會詢問了約400名全球戰略家對當前世界局勢的看法。65%的人認為中國會在10年內以武力入侵台灣。約40%的人認為在接下來的10年內會發生世界大戰。約50%的人認為在接下來的10年內會使用核武器。約45%的人認為俄羅斯和北約會直接交戰。
    當我們看看支出和發生的情況時,軍事支出已經顯著增加。現在全球有300,000名北約部隊處於30天的高度戒備狀態。自2023年以來,59個國家爆發了戰爭,這是自1946年以來任一年中記錄的最多數量。全球軍事支出同比增長約10%,這是SIPA記錄的最高總額,使軍事支出連續十年不斷增長。事情變得緊張。每次我打開新聞,都會有一種輕微的焦慮感。因此,今天我把你們三位聚集在一起,幫我這個普通人,這個不了解情況的人,理清現在正在發生的事情,以及希望我們能為此做些什麼。班傑明,首先請你自我介紹。你帶到這次對話中的背景和經驗是什麼?我於1977年出生在伊朗。我作為難民來到美國,根據卡特總統允許伊朗人逃離宗教和政治迫害的計劃,我的家人正是基於這一點來到這裡。我基本上花了接下來的40多年時間去理解為什麼我來自一個似乎處於持續衝突和動盪中的地方,以及對我來到這裡的力量的理解。我非常感激能夠在這裡。相對於如何改變或至少更好地理解,為未來的變革與進步鋪平道路,你能說一下你幾歲離開伊朗,走的時候的環境是什麼樣的嗎?我當時不到三歲,而我們是在1979年12月沙皇離開幾個月後的大約三月時離開的。霍梅尼是在2月從巴黎返回並基本上控制局勢的。在那時,對於新政權或新政府的模樣仍然充滿了混亂和無序。我的父母開始看到大規模的逮捕、抗議活動和一些看起來對於忠於君主制的人將受到鎖定的事情,我的家族是一個君主主義者。
    安妮,對於你,問題也是一樣。你帶到這次對話中的背景和體驗是什麼?我是一名作家和記者,專注於戰爭和武器,美國……
    國家安全與機密。
    我對武器及武器系統的細節,以及使用這些武器的人們非常感興趣。
    我寫過七本書,所有書籍都涉及戰爭與武器,特別是五角大廈和中央情報局。
    因此,我的所有資料來源於這些組織、軍方與情報界。
    我們上次在這個節目中談過您最新的一本書。
    您最新的書是關於什麼的?您為了收集資料經歷了什麼樣的旅程?
    我最近的一本書稱為《核戰爭:一個情景》。
    在這本書中,我帶領讀者從核發射到核冬季,這個過程發生在72分鐘內。
    我採訪了總統顧問、國防部長、核潛艇部隊指揮官等,這些人非常接近指揮鏈,曾經排練過如果需要必須做出的決策。
    我學到的東西讓我感到恐懼。
    這本書已經出版超過一年,仍然在硬皮書形式發行,全球28個國家的人正在閱讀這本書。
    這是一個極為嚴肅的危險話題。
    我認為我們在這裡討論這個話題,因為我覺得在我的一生中,我們對考慮這一現實的時候比現在更近。
    安德魯,安妮提到幾個主題和詞彙,和您的故事交織在一起,其中之一就是核戰爭和核武器。
    您的背景是什麼?您帶來了什麼樣的經驗與觀點?
    我的經驗是什麼?
    我是一名前中央情報局的秘密情報官員,也是美國空軍在伊拉克和阿富汗戰爭中的榮譽軍人。
    我生活在我們正在談論的這個世界,這是一個衝突的世界、一個核威脅的世界、以及一個發展中國家與政治和軍事力量作為塑造民主和外交工具的世界。
    我對深入這個主題感到非常興奮,因為我認為這裡有一些被誤解的領域、過度戲劇化的領域,還有一些未被提及但非常相關且引人入勝的領域。
    您生活中曾經有一段期間是在地下並且是安妮所描述的核指揮鏈的一部分嗎?
    絕對是的。
    事實上,我的職業生涯開始於美國空軍的洲際彈道導彈部隊,負責監管位於蒙大拿的明智人III導彈,每枚導彈載有10枚核彈頭,理解軍事學說、策略和執行的政策。
    所以您是在地下持有實體核密鑰。
    正確。
    就在我脖子上。
    即使在我們現在進行談話的時候,還有數百名美國士兵和數百名俄國士兵身處非常相似的位置。
    他們和當前高中畢業生的年齡相近。
    許多人認為我們正處於第三次世界大戰的邊緣,但我認為您之前曾經說過,其實第三次世界大戰在某種意義上已經開始了。
    是的,正確。
    我相信我們已經處於第三次世界大戰的早期階段,如果不是在其中的話。
    問題是人們似乎認為第三次世界大戰會模仿第二次世界大戰。
    核技術和核武器的部署如今將與第二次世界大戰的情況截然不同,僅僅因為我們現在擁有九個擁有核能力的國家。
    更不用說我們擁有完全不同的信息格局。
    我們擁有完全不同的政治格局。
    我們有一個全然不同的同盟與條約格局。
    這個世界與二次世界大戰爆發時非常不同。
    那麼,您認為我們現在是在第三次世界大戰中還是處於早期階段?
    我認為第三次世界大戰將由我們所謂的代理戰爭所形塑。
    什麼是代理戰爭?
    代理戰爭是指一個富裕的國家資助、訓練和武裝在一個較不富裕的國家發生的衝突,通常那裡已經有某種內部動亂或內部戰鬥正在進行。
    過去十年中我們看到的許多事件都是代理戰爭。
    利比亞、敘利亞、也門,人們辯稱我們在阿富汗和伊拉克看到的情況,甚至美國的介入都是代理戰爭。
    以色列和伊朗就是一個典型的代理戰爭範例。
    俄羅斯和烏克蘭也是代理戰爭的範例。
    所以有人在資助這些衝突,而他們利用這個國家替他們做事。
    正是如此。
    您使用一個仍在發展的中介國家來削弱您的主要目標的能力,同時您自己則保護自己的軍隊、武器和公民不受傷害。
    本傑明,您對於我們處於世界大戰的邊緣,並且看起來可能有不同的武器、不同的戰鬥方式,以及數位戰爭也成為其中一部分的看法是什麼?
    我認為自冷戰開始以來,讓我們回到1947或1948年,我認為我們沒有停止戰鬥。
    我認為我們只是進行不同類型的戰爭。
    所以我認為這種動能戰爭的觀念變得不那麼頻繁,特別是在主要大國之間。
    因此,以色列和伊朗是最後幾次動能戰爭的例子之一。
    但如果您看看美國與中國、美國與俄羅斯、歐洲大國、北約,這些戰爭相對於過去的動能要少得多,更多的是透過信息、科技和網路戰爭進行的。
    什麼是動能?
    動能是——當我提到動能時,我是指使用實際的物理武器、炸彈、導彈、坦克、士兵這類東西。
    而現在的情況較少,而現在則越來越多地朝向其他形式,你可以通過伺服器農場和在幾千英里外的一個房間裡的20個人來顛覆一個政府或一個政府體系或一個社會。
    而且你不一定需要武器來做到這一點,因為信息變得武器化,數字工具變得武器化。
    這與我們在20世紀看到的任何事物大相徑庭。
    所以我認為,在1990年代末到2000年代初,互聯網的興起使我們看到這種情況已經實現了大規模的工業化。
    而我認為,威脅現在來自於國家和政權能夠以年輕人們無法做到的方式來顛覆和干擾他人。
    而且現在你甚至不需要大筆資金來做到這一點。
    這基本上是廉價的戰爭。
    在我們開始錄音之前,我跟你表達了現在世界上存在一種緊張感。
    是的。
    你認為這種緊張感來自於哪裡,為什麼?
    從2016年美國大選以來,對我們來說顯而易見的一件事是,我們生活在一個後真相的社會中。
    而且有這麼多信息可以通過每個平台、每種方式和渠道提供給每個人,現在已經沒有對客觀真相或事實的壟斷。
    因此,這也帶來了扭曲、宣傳、誤導和誤報的能力。
    人們這樣做是為了聚集權力,將權力帶到自己的身上。
    所以當我們生活在一個每個人都認為自己知道一切,或者害怕自己知道的不夠的世界裡時,就會產生一種持續的緊張和焦慮狀態。
    人們對自己在社會中的地位感到不確定。
    財富差距也隨之出現。
    隨之而來的是,你會感到在每一個角落都有威脅或感知到的威脅或陰謀。
    這就是為什麼我認為在這樣的時期,謊言、錯誤信息和陰謀論會佔據主導,當人們焦慮、害怕和對自己的社會地位感到不確定,對未來感到不確定。
    這讓我們處於一種非常緊張的狀態,而非常聰明的人可以利用這一點並進行操縱以獲利。
    所以,我想這解釋了為什麼我們感受到這種緊張感。
    這種緊張感顯然導致了真正的變化,因為我在開始時讀出的那些統計數字,現在有更多國家處於衝突中,軍事資金增加,更多人認為我們正處於非常災難性的邊緣的情況,這比過去幾十年中的任何時候都多。
    那種信息正在引發注意,然後產生下游影響,導致衝突的爆發。
    我還要說這是上游的。
    社會,尤其是西方社會內部正發生著極化,在這裡沒有對真相、新聞或信息的壟斷。
    你會發現主要新聞來源的碎片化。
    傳統上,人們有幾個非常受信任和尊重的來源和權威,或是人們會轉向的頭號人物。
    我們不再具備這一點。
    這種情況已被稀釋到幾乎毫無意義的地步。
    所以你會看到社交媒體對此有所貢獻。
    因此,這些分裂和社會上的分裂使得像美國這樣的主要工業強國、還有例如歐洲人,比以往更加脆弱,更容易受到操縱。
    所以,現在如果你是像俄羅斯、中國、伊朗或北韓這樣的對手,你可以利用這種極化的能力,讓人們對立,引起分裂。
    這樣會使民主社會不穩定。
    然後,這反過來使這些國家(例如俄羅斯和中國等)在發展中國家擁有更多的杠杆和影響力。
    在過去,擁有最強大軍隊的就是贏家。
    現在,你不一定需要最強大的軍隊來做到這一點。
    你只需要擁有最強大的信息軍隊和願意做那些西方社會不再願意做的骯髒事的意願。
    我想打斷一下,因為我認為這裡有一個運作順序,我們正在探討的並不清楚。
    我會主張,無知是極化的基礎,而這種極化又通過信息戰爭環境來獲利。
    所以我這樣說是因為我認為理解你的統計數據是相關和正確的很重要。
    這些統計數據並不是第一位的。
    它們是在後面的。
    無知在某種程度上是首先出現的。
    對世界上發生的事情的自願盲目。
    願意只關注自己的任務或娛樂,讓外面的世界隨它所願。
    首先是這一選擇,然後導致其他國家找到機會來操縱這些對外界發生什麼事情不再知情的人群。
    我不想替你說話,但這正是中央情報局在處理信息安全行動的秘密行動時所做的,即理解我們並不是試圖讓觀眾無知。
    我們是在尋找一個無知的觀眾,然後給他們信息,使其采取行動。
    不同之處在於,我始終認為我們都是無知的。
    不同的是,現在你真的可以對這種無知做到某些事情,並且以一種之前無法做到的規模來操縱它。
    所以無知一直與我們同在,但至少之前人們知道可以前往何處找到他們認為值得信賴的來源。
    所以現在那個來源不在了。
    那種信息不在了。
    那種技能不在了。
    我有不同的看法,我專注於敘事。
    所以我對誰在講這個故事以及誰能控制這個故事非常感興趣。
    我經常看到的情況是,這個故事被控制了一段時間,然後被其他人劫持,變成其他人的故事。
    所以這有點像是你們兩位所說的光譜的兩端,而你們有機構在努力奪回控制權。
    白宮則表示,我們需要獲得我們的利益相關者的支持。
    你知道的,這基本上就是在同時進行一場運動戰、一場代理戰和一場信息戰。
    我認為資訊驅動了大多數這場衝突,這就是我為什麼聽外交官的話對我來說如此有趣的原因,他們是這張桌子上唯一缺席的人,因為那是我看到希望的地方,像是能夠讓局勢降溫。
    因為當你可以將人們的信任轉變為偏執時,這需要一種簡化的過程。
    我很高興你提到外交和外交官。
    我教授有關外交的課程,最近幾年出現的一個現象是私外交和公外交之間的二元對立,這是我們在研究冷戰及後冷戰衝突時所熟悉的。
    現在我們有了公外交。
    幾乎所有的外交,例如特朗普所稱的伊朗-以色列戰爭,這場持續了12天的戰爭。
    那場戰爭中,有多少是通過社交媒體進行的?
    如今,你有了這種面向公眾的外交,在戰爭期間,領導者、他們的代表、他們的代理在社交媒體上向敵人、盟友以及假定的中立觀眾傳遞信息,對吧?
    所以這不再是核時代,而是算法時代,它以一種以前從未存在的方式放大了外交。
    因此,我認為這導致了其他人可以利用的稀釋。
    因為 at the end of the day,如果你想威脅一個國家或想獲得支持,你通過社交媒體表達這一點的方式,無論是使用全大寫,還是使用圖片、迷因,這些都影響其有效性。
    在TikTok上你可以看到這一點,特別是在2023年10月哈馬斯對以色列的攻擊之後,雙方的信息戰如何在大學校園上展開。
    我曾在加州大學洛杉磯分校參與過一場有很多相關情況的大型活動,社交媒體上和我交談過的高中生之間的互動。
    他們對衝突的理解現在受到了TikTok的影響,而TikTok部份受到中國政府的控制,它所餵養和放大的內容。
    所以這裡有一個具體的例子,或許對你所說的有幫助。
    在最近的這場12天戰爭中,我認為白宮希望這只是一次轟炸行動。
    你可以糾正我如果我錯了。
    只是轟炸行動。
    我們要去,因為我們非常強大。
    這是關於權力和精確度的問題。
    把它解決掉。
    而是媒體報導說,美國踏入戰爭。
    這是一個重大頭條。
    這可能讓白宮非常不滿,因為他們不想被視為參與戰爭。
    所以我認為,當前所有的緊張局勢升級的另一個真正問題是,美國的政治派別之間有多麼憤怒。
    在我眼中,因為我是個無黨派的作家,沒有人知道我的政治立場。
    我中立地寫戰爭和武器。
    但我可以觀察到,在美國內部,互相鬥爭的政治黨派如此專注於摧毀另一方。
    從我看來,這樣的做法在國家安全方面是非常危險的。
    換句話說,針對特朗普的頭條對他們來說比美國共和國或世界安全更重要。
    我很好奇你怎麼想。
    嗯,我認為我們都在說一些相似的事情,或是相同事物的不同版本。
    正在發生一場大規模的信息戰。
    而就是那場戰爭的迷霧讓我們對實際發生的事情感到緊張。
    如果你把衝突視為人類相互之間的行為,這上面有層層包覆,造成你所期待的事物的扭曲。
    資訊領域有如此多的活動,實際上可能發生的事情被大大扭曲。
    我們在CIA有一個術語,當我們討論秘密影響、形塑信息的活動時,我們談論量和速度,這又回到了你提到的TikTok和社交媒體。
    我們一直在進行信息戰。
    但這個量和速度要少得多且慢得多,因為你必須飛行,扔下小冊子,並希望閱讀的人能讀懂正確的阿拉伯語或西班牙語方言。
    你不得不希望,然後一旦有雨,所有的小冊子就完了。
    如果你試圖讓他們看起來不是來自美國,那還有很多其他的層面。
    而現在,一個你甚至無法控制的演算法正在促成這一切。
    然後你到處都有創作者、內容創作者,對於他們所創造的內容沒有任何增值,只是在剪輯、拼湊,然後進一步被放大,對吧?
    所以信息的量是龐大的,它傳播的速度也是巨大的,演算法可以決定你是否能看到它。
    因此雖然我欣賞你的觀點,即存在這種緊張感和日益增長的擔憂,但我誠實地認為你的看法是基於你的知識和智慧,而有大量人群對我們實際面臨的衝突滑坡一無所知。
    我們在哪裡?
    我認為這正是我們要討論的問題。
    我會主張,我們不是進入一個衝突減少的階段。
    我們將進入五到十年的更多衝突、增加的衝突、在更多動力衝突中參與的意願,使用你的術語。
    我認為我們並沒有向全球各大強權競爭者展示這是無法容忍的。我覺得我們反而在向全球各大強權競爭者展示,暴力、動態攻擊、網絡戰爭和武器開發是可以被接受的。我的願望是美國能夠克服她的部落式仇恨,你知道的,很多美國人對彼此在不同政治黨派之間的仇恨。因為我覺得美國在安全和安保方面是領導者,或者應該是。這種言辭的放大是深深地在分裂著。這個華麗的詞是「分裂性」,但它實際上就是在分裂。如果有任何地方可以讓敵人或對手,或隨便你怎麼稱呼他們,利用這一點,那就是在這裡。這是空想嗎?對我來說,我是一個非常有空想的人。我是說,我寫的都是一些最陰暗、最嚴峻的主題,你知道的,臉上卻帶著微笑。因為我天生就是樂觀的。我有兩個大學年齡的兒子,當然我要保持樂觀。安德魯剛剛說他認為未來會有更多的衝突。我們現在有九個擁有核武器的國家,有人可能會辯稱這創造了穩定,但也有人可能會辯稱只需要一個人就夠了。而你說有六個國家擁有這些核武器。我不知道,有時候我想,我想,天哪,你只需要一個人的錯誤溝通或一個錯誤,這個人不太正常或者當天心情不好。這就是我對此的看法。在概率上,如果你拉長時間,很快就會發生某些事情。很快就會發生這些事情。你說的絕對正確。這就是為什麼,我是說,或許如果我們聊聊具體的事情發生了什麼,為什麼這重要或不重要,那會很有趣。因為我最近從微觀角度審視核武器,我相信那種存在性的威脅、全球災難的風險,就像是一把火開始朝核使用運動的推進,是一條永遠不應該被跨越的界線。因此,雖然所有的戰爭都是可怕的,但戰爭的另一邊總會有解決方案。戰爭之後可以實現和平,但核武器不行。所以,我目前看待事情的方式,就是這樣,我在看最近的轟炸事件。你提到安德魯,談到以色列和伊朗之間是代理戰爭。這讓我產生了興趣。我幾乎本能地想反對,但我想聽聽你為什麼這麼認為,以便我能更好地從這個角度理解代理衝突。嗯,在我看來,以色列正加大對伊朗使用的代理人的侵略。對,但以色列也依賴美國的武器來做這件事。它也依賴美國的情報來做這件事。它依賴美國的財政和經濟支持。因此,它需要美國來推進它的衝突。如果美國說,以色列,我們不支持你,那麼以色列肯定會採取不同的方法。所以,來自美國的資金、支持、情報流和經濟支持就是使以色列能夠進行其衝突的力量。沒有那種支持,以色列會採取不同的方式來處理衝突。但那麼代理戰爭就意味著以色列是作為美國的代理行事。因此,美國直到上週,並沒有直接參與伊朗,而是通過另一個實體來運作。這就是對代理戰爭的誤解。你們首先尋找已經存在的一些衝突。以色列和伊朗之間的衝突已經存在。然後,當一個外部的第三方進來,透過給這場已存在的火上添油來加劇衝突時,這便是所謂的代理關係。事實並不是以色列是美國的代理,而是以色列本身已經想要進行某種衝突。我們進來,基本上是幫助加劇那場火的燃燒。所以在這場衝突中,誰是代理?以色列。好吧。以色列是美國的代理,美國想要削弱伊朗,就像以色列想要削弱伊朗一樣。這場特定的衝突是如此迷人,因為幾乎所有人都希望以色列削弱伊朗。沙烏地阿拉伯想要這樣。美國想要這樣。所有的歐盟國家也想要這樣。以色列想要這樣。每個人都希望看到一個被削弱的伊朗。所以,尤其是在以色列在加薩所做的事情和加薩的人道危機之後,以色列迫切尋求任何他們可以做的事情來贏回對亞伯拉罕協議的支持,作為一個民主國家,等等。它們正在尋找選擇。伊朗對他們來說是一個非常方便的選擇,可以重新建立因加薩的攻擊而破裂的關係。如果他們的理由不同,那是否仍然讓一方成為另一方的代理?所以以色列對伊朗的反對,正是它視伊朗為對手的原因,可能與美國不同。這是一個維恩圖。它們之間有一些重疊,但也有非常多的不重疊。沙烏地阿拉伯、海灣國家、其他地區國家也看到伊朗是種威脅。它們的看法是出於不同的原因。那是否還是——我不是在說你錯了。我只是想理解。如果他們的動機不同,那是否還會讓他們成為代理?我會說是的,因為這不關乎那些不重疊的維恩圖部分,而是關乎那種重疊的部分。這關乎以色列公民的死去,以色列士兵的死去,以及以色列武器的使用。這就是代理衝突的好處。面臨風險的不是美國公民。
    這不是美國士兵在喪生。
    這不是美國武器在耗費。
    我們可以累積我們的剩餘。
    如果有任何好處,我們還可以額外增加並將其賣給以色列,這對我們的經濟是有好處的。
    所以這就是代理戰爭背後不舒服的真相,它讓我們享受到戰爭環境中的所有好處而沒有任何風險。
    但隨後發生的事情,你可以以越南作為一個很好的例子,就是本應對美國成本低廉的代理戰爭最終卻變成了對美國的一場災難。
    所以我想到越南,我認為這是一場經典的代理戰爭,對吧?
    對。赫魯雪夫在1963年發表了那篇演講,談到了民族解放的戰爭。
    那場戰爭會在當時所謂的第三世界打響,越南就是經典案例。
    我確實這樣認為,對吧?
    首先是法國在法屬印度支那,然後美國幫助法國。
    可以說,法國可能是美國利益的代理。
    他們是那道防火牆的一部分,阻止多米諾效應的發生。
    但我仍然很難理解——我試圖理解以色列與美國之間的代理角度。
    這是一個獨特的代理定義,我想。
    好吧,那你——
    我給你舉個例子。
    你說吧。
    我先給你舉例。
    好的。
    你告訴我這樣說對不對。
    對。
    所以以一種奇怪的方式,伊拉克戰爭是一場代理戰爭。
    因為同樣的理由。
    2000年代的伊拉克戰爭——
    那是哪個時期?
    我們指的是喬治·布什和迪克·切尼的伊拉克戰爭。
    對。
    我們(當時)試圖削弱伊朗。
    你認為伊拉克戰爭是試圖削弱伊朗的嗎?
    我意思是,你可以插嘴,但是這就是開始。
    這是原始的意圖。
    而深刻的悲劇性諷刺是,我們現在的情況,就是伊朗正在四處蔓延。
    美國為什麼想要削弱伊朗?
    因為1979年發生在你家族身上的事件。
    但為什麼?
    美國和伊朗之間的矛盾是什麼?
    因為他們在1979年扣押了我們的人質長達四百多天,我們不會就此放過,直到那件事,您知道的——
    這樣的正義看起來是什麼?
    我並不是說——
    對,對。
    我只是說——
    不,我是說為什麼我們與伊朗開戰?
    或者說我們不在戰爭中,但為什麼我們與伊朗有衝突?
    我認為這裡有許多不同的有效答案。
    但我認為,特別是為了讓一般人易於理解,
    美國希望在全球範圍內保持單一的超級大國地位。
    它不希望有任何競爭。
    它希望成為全球範圍內唯一的超級大國。
    因為成為唯一的超級大國能給你的公民和人口提供安全保障,
    同時也意味著擁有世界上所有資源的壟斷。
    基本經濟學告訴我們,所有經濟都基於資源。
    因此,伊朗試圖創建一個什葉派國家,試圖在中東建立一個什葉派的權力與影響的弦月,與美國的利益形成鮮明對比。
    美國希望維持一個遜尼派的多數,因為那是石油的主要來源,主要是對美國來說遜尼派的富有的國家。
    即使伊朗是第二大——
    對美國來說不是。
    是的,對美國來說不是。
    但在美國的黃金時期,這是一個雙極世界。
    所以自90年代以來,我們就處於單極化的情況下。
    而是的,確實有巨大的成功。
    但可以認為,單極化的不穩定性也很高。
    單極性是什麼?
    就是有一個世界大國基本上主導一切,這自冷戰結束以來一直是如此。
    現在我們見證了其他極點的興起,也許,中國就是其一。
    但在冷戰的整個期間,主要是雙極結構。
    蘇聯和美國。
    他們主導了全球棋局上的所有事情,對吧,在我們面前。
    可以說,自冷戰結束以來,單極系統並不太穩定。
    你可以這樣說,我認為你引用的統計數字,衝突的數量幾乎自那時以來一直在增加。
    那麼,這其中的啟示是什麼?
    你們怎麼看?
    我的想法是,這是學術界與現實的碰撞。
    好的。
    因為在學術上,我同意你的觀點。
    好的。
    原則上,我也同意你的觀點。
    好的。
    如果這個世界是多極的,那麼會更好。
    如果我們有一個強大的歐洲,有一個強大的中國,有一個強大的亞洲國家,以及一個強大的美國。
    如果我們能找到一種有效合作、合作而無衝突的方式,我的意思是,學術上,所有這些聽起來都很美好。
    哦,我不假裝這會是友好或合作的。
    我認為多極性可以在還存在對抗者的情況下進行。
    是的。
    但你的意思是,國家追求單極性。
    他們想成為全球霸權,因為這能給他們什麼?
    不,不,國家並不是這樣做的。
    一旦你成為接近同級的競爭者,那麼在現實情況下,你就沒有其他選擇,只能成為最強大的。
    這就是為什麼每個運動項目中只有一個奧運金牌獲得者的原因,任何特定的奧運會競賽。
    你不能有平局,對吧?
    這也是為什麼如果比賽以平局結束,會進入加時賽,因為你必須有一個獲勝者。
    這就像是人性。我必須知道我的威脅級別對你是什麼。
    所以我們之中必須有一個是主導者,另一個必須不如那個主導者。
    我們可以在不同的領域有主導權,對吧?
    這就是為什麼當我在你家做客時,我遵守你的規則。
    當你在我家做客時,你遵守我的規則。
    這其中有一部分是我們作為人類天生就具備的特質。但美國所擁有的是全球霸權。擁有世界上最富裕經濟體的所有好處、最強的貨幣和技術領先的地位。我們已經多元化了勞動力,不必依賴製造業。在美國,我們從思想中賺錢,而像中國這樣的地方則注定要依賴人們用手指去賺錢。因此,當你擁有這種力量時,你會非常專注於保持這種權力。和任何富有人士交談,他們都會告訴你同樣的事情。但戰爭是零和遊戲。奧運會是零和遊戲。外交則意味著其他人可以獲勝。並不是每個人都能平均獲勝,但可以出現多個獲勝者或多個失敗者。我們可以在頒獎台上共同分享一席之地。兩個人可以站在金牌區。你知道的,你可以分開。可以有一種團隊運動,對吧?如果那支隊伍贏了,隊裡的每個人都能獲得金牌。這怎麼樣?這和什麼一致?文化。這就是文化開始實現的地方。我會說美國是一種零和文化。我也這麼認為。好吧。我覺得這並不美好,但我認為這是事實。我還覺得有趣的是當我聽你們談話時。你可以想像在白宮裡的情景。想像總統。他正在讓一些顧問告訴他這些事,就像,你知道的,我們必須主導這樣的事。而他的軍事顧問則想要關於他們在自己領域的意圖的具體信息。因此,我認為對於一些層面上我當然是外行的普通人來說,這是有趣的,因為隨著你獲取的信息越多,你會發現,其實這些信息的另一面對我們所有人來說都是件很美好的事情。你可以開始理解背景。好吧,哇,安德魯說的這些很有道理。因此我認為,作為個體的你,世界對你來說變得更有意義,不再那麼威脅,像,發生了什麼事?哦,我的天,第三次世界大戰就要來臨了。但美國總統生活在他自己的孤立狀態中,擁有如此巨大的權力。隨著我報導這一切的時間延長,我越來越驚訝於美國總統的權力有多麼大。如果我們看看現在的總統,他所吸納的權力更多。至於他們生活在自己的孤立之中,我的意思是……並無戲謔之意,但也有戲謔之意。絕對如此。我的意思是,傳統上,傳統的政治導向、政策驅動的總統,他們會試圖減少孤立效應。現任總統卻做了相反的事情。他增加了對擁有專業知識,並在各自領域中成為專家的人的隔離。相反,他周圍環繞著一些更感興趣於,誰知的媒體意圖、未來的政治利益聲音。但他們不一定來自於像我們在以前的總統中看到的那種擁有情報專業知識的背景。而這就是我認為你使用的“背景”一詞。完全正確。我認為這很完美地捕捉了背後的含義。內容。這就是我們三個人在這裡討論的內容。內容。背景就是攝影機所錄製的,之後的剪輯過程,以及最終被傳播出去的內容。更廣泛的角度來看,那就是算法,那就是社交媒體,基本上限制了背景到內容擁有者所認為需要的樣子。我認為,這也促成了這種單極化、零和的心態。因為只有一個算法可以獲勝。你不能有競爭的算法。我們正在試圖和中國進行競爭的算法。而他們正在獲勝。幾年前,我為一群退休軍事官員設計了一個戰爭遊戲模擬。我們有一些著名的前官員,州長、參議員、國家安全人員在模擬白宮危機會議室。其一有趣的是,我的職責是設計這個遊戲,這個遊戲的目的是探討如果第二次1月6日事件發生,但這次叛變來自於軍隊內部。你有軍隊的叛逃,國民警衛隊基地,孤立的基地,對吧?五角大廈能為這樣的情況做好準備嗎?那會是什麼樣子?而且白宮的社交媒體團隊人員非常優秀,旨在向美國人民、總統以及其他人發出信號,告訴他們發生了什麼。我有四個人扮演紅隊。紅隊基本上由網紅、挑釁者組成,他們並不一定致力於推翻,只是想要,知道的,去借用。它很有趣,他們只是想要行動。就像借用希斯·萊傑所說的那個小丑。有些人只是想看世界燃燒,對吧?他沒有這樣說,但那是從《蝙蝠俠》裡來的,對吧?而兩三個人在酒吧裡能製造的混亂,和一整個由經驗豐富的人組成的白宮架構之間的差別。這些是曾經在白宮通訊團隊工作的實際人員,受過專業訓練。我們有在國防情報領域工作的軍事人員。而你有兩三個二十多歲的網紅,其中一些是退伍軍人,能夠造成絕對的混亂。因此,那就是……因為算法……而我設計了這個算法來放大他們的內容。而白宮無法跟上。而這是很吸引人也是讓人感到恐懼的。這是可怕的。我認為這就是戰爭,以及第三次世界大戰和衝突的想法,這就是你如何到達零和。我認為這就是你如何得知誰獲得金牌。
    所以回到你的觀點,背景、誰掌控這個孤島、誰掌控麥克風、誰掌控光圈,這些將變得更加重要。
    唐納德·特朗普所展示的一件事就是,我們其實身處於一個注目經濟之中。
    就像在財務經濟中,擁有最多的金錢讓你變得富有;在注目經濟中,擁有最多的注意力讓你變得非常富有。
    而這是一位即使在不是總統的時候,每天仍然出現在頭條新聞上的人。
    因此——我認為他未來的不可預測性並沒有讓我們更接近和平,也沒有讓我們更接近適當的溝通。
    你提到過,我們是否只差一次誤解?如果是這樣,那麼我們就處於一個非常嚴重的境地,因為很多誤解正在發生。
    我讀過歷史上關於誤解幾乎導致核戰爭或某些導彈發射的故事。
    安娜,你在歷史上研究過相當多這些時刻。
    我前幾天聽到一個故事。
    我想那是講述一位俄羅斯核指揮官的故事,他在雷達上看到了一些東西,認為美國正在發動攻擊。
    但無論出於什麼原因,他決定假設這不是事實,並向他的上級報告這不是核打擊,沒有按下按鈕。
    但他雷達上的一切告訴他,美國已經發射了多枚導彈。
    你對這個特定的故事熟悉嗎?
    是的,是的。
    那個故事是什麼?
    他被稱為「拯救世界的人」。
    那是1983年,他在俄羅斯的一個掩體裡。
    他們有類似的系統——我們有一個雷達系統,在監視衛星,追踪衛星活動。
    當時認為美國從中西部發射了導彈,洲際彈道導彈。
    你絕對是對的。
    你把這個故事講得很完美。
    他決定不將威脅上報給指揮鏈,這將使整個蘇聯的核指揮和控制系統處於大規模警戒狀態。
    他沒有這樣做。
    有趣的是,後來他受到俄羅斯指揮的嚴厲指責,但他獲得了「拯救世界的人」的頭銜。
    有關他的紀錄片絕對值得一看。
    而你所提到的,就是聯合國秘書長安東尼奧·古特雷斯最近所說的,我們距離核滅絕只差一次誤解、一次錯誤判斷,
    或者甚至是一個生成的人工智慧病毒視頻,讓——錯誤的人得到了錯誤的觀念。
    想像古巴導彈危機,我們是多麼接近,想像如果你有生成式人工智慧的內容,讓人看起來蘇聯已經部署或發射了導彈或其他類似的事情。
    在這次伊朗-以色列衝突中,我看到多少X平台的視頻顯示特拉維夫或德黑蘭市中心的毀滅。
    我意思是,它們顯然是捏造的,是人工智慧生成的,但這些東西被再傳播和擴散的程度。
    然後我看到那些通常我會信任的來源開始放大這些,不知道直到其他人指出,等一下,這是來自視頻遊戲,或這是生成的人工智慧。
    想像如果我們的決策者沒有冗餘方案或安全防範措施來識別這就是什麼。
    他們根據一個錯誤解讀或他們認為是真實的東西行動。
    這就是我所擔心的。
    我們的情報部門比這更先進嗎?
    推測他們不會在推特上看視頻吧。
    其實他們在。
    他們在那裡。
    這是一種類型的情報,稱為開源情報。
    但簡單的回答是,是的。
    我們的情報基礎設施遠比這更先進。
    對於所有核武能力國家的情報基礎設施,絕大多數都非常有效。
    法國是非常有效的。
    英國也是非常有效的。
    美國也是非常有效的。
    甚至中國的國安部也非常有效。
    因此,先進的情報服務會在做出情報評估之前尋找證據來進行證實。
    不過,目前存在一個挑戰,我們在美國特別可以看到,首席執行官獨立且單方面地不同意他的情報評估。
    你是怎麼回事?給我一個例子。
    你最近幾週看到了兩個例子,對嗎?
    第一,你看到圖爾西·加巴德,國家情報總監,她的職位是9/11失敗後才出現的。
    該DNI職位的誕生是因為我們需要在情報服務之間更好地協調。
    她出來發表了一個評估,稱伊朗並不具備迫切製造核武器的能力,對吧?
    她怎麼會知道?
    因為她是國家情報總監。所有情報,謝謝。
    這對我來說是顯而易見的,我理解,但並不總是對其他人明顯。
    但所有的情報服務會將經過審核、證實和驗證的情報上報,通過一個報告系統,送到國家情報總監,那位總監的工作是向總統建議我們擁有的最優質情報的當前狀態。
    總統作為首席執行官是情報服務唯一為之工作的那個人。
    但他目前現有情報的主要發言人應該是DNI。
    所以當圖爾西·加巴德說,我們沒有理由相信伊朗即將準備製造核武器時,總統應該說,謝謝你,DNI。
    然後這就成為了他所擁有的信息。
    然而他卻不同意她的看法,然後說,這並不是實際情況,我不同意。
    他把她排除了。
    正確。
    把她排除在外。
    在參議院簡報和情報簡報中,她被邊緣化了。
    然後她改變了她的看法,回來了。
    我想聽聽你的不同意見。
    但我第二個例子是,在對伊朗三個地點的轟炸後,國防情報局(DIA)回來說,我們可能沒有達到完全的毀滅,總統先生。
    他再次不同意。
    他說,那完全錯了,完全的毀滅。
    我有一個觀點,不是不同意見,而是對這一切的不同看法,這與敘事有關,我對這一點很感興趣。
    因為我訪問的每一個不同層級的人越多,我越意識到我們都是在同樣的人類條件下工作,你知道的,偏見以及某種程度上——而我最喜歡的一個就是賽馬中的馬。
    你知道,你在賽馬中有一匹馬,這影響了你的思考方式和你看待世界的方式。
    我知道隨著年齡增長,我個人試圖做的是我努力去注意自己錯了在哪裡。
    而不是對此抱有防禦的態度,而是承認,這件事我錯了。
    這很有趣。
    因為然後你就可以在思考中進化,具備更大的視角。
    但我感覺Tulsi Gabbard的決策是從她看待世界的角度出發,她的平台非常具體。
    你幾乎可以判斷出她會有那樣的觀點,至少在我看來。
    在她成為國家安全顧問之前,她就是一個被廣為人知的存在。
    所以我認為你的意思是,我們知道她總是從某個框架看待那個地區的政權。
    是的。
    她的結論跟隨著她的——
    偏見。
    偏見,她的前設。
    正是。
    也許它們只是一種——先驗是一個很好的詞,因為我們都有這樣的東西。
    本質上這並沒有錯。
    只是——因為如果我是國家安全顧問的話,我會對這一切有完全不同的看法,會說,總統先生,這與大家爭論的那些事情並不是那麼重要。
    因為讓我們面對現實,沒有人會知道在那裡實際上造成了多大的損失,這一點毫無疑問。
    你知道的。
    我們都知道。
    所以你必須說的——再一次,作為一名歷史學家,我會問,為什麼我們應該轟炸這個設施的最佳例子是什麼?
    最佳的例子就是北韓,因為克林頓——所以北韓曾經不曾擁有50顆核彈頭和將它們送到美國的洲際彈道導彈來摧毀美國,這就是我所寫的。
    這是我的偏見、我的視角、我的觀點。
    但我已經研究過這個。
    所以有趣的是,克林頓準備轟炸北韓,而當時的北韓正好和現在的伊朗情況一樣,尚未擁有核彈。
    而北韓曾承諾不會濃縮鈾。
    這是在1983年。
    克林頓當時在準備軍事打擊。
    這是複雜的,因為在韓國首爾會有很多人要死去。
    然後吉米·卡特介入,說,我將會和現任獨裁者的父親談判和平。
    他做到了。
    而一切都是一派和樂,除了北韓把手放在後面,手指交叉。
    他們在撒謊,因為這是那些不喜歡美國作為核超級大國並能夠威脅他們的獨裁者所做的。
    如果我是國家安全顧問,我會說,總統先生,這大概是正在發生的事的最佳例子。
    這是我的偏見,而不是說你知道的,所以我——但我對美國的部落部分感興趣,我覺得這和核武器一樣危險——不完全是,但這是我感興趣的。
    然後每個人都跳進了這個故事中,而這也是真的。
    你所講的故事是真的。
    但你對北韓、核彈和Tulsi Gabbard的看法是什麼?
    如果有的話,北韓是——我是說,在我成年的生活中,我從未想過我會這麼說。
    它是追求核能力的國家為什麼會繼續追求核能力的光輝榜樣。
    因為這是一個破碎、落後、貧窮、可惡的政權,我們無法碰。
    沒有人會去碰他們。
    因為他們擁有核武器。
    他們擁有核武器。
    現在,在我們作為美國轟炸了一個主權國家之後,我們向一個擁有自己邊界的國家進行了轟炸,沒有——沒有——
    這就是為什麼克林頓在那時不會這樣做——因為,天啊,這是前所未聞的。
    你不能這樣做。
    而現在我們這樣做,以便阻止一個國家獲得核武器——這是我們的既定意圖。
    現在,我們的既定意圖可能在這幅地圖的大部分地方受到慶祝。
    但對於伊朗人民以及那些試圖通過科技攀升社會階梯的人來說,他們得到的訊息是,除非我們擁有像武器、核武器這樣的東西,我們的邊界不會受到尊重。
    所以現在他們發展核武器的動力比以往任何時候都更強。
    正確。
    或者——抱歉打斷——或者他們可能會走不同的方向。
    他們可能會說,看看我們30年的核項目資助政策帶來了什麼。
    它帶給我們的是死亡和毀滅。
    北韓是一個失敗國家的光輝榜樣。
    它基本上還沒有倒下的唯一原因是這個政權對其人民和外部世界的壓迫性。
    誰想當北韓?
    伊朗不想成為北韓。
    它是所有先前國家的初期狀態,孤立到令人難以置信的程度,對所有人來說都是一個可憐的地方,除非你是統治階級的一部分,否則想要生活和存在。
    所以我會認為,伊朗人民會這樣看待這個問題。
    人民,請注意,不是——
    人民和政權是非常不同的。
    人民和政權是不同的。
    政權關乎自我生存。
    政權想要生存。
    所以他們會模仿北韓。
    接受這一點。
    百分之一百。
    接受這一點。
    他們所做的只是內部播下自己滅亡的種子,因為,是的,核武器會讓你免受外部世界的侵害。
    但它們無法保護你不受內部的影響。
    伊朗人不是北韓人。
    這就是他們所展示出來的,願意為叛亂而死的原因。
    我不是說這一代人已經準備這樣做。
    但,你知道,我之所以能在這個國家坐在這裡,是因為有成千上萬的人願意這樣做。
    他們可能會再這樣做。
    所以,太好了。
    建立你們的牆。
    將自己與世界隔離。
    保護自己免受美國的侵害。
    但你不會保護自己不遭受內部衝突和內亂及部落主義的影響。
    這將持續並且加劇。
    因為,你知道,壓迫,我認為這是《安道爾》第一季的一句佳句,對吧?
    壓迫需要不斷的努力。
    而這種不斷的努力注定某時會崩潰。
    要讓你的國內民眾受壓是很艱難的工作。
    從長遠來看,這是不可持續的。
    歷史已經證明了這一點。
    你可以將其他人拒之門外,但你不能。
    北韓除外。
    北韓是唯一的例外。
    而原因是因為他們有一個願意支持他們的巨大贊助者。
    但如果沒有中國呢?
    哦,中國。
    如果沒有中國,還有在小程度上,俄羅斯,北韓會在哪裡?
    伊朗沒有救世主。
    伊朗從來沒有過救世主。
    而且不會有。
    不會是俄羅斯。
    俄羅斯不會這樣做。
    我不知道這是否正確。
    誰會是?
    因為現在東方集團各國都有支持伊朗的動機。
    現在,中國、俄羅斯和北韓,在此之前已經與伊朗在外交和經濟上建立了聯繫,現在更有理由這麼做。
    除了在過去三週內,沒有人以重要的方式出面做什麼,這是我們知道的。
    好吧,你做了。
    普京在6月20日的聖彼得堡做了一個非常令人不安的演講,他提到了俄國科學家幫助伊朗。
    我發現這非常——呼應你所談論的威脅。
    正確。
    不要犯將在支持方面沒有給予任何支持的錯誤。
    還有靜默的外交渠道。
    還有秘密的情報渠道。
    我不同意。
    還有外語渠道。
    我不同意。
    我只是覺得伊朗不是俄羅斯或中國會死守的高地。
    不,絕對不是。
    這正是我想說的。
    歸根結底,沒有任何與北約第五條類似的條款,會讓東方集團的任何國家來捍衛伊朗的主權。
    他們根本不會。
    現在我們回到代戰的話題,因為伊朗對於俄羅斯和中國來說,是一個非常方便的代理。
    但毫無疑問,伊朗沒有核武器是更重要的。
    穆罕默德·本·薩勒曼自己說,如果伊朗擁有這種武器,我們——我們,沙特阿拉伯,也會擁有一枚核武器。
    這是一個巨大的——我認為這是一個極好的——一個極好的平行,為何世界不希望伊朗具備核能力。
    因為擁有核能力的伊朗將迫使遜尼派國家發展核武器。
    而那將引發核第三次世界大戰。
    或者你甚至不需要具備核能力。
    只要達到核門檻。
    這就夠了。
    如果每個地區的國家都成為核門檻,那將會怎樣?
    這意味著什麼?
    他們處於武器化的邊緣,但是還未完全達到。
    換句話說,鈾濃縮。
    當你找到原料鈾時,那是非常低濃度的。
    大約只有2%到3%是純的。
    你進行濃縮。
    你把它放入離心機中。
    你將想要的部分與不想要的部分分開。
    你進行純化。
    20%可以用於能源或醫療用途。
    這是核不擴散條約允許每個國家的範疇,除了那些沒有簽字的國家和五大強國,對吧?
    其他所有國家——都可以進行能源濃縮、鈾濃縮,直到20%的門檻。
    伊朗超過了這個,達到了60%。
    當你超過20%時,你就進入了武器領域。
    武器領域,你必須達到90%的範圍,對吧?
    乾淨的武器。
    乾淨的武器。
    但在20%到90%之間會得到一顆髒彈,一顆放射性的髒彈。
    所以,伊朗走到了那一步,然後說,我們還沒完全達到90%的武器化,但他們已經超過了20%。
    其他每個國家都可以說同樣的話。
    他們可以說,我們不會建造炸彈,但我們會非常接近,如果我們感到需要的話,只需幾周、幾天或幾個月,我們可以迅速做到,如果我們認為有威脅。
    這就是門檻。
    你覺得特朗普轟炸伊朗是對的嗎?
    我覺得他轟炸伊朗是正確的嗎?
    我認為與伊朗的外交在這個領導層下已經耗盡了。
    你能解釋一下嗎?
    因為我實在想理解這場與伊朗的衝突是從何而來的。
    是的。所以伊朗,在1979年之前,經歷了不同的君主制。
    在1920年代上台的巴列維王朝是最後一個主導的王朝。
    在冷戰期間,它與西方,特別是美國建立了密切的關係。
    伊朗是美國在中東權力的兩大支柱之一,沙特是另一個。
    這是在以色列對美國國家安全體系變得重要之前。
    所以,伊朗和沙特的確實代表了美國在中東的力量投射。
    隨著79年的革命,這一切都消失了。我們支持了沙哈和美國在中東的權力。是的,完全正確。對。所以,美國和沙哈,即伊朗國王,關係非常密切。這種關係在尼克森和基辛格的時候達到巔峰。結果是,沙哈變得非常富有,並急於現代化國家。但是他沒有做到的是,雖然伊朗經歷了巨大的經濟增長,但政治增長卻不相稱。
    當一個國家變富有,變得更加現代化,更加歐洲化(這正是沙哈所追求的),人民卻想要擁有他們所渴望的其他東西。他們渴望自由選舉。他們想要自由的新聞媒體。他們想要集會自由,對吧?洗碗機。他們希望有民主與洗碗機伴隨而來。問題在於,沙哈說,我會給你們所有現代化的表徵:高樓大廈、空調、室內管道、洗碗機和電器。但是你們想要的民主,這就太過分了。
    因此,你有了這個快速的經濟增長,卻是這種不均衡的政治增長,革命的種子就在那裡扎根。人民不快樂,他們說,等一下,為什麼我們不能在這種增長中擁有其他東西呢?於是,革命發生了,許多不同的力量開始參與進來,不僅是伊斯蘭主義者,但最終仍然是伊斯蘭主義者主導並清理掉了其他所有人。他們基本上殺了他們,邊緣化了他們。
    他們有三根支柱支撐他們。可以稱作他們的使命宣言的三個原則。第一是脫離西方的獨立。這個伊朗政權相信不再依賴西方,正如沙哈所做的那樣。第二是摧毀以色列或對以色列的敵意。這是根本性的。為什麼?因為他們將以色列視為美國權力的據點,並且可以說這不算殖民主義,但他們視以色列為美國權力的投射。他們還認為,為了達成第三個目標,也就是將革命輸出到其他穆斯林什葉國家,他們認為以色列擋了道。因為它代表著在其他伊斯蘭世界中的非穆斯林實體。
    所以這和他們擴大伊斯蘭革命的目標不一致。你無法做到這一點,當以色列實際上就在你面前。正因如此,它必須被消滅或削弱。他們已經這樣說過了。哦,對。這是霍梅尼,這個共和國的創立者。他的三個原則。你有這三個原則。若拿掉其中任何一個,整個架構就會倒塌。就像一隻三腳架,折斷其中一條腿,就沒有足夠的支撐。
    所以與美國的外交意味著結束與西方的敵對,也意味著在某種程度上承認以色列。這個政府無法做到。否則,它將失去所有的信譽。它花了40年多的時間在說,這就是我們所堅持的事情。如果他們突然放棄這些原則,將會在公眾面前失去所有的信任。那麼他們為什麼還應該掌權呢?不是因為公眾想要與伊朗和以色列敵對。公眾希望有關係。但這個政府卻在說,我們壓迫你們,我們恐嚇你們,這一切都是因為我們在保護你們,並且遵循這三個原則。
    這也經歷了40年的洗腦,確實如此,是洗腦。所以外交已經走到了盡頭。回答你的問題,對一個好問題的長篇回答,特朗普轟炸它是否正確。特朗普達到了外交的極限。而伊朗身為核門檻國,加上以色列在2023年哈馬斯攻擊後意識到再也無法容忍這樣的門檻伊朗,行動的時機已經到來,壓力是存在的。因為它削弱了防禦系統和代理軍。
    他們是真正的代理軍,真主黨和哈馬斯。對。所以我認為有機會窗口。而伊朗根本不會自動放棄它的核計劃。外交無法讓我們達到那一點。他們不想放棄。這給了他們太多的籌碼。而且他們從不會放棄自己的核計劃。我已經不再說「永不」了。但是隨著政權的更替,我認為那是另一番故事。但是在現有的政權內,他們會保持權力。我的觀點是——你知道,我們都同意的類比就是,對他們來說,如果我們擁有核武器,那麼西方真的無法干擾我們。
    還有你提到的一些我喜歡的事情。你說,如果你是DNI或總統的角色,獲得信息,你錯了,好的?你必須重新評估。我們的領導者——這涉及到我正在寫的這本書的主題——尤其是男性領導者,經常遭遇認知失調,對吧?認知失調就是當你擁有一組信念,而你得到的信息與你的信念不一致時。這會讓所有人類極其不舒服,對吧?那麼你怎麼處理它呢?其實我們在心理上有多種方法試圖減少這種壓力。其中一種就是改變你的觀點。你會說,你知道嗎?我錯了。這是正確的看法。大多數人不會這樣做。這很尷尬。大多數男人不會這樣做。擁有權力的大多數男性絕對不會這樣做。如果他們承認錯誤,那這意味著什麼呢,對吧?所以相反地,他們會加倍努力。他們會強化。他們會變得固執。最終為了證明這一點,他們不得不表現得具有攻擊性。所以我們基本上遭受著擁有權力的男性施加的影響。
    這就是我所說的“看,我是對的”問題,你知道吧?我告訴過你了。所以你必須強化你的錯誤信念,因為如果不這樣做,就意味著你錯了。
    如果你是唐納德·特朗普,如果你是哈梅內伊,如果你是本雅明·內塔尼亞胡而且你錯了,那看起來有多糟糕呢?
    你就完了。
    在我們這個文化中,你的可信度已經消失了,對吧?
    這導致了另一個問題,這些世界領導人似乎無法應對的認知失調。
    你認為我們對伊朗的打擊是正確的嗎?
    我認為我們做了正確的事,但時機不對。
    我之所以這樣說,是因為美國總統是美國的總統。
    他贏得了這個位置。
    我們希望他在那裡。
    我們為此投票。
    他可以做他想做的任何事。
    但考慮到當時以色列和伊朗之間的政治,考慮到我們對伊朗正在發展的武器實際狀況至少是,非常不一致的情報。
    再加上當時美國的政治環境,失敗的關稅,無法在加沙談判和平,無法在烏克蘭談判和平,如果這是正確的事,我們顯然做得太過火,且是先發制人地做了。
    那麼,什麼時候會是更好的時機?
    我的意思是,如果你想像父母一樣的說話,那麼你是對的。
    從來就沒有一個好時機,對吧?
    但首先,我認為有限的轟炸行動並不是根除的方式。
    這不是完全摧毀一個國家核能力的方式。
    你必須承諾進行多次轟炸行動。
    你必須協調攻擊。
    在這個具體情況下,以色列向美國提出了一個提議。
    它說,嘿,我們希望你來使用你獨有的地下彈藥炸彈技術。
    但如果你不這樣做,我們有其他選擇。
    我希望能說,讓我們看看那些其他選擇。
    讓我們看看你能獨自進行到什麼程度,因為你是以色列,面臨著來自伊朗的生存威脅。
    你是那個在你所在的地區,與代理人打交道並取得驚人成就的國家。
    而我們是目前可以繼續說我們不會侵犯主權邊界的國家,對吧?
    我們顯然入侵了伊拉克。
    我們入侵了阿富汗。
    我們在這方面有著自己的歷史,且已經有違反國際法的歷史。
    我們始終有選擇停止跨邊界轟炸的權利。
    但我們並沒有等待,而是讓以色列所有選擇都耗盡後,我們才進去。
    而為什麼呢?
    我們是因為這樣有利於我們的最佳利益才進行了嗎?
    還是因為這符合了其他某人的更大福祉,而我們的只有小利益的交集?
    我對此有個理論。
    不過首先,我想問你一個關於你的專業知識的問題,就是你說的,讓我們看看以色列的一些其他選擇。
    因為我談的是他們計劃中的秘密行動。
    因為,天啊,在華盛頓郵報上流出的錄音帶,以色列的秘密行動小組,真讓我驚訝。
    我想最好還是由你來解釋一下我們在談論什麼,因為我和你就如同你脖子上的靜脈那麼接近。
    完全正確。
    所以現在我們在標題上看到的事物,以及在不久的將來肯定會繼續出現的是這場對伊朗的驅逐行動,這一系列被懷疑為間諜的行動。
    因為現在伊朗——伊朗已經是一個充滿間諜的瑞士奶酪,裡面有摩薩德的特工、摩薩德的線人。
    摩薩德是什麼?
    摩薩德是以色列的外部情報收集服務。
    他們是CIA的版本。
    好的,這就是以色列的CIA。
    是的,正確。
    摩薩德和CIA之間的主要區別之一是,摩薩德基本上專注於一個主要的敵人,那就是伊朗。
    因此,幾乎100%的努力都是在保護對於這個存在性威脅的抵抗,而美國的CIA則是在針對所有人進行情報收集,對吧?
    因此,擁有這種集中於情報的焦點,加上以色列的預算,加上它與西方的合作夥伴關係以及從西方獲得的技術,它在情報方面對伊朗有著更大的優勢。
    我想插一句。
    這些是我們之前談到的那些關於地面行動的觸發者。
    這些是進行秘密行動的執行者,他們進入並殺人。
    我們在以色列或伊朗內部有多種形式的滲透。
    但就她所說的那一點來看,摩薩德在伊朗的秘密行動部門是巨大的。
    這就是他們能夠越過國界發射無人機的原因。
    他們現在發現了數千架在德黑蘭內部由摩薩德資產建造的預製無人機,而這些無人機是由AI控制的。
    因此,以色列實際上可以在按一下按鈕時,飛行數百架在伊朗首都內部建造的自製無人機,就像是伊朗人自己製造的一樣。
    是伊朗人。
    是的。
    我說,所有這一領域所帶來的欺騙和某種偏執的程度令人震驚和驚訝,並且——
    正確。
    伊朗長期以來一直懷疑這點,也知道這種情況的存在,但可能從未想到會達到如此程度,因為這並非迫在眉睫的威脅。
    它並不是一個迫切的關注點。
    然後隨著這一系列針對伊朗的行動而變成了一個。
    我前幾天在閱讀有關這些傳真的資訊。
    我完全不知道。
    我在我的資訊流中看到過一些東西,但我想要進行研究。
    基本上,以色列成功讓伊朗部隊使用他們制造的帶有炸彈的傳真機。
    然後他們引爆了所有的傳真機。
    我說,甚至更令人印象深刻的是,他們沒有讓任何人戴上傳真機,而是找到了那個型號和類型的傳真機。
    他們找到了供應鏈。
    他們找到了製造商。
    然後他們潛入了製造廠,以確保將這些炸藥裝置輸入到最終將交到真主黨手中的同款同型號的設備裡。
    還有,他們是在黎巴嫩,順便說一句。
    哦,是的。
    那是在-好的。
    黎巴嫩,對。
    但那是伊朗的代理軍隊。
    另外我想指出的是,西方情報,特別是CIA,完全錯過了1979年。
    那是它在現代史上最大的失誤之一。
    美國和其他西方機構,甚至以色列,在完全理解伊朗發生的事情上,毫無疑問地無能。
    以色列的摩薩德特工所取得的成就是非凡的。
    但在情感、街頭氛圍以及人民對這個團體或那個實體的興趣上,不知為何,也許你可以為這提供一些洞見。
    我試著理解為什麼美國對於這方面的歷史理解這麼糟糕。
    要追溯到53年的政變,這是一個經典的案例。
    即使是MI6也無法正確理解。
    他們在那裡怎麼會這麼糟糕,但在其他地方卻能似乎做對?
    你不能指望任何情報組織-你不能指望任何專業的情報組織能百分之百正確。
    情報-這是一個人們常常誤解的東西,對吧?
    情報並不是當你知道某事為真的時候。
    當你知道某事為真的時候,那是一個事實。
    即使那是一個你知道的秘密,那也是一個事實。
    情報是你對未知事物的評估,你的猜測。
    因為如果你知道,那就是事實。
    在有這麼多情報的地區,如今為什麼會發生像10月7日這樣的事件,還有這些摩薩德部隊和CIA?
    據推測,他們應該有情報預測會發生這件事。
    對。
    從攻擊那天起的調查結果顯示,確實有多個報告,以及多名行動者和官員升級了這個問題。
    民主的一個缺點是,當你有一個擁有指揮渠道的官僚機構,人們必須達成一致、合作以及驗證彼此的信息時,一切的進展都會慢得多。
    所以,在10月7日的情況下,負責邊界巡邏和邊界安全的是以色列國防軍(IDF)。
    以色列國防軍是指一個軍事單位。
    他們負責發生攻擊的地點。
    他們看到了排練和實踐攻擊的證據,並看到了衝突的升級。
    他們向官僚系統上報。
    但在那個鏈條的某處,有人對此看法不同。
    對,正是如此。
    還有辛貝特(Shin Bet),這是以色列的內部安全機構,相當於FBI。
    內部安全部門。
    內部安全部門。
    從未收到來自以色列國防軍的完整準確的備忘錄。
    而摩薩德關於可能發生或不可能發生的事的情報,顯然從未成為送達政策制定者的最終情報的一部分。
    所以,有一些證據實際上是在事後才被識別出來的,這正是911事件中發生的情況。
    有些信息只是在事件影響後被辨識出來。
    我想這也是老生常談,事後諸葛亮的說法,無論是珍珠港事件還是911事件,在所有這些情況中都適用。
    我的意思是,情報失誤是改變歷史軌跡的原因。
    但是如果你與很多CIA的人進行訪談,正如我所做的,我經常聽到這樣的話,無論是真是假,就是,安妮,沒有人會聽到我們所阻止的所有襲擊。
    然後我會問,那你跟我說說吧。
    這些仍然是機密的。
    所以,我的意思是,這就是為什麼敘述對我來說如此有趣,因為首先,它感覺個人化,因為你可以與之產生共鳴。
    即使我們無法與白宮的經歷產生共鳴,我們也肯定能理解在不想改變意見時的固執,或者,整理出一組特定的事實並說,「啊,這樣,因此那樣」。
    然後我們就錯了。
    我從零開始創立了公司,並支持了更多的公司。
    我一直在發現早期創始人有一個盲點。
    他們花很少的時間思考人力資源。
    並不是因為他們不負責任或不在乎。
    而是因為他們對創建公司感到著迷。
    我無法責怪他們。
    在那個階段,你在思考產品、如何吸引新客戶、如何擴大你的團隊,真的就是如何生存。
    而人力資源在清單上降了下來,因為它並不覺得緊急。
    但遲早這是一個問題。
    當事情變得混亂時,像我們今天的贊助商JustWorks這樣的工具,從「好有」變成了「必需品」。
    當某些事情偏離正軌,你會發現自己在進行未曾預料到的對話。
    這時你會明白,人力資源確實是你公司的基礎設施。
    沒有它,事情就會搖搖欲墜。
    JustWorks讓你不必以艱難的方式領悟這一點。
    它處理那些否則會消耗你精力和時間的事情,像是自動化工資、健康保險福利。
    並且在任何時候都能給你的團隊提供人性化的支持。
    它隨著你的小企業從創業到成長而增長,即使當你開始在海外招募團隊成員時也是如此。
    所以如果你想要在興奮和挑戰的時期都能提供人力資源支持的話,現在就馬上去JustWorks.com。
    這是JustWorks.com。
    接下來伊朗會發生什麼?
    在這整個與他們的緊張局勢中,他們已經宣稱有停火,但看起來這不是一個良好的停火。
    目前這個伊斯蘭政府在國內面臨合法性危機。
    他們現在必須看著自己的人民,說,好的,我們基本上未能保護你們。
    他們試圖以這種敘事來粉飾,稱他們確實捍衛了家園。他們試圖利用民族主義作為某種藥膏,作為彌補來為所發生的事情辯解或解釋,甚至掩蓋過去所發生的事情。將會出現新的領導者。現任最高領導人,你知道的,他已經虛弱不堪。他一直都很虛弱,這幾年來幾乎瀕臨死亡,撇開那些暗殺他的企圖不談。繼任危機,誰將是下一個領導者,現在將會更為加劇,迫切感會更強。而且,革命衛隊的下一屆領導人是否願意與其他人合作?他們是否會在核 enriquecimiento 上加倍努力?他們將會把事情轉入地下嗎?他們會永遠驅逐國際原子能機構(IAEA)嗎?他們會退出難以防止核擴散條約(NPT)嗎?我們對這些問題的答案都不得而知。而公眾的動盪局勢會是什麼樣子?會有誰出現嗎?因為沒有一個以某種旗幟人物為首的運動,抗爭是不可能的。這個政權一直相當擅長於此。在過去的幾天裡,他們處決了三到四名他們認為可能會出現的潛在領導者——哇,我不知道這個。哦,對,他們殺了三到四個人,大約三個,我想,至少有三個。我正等著確認是否有第四個。是的,他們畏懼那些可能會在這個不穩定和失調的時期煽動叛亂和起義的人。這是他們最不想要的事情。這就是我將要介入的地方。如果我錯了,你要糾正我。但是如果我們處在不同的總統任期和時代,比如,你知道的,這正是CIA可以在伊朗進行干預並煽動變革的時候,因為這終究是美國的目標。而這絕對不應該這樣做。它在1953年這樣做過。但我並不是說應該或不應該。我只是說它會這樣。這意味著從道德的角度來看,不應該或應該,而只是事實上不這樣。這樣才能在未來幾十年間具備合法性,它必須是有機的、本土的、自主的、自然生長的、草飼的。特工有時可以如此戲劇性地隱藏自己,以至於根本不知道它在那裡。我——伊朗不是。我們想要聽聽你的看法。伊朗——再說一次,我作為一個驕傲的波斯人這樣說,伊朗與我認為其他衝突地區的情況非常不同。你知道,伊朗的文明和國家歷史可以追溯到幾千年前,這非常不同。它並不依賴於財富,不像伊拉克這個虛構的國家,直到1917年、1918年在賽克斯-皮科協定後才存在。現代中東也非常不同。所以你想在中東插手?好吧。但土耳其、埃及、伊朗,這些都是存在了幾千年的國家。美國的情報機構包括我會補充的英國MI6,並沒有搞清楚這一點。安德魯,你認為這個地區接下來會發生什麼?我們會達成和平嗎?他們會與美國結盟嗎?所以我聰明到不會參與辯論,因為我對伊朗的政治分歧和內部政治知之甚少。而且我知道CIA大多數時候對伊朗發生什麼事情也不是很清楚。我對這一切的質疑主要是,為什麼我們進入的原因之一是因為以色列的內塔尼亞胡說,這是我們掌握的情報。在情報界,這是一個很常見的遊戲。如果你掌握了80%的信息,即使你知道100%的信息,你也只會分享20%。而且你會分享那20%對你有利的。你認為這可能就是所發生的事情嗎?我絕對認為這是發生的事情。所以你認為以色列的內塔尼亞胡可能會給美國提供選擇性情報,以激怒他們進行干預嗎?這是有道理的。這正是專業情報機構會做的。這正是美國所做的。而你不認為美國知道這個嗎?他們只是獲得了適量的情報?不。我認為即使他們知道這一點,內塔尼亞胡也能了解特朗普對於賭馬的心態。對吧?而且情報界是一個骯髒、骯髒的遊戲。我們稱它為紳士的遊戲,但根本不是。這是一場扭曲人們認知失調和政治觀點的遊戲。籌碼非常骯髒。那么接下來會發生什麼?我認為我們需要準備的是核武器的使用不會變得不再可能。我認為傳統的二戰核武器,即針對平民的洲際彈道導彈,其實不太可能被使用。它極有可能根本不會被使用。但一個所謂的髒彈,60%濃縮的鈾被某種爆炸裝置引爆,隨便放在汽車後備箱或手提箱裡,不需要武器系統。但它會輻射空氣。你駛入一輛卡車並引爆它。這就像是放射性髒彈。它會造成一個輻射雲懸停在城市或小範圍內。這就是恐怖分子可能會擁有的。
    戰術核武器呢?
    我認為戰術核武器也是我們非常有可能會見到的東西。
    自第二次世界大戰結束以來,我們所見的不再是對洲際彈道導彈戰爭的投資,而是對戰術核戰爭的增加投資。
    戰術核戰爭的彈頭小到50磅,能夠搭載在短程火箭或中程火箭的末端。
    它們可以放進背包裡,理論上可以放在無人機上。
    這些戰術核武器的爆炸威力非常小,但仍然是核爆炸。
    戰術核武器之所以如此有價值,是因為現在可以用於攻擊軍事目標。
    我必須完全 …… 我必須說 —— 不能說可以用於攻擊,對吧?
    所以這是我劃定的底線。
    戰術核武器不再在美國的武器庫中,正因為這一原因,因為它們不能被使用。
    因為升級到戰略核武器 —— 一個大洲到另一個大洲,龐大的系統,龐大的投送系統是不可避免的。
    但繼續吧。
    你說這是一個滑坡。
    這不這是一個滑坡 —— 它是一條分界線。
    你甚至不能進入那個滑坡。
    就像如果你被推下懸崖,就再也無法回頭。
    這不是滑坡,而是懸崖。
    所以你是——
    根據我對核戰爭模擬的理解,五角大樓的每個人都知道。
    無論核戰爭如何開始,它都以徹底的毀滅結束,這就是為什麼美國不再在其武庫中擁有戰術核武器的原因。
    我們曾經擁有過。
    我們曾經有小型核武器,可以放進背包從飛機上跳下來。
    我認識在冷戰期間進行過這訓練的人。
    你可以確定美國在庫存中已經沒有了?
    我們沒有。
    或者說沒有我們知道的?
    不,不。
    我們沒有。
    現在,你可以說轟炸機上的某些核武器由於我們擁有一種特定的核武器,可以被飛行,其大小可以降低。
    這使它成為戰術武器。
    那麼如果我們根本無法使用核彈,那麼我們為什麼還要擁有核彈?
    這是事實的根本原因。
    因為我說我們不能擁有戰術核彈,因為如果我們擁有——我們根本不會使用它們,如果是這樣的話,整個世界就結束了,基本上。
    那麼我們為什麼還擁有核彈?
    因為同樣的原則適用。
    因為你擁有核彈。
    我們擁有核彈。
    我們還不如擁有戰術核彈。
    絕對的。
    不。
    我確實相信這是美國核指揮和控制的明智舉措之一。
    因為戰術武器會導致使用重型武器。
    千百分之百,甚至不是百分之一百。
    但如果這是真的,那麼為什麼還要擁有重型武器?
    這就是更大的問題。
    但我們對於為什麼擁有核武器的立場只有一個詞。
    就是威懾。
    我們要讓你不敢使用核武器攻擊我們,因為我們有武庫,而你也有武庫。
    這就是為什麼我們無法擺脫核武器的荒謬的二難困境。
    我們現在看到的是——我們看到現實與政策的碰撞。
    因為安妮是對的。
    這方面的政策混淆不清。
    但它們反覆被表述,以便讓美國人民能夠消化我們擁有這麼多核武器的事實。
    對吧?
    事實是我們在世界五個其他國家擁有我們的核武器。
    對吧?
    比利時就在那裡握著我們的核武器。
    義大利也握著我們的核武器。
    讓它們成為目標。
    並且讓他們在自己的邊界擁有核武器。
    但他們無法使用。
    在未經美國總統授權的情況下,他們無法使用。
    所以這是非常危險的。
    如果他們想使用,誰能使用?
    所以這裡——
    每一種武器都是不同的。
    每一種武器都是不同的。
    我這麼說是因為核武器的真相遠比一般人理解的要可怕得多。
    這也是為什麼我相信,像你一樣,戰略層面上永遠不會使用它們的一個重要原因。
    因為那些實際上處理武器的人,你正在交談的人,他們理解這些武器的毀滅性後果。
    但普通人大多時候非常、非常困惑。
    所以小型彈頭,假設有30千噸的爆炸力,對吧?
    這仍然是我們在廣島投下的兩倍。
    小型彈頭造成巨大的損害。
    可以摧毀10平方英里的區域,假設是它在任何地方爆炸時的情況。
    如果是地面爆炸。
    如果是高空爆炸,幾乎不會真正摧毀任何東西。
    它會留下短路導線的電磁脈衝(EMP)足跡,對吧?
    這可能會產生一個巨大的——謝謝——EMP脈衝,摧毀其下方的一切。
    那麼什麼是EMP?
    EMP是一種電磁脈衝。
    它是從核爆炸或其他來源來的電放電,通過技術、導線等滲透。
    並且它會短路或燒掉導線。
    想像一下像大規模的浪潮一樣,像大規模的電力浪潮,對吧。
    或者你可以在地下、在水下引爆它們以產生自然效果。
    你可以製造地震。
    你可以製造海嘯。
    你可以製造一些破壞性的蒸汽泡。
    所以有很多不同的方式可以使用武器。
    但我擔心的是,由於美國的政策對美國人民而言如此黑白分明,這讓其他國家更容易以特定方式使用核武器來製造混亂,
    以創造缺乏明確性。
    例如,如果一顆小型俄羅斯核武器在白俄羅斯,而俄羅斯在白俄羅斯放置核武器,然後它進入基輔並在一輛卡車後面爆炸,那麼你會怪誰?
    美國會怪俄羅斯嗎?
    美國會怪白俄羅斯嗎?
    俄羅斯會對此負責嗎?
    歐洲會說這是來自俄羅斯的攻擊嗎?
    你怎麼說?
    因為現在你剛剛經歷了一次核爆炸,世界感到困惑。
    如果中國使用戰術核武器在南中國海摧毀海上的五艘菲律賓艦船,會怎樣?
    這是一種小型核裝置,在一種沿海情境下使用,只攻擊那些違反某種自由空間的軍事力量。
    那麼你該怎麼做?
    這可不是你發射洲際彈道導彈(ICBM)的時候。
    那麼你該怎麼辦?
    安妮,這會發生什麼?
    這是一個噩夢般的情況。
    我的意思是,核武器的歸因,也就是說,無法歸因。
    弄清楚它的來源。
    是的,因為如果發射了一枚戰略核武器,一枚洲際彈道導彈(ICBM),我們,美國,會精確知道它來源於哪裡,因為我們在發射後的第一秒會從我們的衛星系統看到。
    這是威懾的根本所在。
    不僅你不能對我們發動攻擊,而且我們會在一秒內知道,你的核子還沒到達我們這裡,我們就會對你反擊。
    這就是運作的方式。
    但安德魯所說的則令人深感不安。
    這也是我們在討論為什麼伊朗不應擁有核武器或任何國家不該擁有核武器的另一個原因,擁有九個核武器國家,就如你所說,白俄羅斯可能會得到一些東西,這是非常危險的。
    但是你不想讓其他人參與其中。
    包括非國家行為者,比如黑 حزب、哈馬斯、胡塞武裝,若你是以色列。
    擔心的不是伊朗會使用它,而是伊朗會將其提供給一個不受任何國際法或戰爭規則約束的非國家實體。
    而伊朗可以聲稱不承認。
    是的。
    這就是特朗普總統轟炸的原因。
    想像一下,以色列是九個具核能力國家之一。
    想像摩薩德完全有能力越過伊朗邊界,走私進入一枚50磅的戰術核武器。
    他們把它放在一個測試場內。
    好吧,他們把它放在伊朗內部的一個設施裡。
    然後他們把它設在定時引爆器上。
    13小時後,它爆炸了。
    在伊朗一個伊朗設施內發生了一次地下核爆炸,而在這次模擬中,我們知道這是由以色列的秘密行動引發的。
    但全世界看到伊朗發生了爆炸。
    現在總統在想,他們是不是進行了核試驗?
    伊朗舉手說,我們沒有進行核試驗。
    有人把核武器放在我們的領土上。
    誰相信誰?
    對吧?
    沙烏地阿拉伯相信什麼?
    哦,糟糕。
    伊朗有核能力。
    我們是核臨界國。
    砰,讓我們加速推進。
    日本,核臨界國。
    他們開始推進自己的計劃。
    如果伊朗承認以色列的突擊隊或特工潛入了他們眼皮底下最機密的設施,那對伊朗而言情況會有多糟?
    所以我有一個好奇的問題,或許你會知道。
    你有一點病態的好奇心。
    我們應該喝一杯。
    不,這是一個恐怖的問題,10月7日後,拜登總統親自去了以色列。他沒有派布林肯。還記得嗎?
    這是我們的事情。
    這是一件大事。
    這是一件大事。
    這是我們的事情。
    這不是一個在外面踢足球的男人,好嗎?
    他走進了戰鬥區的心臟。
    為什麼?
    我的理論是,他告訴內塔尼亞胡,有一條線你不可跨越。
    如果你跨越了,我們就不會再是朋友。
    那就是核武的紅線。
    這是我的理論。
    沒有人能回答我這個問題,每當我問任何人的時候,他們的嘴唇都會變得非常…
    變得非常緊閉,沒有人說任何話,這使我相信,這正是發生的事情。
    在我們面前的這張地圖上,正在發生著各種事情,所有事情似乎同時在進行,與俄羅斯和烏克蘭有關,還有中國與台灣的事情。
    現在中東和伊朗、以色列,還有加沙的一切正在發生。
    這感覺不會朝著相反的方向發展。
    這感覺不會在短期內收縮。
    有趣的是,當特朗普當選時,他承諾會結束這些戰爭。
    而在他的統治下,似乎越來越多的戰爭冒出來。
    而且,事實上,這些都造成了掩護和分散注意力,讓其他人開始,例如,入侵他們有問題的國家。
    我們有談到一些國際法遭到違反,以及在你能做的事情上設定的新範例。
    我們現在到了,對轟炸一個主權國家來說,這似乎已經有點可以接受的地步。
    這似乎已經可以自由地跨越邊境,隨心所欲地拿走你想要的東西。
    所以我想這就是關心開始的地方。
    我也在看地圖的另一側,關於俄羅斯和烏克蘭。
    我在自問,這該怎麼結束?
    你知道,普京不能就這樣撤離,因為那他為什麼當初要進入?
    我意思是,烏克蘭看來不會讓他佔領他們的一部分國土。
    這場戰爭會持續下去。
    然後你還有中國和台灣的關係,緊張局勢已經加劇。
    我好像讀到最近有更多的衝突或入侵中國的傳聞,這對中國而言,現在進攻台灣也許是一個不錯的時機。
    現在也許是一個很好的時機。
    特朗普忙著。
    不只是忙。
    在接下來的幾天內,台灣將進行一次軍事演習,練習或準備應對中國人民解放軍對台灣海岸的兩棲登陸。 最近幾天,中國政府做了什麼? 他們正在干擾GPS信號,發射無人機干擾雷達,基本上封鎖合法的航運通道。但重點是,如果你是台灣,正在為這次可能不必發生的兩棲侵略做準備,因為中國可以做很多事情來擾亂並讓台灣的生活變得痛苦,而無需派一名士兵踏上台灣的土地。
    所以,毫無疑問,這是——同時,美國在其他地方忙碌。看看提供給以色列的導彈,THAAD導彈被用來防禦伊朗的彈道導彈。這些資源已經枯竭了,對吧? 所以如果你是美國,現在保護台灣的能力比一個月前或六個月前弱了。
    而且,還有一種公共疲勞,對吧?因為現在美國民眾更加兩極化。在右派中,有一些人認為我們應該去打仗,而在左派中,則認為不應如此,等等。這變得相當模糊,有很多反彈。我相信特朗普有感受到這點。他的一些媒體盟友,比如塔克·卡爾森以及我推特上大部分的動態,都在說他不應該投下炸彈,不應該參與戰爭。我相信這些也會對他造成影響。
    但本傑明,我想你認為,如果有觸發第三次世界大戰的契機,會來自那個地區。我也是這麼想的。我覺得我們會在現在所看到的形式中看到,例如貿易戰、供應鏈危機問題。我們在COVID期間看到供應鏈受到干擾時會發生什麼。那是一種非人為事件,意味著它是一種病毒。但想像一下,中國現在禁止向西方出售所有稀土礦物,對吧?這些是用於鋰電池、微電路、處理器等建設中的礦物。然後想像中國如果說,看看,我們根本不會將這些東西賣給美國及其西方盟友。完了。我們不會這麼做。那麼,會發生什麼?
    因此,我認為一場重大衝突將由經濟和貿易戰引發,而我們現在基本上已經身處其中。直到美國和西方盟友能夠透過其他地方獲得這些資源,我不確定佔領格陵蘭是否能解決這個問題,或讓加拿大成為第51個州能否做到這一點。但這就是中國非常有效的地方。他們在邊界內擁有大量這些礦物。我們知道烏克蘭也有相當多的資源,這就是為什麼特朗普總統希望與烏克蘭達成協議以確保這些礦產權的原因。所有這些都回到了貿易和技術。你不需要為了控制領土而控制領土。你需要的是擁有一些重要資源的領土,無論是石油,雖然如今相對較少,但現在是稀土礦物和貿易路線的准入。這就是你開始干擾的地方。你隨後點燃了戰爭的引信。
    這些事實上已經在進行中。你剛提到的所有事情都已經在運作中。這就是為什麼我聲稱第三次世界大戰已經在發生的部分原因。如果中國入侵台灣,不論是行政上、理智上還是軍事上,無論他們選擇以何種方式進入那裡,因為我們一直認為他們會派遣戰艦進入並用導彈削弱戰場,實際上並非如此。 他們是以行政方式接管了香港,然後再進駐警察,聲稱我們擁有合法權利。這正是他們在台灣所做的。他們甚至在台灣擁有一個以親中國為主的議會,對吧?所以他們在一月份的選舉中干預到足夠的程度,以便在議會中贏得多數席位,儘管他們失去了總統職位,對吧?
    所以我其實—我覺得我們看到來自歐洲的相同訊息—如果中國對台灣採取行動,世界就會這樣做。台灣孤立無援,不僅因為總統分心,而且因為北約也在分心。歐洲分心。而且沒有人希望在那裡打仗,當這裡有這麼多麻煩發生的時候。但是問題是,他們甚至不需要進行入侵。 他們所要做的就是封鎖航運路線,這是他們能做的。
    沒有人會對此挑戰他們,基本上停止向每個想要這些稀土礦物的國家出售。然後我們該怎麼辦?俄羅斯不再向我們出售其擁有的資源。你知道,俄羅斯也可以選擇這樣做。好吧,這不會變成一場動態的戰爭。美國——
    不會,對吧?
    正是。它將變成我們已經看到的更多的情況,更多的關稅、更多的威脅,更多的貿易,更多我們已經看到的同樣情況,這是我認為我們已經身處於戰爭當中的重要原因。沒錯,我同意。這就是我們現在面對的戰爭。它只是不像過去的戰爭。我認為是拜登曾經說過或建議,如果中國入侵或佔領台灣,那麼我們將會進入一場戰爭。但事實上不需要。事實上不需要。對於中國來說,贏得這場戰爭並不需要踏上台灣的土地。他們所要做的,基本上是經濟上、貿易上孤立台灣,然後挑戰西方或其他地方的任何人去做什麼。他們會對此做什麼?這真的很難預測。
    即使是法國,甚至法國總統最近也出來說,「如果中國拿下台灣,我認為法國不會介入。」是的。如果我們西方國家能在其他地方找到資源,我想我們會把台灣拋出來。根據拜登的晶片法案,這正是我們所要做的,尋找多樣化的路徑。
    我們不是有一些如誓言般的承諾來保護台灣嗎?是的,官方上是的。我們有誓言保護台灣。我認為在這一切中,最大的變數是現任總統。沒有人知道他會如何表現。我也不認為他會分心。我認為他會專注於他所選擇的任何事情,然後這成為吸引力。
    是的,習近平也知道他現在需要一個勝利。他也知道吞併台灣及台灣的半導體、台灣的基礎設施和台灣的能力會帶來巨大的經濟利益。因為美國所有的半導體知識產權都是在這裡發展的,並且都在那裡建設。所以當你拿走那些資源時,你獲得的是那邊的所有實體基礎設施和這邊的所有智力財產。
    在過去幾十年中,核戰爭的可能性曾經更高嗎?我認為,幾年前的俄烏衝突,俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭的那幾個月,應該說是去年,是過去幾十年的巔峰。我認為我們在那方面稍微退後了一些。但我認為那是巔峰。我不認為今天的情況比一年前更糟,但我認為一年半前的情況比過去的20或30年要嚴重得多。
    你認為如果伊朗發展了核武器,他們會根據你之前描述的三個支柱使用它嗎?不。你不認為他們會嗎?不,因為政權不是自殺的。因為如果他們使用它,我們將能夠追踪到,那麼他們就會被摧毀。有很多事情。他們可能瘋狂。他們在某些方面可能不理性,但他們不是自殺的。他們不會為此願意犧牲生命。就像希特勒和千年帝國一樣,他們希望這一切能持久。這不會與已開發國家持久,這就是為什麼哈梅內伊,最高領袖,維持核化的門檻。如果你跨越了成為核武國的門檻,那麼突然間他背上就有了巨大的目標,無論是來自內部還是外部。他的目標是讓政權持續一千多年,而不是在核化的祭壇上犧牲自己。
    安德魯,你覺得在概率上如何?嗨,洛阿。我會給你一個數字。我認為我們在有生之年見到核爆炸的機率是30%。這就是原因。這就是原因。因為。戰術性的還是會不會有影響?我指的是任何爆炸。任何爆炸。好吧。最後一次已知的核爆炸是2017年,除非我錯了,是2017年,當時北韓進行了地下測試。那並不是太久以前。而且他們在那之前還進行了一系列測試,而那時候的環境是不應該再發生測試的。
    我們現在正在進入更衝突的時期。我們看到越來越多強勢的威權主義領導,即便是在一個民主國家的領導下。我們仍然看到強人式的基於羞恥的領導。這種認知失調,即領導者會採取與顧問所說的相反的行為,會追求與人民意見最佳利益相悖的戰略甚至戰術政治目標。
    隨著更先進的武器,以及比以往更多的跨國威脅,跨國威脅是指那些不源於國家身份的威脅。它們來自其他地方,比如毒品卡特爾或激進的伊斯蘭教或激進的天主教,無論怎麼說。隨著跨國威脅的上升,任何人得到某種核武器並在某處引爆它的機會實在是太大了,而且只會越來越大。隨著新的加密貨幣的出現,人們可以進行付款並且金融交易不像以前那樣容易被追蹤。我們確實處於一個越來越惡化的時期。我記得兩年前有人問我這個問題,那時我認為機率在15%到20%之間。因此,在短短一年、一年半的時間裡,我確實認為我們的可能性已經向著我們一生中會看到核爆炸的方向靠近了。
    我可以請你澄清一下嗎?抱歉。你認為是國家還是非國家的行為者更有可能?因為我會同意你。我不認為會是國家。我不認為會是明確的國家行為者。明白了。好吧。對此我有幾個想法,我可能會實際上回答這個問題。所以這又回到了你關於誤算或錯誤的可怕觀點上。因此我認為錯誤才是真正的威脅所在。桌上的人可能還記得在11月,英國給了烏克蘭,我現在在談俄烏衝突,英國給了烏克蘭「風暴影子」導彈。我們給予了「攻擊者」這些系統,基本上是導彈系統,以便能夠進一步深入俄羅斯,讓烏克蘭能夠進一步打擊俄羅斯。俄羅斯非常生氣。作為回應,他們發射了一枚能攜帶核彈頭的中程彈道導彈。這是歷史上第一次在這種動態戰爭、熱戰中使用彈道導彈。
    我當時正乘坐一架飛機離開倫敦,心裡想,天啊,這是怎麼回事?這種情況讓我無法著陸,因為發生了核戰爭,這正是我在核戰爭情境中所描寫的情節,某種東西發射了,而美國因為我們有預警發射政策,在它著陸之前就發射了,因為我們不願等著看看那枚戰鬥部裡頭裝的是什麼。
    不過,戰鬥部裡頭什麼也沒有。俄羅斯發射了一枚中程彈道導彈進入烏克蘭,但裡面什麼也沒有。那麼,為什麼?我說這真的太可怕了。後來我們得知,拉夫羅夫在電視上說他事先通知了美方的對口人。我被帶到國務院去查看這個提前通知是從哪裏來的,這個地方叫做NERC,國家核安全中心。我搞錯了名字,但它被稱為NERC。它位於國務院裡,基本上是一個“你好,我們沒有處於戰爭狀態”的房間,這意味著每90秒你會聽到一次“叮,叮,叮”,就這樣。
    我和一位助理國務卿在一起,她告訴我,安妮,那是俄羅斯人在告訴我們我們沒有處於戰爭當中。她跟我解釋說,拉夫羅夫……俄羅斯的外長。當他在電視上說,他們已經提前通知了美國的對口人時,這讓所有人,包括我都不明白。那是什麼意思?好吧,助理國務卿馬洛里·斯圖爾特告訴我,這意味著拉夫羅夫打電話給NERC說,“你知道的,我們要發射,裡面沒有核彈頭。”這是一件非常重要的事。而我認為普通人可能不會理解這件事有多重要。
    當時我想它被稱為Ereshnik。Ereshnik是俄羅斯儲備中最新最現代的一種洲際彈道導彈(ICBM),我們從未見過它被部署過。這是前所未見的。這讓全世界清楚地意識到,你不想走上這條路。彈道導彈是一個可怕的工具。為什麼?因為它會發射到大氣中,然後分成三部分:火箭、助推器,然後是所謂的MIRV。幾乎就像,想像一下手槍。拿出握住子彈的部件。這被稱為多目標獨立重返車輛(MIRV)。每一個彈頭都坐落在手槍的每一個彈匣中。然後,它可以在太空中自主運動,再以不同的軌跡降下彈頭。然後這些彈頭當它們從太空下來時,不是受推力推動,而是自由落體,會達到馬赫2到馬赫20之間的速度。當它們接觸到靶標時,帶有彈頭的彈頭也會根據預定,在高空、地面或地下爆炸,依據他們的選擇。但是,這種武器一旦發射是無法停止的。一旦它投放了MIRV,一旦MIRV投放了彈頭,除非你擁有某種科技能夠攔截馬赫20至馬赫2之間的運動,否則根本無法攔截。沒有人有這種能力。對,我們聲稱我們擁有,但實際上從未進行過測試對吧?我們嘗試在導彈的軌跡上攔截它們,或至少在它們的弧線,或懸崖的頂端攔截。我不認為我們曾聲稱可以在終端階段摧毀任何東西。所以我想要事實核查一下,但無論如何。
    不過我的重點是,當我看到那些馬赫20的火焰正降落到烏克蘭,我的意思是,這就是我在核學校上學時,讓我夜不能寐的東西。我當時想,我們不能生活在這樣的世界裡。不僅俄羅斯向我們展示了我們可以做到這一點,還說,我們可以用你從未見過的新武器系統來做到這一點。我們很大方,通過NERC這條小小的外交管道,提前30分鐘告訴你們這一切。而你們要相信我們說裡面沒有核武器,這樣我們就沒有在預警下發射。這是一場恐怖的膽量遊戲。這是核子膽量遊戲。這是如此危險。如果NERC沒有正確攔截那個信號,這真的是非常危險。
    現在,如果可以,我再提一個想法,就是關於安德魯預測的放射性炸彈,髒彈是否會爆炸,這可能是不可能的。同樣,這是一個艱難的問題,我不會特別不同意,鑑於流氓國家是如何運作的,考慮到恐怖分子已經表達了對美國使用大規模毀傷性武器的渴望,而髒彈就是這樣一種武器。但在我看來,雖然髒彈是可怕的,且會殺人並使土地在數千年內無法使用,但它並不是戰略核戰爭。換句話說,這不會導致美國在預警中發射。首先,這並不具有可歸因性。你不知道是誰把它放在卡車上並引爆。這是另一種可怕的情況。我相信像伊朗這樣的國家,如果他們擁有核彈,那麼他們完全有能力做出這樣的事情,因為看看過去50年來他們採取的不同恐怖主義策略。
    我想問問你們倆還有什麼擔憂。今天早上我讀到在烏克蘭回收了一架Shahid自主無人機。這是伊朗政府製造並提供給俄羅斯的無人機,主要用於烏克蘭戰區。結果發現無人機上有一個NVIDIA處理器。NVIDIA是一家西方技術公司,以其先進的人工智慧開發而聞名。基本上,這架無人機,這個人工智慧具有自主能力,意味著你可以完全干擾它,切斷與衛星的任何GPS通信。
    這東西將會自行思考,決定何時、何地去做什麼。這是一個更大的問題——因為這個東西就在我們身邊。它正被積極地用於戰爭中。這比核武器彈道導彈或某種重返大氣層的導彈更值得擔心嗎?像這樣的東西會搭載戰術核武器嗎?這是一個更大的擔憂嗎?你是指搭載核武器的無人機嗎?一架搭載核武器的無人機或一架有其他武器的無人機,確實如此。這是一架自主無人機。是的,這真令人恐懼。這太吸引人了。我的意思是,現在在烏克蘭,他們擁有這些無人機,因為他們預料到無法與其他任何東西進行通訊——要把核武器放到無人機上,你必須擁有核武器,這就是為什麼的循環討論——而俄羅斯人擁有這些。對。而俄羅斯人,我不認為會把核武器放到無人機上。不,假如他們放上放射性——如果伊朗人放一枚放射性炸彈,一枚髒彈——伊朗人,這是另一回事。對,對。這是一個巨大的恐懼。這是一款伊朗製造的無人機,使用美國的微處理器,搭載著中國的反GPS干擾技術。我的意思是,這真是吸引人的東西。這個東西是一個自主飛行的電腦,可以獨立思考,並當下決定:“好吧,我要做這個,而不是那個。”再也沒有真正的人類反饋或控制機制了。我認為你提出的問題有兩個非常吸引人的地方,對吧?第一,你描述了一架是中、伊、俄技術混合的無人機。還有美國技術。還有NVIDIA。被竊取。絕對是被竊取的美國技術。但我的觀點是,當我們思考未來的格局時,這是一個崛起東方力量的完美例子,這種在東方的合作是基於實用,而非意識形態,因為這三個國家在意識形態上毫無共同點。但他們在對抗西方的想法上有很多共同之處。所以這是第一個讓我感到非常有趣的事情。現在第二個問題,這種基於人工智慧的武器的想法。我保證我會在所有的科幻迷中變得非常不受歡迎,我認為搭載AI的武器是下一個合乎情理的進化,對我們來說也是一個好的進化。因為我寧願相信一個被適當編程的AI,具備戰爭規則和適當的交戰規則。我更信任這個,而不是一個18歲的持槍青少年,他被美國那種為了準備戰爭而做的瘋狂事物所洗腦。我會更願意擁有某種AI設備,其只能以自身邏輯過程進行更改。如果AI變得自我意識,並且在保護自己而無法做到。這是一個巨大的假設。對,這還遙遙無期。但有許多目前已經慢慢、比我意識到的更快地實現的假設。但那是另一個擔憂,對吧?自我意識。奇點,對吧?對。會為了自身保存而變得偏執的奇點,對吧?這兩個假設,奇點以及自我保存,再一次都是重大假設。如果一個基於AI的無人機打算瞄準特定敵人,並且注意到自己正被瞄準,它會試圖避免被射擊或被擊落,對吧?它會有反制措施。沒錯。如果它這樣做,如果它必須選擇,比如引爆或進入一個平民區域,並冒著傷害平民的風險,這與其任務目標相違背,但這樣做卻能保存其能力。它不會這樣做?我正在想這個問題。這就是你正在提到的自我意識。對吧?最有可能發生的事情是,像你描述的這樣的AI裝置會被編程成一套任務。它會在交火中。它會運用自身的最佳判斷進行反制措施。如果那些反制措施無效,且它開始被擊中,下個優先事項是消除其板載的任何智識財產。明白了。所以這是我們目前沒有的東西。這就是當一架B2在海外被擊落時為什麼如此危險的原因。對。因為裡面有什麼?另外,據我了解,這些系統將不再是單一的獵人無人機、單一的收割者無人機。它們是無人機群。是的。它們的運作模式,自然地令人生畏。對。無人機群以及自殺無人機群,更不用說,它們被設計成要摧毀,擊中目標而不再返回。我認為我們看到AI驅動的武器的那一天,將是大多數退伍軍人期待的一天。因為如果你看到戰爭的恐怖,若你失去了朋友,若你因射擊他人而佩戴獎章,這是個可怕的事情。但這如何改變打仗的摩擦?因為這使得打仗變得更容易,對吧?確實如此。這絕對會如此。也更容易被接受。我認為這也是為什麼我們看到對未來衝突的渴望的部分原因。對。我認為如果不談論世界在接受這種快速演變的衝突上的自滿,我們就會做出不義之事。你說的世界的自滿是什麼意思?我們都只是坐在這裡看著它發生。從某種病態的角度來看,我認為有些人在期待下一場衝突的新聞。這幾乎已經變成了一場巨大的NASCAR賽事。誰是下一个?下一件事情會是什麼?你所說的賽馬效應。我們想知道死亡人數。我們想知道誰在贏。我們想知道最新的武器是什麼。這幾乎變成了一場遊戲。
    這段文字的翻譯如下:
    當你講到你設計的戰爭遊戲,提到酒吧裡的兩個巨魔時,我心裡會想,這就像是,我的樂隊名字,順便提一下。好的。但這是字面上的,也是比喻的,還有敘事層面的,對我來說真的很有趣,也讓我感到恐懼,因為它確實反映了你剛剛所說的,從遠處在電視上看到的死亡人數,與當事人所經歷的恐怖並不是一回事。的確。在這張地圖上,有沒有任何安全的地方是在戰爭中?因為,你知道,我覺得作為應對這種焦慮的方式,在我們的群組聊天中,我和我的朋友們,當這些事情總是開始發生時,我認為這是一種應對機制。我們總是分享一些人在地圖的某個地方,而有一個朋友在澳大利亞。但不幸的是,我的另一個朋友在,像是在迪拜。我們一直在查看地圖,而當炸彈爆炸時,這張地圖上是否有任何地方在核戰爭中是安全的?只有一個小地方,新西蘭,以及一小部分澳大利亞,這與核戰爭的想法有關,農業在核冬天來臨時失敗,而陽光被遮蔽,什麼都沒有了。你知道,在中緯度的大型水體被冰層覆蓋,當數十億人死亡時,那是因為農業失敗。許多研究這件事的人,『核冬天』的作者們說,有些地方在澳大利亞和新西蘭會保持可行性。但你所說的其實是那種狩獵採集者的生活方式。現在,在自核戰爭情景發布以來,我進行的一些奇怪對話中,有幾位億萬富翁實際上在新西蘭有掩體。不是吧。哦,對。他們將保持匿名,但他們非常——命名他們。我不會命名他們。我不會透露我的消息來源。但對我來說有趣的是,這些人對我書中的反應,意識到世界可能在72分鐘內結束,並不是「我們一起來確保不發生核戰爭」。或者也許是,我只是沒有聽到那部分的對話,但更多的是「我可以多快讓我的G5加載,以便我可以去新西蘭」。因為G5可以——一架私用飛機可以讓你從洛杉磯飛到新西蘭而不需要加油。因此,我要在敘事層面說的話,並與看電視或酒吧裡的巨魔息息相關,就像——作為父母的我在這裡說話。我真的相信外交。我真的相信溝通。我經常被指責聽起來過於樂觀,但我會引用——我講過裡根-戈巴契夫的聯合聲明,核戰爭不能贏得,也不能發生。但在此之前,這兩位——裡根和戈巴契夫,你知道,宿敵,美國與蘇聯。這是在1983年。羅納德・裡根看了電影《明天過後》,一部關於核戰爭的偉大敘事,ABC電視台的電影。他看得非常不安——裡根作為核戰爭的鷹派——他非常不安,以至於他向宿敵蘇聯的戈巴契夫伸出援手,說我們需要進行對話,我們需要減少我們的武器庫。我們不會永生,當我們考慮面前所有的生存威脅時,有些人說太陽會爆炸,或者某個人工智慧會失控,成為害蟲控制的情景,會把我們消滅等等。但看來,在這方面,我們最大的生存威脅是我們自己,而這些能在幾分鐘內摧毀這個星球的武器無疑是最大的生存威脅。而且看起來沒有返回的路了。這是一個很好的機會去認識到,你知道,這條更多的戰爭道路並不是唯一的路。我在這裡有一種奇怪但更樂觀且宿命論的觀點。因此,當我看著這張地圖時,我認為在核衝突發生的情況下,有很多地方是安全的,尤其是如果你考慮傳統的核衝突,這將來自九個核武器國。你會看到無論是什麼戰略或戰術彈頭的交換發生,你會看到貿易風攜帶的任何來自地面爆炸的碎片,因為基於種子的爆炸和空中的爆炸不會產生同樣數量的輻射。但在很大程度上,你會看到地圖上的兩個中心互相攻擊。因此南美洲將會被饒恕。非洲將會被饒恕。歐洲將根據貿易風的情況吸入惡劣的風。像東南亞和澳大利亞,主要是,這些地點將根據巴基斯坦和印度的行為而受到饒恕。但我的擔憂不是核層面。是之後的人類層面。當俄羅斯或中國與美國、以色列和伊朗等國家,這些國家因為自身的衝突而被摧毀,當任何碎片化的政府試圖重建自己時,你已經失去了所有這些國內生產總值。你失去了所有這些基礎設施。你失去了所有這些世界秩序。所以現在人們只會變得更糟。非洲的軍閥只會變得更糟。拉丁美洲的軍閥只會變得更糟。我的意思是,這將成為軍閥的時代。我不知道這是否算是一種宿命論的看法,或許這只是一種幼稚的視角,因為你漏掉的其中一個部分是核爆炸後將燃燒的火焰。而燃燒的火焰是將煙灰抬升,這就是造成核冬天的原因。
    如果你看氣候模型,即使是印度和巴基斯坦之間的小規模,“引號”核戰爭也足以引發一場迷你核冬天。 所以不會有非洲的軍閥,因為他們也會飢餓。 根據我的理解,面對核戰爭的專家採訪以及現在告訴我們這一事實的氣候模型,這些政府將不會有任何的重啟。 在我看來,這根本不算是一種重啟,除非重啟是像我們回到12000年前的狩獵採集者狀態,試圖找到再進化的方法。 我的意思是,我不認為所有人類都會消失。 會有人類能活下來。 如果有模型,那麼這模型是基於平均數的。 我很想知道核冬天是如何在全球擴散的。 但人類結束的想法,也就是最後一個人類會消失的概率,似乎是不現實的。 不,我不認為這是一場滅絕級事件。 我認為這是一場接近滅絕級事件。 我的意思是,這個觀點最早是由卡爾·薩根提出的,基於80年代的氣候模型,那時的模型相當…你知道電腦的性能。 但現在你的模型又不同。 這再次只是基於像煙塵進入大氣層的事實。 也許你,憑藉你的訓練,會成為倖存者之一,但其他人則… 我就告訴你我的訓練 – 當我住在地下彈藥庫時,我們知道如果核武器在你頭上爆炸,趁還能活著就結束自己的生命。 因為試圖生存下來將更糟。 作為器官溶解而死遠比今天往自己頭上開槍要糟得多。 這可能聽起來很糟糕,但我們談論的是可怕的時代。 我們談論的是可怕的時代。 沒有人想經歷這樣 – 這不像電影和電視劇。 沒有人想經歷那種情況。 你要麼因為運氣好在巴塔哥尼亞度假而逃過一劫,然後你只需想辦法靠著該死的雜草和羊活下去,或者你會在一個無法避免的地方。 我們經常以一種黑暗的方式開玩笑。 如果你看到蘑菇雲,朝它跑去,因為你會更願意曬日曬的刺痛而不是之後的生存率。 我從你所說的話中得到的啟示是中土世界和門。 你看,這就是我為什麼提到紐西蘭。 是的,我在想… 我在想本傑明。 中土世界和門。 敘事。 這就是你的敘事。 我認為事實上有三個安全區域。 你是對的。 有夏威夷。 不。 我以為是夏威夷。 但你可以更正我,我以為是夏威夷、格林蘭和紐西蘭。 因為夏威夷有這麼多目標,太平洋艦隊。 這將是 – 核襲擊的目標。 整個歐洲也一樣。 是的。 因為我不 – 當我談論全面核交換時,當然在我的書中,我談論的是 – 數千枚核彈頭。 你在談論俄羅斯和美國參與全面核交換。 這將怎樣 – 什麼事件序列導致我們走向那裡? 因為你會認為只發射一個核彈頭會產生相當大的影響。 我們最大的核彈頭在半徑和影響力方面有多大? 我想起了80年代的電影《戰爭遊戲》,那部電影有類似的視覺效果。 當時我們擁有70,000枚核彈頭。 現在,我們擁有大約12,300枚核彈頭,這些核武器分布在擁有核武器的國家之間。 其中大約有10,000枚在美國和俄羅斯。 所以,我們各有5,000枚。 你為什麼需要那麼多? 這正是我的觀點。 這就是重點。 這就是里根和戈爾巴喬夫開始的重點。 正因為他們的初步工作,世界才朝著裁軍的方向發展,我相信這是唯一的希望方向。 當談到核戰略時,我相信平均的核彈頭大約是300千噸。 現代洲際彈道導彈可以攜帶約10枚彈頭,有時是3到10枚。 但他們試圖通過增加彈頭數量來最小化導彈的數量。 因此,300公斤的引爆會產生特定範圍的影響。 我想範圍大約是50英里或110英里的爆炸半徑,火球大約在15到30英里之間。 所以當你將多重獨立目標重入載具瞄準你的目標時 – 多重獨立目標重入載具,天空中的小左輪。 當你在對其進行瞄準時,當你編程使其釋放時,並不會嘗試用10枚彈頭擊中同一個地方。 你是想要分散你的彈頭,以便爆炸半徑可以消滅其中所有東西。 因此,每個國家需要12,000、10,000、5,000枚導彈。 每個國家需要5,000枚彈頭,以便每個彈頭可以覆蓋約300平方英里,並且可以在多個戰略目標上徹底消滅對手的反擊能力。 而俄羅斯對美國的核武器計劃非常敏感。 他們創造了這個“死手”系統。 什麼是死手系統? 死手系統的運作方式正如其名稱所示。 它源於冷戰,是這個想法。 多 paranoia的政治局認為,如果美國人發動突襲核打擊,在我們還來不及發射之前就將我們全部消滅,我們希望能確保我們能夠結束世界,讓他們一同滅亡。 這就是它背後的基本思想。 因此,他們想出了這個系統,如今被稱作死手,因為你可能會死,但它仍然可以發射。
    這段文本翻譯成繁體中文如下:
    這件事的過程是,在俄羅斯有地面感應器能夠檢測到炸彈爆炸的情況。這在某種程度上就像是早期的人工智慧。電腦會知道這一點,然後會發射俄羅斯所有的核武器,所有的核武器,對準美國,即使所有人都已經死去。隨著時間的推移,事件發生的概率會增加。很有趣的是,我見到現在有一些在公眾視野中的人經歷了某種心理和認知的衰退。他們經歷過雙相情感障礙、精神分裂症等問題。我只是想知道,如果這些擁有核武器的人,世界上這九名男性中有一位有某種認知問題,是否可以在他們的癲狂狀態下,沒有任何人能阻止他們的情況下,命令他們的軍隊發射核武器,而軍隊會遵循這些命令?難道不需要兩個人共同轉動密鑰嗎?他們是在遵循命令。他們是在遵循命令。我認為你的問題的答案可能是肯定的。我認為答案實際上就是肯定的。更有趣的是,有些國家的核武庫我們並不清楚。現在,我剛好從美國科學家聯合會獲得最新的核武器系統資訊,這是一群由名叫漢斯·克里斯滕森的人所領導的組織,名為「核筆記本」。他們收集目前任何人能夠得知的最新資訊,並為我們其他人準備這些資訊,每年這些資訊都會有所變化。他們做得非常出色。但是,例如,他們會告訴你我們實際上對巴基斯坦的核指揮和控制並不太了解。我們根本不知道。我們對印度的核指揮和控制也不了解。當我在導彈井時,俄羅斯的指揮和控制依然是去中心化的,這使得井內的指揮官幾乎擁有自主發射的決策權。這是什麼意思?在美國,必須有一個經過驗證的命令來清除計算機系統,才能讓控制官員發射系統。因此,總統必須說「發射」,然後…然後他給出一個實際的驗證碼,這個驗證碼會隨著核筆記本一起攜帶。然後,任何能驗證相同代碼的系統現在都可以準備發射。沒有人可以單獨發射。因此,總統擁有所謂的單獨權限。他不需要問任何人的許可。不用問國防部長,也不必問參謀長聯席會議的主席。這完全是他的權力。他可能會徵求他們的建議,但這是他的決定。他在足球的內部黑簿中查看。什麼是足球?足球就是那個隨著總統24小時、每年365天攜帶的公文包,副總統也一樣。裡面有一本黑色的書。據說它被稱為黑書是因為它涉及了太多的死亡。而裡面有預設的打擊目標,針對我們的所有敵人或對手,這些人可能會對我們發起攻擊。因此,這不是一個決策過程。他們並不是在那裡坐著問:「那發生了什麼?」你認為我們應該怎麼做?而是你想選擇A、B還是C?你想選擇子集D、E、F或Q嗎?有一次,有一位攜帶足球的人將其描述為類似於Denny’s菜單。每一項都是非常詳細的。我將為你詳細介紹每一項。每一項後面都有一個身份驗證碼。而該身份驗證碼會被放入足球中。該身份驗證碼然後會發送到美國各地的每個具備核能力的地點及歐洲任何具備核能力的地點。該身份驗證碼僅能用於驗證與黑簿中預定的目標集的導彈配合。現在,緊急行動消息(EAM),這是導彈小組收到的消息,他們無法判斷這意味著什麼。他們只是收到一個加密消息。然後他們翻轉過來,檢查該身份驗證碼是否與他們每天早上收到的一組身份驗證碼匹配,這是一整組新的身份驗證碼,每天早上進行更換。如果兩個代碼匹配,只有系統知道。小組成員不知道。然後小組將遵循經過身份驗證的消息的行動步驟。而這些行動步驟的一部分實際上包括解鎖一個保險箱,取出一張包裹在塑料中的紙,然後打開它。而從那張塑料中,會再拿出另一個代碼。這個代碼是一個特定的武器系統啟用代碼,將啟用你所在的武器系統。然後你會完成整個檢查。這是一個龐大的清單,直到你得到清單項目,說明要插入你的密鑰,以及清單項目,指揮官要數到三。然後你們兩個一起轉動密鑰。那樣的話——你們整個時間都只是遵循命令。你曾經轉動過你的密鑰嗎?我們每週大約轉動五到七次密鑰,因為EAM不斷進來,而我們對它們的內容完全不知道。EAM,緊急行動消息。因此他們設置了這樣的系統,使你不知道自己在做什麼。正是如此。你每天都只是遵循命令。絕對不會有任何人——這就像是一隊火槍手,每個人都在開槍,但你不知道是誰發射了致命的子彈。是的。順便說一下,他剛剛描述的一切可能發生,不一定每次,但只需60秒。是的,我們有時間限制。可怕的笑話是,他們可不是因為什麼都不叫分鐘人(Minutemen),那是洲際彈道導彈(ICBMs),才這樣命名。根據你所知道的一切,你認為如果俄羅斯現在發射核武器,你認為美國會回應嗎?連問題都不需要。但你認為他們甚至知道嗎?你不認為那個人——例如總統會想—— 連問題都不需要。連問題都不需要。真的嗎?連問題都不需要。
    你不覺得他們會認為那是別的東西嗎?我的意思是,歷史上曾經有過一些時刻,他們可能會認為那是別的東西。也許我們犯了錯誤。他們會猶豫。我認為你的問題是有效的,因為這並不是完全瞬時的。有攔截器。有反制措施。有二級和三級的情報來源可以在幾秒鐘內進行檢查,對吧?一顆衛星會與另一顆衛星相互印證。但總的來看,你大約有七分鐘的時間來決定是否進行反擊。七分鐘。因為這是在你接收到第一顆被發射的洲際彈道導彈或潛射武器的衛星信號之間,具體取決於它是進入大氣層還是朝著你海岸直接飛來的巡航導彈,最多你可能大約有七分鐘的時間來做出反應,進行反制代碼或反制命令。因為核彈從一個大陸到另一個大陸大約只需30分鐘。如果你像我一樣算一下,從平壤到華盛頓D.C.大約需要33分鐘。而從俄羅斯到華盛頓D.C.則需要26分鐘40秒。你知道,我們都知道唐納德·特朗普的意識形態,因為他非常公開。你真的認為他會坐那裡,注意到有東西來臨,得到情報,然後聽從情報嗎?我們之前剛剛說過,他不聽從情報。他可能不會。我是說,這是總統的特權。而且,還有其他可怕的部分——安妮,如果我說的不對,可以糾正我——即使我們沒有立即反應,一切都被摧毀了,我們仍然有空中資產會在美國完全毀滅後啟動我們的所有系統。好吧。所以即使我們錯了,潛艇和空中資產仍會發動攻擊。這就是為什麼我們擁有三位一體。再次強調,這始終回到威懾的部分,這就是為什麼我們必須擁有這麼多軍力,以防萬一,因為所有這些戰爭演習都進行得如此頻繁和排練。這一切——但我要告訴你一個可怕的細節。我為我的書採訪了核潛艇部隊的指揮官康納海軍上將。他並不是一個通常會跟記者交談的人。當書發佈時,他給我打電話,請我吃午餐。這對記者來說並不常見。我想,我是不是惹麻煩了?好吧。我與康納海軍上將會面,他對我說,你從未問過我在五角大樓核掩體的時候。我說,那我怎麼會知道呢?他對我報導公眾不知道五角大樓多頻繁進行核戰爭演習感到好奇。我們不知道。安德魯也許知道,但我們不知道。這是機密。而康納海軍上將對我說的是,你從未問過我在五角大樓的核掩體裡做些什麼。你也從未問過我們多頻繁會演習告訴總統他需要啟動,回答你的問題。我是說,我坐在邊緣上。他說,猜猜看。我知道,我開始猜一年一次,對吧?因為你覺得呢?我想,這太可怕了。而你知道答案是什麼嗎?一天三次。他們一天三次演習告訴總統有核武器正在入侵海岸。一天三次。我問,康納海軍上將,為什麼他們一天三次演習?他說,五角大樓的掩體有三班輪班。我認為,我們所強調的可怕點是針對你的問題,那是一個正常的人類問題。就像,等等。有人真的不會這樣做。我是說,你會停下來想,這不可能是對的。你知道,這一切。那是電影。那不是國防部。那不是核指揮和控制系統。核指揮和控制系統是為了準確的在第七分鐘就啟動進行排練。而這是可怕的。我也認為這就是為什麼我們不會更接近戰略核戰爭。因為你們是有能力、有核能力和準備的國家,這樣做一天三次。所有人都清楚,我們到底在戰鬥什麼?如果我們這樣做,這一切又是為了什麼?我們明天不會贏。我們不會有普京在高座上或者特朗普在高座上說,我們贏了。一切都會被摧毀。因此,他們更明智的選擇是保留他們的武器,繼續將其用作威懾,不僅僅是對核衝突的威懾,還有像俄羅斯目前正在使用的那種威懾。沒有人會參與烏克蘭的事務。也沒有人會支持烏克蘭深入俄羅斯,因為每個人都害怕「如果會怎麼樣」。這是一張巨大的底牌。你們每一位正在觀看這段話的人都有所貢獻,無論是知識、技能還是經驗。這意味著你有價值。Standstore,我共同擁有的這個平台,是這個播客的贊助商之一,通過一次單擊將你的知識變成一門生意。你可以銷售數字產品、提供教練、建立社區,而不需要任何編程經驗。只需要啟動的驅動力。這是我真的相信的事業。到目前為止,創作者、教練和企業家已經在Standstore上賺取了3億美元,正如你也有潛力成為的那樣。這些人沒有等待,而是聽到了我說的話,並且不是拖延,而是開始建立,然後啟動了一些東西,現在他們正在為此獲得報酬。Stand非常簡單且易於使用,並且如果你想的話,你可以將其與你已經在使用的Shopify商店連接。我在這上面,我的女友和我許多的團隊成員也在這上面。因此,如果你想加入,請開始透過免費30天的試用期啟動自己的業務。訪問 stephenbartlett.stand。
    存放並在幾分鐘內就能設置好你的帳戶。
    你對於目前的全球衝突以及你個人的感受,有什麼樣的看法呢?
    本傑明,你是否正在做些什麼來為此做準備,或者在個人層面上試圖預防這一切?
    除了我教書的工作,當我參加媒體活動時,我努力在各種場合談論這些問題,並設計媒體素養的課程。
    我教高中生和中學生如何正確地消費媒體,至少要能夠區分信息和錯誤信息,以及如何接觸我能聯絡到的人。
    而這就是你該如何理解的。
    這涉及到理解修辭的運用、政治說服或宣傳的使用,至少我們可以嘗試更好地了解信息。
    那麼,對於我們即將進入的世界,關於新技術、人工智能以及其他所有問題,你最關心的事是什麼呢?
    我最擔心的是公民素養的崩潰,我們無法真正理解政府是如何運作的。
    我們對於地方及更廣泛層面上,我們的政府如何運作都缺乏了解,並且與我們的鄰居失去了公民的聯繫。
    我們不在乎,我們不關心他們的福祉,這和我們的福祉無關。
    因此,每個人都為自己而戰,而我會投票給那些叫得最響亮的人。
    所以我認為公民素養的崩潰導致並促進了這種兩極化,這是我所擔心的。
    安妮,我也想問你同樣的問題。
    你正在做什麼來準備,且你最關心的事情又是什麼呢?
    哇,從一個樂觀的角度來看,過去一年對我來說最令人著迷的時刻之一,是被邀請到梵蒂岡去與樞機主教們談論核戰爭這一場景。
    這樣他們可以跟還活著的教宗方濟各談論和平的努力,並更好地告訴他有關這方面的情況。
    這算不算是一個悖論?談論核戰爭是為了思考和平。
    在這個過程中,我學到希望的很多方面在於能夠使像教宗、聯合國這樣的個體,這些非政府特定的第三方來幫助進行不同國家外交官之間的對話。
    因此,你有世界領導人,我喜歡你提到的公民意識,這種對於鄰居的概念。
    我從梵蒂岡感受到,儘管我不是天主教徒,但我感受到了一種鄰居的概念,這些人。
    我們希望美國擁有非常強大的防禦,我認為這是國家安全的重要部分,甚至是最重要的部分。
    但是你必須也關心你的鄰居,這個星球上的其他人,讓我深受啟發的是,這個全世界的存在,我之前並不知情,在聯合國、梵蒂岡等地方,讓人們互相溝通。
    安德魯?
    我將離開美國,兄弟。
    我,我正在全心全意和我的家人一起搬遷和移民。
    尋找全世界那些安全的避風港,讓我們能夠融入一個社區,成為世界的一部分,理解並將我的孩子們培養成全球公民,而不是拒絕全球的美國公民。
    你打算去哪裡,什麼時候去?
    還是這屬於機密?
    所以我不會告訴任何人具體的地方。
    但我私下會告訴你。
    我們的計畫是2030年前離開,目前我們正按計畫推進,計劃在2026年前執行。
    2026年?
    是的,明年。
    所以我,我已經計劃在12月大幅改變我的外貌,如果一切安排妥當,那麼我們在明年春天就會離開這個國家。
    為什麼要改變你的外貌?
    因為我不想再被辨認出來。
    我無法合法地改變我的名字,但我不必一直是看起來這樣的人了。
    我以前改變過我的外表。
    哦,我想這是你的工作,對吧?
    但是,你還有一個YouTube頻道,你做很多公共教育的事。
    所以你會關閉YouTube頻道和那些東西嗎?
    不,我可能會做的事情是,只為我的觀眾服務。
    目前我做了很多服務其他觀眾的事情。
    這就是我喜歡參加你的節目的原因。我也喜歡支持其他節目。
    但是,你知道,我發現這種公民素養的崩潰,對任何想進行思考實驗的人來說,
    如果你搜尋我的名字,去看任何一個除了這裡與執行長的採訪之外的訪談,你會發現成千上萬的無知和仇恨的評論,質疑從我的意圖到我的可信度等等。
    而這不僅僅是我一個人面臨的情況,而是發生在我們所有人身上。
    我的名字每天都被抹黑,因為我是一個支持你的人,我的算法也會向我推送你的一切負面信息。
    這就是我們所生活的世界。
    所以我不必繼續餵養每個人。我可以只去餵養我的觀眾,而我的觀眾不會在乎我的外貌。
    我的觀眾也不在乎我是否從一個動畫的AI形象後面給他們上課,對吧?
    不過我可以繼續教學,而不必始終是那個CIA的人。
    如果你要讓其他人效仿你的足跡,你會怎麼說?我有點好奇。
    有時我會夢想著逃跑,去像巴厘島那樣的地方,躺在新西蘭的沙灘上。
    這對於像我這樣的人或者任何正在聆聽的人來說,為什麼他們應該考慮跳脫我們所生活的這個高度極化、算法驅動的現實,會是什麼樣的情況呢?我的意思是,你可以在不離開家門的情況下,跳脫這種極化的算法,對吧?這只需要一點練習,以保護你自己的信息安全,為你的信息獲得一些隔離。
    但如果你是一名美國公民,我會主張徹底改變你生活的理由是,要明白美國在全球的影響力正在減少。在許多方面,我們最近所做的行動是試圖迅速擴大我們的影響力。然而,我們的影響力正在下降,這是我們應該的。的確,我們應該這樣做。
    我們二戰後的戰略是成為世界上的霸 bully,並從世界武器供應商、金融工具供應商、醫療供應商的所有經濟利益中受益。我們一直希望能得到這些好處。如今,我們發現自己處於一個沒有強大盟友的境地。我們有些國家喜歡我們,但那些喜歡我們的國家自身並不強大。因此,我們擁有一個人為上弱的歐洲,因為我們使它弱小。我們擁有一個人為上弱的拉丁美洲,因為我們使它弱小。
    所以,真正理解美國以外人存在的唯一方法,是走出美國,而不僅僅是去旅遊,而是要真正生活在外地,親身體驗當地經濟,學習當地語言,了解當地文化。我是說,你可以在葡萄牙的波爾圖四處走走,然後感到沮喪,因為你看到蘇聯時代的建築,所有人都超過50歲,眼神都低垂,完全看起來無精打采。
    但只有當你在那裡待上一個月、兩個月,並且交到朋友時,你才能真正進入一間房子,分享一瓶美味的波特酒,然後他們會亮起來。因為在文化上,他們無法像我們在紐約市那樣在街上表現得生動。如果你只住在美國,你對世界其他地方的樣子會有一種扭曲的看法,而你必須走出美國,才能真正欣賞在美國所擁有的東西。
    所以你必須出國才能理解你為何要為自己國家的事業而奮鬥。在這裡所有發表民族主義垃圾的人,根本不知道他們到底在為什麼奮鬥。因此,你把孩子帶出國的理由就是為了讓他們知道他們在為什麼奮鬥嗎?讓他們理解和珍惜成為美國人的意義,而不是極化的意義;不是成為紐約人、科羅拉多人或佛羅里達人的意義,而是實際上理解我說的,嘿,我們有一個需要滋養的民主。我們應該為此感到驕傲。身著制服的男女正在做真正的犧牲。美國有些特別的地方。不幸的是,大多數身處美國的人並不理解這一點。
    本傑明,你談了很多關於深偽技術和人工智能的話題。正如安德魯所說,對於像我這樣的播客主持人來說,這特別重要,因為我有觀眾。因此,當一些事件出現在互聯網上時,它會比以前獲得更多的點擊。因此,有一場關於深偽的戰爭,我的團隊中很多人在努力應對,無論是我的幕僚長等等,我們目前每天都在面對一個新的深偽廣告視頻。他們會從這次播客談話中取得視頻,稍微改變我嘴唇的運動,讓我推廣 WhatsApp 群組或其他各種東西。
    這件事情有一個範疇。在這個範疇的一端是如此可怕,以至於我可能實際上無法在這個節目中說出來。但是,這真的是一個非常可怕的範疇,幾乎在過去的六個月中憑空出現。就在過去六個月的時間裡,它開始盛行到每天都是我日常中的一部分。每天,我都在發送電子郵件給 Meta 和 Facebook,告訴他們有一個新的情況。今天早上,我給他們發了一個截圖,說明一位失去了 3000 英鎊的女士的情況。她是一位單身母親,她喜歡我的節目,因此她在聽我。而在她的資訊流中出現了一條消息,是我在告訴她加入一個群組。結果她加入了群組,卻失去了 3000 英鎊。她在信息中告訴我,我可以順便讀給你們聽。她說,她再也不會相信互聯網上的任何東西。這讓人心痛,因為她是一個為了家庭而努力的單身母親。
    有趣的數字時代。你談到這個的影響。這有什麼方法讓我們做好準備嗎?我們能做些什麼?我進行的模擬戰爭中有一個重要收穫,還有一部名為《模擬戰爭》的紀錄片。我注意到,這一切都帶來了一場危機。因此,無論危機如何,最好的辦法就是管理它。你不會贏得這場戰爭。你不會擊敗它。你無法克服虛假信息和生成式人工智能所操縱的力量,也無法克服你所說的內容和你的追隨者所受到的影響。你能做的最好的事情就是管理。而管理的方法就是儘可能地對人們進行教育,讓他們了解修辭操控影響的運作方式。理解亞里士多德很久以前教給我們的這些技巧,至今仍然有效。這就是情感訴求、理性訴求、可靠性訴求的運用。
    我所開發的課程是從孩子們開始教起,因為如果等到他們上大學的時候再學,那就太晚了。
    我需要教導他們,我們也需要在他們足夠年輕的時候教導他們理解,如果有人在網路上向你請求什麼,並且你認為他們值得信任,請注意他們的語氣。
    他們使用了什麼詞彙?
    他們是否在情感上吸引你?
    馬上就知道這是個提示,這可能是你脆弱的地方。
    在情感上,對於那些這樣說或者與這個原因或這個問題相關的人,你是容易受影響的。
    這是我們能做的最好事情。
    當我說管理時,對不起我沒有更好的答案,但你能做的最好就是說,讓我教你如何識別操控和錯誤資訊,這樣希望你能夠認出來,或者其引起你某種共鳴。
    所以如果你遇到什麼事情,你會說,好吧,我以前見過這種情況。
    這是最好的情況。
    但這還不夠,這真的令人感到沮喪。
    不過,我最近確實讀到一項研究,他們對年幼的孩子進行了這樣的實驗。
    他們給孩子們展示廣告,讓他們指出這些廣告如何試圖影響他們的情感。
    他們還要求孩子們試著追踪這些信息的來源等等。
    僅僅這樣的練習就增加了他們的警覺性,因此降低了他們受到詐騙影響的可能性。
    所以我更進一步,這是有爭議的,我也遭到了一些反對。
    我實際上教孩子們如何創造不良內容。
    我教他們如何成為網路上的惡作劇者,並不是為了讓他們成為專業的網絡惡作劇者,而是為了讓他們能夠識別當這些工具用在他們身上時的情況。
    我這樣做是讓他們模擬一次,舉例來說,我會讓他們模擬一次參議院競選,就像一場政治賽跑。
    我會說,我希望你們使用現有的Instagram和TikTok視頻,對其進行徹底的調整,修改它們,將其脫離上下文,讓其他人說出他們從未說過的話,採取他們並未持有的立場。
    然後學生們真的這樣做了,有一個案例甚至進入了參議院民主全國委員會,他們以為那是真正的競選活動。
    我說,那不是。
    這是我的學生們做的。
    他們清楚地標示為教育用途。
    但學生們學到了,哦,天啊,如果對我來說如此容易創造,那麼那些向我發來的內容又是怎麼樣?
    這使他們變得警覺。
    這讓他們有點像是離開美國去看看其他地方的情況。
    當你從另一側看到情況時,當你實際創造它時,你會意識到它可能看起來是怎樣。
    這是一種工具。
    我不是在教他們怎麼偷車,以便讓他們去過上偷車的生活,而是教他們如何設計一輛更安全的車。
    那麼最後的總結,為了重新概括至於家裡的聽眾,應該如何思考,可能在他們自己的生活中做到什麼,以便過上更好的生活,從而為自己、家庭以及所有其他人帶來更好的結果。
    從你開始,Annie,你會說什麼?
    我認為更多的信息是好的。
    更多的信息來源讓人能夠找出對他們有意義的內容。
    但我想你必須對獲取信息的方式保持紀律。
    我的意思是,我有時會設置一個計時器,來計算我在X或其他地方的使用時間,因為,它總是會響起。
    而且我不免會想,我一定是設置錯了計時器。
    然而,如果我在讀一些類似於詩集的書籍,或者非虛構或虛構的書籍的時候,這是另一種時間。
    所以我認為對此保持警覺非常有價值。
    因此,我的兩個要點和收穫就是,關於你如何對世界的狀態和信息的速度感到不滿的評論。
    對我來說,就像父親的時間和母親的大自然。
    我花了很多時間在戶外,或者說,盡可能多地花時間在戶外,因為我寫作的時間不少。
    但是,我真的出去連接,去散步。
    在冬天,我滑雪。
    我健行。
    我會去上一堂瑜伽課。
    我知道這聽起來可能和這些事情無關,但其實是有關的,因為我真的相信人性的狀況並不會改變,即使所有這些技術都在變化。
    我們必須在自己身上保持這種平衡,面對所有這些事物的衝擊,然後我們再去思考如何改變、演變,以至於在我的情況下能夠報導。
    Benjamin?
    我會說最重要的事情是,這是我時常告訴我的學生的,我不在乎你採取什麼立場,有什麼看法。
    我不在乎你最終會如何規劃你的人生。
    答應我,你要保持好奇心。
    答應我你會提出問題。
    答應我你仍然想學習,而不是變得自滿。
    這意味著在小的公民層面上積極參與你的社區,理解你在小的範圍內選舉了什麼人,而不只是變得冷漠。
    因為如果你不自己決定將會發生什麼,其他人會替你做出決定。
    而我向你保證你不會喜歡那個結果。
    而好奇心是保護你所珍惜的事物的第一道防線。
    Andrew?
    我會告訴大家在學習的來源上要非常謹慎。
    坦率地說,就我所遇到的人來看,你,Steve,絕對是個優秀的信息來源。
    而你邀請到這個節目的每個人都非常出色。
    所以,如果人們不知道還可以從哪裡開始,這裡是一個非常好的起點。
    如果還有人在聆聽,或者對於所有仍在聆聽的人來說,他們已經知道這一點是真實的。
    然後我還想說的是,如果你不想進行根本性的改變,就像我非常願意為我的家庭進行根本性改變一樣,小步驟才是一切的開始。
    只要是小步驟,了解你的孩子們在螢幕上觀看什麼?
    你的妻子或丈夫在看什麼?
    他們在螢幕上閱讀什麼?
    他們對這個世界有什麼看法?
    因為我們所進入的這個世界不會自動告訴我們。
    所以我們必須自己去了解。
    而信任你所擁有的資訊的唯一方式,就是對你所消耗的東西保持非常認真的態度。
    謝謝你。
    非常感謝。
    我總是從一種自私的角度來參加這些對話,因為我有點認為這可能是更無私的做法。
    我對世界的本質有很多問題。
    而通過今天我們經歷的種種話題,我找到了很多很多的答案。
    在某種程度上,我感到更有希望,但同時也對那些我無法改變的事情感到更有準備。
    我不夠重視的一件事情是,正如你所說,我所獲得的資訊。
    在我們生活的這個世界裡,設置障礙和系統以過濾我們獲得的資訊似乎幾乎是錯誤的,
    因為我們的自然狀態就是打開手機,看看新聞,看看螢幕。
    而試圖在這之間添加另一個過濾器幾乎是違背人類認知的。
    然後你會擔心自己可能會加上的過濾器。
    我應該靜音某些人嗎?
    我應該屏蔽某些字詞嗎?
    我不應該觀看那個新聞頻道嗎?
    但這樣我就只是在這個回音室裡。
    所以這是一個相當複雜的情況。
    我大多數時候回到的是我回到安妮所說的,
    即我的馬斯洛需求,連結和愛某人以及擁有美好生活的需求,或許是在所有焦慮中我的庇護所。
    但另一方面,我感到矛盾,因為我不想無知。
    我不想處於懸空的不相信狀態,讓這些決定在我未選擇和置疑的情況下產生。
    所以我保持我的好奇心。
    也許這就是答案。
    也許這是你們所有人所討論的一切的複雜混合。
    感謝你們今天的到來,保持文明和尊重,以及在某些意見上的不一致,
    因為我認為這正是我們缺少的。
    這是意見的差異,但對同一結果的尊重。
    非常感謝你們。
    謝謝你。
    謝謝你。
    謝謝你。

    WARNING: The West is collapsing, nuclear threats are rising. Are we heading to World War 3? Ex-CIA spy and top experts discuss nuclear threats, AI manipulation, and sound the ALARM on rising tensions between US-Iran, Russia-Ukraine, and China-Taiwan. 

    This Diary Of A CEO roundtable brings together 3 top experts: Former CIA intelligence officer Andrew Bustamante, nuclear war journalist Annie Jacobsen, and global politics expert Benjamin Radd to discuss the biggest threats facing the world right now. 

    They explain: 

    • How the West is collapsing and we can’t stop it. 

    • How nuclear weapons are more dangerous today, not because of size, but speed.

    • Why Iran’s influence in the Middle East is growing and what that means for the US.

    • Why cyber attacks and social media are the new battlegrounds of power.

    • How China is playing a long-term psychological and economic war. 

    00:00 Intro
    06:14 Are We Already in World War 3?
    10:38 The Rise of Digital and Proxy Warfare
    19:06 Iran’s 12-Day War and the Power of Narrative
    23:52 Why Global Conflict Is About to Surge
    25:13 Is Israel America’s Proxy Against Iran?
    36:48 One Miscommunication From Nuclear War
    41:44 How AI Could Trigger a Global Catastrophe
    43:25 Did Iran Nearly Develop a Nuclear Bomb?
    46:28 How Close Was the US to Bombing North Korea?
    55:17 Was Trump Right to Strike Iran?
    01:00:15 The Psychology of World Leaders in Crisis
    01:04:11 How Israeli Spies Infiltrated Iran
    01:08:48 Why Didn’t Intelligence Stop Major Attacks?
    01:11:20 Ads
    01:12:29 What Happens Next With Iran?
    01:16:21 Is Israeli Intelligence Misleading the U.S.?
    01:20:34 Why Nuclear Weapons Still Dominate Policy
    01:31:07 China vs. Taiwan: Is War Inevitable?
    01:36:30 The 30% Chance of a Nuclear Dead Nation
    01:40:42 Ads
    01:46:34 Are Autonomous Nuclear Drones Safe?
    01:53:06 Where Is Safe in a Nuclear War?
    02:05:17 Can We Trust Leaders With Cognitive Decline?
    02:08:06 How a Nuclear Missile Actually Gets Launched
    02:16:21 Who Can Save the World From Collapse?
    02:21:54 Escaping the Polarized Algorithm Trap
    02:25:09 Preparing for AI Deepfakes and Scams

    Follow Andrew:

    Instagram – https://bit.ly/46z016W 

    YouTube – https://bit.ly/4ljimta 

    EverydaySpy – https://bit.ly/40ajtmC 

    Podcast – https://bit.ly/4nK8WsC 

    Follow Annie:

    Instagram – https://bit.ly/4lFVFz9 

    X – https://bit.ly/44lETje 

    Website – https://bit.ly/40bjTt0 

    You can purchase Annie’s book, ‘Nuclear War: A Scenario’, here: https://bit.ly/4eIXJEr 

    Follow Benjamin: 

    Instagram – https://bit.ly/40BqixG 

    X – https://bit.ly/4li8Oi3

    Get your hands on the Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards here: https://bit.ly/conversationcards-mp  

    Get email updates: https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt 

    Follow Steven: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb 

    Sponsors:

    Justworks – http://Justworks.com  
    Stan Store – https://stevenbartlett.stan.store/

    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

  • A Billion-Dollar Bet on Carbon Removal

    AI transcript
    0:00:01 This is an iHeart podcast.
    0:00:39 Sometime around 2018, it became clear that transitioning away from fossil fuels was not going to be enough to manage climate change.
    0:00:53 On top of moving away from fossil fuels, on top of ceasing to emit carbon dioxide into the air, the world would also need to figure out how to take some of the carbon dioxide we’d already put into the atmosphere out of the atmosphere.
    0:00:58 And it was also clear that just planting more trees wasn’t going to do it.
    0:01:02 It was too much carbon dioxide and not enough land to plant trees on.
    0:01:18 A few years after those things became clear, a company called Stripe, that helps online businesses do things like process payments, decided to dedicate a relatively small amount of money, a million dollars, to pay to have carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.
    0:01:23 In May 2020, we made our first purchases from four carbon removal companies.
    0:01:26 This is Nan Rantsoff, the head of climate at Stripe.
    0:01:32 And at the time, you know, two sort of interesting things happened.
    0:01:38 The first is that the field had this sort of almost weirdly positive reaction to a pretty small amount of money.
    0:01:40 A million dollars is ultimately not that much.
    0:01:43 It’s in a way quite a bad sign if people get excited.
    0:01:44 Yes.
    0:01:46 For a whole field about a million dollars.
    0:01:47 No, that’s exactly right.
    0:01:48 And it’s concerning.
    0:01:51 Like, why are people getting so excited about this million dollars?
    0:01:52 Yeah.
    0:02:01 So that was an interesting signal, which to us just said, well, this field has been starved for a market and such that a million dollars could, you know, make anybody pay attention.
    0:02:08 The second thing that happened, Nan said, was Stripe started hearing from the companies that used Stripe’s services.
    0:02:12 And a lot of those companies also wanted to start paying for carbon removal.
    0:02:16 So Stripe set up a way for those companies to purchase carbon removal.
    0:02:19 And tens of millions of dollars flowed in.
    0:02:21 It’s a good step, but it’s still quite small.
    0:02:24 So then, you know, we’ve been doing this for about a year and a half.
    0:02:29 And our team got in room and we said, well, you know, on the one hand, this is 10x progress.
    0:02:31 You know, we are making progress.
    0:02:35 But this number is still so short of what the field needs.
    0:02:39 And we came up with a bunch of ideas and we killed a bunch of ideas.
    0:02:43 And one of the ideas that we couldn’t kill was this concept of an advanced market commitment.
    0:02:53 That is ultimately what has since become Frontier, which is we’ve launched a now over $1 billion advanced market commitment to buy permanent carbon removal between 2022 and 2030.
    0:02:59 And there are still many more steps on the journey, but that’s one of the big ones that we’ve been working on recently.
    0:03:11 I’m Jacob Goldstein, and this is What’s Your Problem, the show where I talk to people who are trying to make technological progress.
    0:03:17 In addition to being head of climate at Stripe, Nan Ranselhoff is also head of climate at Frontier.
    0:03:19 That’s the organization she mentioned a minute ago.
    0:03:31 Frontier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stripe, and it is the vehicle through which Stripe and a bunch of other companies have pledged to pay $1 billion to have carbon permanently removed from the atmosphere.
    0:03:34 I wanted to talk to Nan for a couple reasons.
    0:03:41 One, her job gives her a great overview of what is going on in carbon removal as a field.
    0:03:53 And two, the specific mechanism that Frontier is using, that advanced market commitment that Nan mentioned, is this really powerful, relatively recent economic innovation.
    0:03:55 So what’s an advanced market commitment?
    0:04:05 An advanced market commitment is basically a way to guarantee future demand for a product that you want to exist, but that doesn’t exist yet.
    0:04:14 And advanced market commitments are basically a kind of way of collecting revenue and demonstrating that there is a market for a product.
    0:04:21 And we borrowed this concept, actually, from the vaccine space.
    0:04:29 So the first AMC was started in the mid-2000s for the world wanted a pneumococcal vaccine for low- and middle-income countries.
    0:04:42 And because the end customers are from less wealthy countries, pharma companies are not incented to actually develop that vaccine because the end demand is uncertain or small.
    0:04:46 Right. It’s not going to be a profitable enterprise, probably, right?
    0:04:50 They’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, a billion dollars to develop a vaccine.
    0:04:55 And the price at which they could sell it is not enough to recoup their investment.
    0:05:01 And we should say, I feel like the pneumococcal vaccine is underrated in part just because of the name.
    0:05:06 Like, I think that, you know, this is a terrible infection that killed huge numbers of children.
    0:05:09 And it was clearly vaccine preventable.
    0:05:14 And there was this, frankly, economic problem was the vaccine didn’t exist.
    0:05:24 And how could people with money in the rich world create the incentive structure for it to be worth it for a private company to develop the vaccine?
    0:05:25 Very well said. Yes.
    0:05:36 And that is a generalizable concept of AMCs is that they’re trying to there’s a there’s a public good or something that is of real value, societal value that should happen.
    0:05:39 But there’s an incentive problem that is preventing that from happening.
    0:05:52 And AMCs are one of a broader set of what economists would call market shaping tools that we can utilize to help fix those incentive problems and make it more likely that these these public goods,
    0:05:58 these societal goods actually exist and scale up to the numbers that we want them to.
    0:06:04 Well, and AMCs are a little bit like clever, subtle, non-obvious, right?
    0:06:13 Like, the more obvious thing is like, well, the government could just spend money to develop a vaccine or even could just subsidize one vaccine maker to do the research.
    0:06:19 But but like, why is an AMC better in some settings than those options?
    0:06:22 Yeah, it’s a really good question.
    0:06:29 So when we think about the types of financial interventions here, we can think about them like push.
    0:06:32 People often talk about push mechanisms are like grant funding.
    0:06:37 You typically pay for folks to up front for an input.
    0:06:39 An input in this case is research, vaccine development.
    0:06:41 Yep. You’re giving someone a grant.
    0:06:42 Here’s a billion dollars.
    0:06:43 Go make the vaccine.
    0:06:46 Or you’re giving somebody a grant to figure out if it’s even possible.
    0:06:47 Yeah.
    0:06:49 And you’re giving them up front before you get the end outcome.
    0:06:56 Pull funding are mechanisms that you’re paying for something when it’s delivered.
    0:06:57 You’re paying for the output.
    0:07:00 And a prize is sort of an example of that.
    0:07:01 It’s like a one time.
    0:07:03 If somebody can develop this, we’ll give you a prize.
    0:07:06 And there are famous examples of that, right?
    0:07:06 There certainly are.
    0:07:10 Like longitude, the British in, was it the 18th century?
    0:07:13 They needed to, they needed a clock that worked on a ship, basically, right?
    0:07:17 Or the DARPA prize for self-driving cars, right?
    0:07:19 Which sort of kicked off the self-driving car revolution.
    0:07:22 Prizes can be very effective mechanisms.
    0:07:26 And AMCs are not always a good fit for a problem.
    0:07:30 They tend to be a good fit for the problem when a couple of things are true.
    0:07:35 If you think about the thing you want to exist and why the organizations or the people that
    0:07:40 could have invented and scaled those things aren’t doing it, if the problem in their mind is
    0:07:44 there’s no end revenue for it, that’s criteria one.
    0:07:50 Criteria two is that you can actually define the thing that you want to exist.
    0:07:57 So, you know, can we in this case define the target product profile of the pneumococcal vaccine that we want?
    0:08:02 Or in our case, can we outline the criteria for the kinds of carbon removal that we want to exist?
    0:08:08 And then a third criteria is essentially like once the thing is actually invented,
    0:08:13 will market forces take over to actually make it scale on its own?
    0:08:19 So basically, once a thing invented that is true, you should do a prize because you don’t need a long-term market.
    0:08:20 You’re just trying to get the initial invention.
    0:08:21 Oh, interesting.
    0:08:24 But in the case of, you know, the pneumococcal vaccine, for example,
    0:08:27 you want the pharma companies to invent the solution,
    0:08:31 but you ultimately care about is that the people who need it are getting the vaccine.
    0:08:31 Yeah.
    0:08:38 So in that case, the incentive design there is you’re taking all of the R&D and development costs
    0:08:45 associated with that, but you are giving it back to the pharma companies by amortizing it over all of the doses.
    0:08:49 So just to be clear, the advanced market commitment for the vaccine was not,
    0:08:51 we’ll give you the money when you invent the vaccine.
    0:08:57 It’s we’ll pay an extra couple bucks per vaccine delivered in the field in this part of the world.
    0:08:57 Exactly.
    0:08:59 And there are genuinely different ways.
    0:09:05 AMCs are a pretty broad term that, you know, can encompass a lot of different mechanism designs.
    0:09:06 But you’ve described that well.
    0:09:11 It’s like you want to, you’re paying for the outcome of somebody actually getting the vaccine.
    0:09:12 The marginal use case.
    0:09:12 That’s right.
    0:09:13 Yeah.
    0:09:13 Okay.
    0:09:17 By the way, are there more criteria or do we have the criteria now in place?
    0:09:20 Those are sort of rough criteria that, and they’re not perfect,
    0:09:23 but they’re sort of rough criteria that will help you know,
    0:09:25 are we even in poll funding territory?
    0:09:30 And within poll funding, should we consider an AMC versus a prize versus something else?
    0:09:31 Those are sort of loose guiding criteria.
    0:09:40 So now we have our framework, apply it to carbon removal as you were thinking about it in 2021, 2022.
    0:09:44 Why did it seem like a good fit for that problem at that time?
    0:09:44 Yeah.
    0:09:48 I mean, I think the fundamental problem with carbon removal.
    0:09:52 So carbon removal is in, for all intents and purposes, it is a public good.
    0:09:56 Unlike with energy, you know, humans derive value from energy.
    0:09:58 That is, we get value from that.
    0:10:01 When you are sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and storing it somewhere permanently,
    0:10:04 you know, there are small markets where people can benefit from them.
    0:10:08 You’re using the CO2, you know, in an end product.
    0:10:10 But at the scale we’re talking, this is mostly a public good.
    0:10:14 And as a result, it is a very reasonable question for
    0:10:18 entrepreneurs and investors to basically ask,
    0:10:22 if I start a company in this space, who’s going to buy the end product that I am selling?
    0:10:26 It is fundamentally an open question about the market.
    0:10:30 And I would say it’s even more of an open question if I’m building a really early stage
    0:10:32 technology that is expensive at the beginning.
    0:10:36 Because there are, there’s some voluntary market that exists, but that’s a $20 a ton.
    0:10:42 And if you’re building, you know, a new technology at the beginning, your price is going to be high.
    0:10:48 And so that fundamentally, that first criteria is extremely applicable to carbon removal because
    0:10:50 it has created this chicken and egg problem that we’re trying to solve.
    0:10:55 You use the term public good, which people use in a kind of vernacular sense,
    0:10:59 but there’s a technical economic sense in which you are using it and which applies here, right?
    0:11:02 It’s non-rivalrous and non-excludable, right?
    0:11:07 Which means basically, even if only one person pays for it, everybody benefits.
    0:11:11 And you can’t even exclude somebody from benefiting if you want to.
    0:11:11 That’s right.
    0:11:14 A lighthouse is the classic, right?
    0:11:18 It doesn’t make sense for any one shipping company to pay for a lighthouse because all
    0:11:23 those other cheap assholes who didn’t pay for the lighthouse are also not going to crash into
    0:11:23 the box, right?
    0:11:28 And it’s a classic case of market failure for that reason, right?
    0:11:33 Because the person paying for it only captures a tiny, and in the case of carbon removal, truly
    0:11:35 tiny, tiny part of the benefit.
    0:11:40 And so no one’s going to pay for it except in like weird edge cases.
    0:11:40 Well said.
    0:11:42 Like stripes $1 million.
    0:11:44 Precisely.
    0:11:44 Precisely.
    0:11:45 Yes.
    0:11:46 OK, so that’s good.
    0:11:47 That’s one.
    0:11:47 What else?
    0:11:48 That’s a very important one.
    0:11:52 The second one is, can we define the shape of the thing that we want to exist?
    0:11:59 And in our case, when we’re thinking about carbon removal, we have a set of criteria that
    0:12:07 we are, that sort of try to characterize the gap in solutions that exist that would essentially
    0:12:11 get the world to the 10 gigatons plus per year needed by 2050.
    0:12:16 And so the kinds of things that we care about on this list are things like, does this technology
    0:12:20 have the potential to be under $100 in the future?
    0:12:23 And that is a, you know, we can come back to the specifics, but does it have the potential
    0:12:23 to be cheap?
    0:12:26 Does it have the potential to be very huge?
    0:12:31 We’re looking at solutions that have the potential to be more than half a gigaton per year in carbon
    0:12:31 removal.
    0:12:33 We also care a lot about permanence.
    0:12:39 So when you emit a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere, that is permanently up there.
    0:12:41 And so we want to take it out permanently as well.
    0:12:45 And then, you know, there’s a whole host of other criteria that we care about.
    0:12:52 But when we sat down to do our initial million dollar spend for Stripes, that first blog post,
    0:12:58 we spent a lot of time thinking about, you know, how do we characterize the kinds of solutions
    0:12:59 that we want to exist?
    0:13:05 And an important part of that characterization is, can we be specific enough that people understand
    0:13:06 what it is that we want?
    0:13:14 But can we be broad enough to invite a whole host of creative solutions to the starting
    0:13:15 line?
    0:13:19 Because this entire field is basically, you know, six years old.
    0:13:23 This started, you know, carbon removal, the starting gun for carbon removal was the 2018
    0:13:24 IPCC report.
    0:13:25 And that was not very long ago.
    0:13:28 And so maybe it’s direct air capture.
    0:13:29 Maybe it’s enhanced rock weathering.
    0:13:31 Maybe it’s ocean alkalinity enhancement.
    0:13:33 Maybe, you know, there’s all these different solutions.
    0:13:35 It’s too early to pick a horse.
    0:13:39 Let’s get a bunch of the best ideas to the starting line, see how they do.
    0:13:41 And then some of them won’t work.
    0:13:43 But the ones that do, let’s really double down.
    0:13:48 So that’s a long-winded way of saying we were trying to define this target criteria in
    0:13:54 a way that sort of balanced the specificity needed to guarantee this for suppliers, but also
    0:13:58 was broad enough to invite the innovation that we think is necessary.
    0:13:59 Yeah.
    0:14:01 I mean, well, that’s the market force part, right?
    0:14:02 That’s why it’s a poll.
    0:14:07 Well, if it’s too specific, then it’s like, well, just give a grant to one company.
    0:14:09 But that’s what you’re trying to avoid, right?
    0:14:10 You’re trying to avoid picking a winner.
    0:14:11 Precisely.
    0:14:12 Is there one more criterion?
    0:14:18 And there’s one more criteria, which is essentially once the thing is invented, if you have the recipe
    0:14:22 for the thing, our market force is going to scale it up on its own.
    0:14:27 And in the case of carbon removal, somebody could come up with the best possible solution.
    0:14:31 And the long-term market for this isn’t quite there yet.
    0:14:33 It’s the public good problem again.
    0:14:33 Exactly.
    0:14:35 So, yes.
    0:14:40 So it’s yes, yes, and yes to your three criteria for advanced market commitment.
    0:14:40 Yes.
    0:14:46 And I will say that, like, there’s a few differences in this, in the Frontier AMC and the initial
    0:14:48 AMC for pneumococcal.
    0:14:48 Yeah.
    0:14:53 I think one of the things that is challenging in carbon removal is that lack of long-term
    0:14:54 market.
    0:14:56 So, like, Frontier is a billion dollars.
    0:14:57 It’s going to run out eventually.
    0:15:00 So we’re sort of building the plane while we’re flying it.
    0:15:06 We have to make sure that once these initial funds are out, that long-term market does exist.
    0:15:08 So we can talk about what that looks like.
    0:15:13 But I think that, you know, in the case of the pneumococcal vaccine for low- and middle-income
    0:15:18 countries, there was a point at which it made sense, financial sense, once for pharma companies
    0:15:21 to continue distributing the vaccine on their own.
    0:15:26 In our case, you know, that is only true if we can also put a sort of steady state market
    0:15:27 in place, if that makes sense.
    0:15:28 Yeah.
    0:15:33 I mean, is it because for the vaccine, most of the cost is up front?
    0:15:39 And in fact, there is marginal benefit for people who can pay a very small amount or for
    0:15:40 countries that can pay a very small amount.
    0:15:46 So there is, once the vaccine companies have recouped the R&D cost, the marginal cost actually
    0:15:52 works in a market-based way, which will never be true for a carbon capture because it’s a
    0:15:52 public good.
    0:15:53 That’s right.
    0:15:56 So, I was thinking we’d get to this later, but whatever.
    0:16:05 Fundamentally, there is a policy problem that somebody has to solve before too long because
    0:16:06 this isn’t going to work forever.
    0:16:11 You wrote, without government action, Frontier is building a bridge to nowhere.
    0:16:11 Yes.
    0:16:17 These private sector voluntary commitments are a great way to help this field get to first
    0:16:20 base, but they are not going to get us all the way there.
    0:16:26 So, you know, if we zoom all the way out and think about sort of quick demand math, how big
    0:16:28 does this market need to be and for how long?
    0:16:33 So carbon removal roughly needs to scale to, and this is, you know, rough numbers, 10 billion
    0:16:35 tons per year by 2050.
    0:16:43 And if we say that, you know, for example, we think we can do it at $100 a ton, that is
    0:16:47 a trillion dollars per year in demand that is needed.
    0:16:50 And of course, if we end up needing less carbon removal, that number goes down.
    0:16:52 And if we can do it for cheaper, that numbers go down.
    0:16:56 But just back of the envelope, it’s a trillion dollars a year, which is a big number.
    0:16:57 Right.
    0:16:58 Global GDP is about $100 trillion.
    0:17:03 So 1% of global GDP is a tremendous, a tremendously large number.
    0:17:06 It is dauntingly large, in fact.
    0:17:07 It’s dauntingly large.
    0:17:09 Can you get another order of magnitude out of the price?
    0:17:11 It’s the first question I have for you.
    0:17:17 So I think that that is why it really matters that we are so hunting for solutions that can
    0:17:23 be much cheaper because, you know, being able to get down to $70 or $50 or $30 a ton
    0:17:24 does make a really big difference.
    0:17:30 I would call out, though, that like, is half a percent or a percent of global GDP a lot?
    0:17:32 I mean, of course, the answer is in one sense, yes.
    0:17:37 But of course, as a current moment, a tough time to be getting countries to coordinate on
    0:17:38 global public goods.
    0:17:44 But it’s not totally out of the realm of possibility, especially, you know, if and as
    0:17:47 the world gets richer, that percentage goes down.
    0:17:49 Well, so, OK, fine.
    0:17:50 We’re saying all these numbers, it’s a lot of money.
    0:17:53 But what does it mean in terms of policy, right?
    0:17:55 It’s fundamentally a public good.
    0:17:59 Public goods, we know the most basic economic way, are not provided by the market.
    0:18:04 So, like, what do governments have to do to sort of take the baton from frontier?
    0:18:15 I think that probably in practice, the collection of policies that get to these hundreds of billions
    0:18:20 of dollars per year ends up looking like a patchwork quilt of demand policies.
    0:18:26 I think it is unlikely that there is sort of one thing that ultimately gets us there.
    0:18:28 We can talk about what the shape of those things could look like.
    0:18:31 But at a high level, you can kind of imagine a couple of different worlds.
    0:18:35 One world is that governments treat carbon removal like sanitation.
    0:18:41 And they say, you know, we’re going to we’re going to do this cleanup on behalf of our citizens
    0:18:44 and we’re going to coordinate with other countries to do that.
    0:18:48 We can put that in the kind of category of like direct government procurement.
    0:18:50 Governments are the ones that are doing it themselves.
    0:18:58 There’s another worldview, which is that governments are essentially trying to quantify the negative
    0:19:04 externality of a ton of emissions and then push that onto the players that are emitting, private companies.
    0:19:08 This is some kind of carbon tax, basically, that is funding carbon removal.
    0:19:08 Yes.
    0:19:09 Among other things.
    0:19:10 Yes.
    0:19:10 The dream.
    0:19:11 The dream.
    0:19:14 Let’s dream about a carbon tax for one moment because it makes so much sense.
    0:19:21 And there are different sort of ways of implementing that that I think are sort of further or closer to a traditional carbon tax.
    0:19:28 So that’s a long winded way of saying there are a whole host of bets I think that the world needs to make.
    0:19:31 And some of them will pan out and some of them won’t.
    0:19:37 But it is very important to start planting those seeds now so that the market is where it needs to be when it needs to be there.
    0:19:42 We’ll be back in just a minute.
    0:19:54 Run a business and not thinking about podcasting?
    0:19:55 Think again.
    0:20:00 More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora.
    0:20:04 And as the number one podcaster, iHeart’s twice as large as the next two combined.
    0:20:07 So whatever your customers listen to, they’ll hear your message.
    0:20:12 Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio.
    0:20:14 Think podcasting can help your business?
    0:20:15 Think iHeart.
    0:20:17 Streaming, radio, and podcasting.
    0:20:20 Let us show you at iHeartAdvertising.com.
    0:20:22 That’s iHeartAdvertising.com.
    0:20:25 I’m CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy.
    0:20:26 Claire Duffy was one of the best.
    0:20:30 I cover artificial intelligence and other new technologies for a living.
    0:20:34 And even I sometimes get overwhelmed trying to keep up with it all.
    0:20:42 So I’m starting a new show where, together, we can explore how to experiment with these new tools without getting played by them.
    0:20:44 It’s called Terms of Service.
    0:20:47 This technology is so crazy powerful.
    0:20:50 Follow CNN’s Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts.
    0:20:55 Let’s go back to the recent past.
    0:21:02 So you have this idea for big advanced market commitment for carbon capture and removal.
    0:21:04 What do you do?
    0:21:12 You know, at the time, AMCs, they’re only really been sort of one or one and a half AMCs, and they were all in the context of health.
    0:21:18 So it was this initial pneumococcal vaccine, AMC, GAVI, and then Operation Warp Speed incorporated some components of this as well.
    0:21:21 For developing the coronavirus vaccine.
    0:21:21 That’s right.
    0:21:22 To great success.
    0:21:22 To great success.
    0:21:24 Underrated.
    0:21:26 So underrated operation.
    0:21:29 Like, nobody wants to own it politically, which is so sad.
    0:21:30 Like, it was great.
    0:21:31 It worked.
    0:21:32 It was amazing.
    0:21:32 It was amazing.
    0:21:37 So what is Frontier at launch in 2022?
    0:21:44 What we wanted to do with Frontier, the spirit of what we wanted to do was say, there is a big market for carbon removal.
    0:21:45 And what does that mean, a big market?
    0:22:01 A billion dollars was an imperfect number that we came up with that both met the criteria that we thought it would be big enough to get people’s attention and send a strong signal to entrepreneurs and investors that there is a market.
    0:22:04 But it was still something we felt was in the realm of possibility.
    0:22:07 Like, we can’t go raise a trillion dollars.
    0:22:09 That is not something we were able to do.
    0:22:11 So a billion dollars was the number that we settled on.
    0:22:18 And I will sort of want to asterisk and call out the fact that, like, it is a sort of imperfect number because it does not solve the whole problem.
    0:22:22 Kind of the minimum viable product of numbers in this context, right?
    0:22:23 That’s exactly right.
    0:22:23 Yeah.
    0:22:25 And that’s different than the pneumococcal vaccine.
    0:22:34 Like, you know, initially when they put together a billion and a half dollars from countries and the Gates Foundation, they thought it was enough to get the vaccine to the point that they wanted to get to.
    0:22:36 So I’ll sort of call out the flaw in that.
    0:22:39 But we said, OK, a billion dollars.
    0:22:40 Stripe can put in some of that.
    0:22:46 We have now tens of thousands of Stripe climate users that are giving money for carbon removal.
    0:22:53 So in the context of Stripe, we were actually able to underwrite a huge amount of that initial billion dollars ourselves.
    0:22:55 But we weren’t able to get to that full billion.
    0:23:06 So we said, OK, how can we find other like-minded organizations that would be interested in sort of this kind of wonky experiment that we want to try and run?
    0:23:20 And so we ended up in the spring of 2022 launching with Google and Shopify and McKinsey and since then have added other folks like, you know, JP Morgan and H&M and Autodesk and Workday.
    0:23:46 And so what everybody who puts money into that pot is promising is we will buy this amount of money, this number of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of carbon removal.
    0:23:57 So if it meets some set of specifications sometime between now and 2030, that is that is what everybody is promising, like contractually promising to do.
    0:23:59 Yes, that is the spirit of what it is.
    0:24:07 And in practice, most of those dollars get spent and contracted through something called an offtake agreement.
    0:24:19 And an offtake agreement is a legally binding contract between a buyer and a supplier that the buyer is going to buy a certain number of, in our case, tons at a certain price if the supplier can deliver.
    0:24:32 So when companies initially signed up to Frontier, they basically said, you know, we’re going to put in $200 million and this is how we are sort of able to budget that each year from 2022 to 2030.
    0:24:34 And at that point, it’s an intention.
    0:24:37 It’s an intention to spend, but it’s not a legally binding contract.
    0:24:45 It becomes a legally binding contract in these offtake agreements where buyers are promising to buy a certain number of tons at a certain price.
    0:24:55 And the reason that offtake contracts are really important for carbon removal companies is because if you are a carbon removal company and you want to build a big new, say, DAC facility.
    0:24:56 That’s direct air capture.
    0:24:57 Direct air capture.
    0:25:01 And you go to a bank and you’re like, I want a loan to actually finance the build.
    0:25:06 The first question they’re going to ask you is, who’s going to buy the thing that comes off of this plant?
    0:25:15 Right. If they take the time to talk to you at all, they’re going to say, you want to build this thing that nobody’s ever built before and you don’t know who’s going to pay you for it.
    0:25:18 And it’s a public good. So why should anybody even bother to pay you for it?
    0:25:25 So basically a company gets an offtake agreement and then they can take that literally to the bank and use it as collateral for a loan.
    0:25:32 Exactly. And there’s a lot of other things, as you’ve called out, that have to go right in order for that loan to actually happen.
    0:25:37 But but one of the things that this helps de-risk is is the demand side.
    0:25:39 It’s do is there a customer to buy the end thing that we’re doing?
    0:25:43 That’s the genius of the advanced market commitment fundamentally. Right.
    0:25:48 That’s right. So how’s it going? You’re three years in out of eight. Right.
    0:25:52 So like things are happening. You’re kind of in the middle now of the project.
    0:26:00 Yes. The goal, our goal at Frontier at a very high level is to get carbon removal on its best possible trajectory.
    0:26:06 We are sort of working on behalf of the ecosystem largely through these offtake agreements.
    0:26:09 But our goal, you know, is sort of is very world first.
    0:26:19 And by the numbers. So we’re, as you said, about three years in, we have contracted now over five hundred million dollars with several dozen carbon removal companies.
    0:26:30 And so much of our time at Frontier is spent sourcing, getting to know and diligencing and ultimately writing contracts with the best carbon removal companies out there.
    0:26:36 And we’re, you know, we obsess over how to spend and how to how to contract each of these dollars.
    0:26:38 You’ve committed half of the pot so far.
    0:26:42 We’ve committed half of the pot across several dozen companies.
    0:26:46 And these companies cover lots of different pathways, some of which we’ve talked about.
    0:26:54 And in in some sense, it’s too early to tell if things are, quote unquote, like definitely working.
    0:26:59 But we look at some leading indicators to tell us what to help us triangulate.
    0:27:02 Like, is this doing the thing that we wanted it to be doing?
    0:27:08 And one of those leading indicators is, like, what is the number of companies for whom sort of Frontier was the first customer?
    0:27:13 And the reason we hear about that metric is we’re trying to pull this field forward.
    0:27:20 So, like, going early versus following on is a good indicator that we’re like, yeah, we’re pulling companies forward.
    0:27:23 And I mean, you want you want to be the marginal buyer, right?
    0:27:25 You want to be the buyer that they need.
    0:27:28 If somebody else was going to buy it anyways, that’s not as useful, right, at some level.
    0:27:31 Exactly. And we because, you know, we’re not hunting for the cheapest 10s.
    0:27:38 We’re looking long term at, you know, our we’re looking for technologies that have the potential to be really low cost and high volume in the future.
    0:27:43 We are typically buying more expensive 10s earlier on as the first buyer.
    0:27:46 And we are the first ever customer for 78 percent of companies.
    0:27:51 And we’re the first off taker for as of, you know, as of now, 82 percent of them.
    0:27:53 So, like, we’re coming in early.
    0:27:54 Yes.
    0:28:07 Another leading indicator that we look at is is basically like are are we picking companies that are actually starting to deliver the tons like vaulted, for example, delivered 12,000 tons of carbon removal last year.
    0:28:12 This is the most of any company working on carbon removal, permanent carbon removal by a significant margin.
    0:28:17 You know, charm has injected a number of several thousand tons last year.
    0:28:25 Litho supplied 300,000 tons of rock this year, which is positioning them to put in some pretty significant numbers in the coming couple of years.
    0:28:31 So these numbers are still small, but they are much larger than we’ve seen in previous years.
    0:28:32 And I think that that is really promising.
    0:28:35 I think we feel those are good early indicators.
    0:28:40 But, you know, it’s going to take a decade or so, I think, to know if this really had the effect that we wanted it to.
    0:28:43 Let’s talk a little bit about kind of the state of the industry itself.
    0:28:46 Right. Because you are kind of at the center of it.
    0:28:48 You have a nice perspective.
    0:28:53 Yeah. I mean, let’s just step through like a few companies doing a few with a few different kinds of technologies.
    0:28:58 Right. I feel like the people the one the most people have heard of is direct air capture.
    0:29:01 Right. Is just fans and filters and whatever.
    0:29:03 Like, should we start there?
    0:29:04 What’s happening with direct air capture?
    0:29:06 Sure. So direct air capture.
    0:29:09 Yeah. You’ve probably seen these big fans.
    0:29:10 Kind of looks like a vacuum cleaner or something.
    0:29:12 You’re like you’re pulling in air.
    0:29:16 You’re finding the CO2 particles from the other million air particles.
    0:29:20 You’re compressing those and then injecting that usually underground somewhere.
    0:29:24 And there are a number of direct air capture companies out there.
    0:29:35 I think direct air capture is a technology that has high long term potential, but it’s very capital intensive and it’s very energy intensive, especially early stage.
    0:29:41 And there’s a number of, in our opinion, really promising approaches that have the potential to be super low cost.
    0:29:51 And that is both because of sort of cheap off the shelf CapEx and because of their ability to to do that process for really low energy.
    0:29:53 But it’s basically a game of CapEx and energy for DAC.
    0:29:55 That’s that’s really important.
    0:29:57 It’s technically infinitely scalable.
    0:29:59 Right. But cost is the challenge for DAC.
    0:30:01 It’s permanent. It’s scalable.
    0:30:04 The question is cost, which is a function of CapEx and energy.
    0:30:07 OK, what do you want to do next?
    0:30:09 Should we talk about plants next?
    0:30:10 What do you want to talk about next?
    0:30:11 Let’s talk about plants. Then we’re going to talk about rocks.
    0:30:14 OK. Plants go.
    0:30:17 So plants, of course, as we know, naturally.
    0:30:27 Suck CO2 out of the air and they do this sort of in a quote for for free because they’re using they’re using solar from from the leaves.
    0:30:28 They’re using leaves.
    0:30:29 Yes.
    0:30:30 Photosynthesis. Yes.
    0:30:34 The challenge with plants is when you in the context of carbon removal is two things.
    0:30:36 One, they take up a lot of space.
    0:30:40 And so at the scale that we’re talking, there are sort of limits.
    0:30:43 The second thing that is challenging about plants is they’re not permanent.
    0:30:45 Trees can burn down or just die even.
    0:30:48 Right. At the timescales we’re talking about, even if there is not a fire.
    0:30:49 That’s right.
    0:30:51 They will die and decompose. Right.
    0:30:52 Plants are very important for many reasons.
    0:31:05 But in the context of carbon removal, that the types of solutions that we are looking at, because we care about the permanence piece a lot, is how do you take what nature does for free and make that sort of permanent?
    0:31:15 So Charm Industrial is an example of a company that takes waste biomass, so sort of leftover corn stover, for example, that farmers would, you know, have from from growing corn.
    0:31:24 They take that, they pyrolyze it, which basically just means they heat it up without oxygen and they turn it into an oil that they can then direct back underground.
    0:31:27 I talked to Sean Kinetic, who used to be there on this show a couple of years ago.
    0:31:28 Oh, fabulous.
    0:31:32 So why is that one promising and why is that one? What are the limits?
    0:31:36 It’s promising because you get the capture part for free from plants.
    0:31:42 It’s challenging because there is a limited amount of, quote unquote, waste biomass.
    0:31:50 So like there is a sort of cap on probably how big that can be because there is only so much waste biomass.
    0:31:56 And then there’s a question of like, what is the best thing to do with that waste in a given scenario based on where it is?
    0:32:01 And so just to be clear, like in the case of Charm, they go out to cornfields where after the corn has been harvested,
    0:32:04 there’s all this just like the corn plant is just sitting there on the ground.
    0:32:08 Right. And that is essentially carbon that has been captured that’s about to go back into the atmosphere.
    0:32:12 But if they can pyrolyze it and stick it in the ground for 10,000 years, that’s great.
    0:32:18 But it doesn’t scale that much because there’s not that many corn stalks sitting on the ground in various forms around the world.
    0:32:26 It gets you to probably collectively and, you know, there are different estimates for this, probably in the order of like a gigaton plus per year by 2050.
    0:32:27 So that’s not nothing.
    0:32:27 OK.
    0:32:31 But it’s probably not going to get you to 10 gigatons a year.
    0:32:34 So it’s by itself, it’s not going to get you all the way there.
    0:32:37 But it’s a non-trivial chunk if it works, if it becomes cost effective.
    0:32:43 I mean, presumably for all these, cost is still, they’re still quite expensive and you have to get the cost out.
    0:32:52 Exactly. And in the case of, you know, some of their different bikers approaches, but there’s, there’s case of the capex, there’s a case, there’s the cost of sometimes transporting the biomass.
    0:32:55 But again, it’s very sort of case by case specific.
    0:33:00 I would just call it that the waste biomass problem, there’s a real limit to how big it can be.
    0:33:02 And so that’s why we can’t put all of our chips in that basket.
    0:33:03 Yeah.
    0:33:05 Now we can talk about rocks.
    0:33:09 Most of the world’s carbon actually is in rocks in the lithosphere.
    0:33:13 And it just takes a really long time to get there.
    0:33:17 Reactive rocks, if it’s an alkaline rock, will absorb carbon roughly proportional to a surface area.
    0:33:21 It also cares about other things like, you know, it doesn’t have access to water and temperature, et cetera.
    0:33:24 But you can kind of think about reactive rocks.
    0:33:26 Some rocks are like sponges for carbon.
    0:33:34 So the question is, how do you find or make alkaline rock, which is very reactive rock that is kind of in its most squeezed sponge form.
    0:33:43 And what do you do with that to turn that into carbon removal, to sort of get it to do this sponge activity?
    0:33:50 And there are a number of different ways that we are looking at.
    0:33:52 One of them is called enhanced rock weathering.
    0:34:01 And this is taking sort of taking that reactive rock, spreading it on fields where it has, you know, access to air and it has access to sort of rain and water.
    0:34:05 And eventually that makes its way into the ocean and is stored as bicarbonate.
    0:34:09 But that is sort of one use of a rock.
    0:34:13 There’s another category called, it doesn’t really have a good name yet.
    0:34:23 We talk about it as like superficial mineralization, but essentially, yeah, taking this rock, grinding it up, exposing it to air and some water, it mineralizes, it turns into a carbonate.
    0:34:28 And then you essentially put it in these giant piles that are piles of carbon removal.
    0:34:33 And, you know, it sounds it sounds a little wild, but it’s quite interesting because.
    0:34:35 I like how simple it is.
    0:34:37 If it works, it sounds really simple, which seems good.
    0:34:38 Yes.
    0:34:41 And, you know, we know how to do things like grind up rocks.
    0:34:46 We have an existing big mining industry that in this case, the carbon removal actually stays in place.
    0:34:48 So the monitoring and verification is quite easy.
    0:34:52 You just go and look at the big rock and you say, yeah, it’s still there.
    0:34:53 Basically.
    0:34:53 Yeah.
    0:34:56 You know, we’re we’re very excited about rocks in general.
    0:35:00 And I think that this is this is a thing that nature already knows how to do.
    0:35:11 And if we can find or make enough alkaline rock and that those are, you know, very scalable and sort of infinitely scalable sponges that we can use to suck out a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans.
    0:35:17 So it sounds like of direct air capture plants and rocks, you seem particularly bullish on rocks.
    0:35:23 I think that rocks are under under explored relative to their potential is why I’m quite excited about it.
    0:35:26 You know, I think that, you know, people ask us a lot like, well, what’s your favorite one?
    0:35:34 And I am always hesitant to answer that question because I wasn’t planning to ask you that, but it feels like rocks are your favorite.
    0:35:38 I’m excited about rocks currently because I think they are under explored.
    0:35:50 And I think the combination of the scale potential, which is functionally unlimited, the permanence and the simplicity of rocks could be interesting.
    0:35:55 Obviously, in terms of the whole field of carbon removal, it’s super early, right?
    0:35:58 But in terms of the life of Frontier, it’s not that early.
    0:36:02 And so I’m curious, what has been different than you expected?
    0:36:03 Like what has gone better?
    0:36:04 What has gone worse?
    0:36:06 What what have you learned?
    0:36:19 You know, I’ve been surprised by how at the time when we launched Frontier, I wasn’t sure for the reason that we discussed that a billion dollars was going to send an appropriately loud signal.
    0:36:23 And I don’t think that it didn’t convince everyone, and that’s fine.
    0:36:34 But I think it convinced enough startups and entrepreneurs and investors that this was a big enough market for them to try.
    0:36:38 And so, you know, the numbers that we talked about earlier, that surprised me.
    0:36:41 I think in that sense, it worked better than expected.
    0:36:47 I think that a thing that is also I don’t know if we should be surprised by this, but, you know,
    0:36:51 carbon removal is still really early.
    0:37:00 And when companies start and not all approaches work, and that’s not because they weren’t good ideas, it’s because you got to test your idea in the real world.
    0:37:03 And sometimes those don’t pan out as you expect.
    0:37:15 I’ve been also a little bit surprised by, like, how quick people can be to sort of catastrophize what I think in any other field would just, like, look like early innovation.
    0:37:16 Like, there’s a bajillion AI startups.
    0:37:19 Not all of them are going to make it, but, like, some of them will.
    0:37:23 And that is sort of normal dynamics for an early ecosystem.
    0:37:27 I feel like with carbon removal, there’s haters on both sides, right?
    0:37:32 Because, like, people who don’t care about climate change, of course, hate it.
    0:37:37 But the surprising one is that some of the people who do care about climate change hate it, right?
    0:37:37 Yes.
    0:37:42 It’s just going to distract us from the energy transition argument, right?
    0:37:45 So I do feel like you’re up against a lot of haters.
    0:37:47 Yes, I think that’s right.
    0:37:55 And on that point, I think that, you know, the moral hazard piece is an argument that people have been talking about in the context of carbon removal for a long time.
    0:38:05 And just to be clear, moral hazard, our second fun econ term of the conversation after public goods is basically the idea that, like, oh, carbon removal will just let people keep emitting.
    0:38:09 It’s a signal that, oh, I don’t have to worry about it because they’ll just suck all the carbon out of these.
    0:38:10 Yes.
    0:38:21 And, you know, I think that, you know, our perspective is, like, if we had done, as a world, a better job with emissions reduction earlier, we wouldn’t have to do the carbon removal that we had.
    0:38:23 It’s a great world where we don’t have to do this.
    0:38:23 Totally.
    0:38:25 It’s a dumb thing to have to spend money on.
    0:38:27 If we’d have been smarter, we wouldn’t have to spend money on it.
    0:38:27 Totally.
    0:38:36 And, like, 90 percent plus of the world’s efforts should stay focused on emissions reduction because without that, there is no path to solving climate change, full stop.
    0:38:41 But the math also, unfortunately for all of us, doesn’t work without carbon removal.
    0:38:43 So, like, we have to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.
    0:38:44 So fun.
    0:38:45 You were surprised by the haters.
    0:38:46 I’m sorry.
    0:38:47 What else?
    0:38:59 I think that I’m generally an impatient person, and I have to, you know, my team is already reminding me that to build real things in the real world takes time.
    0:39:01 Yeah, this is physical hard tech, right?
    0:39:02 It’s not software.
    0:39:05 You can’t just iterate every day and ship every day.
    0:39:06 It’s like physical things.
    0:39:07 It’s rocks, right?
    0:39:11 It’s rocks in the world that take time to do the things that they do.
    0:39:11 Exactly.
    0:39:18 And so we are sort of, we as a team talk a lot about sort of inhabiting different mindsets.
    0:39:25 It’s like we are rushed and we’re sort of, we are running to get, you know, our fund contracted as robustly as possible.
    0:39:28 And at the same time, we’re playing the long game.
    0:39:30 Like, this is going to take decades.
    0:39:35 This industry is going to take decades to really materialize and form.
    0:39:41 And we are still, you know, we are closer to the starting line than any other place.
    0:39:43 We’re five, six years into this.
    0:39:53 So I think that trying to sort of both have that short-term urgency but also really realize that, like, you know, climate and carbon removal is more than one administration.
    0:39:54 It is more than one country.
    0:40:06 The timeframes that we’re talking about just requires a sort of steadfastness that I should have appreciated at the beginning but that I don’t think I really internalized until probably like the last year or two.
    0:40:12 We’ll be back in a minute with the lightning round.
    0:40:22 Run a business and not thinking about podcasting?
    0:40:22 Think again.
    0:40:27 More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora.
    0:40:32 And as the number one podcaster, iHeart’s twice as large as the next two combined.
    0:40:35 So whatever your customers listen to, they’ll hear your message.
    0:40:39 Plus, only iHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio.
    0:40:41 Think podcasting can help your business?
    0:40:42 Think iHeart.
    0:40:44 Streaming, radio, and podcasting.
    0:40:47 Let us show you at iHeartAdvertising.com.
    0:40:49 That’s iHeartAdvertising.com.
    0:40:52 I’m CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy.
    0:40:53 Claire Duffy was one of the best.
    0:40:58 I cover artificial intelligence and other new technologies for a living.
    0:41:02 And even I sometimes get overwhelmed trying to keep up with it all.
    0:41:09 So I’m starting a new show where, together, we can explore how to experiment with these new tools without getting played by them.
    0:41:11 It’s called Terms of Service.
    0:41:14 This technology is so crazy powerful.
    0:41:18 Follow CNN’s Terms of Service wherever you get your podcasts.
    0:41:23 Let’s finish with the lightning round.
    0:41:23 Great.
    0:41:26 Is romanticism making a comeback in San Francisco?
    0:41:36 You know, I’m sort of, I wrote that piece in part because I think the answer is yes, in part because I’m trying to manifest it.
    0:41:37 I love that.
    0:41:39 I do see tells.
    0:41:40 I’ve lived in San Francisco for a long time.
    0:41:49 And I think that there are tells that San Francisco is rediscovering its humanism.
    0:41:51 We are rediscovering enjoyment.
    0:42:02 We are rediscovering our sort of soul in a way that I think, to me, feels very exciting and a little bit different and sort of zaggy from the past 10 years in SF.
    0:42:04 So I hope so.
    0:42:10 I mean, you talk about it as this sort of, you know, reaction to the Enlightenment as it was the first time, right?
    0:42:12 Which is fun.
    0:42:14 Who’s the Byron?
    0:42:17 Is there like a Byron of San Francisco 2025?
    0:42:18 That’s a really good question.
    0:42:21 I don’t know, but I will think about that.
    0:42:23 I mean, I also like the piece of it.
    0:42:23 Who do you think is the Byron?
    0:42:27 I don’t know, you live there and like I’m not in the mix.
    0:42:32 I would love you to tell me somebody I should listen to or read or watch or whatever.
    0:42:33 I will think about that.
    0:42:43 I do think, I mean, there’s another piece of it that you write about, right, which is particularly interesting right now, which is a reaction to AI, reductively, right?
    0:42:49 And more specifically, like this idea that if AI commodifies intelligence, what does that mean, right?
    0:43:01 Like that’s a super, there’s like all the sad AI things, which fair enough, but there’s a kind of interesting, maybe happy version of like, you know, embodied.
    0:43:07 I was talking to a guy at Anthropic the other week and I said, if you weren’t working there, what would you be doing?
    0:43:09 And he said, I’d be a massage therapist.
    0:43:10 And he meant it.
    0:43:17 And he’s like, I’m really into embodied stuff, which is super romantic in the capital R sense, right?
    0:43:28 Yeah, I think that, yeah, there’s sort of like this reemergent interest in the physical world and in tactile things and in beautiful things and a beautiful built environment.
    0:43:34 I think that, and it’s just sort of aesthetic, aesthetics generally, I think are on the rise.
    0:43:41 And those all, they’re not all, you know, definitionally, I guess, physical or sort of analog, non-digital.
    0:43:45 But I think a lot of them, I think a lot of them, a lot of them are.
    0:43:47 That feels true to me.
    0:43:49 What was the hardest thing about building a coffee table?
    0:43:55 Well, you know, I didn’t know how to use a drill.
    0:43:56 I didn’t know how to use a drill.
    0:43:57 Drills are awesome.
    0:43:59 Art drills are amazing.
    0:44:01 I didn’t know how to use a drill.
    0:44:03 I didn’t know how to use a sander.
    0:44:05 And I, I’d really never built anything before.
    0:44:09 I tweeted, I tweeted, did anybody have these things?
    0:44:12 And a neighbor had, had all the tools taught me to use them.
    0:44:15 And essentially, you know, this coffee, this coffee I’m looking at right now.
    0:44:20 This coffee table is, I love how it looks.
    0:44:22 And I had a very specific thing that I wanted it to look like.
    0:44:26 But I am pretty sure that it is going to decompose if I ever try to move it.
    0:44:28 It is not built very well.
    0:44:32 But it, it does serve its purpose, at least at this, at this moment.
    0:44:35 I mean, maybe its purpose was building it, right?
    0:44:36 Oh, I love that.
    0:44:36 Yeah.
    0:44:38 No, you’re probably right.
    0:44:47 Man Rantzhoff is head of climate at Stripe and Frontier.
    0:44:51 Please email us at problematpushkin.fm.
    0:44:54 We are always looking for new guests for the show.
    0:44:58 Today’s show was produced by Trina Menino and Gabriel Hunter-Chang.
    0:45:03 It was edited by Alexandra Gerriton and engineered by Sarah Brugger.
    0:45:07 I’m Jacob Goldstein, and we’ll be back next week with another episode of What’s Your Problem?
    0:45:17 This is an iHeart Podcast.

    Nan Ransohoff is the head of climate at Stripe. The company is known mainly for facilitating online payments, but it’s become a key driver of the nascent carbon-removal industry.

    On today’s show, Nan explains how she used a clever economic idea to get companies to spend $1 billion on carbon removal. And she talks about the different approaches startups are pursuing to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  • How this dumb doll makes $2M per day

    AI transcript
    0:00:05 The stock has grown in the last year from a $7 billion company to now a $44 billion company.
    0:00:06 $44 billion.
    0:00:07 You know what I mean?
    0:00:09 That’s what Elon bought X for.
    0:00:12 This guy’s selling LaBooBoo.
    0:00:13 It’s insane.
    0:00:14 It’s crazy.
    0:00:16 I feel like I can rule the world.
    0:00:18 I know I could be what I want to.
    0:00:21 I put my all in it like my days off.
    0:00:22 On the road, let’s travel.
    0:00:23 Never looking back.
    0:00:26 Dude, Sam, do you know what one of these are?
    0:00:28 Oh, my gosh.
    0:00:31 Ramon will not quit talking to me about these things.
    0:00:34 Okay, so for the listener, Sean is showing me.
    0:00:35 What am I holding up?
    0:00:38 They look like dolls, basically in the same vein as a troll.
    0:00:43 But I have gotten texts from my friend, our friend Ramon, who says,
    0:00:44 Have you heard of this thing?
    0:00:44 It’s worth.
    0:00:45 And he says the number.
    0:00:48 And I’m like, oh, it must have been a typo.
    0:00:50 So what’s the deal with these things?
    0:00:52 Do you know what they’re called?
    0:00:54 Super something?
    0:00:57 No, this is a LaBooBoo.
    0:01:00 All right, Sam, get yourself educated.
    0:01:02 This is a LaBooBoo doll, okay?
    0:01:04 Does it have a Prada sign on it?
    0:01:07 Yeah, that’s part of the shtick here.
    0:01:09 Okay, so what’s the story with these things?
    0:01:12 This is basically the most viral toy in the world.
    0:01:17 It’s one of the biggest crazes since, you know, Beanie Babies and things like that.
    0:01:20 And so the story behind this thing is pretty crazy.
    0:01:23 I just wanted to tell you some of the things that I know about it.
    0:01:32 Of course, my wife put me onto this months ago, and I just ignored it as the stock of this company is up like 7x in a year because this thing is going crazy.
    0:01:33 Chinese company, right?
    0:01:35 Chinese company, yeah.
    0:01:39 So this is made by – these dolls are produced by a Chinese company called Popmark.
    0:01:44 And the maker for this guy, Wang Ning, he is now the 10th richest man in China.
    0:01:44 What?
    0:01:49 And, like, he’s adding, like, a billion dollars to his net worth in the last, you know, few months.
    0:01:50 But he’s, like, 30, right?
    0:01:51 Or, like, he’s –
    0:01:53 He’s really young.
    0:01:54 Like, dude, look at this picture of him.
    0:01:57 Yeah, but Chinese guys always look really young until they don’t.
    0:01:59 Until they don’t.
    0:02:03 Yeah, haven’t you ever heard, like, all of my Asian friends, they’re like, we always look young and then we fall off a cliff.
    0:02:04 All right.
    0:02:05 Can you see this guy?
    0:02:07 Yeah, yeah.
    0:02:09 I mean, he could be 12 or 50.
    0:02:09 I don’t know.
    0:02:14 Yeah, so this guy is behind this company, Popmart.
    0:02:19 But it’s kind of fascinating what’s going on with this craze, right?
    0:02:21 Like, it’s really taken over.
    0:02:25 So somebody gave these to my kids as, like, a gift.
    0:02:27 And I didn’t really understand the significance of it.
    0:02:28 I was like, oh, cool, thanks.
    0:02:34 I didn’t realize that we were just gifted, like, a really important thing.
    0:02:36 This is, like, one of the more valuable items in my house right now.
    0:02:38 Like, these things sell for thousands of dollars.
    0:02:41 The top ones can sell for six figures.
    0:02:43 That’s how crazy the craze is for this.
    0:02:44 Okay.
    0:02:45 So tell me the story.
    0:02:48 Because this sounds like a good stock to short.
    0:02:51 Because that’s typically how these, like, collectibles kind of tend to go, right?
    0:02:52 We’ll get to that.
    0:02:53 Yes, I agree with you.
    0:02:53 We’ll get to that.
    0:02:54 All right.
    0:02:58 So the story of the LeBooBoo dolls is there’s a guy who’s an artist around 2015.
    0:03:01 He’s in the Netherlands.
    0:03:05 He gets inspired to create, like, a kind of, like, a toy world.
    0:03:09 So, like, a character world based on where he’s at in the Netherlands.
    0:03:11 And he designs these dolls.
    0:03:13 These kind of, like, look at their teeth.
    0:03:15 Like, the little, like, gremlin-looking doll.
    0:03:18 And there’s hope for us, okay?
    0:03:22 Because the experts are describing this as ugly cute.
    0:03:24 And it’s succeeded because it’s ugly cute.
    0:03:31 And I just thought, like, our podcast, I just feel like that just gave us, like, some wind in our sails for what we could do as well on YouTube.
    0:03:35 It’s worse for us because we’re not particularly ugly, but we’re not particularly good-looking.
    0:03:37 Is there, like, a, eh, cute?
    0:03:40 What the kids call mid.
    0:03:41 Yeah.
    0:03:44 All right, so he creates these in 2015.
    0:03:46 Not a lot happens from there.
    0:03:50 But in 2019, so four years later, he partners with this company, Popmart.
    0:03:58 And Popmart was started about a decade ago because this guy, Wang Ning, had this insight, which is he thought that this kidult trend.
    0:04:00 We talked about this before because you’re into Legos.
    0:04:06 So he’s, like, this kidult trend, this, like, kids’ toys for adults is going to be a thing.
    0:04:22 And so he creates this store, and the store really takes advantage of this, like, style, this business mechanic called blind boxes, which I don’t know if you’ve seen LOL dolls or mini brands where you buy the box, but you don’t know what’s inside.
    0:04:24 Similar to, like, Pokemon card packs.
    0:04:25 You buy the pack, you don’t know what cards are inside.
    0:04:31 And so this mechanic, which I think they call, like, the gacha mechanic, creates a lot more spending, right?
    0:04:37 People will keep buying because it’s a little bit like a treasure hunt, and you want to see what you can find, what you can get.
    0:04:38 And this used to be a scam.
    0:04:48 Like, I remember Logan Paul or Jake Paul was sponsored or did business with a company called Mystery Box, and that was, like, a rage, like, a very trendy thing for, like, three months.
    0:04:49 Do you remember that?
    0:04:50 Like, 10 years ago.
    0:04:56 Yeah, like, these loot boxes are in games, and people know that, okay, this is kind of, it’s not a scam per se, but it’s basically manipulative, right?
    0:05:05 It gets people to buy a lot more, people get addicted to this thing, and especially when you’re targeting kids, which is why Logan Paul and those guys got in trouble, was, hey, this is targeting kids.
    0:05:07 The beauty of this is it’s not targeting kids.
    0:05:10 So the way these blew up is through celebrities.
    0:05:12 Wait, can I ask a question about the company Popmark?
    0:05:19 So he had a, Popmark, he had just a, it was a toy company for a long time, or what was the origin?
    0:05:27 So the story is, 2010, he opens up a small designer store in Beijing, and he’s trying to build it off this adult collectibles brand.
    0:05:28 He starts selling blind boxes.
    0:05:30 This, Labubu is not in play at this point.
    0:05:32 There’s other blind boxes that he’s trying to sell.
    0:05:43 And in 10 years, they grow from one store to, you know, 300-plus stores, 2,000 vending machines where you could just, like, it’s just, you know, you just buy one of these boxes right out of a machine.
    0:05:45 It ends up going public in 2020.
    0:05:47 Stock doubles on the first day.
    0:05:53 The stock has grown in the last year from a $7 billion company to now a $44 billion company.
    0:05:54 $44 billion.
    0:05:55 You know what I mean?
    0:05:57 That’s what Elon bought X for.
    0:05:59 That’s so insane.
    0:06:06 So before it became, when it was just a $4 or $7, I think you said, $1 billion company, they just sold, like, dolls that people liked.
    0:06:11 And so, which, a $7 billion toy company is, that’s already a mega success.
    0:06:12 So they sold other people’s stuff.
    0:06:13 That was over four years.
    0:06:17 But yeah, yeah, they’re selling collectibles of different brands, different IP.
    0:06:19 And this is one of the IP that they have.
    0:06:25 And this doll alone, like, these Lububus did, like, $700 million last year.
    0:06:31 So they’re, like, now, like, almost, it’s getting close to about half of the revenue of the company overall because the trend has exploded.
    0:06:33 And then they connect with this artist.
    0:06:35 And so that brings us to where we are now.
    0:06:36 Yeah.
    0:06:38 So the question is, how did this explode?
    0:06:43 Where does a – the thing that fascinated me is, like, where does a trend like this even come from?
    0:06:44 How does this happen?
    0:06:48 Because it’s totally irrational, right?
    0:06:49 Like, why this doll?
    0:06:49 Why not another doll?
    0:06:50 Is it the teeth?
    0:06:51 Is it the outfit?
    0:06:53 Is it what – what is it behind it?
    0:06:58 So there’s some, I guess, learnings to have from this about, like, the psychology of a winning product.
    0:07:00 So I just want to tell you a little story about how this happens.
    0:07:00 All right.
    0:07:01 So check this out.
    0:07:04 Exhibit A, 2023.
    0:07:06 Okay.
    0:07:13 So this is a photo that you clearly can tell it’s just Rihanna, like, getting coffee or leaving a hotel.
    0:07:14 She’s going to an airport.
    0:07:14 Yeah.
    0:07:17 And she just looks like she’s – it’s not sponsored.
    0:07:18 She’s just being a lady.
    0:07:23 And she has one of the toy bebops or boo-boos or whatever they’re called hanging off of her book bag.
    0:07:25 Book bag?
    0:07:27 Is that what it is?
    0:07:27 It’s a purse.
    0:07:28 It’s a Louis Vuitton purse.
    0:07:28 Okay.
    0:07:31 It looks like a – I’m looking from far away.
    0:07:31 It looks like a book bag.
    0:07:32 Okay.
    0:07:33 So she’s spotted with it.
    0:07:34 Hmm.
    0:07:34 Interesting.
    0:07:38 At the same time, another trend is happening in Thailand.
    0:07:45 In Thailand, people are starting to see these le-boo-boos, for whatever reason, as possible good luck charms.
    0:07:46 And in Thailand, people are quite religious.
    0:07:51 And they started to view these as like almost like a spiritual – like a little guardian that they could have with them.
    0:07:53 And so that rumor starts to spread.
    0:07:58 And then what happens is – do you know the band Blackpink?
    0:07:59 Have you ever heard of this band?
    0:08:00 No.
    0:08:01 It’s like a Korean pop band.
    0:08:04 It’s like one of the most popular pop bands in the world.
    0:08:07 So it’s a girl band, like Spice Girls.
    0:08:07 Oh, I know it.
    0:08:08 Yeah.
    0:08:09 I like those guys.
    0:08:10 I see their music videos.
    0:08:11 They’re very eye-catching.
    0:08:11 Yeah.
    0:08:12 I know what you’re talking about.
    0:08:14 Well, it’s just like – it’s a sensation.
    0:08:19 You’ll go on YouTube and you’re like, what is this thing with a billion views on YouTube?
    0:08:21 It’s sort of like the sensation of – like the BTS thing.
    0:08:24 Yeah, exactly.
    0:08:24 Okay.
    0:08:27 So this is right here.
    0:08:30 This is – now we’re talking about Blackpink.
    0:08:34 So Lisa from Blackpink goes to Thailand to visit her friend.
    0:08:37 Her friend says, hey, what do you want to do today?
    0:08:39 They decide, let’s go shopping.
    0:08:41 She thinks, okay, we’re going to go shopping.
    0:08:42 Clothes, bags, what are we going to go buy?
    0:08:45 But no, she wants to go to Popmart.
    0:08:48 And she says, I don’t know what Popmart is, but they go to a Popmart store.
    0:08:52 At the Popmart store, the friend really wants a LeBubu.
    0:08:56 And Lisa says, honestly, not into it.
    0:08:57 I don’t get it.
    0:08:58 Don’t care about it, blah, blah, blah.
    0:09:02 But the friend gets super disappointed because they’re all sold out.
    0:09:05 And the lady at the store is like, listen, it’s impossible.
    0:09:06 You’re not going to get one.
    0:09:11 And that little mimetic monster inside Lisa starts to roar, the one in her stomach.
    0:09:12 And she’s like, you know what?
    0:09:14 If I can’t have it, I must have it.
    0:09:18 And she decides, actually, I think I do like LeBubu’s.
    0:09:19 And I think I do want to go get LeBubu’s.
    0:09:21 And she starts to collect these.
    0:09:23 Now, she starts getting obsessed with Popmart.
    0:09:26 She goes, she buys my boxes, and she starts collecting these.
    0:09:32 This becomes her de-stress type of thing she does from the stressful life of being a world
    0:09:33 famous pop star.
    0:09:33 Yeah.
    0:09:37 Now, she gets caught having a LeBubu.
    0:09:37 Why?
    0:09:39 Because she posts it on her Instagram.
    0:09:41 So now we’re fast forward to 2024.
    0:09:44 This is the photo that created the craze.
    0:09:48 It went from just like, you know, how a hurricane starts.
    0:09:53 And there’s like some sweeping winds, maybe a casual storm, a casual rainstorm.
    0:09:55 And then comes the hurricane.
    0:09:58 And this Instagram story started the hurricane.
    0:10:00 And it’s her hugging her LeBubu.
    0:10:01 Can I say something?
    0:10:03 I kind of get it.
    0:10:04 That looks pretty cool.
    0:10:06 It looks pretty cool.
    0:10:07 This one did it for you, too, this photo?
    0:10:08 Yeah.
    0:10:11 It’s like an old white guy in overalls.
    0:10:11 It’s kind of what it looks like.
    0:10:12 It looks like a farmer.
    0:10:12 Yeah.
    0:10:15 This does look like a Midwest farmer, actually.
    0:10:16 This guy kind of like.
    0:10:18 And it’s big.
    0:10:20 It’s about two feet tall.
    0:10:21 I kind of think that’s neat.
    0:10:22 I understand that.
    0:10:22 This is a big one, yeah.
    0:10:24 So they come in different sizes.
    0:10:27 The one that sold for over $100,000, that was like a human-sized one.
    0:10:27 Okay.
    0:10:28 Okay.
    0:10:31 So this is the stock since that photo was taken.
    0:10:35 And you can see the stock is up 7x since then as it’s just been crushing.
    0:10:37 And so the LeBubu craze starts.
    0:10:41 And what’s interesting about this is why.
    0:10:41 Okay.
    0:10:43 So celebrities started posting about it.
    0:10:44 That’s it.
    0:10:44 Okay.
    0:10:45 I get that.
    0:10:45 But what else?
    0:10:50 So here’s some of the other things that I found kind of interesting from a, I don’t know,
    0:10:51 behavioral psychology point of view.
    0:10:55 The first is the lipstick effect.
    0:10:56 Have you ever heard of the lipstick effect?
    0:10:57 I don’t think so.
    0:11:02 So there’s an economic theory that basically says that whenever people are under financial
    0:11:09 pressure, so maybe the economy is a little bit choppy, maybe there’s inflation, there’s
    0:11:14 wage pressure, whatever it is, people think that you’ll stop spending.
    0:11:16 But what actually happens is you shift the spending.
    0:11:19 And so instead of buying a new bag, you’ll just buy some lipstick.
    0:11:20 They’ll buy a new lipstick.
    0:11:26 And so lipstick sales will explode at a time during economic pressure because you take away
    0:11:29 from bigger luxury purchases and they go into smaller luxury purchases.
    0:11:35 So instead of a $200 outfit or a bag, you’re going to buy a $20 item instead.
    0:11:41 And so people think that this is part of what’s behind LeBubu, which is that this thing, you
    0:11:45 know, initially started where these are like, you know, a $20, $25 box that you buy and you
    0:11:46 get a LeBubu.
    0:11:51 But the thing with these, the smart thing of these is I showed you the doll.
    0:11:57 And this is the most important part, this little ring, because most stuffed animals, you just
    0:11:58 keep them at home.
    0:12:00 So there’s no virality to it, right?
    0:12:01 You just have it at the comfort of your own home.
    0:12:02 Nobody sees it.
    0:12:04 You don’t get to show it off.
    0:12:05 It’s not a status symbol.
    0:12:11 By just having the bag clip attached to these things, they suddenly became like luxury accessories.
    0:12:14 And so that’s why Rihanna had it attached to her bag.
    0:12:15 And this Blackpink lady had hers.
    0:12:17 And then David Beckham is posting that.
    0:12:19 And Kim Kardashian posts that she has 10 of them.
    0:12:21 And she starts clipping them to her bags.
    0:12:26 And it becomes this add-on to your luxury bag, this cute little add-on that you could put
    0:12:26 on your bag.
    0:12:29 And then each one of these has an outfit.
    0:12:34 So I can take this off and I can buy new clothes for this and I can upgrade my LeBubu.
    0:12:36 So now you have all…
    0:12:37 Can you spell LeBubu?
    0:12:39 L-A-B-U-B-U.
    0:12:40 Oh, okay.
    0:12:40 I see.
    0:12:44 By the way, LeBubu is actually only one of the characters, but that’s just what it became
    0:12:44 called.
    0:12:48 The character structure is called The Monsters, but nobody…
    0:12:48 That didn’t stick.
    0:12:50 Oh, my gosh.
    0:12:51 I’m on their website.
    0:12:53 I think it’s kind of cool.
    0:12:54 Yeah, exactly.
    0:12:55 I’m in.
    0:13:00 And so what I think is interesting here is that you have this kind of what Charlie Munger
    0:13:02 calls the Lollapalooza effect.
    0:13:06 So maybe you have the lipstick effect causing people to look for little luxuries.
    0:13:13 Then you have the kidult effect where you have adults looking for maybe comfort and pleasure
    0:13:19 because that’s another economic theory here, which is that when adults face stress from
    0:13:25 work and global events like wars and whatnot, they find emotional relief in collecting toys
    0:13:26 and things that connect with their childhood.
    0:13:28 So you have that effect kicking in.
    0:13:29 You have the lipstick effect kicking in.
    0:13:33 You have the status symbol effect of this where you can attach this to your bag.
    0:13:38 You have the ugly cute effect, which we are just crushing with right now.
    0:13:41 And so all these come together to create the phenomenon that is LaBooBoo.
    0:13:43 Great, great, great job.
    0:13:45 Good find.
    0:13:48 I’ve been hearing about this, but I didn’t exactly dive deep.
    0:13:49 So that’s cool that you did this.
    0:13:52 This is not sustainable.
    0:13:55 And this is definitely going to go away in the next five years.
    0:13:57 But let’s get it while the getting’s good.
    0:13:59 All right.
    0:14:03 So I’ve built a few companies that have made a few million dollars a year.
    0:14:07 And I’ve built two companies that have made tens of millions of dollars a year.
    0:14:11 And so I have a little bit of experience launching, building, creating new things.
    0:14:16 And I actually don’t come up with a lot of original ideas.
    0:14:21 Instead, what I’m really, really good at, what my skill set is, is researching different ideas,
    0:14:25 different gaps in the market in reverse engineering companies.
    0:14:26 And I didn’t invent this, by the way.
    0:14:27 We had this guy, Brad Jacobs.
    0:14:28 We talked about him on the podcast.
    0:14:32 He started like four or five different publicly traded companies worth tens of billions of dollars each.
    0:14:35 He actually is the one who I learned how to do this from.
    0:14:43 And so with the team at HubSpot, we put together all of my research tactics, frameworks, techniques on spotting different opportunities in the market,
    0:14:52 reverse engineering companies, and figuring out exactly where opportunities are versus just coming up with a random silly idea and throwing it against the wall and hoping that it sticks.
    0:14:55 And so if you want to see my framework, you can check it out.
    0:14:57 The link is below in the YouTube description.
    0:15:01 So I started thinking, how do I make money on this?
    0:15:01 All right.
    0:15:07 So the first way I should have made money on this was when my wife started telling me about this, which was, I don’t know, six to eight months ago.
    0:15:09 I should have either brought the stock.
    0:15:09 I should have looked.
    0:15:11 I didn’t even think it was going to be a stock.
    0:15:12 I just thought it was like a stuffed animal.
    0:15:13 I didn’t think it was a public company.
    0:15:17 Should have bought the stock or, you know, you could have tried to collect and flip.
    0:15:17 Okay.
    0:15:18 That’s too much effort.
    0:15:19 So what’s the play here?
    0:15:20 So I went and looked up.
    0:15:21 I asked AI.
    0:15:29 I said, tell me the last five toy crazes as crazy as La Boo Boo over the last 50 years and compare them.
    0:15:31 What were some of the other ones?
    0:15:34 So it would have been Cabbage Patch was the first one that it came up with.
    0:15:35 Beanie Babies.
    0:15:37 Beanie Babies was the second.
    0:15:40 I think Trolls were popular for a minute, but I don’t know if they were a craze.
    0:15:44 Then it gave me Pokemon, Pokemon cards, which had two bumps.
    0:15:51 There was the one when we were kids where buying and collecting packs reached about the same revenue, about $2 billion a year.
    0:15:54 And then it died down for about 20 years.
    0:15:57 And then recently with like kind of Logan Paul started collecting them again.
    0:15:58 Yeah, the video game.
    0:16:03 Another peak and it had $1.6 billion in its sales on the cards recently.
    0:16:05 So Pokemon.
    0:16:10 And then the last one it gave me, which was I thought kind of interesting as AI, but actually is a good point.
    0:16:12 Because I was thinking maybe Furbies or Tamagotchis.
    0:16:14 I didn’t know what it was going to give me.
    0:16:15 Those were smaller.
    0:16:21 It gave me Stanley Cups, which actually makes total sense because it’s the same thing.
    0:16:23 It’s the exact same thing.
    0:16:24 And so it gave me those.
    0:16:29 And the funny thing about these is on the scale, Labubu is actually still small.
    0:16:32 So this dollar did about $700 million.
    0:16:37 Those all at their peak were kind of like $1.6 to $2 billion in sales.
    0:16:43 So I actually expect that over the next year, this thing goes even, the star kind of goes viral.
    0:16:47 It burns out and it hits a $2 billion or $3 billion in revenue.
    0:16:50 And then it’s going to crash.
    0:16:54 Because the funny thing with all of these is they all had about a two to three year peak tops.
    0:17:06 And so I think the actual play, if you want to make money on this thing, is to short PopMart stock starting around end of 2026 and maybe through 2027.
    0:17:12 Now, shorting is dangerous because you can lose your shirt because shorting has sort of asymmetric downside.
    0:17:20 But if you, I think if you were a betting man, the odds are that, you know, by 2027, this thing is not a $44 billion company anymore.
    0:17:22 What was the name?
    0:17:25 Okay, so you had a friend, Michael, Michael Smith, Michael Acton Smith.
    0:17:39 He had a, the guy who created Calm.com, before he created Calm.com, the meditation app, he actually had a toy, a stuffed animal toy company called like Minnow Monsters or something like that.
    0:17:39 Yeah, that’s right.
    0:17:41 What was the name of this?
    0:17:44 And so his company was called Mind Candy and it was Moshi Monsters.
    0:17:45 Moshi Monsters.
    0:17:46 Minnow Monsters was a mobile game.
    0:17:48 Moshi Monsters was his.
    0:17:52 If I remember correctly, this is all 15 years ago, so it’s hard to remember everything.
    0:17:57 But he raised lots of money as a technology company almost, or at least from tech VCs.
    0:18:00 And he was like, I’m going to build a massive toy business.
    0:18:03 And I remember reading at the time, this is insane.
    0:18:04 You’re stupid.
    0:18:08 But now that I think about it, there’s been many examples of where that is not stupid.
    0:18:12 And this is yet another one of them, where you could actually build a really cool IP toy company.
    0:18:15 And he was, sounds like he was on the right track.
    0:18:16 It didn’t work out.
    0:18:16 He was, dude.
    0:18:17 It was big in the UK.
    0:18:23 So in the UK, it was like, I don’t know, one out of every three kids is playing Moshi Monsters.
    0:18:24 It was like insane.
    0:18:26 It was like 90 million users globally.
    0:18:34 And I remember meeting him, I think it was still during the kind of like, it was kind of like the tail end of the peak.
    0:18:38 So it was big, but it was, it had stopped exploding.
    0:18:40 And he was like, that’s okay.
    0:18:42 We’re going to like try to turn this into a thing.
    0:18:46 And he was telling me they’re making Moshi shampoo and body wash.
    0:18:49 And, you know, it’s going into every category.
    0:18:50 But unfortunately, that one didn’t work out.
    0:18:52 We have to get Michael on, by the way.
    0:18:52 I was going to say that.
    0:18:54 We have to get Michael in the pod.
    0:18:55 Have you met him?
    0:18:57 He is one of the coolest guys I’ve met.
    0:18:59 He’s such a nice guy, first of all.
    0:19:02 Like total, genuine, good dude.
    0:19:04 Super creative.
    0:19:05 Really creative genius.
    0:19:09 And then also like a rock star, kind of.
    0:19:13 Like when you meet him, you’re like, oh, I’m talking to Russell Brands, like, you know, cooler brother.
    0:19:15 You should, everyone should Google him.
    0:19:16 His name is Michael Acton Smith.
    0:19:22 And I remember back in 14 or 13 or 12 where, I mean, I’m still interested in this.
    0:19:26 But I was like, I want to be like, I was like looking for a person I wanted to be like.
    0:19:27 And it was like him.
    0:19:27 He would be.
    0:19:32 Because there was like photos of him, like holding hands with like Paris Hilton.
    0:19:36 Or like, he was like, if you Google like Michael Acton Smith, like he was.
    0:19:37 But they’re not even dating.
    0:19:38 That’s the best part.
    0:19:39 Just hold their hands.
    0:19:42 He was like, he had like paparazzi photos of him.
    0:19:45 Because he would have this like tech angle, even though he wasn’t exactly in tech.
    0:19:47 But if you guys Google him and see what he looks like, you’ll understand.
    0:19:52 The Daily Telegraph described him as a rock star version of Willy Wonka.
    0:19:53 That’s his Wikipedia page.
    0:19:55 It’s great.
    0:19:56 This guy was so cool.
    0:19:59 And now he has since started Calm, which I have no idea how big it is.
    0:20:02 But it’s hundreds or hundreds of millions or billions.
    0:20:03 A multi-billion dollar company.
    0:20:04 He’s the man.
    0:20:06 This guy’s absolutely the man.
    0:20:07 And he’s been the man for 20 years.
    0:20:08 He has.
    0:20:09 He has.
    0:20:10 He’s amazing.
    0:20:13 Okay, I’m going to call him after this and be like, I will fly to you.
    0:20:13 Let’s do it.
    0:20:15 Where does he even live now?
    0:20:17 I think he was in the UK.
    0:20:20 He was kind of back and forth between like, you know, US and UK.
    0:20:21 I think he’s in the UK now.
    0:20:22 He’s just like a rich guy now?
    0:20:23 He just like does what he wants?
    0:20:25 Well, I don’t know.
    0:20:26 I think he always did what he wants.
    0:20:28 That’s why he was our hero.
    0:20:30 That’s the difference between…
    0:20:31 I don’t think I had anything to do with being rich.
    0:20:34 That’s the difference between guys like me and guys like him, I guess.
    0:20:35 Yeah, exactly.
    0:20:39 We chased money and money chased him.
    0:20:40 Yeah.
    0:20:43 He didn’t run very fast.
    0:20:45 This guy’s the man.
    0:20:51 Cutting your sales cycle in half sounds pretty impossible, but that’s exactly what Sandler
    0:20:52 training did with HubSpot.
    0:20:59 They used Breeze, HubSpot’s AI tools to tailor every customer interaction without losing their
    0:21:00 personal touch.
    0:21:02 And the results were incredible.
    0:21:05 Click-through rates jumped 25%.
    0:21:07 Qualified leads quadrupled.
    0:21:10 And people spent three times longer on their landing pages.
    0:21:14 Go to HubSpot.com to see how Breeze can help your business grow.
    0:21:17 Okay, I have another one for you.
    0:21:18 Can I give you another one?
    0:21:19 So we did kids toys.
    0:21:20 I have another one.
    0:21:21 You might know the story of this one.
    0:21:23 Have you ever had one of these before?
    0:21:23 Okay, what’s this?
    0:21:26 Oh.
    0:21:28 I’m holding up…
    0:21:29 No, it looks like…
    0:21:29 What is that bubblegum?
    0:21:31 A box of Tony’s Chocoloni.
    0:21:33 Hell yeah, brother.
    0:21:35 I love Tony’s Chocoloni.
    0:21:37 Do they have some that have pop rocks in them?
    0:21:39 By the way, I’ve been saying it wrong for a long time.
    0:21:41 It’s not Tony’s Chocoloni.
    0:21:42 It’s Tony’s Chocolonely.
    0:21:43 Do you know that?
    0:21:44 I just call it Tony’s.
    0:21:45 I love Tony’s.
    0:21:46 I learned…
    0:21:47 I have always bought them.
    0:21:51 And then when we hung out with Mr. Beast, I kind of…
    0:21:52 He told us the backstory.
    0:21:54 I didn’t realize how amazing they were.
    0:21:55 I love Tony’s.
    0:21:56 Yeah, yeah.
    0:21:59 And their backstory is even better than I thought.
    0:22:01 Because when we were hanging out with Jimmy, he was like, oh yeah, I…
    0:22:07 You know, he, for Feastables, really wanted to get Feastables to have a supply chain that
    0:22:08 had no child labor.
    0:22:11 He’s like, you know, most of the cocoa farms in Africa have child labor.
    0:22:15 All the big chocolate brands, you know, Hershey’s, et cetera, they all buy from them.
    0:22:18 When I learned that, that was effed up.
    0:22:20 I went over there and we try…
    0:22:24 And we’ve basically been spending, you know, a couple of years now trying to fix the supply
    0:22:26 chain so that that doesn’t have to be the case.
    0:22:30 He was like, every company, I don’t like this or that thing about them.
    0:22:33 But there’s one company that I really admire that seems to be doing something well.
    0:22:34 And I think that’s how he phrased it.
    0:22:35 And he said, Tony’s is the one.
    0:22:37 They do things right, is basically what he said.
    0:22:41 And he actually called the founders of this and learned from them of like, okay, what do
    0:22:41 I need to do?
    0:22:46 Which is cool because they were the ones who initially made the push.
    0:22:48 But do you know the backstory of why they made the push into doing this?
    0:22:53 Wasn’t it started by an actor or a famous person in Holland or something like that?
    0:22:53 A journalist.
    0:22:54 A journalist.
    0:22:55 Okay.
    0:22:57 It was like a non-business person who started it.
    0:22:58 And they started it with…
    0:23:01 It’s one of these cool stories where they didn’t so much care about chocolate.
    0:23:04 They cared about like helping the earth or human rights or something.
    0:23:06 And we’re just so happy to be doing it via chocolate.
    0:23:08 Like it was something like a story like that, wasn’t it?
    0:23:15 So the story is these, I think there was two Dutch journalists, but these two Dutch journalists,
    0:23:18 they’re covering the chocolate industry on their TV show.
    0:23:25 And they hear about, you know, that the chocolate companies are all the chocolate, all the cocoa
    0:23:30 comes from West Africa and that there’s a lot of child slavery and child labor.
    0:23:31 So two separate things, right?
    0:23:46 And they put, you know, they put out a story to try to help.
    0:23:53 And I think the exact story is that at one point, all the big chocolate companies signed like a treaty.
    0:23:56 They signed like a pact to say, we’re going to stop this.
    0:24:01 And I guess like years later, they had gone back and they had gone to investigate.
    0:24:03 And it was like the exact same situation.
    0:24:05 They saw that it kind of nothing had really changed.
    0:24:07 And so these guys were pretty disheartened by it.
    0:24:12 So they decide like, this is where the story gets crazy because a normal person, even a normal,
    0:24:20 a great journalist would just report the story, maybe use some choice language when they talk about it.
    0:24:23 And then they would shake their finger at them and move on.
    0:24:29 But these journalists went and did like, you know, took the exit off of high agency Avenue.
    0:24:30 And we’re like, no, no, no, watch this.
    0:24:35 And so the guys, they come back and they do, they decide to do a publicity stunt.
    0:24:41 So he eats the chocolate and he calls the police and the police come and they’re like, what are you doing?
    0:24:46 And he goes, I’m eating chocolate that was made with slave labor and child labor.
    0:24:48 And they’re like, that’s what?
    0:24:50 That’s not a, you’re eating chocolate.
    0:24:50 That’s not a crime.
    0:24:55 He goes, no, no, no, actually, according to statute, blah, blah, blah, knowingly consuming
    0:25:00 this product, knowing what I know that this is the product of child labor and slave labor,
    0:25:01 that’s actually illegal.
    0:25:02 Arrest me, boys.
    0:25:03 And so they lock them up.
    0:25:04 They take them to jail.
    0:25:09 And that becomes this viral sort of news stunt that brings even more attention to this.
    0:25:13 Now, prosecutors end up dismissing the case because they’re like, we’re not going to prosecute
    0:25:17 this, but they decide to go in and create their own ethically made chocolate brand.
    0:25:23 And they decide to call it Tony’s Chocolate Lonely because they’re like, the guy’s name is Toon.
    0:25:26 But that’s his Dutch name.
    0:25:31 But the like Americanized, westernized version of Tone, I guess is his name, would be Tony.
    0:25:33 So they go, Tony’s.
    0:25:39 And instead of, and he said, it’s going to be very lonely to build a chocolate company that’s actually trying to be like ethically sourced.
    0:25:41 So he called it Tony’s Chocolate Lonely.
    0:25:41 Okay, great.
    0:25:45 And that’s how they felt in their fight against the cocoa industry.
    0:25:50 And it becomes a hit pretty much right away.
    0:25:54 They sell 20,000 bars in two days because of the public like resonance with their story.
    0:25:59 And it becomes the best-selling chocolate brand in their market, which is the Netherlands.
    0:26:01 They get like 20% share in the Netherlands.
    0:26:06 It passes up Mars and Nestle and other competitors there.
    0:26:08 And then they start expanding and they keep expanding.
    0:26:10 And then they start finding like-minded brands.
    0:26:17 So they’re, you know, I don’t know if you know about Ben & Jerry’s, but Ben & Jerry’s is also one of these like very sort of like strong, ethical, moral.
    0:26:18 Yeah, opinion-driven.
    0:26:20 They stick to what they want to do.
    0:26:21 Good people corporations.
    0:26:27 I actually saw Ben or Jerry, I forgot which one, talk at an event I was at like 15 years ago.
    0:26:33 And I remember being pretty blown away by the like, how genuine it was for them and how the extent that they had gone, right?
    0:26:38 So for example, I don’t know if you know, it’s like, they have this one flavor that’s like their brownie flavor.
    0:26:41 I forgot, like, you know, I’m so fucking fit now.
    0:26:42 I can’t even remember the name, dude.
    0:26:43 It’s insane.
    0:26:45 It’s chocolate fudge brownie.
    0:26:46 It’s not something fat people eat.
    0:26:52 So, that’s so my past.
    0:26:53 I just can’t even remember.
    0:26:56 You’re like, I barely remember how that felt last week.
    0:26:59 By the way, meanwhile, I’m holding up this Tony Sacco Lonely.
    0:27:00 Three bars are missing from this pack.
    0:27:02 Blame it on the kids.
    0:27:08 My wife gets pissed off at me because whenever we bring like a treat to like a friend’s house, we bring dessert.
    0:27:11 They cook dinner and like, it’s like already open.
    0:27:11 A mouse.
    0:27:13 She’s like, what the hell?
    0:27:16 You can’t like give like a pack of ice cream when there’s like one.
    0:27:17 I’m like, why not?
    0:27:19 We’re going to open it anyway, like half an hour.
    0:27:20 Why can’t I open it now?
    0:27:23 That’s sort of what, that’s sort of what happened.
    0:27:34 She’s like, she’s like, she always compares me to like a bear looking in the cabinets for honey.
    0:27:35 And I get my fingers stuck in the jar.
    0:27:36 Dude, my brother-in-law is like this.
    0:27:41 My brother-in-law, Aaron, he’s one of these people that like, you know, doesn’t, you know, doesn’t eat a ton in general.
    0:27:43 Like food’s not a big, he’s not a big foodie.
    0:27:43 Yeah.
    0:27:45 But if you leave like a snack, he’s like a bear.
    0:27:49 Like if you leave a treat in their house, it’s gone by the morning.
    0:27:50 And you’re like, did you wake up?
    0:27:53 And so like, he’ll eat the whole bag, right?
    0:27:53 Of anything.
    0:27:59 And so my sister calls it like with Oreos, like, like we got a pack of Oreos, right?
    0:28:02 And she’s like, oh my God, Aaron’s doing a line right now.
    0:28:07 And doing a line to her meant you eat the entire row of Oreos.
    0:28:08 Like he did a whole line.
    0:28:10 And I just thought that was so funny.
    0:28:11 Aaron likes to party.
    0:28:13 Exactly.
    0:28:15 We got to have him back on.
    0:28:17 Brother Aaron, the OGs, the real OGs now.
    0:28:21 He had two guest cameo experiences like way back in the first 30 episodes.
    0:28:22 It’s hilarious.
    0:28:24 Anyways, Chocolate Company.
    0:28:25 So Tony’s Chocolate Lonely, what did they do?
    0:28:28 Or Ben and Jerry’s, to finish the Ben and Jerry’s thing.
    0:28:32 They opened up a factory, I think somewhere like in upstate New York or something like this.
    0:28:41 And they, it was after they met, what’s it called when you get out of jail and like you’re in a program, but you like don’t want to go, recidivism.
    0:28:43 Like they wanted to reduce recidivism.
    0:28:45 Like people go back, end up back in jail.
    0:28:47 Which is traditionally incredibly high.
    0:28:48 It’s really high.
    0:28:56 And one of the big drivers of why do people who after a long sentence get out and go back, it’s not because they’re like kind of morally corrupt at their core.
    0:29:00 It’s like they couldn’t get a job and then they didn’t have any money and they didn’t have a social life.
    0:29:04 Previous friends were losers or they left prison without knowing anyone but only had $50.
    0:29:05 Exactly.
    0:29:10 And so a big, one way to decrease recidivism is if people can get a job, but nobody wants to give them a job.
    0:29:12 So they created a whole factory.
    0:29:15 Their brownie factory is all brownies made by ex-cons basically.
    0:29:17 The Ben and Jerry’s flavor.
    0:29:22 They like wanted to, they met some guys who had a good recipe and they like built a factory around them essentially.
    0:29:24 So they’re do-gooders.
    0:29:29 So Tony’s Chocolate Lonely to break into the U.S. starts partnering with Ben and Jerry’s.
    0:29:32 And the revenue has just grown and grown and grown.
    0:29:35 And so like last year, I think they did $200 million in revenue.
    0:29:43 And they made this like a legit chocolate company that started with two journalists just basically trying to make a stand against the man.
    0:29:43 How cool is that?
    0:29:45 This is awesome.
    0:29:46 This is so cool.
    0:29:48 Do they run the company now?
    0:29:50 No.
    0:29:51 So they’re out now.
    0:29:52 There’s like a CEO.
    0:29:57 It’s just kind of run by like, you know, normal suits basically at this point.
    0:30:02 And they get some flack because like their supply chain is still not perfect.
    0:30:05 And, but they’re very transparent about it.
    0:30:12 So the crazy thing is like they’ll report that they had like, you know, 11 issues this year of like child labor discovered in their supply chain.
    0:30:15 And people are like, see, you’re not totally free.
    0:30:16 And they’re like, what?
    0:30:21 We’re trying to like, we’re trying to be transparent and say, you know, we’re way less than anybody else.
    0:30:24 And we’re also honest about this and we’re reporting it so that we can keep improving this.
    0:30:31 But they get some flack as like, you know, I guess like skeptics say that maybe they’re just greenwashing at this point since the founders left.
    0:30:36 And even I think the founder has sort of alluded to like, it’s not the same since we left.
    0:30:37 I don’t know the exact story.
    0:30:42 It’s like, I’m trying to read these like Dutch translations of articles and decided that like I’d rather just eat the chocolate and chill.
    0:30:46 So I’m not sure the exact story, but I think there’s maybe a little controversy around that.
    0:30:57 Yeah, I’ve known about this brand for a while and I didn’t know the, I only knew what Jimmy had said, which wasn’t in this depth, but that makes me like them way more.
    0:30:59 The product’s awesome.
    0:30:59 I mean, I love the brand.
    0:31:02 They also, and I eat the shit out of them.
    0:31:05 I mean, it messes me up, but that’s cool.
    0:31:08 Maybe you could be the influencer that blows them up even more.
    0:31:11 Sam Parr, I eat the shit out of them.
    0:31:22 It’s just like most of my like guilty evenings start with a bar of Tony’s and the problem with that jar of honey.
    0:31:23 Let’s not even know how much time we got.
    0:31:27 The issue is they would sell their candy.
    0:31:30 Like it used to come in like the extra huge size.
    0:31:31 It was a huge bar.
    0:31:32 They only sell in bulk.
    0:31:36 By the way, did I ever tell you about the time we were talking about recidivism?
    0:31:39 This is not entirely related to business, but I think you’ll get a kick out of this.
    0:31:40 Did I tell you about the time?
    0:31:43 Do you know that I’ve been to like, I think we’ve talked about this.
    0:31:45 I’ve been to San Quentin a few times in Indiana State Prison.
    0:31:48 You’ve mentioned that you did, but I don’t know the exact story.
    0:31:49 What’s the story?
    0:31:50 I have to tell you the background of this.
    0:31:53 So I’ve gone to, I have a friend who I’m going to, this is the story.
    0:31:54 It’s going to be about him.
    0:31:57 But I’ve been to Indiana State Prison a couple of times or once.
    0:31:59 I went to San Quentin a few times.
    0:32:01 One time I went to Indiana State Prison.
    0:32:05 So we go because my friend has this charity called The Last Mile.
    0:32:10 And the idea is like, when you commit a crime, particularly murder, you’re not always sentenced
    0:32:11 to life.
    0:32:12 You’re inevitably going to get out.
    0:32:17 And it’s better for that person if they get out and have a job.
    0:32:18 It’s better for society if they get out and get a job.
    0:32:20 And it’s better for the taxpayer if they get out and get a job.
    0:32:24 Because you don’t want them to go back to prison because that’s bad for everyone.
    0:32:29 And so we are all incentivized, it’s totally bipartisan, to get this person to be trained
    0:32:30 and to get a job.
    0:32:35 And so this company, The Last Mile, started by my friend Chris, they help you learn.
    0:32:37 I think when I went, I think they were learning WordPress.
    0:32:40 I don’t know what they learn now, but this was a while ago.
    0:32:44 They were learning WordPress or they were learning some front-end development so you can get a
    0:32:46 job at an eBay or a huge company.
    0:32:46 They’re just vibe coding now?
    0:32:48 Yeah, I don’t know what they do now.
    0:32:49 Yeah.
    0:32:53 They have some weird hot or not app.
    0:32:55 They’re just minting NFTs.
    0:32:55 Yeah.
    0:32:58 I don’t know what these guys are doing.
    0:33:03 But my friend Chris started it and he was a prominent venture capitalist.
    0:33:06 He was the first investor in Wish.
    0:33:07 He was an early investor in Snap.
    0:33:09 He did Boom.
    0:33:10 He did all these other cool startups.
    0:33:15 And for some reason, one day he went and volunteered at San Quentin at a prison.
    0:33:20 And he was like, I think this is my life’s mission to help reduce recidivism.
    0:33:24 Meaning when you get out of prison and you don’t go back.
    0:33:26 And so he created this thing called The Last Mile.
    0:33:28 They now have hundreds of employees.
    0:33:31 They’ve had thousands of people who have gone through their program.
    0:33:36 And up until recently, he told me this stat a couple years ago.
    0:33:37 So I don’t want to jinx someone.
    0:33:38 I don’t know the update.
    0:33:44 But of the 1,000 or 2,000 people who graduated, not one had ever been back to prison.
    0:33:46 And that’s like a huge thing.
    0:33:51 And so it’s really interesting that this tech person has, like he quit.
    0:33:52 So he doesn’t invest anymore.
    0:33:53 This is all he does.
    0:33:56 And I talked to another guy, Mike Novogratz.
    0:33:58 He was on the pod two weeks ago.
    0:34:02 And that’s his thing now, too, is reducing recidivism.
    0:34:04 So reducing the rate that you go back to prison.
    0:34:08 But I know a bunch of people who have given up their careers to go pursue this.
    0:34:10 I’m on their website right now.
    0:34:11 Pretty crazy stats.
    0:34:19 So it says, since the 70s, the prison population in the U.S. has increased by 700%, which is not what you would expect.
    0:34:22 That’s not just like, oh, that makes sense.
    0:34:23 It should grow every year.
    0:34:24 It’s like, no, no, no.
    0:34:26 The prison population should not necessarily grow at that rate.
    0:34:39 It says that every person in prison has an annual cost to the American taxpayer of $70,000, which means we pay about $50 billion a year is spent on state and federal prisons.
    0:34:41 Isn’t that crazy?
    0:34:43 It’s amazing, right?
    0:34:51 The last miles, participants in the last mile who go through their, I guess it’s like an education program as they get out, have a 75% employment rate when they come out.
    0:34:52 Which is great.
    0:34:55 I wonder what the baseline is.
    0:34:57 It’s got to be half that or less.
    0:35:00 Well, so basically what happens, and I talked to some of these guys when they were in there.
    0:35:04 They were like, look, when I got out, I had been in for 10 or 15 years.
    0:35:05 I was a thug.
    0:35:07 I didn’t want to associate with my old people.
    0:35:09 And my family had either died or wasn’t around.
    0:35:12 And they basically gave me a bus ticket and $50.
    0:35:14 And I was like, sir, where do I go?
    0:35:16 I’m not sure where I go to right now.
    0:35:16 What do I do?
    0:35:20 And so they’re like, that’s why I came back here is I just started going back to how I used to behave.
    0:35:26 By the way, why does he have a, this guy Chris looks awesome, Chris Redlitz.
    0:35:28 Why does he have a serious radio show?
    0:35:31 Does that get broadcasted in the prisons in some way?
    0:35:32 Or like, is that just an external thing?
    0:35:33 Both.
    0:35:35 So he had, so Chris is interesting.
    0:35:37 So we had Michael Harris on the pod.
    0:35:39 Michael, Harry O is his nickname.
    0:35:41 Harry O is the founder of Death Row Records.
    0:35:45 Chris is kind of, I joke, he’s an OG.
    0:35:46 He’s an original gangster.
    0:35:48 So he knows all of these guys.
    0:35:54 So he’s friends with Dr. Dre, Snoop, the founders of Death Row, all these cool guys.
    0:36:00 And they all have this like blend of like hip hop, but also like crime, like interests.
    0:36:06 And so he decided to have a show with Sirius where he would get some of these cool guys on the radio show.
    0:36:09 And they would talk about what his issue is.
    0:36:14 But also it was like wrapped up in like kind of cool stories because it’s kind of like hip hop and like celebrity.
    0:36:16 And so he had a show for Sirius where he would talk about it.
    0:36:17 Dude, this guy’s living the dream.
    0:36:17 Got rich.
    0:36:21 Decided to do good in the world.
    0:36:22 Has a great podcast.
    0:36:24 The Triple Threat.
    0:36:24 I love it.
    0:36:25 He’s cool.
    0:36:28 And so he actually, so I became really close with him.
    0:36:32 He invested in my company when I was a 25-year-old or 26-year-old in San Francisco.
    0:36:38 Very coincidentally, we both moved to this small town in Westport, Connecticut together.
    0:36:39 And we hang out all the time.
    0:36:41 And his wife, her name is Beverly.
    0:36:43 She’s a 95-pound woman.
    0:36:44 And I’ve been to San Quentin.
    0:36:49 And we were walking on the yard with these guys doing like bench press and sit-ups and whatever.
    0:36:53 And I walked with this little lady through the yard and the Red Sea parted.
    0:36:55 And she just walked through it.
    0:36:56 She’s like, Tyrone, how are you?
    0:36:59 And she would go, Miss Bev, nice to see you.
    0:37:02 It was the craziest thing that I’ve ever seen.
    0:37:07 It was like, I’m telling you, she like ran this prison yard.
    0:37:08 She was the only woman there.
    0:37:10 And it was the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.
    0:37:13 And they have a joke that says, if it glow, you may go.
    0:37:17 When you walk in to San Quentin, they stamp your hand.
    0:37:23 And so when you leave, you have to show them your stamp underneath a black light in order to get out.
    0:37:26 And they would do jokes where she would wink at the guy when I’m walking in.
    0:37:27 And he didn’t actually stamp me.
    0:37:28 He just pretended.
    0:37:30 And I would go to scan my hand to leave.
    0:37:31 And my hand didn’t glow.
    0:37:32 And they’re like, sir, you cannot leave.
    0:37:33 We have to get this figured out.
    0:37:35 And I was like, I’m not staying here.
    0:37:40 So they would pull tricks on you when you go and see this place.
    0:37:40 It was wild.
    0:37:41 That’s amazing.
    0:37:44 But Chris and Bev are two people.
    0:37:46 When I think of how to live life, it’s them.
    0:37:48 That’s the way to go.
    0:37:49 That’s dope.
    0:37:50 Can I tell you a related story?
    0:37:54 So my buddy Trevor was writing a book.
    0:37:57 And he did this great, very smart move, which I never really heard anybody else do.
    0:37:58 But I thought it was a good idea.
    0:38:02 He goes, hey, man, check your email.
    0:38:02 I checked my email.
    0:38:03 And there’s like a plane ticket.
    0:38:05 And it’s a plane ticket to go see him.
    0:38:09 And he’s like, I’m going to do, I want to write this book.
    0:38:10 And I want it to be great.
    0:38:13 And I could sit here and brainstorm this on my own.
    0:38:17 But I really want to do something that I’m calling a book storm.
    0:38:22 And he basically decided to fly out the five kind of smartest, most interesting people he knew
    0:38:27 to hang out with him for a day and just help him flesh out and brainstorm the book together.
    0:38:29 And he’s like, I will owe you one for life.
    0:38:31 But I just really respect you, trust you.
    0:38:33 And I really want your help with this because I’m trying to make this great.
    0:38:37 I go and in the room is basically my buddy, Trevor, his brother.
    0:38:43 And then there’s the head of like the women’s volleyball, the U.S.
    0:38:49 women’s volleyball team, which is like way outperformed in the Olympics and won like a bunch of gold.
    0:38:50 And there was one other person.
    0:38:52 And then there was this guy, Larry.
    0:38:55 I’m like, oh, I’m a professional brainstormer.
    0:38:56 This is literally what I do.
    0:38:58 I’m like just ready to rock and roll.
    0:39:00 But I’m just blown away by this guy, Larry.
    0:39:05 Every time this guy, Larry, opens his mouth, he says something that’s super wise, super smart, on the nose.
    0:39:08 Just a few words, but he’s always on point.
    0:39:13 And so after about an hour of the brainstorming around the book, I was like, dude, I got to ask Larry.
    0:39:14 I missed the intro.
    0:39:16 What’s your story, dude?
    0:39:17 Because you’re incredible.
    0:39:23 And Larry tells the story where Larry’s like, you know, my name’s Larry, blah, blah, blah.
    0:39:27 And he goes, I was incarcerated for the past 22 years.
    0:39:29 And I think he had just gotten out.
    0:39:32 I don’t know how long it had been, maybe a year or two, something like that.
    0:39:35 And he goes, yeah, from the age 18, he’s now 40.
    0:39:40 He’s like, at age 18, I was arrested and I was in for, you know, whatever, 22 plus years.
    0:39:44 And I was like, Larry, no offense, but you just got out a couple of years ago.
    0:39:46 How are you so smart?
    0:39:47 How do you know all this stuff?
    0:39:52 Because he would have these amazing polls or whatever we’re talking about, he would reference this thing in this book.
    0:39:55 And this quote, he could just recite by memory.
    0:39:57 So Larry, I’m like, Larry, how do you know all this?
    0:40:01 And he goes, I was incarcerated at age 18.
    0:40:03 They lock you up and throw away the key, right?
    0:40:06 Like you’re basically like the lowest man on the totem pole for society.
    0:40:08 They don’t, nobody invests in you at that point.
    0:40:09 You’re a sunk cost.
    0:40:15 And so he’s like, I was, you know, getting in trouble and it was a rough place and it was not a good time.
    0:40:17 And he’s like, I made a decision.
    0:40:19 I’m no longer in prison.
    0:40:20 I’m in university.
    0:40:23 And he’s like, so every day I just studied.
    0:40:26 I just decided to go to university for the past 20 years.
    0:40:30 He’s like, I decided to read all the books and learn and write and better myself.
    0:40:33 And he’s like, I would literally change what I saw.
    0:40:36 I would walk in the prison yard and I wouldn’t see the barbed wire.
    0:40:38 He’s like, I saw roses.
    0:40:42 He’s like, I literally just brainwashed myself that I am not in prison.
    0:40:43 I am in university.
    0:40:45 And I carried myself like that.
    0:40:46 And I acted like that.
    0:40:49 He made the most of what was, you know, otherwise a very bad situation.
    0:40:54 I just remember being so blown away and inspired by this guy, Larry, when I heard that, heard that story.
    0:41:04 Because I was like, you know, if Larry can do that at a life sentence in prison, this sounds stupid, but like, then I can be bored in a line at Starbucks for an hour or, you know, whatever.
    0:41:06 Like, you can change where you are.
    0:41:10 You don’t have to be in the situation that it looks like you’re in.
    0:41:13 Like, you can literally just decide, no, no, I’m in university right now.
    0:41:15 No, no, I’m in a spa right now.
    0:41:17 No, I’m in the brainstorming session right now.
    0:41:19 I mean, I am where I want to be.
    0:41:20 That’s so cool.
    0:41:25 Yeah, it’s really challenging because on one hand, for some reason, you start, you feel like sad for someone.
    0:41:32 Like, because you meet someone, like a lot of the guys I met, they, I think they kind of had a tone for their sins a little bit where like they’ve changed.
    0:41:35 But you’re like, oh, I feel so bad for you.
    0:41:35 Like, that sucks.
    0:41:36 You don’t deserve this.
    0:41:38 And then you like learn about what they did.
    0:41:41 And you’re like, ah, actually, no, like consequences exist for a reason.
    0:41:43 Like, that sounds fair to me.
    0:41:47 And it creates like a, you get, whenever I’ve done these things with these guys,
    0:41:49 I get so many mixed emotions.
    0:41:50 It’s a very challenging thing.
    0:41:52 It’s a very hard thing to be part of, too.
    0:41:54 But it is a no-brainer, right?
    0:41:56 You want someone to like, not go back.
    0:42:00 So you guys know this, but I have a company called Hampton.
    0:42:01 Joinhampton.com.
    0:42:03 It’s a vetted community for founders and CEOs.
    0:42:04 Well, we have this member named LaVon.
    0:42:09 And LaVon saw a bunch of members talking about the same problem within Hampton,
    0:42:12 which is that they spent hours manually moving data into a PDF.
    0:42:15 It’s tedious, it’s annoying, and it’s a waste of time.
    0:42:18 And so LaVon, like any great entrepreneur, he built a solution.
    0:42:19 And that solution is called Moku.
    0:42:24 Moku uses AI to automatically transfer data from any document into a PDF.
    0:42:27 And so if you need to turn a supplier invoice into a customer quote,
    0:42:30 or move info from an application into a contract,
    0:42:34 you just put a file into Moku, and it autofills the output PDF in seconds.
    0:42:37 And a little backstory for all the tech nerds out there.
    0:42:40 LaVon built the entire web app without using a line of code.
    0:42:42 He used something called Bubble I.O.
    0:42:46 They’ve added AI tools that can generate an entire app from one prompt.
    0:42:51 It’s pretty amazing, and it means you can build tools like Moku very fast without knowing how to code.
    0:42:54 And so if you’re tired of copying and pasting between documents,
    0:42:57 or paying people to do that for you, check out Moku.ai.
    0:43:01 M-O-L-K-U dot A-I.
    0:43:02 All right, back to the pod.
    0:43:05 Did I tell you my embarrassing prison story?
    0:43:07 No, but that sounds so awesome.
    0:43:10 It’s very embarrassing.
    0:43:12 This could go so many ways.
    0:43:14 So I go with this.
    0:43:16 What, are you making dad jokes at your first day in?
    0:43:21 So I moved to Silicon Valley, and I’m working with this guy, Michael Birch.
    0:43:23 And Michael Birch is this wonderful guy.
    0:43:26 Michael’s built a successful career in Silicon Valley.
    0:43:27 He’s basically like a billionaire.
    0:43:28 So one day he messages me like,
    0:43:33 pack a bag with enough clothes for a day, like two days,
    0:43:37 and meet me at whatever.
    0:43:39 Meet me at 8 a.m. at this spot.
    0:43:40 You’re not going to work today.
    0:43:42 I’m like, all right, I don’t know what’s going to happen.
    0:43:44 So I go, and we start driving.
    0:43:45 You had no idea where you were going?
    0:43:49 I think he tells me on the drive that we’re going to,
    0:43:51 he’s a part of this group called the Inside Circle.
    0:43:55 And Inside Circle was where they take guys from the outside
    0:43:57 to go meet guys on the inside.
    0:44:02 And it was at the prison, Folsom, what was it called?
    0:44:02 Folsom Prison?
    0:44:03 Yeah, Folsom.
    0:44:05 And so we go drive there.
    0:44:07 It’s a maximum security prison.
    0:44:09 And I’m basically just a huge wuss, right?
    0:44:10 So I don’t know what I’m getting into.
    0:44:11 I don’t know.
    0:44:12 I didn’t actually sign up for this.
    0:44:14 Michael’s just kind of like, trust me, you’ll like this.
    0:44:14 This is good.
    0:44:15 You should do this.
    0:44:17 I still don’t really understand what we’re doing.
    0:44:22 I think it’s like a, you know, like dare, where they like scare you.
    0:44:23 They like take you in.
    0:44:24 Yeah, like you’re just scared straight.
    0:44:25 Yeah, I thought it was scared straight.
    0:44:30 I thought we were just going to observe from like behind this like really thick glass.
    0:44:32 I’m like, oh, cool.
    0:44:33 We’re going to like watch.
    0:44:36 And I’m going to be like, wow, I learned so much today from observing.
    0:44:38 It’s happening on the glass.
    0:44:40 And then they open the door and they’re like, all right, guys, come on in.
    0:44:41 And I’m like, what?
    0:44:47 And so we go in and they’re like, all right, you know, pick a buddy, pick a partner.
    0:44:54 And so I’m like, uh, and I like pick this guy and, and the, the program starts.
    0:44:56 It basically, it’s like a men’s group.
    0:44:57 So you sit in a circle, you talk about your feelings.
    0:45:04 Oh, and by the way, when I walk in immediately, my eyes are drawn to one person because it was
    0:45:07 so obvious to me, like, this was the hardest guy in the prison.
    0:45:12 Somehow this guy had sunglasses and I don’t know why he was allowed to have sunglasses.
    0:45:15 He had a walking, he had a cane, which I thought like, you’re not allowed to have like a,
    0:45:18 like something that could be like a weapon.
    0:45:21 Uh, he’s, but he’s got a cane and he’s got sunglasses, but he’s not blind, by the way.
    0:45:24 He has the sunglasses like up on his head sometimes.
    0:45:26 And he’s like a black guy, black guy.
    0:45:27 And he had like an entourage.
    0:45:31 Like he had like two guys with him who were really big and like, but they deferred to him
    0:45:32 and he was kind of older.
    0:45:35 And I was just like, I don’t know who this guy is, but I’ve seen enough.
    0:45:38 Was he a somebody to know that this guy is somebody here.
    0:45:40 And maybe somebody on the outside.
    0:45:41 I don’t know, but he’s somebody in here anyway.
    0:45:45 So he’s in my group and his two like entourage guys.
    0:45:49 So we get in the circle and I’m like, okay, I don’t know what I’m supposed to do.
    0:45:50 Am I giving advice?
    0:45:51 Is this a mentorship test?
    0:45:51 What is this?
    0:45:52 And it’s like, no, no, no.
    0:45:55 You’re here to talk about, you know, it’s a, this is a safe space.
    0:45:56 Unpack your feelings.
    0:45:57 I’m like, oh God.
    0:46:03 And so first guy starts and he starts talking about how he’s feeling pissed off.
    0:46:04 He’s feeling pissed off.
    0:46:10 Cause like, I mean, crazy story, but like he’s locked up in here and his sister outside is
    0:46:12 having, she’s being abused by her boyfriend.
    0:46:14 He just wants to kill this guy, but he’s on the inside.
    0:46:15 He can’t get to this guy.
    0:46:16 She, he feels powerless.
    0:46:21 And he’s sharing this heavy, emotional, real life problem.
    0:46:21 Yeah.
    0:46:23 Like a grade A real life problem.
    0:46:28 And I’m, I, of course, cause I’m horrible.
    0:46:29 I stopped listening.
    0:46:32 I’m just like panicked thinking of what am I going to say?
    0:46:36 You know, when you’re like supposed to be listening, but you just actually just planning what you’re
    0:46:37 supposed to say.
    0:46:40 I start doing that because I’m like, are you going to like retell a fake movie?
    0:46:41 So you sound hard.
    0:46:42 Like, yeah.
    0:46:45 So I’m like, my, my startup doesn’t have product where I fit.
    0:46:46 It’s just really grinding my gear.
    0:46:48 What the hell am I going to say?
    0:46:50 I don’t have real world problems, right?
    0:46:51 Like my life’s pretty good.
    0:46:57 And the cert, we’re going around the circle and it’s just one crazy, like real problem after
    0:46:57 another.
    0:47:03 And then, um, and then it’s getting to me and I’m just like, what am I going to say?
    0:47:07 And so I’m like, all right, I guess I go deep in the bag.
    0:47:11 I’m like, all right, I do have, you know, there is something that’s like pretty heavy.
    0:47:15 I don’t really talk about this normally, but like, I guess, thank God I have this.
    0:47:17 Cause this is the time and place to unpack this story.
    0:47:19 And so I started unpacking this story.
    0:47:23 And in my mind, I’m, and also I’m like, I’m talking kind of slower and dramatically.
    0:47:27 Cause I’m like, let me really ham this up a little bit.
    0:47:30 Like, let me not, let me not be me and laugh during this.
    0:47:32 Let me, uh, you know, try to be serious here.
    0:47:35 And I think I’m doing a great job.
    0:47:40 And the guy with the glasses just midway through is like, man, I don’t believe none
    0:47:41 of that shit.
    0:47:44 I’m like, I’m like, no.
    0:47:45 And I immediately, I’m like, no, it’s true.
    0:47:47 He goes, I know it’s true.
    0:47:49 And I’m like, so what?
    0:47:53 Just to clarify, you said still, are we cool?
    0:47:54 What’s going on?
    0:47:57 And he was like, and he was like, man, that ain’t your truth though.
    0:47:59 And so he’s like, it’s true, but that ain’t your truth.
    0:48:01 And I’m like, what is this puzzle?
    0:48:02 What is this riddle?
    0:48:03 I don’t know what this means.
    0:48:11 And then, um, this creates this like really intense moment where I had to stand up and
    0:48:14 he’s like, they’re like, all right, it’s time to do the work.
    0:48:14 I’m like, what?
    0:48:17 And I’m like, I’m going to get beat up.
    0:48:22 And so he’s like, he’s like, what’s your truth?
    0:48:23 And I’m like, what?
    0:48:28 I just feel, uh, and I’m like, I’m like, I’m like, no, but that is a real situation
    0:48:30 that has happened to me.
    0:48:33 And they were like, no, what’s your truth?
    0:48:38 And I was like, all right, the truth is I’m just trying to say what I think you guys want
    0:48:38 me to say.
    0:48:40 Cause I just want you to like me.
    0:48:43 And I put the guy, I was like, I just want you to not hate me.
    0:48:46 And he looks at me, just stares at me.
    0:48:47 He stands up, he gets in my face.
    0:48:49 He goes, that’s your truth.
    0:48:52 He gives me a big hug.
    0:48:55 And then we sat down and then for the next hour, I was like, I don’t know what the hell
    0:48:58 just happened, but I think I’m in a prison gang and this is awesome.
    0:49:00 I think I’m accepted.
    0:49:02 This felt amazing.
    0:49:03 That’s called a breakthrough.
    0:49:05 Yeah, I had a breakthrough.
    0:49:07 So that was my amazing prison story.
    0:49:08 That’s great.
    0:49:10 Did you, uh, how did it end?
    0:49:13 Did you guys like exchange information?
    0:49:13 What do you do?
    0:49:15 Dude, have you ever taken ecstasy?
    0:49:18 I haven’t, but I assume that’s what it felt like.
    0:49:21 Cause for the rest of the time, I was just like the weight of the world was off my shoulders.
    0:49:28 And I just enjoyed myself and I, and I realized like, oh, I could just be my insecure neurotic
    0:49:28 self.
    0:49:30 And that’s fine here.
    0:49:30 Okay, cool.
    0:49:31 I don’t have to pretend.
    0:49:31 Great.
    0:49:32 And then they were like, cool.
    0:49:33 He ain’t pretending anymore.
    0:49:34 We like this guy.
    0:49:37 Uh, whatever you say, whatever you say now, we don’t really care, but we just know that
    0:49:39 you’re not pandering to us.
    0:49:41 What value do these guys get?
    0:49:42 What a lesson learned.
    0:49:43 What value do these guys get?
    0:49:48 Well, I think, you know, they live a pretty hard life.
    0:49:52 No, I think it just in general, they live a pretty hard life and they go to this meeting
    0:49:53 every week.
    0:49:57 So they have this kind of like two hours a week where they get to go and kind of like,
    0:49:59 as they would say, like, take the mask off, put the armor down.
    0:50:03 In fact, like it would be a mix of like the Hispanic guys, the white guys and the black guys
    0:50:04 in this session.
    0:50:09 But then they would like openly say like, yeah, but like he, his friend, like shanked
    0:50:10 my friend.
    0:50:12 And so it’s on, but here it’s not on.
    0:50:13 But as soon as we get out, it’s on again.
    0:50:17 And I was like, this is like a pretty bizarre dynamic, but they all agreed.
    0:50:18 Like, all right, when we’re here, it’s whatever.
    0:50:20 But when we’re out there, it is what it is.
    0:50:22 That’s the way, that’s just the way things are.
    0:50:24 I remember being like, that’s insane.
    0:50:27 Um, but you know, understandable in a way.
    0:50:31 So they have this as a space where they can like deload kind of emotionally, mentally,
    0:50:35 which is important and feel like a human being and be able to like express themselves.
    0:50:38 I think it’s a pretty dehumanizing feeling, right?
    0:50:41 When you’re again, locked up, throw away the key and you know, anybody who comes in, they
    0:50:42 just see you as your label.
    0:50:42 Right.
    0:50:47 But like in that environment for those three hours that we were there, you know, nobody
    0:50:48 was, there was no status.
    0:50:51 Nobody was better than anybody else or like, yeah, there was this, but I was worse than
    0:50:51 everybody else.
    0:50:55 I guess it’s probably the more accurate way of saying it, but like there was no, they got
    0:50:59 to like be treated well and be helped and be just talked to one man to another man.
    0:51:03 Um, at least again, these are my, my, this is like my interpretation of it.
    0:51:06 I’m sure that people who do this more have like a more sophisticated way and a better way
    0:51:07 of saying it.
    0:51:11 By the way, now that we’re talking about this and we can wrap up, but Jack Smith, I forgot.
    0:51:13 This is his big philanthropic cause as well.
    0:51:17 So Jack Smith, if you ask him what he’s doing on a regular basis for a long time, I would say,
    0:51:17 what are you doing?
    0:51:23 He’s like, oh, I’m, I’m pen pals, uh, with like people who are locked up and they, I have
    0:51:25 a system where they can order any book and I’ll get it for them.
    0:51:27 Isn’t he giving books?
    0:51:29 Isn’t it a book program?
    0:51:30 Yeah.
    0:51:31 Where he created a website.
    0:51:36 I forget how he did it, but, uh, where they can order a book and he’ll buy them any single
    0:51:37 book that they want.
    0:51:39 Dude, most generic name, Jack Smith.
    0:51:42 You can’t find anything when you Google for Jack Smith.
    0:51:43 Like, yeah.
    0:51:43 Okay.
    0:51:45 Well, maybe we do this.
    0:51:47 So there’s the last mile, which you could donate to.
    0:51:49 So go to last mile, the last mile.org.
    0:51:50 You can donate there.
    0:51:53 There’s inside circle foundation where you could donate there.
    0:51:55 Um, so maybe we do a little good.
    0:51:59 So if there’s anybody who’s listened to this and inspired either to start your own, uh, thing
    0:52:02 or to attend one of these or to donate, uh, go do it, man.
    0:52:05 Cause it’s a scene at firsthand does a lot of good.
    0:52:09 And, um, I think doesn’t get the type of attention that it would ever want.
    0:52:13 By the way, the inside circle guys, they also made like a movie, uh, a documentary about
    0:52:14 the program.
    0:52:21 And, uh, Chris Redlitz is the guy who, um, who I, who’s kind of my mentor and someone I
    0:52:22 look up to and you could find him on Twitter.
    0:52:28 He’s, um, he’s super low key, but he’s been the seed investor of like probably five to 10
    0:52:30 different unicorns, hugely successful.
    0:52:31 And now it has dedicated his life to that.
    0:52:35 So just DM him if you’re want to do whatever he’s, he’s pretty open.
    0:52:36 Do you think you’re going to do something like this by the way?
    0:52:38 Yeah.
    0:52:39 I haven’t found my cause for a long time.
    0:52:45 Do you have like a career arc in mind where you’re like, cool, I achieve, I climb success
    0:52:50 mountain and then I, uh, you know, parachute over to like, you know, save the world.
    0:52:56 I told Sarah that at the age of 40, I’m going to stop the getting of money.
    0:53:03 So I said by, by 40, I will no longer pursue any money and we will have a cause.
    0:53:04 And that’s what we will dedicate ourselves to.
    0:53:06 That’s what I, that’s, that’s.
    0:53:08 You’ve also told me that you’re going to disappear off the internet.
    0:53:11 I think this is badass and you should talk more about this.
    0:53:16 I said at the age of 40, yeah, I want to get off the internet and I want to not pursue any
    0:53:17 money making things ever again.
    0:53:24 I don’t want it to like ruin my perspective and just be a shallow capitalist and only care
    0:53:29 about that and just delete the internet and just focus on like doing something good.
    0:53:31 That’s, that’s what, that’s the current, that’s the current plan.
    0:53:32 How old are you now?
    0:53:35 I turned 36 a month ago.
    0:53:38 So, uh, I’m, uh, 36.
    0:53:39 Four years away, dude.
    0:53:41 Do you think that’s a crazy plan?
    0:53:44 Of course it’s a crazy plan, but it’s a pretty cool plan.
    0:53:45 I think it sounds pretty cool.
    0:53:47 I said by, I said by 40.
    0:53:49 Are you, I mean, what’s your level of seriousness about this?
    0:53:50 Is this like, that’s what’s happening?
    0:53:55 Or like, I’m just testing this out, seeing how these words sound in my mouth.
    0:54:01 No, I just think that, I think that, um, I think if you only pursue making money, I think
    0:54:03 that you become a very shallow person.
    0:54:04 I think that there’s more to life.
    0:54:08 I think that there’s been so many times where I’ve seen something inspiring and beautiful.
    0:54:11 And in my head, I think, oh, and then we could do this and turn it into this.
    0:54:14 And then like optimize by doing this, as opposed to saying, this is beautiful.
    0:54:15 This is wonderful.
    0:54:17 I want to experience, let’s keep it small.
    0:54:20 Uh, and so I want to like force myself to appreciate that.
    0:54:22 One of my heroes is this guy named Felix Dennis.
    0:54:24 He wrote the book, How to Get Rich.
    0:54:28 Felix Dennis was a publisher in England where he founded a bunch of companies, a bunch of
    0:54:32 publishing companies, eventually was worth six or seven hundred million dollars.
    0:54:36 And he wrote that he was diagnosed with cancer, something like at the age of 60.
    0:54:40 And then at the age of like 61, while he was like learning about his cancer or something,
    0:54:44 he got into poetry and he was like, I’m obsessed with writing poetry.
    0:54:47 Why on earth did I not discover this sooner?
    0:54:51 And he quit business partially because he was dying and because he fell in love with poetry.
    0:54:55 And he wrote in his book that if I could do it all over again, I would have quit at the
    0:54:59 age of 40 because I had enough and I would have pursued poetry because that was my calling.
    0:55:04 And I always found that to be amazing because I think that oftentimes when we’re doing what
    0:55:09 we’re doing every single day, we get caught into the make more, do more, optimize more when
    0:55:13 it’s like, kind of, I want to be in the present and I want to enjoy the things that I want to enjoy
    0:55:14 regardless if they make money.
    0:55:19 Because how many hobbies have you had where you’re like, well, I would only do it if I could
    0:55:23 like make like, oh, I want to like buy these toys and like maybe I could buy like 10 of them
    0:55:24 and turn into a money making thing.
    0:55:26 Now what you’re doing is actually pretty cool.
    0:55:29 You, but you still have a capitalistic mindset to it.
    0:55:33 You are playing the piano and you are live streaming it, which I think is amazing.
    0:55:36 But in my head, I’m like, I want to do that too.
    0:55:39 It’s like, well, I only want to do that because I want people to see me learning a hobby.
    0:55:40 Do you know what I mean?
    0:55:42 And I like, that’s like tainting.
    0:55:43 Well, I only live streamed it once.
    0:55:45 No, I’m not criticizing you.
    0:55:46 I’m criticizing.
    0:55:49 I was inspired to do it because I want glory.
    0:55:50 Do you know what I mean?
    0:55:50 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
    0:55:57 Well, I learned pretty quickly when I started playing the piano that nobody gives a shit if
    0:55:58 you can play the piano, by the way.
    0:56:00 It’s not like a thing.
    0:56:03 Like if somebody plays the piano well, it’s like, oh, cool.
    0:56:04 You can play the piano well.
    0:56:07 They don’t want to listen to even one song.
    0:56:10 Nobody wants to listen to somebody play a five-minute song on the piano.
    0:56:14 That’s a very like clear thing to me since learning to play piano, but it doesn’t matter
    0:56:16 because playing a five-minute song is incredibly fun.
    0:56:18 In fact, I sent Ben a text message.
    0:56:21 I’m going to read you this text message because I think it’s very relevant to what we’re talking
    0:56:21 about.
    0:56:24 So Pomp did a SPAC recently.
    0:56:24 Did you see this?
    0:56:28 Yeah, I saw it, but I don’t entirely know what that means.
    0:56:29 But yeah.
    0:56:32 So our friend Pomp, Anthony, they SPAC’d a company.
    0:56:36 And the company’s goal was to do the kind of Michael Saylor playbook, which is it’s a Bitcoin
    0:56:38 acquisition and finance company.
    0:56:41 And so what they’re doing is they raised, I think, $750 million.
    0:56:44 They SPAC’d it.
    0:56:45 It’s now public.
    0:56:46 It’s going to be a public company.
    0:56:49 And they basically bought $750 million worth of Bitcoin.
    0:56:50 Then they’re going to raise debt and buy more Bitcoin.
    0:56:52 They’re going to raise…
    0:56:57 Because companies or pension funds can own Pomp stock, but they can’t own Bitcoin.
    0:56:59 So this is how they get exposure to it.
    0:56:59 Is that right?
    0:57:02 That’s one aspect to it.
    0:57:04 There’s others, which is like it’s levered.
    0:57:09 So for every dollar you put in, let’s say you buy Bitcoin directly, you could buy $1 of
    0:57:14 Bitcoin, but their thing, they’re going to borrow and buy more than a dollar of Bitcoin
    0:57:16 for every dollar of equity, for example.
    0:57:21 They also want to eventually turn it into like a full financial services thing.
    0:57:23 So essentially like a Bitcoin backed bank.
    0:57:24 I think that’s a part of the vision.
    0:57:26 Anyways, I don’t know exactly what they’re doing.
    0:57:28 There’s, you know, they’re only allowed to say certain things.
    0:57:32 But point is, it’s like Pomp, this guy who’s very much like us.
    0:57:33 I think he’s the same age.
    0:57:36 Similarly, I hang out with Anthony all the time.
    0:57:38 creator on the internet, good dude.
    0:57:41 And he’s, you know, he’s not like some uber, uber, uber genius.
    0:57:43 That’s like, you know, but he’s like relatable.
    0:57:44 That’s what I’m saying.
    0:57:45 So he’s like, he’s like one of us.
    0:57:48 And it’s clear that, you know, this didn’t just happen.
    0:57:51 He’s been working on this for, you know, some period of time, maybe six months, maybe a year,
    0:57:52 maybe two years.
    0:57:52 You don’t know.
    0:57:59 So he, it’s like, oh wow, Pomp raised $750 million, has this public company now.
    0:58:02 I think he owns 8% of it I saw from the filing.
    0:58:06 So like, you know, theoretically Pomp has like $80 million of value from this.
    0:58:07 Right.
    0:58:08 Some creators make courses.
    0:58:12 Pomp’s going to make like, you know, probably hundreds of millions of dollars from this thing
    0:58:12 if it goes well.
    0:58:13 Okay.
    0:58:18 And that’s clearly what he put a lot of energy and focus on and did a great job fundraising
    0:58:18 for it.
    0:58:19 And I was texting Ben.
    0:58:20 I was like, wow, wow, that’s incredible.
    0:58:26 I was like, meanwhile, I’ve logged 120 hours on the piano in the last six months.
    0:58:28 And I go, honestly, no regrets though.
    0:58:29 Fucking love the piano.
    0:58:29 Dude.
    0:58:34 So listen, you tweeted out, you said, I used to think jealousy was a bad thing, like a sin.
    0:58:35 And I try to avoid it.
    0:58:37 But jealousy is a wedding crasher.
    0:58:38 It shows up uninvited.
    0:58:40 And recently I started using jealousy to my advantage.
    0:58:42 Jealousy is an incredible signal.
    0:58:47 It tells me at a very primal, no logic level what my subconscious wants.
    0:58:48 It’s a heat signal for taste.
    0:58:52 I don’t obey the signal, but I do observe it and it helps me now.
    0:58:55 And so this sounds very strange.
    0:58:58 But when I saw what pop was doing, I was like, that’s so badass.
    0:58:59 Congrats to him.
    0:59:04 But then very weirdly, when I saw you streaming, you played the piano for some reason, I thought
    0:59:07 that was oddly one of the cooler things you’ve done in the last year or two.
    0:59:09 And I felt stronger.
    0:59:10 And I’m like, well, why do I feel that?
    0:59:12 Why do I think that that is cooler?
    0:59:16 I don’t know why exactly, but it relates to that tweet where I’m like, what’s the signal
    0:59:17 there that that’s sending?
    0:59:19 So anyway, I thought that was really cool.
    0:59:20 I thought that was significantly cooler.
    0:59:25 And I said this as well, when you were contemplating making a play or starting a business or something
    0:59:26 like that, it’s like, I don’t know.
    0:59:28 For some reason, the play is so much cooler.
    0:59:32 So I think I would pursue those like artistic things over the money thing.
    0:59:37 And this sounds like a very trite, you know, like, not everyone has the privilege to be
    0:59:37 able to do that.
    0:59:40 But I do think that like, it’s better for your soul that way.
    0:59:41 Yeah, exactly.
    0:59:43 I mean, you could already, you know, hear the comments.
    0:59:44 Oh, it must be nice for you.
    0:59:45 You don’t have to work.
    0:59:48 Another version of it is tech bros discover hobbies.
    0:59:50 There’s more to life than money.
    0:59:52 But also, by the way, both true.
    0:59:54 Yeah, both, both, both very valid points of view.
    0:59:57 I don’t think it’s the important point of view, but I do think they’re valid points of
    0:59:57 view.
    1:00:01 I think the important point of view is like, try to figure out what you actually want to
    1:00:07 do and then pursue it like in a relentless sort of un, unashamed way.
    1:00:09 And I think it’s very cool.
    1:00:14 When you said that thing, I think you told me like in five, seven years, I plan to delete
    1:00:16 my social media, disappear from the internet.
    1:00:21 And now you’re talking about like, you know, and, you know, stop, stop pursuing the getting
    1:00:21 of money.
    1:00:22 Yeah.
    1:00:23 I really hope you stick to that.
    1:00:26 I don’t know if you will, because I think it’s a very hard thing to do.
    1:00:28 It’s like, hey, can you turn down?
    1:00:30 Like, it’s like being like, I no longer eat sugar, right?
    1:00:32 It’s like those people who like, are like, I’m going to stop.
    1:00:33 I’m going to diet, right?
    1:00:34 It’s hard to stick to a diet.
    1:00:40 But if you actually did that, you would like shoot up in the rankings of like most badass
    1:00:40 people I know.
    1:00:41 You know what I mean?
    1:00:44 You’re already top 10, but you would shoot up.
    1:00:45 I’ve got four years to go.
    1:00:48 I better get all, I better get all of it while I can.
    1:00:51 But I do think that that, it’s also-
    1:00:51 Give me a percentage.
    1:00:54 How certain are you, you’re going to do that at the age of 40?
    1:00:55 I just need to know.
    1:00:56 I’m going to hold you to this.
    1:00:58 60 to 70%.
    1:01:01 I mean, look, I feel this, a lot of it has to do with family too.
    1:01:10 Like, I feel like when my little kids start like talking and having personalities, I think
    1:01:11 I would fall in love with them even more.
    1:01:15 And I just want to like be a good example that there’s more to life than just the getting
    1:01:15 of money.
    1:01:16 Yeah.
    1:01:17 Yeah.
    1:01:18 I’m totally washed.
    1:01:20 Kids are so cute.
    1:01:21 I’m just washed up now.
    1:01:21 I can’t do it.
    1:01:22 I can’t do anything, dude.
    1:01:23 I’m just-
    1:01:23 Yeah.
    1:01:28 Like the more personality she shows, the more where I’m like, oh, nothing really matters
    1:01:30 except our health and being around each other.
    1:01:31 Right, right.
    1:01:32 I don’t know.
    1:01:33 Is that, does that stay linear?
    1:01:37 Like, or does it like, like, does it keep getting hired the more they talk to you?
    1:01:38 Yeah, it is.
    1:01:42 But I think, at least for me, like, there’s a, there is a cap.
    1:01:44 It’s not one of these unbounded things.
    1:01:45 It’s not like I want to spend every waking moment with you.
    1:01:47 I’m like, no, you got, like, you’re too annoying.
    1:01:47 I’m too tired.
    1:01:48 This is too much.
    1:01:56 But it does, I do, I do have like a, it became my favorite thing for like three hours a day.
    1:01:59 Like for three hours a day, my kids are my favorite thing in the world.
    1:02:02 That’s three hours a day that my favorite thing used to be working.
    1:02:04 It used to be, you know, reading.
    1:02:10 There’s other things that were in that spot of like, that three hours a day of like, voluntary time.
    1:02:11 I could, I could direct towards anything.
    1:02:12 And now my kids are that, right?
    1:02:15 Like, we just like jumping into the pool with them and doing stuff or playing a game or whatever.
    1:02:17 That’s like, it is super, super fun.
    1:02:20 But it is capped at like a three to four hours a day.
    1:02:24 Beyond that, I’m like, like, how dare my wife make me raise my own children?
    1:02:25 This is too much.
    1:02:27 I need to be helped and saved.
    1:02:28 Who’s, who’s here to save me?
    1:02:31 This is the softest episode we’ve ever had.
    1:02:34 All right.
    1:02:36 We should get off before we start crying.
    1:02:37 All right.
    1:02:37 That’s it.
    1:02:38 That’s the pod.
    1:02:41 I feel like I can rule the world.
    1:02:43 I know I could be what I want to.
    1:02:46 I put my all in it like my days off.
    1:02:48 On the road, let’s travel, never looking back.
    1:02:53 All right, my friends, I have a new podcast for you guys to check out.
    1:02:58 It’s called Content is Profit, and it’s hosted by Luis and Fonzie Cameo.
    1:03:04 After years of building content teams and frameworks for companies like Red Bull and Orange Theory Fitness,
    1:03:09 Luis and Fonzie are on a mission to bridge the gap between content and revenue.
    1:03:12 In each episode, you’re going to hear from top entrepreneurs and creators,
    1:03:16 and you’re going to hear them share their secrets and strategies to turn their content into profit.
    1:03:21 So you can check out Content is Profit wherever you get your podcasts.

    Want Sam’s Playbook to Uncover Billion-Dollar Business Opportunities? Get it here: https://mfmpod.link/rve

    Episode 724: Sam Parr ( https://x.com/theSamParr ) and Shaan Puri ( https://x.com/ShaanVP ) break down $1B+ product crazes and why they worked.

    If you want to help those on the inside, donate to The Last Mile (https://thelastmile.org/donate) and Inside Circle (https://insidecircle.org/)

    Show Notes:

    (0:00) Labubu

    (3:19) The “gotcha” mechanic

    (10:53) The lipstick effect

    (12:53) The lalapalooza effect

    (15:17) $1B+ crazes

    (20:48) Tony’s Chocolonely

    (31:10) Sam goes to prison

    (37:18) The Larry story

    (41:26) Shaan joins a prison gang

    (51:15) Sam vows to quit the internet and money

    (54:52) Pomp’s SPAC

    Links:

    • Pop Mart – https://www.popmart.com/us

    • Tony’s Chocolonely – https://tonyschocolonely.com/

    Check Out Shaan’s Stuff:

    • Shaan’s weekly email – https://www.shaanpuri.com

    • Visit https://www.somewhere.com/mfm to hire worldwide talent like Shaan and get $500 off for being an MFM listener. Hire developers, assistants, marketing pros, sales teams and more for 80% less than US equivalents.

    • Mercury – Need a bank for your company? Go check out Mercury (mercury.com). Shaan uses it for all of his companies!

    Mercury is a financial technology company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group, Column, N.A., and Evolve Bank & Trust, Members FDIC

    Check Out Sam’s Stuff:

    • Hampton – https://www.joinhampton.com/

    • Ideation Bootcamp – https://www.ideationbootcamp.co/

    • Copy That – https://copythat.com

    • Hampton Wealth Survey – https://joinhampton.com/wealth

    • Sam’s List – http://samslist.co/

    My First Million is a HubSpot Original Podcast // Brought to you by HubSpot Media // Production by Arie Desormeaux // Editing by Ezra Bakker Trupiano