I am SELFISHLY glad Evergreen college imploded like the idiot school it tuened out to be. They lost 2 of 3 best things to ever come out of there. (Brett, his wife and Benjamin Boyce)
Wow, absolutely amazing! The host's poise and thoughtful questions throughout the interview were impressive, and Bret Weinstein is so eloquent, level-headed, and just a wealth of knowledge. Over the last year, I've begun steering my life towards honorably shouldering the weight of existence, and I hope that I am able to help nudge mankind in the right direction.
The idea is to be pessimistic about tomorrow and optimistic about next year. We do it all the time. Being optimistic about tomorrow just makes you lazy. Being pessimistic about next year makes you lazy too. So short term pessimism, long term optimism. Fix problems now while dreaming futures for later.
Haha, I just remembered a funny ass story that's relevant to this "philosophy." One of my seniors on my old ODA was talking to me in Iraq. He told me: "you know, some people, before a mission, get their shit wired tight. Not me, my shit was wired tight yesterday. I'm off listening to Indian drums and shit, getting psyched out." Dude had his head in the mother fucking game. Sorry, this just reminded me of that little story.
YES, but you should be pessimistic both long AND short-term. My greatest organisational failure came about through optimism: "we don't need to look for new clients because we can't even properly handle our existing workload." Then, when my main client dissed me, my reaction was to hire MORE guys to better serve my existing clients which drove costs up, and even fewer clients! My friend had an allied company that did painting and he told me to invest in advertising. That would have cost me just 6k and instead I bought more materials and went with a cheaper ad. BUT, this friend with the painting company was also an optimist who basically told me that if I fire any significant portion of the 26 men I had, I could run into a situation where I get a new client I can't handle, and that I should keep them all on board and instead get more clients. It was a downward spiral that led to bankruptcy. Sold my company for 30k and was glad to be glad.
Just when I think that I am getting pretty smart I trip across a talk with someone like Bret and I realize that the most brilliant idea that I have ever had wouldn't register as a Mouse Fart in comparrison. I am humbled yet again. Am I wrong in believing though, that he is trying to candy coat the very likely reality that the odds of us getting past this tripple play existential crisis is pretty damn slim and even if we do pull this off, there is going to be a whole lot of dead things in the process? Time is shorter than we think and I am barely smart enough to understand the implications of the problems let alone work towards a solution. It sucks that I am an athiest. Divine intervention could be very helpful right about now.
Doug Fasching I think you get it better than you realize you do and better than a lot of people do. I don't think he's candy coating anything I think he knows exactly what he's talking about.
Pinker knows so much but is far too soft to bring it all together to do anything great. In fact most of his books are about how great things are and there’s nothing to worry about. Well I suppose for that reason getting these two together would be ok
Conversations such as this should have many thousands of views. Extracting finite resources from the future while social media (algorithm) driven addictive distractions divert attention. Such a fundamental understanding is conveyed here, as well as our retrograde educational systems. Many more. These insights seem so obvious yet so unarticulated except by rare intellects as the Weinsteins. Critically essential ideas are presented through conversations such as this one yet it's been on RUclips over a year and only a thousand views. Thank you RUclips.
1:21:10 such a relevant and understated point. The idea of getting ahead despite being dead wrong due to the nature of the acquisition of well being and the role of the social architecture in the allocation of rewards.
Bret is a hero and what he and his wife are doing with the Dark Horse Podcast is so important in todays attack on relevant information. Thank you Bret Weinstein!
32:35 - Agree with Bret here 100%. I'm always baffled whenever I hear people talking about colonizing Mars or terraforming it. It was one of my dreams since I was a little kid to see how they'd be able to, but after doing the homework on it... it's just not possible. The planet is dead and cold to the core, it has no magnetosphere. So even if you had giant factories pumping out as much atmosphere as possible, it wouldn't work. For one, the planet is too small to hold a thick atmosphere, but even a low pressure one would get blown away on the solar wind. Mars has 38% the gravity of Earth but only 0.6% the atmospheric pressure. That's because it all got blown away. Then there's the cosmic radiation. In the time it would take for the most optimally fast round trip to Mars and back, people would lose approximately 10 - 15% of their brain mass, just from the high energy particles and radiation. Not to mention the deleterious effects on the brain cells that stay. It would be impossible to live on the surface. I mean, if you want to go live in a bunker half a mile underground, eating nothing but Soylent Paste, then by all means go try to live on Mars. Seriously though, it's nonsense. People really take a lot of unique things the Earth provides for granted, to the point of not even acknowledging them when they're planning something like this.
Subscribed, thank you from Amsterdam, what a great talk. Have been following the Weinsteins for 1,5 years or so now. And this talk was definitely in the top 3! (yes including the JRE ones)
It feels we need to remove the ability of willful misinterpretation when talking about important things. People now expect falsehood when speaking. The ability to speak and sound convincing, is unfortunately no longer predicated on being right to many. The world has got complicated enough that we've broken our comprehention of truth. Few people are willing to admit what they don't know, and yet everyone doesn't know an awful lot. People will effectively need to show their working out in a time efficient manor and admit their own flaws. The framework of doing that should prevent the ability to cover their reasoning up to just look good. For example maybe provide statistics on an individuals mood, character traits, and aspirations which factors in their own natural bias (which everyone has) to why they're saying it that way. Show which points of reference are based on trust of someone else and which are based on own intuition. What additional factors have been considered. The nature of this will open them up to more criticism but hopefully building the nature of communicator into what's being said will allow a greater understanding of human varience. Currently Important information is delivered with as little said as possible, in order to stave off critisism. We are too untrusting for our own good, but because everyone knows that, by reciprication it reflects poorly on what we actualy get informed about. If we put the mandate to the politicions to use this more thorough system of communication, it will filter down. It will be a balance of how much we trust it in respect to our current method relative to difficulty of using. There will be practical limitations as I imagine we will need technology of some kind, but once we can trust again (or at least know how someone is wrong in respect to yourself when you listen to them) we can build emergent functions.
Chris Hodgson like your first sentence but the way you go about it sounds like it could be dangerous. I also think that the fear is necessary at this point in time, and while you make it very interesting point, it occurs to me that the real conversation needs to be about being able to communicate this to people in a more direct and susinct way that they can understand because when people are confronted with something it is easier for them listen to and digest. I think the atmosphere and context are critical to remove biases that would prevent people from listening with a rational mind as opposed to an emotional confirmation bias.
I very much appreciate Dr Weinstein's insightful efforts to look at existential threats. But I fear he is making a couple of fundamental errors. The first error is one of prioritization. What are the actual existential threats that would destroy the human race? The idea that the failure of a large number of nuclear power plants (as disastrous as that would be) would cause the extinction of most or all of the human race is highly questionable. Chernobyl, the worst nuclear plant accident in history, resulted in fewer than 50 deaths. Rather, the biggest current existential threat remains a nuclear war between the United States and Russia, followed by a nuclear war between other powers. If Dr. Weinstein wants to talk about existential threats, he should talking about that one. Other threats such as artificial intelligence, and pandemics are worth considering as well and weren't discussed. The second error is one of grandiosity: that we need a non-evolutionary purpose to substitute our evolutionary purpose. Survival of the species (or the individuals in a species) already fits reasonably well with our evolution-built purpose. It's true that different individuals and tribes might compete with one another for survival, but it's also possible for individuals to identify their own survival with survival of the species. I didn't hear a clear reason given why the latter would be inadequate. I feel his argument does smell of utopianism, by advocating for a kind of quantum leap in human behavior. Instead, in my view, what needs to be done is the hard work of problem solving by the time-tested methods of education, politics, science, and engineering: educating the public, coalition building, fundraising, scientific research, incremental technical innovations. So I think my counter-proposal is two-fold: activists need to (1) prioritize what to work on carefully by actually understanding existential risks and (2) start with small, concrete, doable projects to build momentum and make progress.
You're right except for your main assertion. The number one global existential catastrophe about to happen is the inevitable economic collapse of the United States! Everybody sees it coming except Americans, hence the BRICS bank, OBOR project, non-USD factoring, the rise of Cryptos, divestment by Russia of US sovereign Bonds (aka treasuries) etc. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to postulate exactly how that collapse will play out, either. China attacks Australia, and the US military gets caught up in an unwinnable war in China's backyard. China has no reason NOT to attack Australia when you look at natural resources, troop levels, and potential repercussions. I've been saying it for the last 20 years. Australia has meagre military defences, and, you have a huge contingent of Chinese 5th columnists inside Australia already.
I should mention that there exist designs of Fission based nuclear reactors which, in the event of a catastrophe, completely shut themselves off without human input. If you are interested in one specific design look up the CANDU reactor. There are many reactors which can enter irreversible failure modes in a state of emergency such as Chernobyl and Fukushima but - as we proceed into the future - technology has reached a point where the worst case scenario can be avoided even in fringe disaster situations. Fission power gets such a bad rap nowadays from horrible PR performance but it has an extremely valid place in limiting environmental impacts if we can just convince politicians and by extension the public.
With respect to Bret, of whom I am a great fan, Katrina is hardly a wake-up call. Natural disasters have been with humanity for millennia. It's not clear pretending we have a control we don't have over the weather is rational.
Because New Orleans was built below sea level. I'm fine if Katrina was a "wake-up call" that humankind needs to do better in thwarting nature, but not if by this he means that we know enough to say our burning of CO2 caused Katrina, a proposition we can't begin to hold with any confidence. In fact, in another recent video (to give Bret credit) he does mention to David Rubin and his brother that some of the smartest people he knows privately think the AGW story is vastly overblown, built by confirmation bias in today's climatology number-fixing departments.
1:07:00 it serves those without the imagination to realize a transformation, or endure the relatively large amount of work that would take as opposed to blowing it all up and starting fresh.
Evergreens 'college's loss is EVERYONE elses gain. Since the evergreen meltdown we have all had the fortune to be exposed to Brett (and his wife), amazing content. His students LOVED him and I can see why. I am almost 50 and have learned so much from him the past 2 years.
One more, the answer to "how to think less in short term" conundrum is - you cant stop thinking like that and you should not even try. You should INTEGRATE it with long term thinking and DO BOTH. Because we need both. Thats the answer to all extreme binary riddles. The problem is not that we think like that, but it is a problem when we take one kind of thinking into extremes as if the answer must be an "Either - Or" solution. Its not, the answer is both - together - as needed - which is balance.
It's depressing that after that thought-provoking dialogue it was just interpreted as anti-humanist scientism by some of the people there. The first questioner - basically asking how to stop being human, really made me want to cry.
My emotion rightnow.. "omg, i'm not alone or crazy"... We should find an over arching narrative from universe's perspective and trickle down in scale to value of effect and importance. What’s our importance in the grand scheme? Imagine it an Indian curry being prepared for last 13 billion years, we're either an important ingredient or bacteria that'll die off while cooking. We don't know the purpose of this grand existence but we know it's increasing in entropy and wants to keep getting efficient with it. We exist in this because it's using us to carry it out more effectively. Our existence depends on how long we can be effective & economical. We find our meanings from our localised frameworks with layers of abstractions. These apparatus that we've built may soon conflict with primary purpose of our existence and likely it could not be suppressed either. It's unwise to think some timescales are not applicable to us, we are well capable enough to simulate few Iterations and predict the inevitability of change of agent and process.. Universe might not care if one form or another as long as reducing resistance & accelerated efficiency. I'm not suggesting it's easy.. but it's no excuse to ignore. Extraordinary situations might need counterintuitive measure; if we've never engaged in the ideas then we might not even know to react when it comes. worst, we could end up being the reason which could've been avoided. On other hand, if we are not careful in trading our abstract values in proportion with existential suffering and can't justify good enough meaning then we could potentially face a future-wide existential crisis. We need to build a framework, a simulation platform.. Each individually owned digital cortex or extended cognition. Interfacing with high bandwidth abstract languages and toolkits such as multi-dimetional simulation, education in gamification, trial & error learning approach & memes to parse complexities. we can colapse technicalities into abstraction using data science and AI. For all that we need shared computation on computenetwork infrastructure with individually owned computeblock as simulation platform, hyper abstraction and botification in a system that generates value for you.. it's not zibber zabber.. I have discussed it in detail on level1tech forums.. I'm good at building complex frameworks, unique datapoint and I think I want to contribute..
You're over-thinking it. " We need to build a framework, a simulation platform.. " you're in one, *You're Alive* . Enjoy being alive. Don't be asshole. Make everyone else's simulation better for having encountered yours.
6:29 good luck with that. Unless we specifically tinker with our genes, in which case we're still not "taking our genome out of the drivers seat", but merely changing the mission of the driver. We are our genes.
A detailed outline already exists of how a Game B society needs to be organised so that 'The Good' self-organizes thereafter. It is the same way that evolution has organized societies of self-producing molecular processes, of cells, and of organisms. Google "The Self-Organizing Society: A Grower's guide".
Refrigerator example is so nonsense. Based on this logic all consumer products should be in a "race to the bottom" to the shortest lived. Here in reality there is a mixture of durability, beauty, complexity, and PRICE for the average fridge.
No Bret Weinstein, *Humor is best defined by experience of the unexpected* This is the phenomenon we see at play in infants when parents play hide and seek and it is the the same phenomenon that stokes laughter in adults at crass humor. In the latter the culture has created the expectation.
Any white person still in SA, is a fucking idiot. Comeuppance may or may not be justified, but the fact that it was on the rise has been evident for years.
+Noah Namey Agreed. I think they're trying to sell their holdings, but who's gonna buy with the possibility of getting it for free. What they should do is transfer ownership of their holdings to a trust or corporation, rent it for whatever money they can get, and then move out. Once the situation stabilises, they can sell. In the meanwhile, move to an white-majority country IF there are any by the time that happens.
24:18 i tend 2 agree with Eric Weinstein, we r both fear and hope, just keep them in the right order- first scare me, then show me hope. 1 could argue that u have to deploy both, or at least that would be more effective 2 trigger large scale brain activity. More challenging would b optimizing that activity. Planning it?
By 8:00-9:17 I am convinced that Bret Weinstein would make a STAR witness for the defense of....maybe even a bank robber: we are "built" [by who] , essentially to steal.
"We de-humanise the other[?] population in order to justify that transfer." 9:20 We stole their diamonds, Bret? Is that what you want to say? We stole their diamonds?
9:00 That's not actually an entirely correct notion of zero sum: the loss to one population and the gain by the other population do not need to be numerically equivalent. We even have a name for this when the effect goes both ways at the same time: trade.
44:10 Did anyone else think of Nietzsche? Not only is God dead, but so is Darwin... So now we not only need to recraft our morals, but also our very essence that lead to those morals? Call me pessimistic.
sol rayz it reminds me of the zombie / bioshock / fall out fantasy. Everyone thinks they will be among the surviving few and that the new world will at least be more interesting than their desk job.
1:05:00 Audience member is the kind of person who thinks that he can speculate about a _seriously_ unknowable number by tossing out several nearby figures ("maybe 30 percent, maybe 40 percent") as if that improves his probabilistic crapshoot one iota. Ouch for him.
52:00 I can't entirely agree with Bret on the left-right common purpose. Even the simple notion of eliminating structural bias runs aground on the gay rights issue, once you include the evangelical right in the conversation. People who run around saying "marriage is a bond between a man and a woman" are not in it for structural equality across the board-no, that's a flat-out call for a privileged social structure based on a conservative value system.
I know, we could teach everyone about a Tech Heaven (hope) and a population Hell (fear). Our ancestors did keep these ideas integrated within their life, somehow.....and the road to either end was never always agreed upon. Hmmmmm
Basic Income for all (plus detailed rules for parents to receive also basic income on behalf of their children till perhaps till age of 12 or 14 of perhaps half the general basic income), basic income for all who have done Basic Service of 12-24 month (esp. disaster relief) for all young man and women (seniors can participate as voluntieers), plus rules to prohibit all investments and projects which hurt ecology; - basic income is the minimum income - the max. income is n times the minimum (to be decided by public referendum)... live modest ... etc.
"That's not possible." ruclips.net/video/nOMLdefHGA8/видео.html. Actually, human beings have already found ways to divert human beings towards purposes higher and more interesting than what evolution would have us serve: there have been and continue to be individual human beings who have devoted their lives to purposes other than creating offspring . . . religious figures, parents who adopt, professional journalists, writers, scientists, etc., etc., who prioritize for their discoveries and contributions to their fields over building a family . . . . of course such a thing is possible. We see it every day.
I like Bret, but I was disappointed on how ignorant he is on nuclear energy but seems to hold some ideas on the dangers of nuclear energy. Listening to nuclear physicist and expert s in the field (from i.e. ted-talks) they give a better understanding. Nuclear energy is part of a solution for a better environment, not a danger for our planet or the creatures in it...
I don't agree with the basic argument that we need to do something different to make the future bright. In my opinion humanity is on a track that leads to just more prosperity for all. Why do I say that? a) I buy Steven Pinker's arguments in "Enlightenment Now" that there is just no measurable decrease in progress. In other words objective measurements show that progress is still taking place. b) There is good reasons to think that, using today's technology, the world can sustain maybe 10 billion people. We are not using up the resources of the earth, that's a myth. c) There is also good reason the think that population growth will not carry on forever. Without the world running out of resources, the world population will probably not grow beyond 10 billion. I know Brett reckons my arguments are rationalizations. You're welcome to think so Brett, it's not something that can be proofed true or false. I don't think I'm rationalizing, I really believe humanity is on track for a significantly better future. It will also be better for all of nature too, we are starting to create stuff without hurting the environment.
Nothing but hope in those statements. There's not a single thing going on right now that convinces me you are correct. People being lifted out of poverty every year is an artifact of the oil age, but probably cannot last. Hardly anyone considers how industrial farming practices are destroying soils---something that has brought down a few civilizations in the past.
Yes but in the future, we won't need an environment if we have lab-grown food. That will lead to even more humans, and based on the rat experiments, we can only expect a major war that will wipe out most of humanity. And the cause of that war? POLITICS, the scourge of humanity.
Great talk. I like professor as much as anyone sane but he is SOOO wrong about a few things - like Mars- i cant help but clarify a few things for him. And these clarifications will be net positive. Its a shame i cant properly drill this to him personally, but ill do my best here on youtube comments... First of all, professor... Mars is a beautiful, amazing, magnificent place that lives and breathes and changes all the time. Of course there are people like you that dont see it, but there are many others who do see its true beauty, even Red as it is. So, people like you that dont see the incredible brethtaking beauty and usefulness of such a place will simply not go there. But others, like myself, will. Lets not jump to assumptions that personal subjective opinion or lack of vision is somehow an objective reality professor, shall we? There is so much amazing things to see and witness on Mars it can break a humans heart thousand times over. You just dont see it, you havent been shown what we have been shown. By some who are among the best human race produced. Second of all, we wont go to Mars to just establish a second earth like society, especially not the current one. We will go there to get changed ourselves. We will go there to get improved. We will go there to learn. All of that, every single second of it will be valuable for whole humanity. - Just like the fact we put people on the Moon was and still is. Its not just the technological advancements we will gain, but the very fact we are there will change the global human psyche paradigm - just like the Moon landings did. One moment we were on this two dimensional board of finite resources frozen in front of cold war horror becoming nuclear... the other we all saw we are on this unique little blue ball, all together, suspended in a light beam. Humanity was changed. And so it shall be again. Whatever long term benefits the attempts of terraformation will bring will be... long term, eh? Havent you just said something about how we dont value the long term benefits but short term ones? Look who is talking! ;) Gotcha. As for that, well... the fact of the matter is we are evolving this capability to value the long term more and more. We have been evolving in that direction as long as we existed as human beings, probably even sooner. Because there cant be any cooperation without understanding the long term benefits and value, and without cooperation there is no species, no race, society, culture... there is no humanity as we are. We just havent got to the place where our immediate short term necessities and requirements are balanced with the long term ones. But we will get there. You know where? Thats right. On Red Mars professor. And if we get good at it, we might even make it Green, and then maybe even Blue. edit: Just to be crystal clear, i agree with your notion that utopias are the worst and all they cause is their opposite extremes. What im saying above has nothing to do with any such thing.
Lets clarify Mars shall we, no natural water source, just getting to Mars will be extremely costly if we ever get there, building a natural habitat so that it will be habitable by a colony of humans is practically impossible when we couldn't even secure earth and doing the much simpler things that needed to be done like our broken down infrastructure, what makes you think we are able to colonize Mars when we can't even build infrastructure and secure our nuclear reactors for the 21st century? What Bret meant if you listen closely and extrapolate a little, is to fix the goddamn place we live in before thinking about the impossible, it's much easier to do what is within our grasp.
12:00 Yes, there's always been a free-rider problem on the denialist right: they certainly don't plan to forfeit any personal claim should their lethargy and bile someday down the road prove incorrect and badly founded. But I see the problem of uncertainty as being fundamentally more central: our technology is amazing, and we fundamentally don't know if it's up to the challenge or not, and in which areas, with what exceptions. The growth in RUclips today anticipates the growth in global knowledge dissemination tomorrow. Soon we'll have _billions_ of smart people thinking about the future in relatively sophisticated ways. Both the irresistible force and the immovable rock are incredibly hard to predict, even over the course of single human generation.
LOL Your political observations are emasculated Leftist nonsense. Free-riding is a problem on the right? Are you insane? The entire Left's politics are based on parasitism.
How do we get people to wake up and realize we have these problems? Well, I don't know that we can wake up enough people when there are so many who continue to believe in a literal imminent apocalypses as predicted by certain scriptures. How does one convince those who are eagerly awaiting the destruction of the planet, who believe that god is the one responsible for that destruction, and that we deserve to be punished, that we should work to hold back such an event?
10:26 "Seven and a half billion people is a large number of people to inhabit this planet..." There are about 28,000,000 square feet in a square mile. The United State[singular] of TEXAS ALONE is 268,000 square miles. Bret. Bret? Seven and a half billion people is ABSOLUTELY NOT "a lot of people" to inhabit this planet....unless you have something in mind, do you?
9:30 This dehumanization narrative is actually too simple. Most of us don't really mind taking what we want on the basis that might makes right. But it does make the fingers of the person standing next to us creep toward his or her scabbard. So what dehumanization amounts to is a sly way to say "present company excluded" so you don't become the next exciting demonstration that there's no honour among thieves. We all humans; them not so much. Otherwise might makes right quickly degenerates into last man standing (too bad no man is an island).
Luke Robert Mason I was also annoyed during the intro. Not as an insult, but the microphones seem to really pick up each "ch" sound like in "TRap" and "fuTURE". The content/delivery of the intro is great, I just think the mics had a lot contrast or something.
this is very unsubstantive. i think only people who dont read books think this stuff is in any way a valuable way to spend your time. couldnt even get through it. the first hour could have been compressed into like 15 mins easily.
Kevin Ward if your only goal is to learn something specifically and efficiently, then yes, of course reading a book by yourself is the best way. I dont know if there’s a need to put these two mediums against each other.
@46:50 < The interviewer should've pointed-out that you probably could find a willing participant in the the terminally ill & very old to be willing to have their mind uploaded to a machine.
Bret sounds like he's mixing traditional utopian ideas with Malthusianism. He speaks of game theory but I'm not getting a sense he actually applies it equally or even understands general economic theory. He seems to ignore entirely the economics of scarcity and what really happens with business in terms of long term planning. How the price system address scarcity. Etc. His constant "we" this and that is creepy and collectivist. There aren't "we"s. There are individuals. This talk of changing economic paradigms is pure ignorance. Short term does not always overwhelm the long term. As stages of production lengthen so generally does the length of attention paid. Business pay far more attention to the long term than governments. He likes to talk game theory but ignores it's application to government and market systems.
Bret needs a better promoter or agent. This guy's got some good stuff to say but I rarely hear anything about him.
I am SELFISHLY glad Evergreen college imploded like the idiot school it tuened out to be. They lost 2 of 3 best things to ever come out of there. (Brett, his wife and Benjamin Boyce)
Wow, absolutely amazing! The host's poise and thoughtful questions throughout the interview were impressive, and Bret Weinstein is so eloquent, level-headed, and just a wealth of knowledge. Over the last year, I've begun steering my life towards honorably shouldering the weight of existence, and I hope that I am able to help nudge mankind in the right direction.
milesr3 hope your journey is going well
The idea is to be pessimistic about tomorrow and optimistic about next year. We do it all the time. Being optimistic about tomorrow just makes you lazy. Being pessimistic about next year makes you lazy too. So short term pessimism, long term optimism. Fix problems now while dreaming futures for later.
That's a nice little maxim. I'll use it a little, see how it works for me. (Pessimistic about tomorrow, optimistic about next year).
Haha, I just remembered a funny ass story that's relevant to this "philosophy." One of my seniors on my old ODA was talking to me in Iraq. He told me: "you know, some people, before a mission, get their shit wired tight. Not me, my shit was wired tight yesterday. I'm off listening to Indian drums and shit, getting psyched out." Dude had his head in the mother fucking game. Sorry, this just reminded me of that little story.
YES, but you should be pessimistic both long AND short-term. My greatest organisational failure came about through optimism: "we don't need to look for new clients because we can't even properly handle our existing workload." Then, when my main client dissed me, my reaction was to hire MORE guys to better serve my existing clients which drove costs up, and even fewer clients! My friend had an allied company that did painting and he told me to invest in advertising. That would have cost me just 6k and instead I bought more materials and went with a cheaper ad. BUT, this friend with the painting company was also an optimist who basically told me that if I fire any significant portion of the 26 men I had, I could run into a situation where I get a new client I can't handle, and that I should keep them all on board and instead get more clients. It was a downward spiral that led to bankruptcy. Sold my company for 30k and was glad to be glad.
Very cool way of looking at things. I definitely tend to fall into the latter category, so I’ll try flipping the script a bit. Thanks man
In other words, delayed gratification
Brett Weinstein can have conversation with absolutely anyone, from Rogan to Rubin to this guy.
Just when I think that I am getting pretty smart I trip across a talk with someone like Bret and I realize that the most brilliant idea that I have ever had wouldn't register as a Mouse Fart in comparrison. I am humbled yet again.
Am I wrong in believing though, that he is trying to candy coat the very likely reality that the odds of us getting past this tripple play existential crisis is pretty damn slim and even if we do pull this off, there is going to be a whole lot of dead things in the process?
Time is shorter than we think and I am barely smart enough to understand the implications of the problems let alone work towards a solution. It sucks that I am an athiest. Divine intervention could be very helpful right about now.
Doug Fasching I think you get it better than you realize you do and better than a lot of people do. I don't think he's candy coating anything I think he knows exactly what he's talking about.
If we're lucky the magnetic pole switch will happen just when WW3 begins or AI takes over and let the sun fry anything we fucked up here.
How did my social media know that this was exactly what I wanted to hear!
This was very informative and deserves way more views. Thank you for putting his together.
Bret Weinstein and Steven Pinker in conversation right now, please.
Yes. That would be an epic convo.
Eew no, Pinker is so boring. "Everything is super!"
I just got telling someone they are my favs.
Pinker knows so much but is far too soft to bring it all together to do anything great. In fact most of his books are about how great things are and there’s nothing to worry about. Well I suppose for that reason getting these two together would be ok
I'm surprised Bret as a biologist almost never touches bioengineering as a part of the Fourth Frontier. Glad the host asked him this question.
Thanks for sharing. Excellent conversation. Great questions, and very insightful responses by Bret.
I also thought he said gender led.
Conversations such as this should have many thousands of views. Extracting finite resources from the future while social media (algorithm) driven addictive distractions divert attention. Such a fundamental understanding is conveyed here, as well as our retrograde educational systems. Many more. These insights seem so obvious yet so unarticulated except by rare intellects as the Weinsteins. Critically essential ideas are presented through conversations such as this one yet it's been on RUclips over a year and only a thousand views. Thank you RUclips.
Great talk.. Bret is a deep thinker and I always enjoy his insights.
BTW, damn good interviewer for a young buck.
Appreciated.
for sure!
That fuckin pompadour though. Listened first before i saw him... i did not expect a 20 something skinny dude with a pompadour.
Glad to hear such stimulating conversations which are badly needed!
wow, 1 one of the most interesting thinkers i have ever heard! thx!
A brilliant mind.
1:21:10 such a relevant and understated point. The idea of getting ahead despite being dead wrong due to the nature of the acquisition of well being and the role of the social architecture in the allocation of rewards.
Bret is excellent. The way he thinks acts like a psychedelic for me. His slightly tilted perspective is very insightful.
tompezl agreed! He is always speaking one or more levels of abstract out, which reminds me a lot of psychedelics.
He and his brother are fantastic thinkers/speakers.
I guess I have to thank the SJW's of Evergreen for making them famous.
Try listening to his stuff on psychedelics. Great experience.
I get the same experience with Yuval Harari.
I love listening to Bret, i wish he was my lecturer!
I wish he was my brother.
Bret is a hero and what he and his wife are doing with the Dark Horse Podcast is so important in todays attack on relevant information.
Thank you Bret Weinstein!
40:08 I'll memorize that part word for word. I agree 100%.
32:35 - Agree with Bret here 100%. I'm always baffled whenever I hear people talking about colonizing Mars or terraforming it. It was one of my dreams since I was a little kid to see how they'd be able to, but after doing the homework on it... it's just not possible.
The planet is dead and cold to the core, it has no magnetosphere. So even if you had giant factories pumping out as much atmosphere as possible, it wouldn't work. For one, the planet is too small to hold a thick atmosphere, but even a low pressure one would get blown away on the solar wind.
Mars has 38% the gravity of Earth but only 0.6% the atmospheric pressure. That's because it all got blown away.
Then there's the cosmic radiation. In the time it would take for the most optimally fast round trip to Mars and back, people would lose approximately 10 - 15% of their brain mass, just from the high energy particles and radiation. Not to mention the deleterious effects on the brain cells that stay. It would be impossible to live on the surface.
I mean, if you want to go live in a bunker half a mile underground, eating nothing but Soylent Paste, then by all means go try to live on Mars. Seriously though, it's nonsense. People really take a lot of unique things the Earth provides for granted, to the point of not even acknowledging them when they're planning something like this.
Subscribed, thank you from Amsterdam, what a great talk. Have been following the Weinsteins for 1,5 years or so now. And this talk was definitely in the top 3! (yes including the JRE ones)
What are the other 2?
TY for uploading/sharing this. Excellent thinking from Bret as always.
45:12 the overcoming of the entropic end of everything is worthy, and from it stems SO much.
Great stuff........except for the one guy that had to give his own views before asking a simple question. There is always THAT one guy/Gal
It feels we need to remove the ability of willful misinterpretation when talking about important things.
People now expect falsehood when speaking. The ability to speak and sound convincing, is unfortunately no longer predicated on being right to many. The world has got complicated enough that we've broken our comprehention of truth.
Few people are willing to admit what they don't know, and yet everyone doesn't know an awful lot.
People will effectively need to show their working out in a time efficient manor and admit their own flaws. The framework of doing that should prevent the ability to cover their reasoning up to just look good.
For example maybe provide statistics on an individuals mood, character traits, and aspirations which factors in their own natural bias (which everyone has) to why they're saying it that way. Show which points of reference are based on trust of someone else and which are based on own intuition. What additional factors have been considered.
The nature of this will open them up to more criticism but hopefully building the nature of communicator into what's being said will allow a greater understanding of human varience.
Currently Important information is delivered with as little said as possible, in order to stave off critisism. We are too untrusting for our own good, but because everyone knows that, by reciprication it reflects poorly on what we actualy get informed about.
If we put the mandate to the politicions to use this more thorough system of communication, it will filter down. It will be a balance of how much we trust it in respect to our current method relative to difficulty of using. There will be practical limitations as I imagine we will need technology of some kind, but once we can trust again (or at least know how someone is wrong in respect to yourself when you listen to them) we can build emergent functions.
Chris Hodgson like your first sentence but the way you go about it sounds like it could be dangerous. I also think that the fear is necessary at this point in time, and while you make it very interesting point, it occurs to me that the real conversation needs to be about being able to communicate this to people in a more direct and susinct way that they can understand because when people are confronted with something it is easier for them listen to and digest. I think the atmosphere and context are critical to remove biases that would prevent people from listening with a rational mind as opposed to an emotional confirmation bias.
This guy ahead of his time
I very much appreciate Dr Weinstein's insightful efforts to look at existential threats. But I fear he is making a couple of fundamental errors.
The first error is one of prioritization. What are the actual existential threats that would destroy the human race? The idea that the failure of a large number of nuclear power plants (as disastrous as that would be) would cause the extinction of most or all of the human race is highly questionable. Chernobyl, the worst nuclear plant accident in history, resulted in fewer than 50 deaths.
Rather, the biggest current existential threat remains a nuclear war between the United States and Russia, followed by a nuclear war between other powers. If Dr. Weinstein wants to talk about existential threats, he should talking about that one. Other threats such as artificial intelligence, and pandemics are worth considering as well and weren't discussed.
The second error is one of grandiosity: that we need a non-evolutionary purpose to substitute our evolutionary purpose. Survival of the species (or the individuals in a species) already fits reasonably well with our evolution-built purpose. It's true that different individuals and tribes might compete with one another for survival, but it's also possible for individuals to identify their own survival with survival of the species. I didn't hear a clear reason given why the latter would be inadequate.
I feel his argument does smell of utopianism, by advocating for a kind of quantum leap in human behavior. Instead, in my view, what needs to be done is the hard work of problem solving by the time-tested methods of education, politics, science, and engineering: educating the public, coalition building, fundraising, scientific research, incremental technical innovations.
So I think my counter-proposal is two-fold: activists need to (1) prioritize what to work on carefully by actually understanding existential risks and (2) start with small, concrete, doable projects to build momentum and make progress.
You're right except for your main assertion. The number one global existential catastrophe about to happen is the inevitable economic collapse of the United States! Everybody sees it coming except Americans, hence the BRICS bank, OBOR project, non-USD factoring, the rise of Cryptos, divestment by Russia of US sovereign Bonds (aka treasuries) etc. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to postulate exactly how that collapse will play out, either. China attacks Australia, and the US military gets caught up in an unwinnable war in China's backyard. China has no reason NOT to attack Australia when you look at natural resources, troop levels, and potential repercussions. I've been saying it for the last 20 years. Australia has meagre military defences, and, you have a huge contingent of Chinese 5th columnists inside Australia already.
arthuredelstein have you heard of effective altruism? i think you'll like it :)
I should mention that there exist designs of Fission based nuclear reactors which, in the event of a catastrophe, completely shut themselves off without human input. If you are interested in one specific design look up the CANDU reactor.
There are many reactors which can enter irreversible failure modes in a state of emergency such as Chernobyl and Fukushima but - as we proceed into the future - technology has reached a point where the worst case scenario can be avoided even in fringe disaster situations.
Fission power gets such a bad rap nowadays from horrible PR performance but it has an extremely valid place in limiting environmental impacts if we can just convince politicians and by extension the public.
With respect to Bret, of whom I am a great fan, Katrina is hardly a wake-up call. Natural disasters have been with humanity for millennia. It's not clear pretending we have a control we don't have over the weather is rational.
John Linton with as common as hurricanes are in the gulf of Mexico. Why was Katrina so disproportionally harmful?
Because New Orleans was built below sea level.
I'm fine if Katrina was a "wake-up call" that humankind needs to do better in thwarting nature, but not if by this he means that we know enough to say our burning of CO2 caused Katrina, a proposition we can't begin to hold with any confidence.
In fact, in another recent video (to give Bret credit) he does mention to David Rubin and his brother that some of the smartest people he knows privately think the AGW story is vastly overblown, built by confirmation bias in today's climatology number-fixing departments.
Great closing statement
Thank you! We end every Virtual Futures event with that warning!
1:07:00 it serves those without the imagination to realize a transformation, or endure the relatively large amount of work that would take as opposed to blowing it all up and starting fresh.
Why has this man not written a book?? He’s brilliant
I can't get enough of BW, such a brilliant and humble human being!
Evergreens 'college's loss is EVERYONE elses gain. Since the evergreen meltdown we have all had the fortune to be exposed to Brett (and his wife), amazing content. His students LOVED him and I can see why.
I am almost 50 and have learned so much from him the past 2 years.
Nice comments on educational reform at 22 min.
quality production. 10/10
7:00
There's no human desire to grow, but there's a human desire to exploit.
Ya listening, Karl?
One more, the answer to "how to think less in short term" conundrum is - you cant stop thinking like that and you should not even try. You should INTEGRATE it with long term thinking and DO BOTH. Because we need both.
Thats the answer to all extreme binary riddles.
The problem is not that we think like that, but it is a problem when we take one kind of thinking into extremes as if the answer must be an "Either - Or" solution. Its not, the answer is both - together - as needed - which is balance.
great job Virtual Futures, Luke, and Bret! :)
So depressing that this conversation has only 5000 views after more than a week
what are the 'first principles' he's talking about at the end of the event?
Brilliant man.
It's depressing that after that thought-provoking dialogue it was just interpreted as anti-humanist scientism by some of the people there.
The first questioner - basically asking how to stop being human, really made me want to cry.
Great - thoughtful questions. subscribe.
My emotion rightnow.. "omg, i'm not alone or crazy"...
We should find an over arching narrative from universe's perspective and trickle down in scale to value of effect and importance. What’s our importance in the grand scheme? Imagine it an Indian curry being prepared for last 13 billion years, we're either an important ingredient or bacteria that'll die off while cooking. We don't know the purpose of this grand existence but we know it's increasing in entropy and wants to keep getting efficient with it. We exist in this because it's using us to carry it out more effectively. Our existence depends on how long we can be effective & economical. We find our meanings from our localised frameworks with layers of abstractions. These apparatus that we've built may soon conflict with primary purpose of our existence and likely it could not be suppressed either.
It's unwise to think some timescales are not applicable to us, we are well capable enough to simulate few Iterations and predict the inevitability of change of agent and process.. Universe might not care if one form or another as long as reducing resistance & accelerated efficiency.
I'm not suggesting it's easy.. but it's no excuse to ignore. Extraordinary situations might need counterintuitive measure; if we've never engaged in the ideas then we might not even know to react when it comes. worst, we could end up being the reason which could've been avoided. On other hand, if we are not careful in trading our abstract values in proportion with existential suffering and can't justify good enough meaning then we could potentially face a future-wide existential crisis.
We need to build a framework, a simulation platform.. Each individually owned digital cortex or extended cognition. Interfacing with high bandwidth abstract languages and toolkits such as multi-dimetional simulation, education in gamification, trial & error learning approach & memes to parse complexities. we can colapse technicalities into abstraction using data science and AI. For all that we need shared computation on computenetwork infrastructure with individually owned computeblock as simulation platform, hyper abstraction and botification in a system that generates value for you.. it's not zibber zabber.. I have discussed it in detail on level1tech forums.. I'm good at building complex frameworks, unique datapoint and I think I want to contribute..
You're over-thinking it. " We need to build a framework, a simulation platform.. " you're in one, *You're Alive* .
Enjoy being alive. Don't be asshole. Make everyone else's simulation better for having encountered yours.
What Bret calls a technological frontier we ecologists call niche construction
more collars need popping on that dude
that's how we'll all dress. in the FUTURE!
So the future is Zoolander meets Fonzie?
@@coolworx pompadours and leather dont die.
6:29 good luck with that.
Unless we specifically tinker with our genes, in which case we're still not "taking our genome out of the drivers seat", but merely changing the mission of the driver. We are our genes.
A detailed outline already exists of how a Game B society needs to be organised so that 'The Good' self-organizes thereafter. It is the same way that evolution has organized societies of self-producing molecular processes, of cells, and of organisms. Google "The Self-Organizing Society: A Grower's guide".
Refrigerator example is so nonsense. Based on this logic all consumer products should be in a "race to the bottom" to the shortest lived. Here in reality there is a mixture of durability, beauty, complexity, and PRICE for the average fridge.
No Bret Weinstein, *Humor is best defined by experience of the unexpected* This is the phenomenon we see at play in infants when parents play hide and seek and it is the the same phenomenon that stokes laughter in adults at crass humor. In the latter the culture has created the expectation.
9:10 Souns like what's being done to white farmers in South Africa.
Any white person still in SA, is a fucking idiot.
Comeuppance may or may not be justified, but the fact that it was on the rise has been evident for years.
+Noah Namey Agreed. I think they're trying to sell their holdings, but who's gonna buy with the possibility of getting it for free. What they should do is transfer ownership of their holdings to a trust or corporation, rent it for whatever money they can get, and then move out. Once the situation stabilises, they can sell. In the meanwhile, move to an white-majority country IF there are any by the time that happens.
We're the page's stuck together when you learned about voting. lol love the chat
57:46: "Oh, hi Bret!"
24:18 i tend 2 agree with Eric Weinstein, we r both fear and hope, just keep them in the right order- first scare me, then show me hope. 1 could argue that u have to deploy both, or at least that would be more effective 2 trigger large scale brain activity. More challenging would b optimizing that activity. Planning it?
im pretty sure i heard his brother eric weinstein in the audience.
Timestamp?
Goddamn that interviewer is great.
Appreciated!
Damn, Fonzie's worked hard lately to put the "cool" in intellectual matters it seems!
Bret's ideas might be good, why doesn't he get the stuff published as a peer reviewed article?
By 8:00-9:17 I am convinced that Bret Weinstein would make a STAR witness for the defense of....maybe even a bank robber: we are "built" [by who] , essentially to steal.
Great chat. Also, the peaks and valleys Bret spoke of are present in that guy's hairdo..
21:00
"We de-humanise the other[?] population in order to justify that transfer." 9:20
We stole their diamonds, Bret? Is that what you want to say? We stole their diamonds?
9:00 That's not actually an entirely correct notion of zero sum: the loss to one population and the gain by the other population do not need to be numerically equivalent. We even have a name for this when the effect goes both ways at the same time: trade.
That Luke is a cutie. But how can he be wearing a leather coat, a hoodie and a shirt indoors under hot lights? He must be roasting.
Social media won't allow us to recognize problems?
44:10
Did anyone else think of Nietzsche?
Not only is God dead, but so is Darwin...
So now we not only need to recraft our morals, but also our very essence that lead to those morals?
Call me pessimistic.
Dear Dr. StrangeLove,
.... yeah, I used to think the cold war was over (1:05:52) , too,
but that was before the Manchurian Candidate.
sol rayz it reminds me of the zombie / bioshock / fall out fantasy. Everyone thinks they will be among the surviving few and that the new world will at least be more interesting than their desk job.
Oh my God can you imagine if Microsoft was in charge of coding the mind backup software??
Bret is wrong about bitcoin. Bitcoin is about rebooting the cultural operating system, he probably views it as a libertarian digital gold. #BitcoinSV
Trying to win at life is primitive.
How enlightened, enjoy being replaced by the people who still want to win.
you win at life by reproducing, that's why and how evolution works.
Hmm yeah, not just the reproduction but the ability to care for offspring, typically through social power.
A good start would be veganism to help the future.
1:05:00 Audience member is the kind of person who thinks that he can speculate about a _seriously_ unknowable number by tossing out several nearby figures ("maybe 30 percent, maybe 40 percent") as if that improves his probabilistic crapshoot one iota. Ouch for him.
52:00 I can't entirely agree with Bret on the left-right common purpose. Even the simple notion of eliminating structural bias runs aground on the gay rights issue, once you include the evangelical right in the conversation. People who run around saying "marriage is a bond between a man and a woman" are not in it for structural equality across the board-no, that's a flat-out call for a privileged social structure based on a conservative value system.
I know, we could teach everyone about a Tech Heaven (hope) and a population Hell (fear). Our ancestors did keep these ideas integrated within their life, somehow.....and the road to either end was never always agreed upon. Hmmmmm
Basic Income for all (plus detailed rules for parents to receive also basic income on behalf of their children till perhaps till age of 12 or 14 of perhaps half the general basic income), basic income for all who have done Basic Service of 12-24 month (esp. disaster relief) for all young man and women (seniors can participate as voluntieers), plus rules to prohibit all investments and projects which hurt ecology; - basic income is the minimum income - the max. income is n times the minimum (to be decided by public referendum)... live modest ... etc.
"That's not possible." ruclips.net/video/nOMLdefHGA8/видео.html. Actually, human beings have already found ways to divert human beings towards purposes higher and more interesting than what evolution would have us serve: there have been and continue to be individual human beings who have devoted their lives to purposes other than creating offspring . . . religious figures, parents who adopt, professional journalists, writers, scientists, etc., etc., who prioritize for their discoveries and contributions to their fields over building a family . . . . of course such a thing is possible. We see it every day.
I like Bret, but I was disappointed on how ignorant he is on nuclear energy but seems to hold some ideas on the dangers of nuclear energy. Listening to nuclear physicist and expert s in the field (from i.e. ted-talks) they give a better understanding. Nuclear energy is part of a solution for a better environment, not a danger for our planet or the creatures in it...
Refrigerator As A Service?
Not really sure how that would be swallowed.
59:27
Put us all in danger?
Heh.... I think Hillary would be more dangerous in regards to Russia/N.Korea/Iran.
I don't agree with the basic argument that we need to do something different to make the future bright. In my opinion humanity is on a track that leads to just more prosperity for all. Why do I say that?
a) I buy Steven Pinker's arguments in "Enlightenment Now" that there is just no measurable decrease in progress. In other words objective measurements show that progress is still taking place.
b) There is good reasons to think that, using today's technology, the world can sustain maybe 10 billion people. We are not using up the resources of the earth, that's a myth.
c) There is also good reason the think that population growth will not carry on forever. Without the world running out of resources, the world population will probably not grow beyond 10 billion.
I know Brett reckons my arguments are rationalizations. You're welcome to think so Brett, it's not something that can be proofed true or false. I don't think I'm rationalizing, I really believe humanity is on track for a significantly better future. It will also be better for all of nature too, we are starting to create stuff without hurting the environment.
Nothing but hope in those statements. There's not a single thing going on right now that convinces me you are correct. People being lifted out of poverty every year is an artifact of the oil age, but probably cannot last. Hardly anyone considers how industrial farming practices are destroying soils---something that has brought down a few civilizations in the past.
Yes but in the future, we won't need an environment if we have lab-grown food. That will lead to even more humans, and based on the rat experiments, we can only expect a major war that will wipe out most of humanity. And the cause of that war? POLITICS, the scourge of humanity.
Trying to win is primitive.
trying to win is inevitable until its not possible, at least.
Great talk. I like professor as much as anyone sane but he is SOOO wrong about a few things - like Mars- i cant help but clarify a few things for him. And these clarifications will be net positive. Its a shame i cant properly drill this to him personally, but ill do my best here on youtube comments...
First of all, professor... Mars is a beautiful, amazing, magnificent place that lives and breathes and changes all the time.
Of course there are people like you that dont see it, but there are many others who do see its true beauty, even Red as it is.
So, people like you that dont see the incredible brethtaking beauty and usefulness of such a place will simply not go there.
But others, like myself, will. Lets not jump to assumptions that personal subjective opinion or lack of vision is somehow an objective reality professor, shall we?
There is so much amazing things to see and witness on Mars it can break a humans heart thousand times over.
You just dont see it, you havent been shown what we have been shown. By some who are among the best human race produced.
Second of all, we wont go to Mars to just establish a second earth like society, especially not the current one. We will go there to get changed ourselves. We will go there to get improved. We will go there to learn. All of that, every single second of it will be valuable for whole humanity. - Just like the fact we put people on the Moon was and still is. Its not just the technological advancements we will gain, but the very fact we are there will change the global human psyche paradigm - just like the Moon landings did.
One moment we were on this two dimensional board of finite resources frozen in front of cold war horror becoming nuclear... the other we all saw we are on this unique little blue ball, all together, suspended in a light beam. Humanity was changed. And so it shall be again.
Whatever long term benefits the attempts of terraformation will bring will be... long term, eh?
Havent you just said something about how we dont value the long term benefits but short term ones? Look who is talking! ;)
Gotcha.
As for that, well... the fact of the matter is we are evolving this capability to value the long term more and more. We have been evolving in that direction as long as we existed as human beings, probably even sooner. Because there cant be any cooperation without understanding the long term benefits and value, and without cooperation there is no species, no race, society, culture... there is no humanity as we are. We just havent got to the place where our immediate short term necessities and requirements are balanced with the long term ones. But we will get there.
You know where? Thats right. On Red Mars professor.
And if we get good at it, we might even make it Green, and then maybe even Blue.
edit:
Just to be crystal clear, i agree with your notion that utopias are the worst and all they cause is their opposite extremes. What im saying above has nothing to do with any such thing.
Lets clarify Mars shall we, no natural water source, just getting to Mars will be extremely costly if we ever get there, building a natural habitat so that it will be habitable by a colony of humans is practically impossible when we couldn't even secure earth and doing the much simpler things that needed to be done like our broken down infrastructure, what makes you think we are able to colonize Mars when we can't even build infrastructure and secure our nuclear reactors for the 21st century? What Bret meant if you listen closely and extrapolate a little, is to fix the goddamn place we live in before thinking about the impossible, it's much easier to do what is within our grasp.
There's a pipe dream if I ever heard it.
12:00 Yes, there's always been a free-rider problem on the denialist right: they certainly don't plan to forfeit any personal claim should their lethargy and bile someday down the road prove incorrect and badly founded. But I see the problem of uncertainty as being fundamentally more central: our technology is amazing, and we fundamentally don't know if it's up to the challenge or not, and in which areas, with what exceptions. The growth in RUclips today anticipates the growth in global knowledge dissemination tomorrow. Soon we'll have _billions_ of smart people thinking about the future in relatively sophisticated ways. Both the irresistible force and the immovable rock are incredibly hard to predict, even over the course of single human generation.
LOL Your political observations are emasculated Leftist nonsense. Free-riding is a problem on the right? Are you insane? The entire Left's politics are based on parasitism.
How do we get people to wake up and realize we have these problems? Well, I don't know that we can wake up enough people when there are so many who continue to believe in a literal imminent apocalypses as predicted by certain scriptures. How does one convince those who are eagerly awaiting the destruction of the planet, who believe that god is the one responsible for that destruction, and that we deserve to be punished, that we should work to hold back such an event?
Why so many zippers host dude? It's a bit distracting, layers are haute, but at the same time not apropro in this sitch. Thanks!
10:26
"Seven and a half billion people is a large number of people to inhabit this planet..."
There are about 28,000,000 square feet in a square mile.
The United State[singular] of TEXAS ALONE is 268,000 square miles.
Bret. Bret?
Seven and a half billion people is ABSOLUTELY NOT "a lot of people" to inhabit this planet....unless you have something in mind, do you?
16 min. Katrina, local problem, unconvincing. Fukushima, fair enough. Spewing radiation in an unlimited way could do us in.
The elephant in the room is overpopulation.
Bret: Did you say "Gender Led".
hahahahaha
31:50
I heard gender too
P.S. Cool Sweet Tooth picture
Totally sounded like "gender". Dude acts like he doesn't have a horrid accent.
British.
9:30 This dehumanization narrative is actually too simple. Most of us don't really mind taking what we want on the basis that might makes right. But it does make the fingers of the person standing next to us creep toward his or her scabbard. So what dehumanization amounts to is a sly way to say "present company excluded" so you don't become the next exciting demonstration that there's no honour among thieves. We all humans; them not so much. Otherwise might makes right quickly degenerates into last man standing (too bad no man is an island).
Why can't that guy doing the intro talk like a normal human?
Because I am 50% robot.
Luke Robert Mason
I was also annoyed during the intro. Not as an insult, but the microphones seem to really pick up each "ch" sound like in "TRap" and "fuTURE". The content/delivery of the intro is great, I just think the mics had a lot contrast or something.
notice the anti 'nation state" bs from the MI6 agent interviewer
Why does the interviewer have a speech impediment?
It's called a British accent.
this is very unsubstantive. i think only people who dont read books think this stuff is in any way a valuable way to spend your time. couldnt even get through it. the first hour could have been compressed into like 15 mins easily.
Kevin Ward if your only goal is to learn something specifically and efficiently, then yes, of course reading a book by yourself is the best way. I dont know if there’s a need to put these two mediums against each other.
@46:50 < The interviewer should've pointed-out that you probably could find a willing participant in the the terminally ill & very old to be willing to have their mind uploaded to a machine.
Bret sounds like he's mixing traditional utopian ideas with Malthusianism. He speaks of game theory but I'm not getting a sense he actually applies it equally or even understands general economic theory. He seems to ignore entirely the economics of scarcity and what really happens with business in terms of long term planning. How the price system address scarcity. Etc.
His constant "we" this and that is creepy and collectivist. There aren't "we"s. There are individuals. This talk of changing economic paradigms is pure ignorance. Short term does not always overwhelm the long term. As stages of production lengthen so generally does the length of attention paid. Business pay far more attention to the long term than governments. He likes to talk game theory but ignores it's application to government and market systems.