136 - WWIII vs the Machines | Demetri Kofinas

✨ DEBRIEF ✨ | Unpacking the Episode: https://shows.banklesshq.com/p/debrief-demetri ------ Demetri Kofinas is a digital entrepreneur and host of the Hidden Forces Podcast, one of our favorites. Demetri has a broad perspective on geopolitics, which we explore as we discuss the probability of a World War 3, diplomacy among superpowers, and surviving the rise of the machines. Have we lost the ability to solve hard problems as a species? ------ 📣 ConsenSys | Mint a Merge NFT! https://bankless.cc/themerge ------ 🚀 SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER: https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/ 🎙️ SUBSCRIBE TO PODCAST: http://podcast.banklesshq.com/ ------ BANKLESS SPONSOR TOOLS: 🚀 ROCKET POOL | ETH STAKING https://bankless.cc/RocketPool ⚖️ ARBITRUM | SCALING ETHEREUM https://bankless.cc/Arbitrum ❎ ACROSS | BRIDGE TO LAYER 2 https://bankless.cc/Across 🦁 BRAVE | THE BROWSER NATIVE WALLET https://bankless.cc/Brave 🌴 MAKER DAO | DECENTRALIZED LENDING https://bankless.cc/MakerDAO 🔐 LEDGER | SECURE STAKING https://bankless.cc/Ledger ------ Topics Covered: 0:00 Intro - Demetri Kofinas 6:30 Hidden Forces 10:26 Towards Chaos 18:00 Cyclical Powers 23:15 Taiwan Case Study 28:30 Trusting Institutions 31:23 State Sovereignty 37:50 Military Power & US Politics 45:00 Liminal Warfare 51:00 Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us 1:00:35 Chinese Algorithms 1:06:15 Unity, Diversity, Identity 1:12:05 Layer Zero Social Values 1:20:05 Losing Our Humanity 1:25:00 Cycling through Chaos 1:28:40 Improving Systems 1:37:30 Closing ------ Resources: Demetri on Twitter https://twitter.com/kofinas?s=20&t=cNy4k855qT6O3xHtEC6xZw https://twitter.com/kofinas?s=20&t=cNy4k855qT6O3xHtEC6xZw Hidden Forces https://hiddenforces.io/ Theories of War with David Kilcullen https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/david-kilcullen-national-emergency/ Episode 28 - Industrial Society and its Future https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/demetri-kofinas-industrial-society-and-its-future/ Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ Brave New World https://www.amazon.com/Brave-New-World-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060850523 The Fourth Turning https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-American-Prophecy-Rendezvous/dp/0767900464 ------ Hidden Forces Episodes: Industrial Society and its Future https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/demetri-kofinas-industrial-society-and-its-future/ Encryption and the Will to Power https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/demetri-kofinas-industrial-society-and-its-future/ Surveillance Capitalism with Sohshana Zuboff https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/surveillance-capitalism-shoshana-zuboff/ Complex Systems with David Weinberger https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/david-weinberger-ai-prediction/ The Age of AI with Eric Schmidt & Dan Huttenlocher https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/eric-schmidt-ai-human-future-national-security/ Predicting the Future with Tim O'Reilly https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/tim-oreilly-predict-the-future/ Kill Chain with Chris Brose https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/kill-chain-chris-brose-anduril-2/ American Defense with Elbridge Colby https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/elbridge-colby-american-defense-age-of-great-power-conflict/ Preparing for Cyber Attacks with Chris Painter https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/russian-cyber-attacks-chris-painter/ ----- Not financial or tax advice. This channel is strictly educational and is not investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any assets or to make any financial decisions. This video is not tax advice. Talk to your accountant. Do your own research.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:07Ryan Sean Adams?

  Welcome to Bankless, where we explore the frontier of internet money and internet finance. This is how to get started, how to get better, and how to front-run the opportunity. This is Ryan Sean Adams. I'm here with David Hoffman, and we're here to help you become more bankless. Guys, great episode today.

• 0:22David Hoffman?

  Really good.

• 0:22Ryan Sean Adams?

  World War III versus the machines. That's the title of this episode. Those are two of the topics we unpack in this episode. It's a super ambitious episode, but we have Demetri Kofinas, who is a fellow podcaster, host of the Hidden Forces Podcast, also an aggregator like David and I. Does a lot of things about a lot of things because he talks to a lot of people. So he's a perfect guest to have this conversation with. A few takeaways for you on today's episode. Number one, what's the probability of World War III? I know you're wondering. So are we. We ask that question. We get into the details. Number two, should the US actually fight China over Taiwan? What would that even look like? Number three, we get into a discussion about the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. Did the Unabomber actually predict the future? He had some prescient things to say about

• 1:07Ryan Sean Adams?

  it, certainly. Number four, will the US survive the rise of the machines? A lot of conversation about AI, the machines, how they are taking over. Number five, the ultimate question, I think, have we as a society lost the ability to solve hard problems? Or can we find it within ourselves to solve the hard problems that confront this decade and the generation that we're in? David, really cool conversation. I think we just talked about a lot of things that were in our hearts, on our minds, with a fellow podcaster, got into some heavy subjects. But Dimitri is an individual who I think likes to think in the same way we do, which is like, if we got something heavy to talk about, let's just dive into it. And it'll make us feel better about the subject when we can actually

• 1:52Ryan Sean Adams?

  get into the gritty details and see if there's a way to solve it.

• 1:54David Hoffman?

  Specifically with another podcaster, because podcasters, maybe I'm just gonna chill our own class type here. But in order to be a good podcaster, you have to think at a kind of a meta level, because you know, it takes people that can like zoom out very, Very broadly to talk about people like deep down at the protocol level and then all the way zoom back out to the macro and talk about like social stuff. And so like Dimitri does the same thing on his hidden forces. He goes and talks about the problems of ETF investing on the stock market and cross references that with like the social dynamics of the United States. And so there's podcasters do.

• 2:30Ryan Sean Adams?

  It's all related.

• 2:31David Hoffman?

  It's all related, but it's like podcasters that are really the people like stitching these conversations together and zooming out so far broadly that they are actually able to link very distant parts about this world. And so I really wanted to do this episode with Dimitri is like, what happens when we get like a third, another podcaster as a guest and like, how meta can we get? And I really enjoyed the conversation that came out of it. And so the idea here was to ask some very basic questions that everyone kind of knows should be asked, but doesn't really know how to ask or who to ask, or even how to take seriously the question. The question like, what is the probability of World War III? What is that stage?

• 3:11David Hoffman?

  What would be the relevant like actors and players and hidden forces to name the name of his podcast that would play in this role? And we kind of let the conversation go from there. Of course, we talk about China and the United States and Taiwan, but it quickly zooms out and gets a little bit more meta to talk about the forces that are making some of these huge geopolitical forces collide with each other. Why are we on this collision course? What about today's society is making this reality happen? And what do we do about it? And it gets back down to the social layer of the domestic US politics, who we are as a people and who we are as a society really, really quickly. And I really just appreciated this episode with Dimitri.

• 3:53Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yeah, it's a really fun episode to do. And certainly, by the way, for bankless subscribers, stick around after the show where David and I do the debrief. That is the episode after the episode.

• 4:02David Hoffman?

  Got some thoughts.

• 4:03Ryan Sean Adams?

  Some of my favorite conversations happen in the debrief where David and I just take a breath, digest, give our unfiltered, raw thoughts right after the episode we just recorded. And if you want to become a bankless premium member, there's a link in the show notes to go do that. So you can listen to the debrief today. Guys, we're going to get right to the conversation with Dimitri, but before we do, we want to thank the sponsors that made this episode possible.

• 4:27David Hoffman?

  The Layer 2 era is upon us. Ethereum's Layer 2 ecosystem is growing every day, and we need Layer 2 bridges to be fast and efficient in order to live a Layer 2 life. Across is the fastest, cheapest, and most secure cross-chain bridge. With Across, you don't have to worry about high fees or long wait times. Assets are bridged and available for use almost instantaneously. Across's bridges are powered by Ooma's Optimistic Oracle to securely transfer tokens between Layer 2s and Ethereum. Across is critical ecosystem infrastructure, and Across V2 has just launched. Their new version focuses on higher capital efficiency, Layer 2 to Layer 2 transfers, and a brand-new chain with Polygon, all while prioritizing high security and low fees. You can be a part of Across's story by joining their Discord and using Across for all of your Layer 2 transferring needs. So go to across.to

• 5:11David Hoffman?

  to quickly and securely bridge your assets between Ethereum, Optimism, Polygon, Arbitrum, or Boba Networks. Arbitrum is an Ethereum Layer 2 scaling solution that is going to completely change how we use DeFi and NFTs. Some of the coolest new NFT collections have chosen Arbitrum as their home, while DeFi protocols continue to see increased liquidity and usage. You can now bridge straight into Arbitrum for more than 10 different exchanges, including Finance, FTX, Huobi, and Crypto.com. Once on Arbitrum, you'll enjoy fast transactions with cheap fees, allowing you to explore new frontiers of the crypto universe. New to Arbitrum, for a limited time, you can get Arbitrum NFTs, designed by the famous artists Ratwell and Sugoi, for joining the Arbitrum Odyssey. The Odyssey is an eight-week-long event where you complete on-chain activities and receive a free NFT as a reward. Find out more by visiting the Discord

• 5:55David Hoffman?

  at discord.gg/Arbitrum. You can also bridge your assets to Arbitrum at bridge.arbitrum.io and access all of Arbitrum's apps at portal.arbitrum-one in order to experience DeFi and NFTs the way it was always meant to be: fast, cheap, secure, and fiction-free. The Brave Browser is the user-first browser for the Web3 internet with over 60 million monthly active users. And inside the Brave Browser, you'll find the Brave Wallet, the secure, multi-chain crypto wallet built right into the browser. Web3 is freedom from big tech and Wall Street. More control and better privacy, but there's a weak point in Web3: your crypto wallet. And most crypto wallets are browser extensions, which can easily be spoofed. But the Brave Wallet is different. No extensions are required, which gives Brave Browser an extra level of security.

• 6:37David Hoffman?

  Versus other wallets. Brave Wallet is your secure passport for the possibilities of Web3 and supports multiple chains, including Ethereum and Solana. You can even buy crypto directly inside the wallet with Ramp. And of course, you can store, send, and swap your crypto assets, manage your NFTs, and connect to other wallets and DeFi apps. So whether you're new to crypto or you're a seasoned pro, it's time to ditch those risky extensions and it's time to switch to the Brave Wallet. Download Brave at brave.com/bankless and click the wallet icon to get started.

• 7:03Ryan Sean Adams?

  Bankless Nation, we are super excited to introduce you once again to our friend, Dimitri Kofinas. He is the host of the Hidden Forces Podcast. Hidden Forces is one of David and myself, one of our favorite podcasts out there. It's kind of like, you know, those cities have sister cities in a different country. I feel very much like Hidden Forces is a sister podcast to the Bankless Podcast. And Dimitri has just a fantastic way of synthesizing a lot of different information across a lot of different subject matters. Today, we're talking about power. We're talking about geopolitics, its effect on macro. We're asking some big questions that have been in the back of my mind, in the back of David's mind, and I think probably,

• 7:44Ryan Sean Adams?

  listener, in the back of your mind as well. Some of these questions were afraid to surface in other channels, but we're going to ask Dimitri about them today. Dimitri, welcome back to Bankless. How are you doing today?

• 7:55Speaker 02

  I'm doing great, guys. Thank you. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, David, for having me on.

• 7:58David Hoffman?

  Dimitri, the name of your podcast is Hidden Forces. Can you talk about that name and kind of the subject matter of your podcast and why you decided to call your podcast Hidden Forces?

• 8:08Speaker 02

  That's a good question. I think it really began with a philosophy around the knowability of truth, the knowability of reality, and that what we experience as reality is really perception, and that there are these, quote, "hidden forces" that are at the bottom of the ontological world that define what we view as reality, but we can never actually know those things with absolute certainty. And so we're always trying to get deeper down, closer to the bottom of the vector, to understand as well as we can what truth is, so that we can develop models that are... More predictive of reality, more predictive of the future.

• 8:49Speaker 02

  So it combines both the practical elements that are important to investors and also just kind of the philosophical ideas that have always interested me as a kid.

• 8:59Ryan Sean Adams?

  I think one of those hidden forces we've been kind of unpacking lately on Bankless have been the hidden forces around macro, which drives macro markets. And as we've been digging into kind of some of the macro experts, it has surfaced that one of the biggest hidden forces, I guess, behind macro as a hidden force in and of itself is geopolitics. I think we want to talk about that a little bit today. And I got to tell you, as we like, I guess we're two years into this crazy decade already, and it feels a lot different than the previous decade. And, you know, I think it feels a lot more uncertain, a lot more chaotic. And the potential for conflict seems to have escalated.

• 9:41Ryan Sean Adams?

  And I can't separate, Dimitri, whether this is just sort of a internal gut feeling I have, or it's like the books that I've been reading, or the headspace that I'm in. But I think it's kind of shared with a lot of people, like this deep feeling of unsettlement. What's going to happen next, we're not too sure. I want to ask you about the stage and kind of get this question top of mind, because it feels like maybe we are headed closer towards some sort of a global conflict. Maybe we'll start there. Why do you think everyone feels this feeling of unsettlement, this feeling in the air like conflict could be in the future?

• 10:19Speaker 02

  It's a great question. I think a big part of all of this is that the world feels increasingly out of control. You know, I don't know how old you guys are, but the world I grew up in, I'm born in 1981, the world I grew up in, which was really the 1990s, all of that seemed settled. It was the unipolar moment and everyone was pretty much on board. There were very few countries that weren't and they weren't really deemed insignificant or we seemed to have inexhaustible resources to deal with those one-off cases of Iran or North Korea or whatever, or Iraq to begin. That's really how we started the post-Cold War period. It was Iraq went rogue, we mustered an entire international coalition and we dealt with it. And so there was a sense

• 11:03Speaker 02

  of unity, a sense of unity of purpose. Everyone was more or less on board with the international institutions and it was blue skies all the way. And I think that we've come to a place now, which I think was pretty much made absolutely clear politically. Geopolitically, I think the moment was the invasion of Georgia by Russia in 2008, but politically, I think it was really with the election of Donald Trump and that really changed the tenor and also US-China relations. And of course, these are the two biggest, most powerful economies and military powers in the world. So I think that the recognition of all the uncertainty and the sense of instability, particularly in the US, because the Chinese political system

• 11:48Speaker 02

  is at least externally so stable and things here are so unstable, that I think that is what is making us all feel the sense of, well, what's going to be the next shoe to drop? Because it's just been one shoe after the other, after the other. And American politics, in particular, sort of feeds off of that instability because both parties are able to use it in order to further their own political agendas, which is really sad.

• 12:12David Hoffman?

  Dimitri, in your answer just now, you gave off a list of things, right? Like a list of sources of chaos or symptoms of chaos in the world. And my mind kind of just goes to the model of a binary star system versus a trinary star system. And a binary star system is famously like, stable, like these two stars just rotate and they just don't change. But then sometimes they'll run into a third star and then things get extremely chaotic and eventually one star gets ejected. And like, this is also part of the metaphor of the three-body problem, right? This is that book where there's just a random set of parameters that are just very chaotic and they become chaotic until a moment happens and then they stabilize again. And I'm like, this is kind of my model for, as a child of

• 12:55David Hoffman?

  the 90s, you know, I only interpreted that stability for so long. But things have been more seemingly more and more chaotic and this rate of chaos also seems to be accelerating. And I'm wondering if we can just kind of run through the list of all of like the different inputs that seem to be injecting instability into the like global world order. You know, once upon a time, we had this superpower, the American superpower that seemed to be just wholly dominant and that seems to have gone out the door. We had the election of Donald Trump. We have the rise of social media. We have the rise of authoritarianism in China. I'm wondering if just like you can think of the biggest sources of just like chaos that has disrupted what was once an equilibrium in this world.

• 13:40Speaker 02

  It's a great observation and it also holds some promise because historically, yes, unipolarity theoretically, though, maybe the US is the only real case of, it's certainly the only case of global unipolarity. But bipolarity is more stable than multipolarity. And so I think that does capture one of my concerns, which is that we still haven't reached a new state of equilibrium, which presumably will be a bipolar world. And so between now and when we get there, there's just an enormous amount of uncertainty.

• 14:15Ryan Sean Adams?

  And Dimitri, by bipolar world, do you mean China and the US being sort of the two stars in the star system?

• 14:20Speaker 02

  Exactly. But I think your question, David, just to make sure I follow it correctly, was what are some sources of instability? Was that your question? Yeah. Well, I think about this quite a bit in terms of like I wanted to, you know, going back now a year, I wanted to do episodes focused on different either potential conflict areas or frozen conflict areas. And I think those areas, whether it's Cyprus, whether it's Greece-Turkey, whether it's Kashmir, whether it's the 49th parallel, Nagorno-Karabakh, we saw that recently flare up. These areas become more unstable in the kind of world that we're talking about because they're like stress points. So I think there are clearly, and of course Taiwan, it's not a frozen conflict, but it's

• 15:03Speaker 02

  a uniquely unstable equilibrium because China and the Chinese governing elites have been very clear about their sense of ownership over that and over Taiwan and that it's a non-negotiable issue, an existential issue for them. And clearly there isn't the same level of consensus in the United States. I mean, so that's the other thing that's so interesting about all this stuff. It's so intangible, but especially for a country like China, but the US does this too. So much of what happens on the international stage is actually, it's not the application of force, but it's the installation and cultivation of norms.

• 15:48Speaker 02

  And so for the Chinese, I think, again, I'm not an expert on this, but I think it is clear to me that they put a premium on this kind of thing and they do cherish stability. And so their ideal with Taiwan has been to actually try and slowly, for lack of a better word, cook the situation so that the norms change, which is why the visit with Pelosi, while destabilizing, I think actually probably benefited China because there was no strategic purpose to the mission on the part of the United States, but allowed the Chinese to engage in fire exercises and to surround the island in ways that they hadn't up until this point. Escalating their desires. Escalating, exactly.

• 16:31Speaker 02

  So, I mean, for me, there are specific parts of the world that are more unstable than others. I think also it changes the security dynamic in Europe, as we know, which all of these things, I think, will ultimately lead to a more stable world, but they increase instability in the short term.

• 16:46Ryan Sean Adams?

  Also, I think we'll probably return to some of the other factors at play in this kind of chaotic world, but let's continue on that line of conversation of like US and China. I read Ray Dalio's book not too long ago, I think David, you read it too, it's called The Changing World Order, and he makes the observation, it's basically a list that kind of chronicles different world orders throughout history, whether it's like Dutch or British or different Chinese dynasties and that sort of thing. And he talks about kind of the cycle of power. They hit their peak and then they crescendent downward and it's, there's always a cycle, right? It's like none of these empires last forever. And he makes the observation in his book that the US appears to be, from a list of relative metrics, on the decline relative to China, on the incline.

• 17:31Ryan Sean Adams?

  I don't know if you agree with that, but if you take his thesis and you continue that forward, he also makes the observation that something like Of the last six times a reigning power declined relative to a rising power, there was conflict between the rising power and the reigning power, four out of the six times. So four out of the six times, there have been some cases where that transition, that torch was handed off gracefully. You know, you might think of like, kind of the torch being handed off from like, the British Empire or something to the American Empire, like that was,

• 18:05Speaker 02

  Post World War II.

• 18:06Ryan Sean Adams?

  I don't know. I don't know what you consider that, but there wasn't war between the British and the Americans again. But this is the prospect, right? And so like, you read books like this, and then you talk about kind of the, what I would call maybe like a conflict of visions in the way the two societies are organized right now, which is, you know, America has its republican democracy, sort of, you know, a classically liberal values, at least, you know, it's best it purports to have these things. And China is very clearly not that, much more top-down control, authoritarian, you might say, totalitarian, others would say, you know, state surveillance, state kind of managing things. That's very important and it appears culturally important to many members of the society, too. So you take that backdrop and then you kind of think about the chaos of the decade

• 18:49Ryan Sean Adams?

  and you're wondering yourself, is there going to be a World War III in my lifetime? Like, is that, is that an actual threat now, this decade? I'm gonna tell you, I wasn't thinking about that in the 90s, when I was growing up, right? And maybe this is past the Cold War. I know like earlier generations were doing the duck and cover thing in their classrooms because of nuclear holocaust, Cold War stuff, Russia and the US. But it feels weird for our generation now, as we've moved into adulthood, to be facing a similar prospect of, wow, is there the potential of a World War III? Do you think this is all like doom porn? Or do you think that this is a real concern that like, we need to be cautious of?

• 19:34Ryan Sean Adams?

  And what do we do about this?

• 19:35Speaker 02

  Yeah, I think it's a real concern, obviously, that we need to be cautious of. When you were talking, I was thinking about the different interest groups that are involved in. Making policy and what those different interest groups want. And traditionally, corporations, multinationalist corporate America, et cetera, have wanted stability. And many corporations, many corporate leaders, founders, et cetera, supported Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. And a lot of those people support the Chinese Communist Party. They would rather just see a stable world. And also, a lot of these folks, a lot of these tech titans, for example, they don't necessarily, again, when you're so well, the truth is that like,

• 20:18Speaker 02

  for a lot of these guys, especially as the concentration of wealth has gotten tighter and tighter, what's in the best interest of the people that are in a position to make policy doesn't necessarily jive with what is in the best interest of ordinary people. And because we've gotten to this place in American society today where there's such an extreme distribution of wealth and income, the danger is that left unchecked, this kind of corporate power, for lack of a better word, and in cahoots with government just basically folds and either develops a system that is much more similar to the Chinese model. And maybe we don't go into war or we have kind of just proxy wars that don't mean much.

• 21:00Speaker 02

  Or that we elect populist forces in the US, elect a very braggadocious, a kind of really a powerful populist figure, and that that person leads the US into a destructive war. What we really want is we want, as a democratic liberal society, to become very clear on what's important to us. And to actually craft policies that take moderate risks, but know kind of what hill we're willing to die on. So like, the issue of Taiwan is a good example because you have really smart people, of some of whom have been on the podcast before, like Elbridge Colby, who put forward very compelling cases for why the US should draw a line in the sand when it comes to Taiwan.

• 21:43Speaker 02

  Similarly, there are some other people who put forward compelling reasons for why we shouldn't and why the US shouldn't expect that it should be able to maintain some level of influence over Asia, regional influence, that, in other words, the Chinese, given their size and given their ambitions, should be expected to have regional hegemony over Asia. I don't know what the answer is there, and I don't even know if there is one "right" answer, because I think the right answer also depends on what people are willing to do. And because of where we are politically in the United States, I've said this many times, I've said it to you guys too, I think the single biggest risk that we face, and the biggest challenge that we face, is not internationally, it's not international, it's

• 22:24Speaker 02

  domestic. We're in this period of time in our society, and societies go through this, they go through these kind of cycles, where we're in a process of undoing and remaking our own society, and becoming clear on what's important, who we are. Identity is a big thing that's going on in our society today, and it's exacerbated by the technological forces, which are changing in many ways what it means to even be a human being. You know, I think people really are trying to understand what that means to live a human life in this world, where we spend more and more of our time intermediated between screens, and also where so much of our interaction is intermediated by technologies that steer us in any particular

• 23:04Speaker 02

  direction, interpret the data for us. And so, we're really in this kind of fog of war. In addition to the larger "World War III" spectrum that we may be dealing with, we're also dealing with an information war, which I think is actually primary, because it risks putting us in a really dangerous place. Because, again, understanding everything we just talked about with respect to politics and the uncertainty of American politics, if you're Chinese, or if you're Russian, you're looking out at America, it can look pretty scary. We're still the biggest dog in the kennel, you know, we have the largest military in the world, at least the most powerful military in the world. And we fought many wars. We know how to fight.

• 23:49Speaker 02

  And America is a very militaristic society. So if we don't get our act together politically, America could itself be the biggest threat for global peace.

• 24:00Ryan Sean Adams?

  Do you mean like America could actually be the bad guys? Like, that could be a real little threat vector.

• 24:04Speaker 02

  Yeah, dude, totally. Well, so oftentimes, people act. I mean, I don't know of any case where any country thinks that it's not righteous. The Nazis thought they were acting righteously. They felt deeply aggrieved by the terms of the peace after Versailles. And they felt entitled, not just as a result of what they felt they had lost, and aggrieved against the democratic republic that they overthrew, but also that they were the master race. I mean, these are, these are like deeply held beliefs. And the United States has a tradition of exceptionalism. So I don't see any reason to believe that the United States could not elect a government that would speak to that exceptionalism. And that's a real concern.

• 24:48David Hoffman?

  I think to tie a few threads together that you just articulated, everyone kind of understands that there, well, there's absolutely like national powers that have emerged, like Russia just invaded a country. The first kinetic war in Europe. China is now showing force around Taiwan. And so, you know, paying attention to these things, I think the American populace is like, okay, like, there are some really hard questions that are on the table that we have to answer right now. And whether or not, I think when you said, you know, America needs to, you know, accept some moderate risks, I think my interpretation of what that meant was like, okay, we need to actually plant a flag in the ground and say, hey, we will defend Taiwan, or no, we won't. But we need to make that decision and accept that risk of it being the wrong decision, but lead and execute on that.

• 25:32David Hoffman?

  And I think a lot of Americans are looking at these looming decisions that must be made about the future state of the globe and the powers that control it. And then we're looking internally and being like, Wow, we just effed up COVID-19 so hard, we couldn't even like manage our own country. And like, wow, the 2016 election like has started to implode America internally. And so we're looking externally at these massive looming clouds of decisions that must be made. And we can't even like help ourselves and coordinate ourselves. And I think that's starting to trigger a lot of fear internally. It's like, okay, the next, if COVID-19 was worse than it actually was, it would have been disastrous. And so like, throw one more like match into the pile.

• 26:17David Hoffman?

  And I think a lot of Americans would say like, yo, we couldn't deal with that. We couldn't do that. Is that a fair take?

• 26:22Speaker 02

  When you say we can't do that, we couldn't do that, we can't deal with that.

• 26:25David Hoffman?

  We can't coordinate around a solution and like look more than just like our own infighting and left-first right warfare and like all this tribalism that we've had.

• 26:34Speaker 02

  Yeah. So I think, but that speaks to the fundamental breakdown of trust in society. That we have a huge part of the population, possibly, I think likely more than half of the population, fundamentally distrusts American institutions. I don't mean has a healthy distrust. I mean categorically distrusts anything that comes out of mainstream institutions, the intelligence community, the mainstream media. And so how do you build a coherent policy around that?

• 27:05Ryan Sean Adams?

  Dimitri, what percentage of that trust is deserved, do you think, versus undeserved?

• 27:10Speaker 02

  Very little.

• 27:13Speaker 02

  Very little, so little. They're totally unaccountable. They're unaccountable with COVID too. You know, the president got COVID again. He's like triple freaking quintuple boosted and he just got COVID and I got it again. You know, and like, there was so much shame around this. There was so much certainty around all the COVID ordinances and, and I mean, even the social distancing, we found out later, it was just a number. They threw it out there, just like when they asked Hank Paulson, why'd you pick $700 billion for the bazooka? Cause it was a really big number, you know? And so these guys and gals, they're never held accountable. And so of course, that's the problem. I mean, that's, I think the single biggest reason why we have so much distrust. And there are many, but it's the lack of accountability.

• 27:56Speaker 02

  Cause every time this happens, George Carlin has like this great. Comedy skit from like the early 2000s or late 90s. Where he talks about this, because every time you have something like this, they always say, okay, let's move past this now. Let's move past this. It's time to look forward. And they always do that because it's in their benefit to look forward. Because then they don't get held accountable for all the stuff they've done. So I totally agree with that. I think where I differ from a lot of folks in the sort of, um, I mean, a lot of the people in my accounts are fin twit people, but lots of people in this group of people that distrust, because I'm also distrusting. But I think that where I differ is that I feel like a lot of people's reaction to that is off, it's all bullshit. I'm just going to believe whatever I want and I'll come up with some ridiculous theory. And I'm just going to stick to it because why not?

• 28:40Speaker 02

  I think it's totally irresponsible. And that's the challenge. How many people want to get serious and put their cynicism aside and cautiously move forward? You know, the kind of the Reagan trust but verify? That's sort of my mentality.

• 28:53Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yeah, I totally agree. I do want to get back to kind of two pieces, but like one piece, back on the kind of this World War III theme and tying that out and the kind of the China, like in America and kind of rising power and maybe sunsetting power, I don't know. But like when we talk about something like World War III, right? Like the stakes couldn't be freaking higher. Right? Like World War III could genuinely be like, not a planet ender, but like life as we know it, I mean, we're talking about billions of lives potentially destroyed or impacted.

• 29:27Speaker 02

  No, it could be a civilization ender. That was true during the Cold War, that it could end civilization.

• 29:32Ryan Sean Adams?

  So we've got that, these kind of stakes that we're playing with, which is like, already, how ludicrous is it to live in a world like that? Where that's kind of in the back of your mind and that we could be like, you know, life as we know it, we could be verging on the edge of existential crisis. And then David, when you brought up like, kind of, you know, the US having to make a decision on Taiwan. Does it fight over Taiwan or does it not? Does it let China do it? And I read Ray Dalio and Dalio says China absolutely wants Taiwan and they're going to get it. And they're going to flex all of their muscle. They're going to play the long game and they're eventually going to get it. But that is a non-negotiable. And he posed the question, America, do you want to go to war over this? Of course, he does it more eloquently in like different words, but I'm getting straight

• 30:17Ryan Sean Adams?

  to the point. And I have to ask myself of like, I believe very much in state sovereignty and like the sovereignty of Hong Kong, sovereignty of Taiwanese citizens to like a democracy, Western liberal values. I'm a huge believer in this. Is it worth going to war and potentially ending civilization in a World War III for a conflict over Taiwan? Like, these are very heavy, heavy questions. They do not have clear answers. And I don't know that we're going to get an answer on this podcast, obviously, to these things, but I don't know, I also don't know how they get resolved. Dmitry, in all of your tours of things and the guests you've had on, like, has there

• 31:02Ryan Sean Adams?

  been anything to like answer questions like these for you? And what do you think of this?

• 31:06Speaker 02

  Yeah, well, let me see if I can try to respond to that. So clearly, it was worth the risk over Cuba for the United States. And I think the thing that is, I think, difficult to grapple with is, one, we don't actually know what could happen. Given how the world is structured, ever since really the development of nuclear weapons and especially ballistic missiles, it's always possible to blow up the world. And so you're always dealing with that possibility. But at the same time, simply folding every time there's any kind of conflict doesn't actually solve the problem. One, because you could fold yourself into what?

• 31:49Speaker 02

  Becoming a subjugated state to another power? But even more likely, I mean, anyone that's ever been in a fight knows this. You know, if there's one party, that party gets pushed around enough, if it keeps submitting and keeps submitting, it itself may not know its threshold. And at some point, it just explodes and it shoots back in the other direction. In other words, it's in the best interest of both parties to find some kind of a stable equilibrium. And so I don't know. The analyses that I've seen on this issue, and they are so tainted. Because, you know, I'm speaking to a, again, there's lots of people that deal with the issue of Taiwan.

• 32:29Speaker 02

  I haven't had a single expert who's actually Chinese and speaks Mandarin. Actually, some of them do speak Mandarin, but again, it's, there's so much uncertainty around it. But I would have to err on the side of saying that the United States has to make it really, really hard for the Chinese to take Taiwan, or to set new norms so that they actually control that territory. Because what I have come to understand in my own reading is that Taiwan is essential for any kind of forced projection by China outside of Asia. And it's also very, very, very important for maintaining, on our part, for maintaining our existing coalition structure and alliance structure in Asia.

• 33:10Speaker 02

  And if the Chinese are able to dominate the Asian landmass and have control over those economic relationships, they are in a position to then grow and project power further on. And I should also just say this, because again, I did preface this beginning with it just kind of acknowledging just how complex this is and how I'm not an expert on it. But I'll also say that I think the US, we constantly underestimate the power of the United States because we have traditionally been such an open society. So it's so easy to see the costs of that openness and all of our disorganization and the hot mess that America is.

• 33:50Speaker 02

  But at the same time, our economic model has led to much more growth than a much more sort of closed, again, for lack of a better word, totalitarian. Granted, the Chinese state capitalist model is not Soviet, but it's still much more closed. And it's not clear what kind of economic growth they would be able to have with other Asian economies. With that kind of a growth model. So I don't know. There's a lot of uncertainty there, but if I had to put my foot on the scale, I would probably say that the US really needs to step it up and prioritize developing a long-term strategic defense framework for

• 34:31Speaker 02

  Taiwan. And they need to do it urgently because from what I understand and from the people I've spoken with, it's not at all clear that the United States will be able to win in a conflict, putting aside whether or not it escalated to nuclear war.

• 34:43Ryan Sean Adams?

  Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. Can you get into that really quick? Is it a quick teacher?

• 34:47Speaker 02

  Yeah, they, I mean, they do war games that they do war games and it and the US has lost some of those war games. So it's really not clear how prepared the US is. The Chinese have built an entire, like the whole south of the country. They've built all these huge installations for missiles, for missile systems to attack Taiwan, and they would presumably be able to attack parts of the Pacific Fleet. You know, this would not be a joke. You know what I mean? It's not like the US blockading. Again, like I said, I'm not an expert on this, guys, but and I'm relying on the work of other experts. But I think we've gotten so used to American force projection and being able to just go

• 35:29Speaker 02

  in and do whatever we want, that we don't understand that this is a completely different animal. And we just don't know what a war like that would look like. And the problem as Russia saw is that when you bite off more than you can chew, you're in a completely new ballgame. So what were to happen if the US decided to actually throw its ring in the hat, and it turned out to be much more difficult than it thought? Now it's really stuck. Because if it turns tail and runs, we're now have a completely new dynamic in the global geopolitical order. And that would also embolden the Chinese to go bigger. So I mean, Again, and in all of this, guys, we all know and think about the possibility that

• 36:11Speaker 02

  we could be paranoid, you know, like a declining, as you said, I don't know that the US is declining. I mean, in relative terms militarily, yes, but in absolute terms, I don't know if I would agree with that. And I still think the US has many long-term advantages to it that the Chinese economy does not.

• 36:28Ryan Sean Adams?

  Well, one quick thought on this, when it comes to World War III and kind of the weaponry involved, right? It would be like the difference between World War I and World War II in the level of weaponry. It's like such a complete order of magnitude.

• 36:39Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 36:40Ryan Sean Adams?

  Like, I mean, you think about from like, you know, basic kinetic bombs.

• 36:44Speaker 02

  Or pre-World War I and World War I.

• 36:46Ryan Sean Adams?

  Exactly. Or like the Civil War to World War I, like just the differences. And so we're talking about not necessarily tanks and planes.

• 36:53Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 36:54Ryan Sean Adams?

  We're talking about like cyber attacks that disable power grids. We're talking about potentially biological weaponry viruses. Talking about, we had Balaji on a podcast recently, he talked about like a drone cloud of, you know, basically unmanned drones that are programmed as killbots. It's like technologies that exist now on a whole nother level.

• 37:15Speaker 02

  Harnessing commercial drones in foreign countries?

• 37:18Ryan Sean Adams?

  Is that a thing too? This is not something Bankless has done episodes on, but like, have you done anything on this?

• 37:22Speaker 02

  No, but I mean, yes, I have. I've done a number of episodes on cyber security and cyber terrorism. I did two with Bruce Schneier. I did one with Josh Korman. I did one with, can't remember the other person. I did one, well, I also did one with Chris Bros. Chris Bros is, I believe his title is, he leads business development at Auderil. Auderil is Palmer Lucky's company. Palmer Lucky is the developer of the Oculus Rift. Auderil is a military tech company. Look, I mean, again, we're now totally in a place of sort of speculating here, but if you can compromise all sorts of commercial drones, and you can create a botnet using a bunch of commercial drones, you could swarm a whole area. I mean,

• 38:03Speaker 02

  this is the thing about the world we live in today that I think is fundamentally different than the previous world in which we experienced total war, which is that it's kind of like, when the United States went to war against the Nazis and against the Japanese, neither of those countries, none of the countries involved, were in a position to harness the other country's resources and military to project force against itself.

• 38:32Speaker 02

  Today, we're all running the same software. I mean, I guess that that's another thing we could talk about, which is to what extent are we going to begin to see segregation in technologies? But exploits exist. If the US finds an exploit, and if the NSA finds a Windows exploit, there are lots of computers all over China that run Windows. Now, we're both vulnerable in this case, and that exploit can be used to attack Chinese systems. And so like, we have to not only build technologies that we can deploy to defend ourselves, but we need to also be able to secure those technologies. And we also need to be able to secure the exploits that we ourselves need to use in

• 39:17Speaker 02

  order to build, quote, "cyber weapons" to attack adversaries. And so you can see how complex this is. And I think a lot of the anxiety that people feel is, we have an awareness of this complexity, but we don't have a sense of, is there a grip on it? You know, like, we don't trust the people in charge. Everyone, more and more people see that Joe Biden is not well mentally, he's not well. You know what I mean? And whatever your views of Donald Trump is, he's very bombastic, he's very aggressive. He's not someone that makes you feel, I think, like, he's not a stable guy. Let's put it that way. And it's not at all clear, to put it back to Joe Biden, it's not at all clear to me that he's gonna run in 2024.

• 40:02Speaker 02

  I don't think he's gonna run. I don't know, I don't see how that guy can run. It just seems like he keeps declining, and it's not clear to me that Democrats would be able to run Kamala Harris. I don't know, guys. I feel like we're, when it comes to the politics internally in the US, I don't think we've seen anything yet. I don't think we have any idea of how things are gonna shake out. And I'm not just talking about whether or not they're gonna prosecute Trump, whether he'll be able to run, who's gonna run on the Republican side, who's gonna run on the Democrat side? Are they gonna have primaries on the Democratic side for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States? So, I just think there's so much uncertainty. And if you guys remember, what was the political climate like when Trump was president? Like, it was all the media could talk about, all the media could think about, it sucked

• 40:47Speaker 02

  the oxygen out of everything else. Again, as the world becomes more and more unstable, the stability or instability of American politics simply exacerbates that. You know, it's like a lever.

• 41:00David Hoffman?

  Right. It's a feedback loop. Yeah. And I think really the point of all of that, like, you know, an army of commercial drones sweeping over Taiwan, I really like this is a, sometimes some of these conversations, we're talking about World War III, is like a little bit of hyperbole, but the point is, is that, you know, we don't know, and it's all chaos.

• 41:20Speaker 02

  Maybe, maybe not.

• 41:21David Hoffman?

  The point is that there are a bunch of unaccounted for attack vectors in our technology that we don't, aren't aware of, that if we talk about the leading powers of the world going head to head, we would discover these exploits very rapidly, and we all kind of know that they're all around us. And then going back to like domestic politics is like our domestic politics would not be able to, I think about these things. Joe Biden does not have a solution for an army of commercial drones. I can guarantee you that. Yeah, you have a comment. Go for it, Dimitri.

• 41:49Speaker 02

  Well, I'm just gonna say that, uh, it wouldn't even necessarily be something like that, because I'm gonna bring up two episodes now that I've done that I think are relevant here, directly relevant. One I did with David Kilcullen, who was special advisor to David Petraeus, and I think he was also, he worked directly with Condoleezza Rice or under Condoleezza Rice. And it had to do with the transformation of warfare. And there's this one particular thing that he calls liminal warfare. I don't know if he came up with the phrase, but liminal is that threshold between what's real and not real. It's like the surreality.

• 42:23David Hoffman?

  Right.

• 42:23Speaker 02

  And I think this is what's particularly scary, because, you know, a swarming cloud of drones is very clearly, you're under attack.

• 42:30David Hoffman?

  Right.

• 42:31Speaker 02

  You know, there's no doubt about it. And then you just have to ascribe who did it, which gets a little complicated, but you can be pretty confident at that point, what's going on, especially if there's a broader context of conflict. But, you know, look at what the United States did with Stuxnet, the US and the Israelis did with Stuxnet in Iran. I think it was for years, we were sabotaging their nuclear program, and they had no idea. They thought they were just making mistakes. The scientists were messing up, they were getting something wrong, the subterrages were blowing up. They thought it was all on them. They had no idea that it was actually the US and Israel that were sabotaging their equipment. I think we're in a world now where people are much more attuned to that. And so, the risk also is that...

• 43:16Speaker 02

  You begin having attacks that are conducted that are sort of under the level of perception. And that creates a lot of paranoia. So now you end up having countries being thinking, maybe ascribing attacks and actions, foreign actions to things that aren't actually one of those things. And because, and this brings up another episode that I did, I've told you guys about this one, episode 28, where I also pulled a clip from one of my favorite movies ever, probably my favorite movie ever, or trilogy, The Matrix. And it was, I think it was the second Matrix movie. And Neo was down in the machine room with the chancellor, or the whoever was the head of the High Council of Zion.

• 43:55Speaker 02

  And the counselor made the point that while we were trying to destroy all of these machines, while the resistance was trying to destroy the machines that were enslaving humanity, they were dependent on all sorts of machines to keep the city alive and to keep them alive and to fight their resistance. And we are in a place in the world today where we need machines. We depend on these machines to survive. And the vulnerability of those machines is greater, the interconnectivity. I mean, maybe they're as vulnerable as ever, but they're more interconnected. And that interconnectivity allows those vulnerabilities to be exploited. So we talk about nuclear weapons and nuclear war, but that may not be the vector of escalation that we experience in this world that we live in today.

• 44:40David Hoffman?

  There is a brand new staking feature in the Ledger Live app today. We all like staking the assets that we're bullish on. And now you can stake seven different coins inside the Ledger Live app. Cosmos, Polkadot, Tron, Algorian, Tezos, Solana, and of course Ethereum. With Ledger Live, you can take money from your bank account, buy your most bullish crypto asset, and stake that asset to its network, all inside the Ledger Live app. Through a partnership with Figment, Ledger also lets you choose which validator you want to stake your assets with. And Ledger is running its own validating nodes, offering a convenient way to participate in network validation, and it even comes with slashing insurance. Ledger Live is truly becoming the battle station for the bankless world. So go download Ledger Live. If you have a Ledger already, you probably already have it, and get started securely staking your crypto assets.

• 45:25David Hoffman?

  MakerDAO is the OG DeFi protocol, the first DeFi protocol to ever exist, even before we called it DeFi. MakerDAO produces DAI, the industry's most battle-tested and resilient stablecoin. Using Maker, you don't need to sell your collateral if you need liquidity. Instead, you can spin up a Maker Vault and use your collateral to mince DAI directly. With Maker, the power to mince new money is in your hands. And there's something new in the MakerDAO ecosystem. Every time a new MakerDAO is opened, the owner can claim that PoW, which contributes funds to One Tree Planted, an organization with ongoing global reforestation efforts, creating a world where digital participation and the health of our environment can live side by side. Soon, Maker will be present on all chains in Layer 2s, bringing the biggest and best DeFi credit facility to everywhere there is DeFi. So follow Maker on Twitter, @MakerDAO, and learn from the oldest

• 46:10David Hoffman?

  and most resilient DAO in existence. Rocketpool is your decentralized Ethereum staking protocol. You can stake your ETH in Rocketpool and get our ETH in return, allowing you to stake your ETH and use it in DeFi at the same time. You can get 4% on your ETH by staking it with Rocketpool, but you can get even more by running a node. Rocketpool is the only staking provider that allows anyone to permissionlessly join their network of validating Ethereum nodes. Setting up your Rocketpool node is easier than running a node solo, and you only need 16 ETH to get started. You get an extra 15% staking commission on the pooled ETH that uses your node to stake. You also get RPL token rewards on top. So if you're bullish ETH staking, you can boost your yield by adding your node to the decentralized Rocketpool network, which currently has over 1,000 independent node operators.

• 46:54David Hoffman?

  It's yield farming, but with Ethereum nodes. You can get started at rocketpool.net. And you can also join the Rocketpool community in their Discord. You can find me hanging out there sometimes in the chat, so I'll see you there. Dmitry, I think that brings us to the second half of this podcast that we want to get to, which is the conversation of the machines. And after this, I'll kind of ask you about China's solution to this. But just leaning into some of the content that we've talked about prior to this and that we know we wanted to cover, you gave us this article by Bill Joy titled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." And I just want to read a few excerpts that I pulled out from this article that's following along with what you just said. So the excerpt starts, "We are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines, nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift in a position

• 47:39David Hoffman?

  of such dependence on the machines." That it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines' decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and the machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will result in better results than the man-made ones. Eventually, a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that the human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage, the machines will be in effective control. People won't be able to just turn off the machines because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide. This is skipping forward a little bit. "In a completely free marketplace, superior robots would surely affect humans.

• 48:22David Hoffman?

  Robotic industries would compete vigorously among themselves for matter, energy, and space, incidentally driving their price beyond human reach." The price of, obviously, matter, energy, and space is what that alludes to. Unable to afford the necessities of life, biological humans would then be squeezed out of existence. "There is probably some breathing room, because we do not live in a completely free marketplace. Government coerces non-market behavior, especially by collecting taxes. Judiciously applied, governmental concern can support human populations in high style on the fruits of robot labor perhaps for a long while." A textbook dystopia, and the author goes on to discuss how "our main job in the 21st century will be ensuring continued cooperation from the robotic industries by passing laws decreeing that they be nice," and describe how seriously dangerous a human can once

• 49:07David Hoffman?

  be transformed into an unbounded, superintelligent robot. Some super cool sci-fi topics here that definitely paints a dystopian future. But, Dimitri, I'm hoping you can unpack a little bit of what this last half of this was, where the machines are... And we understand this when we look at, you know, I don't know how to navigate a city without Google Maps anymore.

• 49:24Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 49:24David Hoffman?

  Spotify picks better songs than I could ever hope for. Like, I'll just give over more in my life to just some basic algorithms, but sometimes those algorithms, like, now, like, the interest rates of Maker Dow, like, now, like, dictate my life, and crypto people will know what that meant. And so I'm kind of wondering, can you just, like, unpack this question a little bit more and talk about the various ways that the US has tried to, like, solve this machine control problem, either implicitly or explicitly, and also China and the differing strategies there?

• 49:51Speaker 02

  Yeah, so that was a big question, but we can unpack it. First of all, I'm curious, when you guys read that, or, in the first part of the passage that you quoted was, as you guys know, was actually lifted from Tzatz Kaczynski's The Unabomber, his paper, Industrial Society and Its Future. And when I first read that, when I was a senior in high school...

• 50:12Speaker 02

  I remember how remote it felt. You know, it was like, this is pure sci fi. I might as well have read this in a, you know,

• 50:22David Hoffman?

  The Matrix, the movie.

• 50:23Speaker 02

  A CMOV book or something. But when you read it now, it's like, whoa. This is where we are today. We can't turn the machines off. That's we're past that point.

• 50:35Ryan Sean Adams?

  I'll tell you, this week, so we do all of our company stuff, like content planning and stuff in a chat application called Discord. I don't know if you've ever used that, Dimitri, but it's fantastic.

• 50:46Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 50:46Ryan Sean Adams?

  We now have an active member of our team who is an AI, who is a robot, where we basically, it's called Mid Journey. And when we need Mid Journey to spin up a graphic for a content piece, we spin out, we type what we want, and Mid Journey is an AI tool that produces fantastic images for us, graphics. And in a lot of ways, it's superior to what a graphic designer could come up with.

• 51:18David Hoffman?

  And inside of 60 seconds.

• 51:20Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yeah, it's natural language processing. So you just say, person haircut, like, short hair, riding a horse. And Mid Journey spins up in 45 seconds for images of that.

• 51:33Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 51:34Ryan Sean Adams?

  Like, it's crazy. And then, like, we think about, like, the algorithms we serve from a content perspective, right? So like, we're always trying to optimize how we tune things for like, the tweet that's going to fire off. What will the Twitter algos support and propagate? What will the YouTube algos support and propagate? Like, at a certain manner, like, these algorithms are the machines, and we are serving them, aren't we? I guess someone programmed them, but they are now programming us.

• 52:01Speaker 02

  100%. So I have a few thoughts about that. High level, I believe that, you know, in answer to what David's question was originally about, you know, what the Chinese model, the American model, kind of what the dangers of not addressing some of the disparities in power, really, because I talked about it in terms of wealth and income, but it's really power in society. We risk, while the elites haven't really taken full control of society, that the democratic levers of power will allow us to elect a populist demagogue who could blow up the whole world. At the same time, That's honestly, for me, blowing up the world versus becoming enslaved and becoming,

• 52:43Speaker 02

  as Ted Kaczynski writes in his paper, domestic animals, or domesticated animals, that's, I don't really see the difference. For me, I don't want to live as a domesticated animal, or to live under the control of other people, the kind of control that we're talking about here. And so, the real question for me is, first of all, if I'm right, and I think I am, that at least those of us who live in Western liberal societies that have had a taste of freedom, I guess, freedom's imperfect, all that stuff, yes, yes. But if I'm correct in believing that people, if they really understood what was happening here, and I think more and more people do understand, that they wouldn't accept it, and they'd want to come up with some kind of a solution. If I'm correct in that, then I think that's

• 53:28Speaker 02

  where we need to focus our energy, and we need to come up with some kind of, we're talking about what's needed here is a kind of a revolution in terms of our relationship to technology, and our control over it, our democratic control over technology. So, I've been beating this drum for many years, which is that when it comes to platforms like Facebook, and even Google, of course, but Facebook's such an easy example, or Twitter, we cannot allow private corporations to be able to develop algorithms that decide, not only serve us what those algorithms think they want, because they get to know

• 54:10Speaker 02

  us so well, but actually begin to manipulate our behavior in order to move us towards the commercial objectives that their advertisers or clients seek. Because, one, that in and of itself is unacceptable, because of where it leads eventually, but also, eventually, the governments are very powerful, and governments always have relationships with the private sector, and that's just way too much control. And so, we need to regulate these types of companies. These business models are the issue, in my opinion, not necessarily monopoly power, we can talk about trust and anti-trust, but the real issue is that these companies are incentivized.

• 54:50Speaker 02

  Through the ad model, through developments in knowledge in the behavioral sciences, AI, big data, to basically hijack our consciousness, hijack our will, and basically turn us into mindless serfs. That's where this thing is going. Everyone sees it. That's why all the people that work in these companies have been ringing the alarm bells. And if we don't fix that, we're not going to be able to fix anything else. So unfortunately, I haven't seen people, I've had Andrew Yang on the podcast, but even, you know, Andrew, who is more technically astute than other candidates, I haven't seen him really banging the table on this issue. And I think, I think it's the single most important one. It's more important than climate change. It's

• 55:34Speaker 02

  more important than nuclear weapons. It's more important than any of those things. Because without this, we don't have democracy.

• 55:39Ryan Sean Adams?

  This is part of the reason why I think David and I are in crypto, by the way, is we see a remote chance of being sort of like building kind of a third way here, even though we're very far from what you said. But like, I want to go back to this because we opened this episode, we were talking about how our institutions are really failing, how no one trusts them. And indeed, they haven't really earned our trust. In fact, they've probably earned our distrust, right? And so we acknowledge that. And yet, we're asking, or we're putting our hopes on democratic institutions to rein in our technology platforms and the powerful AIs that would govern our lives. And I will just say, Dimitri, this like, China has a fix for this already.

• 56:16Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 56:16Ryan Sean Adams?

  Okay, China is like, no, state's gonna own and control all of its major social media entities and all of its technology entities. And they are going to do our will. They are 100% regulated, right? They can't do anything.

• 56:32Speaker 02

  The machines are the subservience of the state.

• 56:34Ryan Sean Adams?

  The machines are the subservience of the state, right? And not necessarily of the people, mind you, but like,

• 56:39Speaker 02

  Right.

• 56:40Ryan Sean Adams?

  of the state. And it's a different thing.

• 56:42Speaker 02

  But at least they are subservient.

• 56:43Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yes. So like, China will tell you, oh, cool, Dimitri, like, we're like, two decades ahead of the US. Like, we fixed that problem. The machines now work for us, the state, and we have complete power over them. And you kind of look at, I think we were talking about this as we were preparing. This conversation, you kind of think of China as like they're in front of VCs and they're pitching a business model and they've got this slide deck. And they've got really great product market fit because they're like, problem statement, the machines are coming, they're going to dominate your lives. You see it already. Solution, we clamp down, the state owns the machines, we control the algorithms, problem solved.

• 57:24Ryan Sean Adams?

  Our competitors, by the way, they're taking a different approach. They're taking this decentralized democratic approach. And it results in some

• 57:31Speaker 02

  It sucks.

• 57:31Ryan Sean Adams?

  It results in some half-assed authoritarianism, as I've called like kind of the plan of the US right now, which is like, it doesn't really do anything well. And so we're going to beat them out of existence. That is the slide deck for China right now. And I got to say, seems a little compelling. Seems like they got some product market fit here. What do you think about this?

• 57:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, they're like the guys pitching the VCs on being like the Uber of totalitarianism. And yes, and I think that that it makes sense why they're they're the initial customers that they're targeting are authoritarian countries. That are threatened by America's foreign policy, which definitely tries to export democracy. And I think we've kind of been a little too, um, I would agree that we kind of overdid it there. I never quite understood why we went so extreme on the Saudis. If we were going to be extreme against the Saudis, we should have been tougher on them after nine 11. Given what has come out over the years from the nine 11 commission. But yeah, I mean, I completely agree with that framing. And I think that is the challenge that they've got it together. They have a product, as you say, they have a deck.

• 58:33Speaker 02

  They have a working product that's out in the field. And they are developing a kind of a franchise model, certainly with their digital currency. Which is a technology that a lot of other countries are going to want to adopt. And what's beautiful about America is that we are a much messier society. Even though we've become more militaristic and authoritarian, you and I talked about this as well, which is, you know, one of the reasons I love countries like Argentina is exactly because of how dysfunctional it is. But you have to strike some kind of a balance. So I recognize that. But I still think I would rather live in the balance that exists in America than in what exists in China. So that's the challenge. And I think.

• 59:18Speaker 02

  Again, this is something else I believe for a long time. I might be wrong here. It might be too simplistic of an analysis, but I felt that ultimately this comes down to leadership. And yes, it's going to be, my view, it's going to be a populist leader that's going to have to solve the problem. In other words, the same pathway through which the United States could become destabilized and flip into totalitarianism or some kind of crazy dictatorship and kind of blow up the planet. That same channel is the channel that would be used to fix the system, right? So whatever you think of FDR, he wasn't Stalin. And so FDR, though, was an extremely powerful political figure. Lincoln was an extremely powerful political figure.

• 59:58Speaker 02

  And again, no matter what you think of Lincoln, ultimately it took that level of power in the executive to get through a very, very difficult period in American history. In that case, the Civil War, in the case of FDR, the Depression, World War II. So I think that's where we are. And the question is, where are those leaders going to come from? Who is going to speak to a majority of Americans? And that doesn't do it from a place of anger, divisiveness. Who is willing to speak honestly? And that's where I think the Democrats and the Republicans are currently failing. Is they're not speaking honestly and there's a lot of anger and a lot of attacking and a lot of dividing by both parties.

• 1:00:41Speaker 02

  And I haven't seen a better alternative yet. And so that's what I'm hoping for, but I don't see it right now.

• 1:00:48David Hoffman?

  I've alluded to this a number of times on Bankless before, and it's Nietzsche's God is Dead statement. And the idea here is that Nietzsche realized that the global order was no longer coordinated by religion. As in, fear of God was not the thing that made people wake up every single day and go and harvest the fields and go get stuff done. It wasn't the force that was organizing the world. Because we had the Renaissance and, you know, people shed their religious, the dominant religious, like organizing force in their lives. And then, you know, instead of just waltzing into this like enlightened society that was all about science, first we had chaos and then we had order. Like it's not, you don't just hop from order to order, you go from order to chaos to order.

• 1:01:32David Hoffman?

  And so, you know, when Nietzsche claimed God is dead, it was in the middle of the 1800s, I think, late 1800s, and claims like, all of a sudden, like, we need a new organizing rule set to organize by, or else we're going to delve into chaos. And the next thing that happened was World War I, World War II, and then we found our order again. And I kind of think we can, if we're going from this place of where we had, you know, the stable America from, you know, 80s and 90s and early thousands, to where we are now, which is a new force guiding over the world, which is the machines. We first have to go through a time of crisis, and then we rebuild on the other side.

• 1:02:12David Hoffman?

  That's kind of how I kind of mapped this out as the future. Would you agree with that general progression?

• 1:02:18Speaker 02

  Yep, I agree with that. And I think that probably for guys like you and in your community, some of my solutions to this may feel a little heavy-handed, but another thing that I think that I would institute, if I could, would be, for example, we send people abroad to study. I'm not saying this has to be mandated, that people have to be sent to other states of the Union to study. But I would try and do things like that, try to incentivize anything and everything that can cause greater degrees of unity and self-exploration. What I think we need in this society is to come to two more concrete notions of identity. One, we need a more concrete notion of national identity,

• 1:03:03Speaker 02

  because the nation-state is still a powerful actor. It's not going away anytime soon. I know one of your guests, who's also been on my podcast, Balaji disagrees with me, but I have spoken to Balaji many times, both on the show and over the phone at length, and I really value those conversations. I appreciate his different point of view, but I've never agreed with it. I'm not being convinced by it. I think the nation-state's a very powerful entity, and it has very powerful institutions and can project force. So because of that, we need to get to a sense of common identity that incorporates those power structures that we can all be on board with. And we're not there right now. What we're doing is we're actively tearing those things down, number one. And number two, and this is not necessarily the purview of the state, we need to come

• 1:03:49Speaker 02

  To clear a sense of our own identity as individuals. Because I think this is something else that's happening today. You see it in the transhumanist movement and other areas where people are constantly creating new forms of identity, trying to understand what it means to be a human being. You see it in terms of gender norms. You see it in all sorts of other places. And I think that that speaks to me, that speaks to some kind of internal crisis around what it means to be a human being. I think it goes that deep. And I think that has to do with technology. That's my guess. I mean, you know, you're very fair to point out religion and how religion, the slow

• 1:04:29Speaker 02

  sort of disillusionment by members of the public with religious institutions led to a kind of crisis that Nietzsche talked about as the death of God. But I think that where it's coming from today, there is, of course, that lack of religion. There is the neoliberal sort of commercial value system that many of us grew up around, which was that, oh, the point of life is just to make more money, to develop more efficient supply chains, et cetera, et cetera, which has never been fulfilling. But I think technology has really created a kind of crisis in humanity and around a sense of meaning, which you guys know I've talked about as nihilism. So I don't know if that makes sense.

• 1:05:12Ryan Sean Adams?

  It does. I think that reads like, you know, first kind of a comment. There's also in the Bill Joy article, I think he was quoting someone else, and I'm paraphrasing here, said like, at the end of the day, there's nature, there's humans, and then there's the machines, and nature is on the side of the machines. And like, this speaks to like, basically, this folding in of humanity into technology, right? And that Bill Joy article is very much about kind of the assimilation of humans and machines together and what that would look like over time. And I feel very much, Dimitri, like, we're in it. We are totally in it. That's what's happening with all of us. Like, the amount of time we spend on screens versus previously on the internet, now serving the algorithms, like, that is happening. And that is having an impact existentially on our reason for existing, both at the identity

• 1:05:57Ryan Sean Adams?

  level and the societal level. And I want to go back to this, the kind of the question about values. David and I say something like turning this into crypto parlance where it's like the layer zero is people. And what we're really referring to here is like underneath the different layers of a blockchain, there's actually this, the social values structure of like, are people willing to run the node that has censorship resistant software or not? If they are, we have censorship resistance. If they don't, we don't. And it all collapses back to layer zero, the people. And I feel like getting back to the story of America, I don't know if the US really knows what it values anymore.

• 1:06:39Speaker 02

  Hmm, I agree.

• 1:06:41Ryan Sean Adams?

  Like, I feel like there is this sense of what are our base principles? And things that I thought were base principles for society, like democracy and truth and the right for everyone to vote, or like just freedom of speech, right? It turns out that like, if the person is red and you're blue, or if the person is blue and you're red, you don't necessarily subscribe to those base principles for the other tribe. And I feel like as Americans, maybe, and the US has sort of forgotten its core value set, what do you think about this? And like, is this something that is a precursor to, as David said, getting out of this chaotic era for the US and emerging with something that's free and open?

• 1:07:24Ryan Sean Adams?

  And maybe there's some space for the nation state success on the other side of this chaos. But in order to get there, do we have to remember what our core values are? And like, what are those core values? Do we even know?

• 1:07:34Speaker 02

  A hundred percent, man. I couldn't agree more. So I want to say one thing before I address that specifically. And I don't remember exactly how it came up, but you know, we have this idea, or it's been put in our heads, that technology is synonymous with what we have today. That, in other words...

• 1:07:55Speaker 02

  We have to just get used to not having privacy. For example, that this is just kind of part and parcel of what it means to progress technologically. And that's not true. That's a choice and it serves the people who are in control of these technologies. So like when we were growing up, you know, the back Jetsons, Back to the Future, et cetera, even dystopian visions of the future, none of those involved a version of the future, until The Matrix that I remember, I'm sure there might have been other ones, where that dystopian future also involved technology as a source of disempowerment for the individual. You know, because like in those other versions, people had technology. Start on the Star Wars movies, everyone's got, you know, these, they're almost like analog technologies.

• 1:08:40Speaker 02

  They have full control over their brains and they can use them to amplify their brains, but they're always in control. We're not in that situation today. We're losing control over our minds. You know what I'm saying? Like, it's a completely different situation and we just need to be able to really understand that because our framings are off. But I think people are more and more understand it, but it's like being caught in a spider's web. You know, eventually people might get it, but by then it's too late. And I don't think it's too late. It's certainly not too late when it comes to social media, though I do think it's too late to shut off the machines as we were talking about before. But in terms of values, I totally agree. So let's go back to what you said about, you know, using an AI chatbot or a searchbot to find pictures. I thought about this too.

• 1:09:23Speaker 02

  I thought about like, if someone gave me an application that could write all of my headlines for my shows and all of the summary text, I would take that, I would do that in a second. Because I don't enjoy doing that anyway. Okay? And then I just thought about more and more like, what would I be willing to do to offload? And then what would I actually not be unwilling to do? And then I realized that there was this point at which I may run out of things that don't bring me joy and that then I would want to focus on, you know, what I actually like doing. But there are many other things that I like doing that other people don't like doing. And machines might people do those things better.

• 1:10:05Speaker 02

  And so the game theory of that kind of a situation is that we all basically, there's no room for humanity. There's no room for a human life. I drive manual transmission cars. I love driving manual transmission. If you go to any car dealership, any of these new faster cars, they will tell you, hands down, do not get a manual transmission car. It does not perform as well. But this is just a good example because it's kind of, I really mean it in other areas. It brings me joy to drive a manual car. I don't need to go faster than everybody else. But if I'm competing for my livelihood, if I'm a professional driver, I'm not going to get a manual transmission car. And so I think that the problem becomes that in this world, we're all incentivized to outcompete one another.

• 1:10:49Speaker 02

  And so everyone wants an edge and machines give you an edge. And in that context, we basically outcompete humanity out of the gene pool. Or we basically outcompete normal people. And what you eventually get is the other, there are two possibilities in Bill Joy's article. One is the example of the matrix where machines take over. And the other one is the example where basically a set of elite controls all of these technologies. And they basically turn human beings, they either kill off the human race in order to save the planet or whatever. You can come up with all sorts of eco fascist ideas that actually seem to align very much with a lot of the orthodox they live in today. Or they turn them into, again, domesticated animals, where people just get pacified on SSRIs.

• 1:11:35Speaker 02

  And we kind of have that. This is the kind of the crazy thing. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here. I'm not trying to be some kind of off the wall person. But I think most people would agree that there's something fundamentally wrong with the spiritual constitution of society. You know, like I brought up SSRIs and the prolific prescription of antidepressants and anti anxiety medication. Why are so many people feeling this way? Is it just because all of a sudden we discovered this? I don't believe that. I don't believe that. I think that people are getting over medicated. And when it comes to this particular area, I think it has to do with something else. Something's not right. I mean, people, I've done episodes on this as well. People get prescribed antidepressants all the time when they lose someone they love. Well, you're depressed, not because something's wrong with you.

• 1:12:20Speaker 02

  It's not because you have a chemical imbalance, but because you're grieving. And in the past, people saw preachers or they saw their friend and they talked through it and they cried. And that was okay, you know, but it's not efficient today. If you're suffering, that's not efficient. You gotta get through that. And I just think we've lost all of that and we don't know how to talk to one another. And that, that's a real crisis in our society and we have to address it. Because if we don't address that, we can't address anything else. And that's, that's been my concern, the way we talk to one another, the lack of good faith in each other's conversation, the cynicism, the anger, that stuff needs to be addressed. And you can't expect Joe Biden or Joe Manchin or whoever other else or Nancy Pelosi. Don't expect all those people to solve your problem for you.

• 1:13:05Speaker 02

  Democracy is about taking responsibility for yourself. You can't just expect them to do it. If they're not going to hold themselves accountable, you have to hold them accountable. You have to hold yourselves accountable. And so, you know, you can tell I feel very strongly about that. And I think it's just one of those things where we have to grow up and we have to take responsibility. And that also, that begins by really trying to have constructive relationships with one another and having empathy and caring. And yeah, so I don't know if that resonates.

• 1:13:31David Hoffman?

  You opened up a door that I want to dive down, actually. And just to explain to listeners, SSRI is selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. This is going back to my psychology days. Basically, it allows for serotonin in your brain to be not reuptaked as a reuptake inhibitor, which if you don't reuptake it, it passes on to the neurons. Basically, it's a way to-

• 1:13:50Speaker 02

  It's like closing the dam and causing a buildup of chemicals on one side of the river. And dousing your neural receptors with that chemical.

• 1:13:58David Hoffman?

  So it makes a single molecule of serotonin more effective, basically. And so to me, the way that you described this triggered the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and that drug soma where like this very docile- Populists would take this soma drug and they would just be happy and they would also would not do anything and they would be extremely unoffensive and they wouldn't cause any problems. And so like, you can also apply this to like alcoholism is on the rise, like male suicide is at all time highs. Like their consumption of carbohydrates is at all time highs and our, our obesity is at all time highs. And so we have all of these like ways that the psyche of the West is manifesting in these very like maladaptive patterns.

• 1:14:43David Hoffman?

  And it's because we are not exhibiting like very basic, normal, normative behaviors of just like, you know, hugging your mom. And like talking about your emotions and I live in an apartment with 24 other units. Don't know a single neighbor, like haven't said hi to them yet. And so like, there's all these behaviors that are causing these like pent up psychological stress. And it's not from one particular source, like everyone has their own, everyone knows their own like deficiencies, whether they don't go to the gym enough, they don't get enough sunlight, they don't like hug their mom enough, they don't have enough social interaction enough. But like the meta of like Western and maybe also Eastern society, I don't know, is that we're losing our humanity. And I'm wondering if this is running in parallel with the establishment of these machines.

• 1:15:28David Hoffman?

  I'm wondering if that's the connection that you see.

• 1:15:30Ryan Sean Adams?

  Is this back to the old meme of like, we're either headed towards a brave new world future and a 1984 future?

• 1:15:35David Hoffman?

  Yeah, perhaps.

• 1:15:36Ryan Sean Adams?

  I mean, like, it seems like this is what we're saying.

• 1:15:38Speaker 02

  Yeah, more of a brave new world future than a 1984 future. I mean, I totally agree. I think we are losing our humanity and, and many people are giving up their humanity. And I think that a lot of this is pretty simple. You know, people don't have a framework for thinking about who they are. You know, like I think the frameworks that they have in their heads are like some of those that we talked about. One is kind of like be a good consumer, be an entrepreneur, make a lot of money. I'm always amazed that how many people chase more and more money as though, I mean, one, I understand the chase, I understand the satisfaction of attainment. I understand, and this is something that I think is also very important.

• 1:16:21Speaker 02

  It speaks to this point about AI and what is a human life worth if AI does everything? Which is something that also Ted Kaczynski talks about in his paper, which is the power process. You get satisfaction from solving problems. You get satisfaction from doing things. A hole needs to be dug. Digging that hole, even though it takes time, energy, there's a sense of satisfaction that comes from having done that as opposed to just having, paying someone to come do it, right? If you have an infinite amount of money, which are the equivalent of a machine. So the frameworks that we have that tell us what life is about and what the point of life is about, and kind of those are many of the frameworks that the Europeans relied on increasingly as they sought to go into deeper and deeper amounts of integration.

• 1:17:04Speaker 02

  It's kind of like a lot of the stuff that comes out of the World Economic Forum. It's based around this sort of like greater living standards and, you know, more efficiency. But like, that doesn't satisfy people. That doesn't give people a sense of meaning in their lives. And, and I think that is also from the political point of view, I think it's destabilizing because I think people want something more, which incidentally, it's why dictatorships always invest in sports and athleticism, because that's not just a way to get the testosterone out of the male population, but it's also a way to actually give people a sense of accomplishment that they did something. People need that on a very visceral level and they also, I think, need a way to address

• 1:17:46Speaker 02

  the spiritual questions of life, which science cannot address.

• 1:17:51David Hoffman?

  Dimitri, one of the biggest reasons why I appreciate your podcast, it tends to be macroeconomics, finance related. You definitely also tap into some social conversations as well. But when I listen to you and what you very clearly get animated about, it goes back to what I think me and Ryan try and also emphasize in our podcast, which goes back to what Ryan was talking about with the layer zero where. The only stable society is built on top of a stable populace. And our structures, our democracies, or even the Chinese nation is ultimately built on the people that it governs over. And so I'm reminded of this phrase, we've talked about the fourth turning a few times on Bank List, but like the idea that hard times creates strong men.

• 1:18:35David Hoffman?

  Apologies for the accidental male dominated idiom here, but like hard times creates strong men. Strong men creates good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. And it feels like this America has been in this like, my childhood, it's pretty easy. Like, I didn't really like struggle too much. And like now, I feel like a lot of my cohort were about the same. And so like now accidentally, we were raised in this good time. And now the wheel turns and all of a sudden there are these hard problems that no one really wants to tackle head on. And now it just creates a worse problem, triggering a crisis.

• 1:19:08Speaker 02

  There's also a attack on the male archetype, the strong male archetype. We all know this, and I think people are becoming increasingly comfortable talking about it. You know, for a while they were terrified of getting canceled. But that's also happening and that fits back into what I said about this thing where we're tearing down institutions. We're tearing down archetypes, we're tearing down values, but they're not being replaced with anything. Nor are they being replaced with anything that people find compelling. You know, and I think that's the thing that's very difficult because like, this isn't necessarily an argument for a natural form of identity or a natural order. So many of the things that we view as natural are just conventional.

• 1:19:51Speaker 02

  They've become practice over a very long time, but they were adapted to particular environments, you know? So certain types of values don't work in an agrarian society versus a migratory society. People that are moving hunter gatherers. Different types of society require different things, but we don't have something that's actually adapted to the current time while we're destroying what has worked for us. So I couldn't agree more. And by the way, that thing that you said about weak men, the Chinese and the Russians use that domestically in their propaganda to attack the United States. They attack us as weak. They think that we're soft, specifically that notions of our masculinity. So yeah, I mean, I agree with that.

• 1:20:33Ryan Sean Adams?

  Also, I guess getting back to kind of the values piece of this, it almost seems like we've just opened up the curtain, the window of all of these existential issues that we're going to face and we are facing, right? The prospect of World War III, we didn't even get into US politics, but like the prospect of civil wars in the back of my mind as well. You know, it's like, what's going to happen in 2024? And then the backdrop of like the machines are kind of taking over and we've forgotten our reason for why we're here and like what we're doing. But the last piece that I think really stuck out to me is like, we're tearing things out without replacing them with something new. And I think that has been very crucial for our journey in crypto, which is we are trying to build new

• 1:21:17Ryan Sean Adams?

  systems bottom up, like that are new. It's just like we've said from the beginning, it's not about like burn it down, it's about build it up. Because this is what I get so frustrated with, and you probably call it nihilism in hidden forces and like, you know, so do we. But it's this apathy or it's just this like learned helplessness where we've got these institutions that are broken and like circumstances that we don't like. And what do we do? Like, nothing matters and as if we can't take control and build our future and build our way out. And so I feel like as we get to the end of the podcast, you'd probably agree with us, Dimitri, that like, the way forward is we have to build better systems, right? Like, the way we get out of this mess is actually inside of us all and collectively. And we

• 1:22:02Ryan Sean Adams?

  do have power and we do have autonomy to change the future. And part of that is adopting systems that we want to promote. Part of that is adopting the values that we want to promote. Part of that is having conversations like this. I'm wondering, Dimitri, if you have anything else actionable for us? Like, what should we do with the prospect of all of these existential issues and kind of like the 2020s and the 2030s and this entire century that we're going to have to live through? Do you have any advice for us or things that we should do?

• 1:22:33Speaker 02

  I don't know if I have advice, but you know, to your point about building better systems, I think it's always important to build better systems. But I also think

• 1:22:42Speaker 02

  Our democracy, the systems that we broadly call democratic governance, actually are pretty intact. They can work. You know, so like, we have the ability to use those systems to make really positive changes. Look, Donald Trump got elected president of the United States with zero political experience. Okay, granted, he was a celebrity and he had the role in The Apprentice and that gave him, you know, that created in people's minds, again, a template, a framework that they could understand, they could see him as becoming president, they could see him as a leader. But I firmly believe that we have the ability to elect somebody who is less divisive, who

• 1:23:24Speaker 02

  isn't a compromised hack, and especially because of social media, because of, I guess, the, how quickly you can scale a message in society today. I think it's easier than ever to elect a candidate on a populist wave that can actually reach a broader part of the population, that can address some of these things. I know that that scares a lot of people, that word populism, but I don't really see any other way of doing it because you're not going to get somebody that is going to come through the Democratic Republican Party. So, I just wanted to say that. I think we can't, we can't give up on that, but I also get, when I say that, that, well, there's, where are they? It's like Fermi's paradox, but for politics, right? It's like, where the fuck are the aliens? You know, like, where are the candidates?

• 1:24:08Speaker 02

  You know, is there a giant filter out there and they all just filtered out? I don't know. Yeah, I think, look, man, you said advice, I mean, nobody's perfect, especially like those of us who work really hard, compete with one another, it takes an enormous, when I'm talking about podcasting, as you guys know, it takes, takes a lot of work and effort and drive and ambition and vision to build a show, to build an audience, to monetize it, etc. But we all, I think, need to, where we can, try and devote more of ourselves towards a greater cause, whatever that is. I mean, for me, the way I do it is I try genuinely

• 1:24:50Speaker 02

  to use my podcast to help move positive conversations forward. When I find interesting new people, I try to bring them on the podcast. You know, again, I try to filter out people who I feel are kind of self motivated or kind of primarily motivated for themselves or their egos. I really want to try and help build up this, a sort of a culture of empathy, communication, and that addresses the issues that we talked about today, because we all kind of know, on the one hand, these are all problems, but on the other hand, we all kind of default to what's best for ourselves. You know, like what's in our own best interest. And I understand that tendency, but I think we have to fight it. And I believe that we

• 1:25:35Speaker 02

  have to fight it each on an individual level. I don't think that's something that, you know, government's going to do for us. So I don't know if that's advice.

• 1:25:42David Hoffman?

  Dmitri, as we all move forward in the next few years, what would be the things that you would look for to happen on the global stage or in the domestic stage? And you could look at that thing that happened and be like, okay, we're on a good path. That was a good thing. Or like perhaps in also in the opposite direction. Like, what are the signals that you're looking for that we are improving? And what signals are out there that we're actually continuing to break apart?

• 1:26:07Speaker 02

  Yeah, before, I'm so sorry. I can't help this. This happens to me sometimes. And it's like, once I see it, I can't unsee it. I started laughing because when I was transitioning from my question about advice, I thought about, I just did an episode with Alex Lee Moyer, who is the documentary filmmaker behind Alex's War, which is a documentary on Alex Jones, which had been really popular. And if you ever see Alex Jones, you know, he always takes opportunities to be like, because I was gonna say like, well, I should listen to Hidden Forces, by the way, that's a piece of advice I have. And Alex is always like, infoworks.com, planet.tv, blah, blah. So he's always throwing that out. So, yeah. What kind of signals would I see to make me think that things are getting better? Or worse?

• 1:26:50Speaker 02

  Well, first of all, we have seen some things. People like Tristan Harris. You know, Tristan Harris really did a lot, has done a lot of work to kind of raise people's awareness. He's spoken intelligently about the kind of issues of surveillance capitalism that we talked about before.

• 1:27:04Speaker 02

  I just think it's like that. If you see, if you see more people, look, I'm not gonna, this is not the best example because comedians are always truth tellers, but I think also, while I don't agree with everything Joe Rogan says, I think Joe Rogan's, you know, he seems to have his heart in the right place. He has a huge platform. He tries to have good conversations. You know, you may not agree with everything he says, but that's not the point. I think the more people that do that, the less ego, the more, if you begin to see, I guess, evidence of a common identity forming and a sense of common humanity, I think that's what I look for. That's what I feel like I want, you know, like, because we all talk past one another so often, you know, and especially with technology and

• 1:27:48Speaker 02

  having more of these like disembodied conversations on text, you know what I mean? Like, I have so many open threads in my brain and that changes the way we think too, you know, we lose patience. We have shorter and shorter attention spans. So I think seeing anything where there's more of an embrace of our common humanity, a willingness to talk to people's souls, their spirits. I don't mean that in a religious sense. I just mean the mystery of life, the things that, you know, are unknown and that speak to some common humanity. I think that's something that I look for. And I feel like I've seen more of that. But I also see a lot of confusion and a lot of anger. And, but I, look, I am fundamentally hopeful on this. I mean, we have, we've made it like, how many millions of years? You

• 1:28:32Speaker 02

  know, it depends on where you start the clock. So I agree, we have some really destructive technologies today and there's a lot of doom porn out there, but I think we can still make it.

• 1:28:40Ryan Sean Adams?

  Humanity has strong lindy, I guess, as we might say in crypto. Dmitri, it's been a pleasure, man. Thank you so much. It's been great. Thank you so much, Dmitri.

• 1:28:48Speaker 02

  I enjoyed it too, guys. Thank you so much for having me on.

• 1:28:50Ryan Sean Adams?

  Of course. Some action items, guys. One thing is through this podcast, Dmitri mentioned a whole bunch of hidden forces podcasts. We're going to get those from his brain after the episode and include those in the show notes. Also, Dmitri, what's this Alex Jones podcast you got coming up? Like, where can people tune into that? What is this about?

• 1:29:08Speaker 02

  So you can check out our entire episode library at hiddenforces.io, where you can also subscribe to our premium tier and that will give you access to the full two hours. Usually we record for two hour long podcasts. Sometimes they're premium only podcasts, in which case that whatever it is, it's on the premium feed. So the episode with Alex Jones, which again, they can find on hiddenforces.io or any major podcast platform, is with a girl named Alex Lee Moyer, who actually made this wonderful film, I think in 2017 it came out, called TFW No GF, which you guys will know stands for That Feeling When No Girlfriend. And it kind of covered what

• 1:29:49Speaker 02

  a lot of reporters at the time called the quote incels. But I actually didn't like that. It talks about Wojak, it talks about Peppa the Frog. And it really, what I found it to be was, I found it to be this really great, almost like a, I don't want to call it anthropological, because that would kind of dehumanize it. But it was a kind of cultural exploration of people that grew up during a certain period of time where they were pretty much always on the internet. I mean, my generation is unique in that I grew up without the internet up until the early 1990s when we had AOL. So by the time I was in middle school, I started getting on AOL and AIM. But you know, a lot of kids pretty much grew up with the internet, right from the get-go. And a lot of these folks, we

• 1:30:33Speaker 02

  know this particularly among the male demographic, a lot of young men really are lost. And so this documentary, the first one that she has chronicles a lot of this and what that looks like, speaks to the nihilism, speaks to a lot of the stuff we talked about today. So this is the filmmaker, and she did a second documentary on Alex Jones. She spent two years following Alex all over the country. And really, I found it to be an excellent documentary. It's really not a judgmental documentary. It is just, it's really kind of like an exploration of the person. I found it fascinating. I mean, I've watched hundreds, maybe even up to 1,000 hours of Alex Jones content, because I got, quote, red-pilled. It's true. You know, after the 2008 financial crisis, as someone that

• 1:31:15Speaker 02

  had been studying Austrian theory of the business cycle, and was following and reading people who were telling me and explaining to me compellingly, why we were going to have an economic recession, crisis of some sort, how bad it was going to get, I don't know. But what I didn't see was the government intervention. And so that kind of broke my brain, just dramatically upended my sense of reality. And it set me down all these rabbit holes back then. Of course, there was Peter Joseph Zeitgeist, American Zeitgeist movie. I don't know if you guys ever saw that?

• 1:31:44David Hoffman?

  Yep.

• 1:31:45Speaker 02

  That was the first thing that pulled me in. And I just started watching Alex Jones, David Icke. You know, Webster, Griffin, Tarpley, who are all these different people he had? This guy Alan Watts, different guys. Anyway, all these different people. And I started reading all these different books and et cetera, et cetera. So I'm very familiar with Alex Jones. And so, um, anyway, I think it's fascinating to explore him because so many people have sort of really buy into so much of what Alex says. And I think that while I disagree with so much of what Alex says, the conspiracies that Alex comes up with exist and are compelling because of the vacuum that's been created by the, the lack of trust in society, the lack of trust in institutions, like we discussed, for good reason.

• 1:32:30Speaker 02

  So long-winded response. I hope I didn't lose listeners on that one.

• 1:32:33Ryan Sean Adams?

  No, that's good. Yeah, I think that is a symptom, right? It's like everyone is looking for the easy answer to the very complex problem. Anyway, that's a lot of good stuff in there. Between Dimitri's podcast, I probably might, one of my top three podcasts, at least for me, or it's like Lex Friedman is fantastic. Hidden Forces with Dimitri and Sam Harris. These are my go-tos outside of crypto.

• 1:32:52Speaker 02

  You like Sam? He's great, man.

• 1:32:54Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yeah.

• 1:32:54Speaker 02

  You know, Sam's a great example. More people like Sam.

• 1:32:56Ryan Sean Adams?

  Totally agree.

• 1:32:57Speaker 02

  More people like Barry Weiss, too. Same thing. Sam was a huge inspiration for me when I started this show. You know, I didn't disagree, I don't agree with Sam on everything, every position he has, but I love his intellectual honesty, you know, and how he tries to hold himself accountable to his ideas. So I'm so glad that you listen to Sam. He's great.

• 1:33:14Ryan Sean Adams?

  Yeah. The ability to talk to anyone is something I highly value. And I think we want to enshrine that in Bankless as well. And Dimitri, it's been an absolute pleasure to talk to you, man. Thanks so much for dropping by.

• 1:33:23Speaker 02

  Thanks, guys. Infowars.com, prisonplanet.tv. All right. Thank you, guys.

• 1:33:29Ryan Sean Adams?

  Take it easy. Risk and disclaimers, as always. None of this has been financial advice. Crypto is risky, so is Infowars.com. You could lose what you put in. We're headed west. This is the frontier. It's not for everyone, but we're glad you're with us on the Bankless journey. Thanks a lot.