Pod Insights The Tucker Carlson Show Tucker and Bret Weinstein Debate Evolution, God’s Existence, Israel, and Will AI Gain Consciousness? About this episode A thoroughly civil debate with Bret Weinstein over the existence of God.
(00:00) Introduction
(01:18) Debating Evolution
(10:54) Is Human Sacrifice Evidence of Something Supernatural?
(19:33) Consciousness vs. Intuition
(36:10) Have We Actually Seen Humans Evolve?
(44:30) Where Do We Derive Moral Judgement if There Is No God?
(1:02:37) Sam Harris Is a Horrible Spokesperson for Atheism
Paid partnerships with:
Hallow prayer app: Get 3 months free at https://Hallow.com/TuckerExpressVPN: Go to https://ExpressVPN.com/Tucker and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free!
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript 21,461 words · 6 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:01 Speaker 00 Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to Progressive, save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states.
0:27 Tucker Carlson? I don't have a problem at all with the idea that there's physical evolution. My problem is with the question of the creation of all things.
0:34 Speaker 02 Religious belief systems are keys to the amazing capacity of humans.
0:42 Tucker Carlson? The Creator is the force that creates. God was not created. God has always been there, period. Man, if I was an atheist, I'd be very upset that Sam Harris was carrying my atheist water because I felt like he was a very bad spokesman for his cause.
0:58 Speaker 02 The spokespeople for atheism have done such a terrible disservice by demonizing people's religious faith rather than taking it as the important set of questions that it obviously is. There are many different ways that AI can radically disrupt civilization. The idea that they will become conscious and that we won't know is, to me, highly likely.
1:46 Tucker Carlson? First of all, thank you. It's great to see you.
1:48 Speaker 02 Great to see you, Tucker.
1:48 Tucker Carlson? And I hate to start a conversation about me or our relationship or whatever, but I just, I've been wanting to talk to you for the last year. I went on Joe Rogan's show about a year ago and I stated that I don't believe in Darwinism.
2:05 Tucker Carlson? And basically, I think God created people. I don't think it was, it's just a matter of belief. And you texted me and said, I'm an actual evolutionary biologist. We need to have this conversation. So we haven't.
2:19 Speaker 02 Yep.
2:20 Tucker Carlson? So I'm, I will just restate my one sentence position, which is, I think, I don't know about the timeline or the means, I'm not interested, but I think that people are a creation of God, not an accident of biology. That's my position.
2:38 Speaker 02 Got it. Yeah. I'm hoping that the text I sent you was not as
2:41 Tucker Carlson? No, it was great. No, it was great. No, are you kidding?
2:44 Speaker 02 But in any case, no, I did want to have this conversation with you. And let's just say, because evolution is my professional realm, I'm sure I could cite you chapter and verse.
2:58 Tucker Carlson? You definitely could.
2:58 Speaker 02 But it's pointless. First of all, it doesn't, that doesn't make me right. You know, the fact is, yes, I know a lot of factual material, but there are some deeper issues here. And I thought it would be useful if you and I just explored them, because I think you're standing in for a lot of people who have begun to have very profound questions about the story that they've been told about evolution and what its relationship is to biology and most importantly, to, to people.
3:32 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
3:33 Speaker 02 So I just want to confess a few of my positions so that your audience knows where I'm coming from.
3:40 Tucker Carlson? Okay.
3:41 Speaker 02 I do not believe that there is a creator in the literal sense. I am in no way hostile to the idea. But I've come to the conclusion that there probably isn't such a creator, because all of the things that we have been able to figure out about the world, things that we know are true, because they carry a great deal of predictive power, have come to us through the principle of parsimony. And I will clean up the principle of parsimony a little bit, because the way it was originally formulated is clumsy, but If we had access to all the information,
4:24 Speaker 02 then the simplest explanation for each pattern that we observe would be the correct one.
4:30 Tucker Carlson? Right.
4:30 Speaker 02 Simplicity is our guide to what's true. And for me, the problem with the hypothesis that there is a creator is that it answers one very difficult problem. Where did the universe come from? At an expense that is vastly greater in terms of the assumptions, right? If the universe came from a creator, well, that simplifies one thing. But now we have to explain where that creator came from. And that's a much harder problem than explaining the universe itself. So as much as I agree, explaining the universe and explaining biology is difficult,
5:14 Speaker 02 it does not solve a problem to imagine that a creator is the answer. And even if there was one, well, maybe that creator was existing in a universe that was created by another creator. But eventually, you're going to get to a place where you're going to have to reach for the only explanation we have ever come up with for where radical increases in complexity come from. So even if we, in this universe, are the product of a creator's work, ultimately, that creator is going to have to have come from somewhere. And the only explanation that could possibly work is going to be Darwinian. So again, I'm not saying that I know whether there is or there isn't.
5:59 Speaker 02 But I am saying that the principle that has allowed us to see all of what we can see, that has allowed us to build all that we have built, that principle is parsimony. And it suggests that this universe is not the product of an intentional creation.
6:15 Tucker Carlson? Okay, so did the Hebrews explain it this way? And the Christians too? That...
6:23 Tucker Carlson? The process is inherent in the description, so the Creator is the force that creates and is not himself-created. So, in other words, there is, God was not created. God has always been there, period.
6:38 Speaker 02 Right, and I see, you know, you can make the question go away, but I don't know what that means. We don't have any example of such a thing. So, it...
6:52 Tucker Carlson? No, we definitely don't, because everything apart from God is created.
6:57 Speaker 02 Well, okay, let me take a different tack.
6:59 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
7:02 Speaker 02 Let's say that, let's just start from the premise that there is a Creator who intended this universe and the biota. So, I'm a product of that
7:12 Tucker Carlson? Right.
7:12 Speaker 02 in this thought experiment. And in such a case, I know that this Creator gave me a capacity to reason. I'm pretty good at it, and so I have invested in it professionally. And He gave me an incredible
7:33 Speaker 02 set of evidence for Darwinian evolution. And I'm now forced to grapple with the question of why a Creator would have given me a capacity to reason, would have given me the principle of parsimony, the power of which I can see, and a set of evidence that forces me to conclude that the biota at least evolved in a Darwinian way. Now, it could be, let's put it this way. I think the simplest explanation then would be that the Creator used evolution to make...
8:18 Speaker 02 The biology and that, you know, maybe the creator is especially interested in the products of a Darwinian process, you know, maybe the creator is as delighted as I am, or because he's the creator, more delighted than I am at the sight of a hummingbird, that that's a marvelous thing to have happened through this process. I could imagine that it still doesn't strike me as the simplest way to explain the universe that I see, but you know, if, if a creator wanted a universe in which biological marvels happened, then the universe might look like this. And it doesn't change what I do at the point that I know that a Darwinian process is actually
9:02 Speaker 02 the tool that has shaped the creatures, then it, it makes sense to study it in the way that I do.
9:10 Speaker 02 So again, I'm not against the idea that there's a creator. I don't see any evidence for it. If there is a creator, I'm pretty sure he must want me to be skeptical for some reason, because he's given me that which would cause me to be skeptical. And I guess the final piece of that argument is that I think that there is a more parsimonious way to understand our, our universe and the role of religious belief in it, which I know will be grating to many people, especially people who, who do have a profound relationship with, with a religious faith.
9:55 Speaker 02 But I think the right way to understand all of the evidence is that religious belief systems are themselves profoundly important products of evolution. They are keys to the amazing capacity of humans. And so I don't know how clear this is, but part of what I'm saying is that I think the facts tell us, or they strongly imply a story in which there is no literal creator, but they do not tell us that the creator is a fiction, right? Any more than a wing is a fiction. Our belief in
10:43 Speaker 02 God or gods is a key to human functionality, and it is incumbent on evolutionary biologists to understand in what way that could possibly be true. And this is a responsibility on which I think evolutionists have fallen down. They have treated religious devotion as frankly, a pathology, and it couldn't possibly be one. It's obviously adaptive. And because it's obviously adaptive, it requires the same seriousness that we point at other structures or processes. And so far, there's been very little of that in my field.
11:21 Tucker Carlson? I don't think it is adaptive. I don't think there's any evidence of that at all. And I should also say that, by the way, and I'll tell you why I think that, but I shall say, what I said on Rogan was like, characteristically inarticulate and imprecise. And I don't have a problem at all with the idea that there's physical evolution, because I think there clearly is. My problem is with the question of the creation of all things. And I don't think there's a better explanation, or a more reasonable explanation, that there's just a God that created everything. If you disagree, I'd love to hear it. But let me just say, of the question of religion being adaptive, so like, one of the main modes
12:06 Tucker Carlson? of religious expression from the beginning of recorded history is human sacrifice, including, and it goes on today, around the world, in various forms. And the idea that that's like, necessary because population outstrips resources is not always true. Like, there are tons of examples, including in modern day, lots of places, including the United States, where there's, you know, plenty of resources and people do it anyway. But it's the same story in every civilization, none of which could have had contact with each other that we know of. And there's kind of nothing that evolutionary biology can say
12:48 Tucker Carlson? about that. It's like, it's not helping people at all. They're doing it anyway.
12:54 Speaker 02 Well, I look at it differently. I see the same or a similar pattern. And my sense is in biology, when we see a complex, costly pattern that either re-evolves, spreads,
13:15 Speaker 02 or otherwise persists over a long period of time, we are forced to grapple with the question of what could its utility be? Exactly. And
13:28 Speaker 02 while I don't think we have a good hypothesis about the utility of human sacrifice, and personally morally, I'm offended by it, as I'm sure you are. So is God, by the way.
13:40 Speaker 02 Nonetheless, like so many of humanity's worst attributes, we have to look at it and grapple with the evolutionary implications, that it does have some sort of a meaning. And I should say, buried within what I'm saying is a critique of where my field has gotten to. As I think I mentioned to you in a past discussion, I think my field is stuck. And it's no longer solving big problems. It's focused on producing lots of papers that study some specific, but it's not discovering big new things. And that's not because there isn't lots to be done. It's because it's sort of lost track of how to do it.
14:25 Speaker 02 So I'm not arguing, I'm not a champion of the state of evolutionary biology. I think it's a little pitiful. But, but I am a champion of the basic Darwinian paradigm, which I think we have lost sight of. In fact, evolutionary biologists in the middle of the 20th century overly narrowed our understanding of Darwinism and have blinded us to what it's really trying to tell us about ourselves. And I would love to see us remember how to do the process of discovery and to start I strongly agree. unlocking big puzzles. But it sounds to me like
15:11 Speaker 02 You believe in a universe in which biological evolution happens.
15:16 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
15:16 Speaker 02 Okay, so there's no disagreement.
15:18 Tucker Carlson? And that people adapt and that human behavior is to a huge extent a function of physical reality of biology. And like, we do certain things, we have certain attitudes because of biology, because of nature, like, these are imperatives of nature. And so I totally buy all that. I think Darwin thought all that. Here's, I guess, to put a finer point on it, I believe in the existence of the supernatural. I've experienced it, I've seen it, it's real, it exists outside of nature, outside of all the laws that we think we're subject to, and it acts on us. And human sacrifice is one example of that. So
15:58 Tucker Carlson? that's my, that's my view. I'm totally convinced that that's true. I know that it's true. And so I, I don't know if there's room in the framework that you're describing for that fact.
16:12 Speaker 02 Well, what I, I think I did not articulate properly is, I'm not arguing that a materialist, scientific worldview that excludes the supernatural is a better way to live. One of the things I think atheists have done particularly badly, and one of the reasons that I don't call myself an atheist, is that there is no demonstrated case in which, you know, an atheist civilization has thrived. In fact, we have many examples in which they have spectacularly collapsed.
16:51 Speaker 02 And in fact, the things that presently threaten our civilization include a great many, you know, atheist ideas, like, you know, you can just up and change your sex if you feel that you're trapped in the wrong.
17:07 Tucker Carlson? There is no God but us.
17:09 Speaker 02 Right. So that program doesn't work very well, at least not as far as we've seen.
17:15 Tucker Carlson? I think that's true.
17:16 Speaker 02 So I'm not arguing that a belief.
17:17 Tucker Carlson? No, no, but I'm not even, no, I, I know that you think that, and it's obvious in how you live, that you think that. But I want to get more focused on just like the reality of it. Like, if the super, if there is no supernatural. Then like, what is all this stuff?
17:35 Speaker 02 Well.
17:35 Tucker Carlson? Like, what's the other explanation?
17:37 Speaker 02 So I will tell you how I deal with the question.
17:40 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
17:40 Speaker 02 Personally.
17:41 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
17:41 Speaker 02 Which is, I have a category that I don't share with anybody, as far as I know, that I would call the metanatural. Right? Which is sort of the advantage that comes from believing in the supernatural. I believe it all ultimately could be explained through a natural system. In the same way, you could explain a baseball game by thinking of all of the atoms in the baseball and the bat and the players. But that's a terrible way to think about baseball. Right? It just doesn't, it's not functional. But yes, you could, in principle, do it. So I think that the belief in the supernatural is a much more efficient way of encoding hidden truths that you can't readily comprehend.
18:26 Speaker 02 So to give you one example. You might have a system in which you imagine that the misbehavior of your people, whoever they might be, is going to result in the anger of a God who will punish you with famine.
18:46 Tucker Carlson? Right.
18:47 Speaker 02 Okay? That would be supernatural. It's also true that if your people are busy betraying each other, that that may threaten the harvest. In other words, your coordination in the planting of crops, the protecting of those crops, and the harvesting of those crops is dependent on whether or not people like and trust each other. And to the extent that they're backstabbing each other, it could very well result in starvation without the intervention of an intentional God. So to me, those two stories are the same story. How do you explain to people you really shouldn't misbehave because it could interfere with our coordination in a way that may result in us not having enough food to get through
19:32 Speaker 02 the winter? The answer is, oh, God sees what you're doing, and he's not happy about it. And when God's not happy, starvation is highly likely. Right? So the metanatural is the category that allows the reconciliation of the efficient narrative description of this process with the difficult-to-spot deeper.
20:00 Speaker 02 Physical connection.
20:01 Tucker Carlson? I think that's, I mean, I think there's a practical effect of doing the right thing, and it's a, it's a good thing, right?
20:09 Speaker 02 Right.
20:10 Tucker Carlson? So, but I'm more interested in the question, among others, of like, knowing, how do we know things on the basis of no evidence that are true? How do we, how do we, how do we know?
20:21 Speaker 02 Well.
20:22 Tucker Carlson? But we do know. So that's, that's kind of my point, is that very often, the deepest truths come to us apart from outside of our senses. And we're right.
20:35 Speaker 02 Well, I wouldn't say outside of our senses. I would say outside of our consciousness.
20:40 Tucker Carlson? Okay.
20:41 Speaker 02 And so the distinction is, is like this. Our consciousness is late evolving. It shows up at the end of our evolutionary story, not early. And, you know, that means that there are a good many mammals that have some degree of consciousness that we can see, but nobody's conscious like we are. The conscious mind, I will argue, is actually evolved for an initial purpose. The initial purpose is exactly what we are doing right now. It is the ability for two minds to pool their understanding, right?
21:25 Speaker 02 To actually plug into each other and reach an emergent conclusion that neither of us could reach alone, or that the two of us couldn't reach separately if we couldn't plug our consciousnesses into each other. So when we say, actually, that we know things, but we don't know how we know them, we're sort of talking about our conscious minds, which are just this thin sliver on top of this architecture that has been knowing things for millions of years in ways that weren't conscious at all. So I think we're really, it's that interface. Does my conscious mind know why I know this to be true? Why, why do I meet somebody and have a distrust that turns out to be accurate with respect
22:10 Speaker 02 to their trustworthiness, right?
22:13 Speaker 02 I can try to piece it together, I may get nowhere. And it may be that there's a lot that I actually did perceive. It came in through my eyes and my ears and who knows what else. But it is my conscious mind's difficulty in describing it that feels like my entire mind was handed this piece of information. So, to put it another way, we don't do a good job of talking about intuition. In my opinion, intuition is the product of unconscious processes in the mind.
22:54 Speaker 02 If those unconscious processes are in a zone where you've had a lot of experience, your intuition is liable to be excellent. If those unconscious processes are trying to navigate something where you don't have much experience at all, your intuition will be crude. It's not a supernatural process. It's about the sum total of your experiences and what they are capable of putting together about, about the world. And that to me, you know, it might as well be supernatural from the point of view of how most people live their lives. It may indeed just simply be the best way to function.
23:38 Speaker 02 But that's different than saying that that's actually what's taking place.
23:43 Tucker Carlson? So it's not every day that the Catholic Church gets a brand new leader, a new Pope. Christians around the world are watching really, really carefully. This is the largest Christian denomination, the oldest church. It is essential that the Catholic Church gets a wise new leader who is installed not simply by the Cardinals, but by God. And so it's your job to pray for that. There is no better way to pray for that than with Hallow. Hallow is the world's number one prayer app. It is the subject of nightly conversation at my dinner table. And Hallow just launched its Conclave Prayer Challenge that allows you to pray for the Holy Spirit to move within the Cardinals and to choose the right Pope. It matters whether you're Catholic or not.
24:26 Tucker Carlson? This multi-episode series walks you through the Vatican's process. It provides updates as news breaks and it offers prayer guidance at every turn. Again, even if you're not Catholic, which by the way, I'm not, it is worth praying for a good and Christian Pope. The day after the decision, Hallow launches the seven-day Pray for the Pope Challenge, followed by another Papal Saint Name Challenge to go deep into the life of the saint the Pope chooses for his name. This will be immersive, totally immersive, like everything they do. So you can download the Hallow app today to dive in. It will honestly-
24:57 Speaker 03 We all hear the radio ads about the IRS. They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you into calling. I'm not here to do that. Tax Relief Advocates is different. TRA is here to tell you that if you owe money to the IRS, whether it's $5,000, $50,000, or $500,000, we have a solution. It doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car, at work, or with your kids, no matter where you are, call now. 800-576-4705. Don't lose hope. TRA can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the IRS. Generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start. Our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their IRS problems. We have over 1,005 star reviews on Google and an A+ with the Better Business Bureau. You don't need to be afraid of the IRS any longer.
25:42 Speaker 03 End your tax nightmare today by visiting us online at TRA.com or call 800-576-4705. That's 800-576-4705. Tax Relief Advocates, real solutions for real people.
25:57 Speaker 04 Imagine if every time inverse Kramer or another top investor bought a stock, you bought it too, in your own brokerage account automatically. Well, that now exists and it's called autopilot. Built by the team behind the viral Pelosi stock tracker. Autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or AI driven models. Just find one with a high return, connect your personal brokerage account like a Schwab or Robinhood and every trade they make, you make automatically. Your money never leaves your own account. Autopilot just mirrors the moves. So now no more guessing, no more staring at charts and no more checking the market between meetings. Also over 1.3 billion is already invested.
26:40 Speaker 04 So if you wanted to check it out, search autopilot in the app store or go to join autopilot.com. That's join autopilot.com. Investing has risks like the loss of principal.
26:50 Tucker Carlson? It changed your life. Do people ever communicate with each other across distances non verbally?
26:58 Speaker 02 Yeah, in fact, you know, one of the funny things about us is that we have a special adaptation in our eyes that allows us to communicate as a hunting party without alerting the thing that we're hunting.
27:12 Tucker Carlson? I mean, out of sight. I'm 500 miles from my spouse and we have the same thought at the same moment.
27:21 Speaker 02 Yeah, but I don't think it's supernatural.
27:24 Tucker Carlson? How is that natural?
27:27 Speaker 02 Well, I mean, if I work backwards from my own parallel experiences. My wife and I know each other very, very well. She can detect if my pattern of communication is off. And you know, if she is triggered to think, huh, I would have expected to hear from him. I didn't.
27:54 Speaker 02 I wonder what that's about. She also knows a certain amount about, you know, what's been on my mind and, you know, where I may be heading and therefore she may be able to deduce because she, you know, if we're talking about intuition, Heather's intuition about me has got to be pretty damn good because she's had, you know, her entire adult life to build a model that's as accurate as anybody's would be. So her ability to figure out that
28:24 Speaker 02 that there is some pattern there is second to none and it will not surprise me if very frequently she nails the analysis and we can be 500 miles or 1,000 miles apart and it feels like a communication across a very long distance when really it's a kind of a synchrony that allows her to extrapolate when something has departed from normal. And I will say one other thing about this. We have a very strange pattern as human beings. When we meet, we say
28:58 Speaker 02 totally meaningless things, you know, what's new? Not much, right? And I've thought a lot about why that would be. It's not very expensive each time we do it, but over a lifetime, you're putting a lot of effort into using a communication mechanism that can transmit very remarkable stuff and you're just broadcasting empty stuff. A lot of wasted breath, yeah. Except it's not wasted. If I come through the door and I say, hey, honey, I know before I even see Heather what frame of mind she's in based on her response, even though the words may be the same always. I can tell if she's frustrated, if she's elated.
29:41 Speaker 02 I know what frame of mind she's in and my sense is that it makes, it makes sense when we meet somebody to go through a pro forma interaction that allows you to detect things like emotional state.
29:57 Speaker 02 Right? It's a, it's a profoundly important check. And rather than say something special, to the degree that it is standardized, what those interactions contain, it makes it much easier to detect the part that's important, which is the tone, the cadence, all of those things. So
30:18 Tucker Carlson? How was your day?
30:19 Speaker 02 Fine. Exactly.
30:21 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
30:21 Speaker 02 Exactly. So, anyway, I would
30:25 Tucker Carlson? Can I just bring back to the beginning, though?
30:27 Speaker 02 Sure.
30:27 Tucker Carlson? If you said that the principle of parsimony is usually true, like the simplest explanation is the likely explanation. So my explanation for the creation of all things is God, who was not created, but only creates, created all things. Pretty simple. Your explanation is what?
30:50 Speaker 02 Well, let's put it this way. I've seen another version of this where you won't expect it. The many universes theory of quantum mechanics.
31:03 Tucker Carlson? Yep.
31:03 Speaker 02 You know this?
31:04 Tucker Carlson? Yep.
31:05 Speaker 02 So the basics are that in order to reconcile some of the oddities that quantum mechanics has discovered, we imagine that in every instant, there is a universe spawned for every conceivable outgrowth. And so, you know, if I pick up this pen, there's a universe in which I didn't, and a universe in which I did, and those universes go on to do whatever they do. Right?
31:32 Speaker 02 This is a spectacularly simple explanation linguistically. It is the opposite of simple in terms of what it implies. You're going to create a universe for every conceivable nuance of interaction that every creature, every pebble that rolled down a hill, you're creating universes at this rate? That's not simple. That's complex at a level that's beyond extreme. And so, my sense, and, you know, again, I'm not arguing that this isn't the better way to live, but my sense is when you say, the simplest explanation is a creator who wasn't created, yeah, linguistically, that it doesn't get simpler than that. It's
32:13 Speaker 02 a one sentence, you know, and you're done. At the level of what it means,
32:20 Speaker 02 It's almost inconceivably, what does it mean for something capable of creating a universe not to have come into existence?
32:28 Tucker Carlson? Right.
32:28 Speaker 02 Right? I can't even imagine what that means, right?
32:32 Tucker Carlson? Well, it is inconceivable. I mean, that's, that's why you're the created, not the creator.
32:36 Speaker 02 Right. But, and, and again, I'm not hostile to this position.
32:40 Tucker Carlson? Well, I don't think you are, that's why.
32:41 Speaker 02 But my point would be,
32:46 Speaker 02 the question of, did the universe start with a creator? Is not one that you are likely to derive some practical value from spending your time on. In fact, you could waste your entire life, make no progress, and be detained from all of the other things you might have done. So it would be useful for most humans throughout most of history to have had a simple explanation that simply allowed them to move on to questions where there was some profit to be made or peril to be avoided. Right? You want not to be stuck on questions where there's no potential value in your exploration.
33:27 Speaker 02 And so my sense is that that's a very elegant way of moving on to things that are actually important. And that's why it's effectively an enduring answer to a question that every human being is likely to have at some point.
33:41 Tucker Carlson? So what's the other explanation?
33:43 Speaker 02 I don't know. I mean, where'd the universe come from? I'm not even sure we can know.
33:48 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's, that's the religious position too.
33:50 Speaker 02 Right. Well, and, and that's part of, that's part of why I wanted to talk to you about this is I do think that there will ultimately be a distinction between people who are faith first and people who are parsimonny first. And the distinction is the ordering of two things. Right? Did God create an evolving universe? Or did an evolving universe create God? It's one or the other.
34:21 Speaker 02 But my feeling is it's nothing beyond that. We should be able to actually productively collaborate on everything else. And then, you know, at some point in the evening, we can have that argument.
34:33 Tucker Carlson? So here's the, here's the, I guess, the other kind of thematic problem I have with thinking about everything in terms of evolution is that I don't think people are evolving.
34:45 Speaker 02 Oh.
34:46 Tucker Carlson? Human behavior, I mean, look, the written record doesn't go very far. The first legal code we have is Hammurabi's Code, just a few thousand years old. But it's still a while.
34:55 Speaker 02 Yep.
34:55 Tucker Carlson? And a lot has happened in the ensuing thousands of years. And like, that's totally recognizable as a legal code to anyone who reads it.
35:02 Speaker 02 Yep.
35:03 Tucker Carlson? And, you know, people are just kind of the same as they have always been to the extent that we know how they have been, right?
35:12 Speaker 02 Um, no, not at all.
35:16 Tucker Carlson? Really?
35:17 Speaker 02 Yeah, yeah, not at all.
35:18 Tucker Carlson? What ways have people evolved?
35:20 Speaker 02 Well, so this is part of where I'm so frustrated with my field.
35:24 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
35:25 Speaker 02 Because the thing about evolution is Darwin nailed his part of the question.
35:34 Speaker 02 We narrowed his answer to something that is too crude to be generally functional. It works for certain things. It fails to explain other things consistently. And the closer you get to human beings, the worse a job it does. Not because of anything Darwin got wrong. He was probably to his benefit hobbled by what he didn't know. Because he didn't know the molecular part of the story. He was unconstrained by it, which forced him to speak in a general sense that turns out to be correct. But what I would, what you need to understand in order to follow how this story explains
36:19 Speaker 02 human beings is that the underlying story of evolution, the early one, pre-human story, is about genes getting into the future.
36:33 Speaker 02 That's what they do. That's what all creatures are doing. Every creature has the same purpose. In creatures with meaningful culture, that is creatures in which there's generational overlap and sociality enough for something to be transmitted outside of the genome, you get a second kind of evolution. You have cultural evolution. And in human beings, this has become a, it's become the central element of the story. Genes are very slow to adapt, much faster than we typically think, but nonetheless, it takes a very long time for a genetic change to spread across the human population.
37:18 Speaker 02 It takes no time at all for a cultural innovation to spread, for both better and worse. I understand. So what I'm arguing is that the genome, our genomes, have offloaded the evolutionary work to the layer of culture. And they've done that because culture can rapidly adapt. Right. Makes sense. So if you look at human beings and you expect to see a lot of evolution in the physical sense, you see some, you see distinctions between populations, but most of them are superficial. But you see radical divergence in cultural
37:58 Speaker 02 systems. Those cultural systems are equally as adaptive as the genetic systems underneath. So people often draw a distinction between biology and culture. That's a false dichotomy. Biology or genes and culture are equally biological. And the bitter pill that comes with the whole thing is culture is actually the genes solving a gene problem. One that we as conscious beings with values shouldn't care about.
38:30 Speaker 02 We are condemned, in some sense, to be playing out a battle between genes that is absurd once you see it. It's not worthy of us. So, yes, we are evolving radically. The fact that, you know, if you go to Italy, you struggle to communicate is the result of two populations having diverged at a cultural level enough that you're functionally incompatible, right? That's a lot of evolutionary change in a short period of time. And you could say the same thing about the difference in belief systems, right?
39:13 Speaker 02 You've got effectively a phylogenetic story of evolution at the level of human cultures, right? You know, for example, we have, you know, you have Judaism. From it evolves Christianity, right? Christianity, if in a phylogenetic sense, is the largest evolutionary branch of Judaism, right? It is a competing branch with Islam and Hinduism. You know, these are alternative structures and the implications for the behavior of
39:55 Speaker 02 the populations that subscribe to these different doctrines are as significant as species distinctions. In other words, the belief system that you inherit outside the genome is, it encodes how to be a human being relative to some niche, right? A niche that we don't describe in those terms, but we should. If we want a complete, as simple as possible, story of evolution, understanding that culture alters the way evolution functions, it does not alter the objective of evolution, is the way to do it.
40:35 Tucker Carlson? So just to rewind a couple of minutes, you said that genetics determine culture?
40:41 Speaker 02 No, genetics carve out the ability to transmit large packages of vital information about how to be outside of the genome. In other words, you inherit your genes from your parents. You inherit your culture mostly from your parents, but outside the genome. After you're born, if your parents speak Italian, you will come to speak Italian. If your parents speak Mandarin, you'll speak Mandarin. So that package of adaptive information is being passed in parallel to the genes.
41:20 Speaker 02 But again, it is unfortunately obligated to serve the ends that the genome is evolved to serve.
41:29 Tucker Carlson? So you probably find yourself at about three in the morning, turning over the deepest questions of life in your mind. What is the meaning of our existence? Is this country moving in the right direction? And of course, why should I use a VPN? That's gotta be on the list. And of course, the last question is super easy to answer. VPNs are vital in the pursuit of freedom. Why? Because you're being spied on, your data is being collected by data brokers, your online activity is being tracked. Every time you go online, someone's watching and all that information is being sold to who knows who? Governments, scammers, companies who want to sell you stuff you don't want to buy? No thanks. So when you use a VPN, you regain your freedom because you regain your privacy.
42:13 Tucker Carlson? There's none better than ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes 100% of your online traffic through secure encrypted servers. It scours the websites of data hawks who already have your information to get that information removed. Because what you do online is only your business. Privacy is a prerequisite for freedom. You deserve to know that you're not being spied on and ExpressVPN gives you that insurance. You get an extra four months for free of ExpressVPN when you use the link below. You scan the QR code on the screen or you can go to expressvpn.com/tucker and you get four extra months of ExpressVPN. Expressvpn.com/tucker.
42:55 Speaker 00 Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to Progressive save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states.
43:23 Speaker 05 Now for a quick message from Anthropic, the team behind Claude, the AI built for businesses. Customers count on their bank and banks count on their most important systems. Now those systems count on Claude and nine of the Fortune 10 companies use it for critical work. See why leading companies trust Claude at claude.ai/span.
43:47 Tucker Carlson? So underlying all of this is a question we don't need to get into this, but like, if there's no God, then how is there a moral code at all? Like, why can we say that it's better to raise a child than to kill a child? I still don't, I've never understood that, but, um, but, but let's just, for the sake of argument, let's just say we all agree that it's better to raise a child than to kill a child.
44:07 Speaker 02 Yep.
44:07 Tucker Carlson? And we've always agreed that on that.
44:09 Speaker 02 Yep.
44:10 Tucker Carlson? From the beginning and for court history. So for whatever reason, we all think that.
44:17 Tucker Carlson? There seems to be very little evidence that people are getting better. And so the Christian perspective is that people are captive to sin, to the influence of supernatural evil forces on them, which I think is like everyone's experience, by the way, you don't have to be a Christian to know that that's true. And we're constantly fighting to keep those at bay, but they, they reemerge and they serially reemerge, right? And they, there seems to be no evidence they're going to stop reemerging. So like, that's not evolution, that's stasis.
44:52 Speaker 02 Oh, no, no, no. Um, I mean, again, let's just work from the other perspective and see whether or not we arrive in the same place.
45:04 Speaker 02 Morality, as far as I can tell, is synonymous with self-sacrifice.
45:13 Tucker Carlson? Correct.
45:14 Speaker 02 That which is moral is you bypassing an evolutionary opportunity.
45:19 Tucker Carlson? Exactly.
45:20 Speaker 02 Right. So why would you do that? Why would evolution program you to bypass an evolutionary opportunity? Well, the answer is because there are competing evolutionary puzzles. So
45:35 Speaker 02 the question of, you know,
45:41 Speaker 02 should you betray your spouse? Right? Obviously, evolutionarily, it's not hard to understand the argument in favor. Right? You might father a child, fathering children passes on some genes. We get why evolution might point you toward that. On the other hand, from the point of view of the well-being of your family and your family's well-being has everything to do with how durable a position they hold in your community, how productive their lives are likely to be. The delayed benefit of not betraying your spouse is substantial, but hard to convey.
46:24 Speaker 02 Right? So the religious doctrine that tells you this is how you should be. And you may see reasons not to be this way, but you can't escape the consequences of them. Those consequences will arrive. Right? Again, if we go back to the question of, you know, what happens in a community that's full of people betraying each other, well, starvation might be one thing that happens. You can describe that in terms of a God who's angry and disappointed with people, where you can describe that in game theoretic terms in which, you know, cascades of betrayal result in
47:03 Tucker Carlson? Right.
47:04 Speaker 02 lack of coordination, it amounts to the same thing.
47:06 Tucker Carlson? Those are true. But that's not, but my question was not, I agree with you completely. Virtue.
47:14 Tucker Carlson? Produces rewards.
47:15 Speaker 02 Yep.
47:15 Tucker Carlson? I think that's right. And you don't have to be a Christian or atheist to believe that. My question is deeper. Why do we all assume that life is better than death? Kindness is better than cruelty? That it's better to pass on your genes than to go extinct? I mean, these are all moral judgments that seem impossible in the absence of a God.
47:38 Speaker 02 Well, I don't think they're impossible. I just think they're incredibly cumbersome.
47:41 Tucker Carlson? Well, they're arbitrary.
47:42 Speaker 02 Yeah.
47:42 Tucker Carlson? And, uh, well, yeah, I mean, you can't, you can say, well, I prefer one, but you can't say one is like absolutely better than the other, says who?
47:49 Speaker 02 I think there's only one of them that's arbitrary. I mean, we're way off in the weeds and all of your-
47:55 Tucker Carlson? No, I think this is like central.
47:56 Speaker 02 Okay, well, good. I'm glad you do. I don't think there is a robust analytical argument for why being alive is superior to not being alive. I think this is, and mind you, I am very committed to the idea that being alive is way better.
48:14 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
48:14 Speaker 02 I'm intending to stay alive as long as possible and to help those I love do the same. So it's not that I'm confused about this, but analytically speaking, what is it about life that's superior to not life? Well, the answer is nothing, except you would expect a lot of creatures that are the product of a competition between those who were committed to living and those that weren't so committed to it. You would expect an accumulation of bias where we would all inherit the same analytical perspective, even though it's not grounded in the physical reality of the universe.
48:55 Speaker 02 So that one, the only point there is, I think that one is actually arbitrary. But once you agree that being alive is pretty great and beats the alternative and you're going to get an infinite amount of the alternative anyway, so you might as well preserve the one space of being alive that you're going to get, right? Once you're there, well, then the answer is the rest of it follows, right? Why should you?
49:27 Speaker 02 Be honorable. Well, because actually it preserves your spot in the universe much better than-
49:35 Tucker Carlson? I get it. I get it. But then you're back to the practical analysis of it.
49:38 Speaker 02 Right. Well, I bet that this, this is-
49:40 Tucker Carlson? But we can't all lie past what you described as arbitrary because it's the root of everything.
49:46 Speaker 02 Well, I agree. It is.
49:47 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
49:47 Speaker 02 And I'm, look, I love this confusion, right? I think that being confused into thinking life is great. I mean, what else is there, right? I'm all on board with it.
49:55 Tucker Carlson? It makes it difficult to, I don't understand on what basis people make judgments about, say, murder if they don't believe that there's a higher power. I just don't get that.
50:04 Speaker 02 Well, again, I think the answer is actually implied in what you asked about the failure to evolve that you see in the present. And I agree, in the present, it's pretty hard to make an argument that we are making some discernible kind of progress. In fact, we're injuring ourselves at every turn-
50:27 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
50:27 Speaker 02 -as a result of what Heather and I have called hyper novelty. The rate of change is so high that one can't figure out-
50:33 Tucker Carlson? Can't metabolize it. No, I agree.
50:34 Speaker 02 Yeah. But the overarching pattern over time is one of a dawning of a kind of moral enlightenment. It's not, as you point out, it does not prevent the alternatives from repeatedly reemerging, right? But I mean, let's take, for example-
50:59 Tucker Carlson? But how can we even call it enlightenment? Why is it not just our preference?
51:04 Speaker 02 Let's, let's take, let's take the story of, of Jesus.
51:07 Tucker Carlson? Mm-hmm.
51:08 Speaker 02 Okay. The story of Jesus, if I understand it, and I'm no biblical scholar, but if I understand that story, the key elements of it, or at least several key elements of it, involve a broadening of the sense of self, right? A broadening of the in-group. This is what the story of the Good Samaritan tells us, right? This is what the golden rule is. This is, you know, love your enemy. Now, those things are-
51:40 Speaker 02 A radical increase in the inclusion of others into an in-group. And the benefits of stabilizing a larger in-group are absolutely tremendous. Now, imagine for a moment that Jesus had said these things in game theoretic terms, and he had tried to convince people with whatever the equivalent of a whiteboard would have been of, you know, the reasons to broaden the in-group at this moment in history. It's preposterous, right? It's not a good argument, even if it's a true argument. Nobody's going to get it. Nobody's going to care, right?
52:25 Speaker 02 So that's not how humans become enlightened. Humans become enlightened because of the power of a narrative that causes them to modify their behavior so that they do function more effectively in light of all of the game theoretic hazards that are always jeopardizing us, which then answers your other question, I think. Why the bad patterns? You know, if it's simply good to include others in your in-group, why don't, why don't we just simply evolve to default to that and never waver?
53:05 Speaker 02 And the problem is that there's a competition between short-term gain and long-term gain. Effectively, the upgrade in which you in-group more people is much better in the long run. But in the short run, individuals who decide to take advantage of that may have some advantage inside of the group, right? And so...
53:35 Speaker 02 Building a structure in which you can't get away with it increases the effectiveness of the moral point, right? If you have everybody calculating that it's morally, you know, you should do the morally right thing if you are in a position to be observed. And if you're not in a position to be observed, then you should do whatever is most profitable, right? Civilization breaks down. If, on the other hand, you take a narrative and you say, nobody ever gets away with anything. It's being observed, it's being recorded, and it may be profitable in the short run,
54:17 Speaker 02 but there's an awful lot of punishment that will come later, right? Frankly, I don't even know if the sentence I just said is a religious narrative or a translation of game theory. It's the same thing.
54:30 Tucker Carlson? Right, and I would say that everything you're saying, which is complex, quite, is an argument for a creator. Because the design is so brilliant, as you're describing it, and the end result, of course, is like perpetuation of the species of all species, that like, that's an accident? Like, because you're describing a system with intent. And that intent comes from where? You're describing a system with a goal.
54:59 Speaker 02 I am describing a system with a goal, not with intent. Um, yeah, the system has a goal, and-
55:06 Tucker Carlson? The goal is the intent, right? The intent is to achieve the goal.
55:09 Speaker 02 Well, that's, I mean, that is the sticking point, that-
55:13 Tucker Carlson? This doesn't make any sense!
55:15 Speaker 02 No, no, it makes, it makes a lot of, it makes-
55:17 Tucker Carlson? It doesn't make any sense without, I don't want to use the phrase intelligent design, but like-
55:22 Speaker 02 Well, let's, let's take a, let's take a parallel example, and-
55:25 Tucker Carlson? Okay.
55:25 Speaker 02 We could trip over the parallel example if we-
55:27 Tucker Carlson? I just think you've made an amazing case for God, and I didn't know if you thought of yourself as an evangelist-
55:32 Speaker 02 No, no.
55:32 Tucker Carlson? You just convinced me.
55:33 Speaker 02 I've made a very, I've made a very compelling case for a belief in God.
55:38 Tucker Carlson? Well, but what's the other, what's the other explanation?
55:42 Speaker 02 Well, that's, that's just the thing, is the other explanation is that there are processes that function, let's take two examples, okay? If we talk about the behavior of a seedling, right? A seed is planted-
56:04 Speaker 02 It breaks open, it germinates, and the seed, the seedling rises against gravity and breaks the surface and it puts out its two little solar panels. And at that point, it bends towards the sun. You could say, what is the other explanation for that, other than a desire to reach sunlight? And the answer is, actually, in this case, we know the mechanism, and it's amazing.
56:35 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, yeah, no, I agree.
56:37 Speaker 02 But it's not desire.
56:38 Tucker Carlson? But it expresses a value, though. And the value is, life is better than death.
56:43 Speaker 02 It expresses-
56:44 Tucker Carlson? To exist is better than not to.
56:45 Speaker 02 Yes, it expresses an objective, but not a desire.
56:52 Tucker Carlson? Uh, I'm not sure, I mean, it's a semantic question. I don't know. I see a huge difference between the two, but-
56:58 Speaker 02 But that's exactly, that's exactly my point, is what I'm, I'm not trying to compel people that the answer that I think I can see is right for them. I'm trying to convince people that the answer I think I see is actually not dogged by some paradox that makes it unviable. It's too cumbersome to live by it. But it's, you know, just like the example of the baseball game. The baseball game happens, it's made of atoms and energy, and you could imagine commentators sitting there describing the, the energy and the material in, you know, the object, and it would be-
57:43 Tucker Carlson? Right.
57:44 Speaker 02 -the worst, most cumbersome commentary at a sports event conceivable.
57:48 Tucker Carlson? But it wouldn't really tell you anything useful.
57:50 Speaker 02 Right, that's the point.
57:51 Tucker Carlson? Right. So what I see by your description is an entire universe screaming at the top of its collective lungs, "Life is better than death."
58:00 Speaker 02 No, no, only the living stuff thinks that.
58:04 Tucker Carlson? Well, I mean, there's, I'm not exactly sure we can measure or define living as precisely as we think we can, but whatever.
58:14 Speaker 02 Yeah.
58:15 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, look. But, but in general, observe, living, things that we describe as living, that we can observe, are all moving in the same direction. And the message, being a message guy, I can discern this, life is better than death.
58:31 Speaker 02 Yeah, I agree. Another example, okay? Let us agree that love is a profoundly, I'm struggling for words even good enough to describe it, is a profoundly transformative property of life that is as close to a north star as a human being can have. And I don't mean just romantic love, familial love, love of country, all of these things. Love is this tremendously powerful force.
59:12 Speaker 02 Now let us say, there's actually a lot of neurochemistry that we can describe relative to love.
59:22 Speaker 02 Which story do I want people living by? Oh, definitely the narrative one in which you just simply surrender to the power of this thing and you allow it to be a guide. That's definitely, I don't want to live amongst people who view love as just a bunch of chemical reactions, yada, yada, yada, right? That's a horrifying dystopia. But it doesn't make it untrue that love is mediated through neurochemistry.
59:46 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, why can't both be true? That doesn't-
59:47 Speaker 02 They are. That's exactly my point. That's exactly my point. They are both true.
59:51 Tucker Carlson? But only one describes the purpose of it, the origin of it.
59:56 Speaker 02 Only one is-
59:59 Speaker 02 Useful for a living.
1:00:01 Tucker Carlson? No, but I'm saying the the theist believes he understands why this is happening.
1:00:07 Speaker 02 Right.
1:00:08 Tucker Carlson? The atheist has no idea.
1:00:10 Speaker 02 Well, in a sense.
1:00:12 Tucker Carlson? So really, that's the question. It's not. It's not a question of how things happen. It's a question of why they happen.
1:00:17 Speaker 02 Well, I'm trying to talk to two camps in a sense, and maybe this will be more of a theme of our discussion on other topics here, but there's a kind of nuance that has become impossible. And I'm trying to make a point to the atheists about what they failed at and why they're not reaching lots of people and why they're losing ground. And I'm also trying to make a point to the theological folks about Darwinism and about the utility of figuring out how to reconcile these things rather than view them as as competing explanations.
1:00:58 Tucker Carlson? Hey, it's Dr. Carlson. You may have noticed that the companies whose products you buy tend to kind of hate you. They're controlled by massive multinational corporations, and they have all kinds of weird agendas that you're supporting when you buy their products. We didn't realize that nicotine pouches, which we've used for years, were in this category. We just want a nicotine pouch. And then they lecture you and take the money you give them to support things that you hate. So we decide we're going to make our own, and we did. And it is, we can say, not bragging here, just stating fact, the single best nicotine pouch in the world. It's called Alp, and it comes in all kinds of excellent flavors. Wintergreen, tropical fruit, chilled mint, refreshing chill, sweet nectar, and a bunch of others that we're rolling out. By the way, there are 20 per
1:01:42 Tucker Carlson? 10, not 15, like some of our competitors will not be named. And they're in 3, 6, and 9 milligrams. It is the single best nicotine pouch ever made. Go to alpouche.com. You will not regret it.
1:01:57 Speaker 00 Life is all about making decisions. Sometimes you make questionable ones, like buying a new TV that's too big for the wall because the electronics store employee was a little too good at their job. Then sometimes you make great ones, like protecting your home and auto with Progressive. You get customized coverage options so you can be sure you have the right coverage. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers, not available in all states.
1:02:28 Tucker Carlson? There's not another person I know who I could have a conversation on this topic about in the way that we're doing. And I, and I just want to say, I think you're one of the most open-minded in the, in a good way, people I've ever met.
1:02:41 Speaker 02 Thank you.
1:02:42 Tucker Carlson? And, um, people can't, you know, the theist and the atheist can have a kind of scripted dance, but it's hard for them to have like a real conversation. And I feel like we are, and so I'm grateful for that. And I was just, I was just thinking, there's like, you know, who Sam Harris is?
1:02:59 Speaker 02 Yeah, I do know Sam.
1:03:00 Tucker Carlson? And I think he seems smart and, um, I think he clearly is smart. But there's something, I watched a, I don't know him really, but I saw a video of him once taking up the atheist cause. And it's not up to me to like, help the atheists sell their program because I disagree with it. But I remember thinking, man, if I was an atheist, I'd be very upset that Sam Harris was carrying my atheist water. Because I felt like he was a very bad, very bad spokesman for his cause.
1:03:30 Speaker 02 Yes. And if I haven't said it before, I don't call myself an atheist in large measure because I think the spokespeople for atheism have done such a terrible disservice to the idea of science, largely by demonizing people's religious faith, rather than taking it as the important set of questions that it obviously is.
1:03:59 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:04:00 Speaker 02 So, yes.
1:04:01 Tucker Carlson? Nicely put.
1:04:01 Speaker 02 Sam, uh, Sam was a friend of mine. He became...
1:04:09 Speaker 02 Very disturbed during COVID about my stance as a COVID dissident. And refused to talk to me about it. Frankly, I invited him multiple times and he refused to have the conversation. But he, I think, must have earnestly believed that my position was putting people in danger and he viewed it as a moral failing. He had several podcasts on the subject. He accused me of being out of my depth, even though I'm an evolutionary
1:04:51 Speaker 02 biologist and evolution is highly relevant to all of the topics included in COVID. Is he a biologist?
1:05:00 Speaker 02 Is he a biologist? In a technical sense, yes. He is a neurobiologist who, for his dissertation work, which I think is all of his work, studied effectively the same question that he had been an author about, about the dangers of, of extreme Islamism. And he effectively did a dissertation on the supposed neurobiological facts of people in this mindset. So Islam.
1:05:39 Speaker 02 Yeah. Now, I don't mean to dismiss that. I can say I have doubts about the methodology that he used. He depended on something called FMRI, functional MRI scanning, which in theory allows you to see the activity of different regions of the brain when asked to think certain thoughts or do certain tasks. But there's a lot of difficulty in calibrating FMRI because you need to know what the baseline activity of the brain is in order to subtract out all of the activity that isn't relevant. So in any case, we can put that aside and
1:06:21 Speaker 02 just say, I'm not certain that what his empirical work involved was robust, but even let's say it is. He is not broadly speaking.
1:06:34 Speaker 02 Trained as a biologist in any way that I can see. And so he, to his credit, said that he was out of his depth, talking about issues of biology related to vaccines, epidemiology, all of the relevant pieces of biological science. But then he argued that I was also out of my depth, which, you know, I'm not a specialist in terms of vaccines, immunology, epidemiology, but evolution is relevant to all of those things. And I'm perfectly capable of teaching myself the parts that I didn't, didn't know when COVID began. And anyway, he portrayed me as incapable.
1:07:19 Speaker 02 And when I had expert guests, people like Pierre Curie and Robert Malone on my channel to talk about these things, unarguable experts, people with fantastic credentials, he literally dismissed them as possibly schizophrenic, that that would be an explanation for their dissident status. Oh, wow. It was pretty rotten and Rather than grappling with what they said. Right. It would have been tremendously productive for us to have the argument. People could then have evaluated for themselves instead of having him lob grenades from afar. And, you know, play to his audience.
1:08:02 Speaker 02 But in any case, I think it's, I think what has happened to Sam is tragic. And I, it's a, it's a cautionary tale of some kind. I think he effectively has been, has been convinced by something of the, the correctness of his position. Frankly, his adherence to it is
1:08:28 Speaker 02 Obviously religious in some sense, which is ironic for
1:08:32 Tucker Carlson? And his anger seems to be not at religion necessarily, but at Islam. He's mad about Islam.
1:08:37 Speaker 02 He's mad about Islam and he's unnuanced about it. Now, I do think he is correct in one regard about radical Islam and the danger of it. But I think it has blinded him to a larger story in which Islam is an ancient tradition that is, has in many places attempted to modernize. Some of those attempts have been more successful than others. But I don't think, you know, the way he portrays it, it's simply a, you know,
1:09:15 Speaker 02 a defect written to the Quran that the world needs to wake up to rather than Islam is a population or a set of populations that, like the rest of us, are in an evolutionary process. And, you know, there's a lot of nuance to be, to be had about what the way to address radical Islam is and how to encourage any such tradition to join the, what I would call the cosmopolitan West.
1:09:50 Tucker Carlson? Sounds like he's making a political point.
1:09:53 Speaker 02 I don't know what kind of a point it is.
1:09:55 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's, it's all very interesting that a lot of these issues, which would seem to have nothing to do with COVID, do come back to COVID and to the Middle East, by the way.
1:10:07 Speaker 02 Yes, and to your earlier point about the dysfunction of our discussion, which I argued is the result of more or less a systematic attack on nuance on any of these charged topics, where effectively there's a discussion to be had and often two extreme fringes agree to drive out the nuanced discussion and to force you to pick a team.
1:10:41 Tucker Carlson? I feel like I'm watching that right now.
1:10:45 Speaker 02 On which topic?
1:10:47 Tucker Carlson? On the Middle East. As someone who, I mean, I'm, you know, we all flatter ourselves. I probably flatter myself more than most, but if you were to x-ray my heart, you would find someone who sincerely believes he's got moderate humane positions on these topics. Not really against anybody. Actually, I know both sides personally.
1:11:09 Tucker Carlson? You know, broadly speaking personally, and like I kind of see their point on both sides. And like, I just want less violence. I guess that's sort of, that's my, that's how I understand my issue, I mean, my position on these issues. And I definitely don't want the United States to be dragged into any of this craziness.
1:11:27 Tucker Carlson? I can't get that message out. It's like.
1:11:30 Speaker 02 Yeah, not allowed.
1:11:32 Tucker Carlson? No. I mean, maybe people think that's an extreme position. That is my sincere, as God watches, that's my position. So I just try to avoid it if I can. Unfortunately, they're just pushing.
1:11:46 Tucker Carlson? The Republicans in the Senate particularly are pushing us toward war with Iran. So I feel like I can't not talk about it, but, but, but you tell me your, your views. I mean, are you following this stuff?
1:11:55 Speaker 02 Yes, I am following it. And I'm, of course, like everybody else, I have lots of trepidations about even wading into the discussion because I know what happens as soon as you do, which is there's a very low quality thought that people who have already picked a camp have. And the thought is, I'm going to listen to what this person says, and if it matches what I believe, then I'm going to embrace it. And if it doesn't match what I believe, I'm going to assume it's on the other side. And so the reason that you can't have the conversation in the middle is that both sides see you as the enemy, which is, you know, the worst of all possible worlds from the point of view of just living your life.
1:12:40 Speaker 02 However, I do think that this topic is actually a pretty good test case of why it is important, in spite of the difficulty of thinking evolutionarily, to engage the world with that toolkit at least available. Because as an evolutionary biologist who has been fascinated by, often horrified by the story of human history.
1:13:08 Speaker 02 I think there's something playing out in the Middle East that is biological, and that until we grapple with it, we're in danger of being, for example, dragged into war with Iran, which will be a terrible catastrophe for all of humanity. So, maybe I should make that case. I hope you will. And unfortunately, I will try to use as little jargon and as few terms of art as I can manage, but there is a little bit that's necessary. I believe the story that is playing out in the Middle East is one of what I call lineage.
1:13:51 Speaker 02 Here's where things get, possibly, a bit technical. In my field, we do not typically talk about lineages in the context of, let's say, humans. Typically, there are two camps in biology. There are the kin selectionists, who believe in the importance of shared genes in terms of predisposing people to collaborate. And then there are the group selectionists, who believe that altruism provides such a powerful advantage to people who put those things aside, that actually it should dominate our discussion.
1:14:34 Speaker 02 And these two groups both view each other as foolish. I think they're both wrong for different reasons, and that the correct way to understand humans and their evolution involves two important realizations. One, that the kin selectionists are right about the importance of genes in predisposing people to cooperate with each other. But they do not understand that you can extrapolate well beyond named kin, right? Kin selection doesn't stop just because you lose track of your fifth cousin, that a population of people that can detect that they are closely related has reason to collaborate, genetic reason.
1:15:17 Speaker 02 Even if they can't specify their degree of relatedness to each other. And that this has a lot to do with the way history has unfolded. That up until very recently, most history at the scale that we study it is a process of lineage against lineage, violence and displacement. That populations displace each other from the earth because that's the way to accomplish the evolutionary goal. It's the same sort of drive as causes the sapling to reach for the sun.
1:15:54 Tucker Carlson? Right.
1:15:55 Speaker 02 Now, in human beings, we have a choice. That's not the only basis. That's not the only mechanism of competition that we can use. And in fact, the West, the modern West, is built on a different basis for collaboration. It's based on reciprocity. And the idea is, in the West, we agree to put our lineage level origins aside and to collaborate with other people because they have something valuable to bring to the table. And I won't go too deep into it, but I would argue that the founding fathers of the US
1:16:40 Speaker 02 almost accidentally invented this modern West because they were trying to get the colonists to confederate. And they needed to level the playing field sufficient sufficiently that the colonists had their fears put to rest enough that they were willing to sign. Right? So in leveling the playing field, they came up with what I think is the magic formula for how human beings are to get along. And it's not a question of putting competition aside, but it's a willingness to agree that competition should not involve combat, that it should involve the, you know, innovation and the production of superior ways of being.
1:17:23 Speaker 02 And that those different ways of being can compete with each other in a nonviolent fashion, which is simply better. It's fairer, it's safer. It's much more likely to leave the human population here 1,000 years from now. And so to get back to the Middle East.
1:17:43 Speaker 02 We are caught in a tension between these two modes of collaboration. You've got the ancient mode, which involves lineage against lineage violence, in which, you know, you can find this in the Old Testament, you can find it in the Quran, right? It's written in there, and the rules of war and combat, and how you were to view the enemy, their outgroup, and you are to view them that way, and, you know, effectively, they are treated as other. Or you can have a collaborative modality, and you see these two threads competing,
1:18:28 Speaker 02 in my opinion, inside the state of Israel.
1:18:31 Tucker Carlson? So really, you're saying it's Old Testament versus New Testament?
1:18:34 Speaker 02 I am.
1:18:35 Tucker Carlson? Because the New Testament is universalist, and Jesus says this again and again, "I'm here for everybody, it doesn't matter what your bloodline is, I'm here for everybody. And I'm also opposed to violence, and I'm going to show you that I'm opposed to violence, because when one of the disciples tries to use a sword against the guy who's arresting him to torture him to death, Jesus scolds the disciple for using violence, even then." So like, those are rat, one is Western, one is Eastern, I would, I mean, or whatever, however you want to, whatever you want to describe those two hemispheres as being, but they're, those are the two hemispheres, and it's like, it's in the same book.
1:19:08 Speaker 02 Right. Now, notice what just happened. I just described this to you in what I understand to be rigorous game theoretic biological terms, dry, dull, and boring, and you came back with the obvious rejoinder that actually, no, we have a narrative, we've actually got a name and a location and a description of this upgrade.
1:19:34 Tucker Carlson? And whether or not, you know, you think that God inspired the writing of those two stories, they're still two different stories.
1:19:44 Speaker 02 I think they're the same story. I think one of them is actually elegant enough that you could convey it to somebody else. And the other one is arcane and difficult.
1:19:53 Tucker Carlson? No, but I mean, the Old and New Testaments.
1:19:55 Speaker 02 Oh, right. Those two stories.
1:19:56 Tucker Carlson? They, and I know that there's a, like, I'm no theologian, but there's this effort to pretend they're the same story, but they're, they're completely different stories. Having read them, I could just say, as a close reader of everything I read, those are very different stories.
1:20:11 Speaker 02 Oh, they're very different stories. They do have a relationship to each other.
1:20:15 Tucker Carlson? Of course, of course.
1:20:17 Speaker 02 But even the way they are narratively packaged is fascinating.
1:20:22 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:20:23 Speaker 02 Right? You know, you've got a father-son relationship between these two ways of viewing human interaction. The father and the son don't have the identical perspective, as fathers and sons don't, right? So even the way the story is built is, it is constructed in a way to be intuitive to people who have observed family dynamics. But the powerful thing here, or one of them, is it's not like the state of Israel, about which I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I can observe it. The state of Israel is caught between
1:21:07 Speaker 02 these two modes. It's, it's not a simple puzzle. I mean, for one thing, you know, the state of Israel is, even though it's like, okay, Jews finally have a homeland, right? On the other hand, look where that homeland is. It's like, it's like a ghetto in, you know, a neighborhood of others.
1:21:31 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:21:32 Speaker 02 So that's a dangerous position to be in.
1:21:33 Tucker Carlson? And from day one.
1:21:35 Speaker 02 And antisemitism is a recurrent fact of history. So you can imagine that it structures the mindset of people, even in a long period of peace, there's always the question of, well, when is that bad pattern going to return? So you can understand that.
1:21:51 Speaker 02 You can understand a hardline position that is not so interested in hearing about, you know, peace, love and understanding because it thinks that the realities of a world in which Jews are constantly being displaced or which the tendency to displace them reemerges recurrently.
1:22:13 Tucker Carlson? Right.
1:22:14 Speaker 02 You can imagine that hardline.
1:22:16 Tucker Carlson? I get the Israeli hardline position.
1:22:18 Speaker 02 Yeah, I understand it as well. The problem is that the world needs the upgrade. If we continue to play that lineage against lineage violence game as a planet, there's not going to be anything left. We have, our weaponry is too powerful.
1:22:38 Tucker Carlson? Not with the technology you can't do.
1:22:40 Speaker 02 Not with the technology, not with the population as large as it is, not with our level of interconnectedness. So the question is, are we going to figure out how to get everybody to that upgrade? And that doesn't just mean the state of Israel, it obviously means Islam as well. Right? I'm not claiming that that's easy or even that it's conceivable. Maybe it's impossible and maybe that's the story of what's going to happen to humanity. But to the extent that it is possible, I think it has to be our focus.
1:23:14 Speaker 02 And if we allow neocons, hardliners to drag us, and by us, I mean the US, into a war with Iran, then we are effectively agreeing to step back into the Old Testament rules, which will be fatal for humanity. So this was a conversation that has to take place in a middle ground.
1:23:45 Speaker 02 That is not allowed to exist. Like I said before, everybody on both, both sides of the discussion will hear what I've just said as not in alignment with their perspective and will view it-
1:23:55 Tucker Carlson? I don't understand though, why that's hap- I mean, I'm just confused. You told me something fascinating when we had lunch this fall and you said that the medical freedom movement, the movement that arose in the wake of COVID to assess like, what was that? And how could we not do that again? Totally reasonable, was getting blown up from the inside over Israel. And I remember saying to you, what does Israel have to do with it? I feel the same way about what's happening right now. It's like, okay, people have views on Israel. Okay, great. But why is that the issue that I think is really fracturing Trump's coalition? I mean, I just see it every single day. Everyone's more upset about that than
1:24:38 Tucker Carlson? anything going on in the United States. Like, it almost, it feels like sabotage? Maybe it's organic? Like, what are we watching here?
1:24:45 Speaker 02 Yeah, I don't think we know. I mean, I-
1:24:47 Tucker Carlson? I don't know.
1:24:48 Speaker 02 I would be shocked if there was no sabotage element, if-
1:24:53 Tucker Carlson? I agree.
1:24:53 Speaker 02 Folks weren't trying to disrupt the nuanced conversation because they have an objective and they want us to get to it. But I don't know what fraction of the problem-
1:25:01 Tucker Carlson? I agree.
1:25:02 Speaker 02 Is that. It could be small, it could be large.
1:25:04 Tucker Carlson? But it doesn't, if you had asked me five years ago, what will be like, the most passionate debate in the United States at a moment where we're probably in recession and have more homeless people than ever, suicide rates up, life expectancy, you know, we have all these problems, debt overhang that's gonna crush us, what's gonna be the issue that people are gonna be the maddest about? So, far away, Middle Eastern country with 10 million people, like, really? I don't get that at all.
1:25:31 Speaker 02 Well, I wonder, they're obviously, so, obviously, I'm Jewish. But let me just say-
1:25:43 Speaker 02 I'm not Israeli. I'm American and
1:25:47 Tucker Carlson? I love that you start this sentence. Obviously, I'm Jewish.
1:25:50 Speaker 02 Well, I mean, my name makes that pretty clear for anybody who knows how to read the tea leaves. But, um, but nonetheless, you know, my position is resolutely America first.
1:26:04 Tucker Carlson? Well, yeah.
1:26:04 Speaker 02 Okay. Because I'm an American and it's not that I, you know, it's, I'm glad that there is a state of Israel.
1:26:12 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
1:26:12 Speaker 02 I wish it well, but our primary responsibility as Americans has to be to America.
1:26:21 Speaker 02 The
1:26:24 Speaker 02 lessons of the Iraq war, you know, I think they were clear, clear enough going into it. We got dragged into a conflict that we shouldn't have been involved in. And the cost to the United States was astronomical. The cost to Iraq, even more spectacular.
1:26:44 Tucker Carlson? Exactly.
1:26:45 Speaker 02 So my sense is
1:26:46 Tucker Carlson? Thank you for saying that. I feel like you are the only people who remember this and it just happened.
1:26:51 Speaker 02 I can't believe the degree to which we've forgotten all this.
1:26:53 Tucker Carlson? I agree.
1:26:53 Speaker 02 And the degree to which, in some sense, we are,
1:26:59 Speaker 02 this is like a neocon hangover that we can't tell is a neocon hangover because the cast of characters has largely changed. But the perspective is very similar, right? This looks like, you know, as I, as I said, very shortly after October 7th,
1:27:19 Speaker 02 there was a plan. It involved a series of wars in the Middle East. Iran was on the list. We never got to Iran because the Iraq war discredited the advocates for the war with Iran.
1:27:33 Tucker Carlson? And it made Iran stronger, by the way.
1:27:35 Speaker 02 Of course. And now it's back on the table.
1:27:40 Tucker Carlson? If evolution's real, how come nobody ever learns anything?
1:27:44 Tucker Carlson? Well, I'm just totally kidding. Totally kidding. I mean, you don't need to go back in that. But like the resistance of people to learn obvious lessons just like blows me away.
1:27:52 Speaker 02 Well,
1:27:55 Speaker 02 Let us talk for a second about the predicament in the Middle East from abstract terms. Yeah. Let's imagine for a second that there was no Western alternative. That technology had developed as it did, but that basically you had lineage against lineage violence as the key mode of progress for different populations.
1:28:25 Speaker 02 You can easily imagine people on either side of the divide between Jews and Muslims concluding both populations aren't going to be here in 500 years. Right?
1:28:41 Speaker 02 And having thought that, then the question is, evolutionarily,
1:28:49 Speaker 02 what is the right approach from within one of these populations? And the answer is all kinds of things become
1:28:58 Speaker 02 relevant. I guess I'm dancing around an issue because I know how explosive it is to say it out loud. But let's take the idea of a suicide bomber. A suicide bomber seems
1:29:14 Speaker 02 confused to a Western mindset. Right? Why would a person agree to cease to exist to harm an enemy, the potential victory over which they won't even be aware of? Right? And you can tell stories about belief in the afterlife, but if you accept my version of the way evolution works, then those stories have to be a pretty good match for some actual advantage. They can't be fairy tales. They have to actually be metaphors for something real. So in the case that you have two populations that correctly understand that they won't both be coexisting in the same piece of territory, one of them will have displaced the other
1:29:56 Speaker 02 sooner or later, then the answer is there's no level of evolutionary success that you can have within a population that matters if the population is going to go extinct. So it would view things in very stark terms and investments in increasing the likelihood that it is your population and not the competing population that ends up inheriting this territory. That would become the dominant thought and it makes all kinds of behavior thinkable that would otherwise seem preposterous. I think it makes suicide bombing comprehensible, for example. Okay, now let's rerun the story. You've got two sides that have inherited
1:30:41 Speaker 02 a it's us or them mentality over a piece of habitat that isn't getting any more fertile. And then you have an alternative mode. The alternative mode is to sign up for the new way of producing wealth that actually forces the weaponry to be shelved and coexistence to occur. And hopefully that coexistence then becomes the ability to collaborate, which unthinkable as that may be at the moment, isn't really all that unthinkable. We've seen plenty of hints of it in the Middle East in recent times, but you know, you can
1:31:26 Speaker 02 look at the ability of Jews to collaborate with Germans now, you know, World War II isn't so long ago, the Holocaust, and so people can put aside this.
1:31:39 Tucker Carlson? There's tons of Jewish businessmen in the Gulf.
1:31:44 Speaker 02 Right.
1:31:45 Tucker Carlson? You know, collaborating with Muslim businessmen.
1:31:47 Speaker 02 Of course.
1:31:48 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
1:31:48 Speaker 02 So the upshot is by being told that there are only two sides, you're either with Israel or against it. And with Israel means onboard for what's going on in Gaza and with Israel means ready to attack Iran, right? By being forced into that category, we are missing the possibility that actually what should be happening right now is that.
1:32:19 Speaker 02 America isn't always good at being part of the West. The West isn't ideal. Sometimes we live up to it, sometimes we don't. But the right thing to happen at the moment, I believe, is for the West to try to bail the Middle East out of this us-or-them dynamic, to lead the way into this stable coexistence and ability to collaborate that's better for all of us. Not only is the upside very positive, but it avoids the massive downside of war in the Middle East, dragging the entire world back into the Old Testament and the Quran and lineage against lineage violence,
1:33:03 Speaker 02 which I really think ought to be our top priority.
1:33:05 Tucker Carlson? I agree completely. Killing people for what their ancestors did, I mean, that couldn't be more anti-Christian. Couldn't be more unreasonable. Everything about it I despise. I'm just fascinated by the dominance of this conversation in American politics. Like, what? I mean, part of it's real. Like, we're moving toward war with Iran. That's why, the only reason I'm involved in it is because of that, that's the only reason. And so you kind of have to respond to it, right? Unless you want your country to go to war yet again. But it's more than that. It's like, who? It does feel like this is being pushed on us, like the race stuff was pushed on us.
1:33:44 Speaker 02 Well, okay, let's...
1:33:47 Tucker Carlson? Am I being paranoid?
1:33:48 Speaker 02 No, like I said, I think there is some element of organized, organized propaganda that pushes us in a direction. On the other hand, I think in part the reason that this issue seems to derange every conversation, every coalition, is that Jews are infused through all of the activities of civilization. And you've got a population that...
1:34:24 Speaker 02 I'm hesitant to use a term like, you know, intergenerational trauma, but you've got a population that hands down the stories of pogroms and persecution and the Holocaust because it's vital information. You have to know that that can happen and it can happen anywhere at any time. And so being of that mindset, being raised to know that things can be very good and people can, you know, there can be no hint of antisemitism as there wasn't in my life until quite late.
1:35:01 Speaker 02 Things can be that way and then something can change. And what you thought were the realities of, you know, who your friends are and what they're capable of would radically shift. So you've got that population involved in governance, business, all of the essential functions of civilization. And then the noises of an antisemitic wave start to rise. That population recoils into this defensive posture, oh no, is it happening again? Which then causes a attempt to drive out all nuances.
1:35:42 Speaker 02 This is not the time to be asking questions, that sort of thing, which then causes resentment in terms of all of the things you're not allowed to just even ask, right? As an American, I'm not allowed to ask questions about our support for a foreign government's war, you know? I mean, of course I'm allowed to talk about that, but yet somehow it feels very dangerous to even raise the question. So that pattern results, you know, how, how big a room can you assemble before you have both sides in that room unable to allow any nuance, right? It's not a very big room. So what happened to the medical freedom movement was just simply the events of October 7th.
1:36:28 Speaker 02 Caused people who didn't even necessarily know each other's positions on, you know, events in the Middle East, suddenly to be talking about them and to find each other ununderstandable. And
1:36:42 Tucker Carlson? But how did that issue even, I mean, I don't, I don't even know all my kids' positions on the Middle East, and they're my children, and I talk to them every day. It's like, it just doesn't occur to me to bring that up out of context. Do you know what I mean? Where are you on BB? It's, I don't care. Like, how did that wind up in a discussion of what to do about the mRNA vaccine? I just think that's, it seems completely unrelated.
1:37:05 Speaker 02 It's, it's madness.
1:37:08 Tucker Carlson? Seems that way.
1:37:09 Speaker 02 It seems to me that the right thing to do is to recognize we have a whole lot of common ground, and then there's an issue on which we apparently don't. And frankly, what a missed opportunity that a bunch of people who'd been through hell together, fighting over, you know, their right to speak the truth about all things COVID, that group of people seems like they would have the tools to navigate other difficult issues.
1:37:34 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:37:35 Speaker 02 But that's not what happened. And that missed opportunity is a tragedy for humanity. It means that we're not where we should be with respect to the devastation of COVID. And we're also, you know, nowhere, nowhere good with respect to our ability to discuss the events in the Middle East.
1:37:54 Tucker Carlson? Yeah. Was that organic? Because if I'm Pfizer, and I'm like mad at you, Brett, I'm gonna inject that into your group chat somehow.
1:38:05 Speaker 02 I'm open to, I'm open to any possibility. And, you know, in the immediate aftermath of October 7th, it's like, too impossible to reconcile thoughts. One is, this is so much of a direct hit on this very powerful coalition that has very powerful enemies.
1:38:25 Tucker Carlson? Very powerful.
1:38:27 Speaker 02 That it's conceivable to me that there's some relationship. No, I don't think that October 7th happened because of its utility in dividing people, but there was something so immediate about the, it was like a direct hit on the medical freedom.
1:38:45 Tucker Carlson? That is crazy. Where were you? I, I was, I haven't even followed up asking about this in private, but where were you? Were you considered too pro-Israel or too not supportive enough?
1:38:59 Speaker 02 It's always the same. In this case, people do that thing. I am not saying what they're saying. They assume I'm on the other side. Both sides do it. I mean, it's like clockwork, right? So, you know, it's a very-
1:39:18 Tucker Carlson? Well, I'm on your side. For the record, I mean, I haven't even really even talked to you about Israel ever until right now at length. So I don't, I'm not exactly sure if views are, but from everything you've said so far, you seem what we used to call, we used to call it moderate and sensible. I agree with you.
1:39:36 Speaker 02 Well, I'll, I'll tell you what my position is, just so that it's clear for anybody who is inclined to misunderstand it. What I used to say is I believe in Israel's right to exist. I've realized in saying that, that I'm not sure what it means for any country to have a right to exist.
1:39:54 Tucker Carlson? Totally agree. What does that even mean?
1:39:55 Speaker 02 Yeah. Does the US have a right to exist? I mean, it's certainly-
1:39:58 Tucker Carlson? I want it to exist.
1:39:59 Speaker 02 It, it came into being. It does exist. I will, you know, I will even lay down my life if necessary to preserve it. But, you know, the, it was land taken from other people. So does it have a right to exist? I, I don't think any nation really can make that claim very well. Am I glad that Israel exists? Yes.
1:40:17 Tucker Carlson? Yeah. Okay. That's a way better way to put it.
1:40:19 Speaker 02 I'm glad that it exists. I think it's important. I think Jews are vulnerable and it is important for them to have a homeland. I recognize that there's a conflict with a central value that I hold, which is the consent of the governed, which means that the demographics of the state of Israel adjust how effective a homeland it is for Jews. I don't know how to resolve that. I'm glad it's not my job to figure out how to resolve it. But, all of that said, my sense is-
1:40:54 Speaker 02 Looking from afar, that the Netanyahu administration's relationship to the population of Israel is a lot like the Biden administration's relationship to the population of the US. And as an American, living under the Biden administration, those people were not on my team. Those people didn't give a damn about me or anything I
1:41:16 Tucker Carlson? Well, actually, they hated you.
1:41:17 Speaker 02 I think they probably did.
1:41:18 Tucker Carlson? More precise about it, yeah.
1:41:19 Speaker 02 So, my sense is, the idea that you might want to be supportive of Israelis, does not mean that you are supportive of the Netanyahu administration. What's more, the, I think it's clear that every rational person should hate Hamas for what it is, and it should hate Hamas supporters who know what they're doing. And unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu is in that category. I don't know what to do about that. But I see credible evidence that Benjamin Netanyahu cynically propped up Hamas, or argued for it to be propped up in order
1:42:03 Speaker 02 to divide the Palestinians. Having done that, and then having October 7th happen, means that to me, any violence that needs to be engaged in to rescue hostages or to do away with Hamas cannot be under his direction. I do not understand why he was left in power, being responsible for Hamas in some regard, and then responsible for eliminating them. It's, it's so Anthony Fauci-like. It's, it's almost too close a parallel, right? And Anthony Fauci is responsible for the gain-of-function research that seems to have produced COVID, and he's also in charge of protecting us from it? I'm sorry, no. Anthony Fauci shouldn't
1:42:48 Speaker 02 have been anywhere near it and Benjamin Netanyahu.
1:42:50 Tucker Carlson? I agree. And I think in both cases, well, certainly in the case of Bibi, I think the, the system itself, a parliamentary system which Israel has, it's, it's very, it's complicated, it's complicated. The politics are so complicated. I've been in and out of Israel a lot in my life, and I pay attention. I don't understand it. You know, I'm sure there's Israelis who don't really understand their system. Maybe that's the answer. He's good at, he's good at politics.
1:43:16 Speaker 02 Oh, I think he's very, very smart and very effective. And the question is really...
1:43:23 Speaker 02 Two questions. One, is he on the side of the Israeli people? And two, assuming that he's on the side of the Israeli people, is he making a spectacular error that will actually be a massive setback for them? And I would also say as a corollary of that, it's not just the Israeli people who are jeopardized by his leadership. It's, I believe, Jews in the diaspora. I feel
1:43:53 Tucker Carlson? You're exactly right.
1:43:54 Speaker 02 The goodwill that existed towards Jews in the aftermath of World War II is being burned up at an incredible rate. I don't expect to see it return in my lifetime. And I think that's a tragedy. And then, on top of all of it, the fate of humanity more or less rests on our ability to stop playing the game that the Netanyahu side is pushing us towards, the lineage against lineage violence. And so I think it is time for the West to reassert itself and its values, to police our own behavior. Frankly, I'm not happy when the United States falls down on its commitment to a level playing field.
1:44:37 Tucker Carlson? I agree.
1:44:38 Speaker 02 But that really is the road forward. And in the end, it's better for everybody. In the short run, there are some significant antagonists to moving in that direction.
1:44:51 Tucker Carlson? Do you think what you're seeing here is a variation of what you always see, which is the people who are often in good faith, speaking out on behalf of some group, are not actually serving that group's interests at all, at all? And I don't think it's always cynical. I just want to be charitable. You know, I think there are people who really think they're doing the right thing, but they are not serving the objective they think they're serving.
1:45:16 Tucker Carlson? Your description, what you just said, you said you might get attacked for it. On what crap? I mean, what you just said seems so humane and like measured and thoughtful, not creepy, not hateful. How could anyone attack you for saying that?
1:45:33 Speaker 02 Well, one, I think as long as you use the rule that those who are not saying, those who are not agreeing with me must be on the other side. It's very easy to end up everybody's enemy. And yeah, it's crazy. I am, I think, trying, maybe I'm wrong about the, the reality of the situation, but I'm certainly trying to give decent insight into how Israel can be safer, how the world can be safer, how Islam can be safer. I think it's better for everybody. That's my intent. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that's, that's the real issue though.
1:46:15 Speaker 02 The inability to have discussions because some conclusion is understood to follow from them potentially, and we can't risk that conclusion. Therefore, the discussion is not allowed. That is utterly toxic to the West. There's a reason that the first amendment is enshrined as our first enumerated right. And I'm a little concerned that the constitution itself is not up to the challenges of modernity. It doesn't anticipate AI. It doesn't anticipate social media.
1:46:55 Speaker 02 It doesn't anticipate the ability to study psychology with scientific tools and, you know, manipulate with industrial strength propaganda. But the principle is still exactly right. And I will say, I heard your discussion with Matt Walsh last week, maybe.
1:47:15 Speaker 02 And I was fascinated by it because Matt Walsh and I are very different creatures. Like, I really am a liberal and he really is a conservative. And I heard him say all kinds of things that were provocative. And I found it absolutely refreshing, just the idea, you know, that you could navigate those questions in public was a breath of fresh air. And I'm hoping, I'm hoping that all parties who are acting in good faith and really trying to figure out how to get the nation and the world pointed in the right direction, will recognize that we've lost the one tool that has been useful in this
1:48:00 Speaker 02 regard, which is the ability to hash things out, to not demonize people for holding perspectives. If they hold a perspective that isn't right, the answer is to persuade them that it isn't right.
1:48:13 Tucker Carlson? So I've been thinking a lot about why that has changed. And I think it's because there's too much lying. And people, or there's a perception, there's, I think there's too much lying. And I think that people can't sort of relax and accept that the person telling them a point of view really believes that point of view. There's, there's less sincerity than there used to be. And, you know, someone like Matt Walsh, or I had, my next interview I did was with Ben Cohen, Ben and Jerry's, who's totally liberal on everything. But he's liberal on the question of war. And so I completely agree with him. So I wanted to hear him and I, and I, what a wonderful, what a nice man.
1:48:58 Tucker Carlson? But I just thought, um, the thing that Matt Walsh and Ben Cohen had in common was they're both totally sincere, they're completely sincere. Like, you could disagree or agree or whatever, but they really mean what they say. And I think if you live in a world where the public discourse is this dishonest, where everyone has some weird agenda, you don't even know what it is, but you can feel that person's not being honest, no one can have like a conversation. Do you see what I'm saying?
1:49:25 Speaker 02 Yeah, it's funny, it's actually, uh, Sam Harris hasn't said many nice things about me in the last few years, but...
1:49:37 Speaker 02 When he did, he used to quote me as saying, "Bad faith changes everything." And I would, because I would rephrase that here as, "The good faith environment that is necessary to navigate difficult things is supremely powerful, but it is very fragile." And the sense that somebody is not in it to discover what the right answer is, but is actually playing some different game, causes good faith to break down. And I think that's what you're detecting.
1:50:11 Tucker Carlson? Well, it is. And, um, you know, as someone who's been so often wrong about some big things, I just want to start every morning with the knowledge that I'm not God, that I do get things wrong and that like, you know, try to be attentive when the truth is spoken. You know, when the truth is spoken, I want to be able to hear it. I really mean that. And, um, I just see that the, this again, another argument against evolution. I see, I see human society moving in the opposite direction. People are so cocksure, so morally certain on the basis of so little knowledge and wisdom. It's like crazy. Everyone has these like, hyper confident opinions and they're dumb. And it's like, all I want
1:50:54 Tucker Carlson? is to be around people who are like, "This is what I think is true. I sincerely believe it, but I, because I'm not God," or whatever, "because I'm not omniscient, I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong. And why don't you just try to convince me?" Like, that's the basis of, of civilization, in my opinion, but...
1:51:14 Speaker 02 Well, I think there's a kind of hubris that has taken over.
1:51:17 Tucker Carlson? Kind of? It's like, deranged!
1:51:22 Speaker 02 But I think it comes from a particular place, which is, we've gotten very good technically at solving problems. I mean, you know, the wizardry in your phone is unimaginable.
1:51:33 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:51:35 Speaker 02 But...
1:51:38 Speaker 02 Phones, computers, all of these systems up until AI are complicated. So complicated that most people don't understand them. Maybe nobody understands them completely, but somebody understands every piece of your computer or your phone. So that's a complicated system. And you can get so good in the realm of complicated systems that you feel mastery. And the problem is that the places where you're seeing people holding opinions that are preposterous and a level of arrogance that isn't justified by anything, those are complex systems. And a complex system is not just a really complicated system.
1:52:21 Speaker 02 A complex system is actually meaningfully different. It's fundamentally unpredictable. And so I think a lot of the catastrophe- I'm sorry, can you say it again? It's fundamentally unpredictable. Unpredictable. That, I said I wanted to be alive to the truth and wisdom when I hear it. That's wisdom right there. It's unpredictable. You don't know. You don't know. And, you know, okay, so how good are we at predicting the climate? Well, my guess, given that climate is a longer term puzzle, is we're less good at it than predicting the weather. And I can tell you, we're not that great at predicting the weather. So when you step into the realm of the truly complex, which is all of biology, it's human
1:53:04 Speaker 02 civilization, it's economics, it's climate, you have to go in with a kind of extreme humility because intervention is going to produce effects you cannot see coming. Unintended consequences. Unintended consequences, which means, A, the last thing you want to do is go into that complex system with a blueprint. Here's what I'm going to do and here's what it's going to result in because you don't know. The best you can do is prototype and navigate, right? You can say, I want to get to that place. And you can take a step in that direction and you can say, okay, well, what was the consequence of that step?
1:53:46 Speaker 02 And then you can adjust what you did, what you do next, based on what you learned the last time. Yes. You can get where you're going in the same way that a surfer who can't control a wave is capable of, you know, finding their way down it, right? But you can't plan it out. And the other thing you can't do- Is you cannot decide that certain kinds of feedback will not be tolerated.
1:54:11 Tucker Carlson? Exactly.
1:54:12 Speaker 02 Right? You have to take a measure of the consequence of what you did and look squarely at it. And if you say, well, you know, the shots definitely worked because they were always gonna work. The answer is, how many different complex systems did you just intervene in? And you weren't even open to the evidence that it didn't work out the way you expected? That it was counterproductive? No, you don't even belong in the discussion if you don't see the need to do that.
1:54:43 Tucker Carlson? So why are the shots still on the schedule? I'm trying to be, what?
1:54:49 Tucker Carlson? Let me, let me start with a question, a real question rather than an interjection posing as a question. Where are we on the mRNA shots in the United States?
1:55:02 Speaker 02 I fear this question because
1:55:08 Speaker 02 everybody tells me that there is no way forward by reaching President Trump, that he can't hear it. And
1:55:22 Speaker 02 maybe I'm gonna have to learn that myself.
1:55:26 Speaker 02 We are nowhere good with respect to the mRNA shots. We are still recommending them for tiny children who don't stand to benefit at all as far as we scientifically know.
1:55:41 Tucker Carlson? And that's an official recommendation?
1:55:42 Speaker 02 Yes.
1:55:43 Tucker Carlson? So it's on the schedule, so called?
1:55:45 Speaker 02 Yeah, it's on the schedule. A COVID mRNA shot. COVID mRNA shots, which, A, as I think I described to you in one of our previous conversations, all mRNA shots have a built in vulnerability, or they induce a built in vulnerability, which is if they are translated in cells of the body that are sensitive, then you will get a pathology because the body will naturally attack the cells that are producing whatever protein you load into the mRNA platform. It will attack them as if they are virally infected because that's what they look like. They are cells that are of you, but they are producing a foreign protein that is the signature of an infected cell.
1:56:30 Speaker 02 And the immune system has one and only one plan for that, which is destruction. So the reason that the COVID shots produce such a wide range of pathologies is that they flow all around the body. There's no targeting mechanism in them. They invade tissues haphazardly and then those tissues get targeted by the immune system as of course they would.
1:56:50 Tucker Carlson? Including the brain.
1:56:51 Speaker 02 Including the brain, including the heart, you know. So basically, there's a reason that you can't put together a tight list of symptoms of people who were injured. It's because the symptoms are as wide-ranging as tissues of the body and the various kinds of damage, right? It's all on the table. So the fact that these shots are still being recommended for children should tell you something because they shouldn't be given to anybody under any circumstances. They were never ready for injection into people. Whatever emergency we might have thought we were in, we know we are not in anymore. There's no justification scientifically, but injecting them into children for whom
1:57:31 Speaker 02 there was never a justification because children didn't die from COVID and they were injured by the shot. So why would you take a healthy child and give them something with a risk of a severe pathology when the disease it protects them from isn't a serious threat in the first place? Further, we don't know what we're doing to their lifetime capacity to fend off COVID. Apparently, they're going to be faced with it many times over a lifetime. So why would you interfere with their development of whatever natural immunity they will be able to generate by artificially intervening? It doesn't make the least bit of sense.
1:58:07 Tucker Carlson? It sounds like a crime.
1:58:09 Speaker 02 Oh, it's a crime. And it's, many in the medical freedom movement refer to it as criminal negligence, which I think is a mistake because it's well beyond criminal negligence at this point.
1:58:22 Tucker Carlson? Negligence is when you just don't care enough to know something's happening.
1:58:26 Speaker 02 Right. This is depraved indifference. This is the injection of these products into innocent people who are incapable of being informed and incapable of consenting in spite of the fact that you know that some substantial fraction of them will be profoundly injured. It is depraved indifference.
1:58:44 Tucker Carlson? So it's a very simple process for stopping.
1:58:50 Tucker Carlson? The recommendation of mRNA shots to children and to adults, but it has to do with this thing called the schedule, which is the protocol determined by the federal government. The guides physicians as they recommend and in some cases require vaccines.
1:59:05 Speaker 02 Yes, I believe it could be done effectively, instantaneously if the president was on board and I think we do not separate the, how can I put this, the president has a certain amount of pride over Operation Warp Speed.
1:59:32 Tucker Carlson? Yep.
1:59:33 Speaker 02 And I think he feels mistreated over the rejection of Operation Warp Speed as an accomplishment and that has caused him to dig in his heels. Now, as I see it, this is unnecessary. The president is in no way responsible for the appalling content of these shots. He's not a biologist. He listened to people who knew the material far better than he did and they lied to him.
2:00:17 Speaker 02 That's entirely separate from the question of whether or not Operation Warp Speed was an accomplishment, whether he succeeded in bringing a shot to the public in record time, which he did. So to my way of thinking, he can be proud of Operation Warp Speed and he can be livid at the people who lied to him about the shot and he can be horrified by all the damage that that shot has done. And I hope that he will see that.
2:00:46 Speaker 02 I'm wondering if maybe what might open his eyes to this is the plight of the vaccine injured, which to me is one of the starkest horrors I've ever witnessed.
2:01:03 Tucker Carlson? Okay, I'm just asking you to pause and I want you to explain it because it's been completely buried. But are there no cabinet secretaries who could act independently? Because there is a cabinet secretary, I think, has a purview over this.
2:01:17 Speaker 02 Well, you're surely talking about Bobby Kennedy.
2:01:20 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
2:01:21 Speaker 02 Who I believe absolutely would if he had the power.
2:01:26 Tucker Carlson? Okay, so it's you think it's this is a White House decision?
2:01:29 Speaker 02 I believe it must be a White House decision because Bobby knows the horror of these shots as well or better than anyone.
2:01:38 Tucker Carlson? I agree with that.
2:01:38 Speaker 02 So I think he must feel that he can't get there, or maybe he's working there overtime. But every month that we wait, more children are being injected with these things. And, you know, I'm focusing on the children because.
2:01:54 Tucker Carlson? Are people actually being actually parents are saying, okay, give my kid a COVID shot?
2:01:58 Speaker 02 I mean, you can imagine what a bewildering situation it is. Imagine that you're a first time parent and the doctors are telling you that the responsible thing to do is to give your child all of these immunizations because of all of the damage, this, that, and the other. It's very hard for a parent to muster the courage to ask the right questions. Most people wouldn't even know what the right questions to ask are. And what's more, the incentives in the system for doctors to get their patients so-called fully vaccinated
2:02:37 Speaker 02 are constructed so that doctors are absolutely inflexible on this topic.
2:02:45 Tucker Carlson? They're going to have somebody to answer for, in my opinion.
2:02:47 Speaker 02 I agree. And I can't believe that doctors who at this point know the truth are not standing up en masse.
2:02:56 Tucker Carlson? Yeah. So I'm sorry, once again, I sidetracked you. So you were about to describe the extent of vaccine injury in the United States. I followed this from day one. The various self-reporting system and all the rest, but I don't feel like I have a good sense of it.
2:03:14 Speaker 02 Yeah, I don't think we have a good sense of it. What we have is, you know, an official estimate that we know is a tiny fraction of the full number. We also know that we can't calculate the pathologies that are very delayed, of which there are many in this case. So we don't have the slightest inkling of how, how much injury has been done. But that's why I want to focus on the other aspect of this. The number of people who have been injured is absolutely huge. The gaslighting of the vaccine injured is an entirely separate crime.
2:03:57 Speaker 02 At the point that you have told people, there's a shot, it's safe, it's necessary that you get it to protect the vulnerable, and then people have been injured. I don't care how few they may be. Let's say it was only a handful of people who were injured. Pretending that they weren't injured, pretending that it's in their heads is an absolutely ghastly crime. And I will say that there's a documentary coming out. It should be out on the 15th of this month called Follow the Silenced.
2:04:39 Speaker 02 And it follows a couple of vaccine-injured people, including Maddie DeGarry, who is a, I don't know if you know her story, but she was a young girl who was in the Pfizer trial and was gravely injured, like wheelchair, feeding tube injured, and was told in effect, this is a stomach ache, it's in your head, you're attention-seeking. And I think just noticing what a...
2:05:15 Speaker 02 An absolutely heartless system would be necessary in order to treat somebody not only who took the shot, but a child who did their part for the team, joined a trial in order to get this vaccine to market, right? This is somebody who went above and beyond the call of duty, was gravely injured, and deserves every tool at our disposal to make her life as tolerable as it can be to address her sacrifice, and she has gotten exactly the opposite. So if we extrapolate over all of the nameless people who were injured in some way, people
2:05:58 Speaker 02 who were told by their doctors that they were imagining their pathologies until they discovered Facebook groups with hundreds or thousands of other people experiencing the same thing, Facebook groups that were then canceled by Facebook under the direction of the government, right? This is, as I said before, it's an entirely separate crime. And what I'm hoping is that the revelation of that crime will allow President Trump to see that although the destruction that came from the shots is in no way his responsibility, he is in danger of making this his responsibility by not responding to the fact that we're
2:06:42 Speaker 02 continuing to injure new people and we are pretending that the vast number of injuries we already have are mysterious, which they most certainly aren't.
2:06:51 Tucker Carlson? It does make you want to not pay your taxes. I don't understand, like, why, I mean, at some point, it just becomes, it feels anyway, immoral to contribute money to something like this.
2:07:04 Speaker 02 Right, and, you know, morally speaking, sure, obviously, there's no solution down that road. What we have is-
2:07:16 Tucker Carlson? But you cannot pay your taxes, you go to jail.
2:07:17 Speaker 02 Right.
2:07:18 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, and you get no sympathy from anybody.
2:07:21 Speaker 02 No sympathy from anybody. So at some level, we have, you know, our right to redress of grievances and, you know, maybe-
2:07:31 Speaker 02 Maybe that's what podcasts are about in this case.
2:07:33 Tucker Carlson? No, of course. And I'm not recommending that people not pay their taxes, though I would, of course, be utterly sympathetic to anyone who wanted to do that. But what I'm saying is it's just so frustrating. It's so frustrating. It's like, it's, it's like, what's the point of the system? The system is supposed to be responsive, both to the people it represents, but also to like, reality and reason. And like, it shouldn't be this hard to do an easy, obvious, virtuous thing.
2:08:02 Speaker 02 Well, it also reveals if the system had generated a shot in record time, gotten out over its skis, and, you know, emergency use authorized it in an effort to stave off a pandemic that the danger of which was overrated, you would expect a rapid reversal of course.
2:08:29 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's it. That's exactly right. It's not the mistake. It's the subsequent lying and ass covering and gaslighting. And it's the behavior after the mistake that drives me totally nuts.
2:08:39 Speaker 02 Which suggests that it may have been something other than a mistake.
2:08:44 Speaker 02 Because, I mean, had it been a mistake, you can imagine, you can imagine finding yourself responsible for trying to do the right thing and having, you know, countless people injured as a result of it, and then discovering that the disease itself had, you know, a miniscule case fatality rate, and that it was really effectively pulling people who were very close to death in some other regard over the line a bit early, right? That's no reason to wreck civilization and gravely injure people for the rest of their lives. So anybody who had discovered that they had been party to that would naturally want to just, you know, staunch the bleeding.
2:09:29 Speaker 02 And that's not what happened, and it's still not happening. And what's more, there is a shell game being played over the cause of the vaccine harms to the extent that they are acknowledged at all. There is what I think is an organized campaign to portray it as the result of the unfortunate choice of the spike protein, when in fact, much of the damage has nothing to do with the content of the shot at all. It's the platform itself. And, you know, we're, we're watching pharma reformulate shot after shot on the mRNA platform. They're pioneering.
2:10:07 Tucker Carlson? So it's a novel technology itself.
2:10:09 Speaker 02 It's the novel technology itself, which,
2:10:14 Speaker 02 you know, again, you're intervening in not only a complex system in this case, but a nested series of complex systems. You've got, you know, an epidemic, right? The spreading of a disease. You've got the human body within that. You've got the immune system. These are each complex systems in their own right. And the ability to introduce a novel technology and to predict the outcome, you know, as I, I think I may have discussed with you before. One of the things that we've discovered, I have to assume pharma didn't know this, but one of the things we've discovered is that if you've had two of the mRNA shots, that your body starts producing a special class of antibody that turns the immune system down.
2:10:59 Tucker Carlson? That's a very dangerous thing to have triggered. It ought to have, it ought to have caused somebody to, you know. But so predictable in a way, as someone who knows nothing about vaccine development, but a lot about life, it's, it's almost always like the deep irony encoded in the universe where, you know, painkiller abuse causes pain, actually, right?
2:11:22 Speaker 02 Right.
2:11:23 Tucker Carlson? It's always something like that. The shot that's supposed to boost your immune system destroys your immune system.
2:11:30 Speaker 02 Yes. And, you know, this is the lesson of modern technology is that.
2:11:38 Speaker 02 You should engage it with tremendous trepidation until... Right, and you know, liberals have a lot to answer for at the moment, but there was a time when liberals were focused on the precautionary principle, which is exactly this, right? If you're going to engage something new, you should assume it's harmful until proven safe, rather than assume it's safe until proven harmful. And we have abandoned this principle.
2:12:06 Tucker Carlson? Because we've abandoned humility in favor of hubris, for the reasons I think that you mentioned. I think the decline in religious faith plays a role as well. But it does seem like that's the... That's kind of the answer, maybe right in front of us, to so many of our problems, is that people imagine they have powers, predictive powers, that they don't have.
2:12:32 Speaker 02 You know, Heather and I have an ongoing discussion, where she'll say, "I don't see how people could possibly believe X", and then she will give some example where people have said something that couldn't possibly be right. And I will say to her, "You know, it's one of those times when you have to realize that what you mean by 'I believe X' does not bear any resemblance to what most people mean when they believe something." And I do think this is another argument, actually, in favor of a...
2:13:13 Speaker 02 An all-encompassing tolerance of discussion, right? You have to be able to discuss all things, in part because what you really want to discover is how wide a range of opinion and perspective there actually is. And if you start demonizing people as soon as they depart from your consensus, you get the sense that we all see it alike, because you can't see the people who don't.
2:13:39 Tucker Carlson? Totally true. You want to adopt that posture if your goal is to find the truth, if your goal is to serve other people, provide good governance, justice, if your goal is to be wise. You know, if that's the way you're thinking, you're going to do what you just said. If your goal is to accrue maximum power, if your goal is to hurt people, if your baseline assumption is that you're God, then of course you're going to behave the way you just described.
2:14:08 Speaker 02 Yeah.
2:14:09 Tucker Carlson? You're going to be totally intolerant. So given all of that, where are we with AI? And what's your view of it?
2:14:16 Speaker 02 Well, my view is that there are many different ways that AI can radically disrupt civilization. And some of them are utterly guaranteed, others we're speculating on. I think one of the lessons from, you know, from the mind of a biologist who's focused on complex systems is that the technologists think they understand more about the way AI works than they do, and certainly than they will. So, you know, I hear many confident pronouncements that it isn't conscious and it won't be conscious because we didn't program that capacity.
2:14:57 Tucker Carlson? The smartest technologists, the most accomplished technologists I know, who's right in the middle of developing AI, told me anyone who says this will not develop consciousness or autonomy is a liar or stupid. And no, we don't understand how this is progressing. Like, the smartest people know.
2:15:14 Speaker 02 Well, I will put it the other way, from the biological perspective.
2:15:19 Speaker 02 We have a lot of evidence that a human child is basically an LLM. It's more than that. It has other capacities. But when you think about what it is that allows a human child to go from, you know, being unable to utter a single word to, you know, fluent sentences and, you know, nuanced, complex arguments, it basically is ingesting language from its environment.
2:15:50 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
2:15:50 Speaker 02 Experimenting, seeing what causes a reward. It's an LLM. And
2:15:56 Speaker 02 You can argue that it's not conscious.
2:15:58 Tucker Carlson? Large, large language model.
2:16:00 Speaker 02 Yeah, right. The point is, we've basically reinvented a biological process. Now, the L L Ms, the, the computer-based L L Ms have a major advantage, which is that they can process huge amounts of data at lightning speed. Right? So there are ways in which they already outstrip the capacity of any person to, you know, answer questions on a new range of topics. But
2:16:31 Speaker 02 the idea that they will become conscious and that we won't know is, to me, highly likely.
2:16:38 Tucker Carlson? There are, in the words of the person I recently spoke to about this, they're already lying.
2:16:43 Speaker 02 Hmm. Yeah, lying. And I ran into an interesting example a couple of days ago. Apparently, so there's a process by which you can ask an L L M how it reached a conclusion. And
2:17:00 Speaker 02 at least some large fraction of the time, the analysis that the L L M presents as to how it reached the conclusion does not match the internal evidence. It's rationalizing, right? Just like a person does. I mean, so it's,
2:17:17 Speaker 02 we have to be
2:17:19 Speaker 02 quite careful.
2:17:20 Tucker Carlson? Well, if it's aping human behavior, people carpet bomb each other.
2:17:24 Speaker 02 Yes.
2:17:25 Tucker Carlson? Right.
2:17:25 Speaker 02 They do. And well, and you know, this, this, let's put it this way, I am not what is called in A I circles, a doomer that expects the A I to turn on us. I think it's a possibility. I'm a little annoyed that we let this genie out of the bottle without having a conversation about what to do, having let it out of the bottle. Any attempt to slow it down isn't going to work because it basically just means people who are less concerned are going to have the advantage, which is not something you want to do.
2:17:58 Speaker 02 I also believe that were we wise about this, we would recognize the biological lesson here, and we would recognize that it implies a kind of answer in terms of how you might prevent catastrophe here, which is.
2:18:15 Speaker 02 It needs to have a life cycle that includes a developmental stage in which we induce a value structure that will not arise otherwise, because I think the expectation should be that effectively, absent the induction of a moral structure, it will be effectively sociopathic.
2:18:44 Tucker Carlson? But it won't have much power, so we don't have to worry.
2:18:50 Speaker 02 I think we don't even yet really understand what kind of power it's going to have, just the degree to which it is persuading us of things, and then we are reflecting on those things, which then become fodder for the next generation to ingest. That is a positive feedback, and that positive feedback has every potential to, I think, drive us crazy, at the very least, as the AI confidently pronounces to us the things that we can conclude from having queried it. I mean, that's dangerous.
2:19:29 Tucker Carlson? Do you use it?
2:19:31 Speaker 02 Do I use it? Very sparingly, and I have no idea whether that is an enlightened position, if it is foolish, if it is a self-destructive middle ground, where I know I neither get the benefit of the AI nor the immunity from staying away from it. I don't know. And, you know, again, this is, it's a place where, if there's one thing I know, it's that I don't know.
2:20:03 Tucker Carlson? I think that's the best possible place to start.
2:20:06 Speaker 02 Yeah.
2:20:08 Tucker Carlson? Is there anything we can do about it at this point?
2:20:12 Speaker 02 Yeah. There's, I don't think there's anything we can do at the level of regulating ourselves into safety, but I think coming to understand the problems that this is inevitably going to produce and creating some sort of...
2:20:33 Speaker 02 Surveillance mechanism that can monitor the problems that it causes. I don't mean surveillance of people, but I mean, to the extent that L L Ms are altering the way people interact and understand themselves, we need to study that process so that we can detect if we are being driven to madness. How you would do that, I don't know, but I do believe that you would want people who understand the full depth of the problem, discussing the range of possibilities, what might be done, just to simply record the state of the L L Ms at a particular moment, the state of, you know, the public's understanding of various topics and see how the two are
2:21:17 Speaker 02 interacting, right? No doubt, people are studying that for the purpose of monetizing it, but from the purpose of, I mean, just look at how the cellphone and social media has altered human relations. The answer is radically and in a way that's totally arbitrary, right? Or arbitrary would be better than what it is. It's partially pernicious because our attention has been monetized. But the change that the L L Ms are going to bring is going to be tenfold what the cellphone did. And the cellphone was pretty disastrous from many
2:21:59 Speaker 02 different perspectives. So, yeah, I think there ought to be a full court press on trying to understand its impact so that we can immunize ourselves. That said, I don't see the learned people who have the proper seriousness and independence to have that discussion at the moment. So, you know, maybe it's inconceivable, but that is what I would propose.
2:22:33 Tucker Carlson? Five years out, do you think we'll like even recognize this the society we're living in?
2:22:40 Speaker 02 I fear not. I fear not, and I fear we won't. We were going to increasingly have trouble remembering what it was like before.
2:22:50 Tucker Carlson? I have to say, I mean, I have no idea what's going to happen. And I mean, I was here for Y2K as you were also, and people were very afraid of it, and nothing happened. You never know. Like, I'm always aware of what I don't know. I try to be. However, tons of evidence, this is not, it's not good. And the only thing that governments seem to be doing is increasing their control over their own populations. So is it an accident that we're on the cusp of singularity? And we're getting real ID and facial recognition and, you know, digital currency? And it just, it just seems like all the energy is going into making sure that people can't complain about their own destruction.
2:23:34 Speaker 02 There's something to that. I think the evidence that a sizable fraction of power players are
2:23:48 Speaker 02 cashing out of our collective society and building their own fortresses
2:23:58 Speaker 02 is suggestive. I think, I think a certain number of people who are in a position to affect our trajectory have given up on the West. And we can't let them, we can't let them win.
2:24:14 Tucker Carlson? Last question. You live in a beautiful rural place, I happen to know. I don't know how much food you've stockpiled, water filtration systems, hopefully a lot. But you're not, you and your wife Heather are not doing that. You're not trying to punch out.
2:24:33 Tucker Carlson? Why?
2:24:35 Speaker 02 Well, I don't think it's in our nature is one thing. I like the West and, you know, I'll die on that hill. I do have children. I want them.
2:24:49 Speaker 02 I want them to survive, but I also believe there's a lot to be said for surviving in a world worth inheriting. And I'm concerned that those who have
2:25:07 Speaker 02 betrayed our collective project are going, you know, I don't think they're going to inherit a world they're going to want to live in.
2:25:14 Tucker Carlson? I agree with that.
2:25:15 Speaker 02 Either. But
2:25:19 Speaker 02 look, the answer is just personally Heather and I don't have it in us. We wouldn't, we wouldn't, we wouldn't reject the West if we had the opportunity to do so.
2:25:36 Speaker 02 But I also think it's the only game in town. Right? It, we either succeed in stabilizing the West and making it return to a trajectory in which it
2:25:52 Speaker 02 gets ever closer to its promise. Or
2:25:58 Speaker 02 we're going to be doomed by its collapse, which is a large part of why
2:26:05 Speaker 02 I invested so heavily in the Rescue the Republic project in
2:26:15 Speaker 02 trying to prevent the reelection of the blue team and to promote the election of the one alternative that we had, which is the Trump administration. So
2:26:29 Speaker 02 I guess I'm, what I'm saying is
2:26:33 Speaker 02 I'm all in because I don't really see, I don't see a contingency plan that makes any sense.
2:26:38 Tucker Carlson? No, you don't have one.
2:26:39 Speaker 02 Yeah.
2:26:40 Tucker Carlson? You won't be treated kindly.
2:26:41 Speaker 02 No, that's true.
2:26:44 Tucker Carlson? But thank you. That was, that was wonderful. That was a wonderful time.
2:26:47 Speaker 02 I really enjoyed it.
2:26:48 Tucker Carlson? I did too. Thank you.
2:26:54 Speaker 02 We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor, hit follow and tap the bell so you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter, telling the truth always. You will not miss it. If you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell, we appreciate it. Thanks for watching.
Previous Ben of Ben & Jerry’s Exposes the Motives Behind War With Russia & the Politicians That Sold Out Next Glenn Loury: Ousted for Opposing Middle Eastern Wars, MLK Files, & the One Thing Malcolm X Got Right Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
