If you don't believe that you can be successful in life and with the new technology were with trying to moving the work forward, and you can't, I think, like a lot of artists, Why are to have a better class of british What do you do about tax it he's getting so big and becoming monopolies. What do you do about banks getting so big and becoming monopolies? We want more manhattan's at apollo's. On the one hand, it's hard to say no, on the other hand, do I want a society that is that much more militarized. If that's what's required, I dunno Really careful when somebody go. So this is a problem with the new technology. Therefore, we have to stop the new technology. If you listen to the eight seems apec cast

The feeling you saw our co founder marc, andreessen usa at techno optimist manifesto. This manifesto was a beacon among the sea of noise, for fellow optimists, believe in the power of technology markets, growth, excellence and ultimately, abundance as mark raises the technology flag. He is joined in today's episode by ace exchange, ico, founder ben horowitz. Together they discuss the piece and this impetus, but they also address audience questions, including whether there is such a thing as effective pessimism fly victimization predominates conversation whether humans can become overly dependent on technology, the difference between being pro business and pro market, the role

private and public capital and driving progress, and even what mark thought was the most controversial point in his entire essay. Now, if you enjoyed this episode, Ben and mark actually just launched their very own podcast, the benin workshops that you can find wherever you listen to podcasts by, of course searching the ben and mark show or by grabbing the link in our show notes, they've actually already released three episodes that you can binge today and have many more to come in the show notes. You'll also find a link to the manifest, don't fall for it. You can find it on a frictionless dot. Com, as mark says,

in his essay technology is the ultimate open society, and on that note, we are so happy to have you here taking part as a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes, only should not be taken as legal business, tax or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a cincy fund. Please note that a succeeds. He and his affiliates may also Maintain investments in the company is discussed in this package for more details, including owing to our investments. Please see a sixteen zero com, slash disclosures, look there's the other scenario and I would just call that one that she doesnt mess scenario playstations in a playstation right and like that, and I like netflix, I'm a fan of netflix but, like maybe not twelve hours a day, that's existence of a cow are great, but like

I don't think we should be cows, hello and welcome to the mark and then passed today we're going to talk about a post tat mark recently wrote called the techno optimist manifesto and like all good manifestoes many people loved it. Many people hate it, and so that's given us a lot to talk about. I just want actually point out my favorite of the people that hated. It was an article that was published intact. Called when's. The last time Marta andreasen is spoken to poor people or a poor person. You something like that. the thing that so funny about it is that mark of all the people. I know I probably don't know anybody's more self made denmark because he grew up in a tiny town in wisconsin he went a public schools like not good public schools, like probably some of the worst public

schools in the country and like never got any money. You know from home not because his parents have love them. They don't have any money to give him. And then the people who wrote the article all winter like that Anthea schools, I've ever heard of, and the ivy league, wonderful, private, high schools and these guys the things so now we have people who grow up rich, telling somebody who grew up poor and massively succeeded what's good for poor people who want to succeed. So I just thought that was so funny anyway? So this one's got a lot of get to it, so we're gonna get right into it. The first question I Benjamin

Can I weigh in on that yesterday and I on you, you can't start that way and then I'll. Let me talk it out. Let me assert themselves too tempting looking at responses. It's a classic example of what the author, Robert Henderson, calls luxury beliefs right, and so the definition, unless your belief is it's a belief that can be held by somebody, who's in sort of an elite position, a position of power or position of wealth and comfort about how society should be ordered. That is incorrect and the consequences of which would be disastrous right for the people that would be subjected to the consequences of that belief. But the people who hold the belief are waited from the consequences right they live, and you know how to fancy places and have very good lifestyles and are going to suffer directly is results so so you, it is a classic, leaves a great example of leisure belief. The sort of factual response to it, of course, is that capitalism and free markets are the machine that has lifted people out of poverty for five hundred years. You are, we readily experiment. The other systems don't seem to work as well

it many many times in one week, as this is one of those things that are some amazing things. Exactly to your point. Re ran this experiment, hundreds of times in the twentieth century, and the results are very clear. I need to look most china and others. A direct correlation between the degree to which the chinese communist party kind of takes its boot off the throat of the people in terms of their ability to engage in markets and engage in trade and the extent to which there, while the life rises, and so you gonna still see that you are playing out today and how quickly irises, when they move to central planning their hundreds and so- and you just see this over and over again- and you know you see it happen in other parts of the world also, and so you know this thing where you just like ports, time's running this experiment aren't going to generate different results and then the result of this. Worse, is that this is gonna. So obvious. Well established at this point that you have to go to. You know one of our finest away in our private high schools and private universities really get incorporated into the luxury belief system that can help Zack we're trying to help you exactly so excellent starts.

So this first question is from saint louis of tech me. What does effective pessimism look like? How can people who want to mitigate risks make sure not to waste their time on moral panic that stymies progress. You know this is really tough right. You know, let's start by conceding that kind of giving the devil his due kind of conceding the strength of the other side's argument on this, which is like look, as I say in the essay like you know, I'm not a utopian. You know technology is not purely a force for good technologies or tools, and they can be used for both good and bad, and you know virtually every technology that man has ever invented has been used for both good and bad it's not a there aren't downsides earnings, not higher risk, and the britons entered yeah? I started the fire, I mean look like you know. This is a reference in the in the piece. You know the myth of prometheus, which is kind of the origin, myth in western society, of sort of the implications of technology and in the prometheus myth,

know prometheus is the god that brought fire to man, and you know for that. He was punished by zeus by being chained to a rock and having his liver, pecked out every night by a bird, and then it would regenerate in the morning, and that would happen together. So you know a very exquisite form of torture. The came up with any other reason that mrs a powerful is because what fire fire was the enabler of heat and light and cooking food riots and defence and shelter for early man, but it was also a weapon from the very beginning as a weapon of war right and if, for example, you're engaged in siege combat and you're going up against. If I do know a castle or a city, the way that you win as you burn them out right and by the way, the way they retaliate as they heat up oil to boiling temperatures in the port in your head right. So both sides of the they're true- and this continues to be the case to this day you know. Actually the effect of pessimism is a clever framing. You know these are kind of the two kind of out of valances that you can apply to to this question, which, as you can apply, one violence is basically fundamentally overtime. Net. You know everything. Technology has been primarily a force for good, primarily a force for progress

and basically you embrace it and supported and celebrated as much as you can. And then you deal with the issues as they arise, which is the story of the development of modern civilization. there is another valence and some people can climb were naturally to the pessimistic position which is basically there the sure, by the way, about technologies and markets. People also apply the same kind of negative palest markets wishes Well, primarily, you know, technology or markets are a generator of bad things right technology as a weapon of war. You know, technology is something that has unanticipated negative consequences. Markets are winners and losers right, and so you know, do you start out focusing when the winners or losers, and so you just gotta have to decide where. He, though, I know what you know, the accusation, of course, in the pessimists after MR to outdo mystic, you know. The counter accusation, of course, is if you start out with a pest mystic frame, it's very hard to hold. That in a moderate position is what I observe at a pessimist: sort, a slide into greater and greater levels of pessimism. Quite quickly ads. You know they end up very angry and bitter and hostile, and they end of advocating for extremely. You know: I've saved your coney, an unkind of senseless boss.

And so I think it's hard to take action as the most of it is used to be much easier to become. Very, I would say you not either ineffective, as MR justified are dangerous us most. He ain't gonna, grow a great line on this? Somebody asked him was the microprocessor good or bad, and he said? Well, that's crazy I sense like asking is still good or bad. It is like. You know, hold back progress answer which you have to ask yourself. Is you know? How do you make a good, but don't try to do that by banning it, because you were there it's enough that you can get frustrated yeah, I mean the only thing I'd argue with Andy on that is they do get banned right, still didn't get banned, but civilian nuclear power didn't, and so you know the the you must. Let me look like I mention in a piece. You know, I think the single biggest policy mistake of my lifetime was the decision. Seventys is actually in the seventies and eighties. To ban is actually banned civilian, nuclear power, and you know for sure throughout most of the? U s and then in us rob certainly most of europe as well, as you know, maybe frame

seeing the big exception and by extension throughout, but there are a lot of the rest of the world as it would have been westering in all countries and companies. It would have brought it to the rest of the world in that time periods, and you know, look it's the consequences for that, like, I think, if you're an environmentalist and you kind of are looking at things dispassionately as stewart brand and others have been doing now for awhile, it is you kind of say, look, we have the silver bullet for a sort of unlimited zero emission energy and we had it and we chose not to use it and with everything we know today, it's overwhelmingly both the safe, effective and kind of zero risk of mass deaths. Your risk of country, bidding to have an emissions and so forth. But you know: look we collectively made a political decision about it and we are paying the price for that today. I am, quite frankly is one of the reasons why russia's able to do it is doing in ukraine as it has this flow of money for a while. You know which, in a kind of actual universe where the world by now have cut over to civilian, let your power they wouldn't have that they wouldn't we'll do with their doing so that the consequences of that decision play out decades later, and I think that's a great illustration of the risk of the scene at the risk of this act of pessimism, also the risk of dangerous pessimism, and dramatic

ample of narrative defeating data, because it's very obvious from the data that nuclear is far safer than say, while or call hurry second question, mrs from your friend in mind, shackles angor? How can we distribute transformative philosophies like yours to marginalize communities where a culture of despair and victimization predominates. Yes, it is really interesting question for me, because I think that it does get to the heart of it. One of the reasons why victimization predominates is because it's a techno test MR world, in those communities in the marginalize communities and outside go back to, there, have been some very kind of interesting and successful leader, Marcus garvian comes to mind, and I think it starts with something that he Billy was heavily behind, which is this idea of self determination that an end

individual can, change. Your our wives change your own circumstances and I had this idea at the turn of the eighteenth. Nineteen hundreds, which was a kind of much more difficult, to do that, particularly for a kind of black people in america, but you know he himself succeeded at it greatly, and I think it really starts with that mindset where, if you don't believe, that you can be successful in life or with the new technology or with a kind of moving the world forward. Then you can't and Henry ford famous, find their two men. One believes he can do at the other place. He can't do it in their. Both right, I think, is the key to that whole. Thing is. They just starts with the belief that you can succeed the odds are harder for some than others, but always end in despair. If you believe you can't do it yet

sad building a little bit on the sort of look on the consumption sites. I wanted this sort of one of the amazing things about free markets. Free markets are the most beneficial to the lowest income and the most advantaged, and that's a counter intuitive mind bender for a lot of people who are- when traded away. Taste gap was but the russian, but the truth is it's. The best for the poorest is the best for the people who have the least, and by the least I mean at least existing wealth, but also the least access, but at least social status right who are kind of on the receiving end of of not a lot of advantage in their lives. and you can look at that- an undue size, their lives. You can look at that for them as producers and consumers, so on oceanside markets open up opportunity right for people to be able to make their way in the world and for be able to have jobs, be able to make money and then ultimately be support to families, and so again the counterfactual is not a poor person. Bright running, navigate their way through the hell of a capitalist economy versus somehow in a socialist communist system may be found, everything they need right. The reality as it the other way round its more capitalism. The more opportunities are, the more available jobs for the more rational, moralising throughout the morlocks.

the work, the more openness in freedom and choice, to be able to figure out how to succeed and how to make money in what work to do? you end up on the wrong side of aids, authoritarian communist regime or socialist regime, or an authoritarian regime right, you're screwed like even if there are no job. For you right nobody's hiring. There are no private employers, you know is the state, for whatever reason doesn't want to hire you like you're out of luck, if you're in a disadvantaged class category, if you're in a disadvantage, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, any of these things are just political views or whatever, or just that, you're poor and people look down on you like. That's it like you're done like at that point, you're a ward of the state and what for moment of grain. They want to see you to keep your lives fair enough, but like you're not going anywhere right, and that was the story of low income people in most societies over basically the entirety of human existence up to the point of the american market,

So so so that's on the one side and then on the consumption side. I talked about this awesome. The essay as one of the big things that technology does in the free market contact says it drives prices down, and this is a big thing on inequality and especially income inequality that people, I think miss which is like one form of like determining the level of white income inequality or that the value of one's income or whatever right is to look at it in terms of like you know what literally the sd market. It measured by units of currency writer, so I mean they're, making more money less money. What's the other side of that is what is money used for? It's used to buy goods and services, and so if the price of goods and services is falling, that's the same effective thing to you from a standard of living standpoint as if you're getting an actual raise right, and so what markets do and algae does? Is they dry prices down and the more they are allowed to operate the more they re prices down the traditional economists talk about this as they make the observation, which is as follows, which is the queen of england, always wore silk. Stockings right, like the super rich

throughout all of society throughout all of time have always had access to the best of goods and services at the best of available food in the best of available healthcare, right and so forth, and so on of their time and place. It was traditionally likely that that stuff was all just silk stockings everything else right, we're just completely out of reach of most people in it, and it is precisely the engine of remarks in technology that bring down prices so that regular people can afford these things as well. Yeah, maybe the most profound example of that is internet plus the smartphone, because when you and I grew up, information was kind of an elite thing to get too and the big reason to go to university, miss the knowledge was all there was in books and libraries and all these kinds of things, and you can actually have access to that. Otherwise, computers by worry us we'd have computers or individuals and now at least a kind of poorest people in america. The homeless in san francisco have better access to information, knowledge them. The presence of the united states did in nineteen eighty witches.

Let me give you one one on that and I find this totally my blowing. So when you remember what if we started working on the internet in the nineties, their resist. This sort of endless gonna hand wringing at the time about the concept of the digital divide. Yes right, this concept of basically digital technology, the internet, computers, pcs and smartphones were going to basically widen inequality because it was basically well off people that run a have them, and then poor people wouldn't price, and, as this is maybe the the effect of pessimism of it's time, that people are very worried about the. Look sitting here today and twenty twenty three, the following is true: more people in the world have computers in the form of smartphones, specifically and internet access than have electricity or running water in their homes yeah. Right so that digital technologies people are worried about, are actually the most egalitarian right of all technologies that are ever been produced even more than running running water, electricity?

so maybe we should still be worried about, like literally the gap and access to fresh water like more than the gap and access to the internet, then again there in their waters. I won the water divide, rightly electricity divide, as I stole a thing, but that digital technology divide ass she turns out should not be a thing in a car that again, the reason for that is very good for the reason for that is falling prices. The reason for that is, as the global smartphone market went to five billion people, the price of a smartphone collapsed too. I don't even know today and sort of the developing world. It's I don't ten bucks or something and the same thing. Internet access has plummeted in price over time, because amours lie in competition and innovation, The paradox that subsided of as if you wanted a plan to be able to drive something any form, a good or service that is important to lots of people to have to be available to everybody. The thing to do is to lean harder into markets and into technology right, not for their way through point Ok, you next question from max shortage, Technology makes life easier and necessary for a better future. However,

How would you address humans getting overly dependent on tat to a point where we can function without yeah. So I would say, there's kind of the full dystopian version of this, which is sort of the Wali scenario right in the movie wally, for those who haven't seen it mankind in the future, basically is all just like obese and literally sitting in these beg lie to your gravity, suspension, chairs and basically binging netflix and slurping. Some that guy yeah. This might sound a little familiar in our times, but yeah look. There is this sense of like okay, we kind of at some point like we live in sort of this automated by dunno farm environment or something and we're kind of farm animals and ruben kept fat and happy, but we've kind of lost agency. We've lost very well: we've lost choice, we've lost any sort of sense of self reliance, self sufficiency. Any sense of adventure like I think there are certainly

The argument in that direction, you'd use the examples about what I tried to in the essay and what I believe- and this is a little subtle which is look. There are really big questions about the meaning of life that people have today and have had for a very long time right and a lot of the history of human civilization, has banned debates around religion and which gods to worship and moral principles and how to order a society and why the role of the collective versus the role, the individual is and all these policy questions of flour from this, unlike the story of human civilization, is in some way the story of trying to kind of figure out all those questions. And then If these questions are still at least for a lot of people still unanswered or are still open, questions are being opened into all the time. I think it's putting frankly too much of a burden like I'm in a theistic, a proponent of algae markets, but it's putting a little bit too much of a burden on technology markets to expect technology markets to answer it off those questions for all people, as I think, if you're looking to technology markets, answers questions, I think you're, probably looking in the wrong direction. I think you probably need to look inside quite honestly inside the humans,

realm hard questions lie, and then the observation I make is rising. Technological capabilities and rising standard of living right through markets open up the room right individually and collectively in our society, to be able to ask those questions. So in the most obvious example that is like what people are hungry, they dont ask these questions. The only question is my personal view coming and you can kind of elaborate that all the way up- and you can kind of say, look like if the ultimate human problem is that we have full bellies. Our children are going to live great lives. We're able to support our family were able to do all the things that technology is able to give us, and we still have these big unanswered questions about the meaning of life and basically, what technology will have done is to open up the aperture to be able to actually spend more time trying to figure out those big questions: yeah yeah, that's that seems like a very champagne problem for sure it's funny reminds me of when I was in elementary school. My brother was in junior high school, I went to the school play and the play calculators had just come out and the whole play with.

at this society, where nobody knew how to do math and then the calculators all broke, and so those kinds of fear is, I think, go with technology, but they tend not to play out in a very real way. Sallies, although calculators, Heaven broke, yet young technology gives you the way one. Here's the other kind of serious observation to make as technology increases resilience to natural disaster. So, for example, this comes up well, actually, a lot in the climate debate, which is basically and I'm not. This is not quite the question climate change, making a different point, but when one of the questions over time is basically is nature, getting more or less dangerous right, overtime right as the world changes as you manage changes and so forth, and basically that deaths from natural disasters have been a systemic decline for a century plus. If this point now right it used to be that if you are confronted by a basically any kind of who was a call that there's no, he

people are you need. It was called you for used it ass. It is hot air conditioning you might, you might die for heat stroke or any kind of tornado flood mudslide me luck was in boston like a hundred fifty years ago, something there was like a molasses. Basically, it mass tragedy right where people like literally drowned into animal ass, a slide like nature is vicious right. Nature really has it out for you and if you're unprotected in a state of nature, like the old, the old thing is life instead of nature is: was it a nasty british rock poor, solitary nasty, british and short hobbs? Exactly, and so so let me the flip side of the question is technology is now buffering us against sources of mass death that used to be far more common, and so that this is not just sort of try to get away from the kind of music question of like what happens if it were oil stocks working but like how do we build defences against a really bad scenarios in which that would happen? It She turns out technology. Our friend on that and our brandy line is protecting us against everything by big us. An inner terry species, which also deals with the necessary problem.

Look: the dinosaurs had no plan b or new sir John asks. How can economic systems evolve to prevent human corruption from infiltrating advanced technologies that surpass capacity for understanding the would benefit or maybe you might know on the question of it from a guys. You know, I'm not sure if I totally understand what he's getting out here, but I think human corruption. There is this agency problem and I think that you kind of the two it kind of nuclear fission issue where, as systems evolve, how do you keep the human interest from following them and it's gonna get to the heart of the latter, the things that you spoke about in the manifesto, which is four exam, We had this banking crisis in everybody's intention was

who basically lessen our reliance on giant banks. That became as powerful as many governments in the world and, of course, because of this baptist and bootlegger issue, where the bank's further bootleggers. The government was about we basically got the opposite. We got much bigger banks, much more powerful in that trunk, this kind of continuing forward. So I think that when we look at How systems get corrupt and create real crisis we really have to beware of the agency problem and we're going through a few of those now, both personally I and also on crypto, aware Actually a lot of the answer to some of these, like huge, powerful monopolies like what do you do about tat? companies getting so big and becoming monopolies. Would you do about banks getting so big and becoming monopolies? We actually have a magic technology that this

Centralizes power actually creates a real form of stakeholder capitalism where all of the participants in the economy. you get rewarded for building the economy and the biggest at this theories of the whole movement end up being the baptism a government can buy. heavy bootleggers in the big banks and so forth kind of we're highlighting the small real but small dangers of the technology and trying to stop the technology and its tracks and kind of aid to this horrible agency problem where you have these very crept systems, so I guess my thing who would be like be real be careful when somebody go so this is a problem with the new technology. So therefore we have to stop the new technology like that. I think, is the pattern that report

over and over again and heard a so badly on energy and his friends to hurt us on intelligence and threatens I heard us on decentralization. That's right, yeah, one of the ways to think about this, for people who haven't run into this in their lives as there is a fundamental difference between pro business and pro market. and they his like, they're the same thing and they're, not because pro business gonna begs the question of which businesses and then sort of ok, what's the structure of the market, only about like right exactly? sorry about lots of companies having to compete and earn their way in the world, are we talk about ultimately, crony capitalism? basically this is the pattern of history. What happens? This is kind of you pointed out the baptism bootleggers idea. Athens, which is basically a new technology, something changes in the world. You have big incumbent companies that very much are opposed to that change or want to control it and want, when a controller want to lock it down.

And so what they do, is they go to the government and they basically say: oh, you need to regulate us and they don't go in to say you need to regulate this for our benefit because they will get laughed at what they say as me to regulate. This would be a dead giveaway. Yeah that'll be a dead giveaway, so instead they say we will need regulators to protect basically the little people, but what they're shooting for one hundred percent of the time. What they're shooting for is basically government sanctioned barriers to competition for themselves now, and I would even argue like I'll, do a little effect of pessimism. We don't in America today and in most industries, actually live in what you call a free market system. We live in more of a captured kind of big business cartel ecosystem and you look just across sort of sector after sector. One Dear sort of two or three or four companies that have you know overwhelming market, share any sector and generate known overwhelming percentage of the profits and have this extremely incestuous relationship with a government by the way off into the point where there are already there are regulations right like it is their lobbyists actually running the regulations as the industry groups. If they run There is an example to the majority of regulations, worked rights, exactly

Brighton, of course, and then there's this other form of corruption right, which is the revolving door, which is like okay, if you're a regulator, it is extremely tempting just out of pure self interest. Gonna do with these big companies want because they'll hire you right after you're done doing that, so this is sort of this corruption. After the fact that happens with the revolving doors. So basically, if you could be pro business and be completely in favor of all of that right because it is still businesses doing everything at the end of the day, pro market right says no, none of that. What I just described is acceptable. That's not how things should work at all. The last thing any government should be doing is giving any particular company some special right or privilege some ability to blackout. a petition, in fact, what you want is more competition. You want more competition, more markets, more capitalism, as actually the answer to that precisely to keep the big companies from basically just taking over not having to compete any more than one hundred per cent. Actually that leads very well to the next question, which is how exactly we'll markets prevent monopolies. Please labyrinth you're on your point and I because as the key, because,

What's the nature of companies, even monopolies? Is that the There are larger, they get the less adaptive they become and we will work with us. With Google, who invented most of the new I technology and then with a little bit asleep at the wheel. when open, I released bt. They messages because, like their big, their complicated their slow they're, not as good anymore, and so, if the new I companies are free to compete. If open, source say I is free to compete, then all of the sun that's the best kind of way to break that monopoly. Similarly, there's a lot of, chatter, like social networking, monopolies in banking monopolies in these kinds of things. In again, we already actually have a technology. That's a great insurgent technology. To defeat those monopolies and the thing that prevents that is, as you say, not a pro market by

it pro business, a pro very specific business. this isn't that have enough money to bribe corrupt lobby. The government in creating regulations that prevent the new company from competing. and what we are seeing, one that right now I find a heart to be terribly correct: without mine. Can you an elaborate on your statement, love doesnt scale, I don't know you met because the heart is correct, but in practice Well, sorry, I didn't say the hardest corruption. I mean. Look. I think when that question was alluding to there. I would assume, is sort of this perennial debate about human nature, which is, is man primarily good or bad, which we could talk about, but I think

and the thing about love not scaling. Let me hit that one directly and then we can maybe go to the bigger topic. So the formulation here is from a guy named David Friedman is an economist milton friedman, son and the thing that he said that really stuck with me is look. There's only three ways to get people to do things for other people right fundamentally, one is love, and you see that in people's families, friend networks like I'll. Do things remain without having to pay me right now, and so that is important for us without military means you get. Your ass coming to the other one? Yes exactly so far, so so there's love without love. There is basically to other choices in their basically money enforce right monies money's, the at the forces. The stack like money is capitalism's answer. Force was communism's answer me. If I back to just beat up on the communist a little bit more like this was the big realization of all the communist societies in the twentieth century and today, which is light Basically what communism and its derivatives socialism soforth expect they speck loved a scale as they specks that you should work in whatever you say, here? You can swap minutes or whatever it is the fields or whatever, and you should do that out of love for your fellow man, and you should do that for love of

piety and so forth and by the way looked like the nazis. International socialist, like they have their own spit on this you're supposed to do things on behalf of the german people, is the same thing like you're supposed to love this macro unit islam doesn't scale. The problem is people just don't naturally lot of people, they don't know right and by the way, my view, that's not because there's something morally wrong with them. It's because they don't know the other people write it and it's like okay, are they being loved back right and like? Are the other? People are going to be pulling their weight right or is there going to be a free rider problem? And, of course, then the answer is at any level of scale. I there at their free rider problems of if people aren't required to work, and so is the irony of the heart of the whole thing. A society built on the idea that love scales becomes an incredibly dark, dystopian, hostile and ultimately murderous place, because let us scale force is one way round that which is okay. The way you get people to work, even though they don't want to because they don't want people in some remote area, that they'd be working on behalf of, is put a gun to their head and then the third option that fall straight out of that

Okay, how about money and then sort of money, of course, is a proxy money as a tool for sort of in what they call sort of rational self interest. Writer in light self interest, which was like okay, I'm going to get paid money to do this, it's going to benefit these other people, I'm not primarily doing it, because it's going to I said people haven't met, look maybe I'll everybody, and maybe I would love to meet all my customers and by the way, look you walk into a restaurant and you've never met the owner or the host before, like they're thrilled, to see you right and so do they literally love you or are you their new best friend now? Are they excited to see yeah well, they have a very positive sentiment towards you cause. They know you're, taking what you're going to pay you right anyway. So that's the best solution that we've come up with yeah, barring some profound change in human nature in which people all of a sudden become far more generous than they been historically at. it seems, like it's likely to be a stable state, yeah yeah, it's funny. The reminds me of an interesting conversation. I had years ago with a friend of mine, from the soviet union and they made some offhand comment like whenever stolen was a crazy psycho for that kind of thing, because what

You talk about storms, very rational, very smart, go back, read what wrote look at his speeches. He was, super systematic thank her very intelligent as they like what went wrong, why they killed twenty million of his own people and- He just said: when you take away the carrot, all you have a stick. That is so true and I think a lot you know that's a lot of the point. At scale in your family. Yes, you can run the communist family. You can even a communist kibbutz at that scale and it can work for sure yeah, that's right at height made this point. Deirdre Mccluskey is made. This point also, which is like look. We do live in a superposition of the two systems. Right because white, you don't want to be the asshole who, like him, you know how it runs your family, like it's, a capitalist enterprise like the charge, your kids for for rent, wait for sleeping in their bunks when they're eight, we all grow up. Anne and in our family and friend environments like we're all communist it in that context right. But then there is this kind of schizophrenia to it, which is like. Ok, we go into the world of the world as an act like that and all of a sudden there's a different way to change in a different.

The relate, and so I think, alternately to hear. The answer lies in the super position of the small, the large and pushes eight the people who are too abstract on this, I think jet derailed the icing on the exact point that everyone gets confused on, because who want want the country to run like their family. That would be so much better. The promise it's impossible, I listeners, persist you're looking for even more discussions on the future of attack. Specifically, I Then I wouldn't let you know about a special, a series from our friends over at the masters of scale like asked their new series grants you envy ip pass to engage in conversations with some of the greatest mines and I feel the way I've, including luminary, such as computer scientists, favourably entrepreneurs, women can adapt goes on, David one alongside other trailblazer, in the realm of artificial intelligence and the best part is

with game, changing analysis from masters of scale host and legendary investor rate hoffman, along with brand new insights, on. How do you say I in your very own, work so be sure to search masters of scale wherever you get inside cast and followed a shower to hear each episode and with limited series on nets This is actually one that I think a lot of people have from Morton. How do you see private capital versus public research budgets when it comes to fundamental progress? aside from eighty anti monopoly, that drove the labs have yet to see systemic technological progress from private investment. I think I would disagree with the last why biology so yeah so I'd actually say, there's actually three models, I would say: there's private, there's public and then there's a third that I'll come to. So look like a couple of things I think are true, so one is again I'll give the effect of pessimists. There do on this one also witches look like straight capital, our research that is sorta.

The time on our way of life, discovering the principles of the universe and so forth. The best of that he has no idea if, when it will ever commercialize right, because by definition, it has no idea whether not the experiments leaving pan out right there is real and correct, and so there is this kind of research that historically has been publicly funded. Only I look at you Whilst we have had these agencies like the national science foundation, that have done a lot of that for a very long time and whatever issues msf has. If you look at such a time, expand in their existence and then the results for you would say, yeah that was absolutely outstanding: investment from a societal standpoint or a very hard time. Heads and investments, yeah yeah, that's right and again to be an effect. As MR lotta that research may not have been research that would get out by private companies. Look on the other hand, I think private. companies carry their weight more than people. Think and look part of it, as the questioner alluded to bell labs. But there is this thing that happens when these companies know that, when the best of the big companies get big and powerful, they do more of this. They open these labs right and so eighteenth. He did at I bm and hewlett packard at google and microsoft and many others

across many industries have done this and I think, quite honestly, part about a speaker for them. Are you show that off? I think part of that is look. They start to think in terms of longer time horizons and they do want ultimately new products at some point, and part of that is its putting a retention exercise to get the best and brightest nautical miles to stay. There is to tell them that they can do research and publish the region and so there is that I looked then you mentioned like look. The brakes are on a. I just came out of Google right. It came out of a private company, which is a great example of that. Do I look there's something I should like to highlight a few researchers out of academia pull it off. the media and in fact I spent a long running soares attention. I should between the tech companies in the universities for the last fifteen years or so, which is as these new technologies are built, these big research labs. They have pulled a lot of good faculty other universities and, by the way. That process, I think, is accelerating and may I specifically because their capital leads to actually do montoni, ire, so big that our universities can afford to do it right now. So you get this kind of issue of like. Are you draining the universities of their remaining operative professors and leaving only the other?

and you can debate it, we can have a long debate about the pros and cons of public vs private. There is a third model, and this is the one that people often talk about. You know a sort of an aspiration which is this idea of these very large societal projects. In the? U s, you know, we talk in particular about the apollo project, apollo project and the project right, and we say this is a kind of a frequent lament from kind of decline as right, which is why can't we have more pilot projects and hat projects, but things ossetia, third model on the third model is military and militaristic right. Manhattan was just a strain of military project right, but a bomb run by the military apollo was a sort of a civilian saying nasa, but it was in the context of a military arms race with the soviet union and a technological arms race in the soviet union, the in a much more military society than we have today, first, when the military gets involves, two things happen, one as they can do things that speed when speed when they really want to cause, they just tell people what to do and then also they get access to a lot of money. You anything

it rough now- and so personally, I go back and forth a little bit on. This is like we want more manhattans and apollos. On the one hand, it's hard to say no on the other, do I want a society that is that much more militarized ass was required. I don't know yeah that can live with that mean for what is happening in the world. If we get back to the point where, as militarized as we were in nineteen forty, one right or even nineteen sixty, yeah. I know it's actually one of the great things about the modern world is we have some leave your boys in its smaller scale and everyone's still, horrible look, and hopefully that continuous threat yet Ok, here's a simple question from tux: how do you bridge the gap between in being anti statist and supporting america for its policies, it made. No american dynamism, as we do

yes, I'd want, like. I think that all these things end up being a question of power and how it works, so the extreme form of state as a mere communism, where a hundred per cent of the power is in the public sector, oh powers in the private sector, and that has the issues that we spoke of. I think so no public sector, can quickly go to anarchy and that's not at least not something that I would advocate for they think look ass, a society. We kind of have this collective there is a certain amount of collectivism in shared values, shared morals. What's ok, what's on ok in america, we have things like freedom, of speech, freedom to be who you are kind of inward? are anchored on these kind of free society, ideals and you need you need

estate to do that, or at least I believe, I think that there are probably some people that don't believe that, but you need a state for that and preserving that those values. that way of life is extremely important and as primarily the role of the government with all of us. Citizens participating and we try to participate in that through our can dynamism, efforts and that's important so when I say I'm aunt, esteves, really, sam anti communist and they take too much weight on the public sector at the expense of free markets and basically freedom for the citizens who have been. I think you're probably mean broaden out at it, We must also, or by extension, anti authoritarian yeah for sure inside I found I think, those go together because it's hard to be an authoritarian unless you have an amazing amount of the power right like it. Even if you want to be authoritarian in the u s and we certainly like had authoritarian tendencies from

time to time from various politicians and leaders, but it's really If you cause, you don't have enough power to pull it off and that's the greatest thing about our system. I think, as you can't gather enough power to become completely authoritarian, the, u s, hand ass, maybe the most fundamental thing we want to preserve that. He can you. Further define the law of accelerating returns and how it may play out in the future. So I think it's I never know whether use this is such a great metaphor, I'll go ahead and use it. So it's a paul, romer uses as metaphor. He says These have sex, let's say our ideas, reproduce they go through the same reproduction evolutionary process. Let me remind having set by the way but yeah you're right now that we have birth control and all these things a lot longer and longer form of is, is probably better so the arguments, bessie ideas beget ideas. In quite the same way, the people began people. So basically it's like the more ideas that you have, the more combinations of idea

you can have, and those combinations of ideas are themselves ideas and then based on that that they can further had a replica integrating cut across breed and how offspring and any easy does any time, of course, rebuilding any kind of technological product as your pulling at ideas from like all over the place, you're getting inspired by all the different technologies that are a blow you with the staff. Thirty inspired by all the other applications, anybody has ever tried to build we're getting inspired by all kinds of things. You know look. Ai is inspired by the neural structure of the brain, quite literally right driving from biology crossbred over in a computer science, mathematics, and so If this process is work in a way that it should, you should see sorted this accelerating explosion of variety, the sort of species shanna reproduction and scaling up a number of ideas in the world. The sort of catalytic these in itself like a chain reaction by the way. This was also the argument to connect us back to that in human populations that this was the argument for this guy Julian Simon, who I admire a lot. I, who wrote this book called the ultimate resource in a lot of his work, was in the sixties and seventies when there were always pitched battles, of course, around natural resources.

for mentalism and he was kind of an avowed enemy. Of the scot Paul Ehrlich was the guy who predicted mass famine and death from kind of increases in into an algae, as a jew in had no actually what you want is you actually want a lot more people in the world humans? People are the ultimate resource right, not any kind of raw material, but literally people, and he said why you want more people in the world, because if you are more people, you'll get more ideas. Right and so more people means you'll have more ideas. More ideas in combination with ideas leads to more ideas. Those ideas lead to ways to make things better in the world. the things that those ideas may possible are ways to support more people on the planet right, there's ways got quite literally the answer to national resource consumption right, for example, or natural resource. Whenever limitations or environmental considerations. I mean the answer is not the paul Ehrlich approach of depopulate right, reduce the human population, therefore reduce the number of ideas, both the number of people, the number of ideas. The answer is to actually put the pedal forward, more people, more ideas, more solutions and yes, clearly agree with him.

That argument amazing, but by the way Gillian Simon, is probably won them under underrated. Economists and philosophers of the last hundred years certainly are not familiar with them. As a great country that Rebecca three. May that really both people's minds when I read it for the first time as you may, the argument that you'd never run out of any national resource. that right like he did, you did same as yet a famous your bet with Paul Ehrlich, the population bomb guy, and it was a bad on the price of a basket of natural resource commodities. Ten years, the future it was, of course, one hundred percent. First peak oil didn't azalea, they'll be going exactly the same thing and he let Erlich actually define. I believe the basket of the commodity, so he got a loaded it in his direction and about was will the price of this basket be greater or less than it is today in ten years and everybody who's gotta been the sort of conventional thinking on this was like well, obviously, the prices, while the stuff we're going to go up, cause, there's more people, there's more consumption.

And that has recently been out in the press. For many like nobody was saying with joy and Simon say right now: I her australians julie's, I'm one about the price that basket was lower in ten years, the it was. We never in a natural resources, is point: was he with markets? The way that we know that a natural resources becoming scarce as his price starts to rise. As it's price starts to rise, self interest says we should figure out ways to not need as much of that natural resource right, right and so The price of oil rises than all of a sudden. We have an economic incentive to develop alternative energy, ranging by the way from solar to win through to things like nuclear and then maybe it in the future. Even if your isn't, and so it's actually markets working at their best as the prices, something rises. The incentive yourself interested incentive to come up with alternative rises. The if that were not previously price effective, I should become price, effective,

right. So this was a rise of writing right. Franking worked because oil and gas started to get expensive enough, we're all beside the additional cost of racking was actually worthwhile and then frock and brought the pressure it back down and infraction was a classic example of an idea was a technological innovation, it made borne by human creativity and so basically have joined Simon says says: that's the homeostasis got him in the system, and this is not a dystopian scenario in which we are doomed to run out of everything and everybody's going to freeze and die in fact, it's not necessarily utopian like it still like now, for resistance will cost money, but it's a fundamentally positive view wishes. It is human ingenuity that is going to cause us did not have the problems at the deuce arusha. We're gonna have which again hundred years at essen, so far so good, he has an abundance view of the world spices scarcity. View of the world turns out the abundance. You it's right, which is good news for all of us, Matthew. S, question which I think I an unusual answer to which is the dream of fusion stopping us enjoying the insane gains we can get from fishing. Yes, south

primarily was preventing us from enjoying the insane gains for efficient and by the way they are saying, like the level of energy that we could be producing from modern nuclear fission reactors, and the safety of it is like France will be going on right now yea, France's doing up here but for France has got to be the european politics are that are so entertaining on this, because france is so pro nuclear and the rest of europe is so anti nuclear. in france had to get a waiver from germany took continue to run their nuclear, after which they, finally just gotten Lieutenant I'm going in france is their fishing reactor The german greens surrendered determined for fifty years to turn his wrappers off so I look at the big reason why we don't have widespread nuclear efficient power today is because the precautionary principle, because of the basically the fear of disaster, which basically makes people emotional and then turns out here. The emotional decision is a very damaging bad decision, because the alternatives turn out to be things

by gas and coal, and so that's overwhelmingly now. Having said that, back to the question is yes, so the new thing that you can say if you're trying to fight nuclear fission is are we don't need because we have used right around the corner and by the way I start by saying I hope that's right. I hope you can really is right around the corner. I ve been right around the corner for a while, I hope is right around it. and that would be returned to be harder than and by quite a bit it's it's quite difficult and then look I think, what's going to happen, is I look, I think we'll get fusion of work at some point. There's very smart people working on it. I think they'll get it there. I think the same forces and ideas and people that have prevented the deployment session will immediately prevented employment, a fusion, and so I think this idea that all of a sudden, the same kind of tat narrative, corrupt pessimism. It'll be the same arguments as this incredibly dangerous thing and who knows if it goes wrong and like what, if at this and that and the other and like we can't take these risks and can they prove it's going to be safe forever infinitely? And it's going to be the same arguments and

these nuclear fusion. Companies are going to start out being very optimistic and they're going to hit this wall of sort of regulatory and emotional and political and ideological resistance, and I hope they punch through it but look richard Nixon to do things in the early seventies around this one. Is he declared something called project independence where he said we the? U s would build a thousand new nuclear fission power plants by negotiating become completely energy sufficed. and be able to withdraw completely from middle east be able to visit our mission, and then he greeted the nuclear george mission, which then prevent that from happening, there how many new nuclear reactors of the approved zero noon? ants in forty years. So I did what any get here you go back to incentives. Okay, now. Imagine okay, now again give the devil his due, like imagine that you're, the newly appointed regulator you're the newly appointed chairman or ben Horowitz, or the newly appointed chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission and nineteen seventy three what are your and senate? How much glory

Are you gonna get right? If we build new reactors versus how horrible is your life going be if there's another nuclear accident, the red room, another kind of him and the agency problem you brightened by the way you've got the existing energy companies in there doing their thing right, saying: oh, no, don't worry about it, oil and gas, and by the way, we're going to do we're going to clean where we're going to have clean oil clean oil, we're gonna, believe even volkswagen in diesel right light virtues is: let us continue working on the clean coal, nuclear diesel again by the way fusions right around the corner, that'll be better and then we're like wow these companies like they're, so big and powerful and successful, and by the way they seem like they're kind of hitting there to give you a job when they're done here in your body, I want this as a fun one loot craft. You say that humans want to be productive, yet so many hate their jobs and work only because they have to when it comes to abundance due to tech innovations. Should we allow people the option of networking.

This is so there's these to be. I looked like they again, no utopian as I'm here right, like metal jobs are fine like it like a lot of people, work, jobs that may really don't like Ben they're doing because they have to and are doing their transport a family or sport themselves, and so certainly nobody promised everybody. Everybody loves my office if you close your eyes and imagine somebody who doesn't have to work right and I'm not talking about like stay at home mothers. I'm talking about like somebody who, like in our system today, would be working to be able to make money support themselves and as a future ordering a society in which they can elect not to work, and they will have the same or similar. Limit your comfort that they have today and they can just kick it. You kind of close your eyes and that imagine that person and there's kind of two possible versions that person you could imagine one is the person who is now by the way, as mark said, liberated to what was Marx's whole thing, we're all going to be fishermen in the morning literary critics in the afternoon poets

tour and musicians at night right like we're going to be able to like self actualize into all of these things that don't involve money and we're going to be going I'll, be creating this nat and we're going to be doing all these amazing things, because we have all this time free. It looks like there are some people for whom that's the case right there, certain people, for whom I sure that would be the case. Then there is the other scenario, and I would just call that one that she doesn't mess scenario right now. well, yeah and play station. waste, bright, gray, light, and I like netflix, I'm a fan of netflix but like maybe not twelve hours a day right like they are the couch and get baked and just like there goes all your motivation right straight out the window, and this is where I use and may I say the fairly provide return, my farm animal like that. That's a farm animals system! Right, u s, existence and co right, like cows, are great kid tells her great but like I don't think we should be cows like I don't think we should be firm animals. I dont think that is an advance. Your back.

while the scenario we were talking about at that point, as I think we just need to be realistic about that and again, this is very much one of these. Why should we believe things were kind of the class of people who imagine themselves? This being the case the morning, fishermen in the afternoon musicians- and I think that It's a gen Y and maybe that's true for them by the way. Maybe if you went to one of these ivy league universities- and you hate yourself as a barista and You'D- be much happier and You'D- be writing poetry if you didn't have to do your day job, maybe that's true for them right, but like the consequences of that misjudgment, if that's wrong on the other eight billion people, I think, are very profound. and possibly extremely negative, and actually we ve run this experiment in the: u s to some extent a night sitting this more lightly, but your problem There are a lot of bad things happen with the children, in the native americans, but I think the worst thing may have been the reservation system at least the longest lasting and the reservation system is. Essentially you be I it's sixty five thousand dollars a year, I believe per resident and

but he found time on a reservation. Nose like that, just as a marked out well like removing purpose from people, slides general, There are people who can deal with it, but that's, I think, suddenly, the minority, Let's I mean at least in my guess: I've been great for the native americans and kind of scale that society is many are proposed, these days, spelling out the best time everything ladders That's it actually get much better over time, so our job a great but like for many hundreds in friends of yours, every job as farming, Not every human is suited to be a farmer. I know you weren't marcus. There's a lot of farming in your hometown and then the thing that came after them, first with these assembly line, jobs, which I saw you can use to see. Petitions say we need more good jobs like these fashion. Jobs like doing this all day like a robot, is not like the greatest job in the world may pay well, but it's not the most fulfilling and

Many of the people on those lines are on drugs and in fact, Henry ford, famously doubled the minimum wage, but the reason he doubled the minimum wage was. He had so much attrition because people heated those manufacturing. So much, and so I think that the jobs that were producing now have been increasingly interesting and Our great through now great for everybody, One thing is for sure, as we have a much broader variety of things that people can do so you have many choices. Hopefully, people can find the job this right for them this is interesting point, influence ex serves as a pretty nickname how'd. You proceed the contrast. in rigorous technological and mathematical education. Seen in countries like china, which emphasizes relentless advancement with evolving it occasional paradigms in the west which price. choices, intersection of perspectives and social value

Then why? Don't you ask that I agree that there is an interesting one year I mean, I think there its tricky. You know like in it's been a long time since I've been in school and my children early That's so I'm a little far away from the actual thing has happened in schools now having that boy. I think that there is a kind of education that you can use. Where you can go, make something or build something. Figure out how large systems work or perform like a man function in society. and then there are a whole class of other things like you can teach people about anything. Now they I have lots of like rap education college, and this amount, the other, and you know it's interesting because the great musicians I know- and I know Many of them never took any kind of class like that

muslim, then taken any class of music by the way? It's funny, like my friend kenya, thought himself. Music is an art stood on the terms of music, and I think that forget the great creators of studying to become a virtuoso in those things is necessarily that even the best, fast, and then you have these other things, which are these social theories. Proven social ferries, that a lot of people are teaching these days, which I think those are I ain't hobbes am doing. I pursued them is hobbes. Studying these social theories and new ideas on how to organise society or whatever, how that all works, I dont know, it makes sense to charge people, three hundred thousand dollars or whatever costs costs these days to teach him a hobby. like that seems really absurd to me. I know people have different views on this, but I think that the purpose of the education that we funnel young people into oughta be to enable them

to make significant contributions back to society and that probably I dunno if it's narrow, as the chinese education, but it's probably not as fraud, is something so we're doing here that I may just pop. the question of one level, which is look education itself, is an industry was a field and an industry, a business and slow both the nature of the american education system, and for that matter, a system like in china's their primarily centralizing government control and so The american system is no case for twelve is primarily government monopoly with occasional offshoots, and the offsets are very restricted. The very small number and then, with the college, has too many? U s as a cartel was quite literally off self regulated cartel over to the fact that it requires it's on the sort of federal student loan, drug work financially and then the accreditation agencies that determine which colleges get federal student lending are run by the college's themselves. So it's a self reinforcing cardiology way, don't see a lot of universities ever persuaded them,

their universities in the? U s are older than the country right and so is anything I was in china. The system's government control, inherently completely government controlled, is commonly around the world, and so we sort of backed into this idea of education as like an abstract good. And then we have this specific implementation of these highly centralized authoritarian non market based approaches to it, and then you can argue the pros and cons of the results and look. I thought the question set up this a very interesting aspect of it, which is like okay. When does it become kind of too much rote memorization vs? When does it become kind of too much kind of wow? Theorizing was maybe a sweet spot somewhere in the middle it'll. Look at education as a system can't really respond and adapt to changing needs of people, because it's primarily not market based, and so we kind of just get the system we get. We send our kids to it. We don't think we really have a choice for the most part, and I would just say like the big thing, as it's just in all these societies is just stuck can in their all these signs. That has become a dysfunctional across many societies with it we can spend hours

that is our I would just at least one. I gotta put a place holder and say: I think we should also squinting kind of wonder like. Is there a different kind of system that could get built? That would be much more market driven from much more technologically sophisticated? There would be much more bet more suited to modern aids and would be much more subject to actual competitive pressure and the need to begin There are some very good education sternest working on this, and there are some very good charter schools. There are some very good new start of universities, and so there are some people taking place with us, but at a macro level like we're not there yet- and I think maybe we should take the time about writing at their yeah. That's interesting because we are in the middle of this very interesting crisis. The student long crisis, when President Biden has kind of proposed, and I I don't know how much of it is actually gone through. All the legal objections and so forth You can't forgive some ports the sitting ones. But the interesting thing about that is that's kind of the ultimate treating the symptoms and not the cause, because why- Any of these students pay back their loans and the

obvious answer is college isn't worth the money you pay for it, and then it doesnt translate into a job, that enables you to pay back, but you bar to do it and that's a much bigger problem for young people and an ongoing problem that wake you either kind of sir if college, in its entirety or you to fix the problem, and I think that, given what colleges are willing to do with their tuition like grow at double the rate of inflation. and higher more administrators- and they have students and all these kinds of things that their free money, another set of problems that The pretty dangerous idea may college free in that way. We do it better mechanism for sure, maybe now's the time, hopefully ok, SAM Arnold. To what extent do you believe we really control what technology does afterwards release? Can we exert any meaningful control after invention

Yeah, I mean a couple of things, so one is obviously we do contrivance and her pretty strict controls and a lot of areas right as we just discuss the nuclear case. So one as this is not quite there aren't any. You know, I think, maybe the underlying question here would be. Can we predict what the consequences are going to be and by the way, is a very hot topic right now, because you have this thing where there are a bunch of a kind of practitioners who are making these vary, in my view, very extreme statements about what I asked you to do. This would be horrible and there's this very strong temptation on the part of people to make what seems like a very logical kind of assumption, which is that the people who invented that analogy are in the best position to be able to predict what happens with it after prison and are presumably also going to be in the best position to propose the whenever regulations or controls are required to prevent those things from happening. I have not in my life- and I have not in my reading of history, seen a lot of examples where the adventures of technology are very good at this The example I liked your site is thomas edison and better the phonograph, and he was completely convinced that for use case for the phonograph was going to be the listener religious sermons

It was a very pious man and he took religion very seriously and he just assumed that if you owned a phonograph, the point of it would be you'd get home at the end of a long day at the office or in the factory. You'd kick off your shoes, but in your slippers, noodle our by your side, you jesse other around and you would put on religious service. We went to church and bother with all those people which, for Thomas edison, was a big thing. exactly and by the way that you could do this every night right, you don't have to wait till Sunday is a great you can do this all week and I dunno it looked like a few people. Do that most people, don't most people, listen to music and manual, recall that most of the first from a music that went kind of was kind of the big hit hits genre. Music on photographs was jazz together and you'll. Recall what people said about jazz at the time? will, they said many things, but it wasn't real musical was the devil's musical. Was very bad. It was channeling of all kinds of unholy impulses. It was going to cause young people to foreigners like that. They just have basically all the same things that people say about run things something now there were some racism involve towards us out. Of course

is absolutely it was. It was going to be all of a sudden. You use a channel for these, like musicians to up in the homes of why people liked it and, of course, and so so anyway, it turned out that people have like all kinds of issues with the technology. It just turns out. They weren't remotely the issues that thomas edison predicted that they would have, and if you will, It's historically you're kind of like well. Of course, he didn't know cause yeah he's a techie. He just invented the technology or he doesn't have legs a crystal ball. He doesn't have some special foresight and, in fact, he's a particular kind of person, he's the kind of person who spends all his time in a lab here. Right he's unusual, he's unusual right and he was maybe speculate. You know you might be psychologically a little bit different than most people right and he satisfaction for different things, and he doesn't spend a lot of time right with like regular people. He certainly not an expert on politics and society and psychology is us and all these other things so anyway, I think where I would start back to the original question is just like. I should don't think it's that easy to forecast these things and then, specifically, I don't think it's any easier for the people who invented it, allows you to forecast these things and I think they carry a lot of unjustified credibility. This also came up in the oppenheimer.

The same thing: it's like these businesses, all of a sudden earner convincing, There are the once we're gonna be working, are like a game theory in the philosophy of the morality of the deployment of Well, they works. Well, I bet you know now that was the reason was that it was better I mean it was. This is the scene with termin, which is something that actually happened right, which is like oppenheimer, shows up to the kind of wring his hands about the morality of the atomic bomb and sherman is just like get this guy out I would like to present a united states like less listen to me. By the way. German and again I not the german made all the right decisions or whatever, but sherman was the newly elected president. I states like he has the guy who should have in making that decision. Not the guy who invented the thing and so I just think like. I guess my big appeal here is just like humility, like I think we as technologies need to be very careful were not, but we should be very careful about trying to cross the line in deciding that we're gonna. Do societal engineering kind of in our spare time, and people who sheer technologists kind of doing these things should be very sceptical of the technologists deserve any kind of unwarranted credibility on this right and then looked

we're going to be these big questions. What history basically says, as we figure them out as we go, and I think the alternative to that is to just not do new things, and so I know where I come out on it. Yeah I'll give a plug for a great book that you recommended when reason goes on holiday, which is sort of the story of how the great physicists and inventors did on politics and policy in game theory, you super high? I q people and you put them in a researcher university setting. They go crazy, like they very frequently go very nutty on anything involving politics and society, and this was the american physics community in the nineteen twenties and thirties that basically, like most of them went like hardcore. when asked like Einstein was a stalinist like we don't talk about these things any more, but he was these people end up like very radicalized, and this happens at other groups of people right. Maybe this at certain points is happening in other areas in our public life

know it. Definitely it intellectuals go straight for it. Thomas all started about. This lot is like lucky seriously: the problem of people who are hyper verbal and like working ideas is they can get kind of arbitrarily unhinged and they can kind of talk themselves into crazier and crazier things in their level of disconnection from the real world means that they no longer have any governors and how crazy please can get, and so I think that's what's happening in a right now and I think we need to be very cautious about who we listen to trust in their own. Children is profound last question: this is actually one that I would ass it's from bird and it is before publishing. What did you consider the most controversial point now, is live. What makes people Jim the most so What did, I think was the most out? Dunno Ben may, ask you that you read the. What were you predicting was maybe the most controversial for well, I for sure, when you wrote it, every thing on the economic front about free markets

and as love isn't scalable and those kinds of things. I thought those would be the most controversial for sure those are kind of time, honored crowd pleasers. When it comes to the you can people, maybe I like. I did just like the nature of humans that they disagree on that. That's a good question I don't know yet. I would say I don't feel like it when you think me missing this. I think most of the attacks of the like a lot of artists I aspire to have a better, have a better class of credit. Isn't one of these things into modern climate, like a lot of the attacks, have been on me more than on the ideas right right right and if I were, including the one you started out with earlier, like the smug interpretation of that on my art would be. Wild ideas must all be great if their reduced to just attacking me here at home in an attack yeah like if that's all god like. I must have otherwise made outstandingly excellent points and it must not have counter arguments azure. I would love to see more. There have been a few, but I would like to see more substantive responses good. I legitimately like carefully thought through.

Without I mean I think we ve got a lot of emotional reaction. I mean, I think, some of the more thoughtful wondered just probably on this interpretation of what she said: riches some people interpreters ology gone wild. He didn't like the girls gone wild, the but everywhere that was like. ecology gone wild just like let her roam free, which was what you're saying it says more alike. Are we going to keep doing new things or not, or are we going to kind of nip them in the bud? The way we did nuclear fission but, like you, build something you ve got bags, you ve got issues you have the internet's had cry, minutes and slice the very very early days, and we keep working on that, but the benefits of the internet outweigh the negative. Some is

as the things that I think people wanted you to be more on one hand and on the other hand, but it's a manifesto, so you don't do that no manifesto, exactly! I thought there was one piece of feedback on twitter. I thought somebody made a really smart point. One really smart one I saw was specs that love for money thing. Somebody said boy like: isn't it the case that actually a lot of innovators like a lot of creators of of new things, actually are doing it out of a sense of love? I brought this out beyond technology, but like a lot of artists, slow musicians, a lot of writers. This is this is the concept of the labor of love. Right is like they really show like their conformity. Something- and you know like lovers- sorry, lower their fellow man is in fact a motivation, even if they would also like to give aid. He answered the accusation. Bessie was, I was presenting to kind of criminal view of human nature when I narrowed. I love that much. I think that's right although if you invent somebody and then you need to hire bunch people to work for you, that's where love runs out they're, not argument china in similar.

The musician? Your publicists will make a final answer. This amount living. They seem to be money, as our man If you got to the end of this episode, dont forget to subscribe to Ben marks. Can you show called the vetted mark shall be sure to subscribe in your pipe cast up of choice. She don't mess of coming up sense.