Hello Internet - H.I. 95: Break Glass in Case of Emergency

Episode Date: December 31, 2017

Grey and Brady discuss The Book of Thunks Sponsors: Eero: Happy Wifi, Happy life. Use code hellointernet for free overnight shipping in the US and Canada Hover: The best way to buy and manage domain names - get 10% off your first purchase at www.hover.com/hi Squarespace: start building your website today with a free fourteen day trial and 10% off first purchase Listeners like YOU on Patreon Show Notes: Discuss this episode on the reddit

Hello Internet, it's Future Grey here, rushing to edit this episode before I have to go. For this podcast, I think you should pause after each of the questions and find the answer for yourself, before you let Brady or I convince you of what is the one true answer. If you're listening with somebody else, even better, each of you should try to convince each other of what the true answer is before hearing Brady and I talk about it. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. I'm going to stop recording now and literally press the export, upload, publish buttons as fast as I can to get this episode out to you. So have a lovely evening and let the show begin.

So for the longest time, we have had this sort of, I wouldn't say fear, but concern in the back of our minds that one day we may come to record Hello Internet and just not have anything to say or run out of topics and things like that. It has never happened. And it hasn't really happened today either, I don't think. But just in case it does happen, I've had a break glass in case of emergency option sitting in a drawer by my side for a couple of years now. This is a book. Has it really been sitting there for a couple of years? I guess it has.

You referenced it enough when we were doing our little pre-show chats. I reckon. It's just been sitting there. So today for a special episode, we have decided to break the glass and use my emergency podcasting options. Just, I don't know why, just because I'm sick of waiting. I don't know. We're going to do it. It does feel like a thing we'll never get to because every time we do go to record, I think much more so for me, I have this deep fear of

what on earth are we going to talk about? And so many times I feel like we get to the show and we barely get to all the topics that we have because we get caught up in something that's a total tangent right at the beginning. So, it is an unfounded fear every time. But yes, it does feel like we'll never get to this book otherwise. So, let's just take a look at this book. Okay. This is a book. I don't know where it came from or why I have it. I don't think I bought it. It doesn't look like something I would have bought, but it's called The Book of Thunks. Of Thunks? Thunks. So, instead of thinks, they've replaced the I with a U. Thunks.

Okay. It's by a chap named Ian Gilbert. I think it's a bit of a toilet book. I think it's supposed to be a conversation book, but I see it more as a toilet book. That rarefied genre. It's full of just one line questions that are supposed to be thought provoking or conversation starters. It also says on here to annoy your friends. And I think a lot of these questions would be quite effective at annoying your friends.

That sounds like a very Brady book then. I don't like the annoying aspect of it. Anyway. Really? Because I think you are the king of asking needling, annoying questions of people when you're interviewing them or when you're talking to me on a podcast. I feel like you would like that part the most.

Well, some of them annoy even me. Now, there are 300 questions in this book. Okay. Just before the show, I went through with a marker and I've put big red crosses next to ones that I think, hmm, I wouldn't mind asking Gray that question. So, I'm going to go through this book. I'm going to go through all the questions that I've put crosses next to, or at least I'm going to go through all the ones until we get sick of it. Right.

And we're going to see what you think about them. Are you going to answer these questions as well, Brady? If you want me to, depends what the question is. I would very much want, I don't want to be just on the hook here. I don't need this to be a quiz series situation. It's not like that. It's not like that. I will answer questions too, if I feel I have something to contribute.

Now, there are a lot of questions in this book I'm not going to ask, because some of them really annoy me, because they seem to come from a place of real science ignorance or just logic ignorance. So I'm ignoring all those ones. Give me an example of this. I'll give you an example of one. What weighs more, a piece of blank paper or a piece of lined paper? Yeah, that's just an annoying question. Yeah. There are lots of questions like that. I feel like I need way more details to answer that question.

Well, that is a definite problem you will have with every question. But anyway, we're going to have to deal with that grayism just as we come to it. Is that a grayism? I don't think so. I think that's a reasonable thing to ask. All right. Let's go. I've got the book here. You can probably hear the pages here. Oh, there we go. Some nice foley work. Thank you. So, the first one I put across next to, just so happens to be number eight in the book of 300. Okay. If the cure for cancer meant constructing a huge factory in Antarctica, should we do it anyway? I don't even understand how that's a question.

Yes, of course. What's the question? I don't think they make the stakes high enough in that question myself. Yeah, like I'd burn down the rainforest for a cure for cancer. So, cure for cancer, I was thinking, you know, maybe destroying all of Antarctica. Would that be worth curing cancer? Yeah, I'd sink Antarctica under the ocean. I mean, cancer kills a lot of people. Yeah.

There's a lot of weight on that side of the scale. I think I'd be pretty hard pressed to think of anything that doesn't come close to species destroying that i wouldn't do to cure cancer okay but you brady i think my threshold would be probably lower than yours okay so lower than just doesn't destroy the species as your threshold yeah like i don't know i think obliterating antarctica altogether i don't know what has think obliterating Antarctica altogether. I don't know. What has Antarctica ever done for you? Not much. I'm going there soon. Oh, yeah? But I would also like a cure for cancer. So I would cancel my trip if it meant curing cancer.

Would your answer change, like, before and after the trip? Like, oh, you're more hesitant to not destroy Antarctica before you've gone, but after you've gone, do you think you would be more willing to sink the entire continent? Would you be willing to put several thousand sort of charismatic fauna species extinct in exchange for a cure for cancer? As long as it meant humans could still live? Like, you know, get rid of all the elephants and the lions and the cats and the dogs and- Oh, dogs. Oh. Oh, I found your weakness.

That is my weakness. Actually, I feel like, could I look into the eyes of a single puppy and extinguish its life in exchange for a cure for cancer? I feel like I don't know if I could do that. So you wouldn't be willing to kill all the puppies in the world for a cure for cancer? Oh God, I don't know. Now I feel immediately like I need a bunch of details. You were willing to torpedo Antarctica and the rainforest a minute ago, but put a few puppies on the block and suddenly you turned to... Yeah, no, that's a very different moral question.

Wow, that's horrible to realize that this is the way my brain is prioritizing these things. Oh, man. That becomes a much harder question. Yeah. I feel like then I need to know all sorts of details that the book is not going to have. Like, does this mean we will never cure cancer or that we just won't have the cure now? Like, then I need to start really lawyering up on what the exact parameters of this question are. But once you involve puppies, I'm going to become much more hesitant is what's going on here. Is Mr. Chompers in earshot at the moment?

Mr. Chompers is not in earshot at the moment. He's going to be returning to the house very shortly. He had a big bath from getting all muddy today, but he is not currently around. Well, anyway, he probably would have liked your answer anyway. I feel like a terrible person. Let's move on to another question. Are you more of a success if you have had five top 40 hit records, but no number ones, compared to someone who is a one hit wonder who has just had one number one?

Oh man, that's easy. That's easy. It depends entirely on how large the residuals are. Like, what's the tail end of this? Just pure dollars, yeah. It's not about consistency of quality art. It's just about the money you make. Oh, I guess that is the question. Well, I think this is complicated because I think as a kid, I think when I first came across the concept of a one-hit wonder,

I always found that kind of sad. Yeah. Do you get that same feeling from like the concept of like a one-hit wonder that there's something like a little sad about that? Like it's fluky, the person's success? Yeah. I mean, that's one of the ways you could take this question. Yeah. But I feel like as I've gotten older, like adult me doesn't have that same feeling with a one hit wonder. Like a one hit wonder is already incredibly successful.

Yeah. And it's like, sure, obviously anybody who's a one-hit wonder would prefer to be a two-hit wonder, but being a one-hit wonder is way better than being a zero-hit wonder. Let me reframe the question that completely changes it, and in some ways I think would reverse my answer. Okay. And that question would be, would you rather win a gold medal at the Olympics

or win 13 silver medals over three different Olympics, but no golds? For me, the answer to that is easy. I'm going to bet you want the gold, right? Yeah. Because no one remembers silver medals. In the world of music, well, it's not true to say no one remembers songs that don't get to number one, because a lot of very big songs never technically got to number one. But, you know, a number one is a bit like a gold medal, isn't it? Yeah, this is touching upon like the power law in entertainment.

Like a one hit wonder is 10 times more present in people's minds than the next most popular song, which is 10 times more present than the third most popular song. And so once you get down to the bottom of the top 40 chart, it's like, oh yeah, those are songs people might recognize, but they're not super omnipresent in a person's mind. I was just thinking with the silver medals, I think there's something more impressive if you can get a bunch of silver medals in disparate fields. This then again, like we're getting into the details here,

but I think personally, I feel like in my personality, I would be happier being less successful in a wider area of fields than being super successful in one field. Like much to my surprise, there is something that is attractive about being the kind of person who could win silver medals in a bunch of events. Even if you know, like lots of people think that silver is first loser, that it's not the same as a gold, that a gold is like 10 times better than a silver in people's minds. I remember when I was a little boy, I went through a phase where my favorite color was silver. You know, when you say you have to have a favorite color and a favorite number. I always said my favorite color is silver. And I was watching the Olympics with my dad one time

and I was watching the medal ceremony. And I said to my dad, you know what? I love silver so much. I think I'd rather have a silver medal than a gold medal. And he just looked at me and said, when you grow up, you'll think differently. And he was right. He was right. And while it's true, like winning silver medals across disparate disciplines over a sustained period of time does show a far greater level of accomplishment. And if you don't believe me, there's an Australian who won a gold medal at the Winter Olympics that is the most cheeky undeserved gold medal in the history of gold medals. You have to tell me what that is now. Now I'm curious. What is the most cheeky undeserved gold medal in the history of gold medals. You have to tell me what that is now. Now I'm curious.

What is the most undeserved gold medal ever? To set the scene for you, in the Winter Olympics, in some forms of speed skating, you have all these eliminations and things like that to get to the final. And then the final is four people. Okay. And this Australian actually got through to the final of four people. He shouldn't have even been in the final because all the people in his semi-final fell over and he

made it to the final. Okay. So, then this was the final. I've sent you the clip. His name's Stephen Bradbury. Okay. And he was against three other speed skaters that were way better than him. And they were going around this really tight track. Okay. So, this is a race. This is just like a pure speed race on the ice. Okay. Pure race, pure race. There were four other skaters, actually. There were five in the final.

Okay. He was just sitting at the back, not a hope in hell, and he'd given up even trying. He was just sitting there watching them, thinking this is amazing that I even made the final. And as the four others were vying for the medals, they got to the last corner, and they all crashed into each other.

Right. All of them ended up on their butts. And he just like, just coasted over the line on his own, like thinking, what the hell just happened? And the others were all trying to stand up and like, put a toe over the line so they could finish. And he was just like, oh, I just won a gold medal. You can never take that away from him.

And of course, he's not as great a speed skater as someone who has won a bunch of silvers over loads of Olympics, but he's still got his gold medal. That's amazing that he's the beneficiary of two flukes, that it's fluky he was there in the first place. And that shot is amazing because they really do crash like 20 feet before the end of the race. Yeah. You see the others standing up and just trying to put their skate over the line to finish. And he just like drifts past.

Yeah, because I'm just watching the replay here and he's not even booking it for the finish line. Like he's clearly mentally checked. It's like inertia just propels him over the finish line into the gold. That's amazing. Wow. Australia. Gold for Australia. Gold for Australia.

Gold for Australia. I feel like this adds another level to that question potentially, which is getting a gold, getting a bunch of silvers, or totally unintentionally getting a gold. Like just blind luck stumbling onto success in this manner. That's amazing. Well, Salt Lake 2002. Fantastic.

You ready for another question? Yep. Is a horse a vehicle? Is a horse a vehicle? Yeah, a horse is a vehicle. I'm trying to stretch the edges of this. I think if you put a little girl on a big dog, that is not a vehicle because there would be no driving. Like a big St. Bernard with a tiny child on top of it,

the child's doing no driving. But a human on a horse is doing driving. So I'm going to say yes. The horse is a vehicle and that's the distinguishing characteristic. There needs to be active driving. Agree or disagree? Don't even care. I think it's a stupid question. What do you mean it's a stupid question? Here's a good question though. Would it be okay to blast our rubbish into space? Yeah. Well, again, like the one with Antarctica, I'm trying to think. My only objections would be pragmatic. There was a video I used to show my students when we did our

little space module that I always loved, which was a video that was tracking all of the objects that are currently around Earth. This included, here's the International Space Station, here's all the satellites. And there's a huge number of satellites. You just don't really think about it. But then it was also including all of the objects in space that could potentially be a threat to future missions. Then when you include that, it's an astounding number of objects.

It looks like an angry swarm of bees yeah it's incredible now there is a weird problem of scale here right because space is real big and you're trying to look at an image on a screen and how big can that screw be like there's a funny way that it it looks fuller than it is yes of course but still the number is enormous and the threat is real. So my only concern about space garbage is how accurately can we fling it directly into the sun? Can we use the sun as a garbage disposal system? Yeah. And if we could shoot it accurately, then I would have no problem with it. I do remember actually doing this as a unit in one of my physics classes in university is how hard it is to actually hit the sun.

Like if you are launching something that is not self-guiding, it's remarkably hard to get an object that would go into the sun as opposed to getting captured in some kind of very long comet orbit and then causing other problems. So I would probably say no, because it's very difficult to imagine a way that it is practical

to do. So space as garbage disposal, I would say, let's not do that on practical grounds. But if we came up with like a propulsion system that was economical and we could just blast things into space but you couldn't go for the sun you just had to aim out of the solar system and just send them where they're going like a voyager probe you know wherever you end up you end up right you're not here so it's just going to go where it goes and one day it'll get captured by some other star okay so we're just blindly launching into space yeah yeah don't think too much about the actual practicalities. Is it okay to use the great beyond as a place just to fling unwanted stuff? See, now I'm worried about drawing the attention of like a paperclip maximizing AI.

Yeah. Like where did this garbage come from? It was like a gods must be crazy situation here. Where did this Falcon heavy rocket full of disposed soda cans come from? It was like a gods must be crazy situation here. Where did this Falcon heavy rocket full of disposed soda cans come from? It's like, oh, right. It came from that planet. I would still say though, like putting the potential destruction of the human species aside, I would be okay with it because space is just so empty. It's almost functionally like throwing it into a black hole. You don't see it as this last pure expanse that hasn't been sullied by McDonald's wrappers.

I will grant that, right? Space is unsullied, presuming that we're the only ones around. But I don't think unsullied matters if there's nobody there to experience it. Isn't this the argument used by people who want to drill for oil in Alaska and stuff? People say, oh, we mustn't do all these mining in Alaska. And then the people who are pro mining say, well, there's no one there to look at all this beautiful stuff and these rare birds anyway. I'm susceptible to that argument. I think I'm less susceptible to it in the drilling in Alaska case because of concern about externalities that it's like,

okay, yeah, sure. If your drilling goes okay, then everything's fine. But if it doesn't, then it's no good. And we also, for entirely human selfish reasons, we have an ecosystem here that we want to preserve for our own benefit. Space just doesn't seem to have any of those concerns to me. Yes, it is unsullied, but it's just unsullied emptiness with no conscious experience whatsoever. It's very hard to imagine what is the externality here of we've launched rockets full of McDonald's wrappers into space. It's like, but there's nobody there to even see it. It's just like it disappears where I think the earth is a

closed enough system that you want to be more careful. Like if you're sinking a continent into the ocean, you want to make sure you're really getting something good out of that. You just want to be more careful with the changes that you're making. I'm going to guess you don't like sending trash into space, is my prediction. I find it hard to argue against sending it into the sun. Right. But no, I don't like the idea of it. But I am also aware that the Apollo astronauts, one of the last things they did before each

takeoff was chuck all their rubbish out the door, including bags of wee. Yeah, I was gonna say, aren't there poo bags on the surface of the moon? Yeah, it's hard for me to get on too high a horse on this one, but. Or that objectivity video of yours that I love talking with you about when we were first discussing it, the one where the Russians exploded the satellite full of little Russian coins all over the surface of the moon exploded the satellite full of little Russian coins all over the surface of the moon. It was like sort of like a sphere made of pennants.

Right. And then the pennants sort of scattered all over the surface when the satellite impacted. Yeah. There's something I just, I love about that idea. There's something so childish about that. Like, oh, we're going to just put a bunch of coins that say we were here on the surface of the moon. Nice. I like it.

It is also just totally a kind of garbage. coins that say we were here on the surface of the moon. Nice. I like it. It is also just totally a kind of garbage. I would love it if they went and visited those sites when, you know, eventually we start going back to the moon and they found those pennants. That'd be awesome. Those will be real collector's items someday. Yeah, they will. But so you're okay with the sun because the sun is just an incinerator. Yeah.

Like an atomic level incinerator. Like we could throw nuclear waste into the sun but then you feel more uneasy when you're talking about the vast emptiness of space if it was just blasting sewage towards alpha centauri yeah part of me would think oh god we've crapped all over this planet now we're crapping everywhere else as well i'm not sure i feel like we have the right to do it i find that that interesting because to me, the concept of rights implies that there's someone whose rights are being infringed upon. Well, I don't think we know enough to know whether that's the case or not. Okay. I feel like it's not our place. I know there are space treaties and Antarctic treaties,

and it kind of all merges into that a bit. But I think it goes beyond that because I still think with our space treaties, Antarctica is different, but with our space treaties, there is a certain arrogance involved in us deciding amongst ourselves as humans what can be done with space and how it's going to be carved up. Remind me, have you read the Red Mars series, the Kim Stanley Robinson series? I only think I've read the first one. Yeah. I have tried many times to get through the second two. I've never made it. And I've given up on that as a life goal. I'm like, I'm never going to make it through green Mars, let alone blue Mars. But I really liked them. I reread Red Mars, maybe just a couple of years ago. It holds up as a great science fiction book, but this is like one of the main themes through that book that I think is like one of the main themes through that book

that I think is interestingly handled is the idea of humans are on Mars. How much right do humans have to change Mars from what it is into what the humans want? And like, this is a central political conflict that takes place in that book. And I think the book is an interesting exploration of that idea. This episode of Hello Internet is brought to you in part by Eero. Never think about the Wi-Fi in your home again with Eero. You know right now where the dead spots of internet in your house are. We all have those spots. And it's crazy to think that you have to move around to a different spot in the house if you want to get the fastest internet.

If you want to be able to talk to somebody else with a clear FaceTime image, if you want to download a file you can't be in that spot. Well that is crazy and Eero is the product that solves that for you. When you get the Eero system you just connect it to where the internet comes into your house and then you can distribute these beacons in different places that help spread the internet around evenly. It's dead simple, you don't need to be some kind of IT expert, it's just plug and play. And Eero uses their technology automatically

to set up a distributed network around the house to make sure that there are no longer any of those bad spots. They're all good spots in the house. And Eero has introduced their second generation of Eero systems. They offer more speed and range in the same high-quality, elegant design. And they've added a third 5 gigahertz radio, so they're now tri-band and twice as fast. Whatever your Wi-Fi needs, Eero has the power to seamlessly blanket your home in fast, reliable Wi-Fi. And with their new Thread Radio, Eero can connect to low-power devices

such as locks, doorbells, and other sensors. Eero. Happy Wi-Fi, happy life. Use code HelloInternet for free overnight shipping in the U and Canada. That's Hello Internet for free overnight shipping. And check out Eero at Eero.com. That's E-E-R-O.com. Thanks to Eero for helping to support the show. Would a baby born on a deserted island ever laugh? Of course a baby on a deserted island would laugh. I think that's like asking if a baby on a deserted island would see. I guess the question they're getting at more here, and this is a more interesting question, rather than saying, would it ever laugh? Would it ever find something funny? Like is humour learned?

That's getting to be more subtle. But all I was going to say is a thing that I found interesting when my friends started having kids, a thing that never really crossed be more subtle, but all I was going to say is a thing that I found interesting when my friends started having kids, a thing that never really crossed my mind before is that there comes a time when babies start to laugh that there's like a period of time where a baby will not laugh. Like you get a little chubber baby and you do a big raspberry on its stomach and there's just no response.

Like the wires aren't hooked up correctly. Yeah. And then when they get older at some point, they're like, Oh, this is hilarious. Right. Like raspberries on the stomach are the funniest thing ever. But that's because they've seen you and everyone else laugh at it. But yeah, I was going to say, I do think there is something about the wires are getting hooked up together.

Because a baby born on a deserted island and then it becomes like a grown up. Let's forget about all the logistics involved here yeah yeah and then one day they see like a giraffe walking on ice and the giraffe like stumbles and falls over in a comical way they're not going to find that funny okay the more we talk the less certain i'm getting because i'm thinking maybe this is much more like a language thing like does humor exist in the absence of other minds but I feel like there's some part of humor that's like the lowest part of humor, which is really connected to the idea of surprise. That humor is connected to surprise. And a baby living as an adult is going to, at some point on its island,

be surprised by something. And maybe that would trigger a laugh. But I don't know. The more I talk, the less convinced I am because there are those cases that you read about feral children who are sort of in the situation. And the really fascinating thing is it seems like for a lot of these cases, reacquiring language skills is just almost impossible. And maybe there's something like that with humor, that if you

don't have the concept of other minds that you just don't develop this idea. A long time ago, I heard this idea about what is humor that I just love and I think about sometimes, but that humor is like a way that brains are like debugging other brains or that brains are figuring out the edges inside of other brains. And I feel like I don't quite know what that sentence even means, but there's something about it that strikes me as correct. That like humor is an exploration of another mind in a different way than talking is. Like what makes someone laugh tells you something about their mind in a way that is very different from just talking to them.

And especially like with my wife, I feel like I can make my wife really laugh now. I like, I have a good sense of like jokes or things that will make her laugh, but there's no way to verbalize what that is. It's like some other part of my brain has learned how to get this particular reaction out of her brain. So I don't know. I think I have just talked myself out of this. Maybe a baby would never laugh

that this is something that is like language. Yeah, I think I might be retracting my position. Yeah, well, it was fun watching you work through it. This next question might be a bit more up your alley. Okay. If a robot waiter brings you a drink, should you say thank you? Well, that was a big sigh. This is really like a conundrum for you.

It all hangs on the word should in this sentence. Right. Okay. I came across a parent who in this sentence. Right. Okay. I came across a parent who had this concern that I found interesting. And the concern was that Siri and Alexa were turning their child into an inconsiderate asshole. That is interesting. Yeah. Because the child is just able to issue commands and the machines just do it.

Yeah. And the machines have no need for any of the social pleasantries and that their perception was that this was bleeding over into other social interactions, that this was not contained within the environment of like, you're not really talking to Alexa, like you're issuing a series of verbal communication with a robot that like the kid just wasn't clicking with that. So that's the reason I hesitate there, because like, do you need to thank a robot? Obviously not. Do I ever say thank you to Siri? No. Do you ever say thank you to your toaster?

Yeah, exactly. Right. Like there's no need to do that. There's nothing there. I feel like there's something about society here. Like if you have a C-3PO looking robot, something that is like sort of human looking, that maybe it's not a bad idea to just reflexively keep the thank you, even though you know that the robot doesn't need it.

Just to practice a habit. Yeah, like as a habit. Now, if the robot is like, oh, the table is a robot and the drinks just appear, then it feels like they come up through a little slot in the table. And then I feel like, okay, well, there's nothing human here. But I feel like if it is an anthropomorphic robot, I could see being on the side of, we as a society should agree that we're going to keep this habit in so long as there still exist human waiters in other situations that it's like, don't lose this. But so you say we should say thank you to C-3PO, but not R2-D2?

Damn it. Oh, God. Well, okay. Brady, you're going to make me talk about droid slavery in the Star Wars universe again, because R2-D2 is clearly a conscious creature with emotions and feelings and expressions. But if in the real world, we built a robot that looked like R2-D2, who was going around on a floating flotilla in the desert, distributing drinks, and we were reasonably confident that that robot had no consciousness.

I feel like, yeah, that's a little close to a Roomba with some drinks on top of it. And I feel like, no, I have no need to thank the Roomba for distributing these drinks. But if it's humanoid, I feel like there is something maybe here. But again, I may be extrapolating too far from a particular case, but I found that like an interesting thing that would never have crossed my mind before that is making me think about this question a little bit differently. I just had a great idea for a piece of Star Wars merchandising. A Roomba that will fire a lightsaber across the room to you, Return of the Jedi Star, from a little slot that opens up on its top. Is that what you want, Brady?

Well, I wouldn't say no. You wouldn't say no. I've got another question. Okay. Would you rather live under a democracy or under a dictatorship led by Father Christmas? I need to know a lot about Father Christmas in this scenario. I think you understand the general concept of Father Christmas. I mean, there's not a bad burn in his body. I'm going to just, I'm going to interpret this as Santa Claus,

because I think there's like a slight difference between Father Christmas and Santa Claus. Well, that sounds like a slight difference between father Christmas and Santa Claus, but like, I'm just going to say it's Santa. Well, that sounds like a far more interesting conversation to me. What's the difference between father Christmas and Santa Claus? Okay. So this is like dim memories from when I was doing the, my Santa video from years and years ago, but I was reading up on a whole bunch of stuff and the conclusion that I remember coming to, and so this, this may be a little bit shaky internet. It's been a long time, but my memory is that Father Christmas was much more like a spirit of adult Thanksgiving. That Father Christmas was like a feast and happy times and wine and fun. And that Father Christmas

was not like a gift giving concept. No, Father Christmas definitely gave me presents when I was little. Here's where I was going with this, is that this is a thing that starting in like the 40s and 50s started to get completely subsumed by the concept of Santa. That like Santa as the gift giving thing is an idea that has taken over a lot of other cultures and that like Father Christmas used to be a, like a different thing. But now,

and for the life of everyone who has been alive in the UK, father Christmas is just like a different name for Santa. Like it's one of the thousand names of Santa. Yeah. But I feel like I don't understand Santa Claus political ideas. I think this is why it's an interesting question. If Santa Claus was taken from his cushy life in the North pole. Right.

And he's, and he's one day of work a year, how would he run the world? This, I think, is the burning question. Santa Claus sees everything, right? But he's not all powerful. Presumably in the situation, he has an army, right? He's a dictator. He has keys that he needs to keep in power. I feel like I would keep the democracy. You don't think Santa could hold it together? I just think that even if you have the power of all seeing sight and all knowing, like a dictatorship is a...

Okay, so if we're taking Santa Claus and we're putting him in the real world and he's in charge of a dictatorship, I feel like it's still a dangerous and precarious situation that even if you have the power of seeing everything, I'm not going to trust that to last a long time or to always be able to do good things, even if that is the intention of Santa Claus. So, I'm going to stick with the democracy instead of a dictatorship run by Santa. There's just so much goodwill towards Santa Claus, though. You can't imagine anyone ever trying to overthrow him. It's Santa. he's got a belly that shakes when he laughs

i guess that gives him a plus 100 defense against mutinies like this that what that belly does it's like so jolly and he's got a red nose who's gonna throw out santa yeah but one of his powers is not like a reality distortion field like if if he came with like a foundation style, like you will love me ability, like then that's a different story. But I feel like his primary power is being able to read the minds of everyone simultaneously. And it's like- I wonder if he'd get elected if he ran for office in a democracy. I'm pretty sure Santa would win by a landslide. He'd get most of the popular vote, but he might get undone by the electoral college.

Yeah. But I wouldn't mind having some checks and balances on Santa Claus though, right? I was like, that's the difference here. You can win an election, but maybe not. Just we're going to hand you the keys to power entirely. Do you use your imagination when you dream? I know dreaming's a real favourite topic of yours. I don't understand what that question means yeah i don't really either i just saw dream and thought oh that'll that'll poke gray yeah let's i feel like that's a meaningless question if you do something wrong when you are drunk should you feel less guilty than if you were done at stone cold sober you got to answer this one brady you answer this one because i feel

like this is such a hard question. This gets to like the core of the universe, this question here. I don't know the answer to that. You don't know the answer to that? I think, you know, you were equipped with less tools to make a good decision. Right. But you took those tools away from yourself when you decided to have a bunch of drinks. Yeah.

It's a bit like, oh, I was driving a car while blindfolded. I guess it's less your fault that you got into an accident, but you as responsible for your actions? That very quickly gets into a thing where it's like, it's hard to know what to even say in this. Like if you've changed yourself to be a different person, are you still responsible? Like, yes and kind of no. I think this is why the law wrestles

put this subject as well. I can't come down solidly on this. I will just say, get something on the record here. There's a thing people do that I think is a bad habit that people should get out of. I think some people have the idea that like, when they're interacting with someone who is drunk, that somehow that is the true person. And I feel like that is a strange and bad idea to have in people's minds, that they feel like, oh, when the person gets drunk, it's like the veil is lifted onto the inner core of the person.

The filters are removed. Yeah, that very concept of like, oh, you're saying the things that you would say or that you are thinking, but now we can all see it because you're drunk. I feel like that is a bad idea for people to have in their minds. And I think it's nonsensical. Like you're dealing with a person who's essentially a different person now. It's not like you're seeing the core of the real person. I think that's a strange and unhelpful idea that lots of people seem to have.

I don't think it's a strange thing to think. It might be a wrong thing to think, but I don't think it's strange. I see logic to it. But it's kind of like if someone were to take a bunch of LSD, like, would you feel like you're seeing the core of the person while they're high on LSD? I don't think people would think that. I think people have a concept that, oh, this is a person whose mind has now been dramatically changed. I feel like we just don't have that same concept with something like alcohol. That's true. But it's also true that, for example, you may know things or have opinions that you don't share with me because you don't want to hurt my feelings or you don't want me to find out for various reasons.

And your intellect is telling you that. And if that was taken away from you temporarily, I could have access to that information. I'm not saying that would tell me anything about the true you, but it would be like, I would find out information I might not know otherwise. I guess maybe that is where that idea comes from, that people can let something slip in a coherent way while they're drinking yeah that in lsd like all that's going to happen is is someone's going to be hugging you and telling you how you're a beautiful butterfly and we're all one with the universe and you're like okay man like it's great but they're not like yeah spilling their secrets okay i retract

strange but i i stand by unhelpful yes is vandalising a speed camera the same as vandalising a lifebuoy by a river? What? Okay. Well, you could vandalise a speed camera so that the government can't give a bunch of fines to people for speeding. Okay. Or you could vandalise like a lifebuoy by the river, which is really handy because it would save people's lives. Are those two acts of vandalism equally bad? You mean like those buoys that mark where you're not supposed to swim past? No, I think like a ring that you would throw out to someone to help them if they were drowning.

Oh, okay. Yeah. Presumed by vandalize it, like you've made it non-functional. Yes. Not like you've drawn a naughty picture on it. Yeah. Presumed by vandalize it, like you've made it non-functional. Yes. Not like you've drawn a naughty picture on it. No. I feel like vandalizing the buoy is way worse. I think that's where the question is leading one. I'm trying to think like, why do I feel like the buoy is worse? And like the direct one-on-one nature makes it feel worse. Like you've fallen off of a cruise ship into the ocean.

Someone goes to throw you a lifeline and LOL, it falls to pieces because some kid has slashed it to bits. That feels like a, like a doubly bad situation. While a speed camera, while it can be life-saving indirectly, it's not quite so directly life-saving. And it is also revenue raising for the government,

which is naughty. No, surely not. Those things aren't used for revenue. I also feel like there the government, which is naughty. No, surely not. Those things aren't used for revenue. I also feel like vandalizing the speed camera is less bad because the speed cameras work because there are a lot of them. It's like you're attacking a single node in a network and that speed camera, its presence or absence is not necessarily going to have a big impact on does someone speed a lot or not. But the fact that there are a hundred speed cameras

in the city on average may have some kind of suppression effect. Although like even how effective that is may be debatable, but like somebody drowning and reaching out for a floating thing and the floating thing breaks. There's no debate about that. That's just undeniably bad and in a very clear and direct way. So yeah, it's like a speed camera is like a politician.

No one likes it, but it's kind of necessary. Whereas the life boy is like Father Christmas. Everyone likes Father Christmas. Right. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Well, perfect.

That's a perfect analogy. So here's a question you won't hear. Right, yeah. Okay. Yep, yep. Perfect. That's a perfect analogy. So here's a question you won't hear me asking, Gray. Where do you go to register domain names for current and upcoming projects? And that's because the answer's obvious. If you need a name on the web, register it with Hover. That's H-O-V-E-R. Sorry about my English pronunciation of Hover. And by the way, if you have any other domain names already registered, you should probably look into

moving them over to Hover as well, because it's the best one-stop shop for managing web domains. I have a bunch there already. I know Gray does too. Some for current projects, some for upcoming future ideas, maybe something I'm planning to do, maybe a year or two down the line, but I know I want the name now. Those future domain names, by the way, don't have to lay dormant. You can easily redirect them in the interim. For example, if you've got a plan to maybe one day do a lawfully approved base jump from the Mighty Black Stump, you might want to register blackstumpbasejump.com.

But until you get approval from Adelaide City Council for this audacious stunt, you might have the domain just redirect to another website of your previous base jumping adventures. Now, Hover is definitely the place to do this. I cannot tell you how clean and easy it is to use. No upsells, no confusing faffiness that you always see with these domain dealers. And when you finally do want to use that domain, you've got your website or service all sorted out that you want. They make it so easy to attach that hover domain to the website. They've got all the steps there.

I've done it a few times now. I was really impressed how they hold your hand through the process. Really good stuff. They have all the extensions you could want from classics like.com through to.fm for that all-important podcast you're planning. And as a Hello Internet listener, you can get 10% off your first purchase. You do that by going to hover.com slash hi. When you do that, they'll automatically put the promo code Hello Internet in when you do that they'll automatically put the promo code hello internet and when you

check out that's 10 off by going to hover.com slash hi our thanks to them for supporting the podcast seriously check them out can you think of two things at the same time. I bet you like that question. That comes down to what do you mean by the word think? I'm just reading the words. What do you think, Brady? Do you think two things at the same time in your head? I don't think so. Consciously, like conscious, deliberate thought.

Right. I mean, obviously, I can talk to you and juggle at the same time. Right. But I don't know. I don't obviously I can talk to you and juggle at the same time, but I don't know. I don't know how the brain works. I know I'm not the Lone Ranger there, but- I was going to say, I'm not sitting on the other end of this microphone being like, oh, well, let me pull out my PhD in brains. Like, nope, I don't know how brains work either. Like just a dude on the internet who's made a video about brains. Like, I don't know.

I'm never aware of thinking two things at the same time. That's for sure. Your lack of internal monologue I also find weird. But, okay, so thinking two things at the same time. What I'm thinking here is I can talk to you right now while I am visualizing an elephant in my brain. Like, does that count about as thinking two things at the same time? To me though, maybe I'm wrong about this, but when you're visualizing the elephant and talking to me, you're not actually doing two things at the same time.

You're just jumping between the two things over a microsecond by microsecond. Yeah. You think you're switching back and forth between the two? I think at the exact moment you're actually thinking of the clever thing you want to say to me, you are momentarily losing the elephant. Yeah. I mean, this also gets really to the core of like, I'm not convinced that talking is thinking because talking seems to be a thing that just happens. Certainly for us, we're 95 episodes of them.

Like, I mean, going to the very core of like what we started talking about at the beginning of this podcast, I like to talk about this as a topic with creative people. But it is a thing that you can make people aware of just in their regular life, which is like, just pay attention while you're talking and you will realize you have no idea how you're doing it. It's just a thing that happens. And that even when you think you're thinking about talking, like you don't know where those thoughts, like it is just an automatic process. And there is something about that realization, which is absolutely terrifying. And it is 10 times terrifying when say like you do a podcast for a living because you have to come like face to face with the concept of one of the core things that you do for

a living. You fundamentally have no idea how you do it. It just happens. This is what I mean. Like the question very quickly gets to the concept of like, what is thinking? Because I feel like I could easily say that talking isn't any kind of thinking, that there's not any thinking that's occurring while talking is happening. And that visualizing an elephant to me seems like this is what thinking is, or closing my mouth and then listening to the internal dialogue in my head, that that's what thinking is. And then if you're like, okay, thinking is the words that you hear in your head, it's like, well, then that's very clear. There's only ever one voice talking in your head. And if that's what thoughts are, then no, it's not possible to think about two things

at once. There is a component to conversation that obviously isn't are, then no, it's not possible to think about two things at once. There is a component to conversation that obviously isn't talking, but there is that part of you where you're thinking about what you will say next. And you're even anticipating what that person will then say to what you're going to say. So, conversation is obviously very full of thought. But yeah, the actual talking part, when you actually like put the foot down on the talking accelerator, it does become very strangely automated. Something I think, I think I've mentioned this on Hello Internet before, but I noticed it again the other day, actually. And I don't know whether you've ever told me if it happens to you, but if you happen to, for some reason, ever hear an old piece of you podcasting, do you find you always almost know exactly what you're going to say next? And

not because you remember what you said, but just because you're so predictable in your head. Like sometimes when I hear at a conversation that I've had with you in the past, like the silly joke or the question that I asked next or the thing I say, I very often anticipate. And I don't think it's because I remember the conversation, because I don't. I think it's just because I'm so predictable. When I'm done with these episodes, I don't think I have ever listened to a Hello Internet episode after it's gone live, unless I'm preparing for a show. But even then, I haven't done that very recently. But what I do have is a thing when I am editing, let's say that the only thing I'm doing is I'm looking at the screen, I'm looking at the waveforms, I'm editing the podcast,

especially when I'm doing it for the first time. So I'm listening to the raw conversation exactly as it happened. I'm aware that I can get almost caught in a weird loop where I don't know how to describe it, but it's almost like my brain is just like a wagon going westward in these really well-worn tracks. And there's no ability to even turn off the tracks. It's sometimes a thing I have to kind of break out of, or it's like, what happened to me? I feel like I just disappeared. And this conversation is happening through my brain and my brain is just this very predictable machine which is like repeating the exact things that it is saying

in the past it's it's very hard to describe but it does feel like I lose myself and can kind of forget that I'm supposed to be here editing a podcast. It's more like my brain has gone on some kind of autopilot because it's receiving the exact same inputs and hearing the exact same outputs that it would produce. So I think this is a similar experience to what you're talking about, but it's just a thing that I have. Yeah, I think so too.

I think so too. I intentionally, especially when I'm doing the first edit, I intentionally want to have something visual to do, which is very often like playing a video game, because it helps keep me actually more focused on the conversation. I think that that's part of it is like, break this little self-similar pattern by having something else that you're paying attention to.

And it's like, I can hear the podcast more clearly when I'm visually doing something else. And I think that's part of the reason why. I was going to slightly modify this next question just to tone it down, but I think it's kind of, it's starkness and harshness is what makes the question work. So, I'm going to read it as printed. Go for it. Would you accept a heart transplant from a rapist? I mean, I'm dying here, right? I presume you're not doing it recreationally. Yeah, like it's not recreational heart transplant surgery. No. Yeah, I would do that.

I would have no problem with that because I feel like it is a piece of meat. I wouldn't accept a brain transplant from a rapist. But like if we could take a rapist and cut him up into all the different pieces and distribute them all to people and you could save lives with those pieces, like, I don't see how that's not good. Let me ask you another question then. That's a good answer. Let me change the question on you.

If a rapist died and left all their money to you in their will, and the money wasn't gained by illegal means, would you accept the money from a rapist? Yeah, so that's an easier one. And I would say no. But money's money, like heart is a meat. Yeah. Or heart is meat. Heart is a meat.

Heart is a meat. Yes, that is true. You can use that as the title of the episode if you like. Oh, you're doing episode title fishing while we're doing it now? That's terrible radiation. I'm thinking of multiple things at once here. You shouldn't be doing metacognition on the podcast while we're recording. I was also imagining an elephant as I said that.

The distinction here is, okay, so I'm going to take your modification and modify it again. Yep. I am a pauper in need of life-saving surgery that I cannot pay for. And a rapist dies and leaves me his money that I can use to pay for the surgery. Would I use the money to pay for the surgery? Yes. Even if it was ill-gotten money? Even if it was ill-gotten money, I would use the money that had been left to me. Presumably that this is like not an illegal situation. I don't know exactly how that works.

No, no, no. Yeah, no, you're right. You're not breaking the law. Right. If I am not breaking the law and like a rapist leaves me some money that i can use on a surgery to save my own life i would totally do that but the situation is now it's like i am cgp gray podcaster youtube creator video game live streamer dog walker dog walk yes dog walker actually by sheer number of hours that is now my largest profession probably

in that situation like a rapist dies and leaves me some money like that is now my largest profession probably. In that situation, like a rapist dies and leaves me some money, like that is just going immediately to a woman's shelter, right? Like I'm just redirecting that money straight away. It's like, yeah, money is money. But the reason that the original scenario works is because it's a question about like saving your life. It's need. Yeah, it's what you're saying.

Needs must. Yeah, that's what makes the difference in that scenario. Fair answer. Would you, Brady? I am a bit squeamish about accepting a heart transplant from a rapist, but I am also a bit squeamish about dying from heart disease when I don't have to. Right. The eternal void that awaits you.

Yeah. You're a bit squeamish about that. If someone changed your life for the better by lying to you, would it be a good act? Oh, God. I say yes. Here's a problem I have with the phrasing of that question. Yeah. This reminds me of like sometimes in movies when you are given the all-seeing perspective

and you know something for sure. And when you're watching it, that changes how you perceive characters in a movie. It's like, oh, but you know for sure this thing did or did not happen. So I feel like that question is starting out by positing that like this will for sure always be a net positive if this person lies to you. And I feel like the real world is much more complicated than that. But under the premise that this question is asking, I think the answer is yes. But I'm very hesitant to say that as like social stamp of approval for lying to make people feel better.

Exactly. I think the answer is yes, but they took a tremendous risk. I think there are far, far fewer situations where, even things like white lies, but like lying to make someone better. I think there are fewer ways that actually works than people think it works. That's why I feel hesitant about this, just because it's like, I don't want people to hear me like writing a check that I'm not really going to cash. I'm agreeing under very narrow circumstances. This next question is a bit similar to something we've already discussed,

and it's also high stakes trolley problem here. No, not the trolley problem. If you could save the planet by wiping out half the population of the human race, should you? Wait, the planet? I don't know. I guess they're saying, is it okay to kill half the humans in the world if they're all going to die otherwise? Do you mean the planet like we're saving mother earth? Because I'm not real interested in that, but is my alternative, we can move everybody to mars and not save the planet then like eh well whatever it's just like antarctica into the sea it goes okay yeah so

you're taking the planet a bit as just at the rock but like if the question is would you kill half of everybody to save everybody like i can barely understand how the answer could possibly be no i wouldn't do that well some people would take the position that it's not my role to kill other humans, let alone half the humans. So if we're all going to die, so be it. It was God's will. Well, you can die with them or you can die for them. That makes no sense. We're all going to die anyway. If you can just have half the people die and half the people survive, that is obviously better. The problem I have with this as well is like, once you start talking about the complete extinction of everybody,

it's like a tragedy without any parallel. When you talk about the complete extinction of conscious human experience from the universe, there's like nothing you can possibly put on the opposite end of that scale, except for maybe a puppy. It's just too big. It's hard to imagine anything that could counterbalance that. Should your estate own the emails in your inbox when you die? Oh, man. I thought you'd just say, yes, of course. Next question. It's funny. I have had this as like a thing for the show for a while,

but I think there is so much weirdness in the digital world around people dying. I think the answer is legally it is the case that like your emails and things become just part of it. I read a while back like Facebook has this whole process about like memorializing pages and, you know, what is the process for when someone dies on Facebook? Like what is going to happen? Like your estate might think, oh, CGP Grey's personal emails are really like saucy and interesting or controversial. We could turn these into a book and squeeze another 500,000 pounds out of his estate. And that's not very fair on you because when you died, you didn't want that to happen. They were like your conversations. They should just like disappear

like you have, not be capitalized and used and manipulated and liquidated. I may be a little extreme in this position, but I feel very strongly that a lot of our digital lives should be treated the same way that we treat thoughts in our heads. Yeah. I know that that is not practical for a whole bunch of reasons, but that is partly why I pause there because there's something about that question that feels a little bit like when you die, should the complete record of all of the thoughts you ever had in your life be available to your estate? And it's like, well, of course, in one sense, I'm dead. It doesn't really matter to me. But on the other sense, it's like, wow, it feels like an incredible invasion. So much of an invasion that even though I will be dead, like while I'm alive, that would feel like, whoa,

I can't believe this is going to happen. So, it's been weighing down on you. Because I was going to say you're dead, surely you don't care. But you're saying it's weighed down on you while you're alive so much that it shouldn't have been the case. There's also a society question here. Like, should the record of everyone's thoughts be available when that person dies? And I'm like, I'm not sure that would be good for society either. I guess there is something about this, which I just feel like a large number of like the stuff that lives on a person's phone is very similar in my head to the stuff that lives in the person's brain. And you, in the course of your life, are making decisions about what parts of that do you want to externalize or not. You take a picture of, say, an adorable Audrey.

And then you make a decision about whether or not that adorable Audrey photo is going to be for you or it's going to be for the world on Instagram. And the estate question there feels like, does the world or does your estate get to have access to all of the Audrey photos that you took and made some decision about keeping for you during the course of your life, as opposed to just the ones that you decide to put out in the world there. So, I don't know. I don't have a good answer, but I think the legal answer is yes. This question, like on the face of it, might be one where you say, well, I'm not going there, but maybe otherwise. Should stupid people be prevented from voting. I'm happy to go there. My position on this is if we lived in a perfect world, only people who are informed on the topic should be voting on that topic.

But I can't conceive of any way in the real world you could implement anything like that that wouldn't be worse than the problem you're trying to solve. So, I'm going to give a hard no on preventing stupid people from voting, because I just think that there's not anything that you could do that doesn't just immediately become another tool in the gerrymandering voter suppression arsenal of politics. Here's my question. I don't want this to come out the wrong way. My question would be, should stupid people be prevented from having babies?

I don't mean because they'll have like a dumb baby. Like, I don't mean it in that context. I mean- You don't mean it because you're like Brady Himmler right now? That's what you don't mean. I mean it more in the context of they could be bad parents. I sometimes see really bad parenting. And I guess what I sometimes think is,

shouldn't people like have to get a license for this? Like we have to get a license to drive a car. We have to, maybe a better way to ask the question that would upset less people would be, should stupid people be allowed to have puppies? Because that's getting to the same problem at slightly lower stakes. But I sometimes think people have been given responsibility for

things in the world at a time when they don't seem equipped to exercise that responsibility. It seems crazy to me that you don't even have to just like take a course, like an evening class or anything before you have a baby. The shape of this problem has a lot of the same issues of like preventing stupid people from vote, which is like, oh, the details of this system really matter. Here's the thing. I'm not even convinced that an evening course in parenting would teach anybody anything that would actually be useful. But I think there's a non-trivial number of people who just couldn't even get their life together enough to be able to go to that evening class.

Like where just showing up to a thing on time is a skill that those people don't have. And like, maybe if you can't like be somewhere on time, you shouldn't have a kid. It's a bit like, I've spoken to a few people who've done the test for the TSA pre-approved check thing in the United States. And everybody's response is exactly the same where they talk about, oh, this thing is ridiculous because all you have to do is get to the airport and you have to wait in a place, you fill out a little form, you talk to a

guy and then they disapprove you when you go home. And I had the same response to every one of these people. Like, no, you don't understand. That is the test. Like getting to the airport, being able to follow the instructions, not flipping out when a guy asks you a couple of personal questions.

Like that's the test. I feel like this is very much the former teacher in me. Like you don't understand how many people can't follow instructions. Like, where the instructions are the test. So, there's something about that that feels like, just set, like, the lowest possible bar for having kids. Like, I feel like I couldn't be opposed to, like, you just need to go somewhere to get a stamp, right, as the bar. Well, I mean, the people who to get a stamp as the bar.

Well, I mean, the people who are having kids have accomplished one thing. Yeah, they have accomplished one thing. I mean, yeah, you can't open a bank account without giving them your entire genome and entire internet search history. And yet you can create a human being and rear it and bring it up without telling anyone anything. Sometimes I feel really anxious when I look at babies because just today, actually, I was just walking down the street and there was a woman who had like swaddled a little baby and she had him on a back swaddle. Like instead of on the front, he was just on the back, you know, like along for the ride and, you know, shopping day. Yeah.

And whenever I look at those babies, I always just feel like you poor thing, you have no control over anything. You're just here. You are totally at the mercy of the external world. Like you can do nothing to help yourself. It's that feeling that just makes me feel like it's crazy. Someone can just bring a life into the world and we have just zero checks on this. And this new little person could not be more vulnerable. Like a puppy is less vulnerable than a human baby. Human babies can do nothing. If their socks are making their feet uncomfortable,

it's like, well, that baby just has to deal with it. It makes me anxious looking at babies. So I feel very sorry for them. And I feel like I want more protections for babies. All right. More protections for babies. That can be our New Year's resolution. Boy, that last question sure was something.

In my experience, nothing gets people riled up more than the systems of politics. And I'm willing to bet that a whole bunch of you think you do know how to make a system work that would have answered that last question. Well, if you have something you want to propose, you know the best way to communicate with me about it? It's to build a Squarespace website for supporting your argument. That's the best way to communicate with me and the best way to communicate with the world. Squarespace has been such a longtime supporter of Hello Internet, and the reason why is because they are just amazing. If you want to make a website, it is the go-to, no-brainer, simplest, bestest way that you can make your website. You don't need to know any fancy technology to do it. It just works through drag and drop. If you are one of those nerds who wants

to dig into the details, sure, you can inject custom header code and all kinds of fancy stuff if you want to. But you know what? Most people don't want to do that. They're too busy trying to express an idea and don't need to get bogged down in the details of how HTML tags work. I mean, really, who cares? Nobody. Well, somebody. But like Squarespace cares about that, but you don't have to care about that. That's the whole point. So if you want to showcase your work, if you want to write a blog or publish content or what continually amazes me, sell products and services of all kinds. Squarespace will let you do that with all of their integrated tools. And they integrate with so many things. Like I have an email list that I maintain and I can just have a signup block on the website

that integrates with my backend provider. And it's so easy to do. I don't need to mess around with any of those details. It's just drag, drop, click, approve, done. So good. So with Squarespace, everything is optimized for mobile right out of the box and optimized for search engines and optimized to look beautiful with all of their templates. Seriously, with nothing to patch or upgrade ever,

nothing to ever worry about, there really isn't anything else you should consider when building your website. So if you've been listening to Hello Internet lo these many years and you've always thought, I really should make a website, go right now to squarespace.com slash hello. That's squarespace.com slash hello, which will give you a way to try Squarespace free for 14 days and receive 10%

off your first purchase. Thanks to Squarespace for supporting the show. Here we go. If McDonald's spent billions of dollars rescuing the tiger from extinction, should they be allowed to then sell a McTiger burger? So, there are lots of tigers in this scenario. Yeah, they've basically made tigers like cows. Well, I have a lot of problems with the meat industrial complex. I feel like factory farming is really indefensible, but more tigers is better than, oh God, I don't know.

Like I don't have a problem in theory with tiger burgers. It's a hard one to debate, isn't it? Like- I think in one of my videos, I had tiger burgers as an example of something. I feel like I've used this before somewhere. I don't know what it, anyway, I feel like the problem in my head

is not the problem that this question is asking about. Right. The problem I'm having is, do we want to introduce another species to factory farming life? Because presumably, like, when you're at McDonald's scale, this is the problem you come up against. I would have concerns about having that many tigers on Earth. You don't want them escaping from some farm in Devon. It's like a Jurassic Park situation. McDonald's got so caught up wondering if they could do it,

they didn't think if they should do it. Yeah, exactly. Okay, no, thinking it through, no. I'm coming down no, and I'm coming down very solidly on no. Because you're saving tigers from extinction, but you're just creating a whole bunch of tigers that presumably are living miserable lives. That seems like not an improvement in any way.

What if they didn't factory farm the tigers? It was just like a boutique specialty burger you could have that they caught from the wild occasionally. So we have free range tigers that are living happy. Yeah, they're free range tigers. They're free range tigers. If they're free range tigers, then I'm okay with it. They're living like a managed tiger lifestyle.

We don't have a farm in Devon packed full of tigers that we're afraid the doors are going to burst any day. So, like the question there is like, are the tigers living a happy life before, from their perspective, the lights just go out and they never even know? I love the idea of a tiger lifestyle. I want to live a tiger lifestyle now. Hey, Brady, you're living the tiger lifestyle. You said it, brother.

I think this can get really complicated though, because the question is like, how happy are the tigers? Like, what are the tigers eating, basically? Are we introducing more sorrow into the world because of all of the rabbits that the tigers are chasing down to eat. I feel like I want to be feeding the tigers synthetic lab grown meat and then killing the tigers for tiger burgers and the tigers get to live a full and happy life. That's like, okay, I'm perfectly fine with that. But I think the question as posed, I would say no. That McDonald's saving a species from extinction and then

cultivating that species at the scale McDonald's would require would not be a trade-off worth making. If you ate tiger meat from a tiger that only ever in its entire life ate synthetic meat, are you eating meat? Yeah, of course. What do you mean? It's like if you eat a cow who's only eaten grass its whole life, you're eating meat. The cow is the machine that turns grass into cow. Yeah, no, I do get that. And I didn't think that. But I just wondered if there was something more ethical about eating an animal that only ever ate synthetic stuff.

Probably not, actually. No, I think, yeah. If the comparison is the tiger eating live animals versus synthetic meat, I think eating a tiger that has eaten only synthetic meat is clearly more ethical. Would you rather be a dead celebrity or a living criminal? Am I a captured criminal? Am I in jail? Does it change your answer? Yeah, it does change my answer.

I really think that living in jail is pretty terrible. But there's a chance of escape or release. Whereas if you're a dead celebrity, I mean, it's a done deal, my friend. But this is this, I don't know, like, am I in death row? Am I in some kind of Shawshank prison? If I'm in Shawshank, pretty terrible situation. I might prefer to be a dead celebrity. It depends.

I'm just going to use an example. Like, I'm a white collar criminal who's probably destroyed the lives of millions of people, but is in a relatively cushy prison. Like, well, then I'd rather be that criminal than a dead celebrity. But if I'm a criminal who's in Shawshank, then no, I think I'd rather be the dead celebrity. There's no way, Brady, you're not going to pick the dead celebrity. Yeah, I think you're probably right. Yeah, that's right.

I know a Brady. Do you choose your personality? No, that doesn't even make any sense to talk about that. I think you can shape your personality, especially if someone has a disciplined mind like you. You can control and cultivate aspects of you and over time, train yourself to- Oh yeah, I totally agree with that. This is where I am. I am a man who believes in two things, the possibility of self-improvement and the impossibility of free will. I don't think that those two things are in contradiction.

Like I've talked about it before. I think that there's a real moment in my life that I feel like I chose to have a different personality and that was crossing the threshold of leaving high school and entering college. And that was a very deliberate moment in my life where I made a change that was much for the better. But I still think that when you dig into that, I still run up against this free will problem of, well, I was the kind of person who was able to do that and in a position where I would decide that that was the thing to do. And so that is what I did. I don't think I

chose to be the sort of person who could decide and successfully execute that change. I don't think you have any choice in your personality. So only people with a certain personality can choose their personality. Only people with a certain personality will be able to change their personality, but they're not even in a position necessarily to direct that change in the way that I think the question is asking. Could I ask you one quick question? I don't want to dig up and go over that time out of high school when you were at a crossroads and you feel like you made important decisions. You know, maybe we could do it another a crossroads and you feel like you made important decisions. Maybe we could do it another time.

But pretend you didn't make the big decisions you made. Like say you chose path A instead of path B. Yeah, I just continued as I was, yeah. What job do you think you'd be doing today? That's a good question. I'm willing to bet that the job I would be doing today is I would be a physics teacher in high school. The difference between me eventually leaving that career and becoming self-employed

and staying in that career can point very, very directly towards the decisions of changing myself between high school and college. So both paths took you to be a physics teacher, but just different kinds of physics teachers, one that could escape and one that couldn't. Yeah. If I'm trying to like game theory out, what is the most likely thing that the, like the high school version of me would have done? I can't think of a more probable path than that one. The only other career that was even remotely on the horizon as a possibility was like being an airline pilot. And I just don't think I would have been dedicated enough to be able to do that. So I think I would have ended up as a teacher as well. You didn't feel the need, the need for speed. Let me tell you, my thoughts about being an airline pilot were not centered around the need for speed. Now, this is an interesting question, which you're either going to answer very dismissively or you're going to go and have a deeper thought on it.

I'm enjoying all these Brady predictions, by the way. Could one army of robots fighting another army of robots ever decide a war? Will a time come where a war is completely decided without humans entering battle or conflict or violence, I think is the question. Okay, there's two things here. I think not in the world that we're currently imagining. I think in a war between nations, states, like a war fundamentally involves human loss. And so when you're talking about a war being decided, like I can imagine a situation where there is a war in quotes between two nations where those nations are essentially at a kind of technological stalemate. You know, Russia has drones, but the US has fantastic anti-drones. And there's like an angry swarm of drones over the Pacific Ocean just forever, right?

Like not making any progress forward or backward. And then that just becomes like, oh, that's just a thing in the world. What's that? Oh, that's the Great Drone War. It's been going on for 100 years. And it never moves one way or the other. And then that's just not decided. It's like universal paperclips, but for real.

Yeah. Yeah. So I feel like in nation state wars, there have to be human casualties involved. That is what forces a nation state to capitulate. So I feel like there are always going to be humans involved, even if their only involvement is as a, like a body count to make one side say, oh, we're surrendering now. On the other side of that, though, imagining a future without humans where there are just rival paperclip optimizers battling with each other for control of the universe. It's like,

oh, yeah, well, obviously, that's the future. It's only a matter of time until that occurs. Wars between robots can be decided among those robots. But if it's nation state wars, I think humans have to be involved in some way. The way that it was coming into my head and what it got me thinking about was all these stories. And I don't even know if they're true stories or they're just like legend and this never actually happened. So, you can tell me. But you know how you hear all these old-fashioned stories of two armies like meeting on a plane and instead of just like beating the crap out of each other they each send their top warrior to have like a one-on-one fight and whoever wins that fight wins the battle i have never heard

of this ever i think it must be like greek legend and stuff like that like it was it happens in um i feel like this happens in troyes yeah, yeah. So, it never really happened. Because I always think that's such a silly thing. Because whoever loses would just go, bugger that, charge. And a war would kick off anyway. So, when I saw that robot question, that's what I was thinking. I was imagining two nation states saying, okay, there's a nice empty space over there. Let's go and send our two robot armies. And whoever wins, you know, wins the war.

Yeah. But I just don't think that would stick. because then the losers will be like, charge. It's missing the point of what a war is for. Like a war occurs when you can't come to a diplomatic solution and agreeing that you're going to abide by the results of this robot boxing match is a diplomatic solution. Yeah. If you can agree to that, you can agree to other things. You can agree where the border will be drawn.

Yeah, exactly. So it's like this concept of what a war is, is like, I think you don't understand what war is. Like war means we've run out of options, except the physical ones. Does war mean there's no longer any honour? Because what this is all about is a willingness to honor an agreement. So war reaches a point where no one can agree anything with any honor.

I think honor is a strange word here. I feel like it's much more just like you cannot trust the other party to abide by agreements, even if they seem to be willing to agree. So it's going to kill them instead. Yeah, that's what it is. I think that's what's going on there. Could a computer write a poem? Well, yeah, yeah, easy.

Like computers do that right now. But is it a poem if there's not a certain intent or emotion behind it? A poem exists in the mind of the reader. Not in the writer. Yeah, it exists in the mind of the reader, not in the writer. Okay. Oh, in that case, of course, the answer is yes. All these questions is about like, what are we talking about here, right? I'm not sure I agree that a poem exists in the mind of the reader and not the writer. Maybe it needs to exist in both, but... Actually, something that is a little bit more relevant to our careers. I don't know if you've seen them,

but I've noticed a lot of these videos that are, they're usually from news sites and they're videos, but they're videos that just have like stock image in the background and then captions that are running through the basic facts about some situation in the news. Yeah. They're becoming more and more common now. Yeah. Yeah. Do you know why they're more common? It's because they're bot created. Do you know, I know a lot of people who are making, humans who are making these things now. And the thing that hasn't occurred to me is that these people are being prepared to be put out of a job and they don't even realize that they're just getting people used to the

idea of these things. And also what those people may be doing without realizing it is that they are creating part of the data set upon which the robots are being trained. Like the existence of these human made videos is part of the data set that the company owns, which then they're feeding into like their Markov generator behind the scenes. But there's really an interesting thing. And when I found out that a huge number of these are produced by robots, it's like, oh, that makes perfect sense. It makes absolute sense. This is why I'm seeing these all over the place. There's these ways that you can be A, B, testing them against each other to try to find which ones are most effective, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But would you say

that the robot has made a video? I think a robot can make a video, yes. But let me read this definition of poem I just found. Okay. A poem is a piece of writing in which the expression of feelings and ideas is given intensity by particular attention to diction, rhythm, and imagery. Now, I think a computer, as I understand them now, can handle the diction, rhythm, and imagery, but can they have the expression of feelings and ideas that the poem is based on? Yeah, by that definition and by what we think of as robots today, But can they have the expression of feelings and ideas that the poem is based on? Yeah, by that definition and by what we think of as robots today, no, a robot couldn't write a poem.

I'm thinking of this in terms of the way I think about art. Like, what does it mean to say that a thing is art? And that's always notoriously tricky. And my fallback is mostly like art has to invoke some feeling from the viewer. That's what art is. So by my definition, I feel like, yeah, an unconscious thing can produce artwork, which includes poems. But by that definition of what a poem is, then clearly we'd have to come to the other conclusion that no, a robot can't write a poem because it is not attempting to express anything. But I just don't think that's a good definition.

Yeah, fair enough. It was just the first one I found. It suited my needs. Are we more alive than a tree? No. Fair enough. I think alive is a binary state. You are or are not alive.

Putting aside the very tricky definition of like, what does it mean to be alive? Like, we're going to blow right past that and just say that there's a thing that we can agree upon, which is the concept of aliveness. That is a binary state. It's not a floating point integer. We are literally only halfway through the book. So, we're only about halfway through my questions, but I think we'd better stop and we can use the second half of the book. I'll put the second half of the book back behind the glass. Yeah, back behind the glass. Yeah, great.

Here's one final one to mull over. Does your dog think about you when you're at work or not around? Because you and I both work from home. So if we worked away from home and if you owned a dog. Right. Do dogs think about their owners when their owners are at work? Well, what do you think, Brady? Part of me can imagine a scenario where they kind of forget you exist

and then when you turn up, it's like, oh, my God, I completely forgot that person exists. This is the best thing ever. That would explain why they're so incredibly happy when you get home because they had forgotten you existed and you've just come back to life. I don't know. This comes back to what we discussed recently about just how human dogs are. Certainly Lulu hears my car from miles away

because she's always at the window when I pull up. But, you know, again, that could just be a learned response to a certain sound. But I think they do. Yeah. You think if you could reach inside the dog's heads, they would know that you exist when they don't see you? There's certainly an anxiety for something that's missing that is sated by your reappearance. Whether or not they can visualize what that thing is, like whether they just feel an anxiety or they're feeling an anxiety that's saying, I wish Brady was here.

I just wish Brady was back. He's nice. I don't know. I think they probably do. Well. What do you think? For me, this is very simple. Yeah.

I don't care what the answer is. I choose to believe that the dogs miss you when you're gone.