Lex Fridman Podcast - #268 – Robert Proctor: Nazi Science and Ideology

Episode Date: March 5, 2022

Robert Proctor is a historian of science at Stanford University. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Theragun: https://therabody.com/lex to get 30 day trial - BetterHelp: https://betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off - Indeed: https://indeed.com/lex to get $75 credit - Grammarly: https://grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium - Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get special savings EPISODE LINKS: Robert's Website: https://history.stanford.edu/people/robert-n-proctor The Nazi War on Cancer (book): https://amzn.to/3hjYzdZ Agnotology (book): https://amzn.to/3viS8A1 PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (09:40) - Ideology and science (21:14) - Wernher von Braun (28:21) - The scientific process (38:23) - Censorship (47:37) - Anthony Fauci (52:47) - Courage in science (1:00:07) - Tobacco industry (1:23:52) - Nazi medicine (1:34:02) - The Nazi War on Cancer (1:39:14) - Science funding (1:50:08) - Ignorance (1:57:49) - Ideology in academia (2:04:09) - Human origins (2:14:02) - Hobbies (2:21:19) - Diversity in the universe (2:24:54) - Stones (2:33:49) - Conspiracy theories (2:37:59) - Nazi impact on Soviet science (2:43:14) - Nazi tobacco industry's denial campaign (2:47:30) - Hope for the future (2:50:04) - Meaning of life

The following is a conversation with Robert Proctor, historian at Stanford University specializing in 20th century science, technology and medicine, especially the history of the most controversial aspects of those fields. Please allow me to say a few words about science and the nature of truth. The word science is often used as an ideal for a methodology that can help us escape the limitation of anyone human mind in the pursuit of truth. The underlying idea here is that individual humans are too easily corrupted by bias, emotion, personal experience, and the usual human craving for meaning, money, power, and fame. And the hope is that the tools of science can help us overcome these limitations in striving for deeper and deeper understanding of objective reality, from physics, the chemistry, biology, genetics, and even psychology cognitive science and neuroscience.

But history shows that these tools of science are not devoid of human flaws, of influence from human institutions, of manipulation from people in power. As we talk about in this conversation with Robert Proctor, in the 1930s and 40s, there was the Nazi science and there was communist science, and each had fundamentally different ideas about, for example, genetics and biology of disease. This history also shows that scientists can be corrupted slowly or quickly by fear, fame, money or just the ideological narratives of a charismatic leader that convinces each scientist and the scientific community that their work

matters, for the greater cause of humanity, even if that cause involves the genetic purification of a people, the extermination of a cancer, and the unrestricted experimentation on the bodies of living beings who do not have a voice, who suffering will never be heard. All of this, for the greater good. In some periods of human history, science was deeply influenced by the ideology of governments and individuals. In some, less so. The hard truth is that we can't know for sure about which of the two periods we're living through today.

So, let us not too quickly dismiss the voices of experts and non-experts alike that ask the simple question of, wait, are we doing the right thing here? Are we helping or hurting? Are we adding suffering to the world or are we alleviating it? Most such voices are nothing more than martyrs seeking fame, not truth, and they will be proven wrong. But some may help prevent future atrocities and suffering at a global scale. Let us then move forward with humility so that history will remember this period as one of human flourishing and where science lived up to its highest ideal.

And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. First is TheraGun, the device I use for post-workout muscle recovery. Second is BetterHelp, an online therapy service. Third is indeed a hiring website. Fourth is Grammarly, a service I use to check spelling, grammar, and readability. And fifth is 8th sleep, a self-cooling mattress cover I sleep on. So the choice is health, wealth, or linguistic eloquence. Choose wise than my friends. And now onto the full ad reads, as always, no ads in the middle. I try to

make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. The show is brought to you by Theragun, a handheld, percussive therapy device that I use after a workout for muscle recovery. The kind of workout I've been doing recently, like I just ran 15 miles today, so I'm getting the miles up. I can't unfortunately do that every single day. The body is still not quite there. I do a run every other day, or sometimes I'm super lazy and I am super lazy, I do a run and then rest for two days. And what I mean by rest is I instead do push up some pull ups. And for whatever hurts just some basic recovery, I use their gun. It's surprisingly

quiet, easy to use, comes with a great app that guides you through everything you need to know. Try it for 30 days at TheraBody.com slash Lex. TheraGun Gen 4 has an OLED screen, personalized TheraGun app, and is both quiet and powerful, starting at $199. Go to TheraBody.com slash Lex. This episode is also sponsored by BetterHelp, spelled H-E-L-P-H-H-L-P. They figure out what you need and match it with a licensed professional therapist in under 48 hours. I just mentioned running.

That is where I go to face my demons, to face my own thoughts, to face the memories, the darker memories, the memories I haven't quite dealt with or have been able to make sense of. Or for some reason, they bother me when they shouldn't. And I need to understand why. That's what therapy is about. So for me, thinking through a third person perspective reflection of my own mind, that's when I do when I run, that's when I do when I meditate, that's when I do when I have conversations in the podcast. And that's what I think is what makes talk therapy powerful.

So go with better help if that's something you think is interesting. It's easy, private, affordable, and available worldwide. Check them out at betterhelp.com slash Lex. That's better help.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Indeed, a hiring website. I've used them as part of many hiring efforts I've done in the teams I've led in the past. They have tools like Indeed, InstaMatch giving you quality candidates who candidate who's resumes on indeed fit your job description immediately. Work gives life meaning. Activities that you pursue a large fraction of your day, even if it's

menial jobs, I still think it's possible to notice the magic, to seek the craftsmanship. And I think a big part of that is if you're serendiply by people that also seek the craftsmanship. And I think a big part of that is if you're surrounded by people that also seek the magic and the craftsmanship. So you should use the best tools for the job, indeed, is certainly one of them that I have used often. Right now, get a free 75 sponsored job credit to upgrade your job post at indeed..com slashlex. Indeed.com slashlex. Terms and conditions apply. Go to indeed.com slashlex. This shows also brought to you by Grammarly, a writing assistant tool that checks spelling,

grammar, sentence structure, and readability. Grammarly premium, the thing you have to pay for, and they're really hoping you do pay for, has a bunch of extra features. I pay for it They don't give it for me for free. I pay for it because I love it. My favorite is the clarity check Which helps detect rambling over complicated chaos that many of us can descend into. I know I certainly do That's actually why I like Tweeting because I don't have the luxury of just spilling it all out. And again, use the bus tools for the job. Grammarly is excellent at this.

It's available on basically any platform, major sites, apps like Gmail and Twitter and so on. Do more than just spellcheck, get your point across more effectively with Grammily Premium. Like I said, you get discount, 20% off Grammily Premium by signing up at Grammily.com slash flex. That's 20% off at Grammily.com slash flex. This episode is also brought to you by Aitsleep and it's PodPro mattress,

one of my favorite sponsors because their product brings me joy. A few things I love in life than a good nap. I probably like naps more than sleeping. I mean sleeping is really important. It's great but it's like all right okay I guess we have to shut off from any hours, but a nap for 20 minutes. And then when you wake up, it's like the world is new again. I love it. I have a cooled bed with a warm blanket.

That's heaven. And that's what H-Sleep does for you. Their pot pro cover. You can just add it to your mattress. Go to hsleep.com slash Lex to check out the pot pro cover and save $200 to check out. A sleep currently ships within the USA, Canada and the United Kingdom. That's a sleep.com slash Lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast and here is my conversation with Robert Proctor. What is the story of science and scientists doing the rise, rule, and follow the third rake?

Well, we tend to think of science as always on the side of liberty, as always on the side of enlightenment, as always on the side of enlarging human possibility. And here we have this phenomenon in the 1930s of really the world's leading scientific power, the Third Reich, which collectively had won a big chunk of all the Nobel prizes. Suddenly they go fascist, they go Nazi with Hitler. And instead of being primarily a source of resistance, science in many respects actually is a full collaborator in the most horrific forms of Nazi genocide, Nazi exclusion. And that's kind of a relatively untold story in the sense that when we think of science in the Third Reich, we think of Joseph Mingly injecting dye into the eyes of twins or we think of horrific human experiments, and those are real. But it's also the story of a huge scientific apparatus, a bureaucracy, you can almost say,

participating in every phase of the campaigns of Nazi destruction. And what I looked at in particular, and actually my first book was how physicians in particular, but also biomedical science, was collaborating with the regime and that it's wrong to think of the Nazi regime as anti-science. It's anti-a-particular type of science, in particular it was radically against what they called Jewish science, communist science. Certain types of science they did not like. There's a whole nature, nurture, dispute in that period and they're firmly on the side of

nature, which interestingly gives rise to a very different type of science in the Soviet Union by the way. Just so the union is more than the nurture sign. The Soviet Union is on the side of the nurture side in the dimension of genetics. And this is sort of a non-told story. I was actually going to write a book about it until I was barred from access to the Soviet Union. There have been different times in my life where I was a Russianist. A Russianist. Okay, we're gonna have to talk about that, but. I got excluded from fulfilling that dream, but one of the things I was gonna look at when I got a full bright in the 1980s was to

go over and look at the anti-Nazi genetics and anthropology of the Soviets and how a lot of their Lysenkoist Lamarchism was actually anti-Nazi, anti-genetics on the nurture side of nature. That's a really untold story. It's an uncomfortable story because it sounds like someone we might want to make heroes out of the twisting of science in the Soviet Union. But nonetheless, there are these interesting complexities and what's amazing about Nazi sciences is how there was this collaboration. And you're talking about a culture where they're inventing things like electron microscopy,

they're doing all kinds of studies in anthropology. So a lot of that's an untold story. So what was the connection between the ideology and the science? If you can just linger on it longer. Well, we tend to think of science and ideology as completely separate when I think the reality is there is there not If you look at why the Mayans in the seventh and eighth century AD had the world's most accurate calendar Accurate to within 17 seconds per year

There was all part of a ritual practice to celebrate The rise of Cuculcan the rise of of Venus, with what's called the Heliac or rising, namely the rising of Venus before the rising of the Sun, in which at which moment Venus is destroyed by the light of the Sun. Well, they developed this elaborate calendrical astronomy, which required detailed observation, detailed chronicling of movement of the heavens, in particular the planets. For the purpose of celebrating this cycle of renewal that they thought was sacred and holy and magical.

So where's the ideology, where's the science? There's the sort of instrumentation, the calendrix, the measurement all in the service of this magical moment. And I think that's true of a lot of science. I had a friend years ago who was men and women wanted to study solar cells and to improve silicon chips to make more efficient solar energy. There was no money for that. When Ronald Reagan took office, the budgets for solar and alternative energy were essentially zeroed out and Reagan takes off

the solar panels off of the roof of the White House. So my friend ended up ends up working on hardening silicon chips against nuclear war. So he becomes part of the nuclear war protection defense apparatus, even though he wanted to work on alternative energy, doing very similar work with silicon chips, but in a different framework. And so the practice of science often gets pushed into and is woven into ideological practices. And sort of in the same way that you get beautiful medieval cathedrals built in service of Catholicism.

What's in the mind of an individual scientist? So this process of ideology polluting science, or is it science empowering ideology? So almost like if you can zoom in and zoom out effortlessly into the individual mind of a scientist, then back to the whole scientific community. Do scientists think about nuclear war, about the atrocities committed by the Nazis as they're helping on the minute details of the scientific process? I think sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. You think of the chemists working to develop the cyanide that will be used to kill Jews in a concentration camp. What are they thinking?

You can imagine a whole range of thoughts. Maybe they don't know what they're doing. Maybe they do. Maybe they know a little bit, but not a lot. Maybe they don't want to know. Maybe they have ways of lying to themselves. Maybe they are the one person who agreed to do it in ninety-nine refused. So, you know, it's hard if not impossible to know it's in the soul of anyone, but when you have enormous power, directing the motion and the currents or the ocean. It's not hard to find people willing to fill that in, especially if they're narrow technocrats, if they're just doing their job,

if they're just building the widget. And I think a lot of scientific training is in widget building, and that leads to the possibility that they can become easily instrumentalized in a particular action, which is maybe horrific or glorious. in mind is that sciences, as we say, what scientists do. And that can include a lot of things. It can exclude a lot of things. The word science itself is interesting because it's cognate. It actually comes originally from the proto-indoe European, skin, meaning to cut or divide. And so it's cognate with scissors, schism, skin. Is that which divides you from the world? Shit or scat is that which has been divided from you into the world? And so there's this cognate between science and shit or science and cutting, with the whole idea being that you're dividing into parts, classifying, it's the taxonomic impulse.

And to know is to know where something belongs, to divide it into its parts and put it in its proper place. And that taxonomic impulse can be very static. It's actually one of the things that Darwin had to overcome in recognizing evolution that the taxonomies are in motion. But it also can lead to a kind of myopia that my job is done when I've classified something, is this bird an exawire as e. And that again can be, it can be ideological or it cannot be, but scientists are humans and they're fitting in with a world, with a world practice.

And that's limiting, it's kind of inevitable. It's unavoidable. It's hard to be, if not impossible, out of the world that we're walking in. walking in. Yeah, and it's fascinating because I think ideologies also have an impulse towards forming taxonomies. And there is, so just, so being at MIT, I've gotten to learn about this character named Jeffrey Epstein, I didn't know who this was until all the news broke out and so on. And it started to wonder how did all these people at MIT that admire would hang out with this person.

Just lightly, just have conversations. I don't mean any of the bigger things, but even just basic conversations. And I think this has to do, you said scientists are widget builders and taxonomizers. I think there's power in somebody like the Nazi regime or like a Jeffrey Epstein just being excited about your widgets and making you feel like the widget serves a greater purpose in the world. And so it's not like you're, you know, sometimes people say, scientists want this, want to make money, and, or they have a big kind of ideological drive behind it.

I think there's just nice when the widget, so you like building anyway, somehow somebody convinces you, some charismatic person that this widget is actually has a grander purpose. And you don't almost feel, think about the negative that this widget is actually has a grander purpose. And you don't almost think about the negative or whether it's positive, just the fact that it's grand

is already super exciting. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's the story of Werner von Braun in the fascination with rockets. And this will enlarge something in the world. And here he is, he's an SS officer, he's working around slave labor. And then, but his rocket then gets compressed into the western world or the American world, and basically launches us to the moon, and we forget about the sausage,

how the sausage was made originally. Well, can you talk about him a little bit more because he's such a fascinating character? Because he, so he was a Nazi, but he was also an American and it had such a grand impact on, on both. And like, there's this uncomfortable fact that he's, you know, one of the central figures they gave birth to the American space exploration efforts. Yeah, he's an interesting figure fascinated in a kind of a tunnel vision way with spaceflight. He made these beautiful rockets already beginning in the 20s, early 30s. Ends up for a while

at Penamunda using slave labor to build V2 engines and so forth like that. I remember going to Penamunda where people have actually tracked the flights of aborted V2 rockets and found some of these beautiful, beautiful old engines, just the most like works of art. These engines used to rain terror on the British. It's interesting because in that same spot I was hunting for amber, Baltic amber because I'm a stone collector and among the amber collectors there there's a famous story of the penamond of burn. It's called because they find yellow phosphorus. They think is amber. They put it in their pocket and then it dries out

and then explodes and creates this big burn burn on their legs. But the whole that, is full of these scholars who get twisted into a mindset. And it's also important to realize that people didn't often see what was coming. And we look back and we say, how could you X, Y, or Z? But before the Holocaust, there's not the Holocaust. There are versions of it, but things get on a new meaning, get a new meaning in light of subsequent events. And there's an entire propaganda machine that makes it easier for you to hold the narrative in your head.

Even if you kind of intuitively know there's something really wrong here because of the propaganda, you can kind of convince yourself to be able to sleep at night. That's right. And we have to remember that Gerbil's office was not the office of propaganda. It was the office of enlightenment of popular enlightenment in propaganda. So enlightenment, enlightenment was part of his, just the new era of enlightenment from his perspective. It was supposed to be the new age, the new era of enlightenment. It's a little bit like the kind of myth of Hitler

is failed artist. You know, his art is not that bad. You know, there are a lot of artists who are worse. And at a very interesting conversation once with my college roommate who became a librarian at Harvard, and at Harvard, he met an old, old librarian at German woman who had met Hitler as a kid when she was like eight years old. Her dad was like a galiter for the N Nuremberg area and she said that for 15 minutes Hitler goes out onto the balcony with her and has this conversation alone with this, you know, eight-year-old girl and she said he was charming and funny and then he said he loved kids and she said he was the most, you of person. And that's part of the history too

that we tend to forget when we make a scarecrow image of this rabid raging fanatic. You know, there's more to it than that. That's really, really, really important to think about when we make a scarecrow because that gives you actionable. Like it forces you to introspect about people in your own life or leaders in your life today once you admire their charismatic, their friendly, they love kids, they talk about an enlightenment. You have to kind of think,

all right, am I being duped on certain things? You have to kind of have a, I mean, that's the problem with Jerry. I've seen that people don't seem to talk about. I don't, I never met the guy, but just given the people he talked to whom I know, it feels like he must have been charismatic. Yeah. Like people think about like, oh, it's because of the women, it's because of the money. I don't, the people I know, I don't think they're going to be influenced.

Ultimately, it has to be how you are in the room and make it's, it's, it's, it's exactly like you said, the enlightenment. I think that excites the, the scientist. Of course, as a charismatic person, you have to know what to pick in terms of what excites you, but that is also the fascinating thing to me about Hitler is all of these meetings even like with Chamberlain Inside rooms whether he was screaming or whatever he was saying it seems like he was very convincing There must have been passion in his eyes. There must have been charisma that one-on-one in a quiet conversation He was convincing. Yes, there's a famous story that one on one in a quiet conversation he was convincing. Yes. There's a famous story about Gerbals who would do a party trick, where for 15 minutes,

for 15 minutes he would rouse the crowd to communism. Workers of the world unite. Then for 15 minutes he would rouse the world to capitalism, an individualism. Then for 15 minutes, he would rouse the world to capitalism, and individualism. And then for 15 minutes, he would rouse the world to Nazism. And apparently he was quite convincing in each of those performances. Well, all those ideologies are pretty powerful. I mean, they, and I think it's not even the reason that matters as much as the power of the dream

of the vision of the enlightenment. I mean, the vision of communism is fascinatingly powerful. Like, workers unite. The common people stand together, they'll overthrow the powerful, the greedy, and yeah, share the outcomes of our hard work. Yeah. Well, it's kind of like the story of the two thirds of the things that Mark calls for in the Communist

manifesto are already just part of the liberal state. And so the parts we remember or forget about an ideology are very revealing. If you can just linger on this a little bit longer, what have you learned from this period of the 1930s about the scientific process? So one of the labels you can put on your work, on you as a scholar's philosopher of science. And you also talk about Nazi Germany as a singular moment in time or like a rebirth of the integration between ideology and science. So like

in terms of valueless science, I think is the term value free science that you use. I mean, it seems like Nazi Germany is an important moment in history. I mean, it probably goes up and down. import moment in history. I mean it probably goes up and down. What difficult truths have you learned about the scientific process and what hopeful things have you learned about the scientific process? Well, I guess the saddening thing is how easily people can become part of a machine. If there's power, people can be found to follow it. You know, one of the things I work on is big tobacco, and we'll probably come to that, but it's amazing to me how easily people are willing to work for big tobacco. It's amazing to me how many scientists and physicians who are willing to work for the Nazi regime

for multiple reasons partly because a lot of them really thought they were you know doing the Lord's work They thought they were cleaning the world of filth you know, I mean if you really thought you know Jews are a parasitic race, you know, why wouldn't you, you know, get rid of them. So there's an ontology. There's a theory of the world that they're building on.

And interestingly, one that was also present in the United States, and one of the things I did find out in my earliest research was that the Nazis had looked lovingly and inviously over at the United States in terms of racial segregation, racial separation, and saw themselves in a kind of competition to become the world's racial leader as the most purified racial form, and that this required this kind of cleansing process. And the cleansing meant getting rid of the physically handicapped, it meant getting rid of racial inferior, as they imagine them, it meant getting rid of cancer causing chemicals in the air and in our food and our water. These were all of a piece.

There's a famous illustration that Richard Doll talks about the great cancer theorist of studying in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. He's shown a lecture where cancer cells are shown as Jews and X-rays are shown as stormtroopers and these stormtroopers are killing the cancer cells who are also Jews. And so there's this metaphorical work of cleaning, extermination, sanitation, purification of a sort of purification. There's definitely a kind of purity quest and you see that at multiple levels. And so

you see how easy it is for people to fall into that given a particular theory. And again, coming back to that earlier sort of point about the scarecrow, which I think is very important. If we imagine that nothing like this went on here in the United States, that would be a big mistake. The Nazis are looking to save the Redwoods league, to the Aryan supremacists, to the Ku Klux Klan, to the separation of blacks and whites blacks. We're not allowed to join the American Medical Association until after World War II. So you have racial segregation.

You have massive sterilization in the United States way before the Nazis. One of the first things the Nazis do from a racial hygiene point of view is start sterilizing what they called the mentally ill and the physically handicapped. Well, that had been going on since around World War One in the United States. And even earlier in certain states, in the form of castration of prisoners in order to prevent their demon seed from being propagated further into the race. So there's a kind of a racial international now that's going on and that part of the story also needs to be told. And scientists were able to care those ideas in their mind from your work. Of course, of course. I mean that's one of the things going on with all the

renaming of buildings now. Scientists who were eugenicists are now getting their names pulled off of buildings. My personal view is that it has to be done in a case-by-case basis, but in general, I think it's usually better to add on rather than subtract. In other words, to add history rather than erase history or pretend as if history had never existed. Let me give you a specific example of that. One of the

most powerful and diabolical university presidents in the Nazi period was a guy named Carl Ostell, the Nazi period was a guy named Carl Ostell, a.s.t.e.l. and he was a rabid Nazi high up in the leadership and in his portrait at the University of Vienna, there he is in full SS uniform. That painting was taken down. Now what I would have done is left the painting and put a, you know, add a plaque. But to pretend as if that never happened or to erase history in that way, I think is a big mistake. Kind of looking at that point.

So I haven't gotten through it yet, but I've been trying to get to the mind comp. And, you know, throughout its history has been taken down and it actually was taken down from Amazon for a while recently. What can you say about keeping that stuff up? So the reason it was taken down from Amazon, I mean there's a large number of people that will read that and the hate in their heart will grow. So they're not using it for educational purposes. You can't put a plaque on the mind comp. You're ruining mind comp then. I mean, this is, you know, Amazon can't do a warning saying like,

Amazon can't do a warning saying like this per get you get an expurgated version of that. Yeah. Take out the word Jew. You know, exactly. That would be exactly. So it still just stands on its own. Yeah. I mean, it's not well written. So you can maybe convince yourself that it's okay, because it's not well written. So it's not it's not like this inspiring book of ideology that could easily convince. But can you steal man the argument that my comp should be banned?

And can you steal man the argument that it should be not banned? Well, I wouldn't say it should be banned. I think if anything, that might make it forbidden fruit. Now, this might be different when we come to statues on the public square. After World War II, the statues of Hitler, there must have been thousands of them were taken down. Now, I think even the most rabid opponents of cancel culture would not say there was something wrong with taking down the statues of Hitler that were in every office building, every post office. So I think a lot depends on the placement and the purpose of icons of statues of Texan. I don't see the harm in being able to buy minecumph. It's so out of this world

and now, by now, just the language. And if anything, there probably is more good done by people being shocked at how dumb it is than the evil that might be done by someone reading it. I can't imagine people being really gripped by that now, partly just because it's kind of outdated and crazy, crazy talk. So in that case, I would not be in favor of that. When it comes to monuments or other types of things, it's a judgment call in each case. I think it has to be probably voted on, but it also, I think in many of these cases, there's an add-on view. It would fix a lot of the problems. Well, Jim Perron, a little bit. We'll come back to medicine and war on cancer.

Let me just add one thing on that. Recently, the name of McMillan, who works on the charge of the electron and early part of the 20th century, his name was taken off of a building at Caltech. Well, to take his name off, what do you really do? It wasn't a central aspect of his actual work. It's not why he was put on the name of that building at Caltech, and also the memory is lost and the lesson is lost.

When you could have kept the McMillan name on the building and added a plaque, you know, this guy was a racist or this guy was a eugenicist or something to make a teaching moment instead of just a forgetting moment. Yeah. Well, let me take a small tangent and ask you about censorship. And this particular period we're living through. So my friend Joe Rogan has a podcast. He hosts a few folks on there. And they're folks of differing opinions. And as we speak, there's kind of a battle going on

over whether Joe Rogan should be on Spotify and allowed to spread scientific misinformation. In particular, there's a guy named Robert Malone that's talking about that that's making a case against at least against the COVID vaccine and so on. So outside the specifics of this person, in this battle of scientific ideas that are sometimes tied up with ideology, in their modern world, what do you think is the role? Like who gets the sensoror decide what is misinformation or information. Should we let ideas fly in the scientific realm, so scientific

ideas, or should we try to get it under control? Like what? Which way obviously all approaches will go wrong in some ways, which is more likely to go wrong. One where you try to get a hold of like, all right, this is a viral thing and it doesn't fit with scientific consensus, so we should probably like try to like quiet it down a little bit, or do you let it all just fly and let the ideas battle? Do you think about this kind of stuff in the context of history? Well, that used to be a million dollar question. Of course, now it's a multi-billion dollar question. Not trillion. We're talking about powerful internet platforms becoming essentially publishers.

becomes essentially publishers and publishers can't say whatever they want. There are limits. There's, you know, they can't y'all fire in a crowded theater. But there are, there's a kind of social responsibility that is there. And I know some of these, I don't know a lot about this topic, but I know there are large, some of the large platforms do have dedicated offices to trying to rein in misinformation as you would expect any publisher to do. You can't just let anything fly in time magazine or or the New York Times either. They have they're all kinds of codes of ethics and legal obligations. So I, I'm a fan of the efforts, or I think some of the large internet platforms should be congratulated, at least for trying to make an effort to rein in misinformation. It's going to be difficult and their mistakes

are going to be made, but it can't be a let everything fly kind of situation. But when I watch, unfortunately, the pressure these platforms feel to identify and to censor misinformation, that pressure is ideological in nature currently. So if you just objectively look, there's a certain political lean to people that are pressing on the censorship of misinformation, which makes me very uncomfortable, because now there's an ideology to labeling something as misinformation, as opposed to kind of having a, you know, value less evaluation of what is true or not and in your self-technology that It says something

that there's a very large number of people that For example follow Robert Malone or follow people. I mean, what does that say about society? Yeah, and that there's a deeper lesson in there that's not just about blocking misinformation. It's distrust in science and institutions, distrust in leaders. Like it feels like you have to fix that and censorship of misinformation is not going to be fixing that. It's only going to like throw gasoline on the fire. You got to put out the fire.

Well, that's certainly possible. Yeah, I mean, I think people are distrustable of certain institutions and not others. I think a lot of distrust is good. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do know there have been a lot of distrust is good. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do know there have been a lot of conspiracies and that people work behind scenes to do powerful, bad things, and that's what needs to be exposed. The other thing I worry about, which is relevant to your question,

again, it's a billion or a trillion dollar question, is we're kind, I think in a world of kind of flattening where all news or all information or all data is kind of equal in some way. And so you get the Twitter verse going and doesn't matter if it's peer reviewed or it doesn't matter if it's been supported by evidence, it's just a kind of outburst. It's interesting, a contrast it was say a hundred years ago. I mean, what would a crazy person or a flat earth or anything, what venue would they have? I mean, maybe they could go to a church or someplace.

I mean, so now we have these I mean, maybe they could go to a church or someplace. I mean, so now we have this, these empowering engines, then that's what's new historically is that basically anyone can have a blog or a Twitter feed. And that is new. And so that is, you can think of it also as a kind of clutter. So it's a kind of a radical democracy in a way that kind of the, one of the weaknesses of democracy is if everyone has an equal voice, and if everyone has equal power. So there's of course a flip side to that where everyone has equal power. It forces the people who are quote unquote experts to be better communication. I think people like scientists are just like upset that they have to do like better work at communicating now. They used to be lazy

and you can just like say I have a PhD there for everyone to listen to me. Now they have to actually convince people. Like you have to convince people that the earth is round. You can't just say the earth is round. That's it. You have to like show. You have to make like, I mean, not the earth is round part, but things like that, if to actually be a great communicator, great, do great lectures, do documentaries, and so on, and to battle those ideas. And then also to defend the sort of, the people labeled this crazy, you know, in Nazi Germany, if you were protesting against some of the uses of science of medicine to commit atrocities, you'd also be labeled crazy.

Yeah. Well, the voices are important. Yeah, there's so many good points there. On the scientists becoming good communicators, the history of scientists becoming bad communicators has a history, and the last original contribution to science written entirely in the form of a poem is Bufon's Love of the Plants. And following that in the 18th century, you get the uglification of science, the deliberate uglification of science, with the idea being that if you are clear and if you speak beautifully,

if you write beautifully, you're hiding something. If you're covering over the truth with flowers and decorations and sense and pleasant odors. And so you get this scientific paper format, introduction, discussion, methods, conclusions, and it's kind of policed in this inhumane non-humanistic kind of retortable way. And that's a big problem. And so you get that combined with just the rise of the research lab and the ever-narrow or widget builders,

the cogs in the machine, it's not surprising that people might not trust certain aspects of that. That combined with the dirty laundry history of a lot of science that you did have, you know, the requirement at Auschwitz that people be, you know, that physicians supervise the killings. You know, the horrors of Tuskegee and all kinds of other things, or even something like the atom bomb, which is arguably more neutral, at least. But nonetheless, horrific. And so it's not surprising that a lot of people don't trust science and a lot of science shouldn't be trusted, right? They're science and then they're science. So there's a long history of dirty, bad science

that you don't solve just by saying we should have trusted it. Let's just stay on COVID for a brief moment and talk about a particular leader that I think about is Anthony Fauci. I've thought about whether to talk to him or not. I have my own feelings about Anthony Fauci. By the way, I admire basically everybody and I admire scientists a lot. There's something about him that bothers me. I think because I'm always bothered by ego, unlike a humility, and I sense that. Maybe I'm very wrong in

this. But so he said that he represents science. If you've taken him full context, I understand the point he's making, which is, you know, when people attack, attack him, they think of him as representing science, things like that. But there's ego in that. And what do you think motivates and informs his decisions? Is it politics or science? And the broader question I have, what does it take to be a great scientific leader in difficult times?

Like these, and maybe you could say Nazi Germany was similar when there's obviously like you, Anthony Fauci, just like scientific leaders during Nazi Germany could have made a difference if he was like positive and negative and so it's like there's a lot of stake There's a lot of stake in terms of scientific leadership If I've asked about 17 questions if there's something worthwhile answering in that. Well, Fauci, I think is doing his good job as he can. I mean, he's a...

You can't turn on the television without seeing him. But no, that's what's the goal of the job. That means he appears a lot, but he's a he does not come off with somebody who with authenticity like I admire so many science communicators about 10x 100x more than him Including his boss Francis Collins who have I recently lost respect for Given some of the emails that leaked. There's ego in those emails. Yeah, and it's upset me because like I hope all that stuff comes out and wakes Young scientists up to don't be a douchebag Don't don't be humble

Be honest be authentic be real put yourself out there. Don't play the PR game don't play politics Just get excited about the widget building that you love, communicate that, and think about the difficult ethical questions there, and communicate them, be transparent. Don't think like the public, don't talk down to the public, don't think the public is too dumb to understand the complexities involved because the moment you start to think that, when you're like 30, what do you think happens when you're 40 and 50, the slippery slope of that, the ego builds, the, like, this, uh, the, the tastes for the public opinion builds.

And then then you get into the leadership position at the time you're 60 and 70 and then you're just a dick and you're a bad communicator to the very public. So I think this is something that just builds over time, is the skill to communicate, to be honest, to be real, to constantly humble yourself, to surround yourself with people that humble you. I'm bothered by it because I feel like science is under attack. I'm bothered by because I feel like science is under attack. People distrust science more and more and more. And it is perhaps unfair to put places like Anthony Fauci to blame for that. But you know what?

Leaders take care of the responsibility. So you're saying that he's doing the best job he can. I would say he's doing a reasonable job, but not the best job he can. Yeah. Well, I don't know what his capabilities are on that. I mean, like that was the other. Right. Right. Like what the, like you can imagine how history sees great leaders that unite on which history turns, that's not a great leader because there's a huge division. There's a lot of people in leadership position that can heal the division.

You could think of tech leaders, they can heal the division because they have the platform, they can speak out with eloquence. You could think of political leaders, presidents that can speak out and heal the division. You could think of scientific leaders, like Anthony Fauci, they could heal the division. None of these are doing a good job right now. And which is, you know, leadership is hard, which is why when great leaders come along, history remembers them. So I just want to

point out the Emperor has no clothes when the leaders are like, eh, the kind of mediocre. Yeah. Yeah. Because it feels like I guess I'll take it to a question about Nazi Germany. What is the heroic action for a scientist in Nazi Germany? Like to stand, to see what's right when you're under this cloud of ideology. Yeah. Well, it's an almost impossible task in Nazi Germany. Maybe the heroic task would have been before Hitler was essentially elected. And the Reichstag is burned. So in the 30s, it has this building. When it's building, what the other alternatives are, maybe it's events in World War One that could have made Nazism less inevitable.

Maybe it's going back to the British Empire, which had a giant empire and Germany wanted a big empire too, right? And that part of the history of World War I is often forgotten. So, you know, the heroic act is to stand up and tell the truth and fight against evil. Of course you get, oh, it's such a drop, but of course you have some courage. But I also, so I personally don't always have complete respect of people who stand up and have courage, because it's not often effective. What I have the most respect for is long-term courage.

Like, that's effective. Because if you're just an activist and you speak out, this is wrong, that's not gonna be effective because everybody around you is saying, nah, it's like we like our widgets. So you have to somehow like steer this Titanic ship. Yeah. And I guess you're right, the easiest way to steer is to do it earlier.

Well, everyone has different skills. You know, musk is building electric cars, and other people are trying to build solar and wind. And there are all kinds of problems that we're going to solve. People are building better vaccines. There's a thousand ways to do good in the world and the thousand ways to do bad in the world. I mean, part of the problem in science is that we don't look enough at what I call the causes of causes. So cigarettes cause cancer, but what causes cigarettes? Yeah, so the deeper, yeah, so obesity causes heart disease, but what causes obesity?

And it's not just gluttony and sloth, it's the decision to pump up the sugar industry and to allow soda in school. And I'm a big fan of loot, what I call loop closing. We're all worried about climate change and reducing our carbon footprint. But what about the hidden causes, the unproved causes? I'm doing a project now with Laundice Sheepinger on looking at how voluntary family planning could actually have a big role in reducing carbon footprint throughout the world. And these literatures are never joined or rarely joined.

That we have this huge carbon emissions problem, but we also have too many people in the planet and the cause of that is because two few women and men have access to birth control. And if you join those realms, there's going to be new possibilities. And that's it's kind of like looking at the flip side of fascism and the kind of things the discoveries they made that have been ignored. That's one of the things I'm interested in. It's finding some of the gaping holes, the ideological gaps that have been ignored because of ideology, left or right, by the way, both of which are involved blinders. And so there's all kinds of blinders that we live in. And that's part of ideology is what what don't we even see. And that would prevent us from seeing some deep object to scientific truth. Right. Some truth. And this is actually just to mention there's some people including Elon who are saying,

there's not too many people, there's not enough people, right, that if you just look at the birth rates. And so it's like, some of this is actually very difficult to figure out, because there's these narratives, you want to tobacco, obesity, with sugar, there's been narratives throughout the history and it's very, there are certain topics

in which it's easy to almost become apathetic because like you just see in history how narratives take hold and fade away, people were really sure what that tobacco is not at all a problem. And then it fades and then they figured out and then other things come along. What other things came along now, you know, well, you asked about ideology and one of the things I was asked students before class, whether I'm teaching, students before class, whether I'm teaching agnatology or world history of sciences, what makes fish move? And 90% of Americans will say some version of muscles, fins,

neurons. When the reality is at least in saltwater, fish don't swim places they're moved by currents. Fish are moved by currents, that's what makes fish move. This is not even counting the rotation of the earth on its axis, sort of the rotation of the earth around the sun or the rotation of the solar system around the galaxy, ignore all that.

Even on earth, fish arrive up in Alaska. They don't swim there. They come by currents. And this is known to people who understand the ecology of fish. But we as sort of individualistic Americans think that the fish pulled itself up by his bootstraps. Right. And whatever, you know, gumption and courage, you know, made his own world. Instead of thinking of something like cigarettes, for example, hitting a village like an epidemic, hitting the village like cholera or pneumonia or something like that. So there's a big ideology we have of personal choice. A great example of that is in the tobacco world

where people always, there's a whole field called cessation. That always means cessation of consumption, never cessation of production. All blame is put on the individual smoker instead of looking at how they get smoked. And looking at that bigger picture, I think, is part of the story. So, a few years ago, you wrote that the cigarette is the deadliest object in the history of human civilization.

Cigarettes kill about 6 million people every year, a number that will grow before it shrinks. Smoking in the 20th century killed 100 million people, and a billion could perish in our century unless we reverse the course. Can you explain this idea that is the deadliest object in the history of human civilization? Maybe just also talk about big tobacco in your efforts there. Well, cigarettes have killed more than any other object than all the world of iron, all the world of gunpowder. Nuclear bombs have only killed a few hundred thousand people. Sigarettes have killed hundreds of millions and every year kill about as many as COVID, they're sort of neck and neck. But if you took the last five years, there's no contest. Sigrets have killed far more and a far more preventable. So what we're in a world, this

bizzaro world, where every night there's a COVID report and cigarettes would never be mentioned. Sigrets would no more likely to be mentioned than if we were talking about chewing gum on a sidewalk. They'd be no more likely to be in a presidential debate than, you know, sneezing in the wrong place. So we live in this world where most things are invisible. We live in this world where most things are invisible. You know, we are the eyes are in the front of the head. We don't see what's behind us. We have a fovee which means not only do we only see what's in front of us, we see in a very narrow tunnel.

And that's because we're predators. We don't have the eternal watchfulness of prey. We have a zeroed targeted focus, and that leads to a kind of myopia or a tunnel vision and all kinds of things. Then when you get something like a very powerful tobacco industry, which is a multi-multibillion dollar industry, which still spends many billions of dollars advertising every year, but nonetheless manages to make themselves invisible. You have this powerful agent that is producing this engine of death that is invisible.

It's been reduced to the fish that move themselves. In other words, there's not really a tobacco industry. There's just people who smoke, and that's a personal choice, like what food we're going to have for dinner tonight and so it's erased from the policy world. It's as if it doesn't exist and creating that sense of invisibility to failure, understand the causes of causes is what allows the epidemic to continue, but also not even to be acknowledged. How is the invisibility created? Is it natural? Is it just human nature that ideas just fade from our attention? attention or is it malevolent still going on kind of action by the tobacco companies? I keep this invisible.

It's still going on. Even when you see an ad against cigarettes on television, that's dramatically curtailed because the law that made those even possible required that there be there's an anti-villainy clause. The industry can't be made even visible in those ads. In some they get away with it. But the industry operates through very powerful agents, powerful senators. They used to count three quarters of the members of Congress as grade A contacts. They had most of the senators in their pocket, a lot of the senators. Sometimes they'll play both sides of the aisle. Basically, tobacco is democratic party until basically the 70s and Ronald Reagan, then it shifts over to becoming Republican.

They create bodies like the Tea Party. They merge with big oil, the Koch brothers in the 1980s and 90s to form the Tea Party and all series of fronts which fight against all regulation and all taxation in order to prevent gas taxes and cigarette taxes which are bonded in the convenience store and Walmart most cigarettes are actually sold in places like Walmart and and Walmart, most cigarettes are actually sold in places like Walmart and pharmacies and 7-Elevens, things like that. And through that locus, then you have gasoline and tobacco, sort of in this micro-architectural collaboration.

So there's multiple, multiple means that they use. Plus a lot of their targeting is hyper-specific. They use the internet very effectively. They use email and thank you that are customer targeting. We'll go to the mind of a big tobacco executive. This is connecting to our previous conversations of scientists and so on. I was wondering about that. I talked to Pfizer CEO, for example. And there's a deep question with the Pfizer CEO with, I guess any CEO, but Big Pharma, would you, it's like, if you can come up with a cure, they get rid of the problem.

That's in the big pharma. Would you want to? Because you're going to lose a lot of money once the cure fixes the problem. It's nice. There's so many incentives to make money. Can you think clearly and make the right decisions? I'd like to believe most people are good and it's almost like this Steve Jobs idea. I just like do the right thing and you'll make money in the

end. It's like long term you'll make a lot of money if you do the right action because there's always going to be problems you can fix. You can always pivot the company to focus on other things as long as you're doing the best innovation, the best science, the best development, and the production and the deployment and stuff, you're going to win. But there's another view where you might that kind of idea of making money pollutes you. It's the widget building. It's exciting when you can release a product that makes a lot of money and you start enjoying the charts that say the money is going up and you stop thinking about maybe there's the that's the wrong choice for human civilization.

Well, one of the reasons I was made a courtesy appointment in pulmonary medicine, Stanford was they recognized I was doing more to save lives By trying to stop big tobacco than they were by yanking out this lung that lung, you know on a daily basis Cause of causes the cause of causes which I which we can keep returning to Your question about how do people live with themselves is a crucial one and It's one of thought about a lot. It's one you think about with in any context of horror. How do people live with themselves? How do they get up in the morning? I think there's a lot of incentives. One thing that you have to keep in mind is that

whoever becomes CEO of a big tobacco company, they have already made decisions along the way and they are the remnant of a whole series of aspiring people who want to climb the ladder of success who maybe would refuse, something like this. But those don't survive the journey. Those survive the journey who can make it through and I think they have a mixture of ideologies. One, they'll say, well, if I didn't do it, someone else would. This is kind of the poor, the cyclone be down, the chimney in the Auschwitz. Well, if I didn't do it, someone else would.

So what's really the difference between me doing it, someone else? So that's one of you. Another one is the tobacco industry, I think, really doesn't like their customers except for the fact that they like their money. When you look at their documents, they talk about targeting against young adults or against women or against homosexuals. There's a whole project Reynolds has called Project Scum, which is Project sub-culture urban markets where they're targeting homeless and homosexuals in San Francisco. So what kind of business model regards the customers as scum or talks about them as one famous Reynolds

executives? We don't smoke this stuff, we reserve that for the poor, the black and the stupid. That's a direct quote from one of the Winston models. So it's a company culture that sees the customer's almost like the enemy or worthless losers. So you have these executives, you know, if we don't do it, someone else will, if people are dumb enough to buy our product,

let them buy it, maybe it's a personal choice, maybe they're libertarians, maybe they're just, as you said, it's induced by the money and the money is enormous. The money is enormous and these, you know, tobacco executives make tens of millions of dollars per year just in their salaries. So I think there's a whole series of logics.

At some point some of the companies have become food producers in the 1980s and 90s, Philip Morse, which makes Marbro was the largest food producer in the United States. And so they could say, well, we're producing many products, many addictive, desirable products. I think at one project I'm working on now, actually, is looking at how the industry maintains morale in their own workforce. And they create a kind of parallel world of prizes and rewards and tobacco queens and tobacco princesses and tobacco sports teams and tobacco. It's this whole separate world, a world within a world. And we all live in bubbles of a sort and so there is this kind of tobacco world

where you're with us or you're against us and I even found evidence that the tobacco industry lies to its own employees so They censored their own employee information so that everyone would be on board that well Maybe it doesn't really cause cancer. The events is all statistics. Can't trust my experiments because mys are not men.

They hire the guy, Darryl Huff, who wrote, How to Lie with Statistics, the best-selling statistics book in the history of the world. They paid him to write a book called How to Lie About Smoking with Statistics That was never published When when sort of word of some other dirty tricks got out so one way they're able to gain legitimacy gain normal see gain you know these are supporters of the arts, you know, there are universities named

for You know, there are universities named for tobacco executives. You know, we have Duke University and we have the George Weissmann School, I think, is at Abarths and Sciences at CUNY. And there are prizes. You know, Philip Morris essentially created women's tennis as a spectator sport. Billie Jean King joins the board of directors of Philip Morris. She signs coupons, the two-to-one

coupons for buying Virginia-Slam cigarettes. So the industry is able to acquire this talent and then through a kind of an application of causality purely into the individual smoker. If you smoke, you did it to yourself. And so, in a sense, we have nothing to do with it. It's sort of the same argument. Exxon is making now with carbon. It's like, well, we just make the gas. We don't burn the gas. So, really, we're not the problem. It's whoever drove here in a car that burned gas. drove here in a car that burned gas. And so there's a very interesting question. Who is liable?

Who is responsible for, is the manufacturer just immune? Because it's a legal product, and people make the foolish decision to smoke, or does the addiction play a role in the liability? So these are all really interesting legal questions and philosophical questions. Where do you attribute the success in the fight against Big Tobacco? So I mean, there's been a lot of progress made. Maybe two questions. One is that and two, how much more is to be done? Well, there's been, in my view, not that much progress. The tobacco industry basically won the war against cigarettes. In the 1950s, the broader assumption inside and outside

the industry would be what was that, if cigarettes ever shown as causing cancer, obviously they'll be banned. The famous slogan in the 50s was, if spinach were ever shown to cause one-tenth the harm of cigarettes, it would be banned overnight. Flash forward, you know, 50 years. We still have 300, we still have 200 some billion cigarette smoked in the United States

every year. Globally, we still have about 6 trillion cigarettes smoked every year. That's 350 million miles of cigarettes smoked every year. That's enough to make a continuous chain of cigarettes from the earth to the sun and back, with enough leftover for several round trips to Mars. But it's much fewer than before. I mean, okay, so culturally speaking, I grew up in Soviet Union. Everybody smoked. Everybody smoked. Well, by everybody you mean about

half? Well, by everybody, I mean culturally. So, so what does it feel like when everybody smokes? Right? What percentage is that? Right now, in the United United States it feels like nobody smokes. I'm talking about culturally. Do you see famous actors and actresses? Do you see movies all the time? You do. You can't watch a Hollywood movie without saying. Pretty much continuous smoking. I mean look at Peaky Blinders, look at you know any of the modern series now it's pretty much a one non-stop. You're right, there has been a change. I mean, that's true. The Purist metric in the United States is number of cigarettes smoked per year. And that peaks in 1981 at 640 billion cigarettes. That's declined now to the level it was in 1940, which is about 240 billion cigarettes. Now globally, the number has increased. But the perception and sorry to interrupt, but that's

interesting. Even in the United States, the numbers, the decrease is not as significant as I thought it is because just in my own experience with people, people speak negatively about smoking. Yeah. Well, for one thing, smokers do. I mean, smokers hate the fact that they smoke. Right. So this is the interesting observation I'm speaking to is, even the smokers are talking negatively about smoking, but they're still smoking. So, even though I'm seeing this shift where smoking is no longer the cool thing where it's like when I was growing up and I smoked for a time, it was like a way to bond with strangers

to talk about. Share a moment together. I mean, it Share a moment together. I mean, it's a beautiful thing. And it's interesting because we need to find other ways to share moments. But you know, you're bum, you're bummed with smoke from a stranger. I mean, that was seen as a good thing. Now, did you ever smoke?

Oh, yeah. For how many years? Two years. So I was in a music. So what happened is I was a musician. I was in a band. Oh, there you go. And no, there is a bonding aspect to it. And I think I stopped smoking when they banned smoking in side bars. Yeah, exactly. Which was, I mean, that was, I mean, looking back now, it seems I said such a powerful move. I mean, maybe you can speak it seems, it's such a powerful move.

I mean, maybe you can speak to that because that was one of the moments that woke me up. Wait a minute. Like, that was a big shift for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone where it's not just like, it forced me to rethink the effect of smoking has on me. Yes. And also to think, can I actually live a life without smoking? Can I, you know, some people have that, I haven't gone through that process yet, but some people have that with drinking.

Yeah. Can I have fun without drinking? I think the answer to that is yes, but I'm still drinking. So that's a big shift, for example, if they ban drinking at certain places. And there's a lot of negative things to say about alcohol. Well, I'm older than you, and I remember when mother, and I think you weren't even in this country then, but there was something called mothers against drunk driving. And if you look at movies from the 50s, 60s, even 70s, being drunk was just kind of a funny

thing. And you would drive drunk. It was the big deal, really. 50s, 60s, even 70s. Being drunk was just kind of a funny thing. And you would drive drunk. It was the big deal, really. And mother's against drunk driving really denormalized, drinking and driving much like seat belts. When I was a kid, you know, there were no seat belts. You just lie in the back of the car

and you drove out west with your parents and you'd lie flat and it was wonderful. See, belts come along and now it's pretty normalized that you buckle up. It's pretty normalized that you don't drink. So the moment you identify is absolutely crucially important. A lot of it started in California where there were bands on cigarettes. Some of it actually started in the computer industry because some of the early bugs that were found on tapes in the 70s were caused by smoke and Some of the earliest indoor smoking bands were actually in computer rooms, which were supposed to be clean enough

that the tapes wouldn't spin and get caught by some snag of soot and The workers started saying wait a minute if If the smoke can hurt the tapes, can't it hurt my lungs as well? And so some of these early laws are in the late 70s, early 80s, pushing it. I was a huge struggle. The tobacco industry, marshalled an army of experts to say that second-hand smokes, entirely different kind of smoke, it can't hurt you.

They eventually lost that battle. And now we have so-called smoke-free laws where you can of smoke. It can't hurt you. They eventually lost that battle. And now we have so-called smoke-free laws where you can't smoke in most workplaces and most restaurants. And that de-normalization has been crucial because Rimmer Aristotle says, tell me who you walk with and I'll tell you who you are. And if your friends are smoking, if your friends are doing whatever, it makes it easier. The tobacco industry has been a genius that manipulating and really creating the material culture of the modern world. If your shirt has a pocket, that's to fit cigarettes, right? If your car has a plug in, every car that I used to have had a cigarette lighter,

it had an ash tray. Every plane that I flew when I was a kid, when I was younger anyway, it was smoking on it originally. And then there were ash trays. And even today, every plane by law has to have ash trays in the bathrooms because people still smoke in the planes. There's a special technique they have where they go in and light up your cigarette and put your mouth right down in the middle of the toilet and then flush it right at that same moment. And that's why they're...

I think a good big puff. I think a good big puff and flush it. And to prevent people from bringing down the plane by putting the cigarette out in the trash, every plane must have ash trays. So that tells you something about the power of addiction, the power of normalcy. And it's related to your question of this crucial moment. If you can no longer smoke in a bar, if you can no longer smoke. And by the way, that's different from drinking.

Most people who smoke wish they didn't. Most people to drink, that's not true. Most people who drink they don't wish. There are some addicts, you know, 5% we say. But you're talking about 70, 80, 90% of people who smoke cigarettes regularly are wish they did not. And that's actually where I learned about the idea that we could get rid of cigarettes entirely was just from talking to ordinary smokers. Those are the people who are willing to say, you know, let's get cigarettes all together and get rid of them all together, because it's not a recreational drug. It's very different from alcohol. And the genius of the tobacco industry is to turn basic, to trivialize addiction into just something we all like, the addictive I like it, and also to say that basically smoking is like drinking, which in fact it's not. Alcohol tends to be a recreational drug, and cigarettes are more like heroin. So how do we get that 200 billion down closer to zero?

Well, the good news, and I know you like good news. And I do too, is that every year we have about 8 billion fewer cigarettes smoked in the United States. So we're going in the right direction. We're going to solve this. You know, there are not every problem you can solve in the world. This is a very solvable problem. It's an enormous problem.

Arguably as big as COVID in certain respects. Much more invisible than COVID, but very solvable and actually will be solved, probably because of climate change, because we're going to need to find ways to reduce carbon footprints across the board, and that's going to be a kind of cultural revolution of sorts. Once we have a category six hurricane, and hundreds of thousands of people start dying from the storms that are coming. But it's like that metaphor of, you know, there's a sci-fi film from 1950 where they're trying to get back to Earth from the Moon and they have to jettison their toolbox and

their ladder and this and this and this. That's sort of I think what the world we're going to be and we're going to have to jettison a lot of things on cigarettes will be one of the things we can get rid of. Let's come back to Nazi Germany for time. You also wrote the book titled the Nazi War on Cancer. What is the main storyline, the thesis of this book? Well, I had been researching Nazi medicine. I went over to Germany. I didn't know what I wanted to do.

I got a full bright. I originally wanted to go to Russia, went to Germany, partly because my girlfriend was going there along to Sheebinger and I was quick with the language. And my old land lady was born in 1900 and I was renting a room, a tiny room in Berlin. She had been a nurse in World War I and told me how sad it was that all the mentally ill had died in that war and that how the same thing happened in World War II. She told me about how sad it was that she'd never gotten married because there were no German men around after World War I. But also started taking classes in Germany.

And at that time, there were still a few old Nazi professors just about to retire very old. And I remember there was one guy who would talk about the impact on ovaries of women exposed to stress and how this would damage their ovaries and that this was like people who had been told they were about to be executed and they would do a before and an after on these ovaries. One of these horrific experiments. This was a physician in Berlin. And so I got involved in it with a group of people and really as a kind of intellectual garlic for living in Berlin in this is in in in 1980, 81. I started reading medical journals from the Nazi period and even the librarians didn't like that. I

remember the proces of Statspibliotech in downtown Berlin. They're like, what, why do you want to, you know, you're not supposed to be reading these old Nazi journals. These are just medical journals, hundreds and hundreds of journals. And I just read them and read them and read them and read them and looking for details. And I'd find like a veterinary medicine journal that would have a joking section where they'd say, oh, we found a cow with a swastik on his forehead, a natural black swastik on. Isn't that funny? You know, or I'd find stories about tobacco, I find stories about abortion. I'd find stories

about excluding Jewish medicine or Jews from medicine or who's been promoted, who's been demoted, who's been notsified. I discovered there was an entire Nazi physician's league that was just the top Nazi, the most Nazi of the physicians. I discovered that physicians joined the Nazi party in a higher proportion than any other profession that they joined the SS in a higher proportion than any other profession. Why is that? Do you think you do a sense? Because the Nazi regime is a kind of sanitary utopia.

It was to create this purified world of, that would control the mind and the, and fertility. So, gynecologist, phys, and psychiatrists were the top. They were the most notsified of the various medical profession. Control the body through sterilization, abortion, control the mind through psychiatry. They killed a lot of them into the ill. And you can read their professional journals. And I'm not sure these had ever been read since. I also went to East Germany because remember this is way before the wall fell. And they had a very special collection of taboo literature.

It's kind of your point about should my comp be read. Well, of course, then he's Germany, nowhere close, right? And so, but not only that, time magazine couldn't be read. And news week couldn't be read. And this file, this like chamber that foreign scholars were allowed to look through had all of the old Nazi literature and Nazi scientific literature and Time Magazine and Newsweek and a whole pornography section as well. So all of the taboo topics. So here I'm researching in the West. I'm researching these topics. The librarians didn't even want me to look at in the east.

I was sort of going over there. I would hitchhike over there and overstay my welcome and things like that. But in any event, I noticed that there was this kind of taboo of talking about the big eugenics. I'd already been as a kind of a radical graduate student at Harvard working with all the Marxist biologists there. We'd already had a critique of eugenics and women being excluded from science. South African apartheid was a big deal and Arthur Jensen's blacks have lower IQs. So there was a whole nest of controversial hot topics around sociobiology, around race and IQ, around women and scholarship, and so forth. But we weren't looking at Nazi medicine. So I thought I'll look at the big eugenics, not just this smaller stuff, only 50,000 people are sterilized in California,

but there were huge numbers sterilized in Nazi Germany. So the more I looked into that, I realized there was a book there, but I also started noticing this other weird stuff. Why were they anti-tobaka? Why did they recognize? Why were the Nazis the first to recognize asbestos as causing mesothelioma? Why did they try to ban food dyes? Why are they the first culture in the world to encourage women to do breast self-exams? I told my mom this and she told me that in the 50s women weren't even supposed to touch their breasts in Texas. And here in Nazi Germany, you've got these mandatory

breast self-exams way before this was done in the United States. You had the first laws banning the X-raying of pregnant women. Already in the early 1930s, it was standard medical practice. They recognized that this could harm the fetus, harm the race, way before radiation was recognized as a hazard in England or America. I started noticing these things, and I have an eye for oddities. I like the weird, the contradictory, that which doesn't fit. And I remember finding a German magazine, a newspaper actually from 1919 that talked about a Holocaust of six million Jews using that language. How could this be? And I

researched it. It was, I thought it wasn't't even real And so I went and actually got the original newspaper and there it was just one of those oddities of Life that just happens just weird stuff happens, right? That's the source of conspiracy theories, right? So weird stuff happens, but you know, there's a inkling you know that That couldn't have been written on another time of history, or much less likely that little coincidence that have happened in another.

So it has some kind of resonance with something that captures something deep to the culture. Yeah, that's why I'm interested in probing. I mean, history is about seeing the universal through the particular in a way. And so you look for the weird particular and then pull it that string to see if there's something there. Is it that weird?

I did a project I never published on what I call pseudo-swasstikas, which is a lot of companies in Nazi Germany made logos that look pretty much like a swastika. You start looking at them. They're disturbingly like a swastika, and I call those pseudo swastika, that's one of the many things I've filed away to be a great project, just to write it. How did this kind of visual iconography,

you weren't supposed to do that, you weren't supposed to sell your bathroom cream with a swastika on it. So they would do these little things that look pretty much like a swastika, or I looked at, I would look at humor. What are they laughing at? So they would do these little things that look pretty much like a swastika. Or I looked at, I would look at humor. What are they laughing at?

What are they smiling at? I didn't even know Germans had humor. Yeah. That's a good discovery. Oddly enough, even Hitler had a sense of humor. There's one speech he gives, which is actually pretty funny, where he's ridiculing all the 29 tiny political parties Oh, there's a this party and of that party and it's actually kind of funny

So we do have this again this scarecrow image even of Hitler and his personality and this and that but I started noticing that there was this Stuff that looks like kind of modern Hitler being a vegetarian and Trying to limit alcohol and this and that and and then I got a call But I'd sort of filed it away and then I got a call from the Holocaust Museum Would I like to be the first

Senior scholar in residence at the Holocaust Museum? I said well, I wasn't really Working on Nazi stuff that much anymore, but I did have this idea, maybe, looking at how it could be that the Nazis had the world's most aggressive anti-cancer campaign, which is kind of like an amazing fact. And I said, it's not exactly about the Holocaust. In a way, it's about the opposite. It's about what was Nazism that it was so seductive that it could become so powerful that something like the Holocaust could be possible. And they said, well, that sounds great to whatever you want.

And so I went down to Washington, DC, and they helped them build a little bit some of the racial hygiene exhibits, some of the push and to show the sort of the medical aspect of the Holocaust. And so I ended up writing this book on the Nazi War on Cancer, which talks about how right before Hitler's of the Holocaust. And so I ended up writing this book on the Nazi War on Cancer, which talks about how right before Hitler's about to invade Poland, he's talking late into the night about how to cure cancer. So for Nazis, racial hygiene encompasses like

way more than we might think. So it's like purifying it always. And one of the... And it's also much more normal and more familiar. It's like a regular discussion. It's like the famous line that if Nazism ever comes to Britain, it'll be wearing a bowler hat. And, you know, we create an image of Nazism,

which is this fantasy image. Yeah. And, you know, we create an image of Nazism, which is this fantasy image. Yeah. And, you know, they're human beings making these decisions. And when it's tied to things like removing cancer, so you're saying they kind of, the effort of purification walks alongside with this effort of fighting cancer. And then the final, the difficult truth here is that there's a lot of innovation, you know, leading scientific innovation on fighting cancer. It's not a bunch of blind robots following orders. It's a period of massive innovation. I mean, they declared the soybeans to be the official bean of the Third Reich because they realized how useful soy could be in protein

for the people. They built a whole car out of soybeans. They pushed for a whole grain bread, calling white bread a French revolutionary capitalist product. And they're right about whole grain bread. It's better than, you know, so allegedly, so far, so far that's what we think. We'll discover eventually that bread is the thing that's killing us. Well by the way, I'm eating a mostly meat because I'm mostly carnivore thing that's killing us. Well, by the way, I'm eating mostly meat, because I'm mostly carnivore, and that's been a discovery for me.

I don't care what, like, I'm not making a general statement about the population, but me personally, how I feel. I like, I've discovered fast things, so I often, like, on days like this, when it's pretty stressful, I'll eat once a day, only meet, or mostly me. And that's amazing to me from a scientific discovery perspective, that makes me feel way better.

You know, there's no scientific support. Why might make you feel better? I don't care. The point is I've done the experiments and the end of one and it just makes me feel better. I think fasting is way undervalued. I mean, where do we get the idea? You need three meals a day. I have a friend at Harvard and he'll go seven or eight days periodically without food. He drinks water. But he considers it a kind of purification and

you know, we're in a world where it's too easy to get food. Right? We're in a world, I mean, most animals are living in a sense that they, on the brink of starvation, but we have technologies and social conditions that allow, it's way too easy to find a piece of cake or a donut and that's not something we evolved with. We've been talking about purification in that negative context, but you know there's appealing ways of minimalism of removing things from your life of seeking, especially for me being like OCD and a scientist. I do like this simplification of things,

of the sexonomy of things. I just recently, storage got hacked by ransomware for these storage devices called QNAP NAS and 50 terabytes of data locked up. I can't, so it's lost, but it first know, it was, first it was a gut punch, and it really hurts, and a bunch of stuff has gone. But it's also freeing. Yeah.

Well, there's a, my favorite New Yorker cartoon is where the guy's about to die. I say he's 90 years old, he's got tubes in his nose. Very last words are, I wish I'd bought more crap. Yep. And that's now in this amazing world to place a digital world too. Like you don't need to store everything. He's just live in the moment and live for the people that belong. Well, that's one of my fears of Bitcoin is losing your password. I know a friend, his son in a mind, I don't know how many dozens of bitcoins and lost his password, you know, and so what can he do?

There's a whole I think Silicon Valley episode about something like that were the three three comma club, you know, asshole billionaires trying to find his old Laptop with the password on it. Yeah, that's the kind of dread people feeling in the modern age, losing your big coin password. For me, it would be like last pass password. It's hilarious. We're funny, funny creatures. What else can we say outside of cancer about medicine, about engineering, lessons about medicine, lessons about engineering, and lessons about sort of applied science and Nazi Germany.

So before we leave the subject, is there some truths that resonate with you still that's applicable for today? Well, you know, historians celebrate contingency or at least recognize contingency and we always say things didn't have to turn out the way they did. There were, you can't always, you know, foresee what's going to happen. And there were definitely missteps and the potency of that ideology was such that it, ideology was such that it it it trapped a lot of people and I guess By the time it becomes essentially a wartime operation that becomes very very dangerous when it's blend whatever the ideology is

once it's blended with Warfare that's that's catastrophic one of the things that ignored, I'm very interested in things that are ignored. And one of the things that we ignore now on something even like the climate catastrophe is the role of the military. I mean, there's a huge amount of carbon emissions from military operations. Again, just part of the loop we're not closing. Well, military is really interesting because I'm an AI person, robots, and most of my work when I was a PhD student was DARPA and DOD funded. And I think that's probably true for a lot of science that's funded, especially engineering

is funded by the military. And, you know, again, I don't really want to be careful drawing parallels between Nazi Germany and anything else. But, you know, there is a sense in which I remember when I was a, hit me when one of the people close to me when I was a PhD, one of the faculty, she refused to take funding from, from DOD, from DARPA. That was interesting to me. I thought, but what's the, I mean, it's not, like you're not, you're not taking a stand against the war.

You just don't want to take money from tangentially associated military kind of efforts. And that little stand, I mean, that had an impact on me. At least it woke me up to them. Like, this is something we should be very, very careful with. For me, artificial intelligence is, much of the DARPA research on autonomous vehicles and all kinds of robotics drones. I mean, that's pure research. Some of the biggest discoveries, like I didn't

think of it as military. I thought of it as engineering and science. But then when the drums of war start beating, like saying some future time, all of that machine is already there to turn it into now Lex is walking around and working on autonomous drones, they're going to, you know, swarm China or swarms, whoever, some terrorists, um, part of the world. And then all of a sudden, all my widgets are being used for that. That's why I've been waking up more and more to, uh, there's been something released called like the AI report, Eric Schmidt was one of the co-authors of it, which is a century saying that because China is developing autonomous weapons systems, US should not ban autonomous

weapons systems and should also be doing it. So basically put AI into our weapons of war. And that escalation, that race is terrifying. Just like all the things you've mentioned, but that particular one for me is close because now too close, the ideas of AI and war and being linked very much. I mean, one of the things I think that is rarely taught in universities is what would you not do for money? I mean, in a basic class on machine learning or even statistics or history, what would you not do for money? What should you not do for money? I have a lot of my own colleagues who work for Big Tobacco, you know, carrying water for them in court. A huge essentially a mercenary army of historians of vast undiagnosed, essentially a hidden invisible army.

They don't put it on their CVs. It's going on the same thing with a lot of the technical fields. What wouldn't you do for money? It's stand for... There used to be secret PhDs, secret research projects. That was kicked off campus in 1971 with the whole 60s radicalism. But nonetheless, individual professors still work for all kinds of military operations. We're setting up a new school of sustainability at Stanford and it's going to be pretty

much in bed with big oil, as well. Big oil is going to be funding a lot of that. You know, what kind of influence, if they have a seat at the table, if they're giving money, if they're gifts, if their names are on certain projects, what influence is that going to have? This is what really bothered me. People don't often have, they don't have integrity in the way that I hope they would. This is one of the things I learned in academia. I think a lot of people from money, you know, if I give you a million dollars to murder

somebody, I think most people would not. A billion dollars that number starts decreasing, but it's still pretty. Like, I think it would be happy with direct murder or not being done for money. But like subtle stuff, just pressures. And it could be like, let me buy you a drink and just laugh about stuff, become friends. That's a subtle pressure.

I'm very upset with how many people would just, unknowingly tell them stuff, oh, what's the harm? And I see that with, for example, me person at MIT, a lot of people I admire, a lot of people I still admire, friends of mine. I mean, for example, in doing autonomous vehicle research, there's car companies that fund that research. And the car companies say, no, of course, we're not going to influence anything.

No, that's like, you do, it's wide open. Do whatever you want. But the fact is, you know, they give millions of dollars. And I am disappointed that actually a lot of scientists in that context are still afraid, even though legally it says the car company cannot at all influence the research, they still start leaning slowly towards the ideas that that company espouses. And that's a harmless perhaps topic versus Big big tobacco, but I would argue it has harm on innovation. Yeah. Well, it skews innovation. What happened at Stanford was Philomoros and the other big tobacco companies, they had

a massive denial campaign to deny that exposure to someone else's smoke could kill you. When, in fact, it kills tens of thousands Americans every year still. They set up an entire conspiracy body called the Center for Indoor Air Research and funded hundreds of scientists basically, say, you know, it's all genetic. If you get cancer, well, you had a coming

because of your genes, your ancestor, your hormones, whatever. Well, that was disbar... That was broken apart through what was called the Master's Settlement Agreement, but it was rejuvenated and reinvigorated by something called the Philip Morris External Research Program, which continued with the same fax lines and executives, funding universities like Stanford, millions and millions of dollars. And when I came to Stanford, there were millions and millions of dollars being given to medical professors by Philip Morris as part of the Philip Morris External Research Program.

Well, what were they researching? The researching genetics, the researching diet, anything but cigarettes causing cancer, and giving the non, giving the friendly research as Philip Morseh would call it, of bigger voice. They got money, they got jaw, you know, it amplified that as a research tradition. Remember, there's nothing natural in a university about how many professors there are of human origins versus AI. This is all a political decision. It had a very non-democratic institution.

Universities are less democratic than the Vatican. At least the Pope is elected. Who elects a president of a university or a dean for that matter? And so what happened was I helped launch a campaign to get Philip Morris off campus. And people started coming out of the woodwork like, well, does this mean I shouldn't be working for the CIA? Does this mean I shouldn't be working for big oil? Does it is like what? You work for big oil? And our faculty voted against pushing Philip Morris off campus.

But Philip Morris got bad press from it, and so they voluntarily withdrew the entire program. So it was kind of a lesson in that you can lose a battle, but when a war, if you're doing the right thing, and so by standing up, even though our own faculty wouldn't, you know, back us in kicking Philip Morris out of the medical school, Philip Morris did a cost benefit analysis. Probably not worth the kudos we get for embracing Stanford.

So it can have an influence. And in this case, the influence was simply by rewarding, giving voice to the people who were blaming cholesterol rather than cigarettes. Of course, we know that historically, the tobacco industry created a lot of these theories. These alternative theories of what causes heart disease, that stress causes heart disease, that salt or that anything but cigarettes, they funded that research to basically skew the whole research in their direction. You edited a book titled Agnatology, this is an interesting term, so you mentioned it earlier, the making and unmaking of ignorance.

Where you explore the topic of ignorance or the authors explore the topic of ignorance in different applications in different contexts. Oh, let me ask the ridiculous, big philosophical question. What is the nature of human ignorance? Well, the first thing to say is that it's infinite. Einstein quote or stupidity or something, I forget what it is. Well, the point is that, you know, there's probably trillions of planets in the universe, and we know one,

you know a tiny piece of one. But not only that, who are the we? I mean, we're all born. As, you know, we start with a single cell organisms, right? As some sperm and some egg get together. That's certainly ignorant, and they were ignorant, and we're ignorant. Each one of together, that's certainly ignorant. And they were ignorant. And we were, each one of us, there's an untodgany of knowledge,

you say, but an untodgany of ignorance as well. We grow up, we have to learn. But almost everything that has been known has been forgotten. If you think about the names of ordinary people, the names of the Neanderthal, did they even have names? Most of the history of the world has been forgotten. We have a few shreds, a few traces, history as a kind of resurrection project, a kind of archeological project, an agenialogical project, where we look back and we find traces.

It's very biased. I'm interested in empires that we don't even know anything about. And there are whole empires that are gone. If things don't leave a written trace, we know something about Mayan cosmology because we've got some of their stelae and a few of their codices, four codices, but we know the dozens that were burned by Diego de Launda, the inquisitorial Spanish friar who thought these were just heresies and so burned. So that knowledge is all lost. You think there's a lot of like deep wisdom

about reality that is lost forever, of course? Of course, that's so sad. Well, it is sad, but the human condition is sad. I mean, but then if we can study ignorance, that's also a positive thing. Agnatology, the study of ignorance, the study of the cultural production of ignorance. It's really... Cultural production, so I had to interrupt. Cultural production of ignorance? Yes.

Yes. So ignorance is not just a manifestation of what it means to be human, it's also forced back onto you through the culture. That's the missing piece that people don't pay enough attention to. It's not a natural vacuum we explore like some empty cave. There are factories of ignorance, the tobacco industry when they built their propaganda engines to deny that cigarettes cause cancer. They measured exactly how much ignorance could be created by watching one of their videos. They would show that watching one of their propaganda videos in the 1970s produced a 17% increase in the people not willing to say that cigarettes cause cancer.

So this is, I call it agnometrics. They actually measured the success of their propaganda and I'm sure this has been done in marketing and other fields as well. But that framing of it somehow is terrifying because it seems like a very effective way to be scientific about how to sort of create doubt in the mind. Exactly. It's biobolical and luckily we have some of the tobacco industries own internal documents, the ones that were not destroyed.

And we actually know, we have some traces as to which ones were destroyed. And we know that the most sensitive were destroyed. And we know that some of the ones that were sequestered by whistleblowers or by disgruntled spouses or whatever, that those contained the real gems and the truth. And one of the ones that was leaked already in 1981 was the doubt is our product memo that

we don't just make cigarettes, we make two products, we make doubt, and we make cigarettes. We make cigarettes, but we can only keep selling cigarettes so long as we can keep selling ignorance. And that then becomes a template of sorts for climate denial and for all kinds of other denial engines that are produced by the 1500 trade associations in Washington DC. So this is something new in the research enterprise of the world, after World War II of this enormous trust in science, trust in research. So what could be more effective than Big Tobacco saying, look, we're supporting research. We want to get it at the truth. We're funding hundreds of millions of dollars of research,

which is exactly what they did. What they didn't say was it was all an effort to distract from the truth that cigarettes caused cancer and a million other diseases, too blindness, amputation, all kinds of other diseases. All of that was hidden, covered up through a distraction process. Richard Nixon declares war on cancer in 1971. It's called the war on cancer. Sigarettes were excluded, even though cigarettes cause a third of all cancers, all cancer deaths. Sigarettes were excluded because the tobacco industry successfully argued that cigarettes caused cancer is not a scientific fact, but a political opinion. Much like the argument that guns don't cause death, you know, pulling the trigger causes

death or shooters or whatever. In other words, it's all about breaking down the chain of causation into pieces that serve your interests. So it's not that cigarettes cause cancer. It's the maybe the smokey them at most, the way they're even denying that. It's the fact you have lungs that cause cancer. It's blaming the victim, and there are a thousand ways to blame the victim. I mean, there are some legitimacy to this line of argument, which is why it sticks, which is figuring out what is the causation of things

is hard to figure out. A lot of the politics of science have to do with which parts of the causal chain do you view as real or not real? When we say that carbon causes climate change, well, what causes carbon? If it's exoncausing carbon, is it the person driving the car causing, or is it the Republican Party causing, or is it the Tea Party causing that,

or is it big tobacco and big oil controlling the Republican Party, or is it what? Is it the Jews Party causing that or is it big tobacco and big oil controlling the Republican party or is it what? Is it the Jews controlling the weather, which is where the conspiracy theories come in or the lizards? So whatever sticks, you try it out and if you're a tobacco company, you're going to actually literally be scientific about it and try different options. The genius of the tobacco conspiracy, the tobacco denial campaign, which is born on December 14, 1953. We know on an hour-by-hour basis how it worked, is to create an alliance between

solid research, or as they call it, impassionate, dispassionate research research and to tar all of their opponents as fanatical, emotional, hysterical, political. You mentioned Marxism at Harvard a couple decades ago, so 30 years ago you wrote the value free science, book, purity and power and modern knowledge. Which is interesting that you kind of, what you were describing then seems to be a concern for people now still. So you were, I think, referencing more Nazi Germany and how social scientists would attack

or defend Marxism, feminism, and other social movements using science. There's a, you know, depending on who you talk to, I just been a day with Jordan Peterson. You know, there's some arguments that science is not being leveraged in some part of the university, which bothers me because most of the university, at least like MIT is doing engineering and not ideology doesn't seep in yet, but the concern they have is ideology seeps in eventually, if you let it in at all. Anyway, I ask all that, do you have some modern concerns about the seeping in of ideology

into academic research in these social movements for against Marxism, for against, you know, nobody's for racism, but, you know, on the topic, like anti-racism, all those kinds of critical race theory things, and then also on the feminism and gender studies, all those kinds of things. Yeah. I mean, these have always been in the university. When people have been most adamant in saying that science is a neutral value-free enterprise, it's times like the 1950s when there weren't blacks and there weren't even women in universities. So what I discovered was

that value neutrality or this ideology of that we are value-free, it really arose as a defensive shield to prevent greater inclusion, to prevent, you know, questioning of the priorities of science, the practice of science, the nature of science. Now we're in a period now, I think of a kind of inclusive revolution where people are realizing, well, we can't have universities that look too much lesser in a way. There's probably going to be in that omelette making, there's going to be a few eggs that get broken. And I think people may exaggerate the extent to which that's going at is definitely real. So like cancer culture and all those kinds of things.

I mean, it's definitely real. But it's also in a way it's also a distraction from looking at big power in a university. looking at big power in a university, if big oil is going to control, or at least influence, the direction of the sustainability school at Stanford, isn't that a bigger issue than whether we have, we can't say certain words on campus. In other words, there's some very interesting and complex aspects to this. The idea that certain words should not be said or that certain people should not be invited, an invitation to a university is always political. I mean, who do you invite?

Who do you not invite? Much as an admissions process is, if a student is admitted to Stanford, what that really means is 96% of the applicants did not get in. They were rejected. They were canceled from a Stanford body. 4% are admitted. They call it an admissions committee. They should call it a rejection committee. Yes. When we hire someone in my department at Stanford, we get 300 applications, and maybe we accept one. It's not a hiring committee. It's a non-hiring committee. That sounds like toxic cancel culture, all these rejections.

Everybody should be accepted. In that sense, it's the essence of meritocracy is that selection is involved in any hiring decision, because in a way when you are hired into a university, you are hired to control the means of production, at least part of it, and this part of the politics of it is invisible to the undergraduates because they are consumers, and you're free as a consumer

to eat whatever you want. But you're not free to own the means of production to say what's on the menu. And that's where the powers. You have to ask the question, where is the power in the university? I think that like at MIT, the entire administration should get fired regularly and more power put in the hands of faculty and students. There is an overgrowth that happens,

that it feels like administrators are more easily influenced by big tobacco than faculty. It may be as me being sort of romantic about the idea of faculty, but if you're in the battle doing the research, I feel like, well, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. But it feels like the administration helps you delude yourself longer. So it prevents you from waking up. It's like, no, no, it's okay to take this fine. Oh, Jeffy Epstein, that's okay. And oh, okay. So he got,

he went to prison. Let's just keep it a little bit secret. It's fine. Just keep taking the money. And I feel like that comes from the administration more than the faculty. Well, there's certainly a cult of celebrity, a cult of money. Donors have the, remember in the whole scandal about the side door entrance in universities. There's always been the front door and the back door, where the back door is the rich donors, the kids are the rich donors, the legacy kids that you still get. So there are a lot of ways universities get corrupted. they get corrupted through money, they get corrupted through influence, and that should be recognized. Which jumping around a little bit, but you read you also do work on human origins. So we mentioned this earlier. Let me ask another big philosophical question. What's human? What makes us human? What is human? And where did that humanness come from?

That's exactly the question we need to problematize because it's what I call the Gandhi question. It's like, you know, Gandhi's asked, what do you think of Western civilization? And he says, it would be a good idea. And so, when did humans evolve? Well, not yet. So, we don't talk about, you know, when did, you know, we talk about the rise of modern humanity. And what's happened in the last 50 or 60 years or so, which I think is a good thing intellectually,

is that we've smeared out humanness to mean many different things. It's not just tool use. It's not just upright posture. upright posture goes back at least 5 million years. Tool use goes back at least 2.5 million years, stone tool years. But since wasps and chimpanzees use tools, then it's got to be even older. So that's actually one of the things I'm interested is how have different notions of what is human influence

our theories of human origins? And in particular, there's sort of the problem of what I call like, sodomy in the Uncanny Valley, which is how long ago would you be willing to date someone, say, someone that existed, say, five million years ago, 10 million years ago, three million years ago, another is when is it like date or one night stands? I mean, you know,

what's strong? Okay, they're on. All right. Let's say be the, the mother of your children. That's a lot of commitment, but yeah. But it's an interesting question because after World War II, as a result of Nazism, no one wanted to be the one to say that this particular fossil we've just found was anything less than fully human. So there's a projection of humaneness arbitrarily back into the past.

So that even these little monkey-like creatures, Ramapitha scenes, Ramapitha, we're being declared to have folkways and mores and language, which is ridiculous. No one want to be one to say that Neanderthals were anything less than fully human. So it's a very interesting question. At what point are they us? want to say that neanderthals were anything less than fully human so it's a very interesting question. At what point are they us human origins is very much an identity quest it's when did we become us. We're sort of begs the question what are we who are we. How much is that is the hardware evolution question versus the software like what. The actual development of society can't you argue that we became human with agriculture?

Can't you argue that we became human with the industrial revolution? Well, certainly by then they are us. But agriculture is only 12,000 years ago. That's a blink in the eye, right? That's a blink in the eye, right? That's that's yesterday. It's interesting prior to the 19th century, most scholars thought that the pyramids were at the beginning of time. Essentially, they were closer to the beginning of time than they are to us. Now, it's a blink in the eye. You know, we use the metaphor of a meter. The natural history of upright humans is 5 million,

so that would be like 1 millimeter, it would be the thickness of the white of your fingernail. And then the pyramids are 5,000, so that's 1,000th of a millimeter, a micron, which is the amount taken off when you brush your fingers on your jacket. So there's a natural history of humanity and then there's the history of our constituents where I'll start us because all of our complex atoms began in supernovas, many billions of years ago.

But upright posture, 5 million agriculture, only a few thousand years ago. We cultivate dogs, a couple hundred thousand years ago, so those are paleolithic instruments. Cats are neolithic instruments because they're used to kill vermin. Dogs are used to hunt with us. But there is what you say this co-evolution are social aspect and our physical aspect, even the fact that we have whites of the eyes, the only animal with whites of the eyes. And the whites of the eyes tell intent. They tell direction. They tell interest. They know, if you look at something, I can tell what you're looking at, because there's a lateral resolution I can tell what you're looking at.

That's recent. And the people who do reconstruction for museums, they want to create what I call an ethnographic identity with the viewer. And so they fantasize about all these other early hominids, non-human, pre-human hominids, if that's a word, as having eyes like us, but they probably didn't. And they were probably not self-aware. At least the early ones, I can't have been self-aware the way we are in so far as we are. They may not have spoke. So I'm interested in basically when did we become what we think is human? It's clear that when we start bearing the dead and making jewelry and when we, in a sense, invent fantasy, when we invent deception, that's human. That's full of

human. We become human by thinking there's a world that really is not. I mean, that feels like we're starting to operate in the space of ideas more and more. So to have deception, to have imagination, you start to be able to have ideas and share them. And it feels like the sharing is the thing that really develops the ideas. It's not you who's grown up with the ideas. And we become able to sort of understand what each other is thinking. Some animals can do this to a certain extent. Dogs have a certain empathy, but it's limited. It's highly limited. But you could probably argue that the dogs

got that from the humans. Yeah. I mean, humans and dogs have co-evolved, have definitely co-evolved because it's over 100,000 years we've been working together there. But all our hands have evolved with tools. And so I'm trying to figure out now the original purposes, purpose of a shulean hand axis, the first beautiful tool made by humans, which were made unchanged for- What kind of axis is this? They're called a shulean hand axis.

They're these beautiful teardrop shaped objects that go back 1.5 million years. And what's your thought about as possible purposes? Well, the most important thing I'd say to murder is that, a jealous, jealous husband come home. What's astonishing is that no one knows what they were used for. So they may have been maps,

they may have been weapons, they may have been chopping devices, they may have been sexual displays, oh, like ornaments to display something versus actual practice. Like the peacock's tail, something to attract a mate. No one really knows, but what's interesting is how in becoming ignorant of those, that's a form of knowledge. In other words, a lot of, this is one reason I'm interested in ignorance,

is that really to understand something, and especially to teach something, you have to know what people don't know, and that's hard often. It's very hard to remember what it's like to not know something once you know it. Very hard, very hard to do, but you sort of have to do that to recreate that moment you can teach. Well one nice thing I like about the internet is that you can look at old tweets of yours and to be like okay for some reason it brings to mind like okay that's where my mind was. Another interesting exercise is like Google search history. So I think for everybody it keeps you can look up your own history of what you

searched for. And so cool to go back to like 2008 or something like that. Like, okay, I remember where your mind was. And immediately actually, it's a nice way to restore, at least an inkling of the ignorance you had, like have a peek into the ignorance you had about the world. And also to discover the things you've forgotten, the new ignorance you have now, you say, Oh, right, right. I was really concerned about, you know, this and that. It's, I do think that as you're saying, it's, it's both sad and illuminating to think about that most of what we've known, even like the deep wisdom is forgotten as a human civilization.

But you know, we created new all the time as well. So, right, hopefully forgetting is a feature, not just a bug. It's like those mice that can't forget they go insane, right? If you imagine all of your memories as present, yeah. That's a recipe for insanity. You have to forget to learn. Learning is unlearning. And we should have exactly the way I drink. And then write some blue songs about forgetting a broken heart.

Okay. You mentioned Amber and stone collection. I just have to ask, does that connect to human origins or just a personal love? What is a boss stone collecting that tracks you? Well, scholars tend to be text oriented. I tend to think books are overrated. We evolved without books.

I walk for a couple of hours in the forest every day. I gather mushrooms and all kinds of things just located pieces of the 1953 resolution airplane crash outside of Appen Bay just a couple days ago. I like finding things. Have you ever found pieces of a crash UFO? Not yet. Okay. All right, let me know please if you do. But of course we have extra terrestrial other stuff. I mean, we have, I'm like meteorites. So I'm into that. And so I'm interested in stone, stone quality. I grew up in southern Texas and grew up surrounding,

I was surrounded by people who would hunt for stone and gather stone and cut stone. I cut stone as well. I'm a lapidary. And so I have this interest in the physical qualities of objects. Sometimes it's called material culture, but it's just stuff.

And I'm interested to know how different cultures have manipulated stuff, worked stuff, stone, wood, things like that. And also the fantasies people project into it. So I'm doing a book on all the different ways different cultures have found different images in stone like Rochak tests. And so in India they love Aguets with Hindu temples in them and altars and in America they like you know three crosses on the mount and if you can find a stone with the word Allah in it that's beloved in Yemen or Saudi Arabia. So there's a long history of people projecting fantasy into stone. And I'm using that as a kind of a metaphor. They also, I'm also looking at the rise of hobbies

and amateur stonework and how a lot of our gem, gemologic techniques were actually invented by amateurs, which means just lovers, as opposed to professionals. The amateurs, the lover, and hobbies, I don't know if you know, but the word hobby comes from a hobbled horse. And so you would hobble a horse to keep it from running. That's hobbling it with a stick or a string. And then kids would ride a hobbled horse for play, a horse on a stick, and riding a hobbled horse becomes riding a hobby horse, and then that becomes a hobby.

And so hobbies become this so-called job you can't lose in the Great Depression in the 1930s, and then they explode. And so when I was a kid, people would collect coins or stamps or fossils or this or that. So I'm interested in that collecting passion. So it's interesting the development of hobbies because it feels like the future human civilization will be very hobby driven. Like some of the, like I often know because of this particular little thing I do with podcasts, I get to interact with photographers and videographers. And I'm disappointed to find how many professionals are not very good and how many hobbyists are

very good. So, it's so- Well, if they're amateurs, they're the lovers. I mean, you can't think of it. That's what that means for a more. You're an amateur if you're a lover of the thing and you're not in for the lovers. I mean, the lovers, yes. That's what that means for a more. You're an amateur, if you're a lover of the thing, and you're not in for the money, you're in it because you're obsessed. But the sort of as the GDP, as the as our freedom grows to sort of financially, to be able to have a hobby, it feels like there'll be more lovers, more amateurs in the world, and not just

for the artistic pursuits, but like science, technology development, building all kinds of technologies, almost like as a hobby. You have much more freedom to figure out what is the thing you love doing. And actually, over, that just you won't even notice, but it'll start making money. And that's really fascinating. And yeah, it does kind of, I mean, when did that originate? Just the collection that it goes through different stages. People have always gathered the odd thing to make something else. But you also get this tradition of what's called curiosity cabinets, especially in the Renaissance, which replaced the kind of treasure chambers of the ancient sultans or kings or whatever. And you get these curiosity cabinets that were often linked with magical practices, alchemical practices. People would gather bezzwars or

they would gather. They would have an alligator hanging from the ceiling or they would have a rare shrunken head or whatever. And that's part of the rise of natural history. The idea that you taxonomize the world, you classify the world, you look for the rare object, the rarity. And rarity still is a kind of virtue like the recent news about trying to figure out ball lightning. When I was growing up, ball lightning was the big question, does it exist, does it not exist? And now there's new evidence of how it actually might.

Wait, what? There's new evidence? Yes. Yeah, I grew up with that. My dad when I was young told me I asked him like how do I win a Nobel prize He said Invent a time machine or figure out how ball lightning works And this so I got really excited. I was like Damn, man. I'm gonna figure out how does ball lightning works It's very interesting from a history of science point of view because it's so rare

That in a way it doesn't exist. You can't replicate it, you can't make it, does it really exist? It's a little bit like Libyan glass. Another thing I collect is Libyan glass, which is a tectite, which falls as a result of a meteorite. A meteorite hits the earth's glass, earth up into space. It falls back down as a glass. It's called a tectite, and there's a rare form of it called Libyan glass, which fell probably around 20 million years ago, and now it works out of the Sahara every now and

then. It was the most valuable stone of antiquity. The centerpiece of Tuttun Kamon's breastplate is made of this beautiful yellow gemstone Libyan glass. So rarity is something that the hobbyists have always liked to cherish. The rarity, the audit, and science has a kind of often aversion, as a kind of a love-hate relationship with rarity and novelty. Science is often trying to pursue novelty to make discoveries.

But if you can't replicate it, it's kind of like what does it really exist? Yeah. Which is why, I mean, Eopholes, and aliens, and all those kinds. There's a general aversion to that because it's like the one-time event. It's sad because there's, just like you said, It's sad because there's just like you said, singular events or rare events are somehow really inspiring to us. And so you kind of have to balance that. Yeah, there's a scientific process, but you also have to like,

it's the thing you find with the weird, the peculiar. It's like, huh. What is even the universe itself? It could be that the universe itself it could be that the universe begins and then we'll end say Nicole death and that's it

I mean, it could be a one-off thing or it could be one of an infinite of many cycles and maybe all of the laws of nature are recreated a new with each cycle. Or maybe what we're assuming about the big bang, there's some element of falsity. Maybe the speed of light is not constant, but changes over time. That would throw into question all kinds of theories about dark matter and dark energy. And even the age of the universe. And to me, there's very likely trillions of conversations going on like this on other planets. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, God. It's different kinds of drugs, different communication styles, different time scales that which life form is or what life looks like or how life behaves, or what life is. And all those things, every time you think about this, more and more humbling, just this whole fog of ignorance. I mean, I'm, I, what drives me crazy

is wondering about the beautiful gemstones on other planets, I call them exoagats, you know, they must be unbelievable features and forms, which are unimaginable to us. Because one thing we do know is that nature is very creative. I mean, we are the product of nature and we seem to be fairly creative. And so imagine what else nature has created.

But even that's unknown, you know, is how common is life in the universe? Is it common or is it rare? We only have a sample size of one. You know, it could be quite common or it could be even unique. Yeah. I tend to believe it's everywhere,

except for the fact that we don't even know how to define what life is. Like what is everywhere exactly? We're talking about. It's very possible that there's not anywhere in the universe, an organism with two legs and two arms with two eyes and mostly hairless walking around at this time scale. But like, there could be very different kind of other things.

And it was interesting that some people, this is not a common belief, but a friend now named Lee Kronin, he's a, he's a chemist and biologist. And he believes that if we ran evolution over and over and over and over on Earth, you'd get very different. Not just, you wouldn't just get different organisms, you'd get very different biology. Yeah, it's quite possible. And that's a weird thing. I mean, most people kind of assume, well, it kind of, you know, it fits to the environment and you're going to get similar things, maybe not humans and so on, but to get very different

biology, like starting from the bacteria to the, you know, just how... Well, the idea that it would be DNA-based, DNA-based. On some other planet that seems to me like saying they're speaking Swahili on some other planet. I mean, the odds of that particular architecture, I think are infinitesimally small. What's the coolest stone you've ever seen? Oh my god, there's so many. And what defines, is it rarity, is it just raw beauty? What captivates you? I like it.

I like it. A story, Stone. I have a very beautiful fairburn agate, which is multiple layers. And there's something I call agate paralysis because to polish it, you have to go through the layers, which means you're destroying the layers. And maybe what should be done is it should be like a movie where you film the entire process of cutting and polishing so that it's not dead. In other words, what was the diamond when it started rough?

The rough diamond is gone. But if you could sort of do a filmic version of a cutting product so that the the stone would exist in a from a pre polished to a polished state all as a kind of enough tea or so. That should be an F2, that's right. So the other thing I fantasize about is how pattern recognition technology will probably in the future allow us to discover all kinds of amazing stones, including, for example, fossil skulls of humans.

Now it's kind of a chance process that you discover a skull in East Africa, but why not have a drone moving constantly, scanning for pattern recognition of human skull, human teeth very slowly and then just above the surface, just 10 feet above the surface, 20 feet above the surface. No, sorry, you think you'll be able to find skulls on the surface? Yes, yes, in the middle of a place that no one has looked, these areas are vast, right? So it could be found on the surface, then move to the next layer, then find it under the surface as well. There's LIDAR, there's all kinds of way

we're finding jungles and jungle cities in under the Amazon that people didn't know about. Do you think there's something out there that would just blow your mind? Oh, for sure. that would just blow your mind. Oh, for sure. For sure. Yeah, no doubt. Oh, man. And how much of it is a little bit on the ground, right? Or how much of it is in the ocean?

Yeah. I mean, here, right here, we are in the Bay Area. We know that much of the Native American civilization here was under the Bay. Because 6,000 years ago the bay was dry. It was a river, not a bay. And so all of those, whatever material, culture, archaeological traces existed there, or now, at least preserved under the water.

So I think we're just beginning to touch the... Could be treasure, too. I mean, like literally, like you said, we lose the wisdom or we'll lose the knowledge but I mean if there's the pyramids right it's the great wanders of the world there might be other wanders that are completely lost. Yeah just I mean one of the stones you asked about stones I like I like stones for example every now and then dinosaurs would eat rocks as gizzard stones, and then you find them in their guts, in their bones. Well, every now and then they would eat a piece of petrified wood. So the idea that something was a tree, and then stone, and then swallowed by a dinosaur

and ground up in the gizzard and polished, and then left in a, you know. So I like things that have been through dramatic. There's a story there. Yeah, I mean that's okay. The really fascinating thing, why seeing a law or crosses in the stone, it feels like the stone has wisdom because it's been through so many generations of humans. It's like bigger. Right.

It's seen it all. Also, it's also the intellectual question of intelligent design. In other words, when people say intelligent design, mostly it's bogus, but there are several interesting examples of actual intelligent design, meaning when is a stone, the product of artifice, and when is it a geofact produced by nature? And that was an important discovery in the 19th century. The zone of percussion, it's called the percussion zone. Or how do you know that a signal from out of space is an intelligent signal? And as opposed to hydrogen doing something or some

natural thing, that's the genuine problem of intelligent design. How do you know if it's pie? Maybe if it's E if it's some you know pattern How do you know that it's an intelligent signal? How do you know that an artifact in the ground is, you know, we'll see in the clouds of a face. It's called paradoilia. We have a kind of a built-in ability to see faces where they really aren't there, right?

That's why kids like clowns, you know, we've evolved that's a, babies evolve it to recognize their parents and so forth. But when is it a projection and when is it really in the stone? And that was a big question with the rise of fossils. If you find a curly thing, is that life or is it non-life? People have made this mistake before. They'll find a rock on the moon or Mars, they say,

Oh, this is a face or whatever well, you know, no, that's, that's just projection. That's paradoilia. I guess through our size, you have this problem of signal. It just because something is beautiful doesn't mean it was, I mean, it's, that's not a good signal to determine if it's intelligent design or natural evolution or natural design, just because you see a stone, they just, yeah, the pattern is incredible. How do you know? How do you know it's a fossil is one question, namely the remnants of an organism. And how do you know if it was manipulated by a human?

This is a big problem in trying to figure out the oldest art. If you find scratching on a bone, is that a tally? Is it someone marking her menstrual period? Is it phases of the moon? Or is it trampling by an antelope? And that's called the science of tephonomy

to discern when a marking on a bone or a stone is in a sense an artifact or a geofact or an antelope effect. And that's, it's an intellectually challenging question. And people want to fantasize, they'll find a stone, it looks like a carving is 300,000 years old. Generally, I think those are just odd stones. You don't find the explosion of carved stone until around 60,000 years ago, 50, 60, thousand years ago. There seems to be something that, paleo-ethopologist called the creative explosion, or the big bang of the mind,

that produces a kind of ability to see in the distance, to identify a shape in an object, to create a shape in an object, that you don't get the nanderthals, don't seem to have ever done what we would call art. It's a very interesting phenomenon, you know, but it requires that you have some understanding when is something art and when is it just, oh, that's a rock that looks like a face. Or some, not necessarily understanding, but a conception that's mutually agreed upon. Right. That we're able to, because maybe Neanderthals, maybe Fish

have a conception of art. And this also gets back to your question about professional bias and ideology, because there's a huge reward for finding the oldest art. Yeah. If everyone says it's 50,000 years ago and you find one that's 300,000 years ago, that's a huge discovery. So there's a bias. And this has been one of the things that's led to probably the over-polification of different species of hominids, because there's no academic reward for finding yet another example of someone else's species. But there's a huge reward if you can find, you know, a Lex Friedmanite, you know,

new, you can name it after yourself or whatever. New fossil. There's a huge professional reward to be the first at something. And so those types of professional rewards to be the first that something. And so those types of professional rewards also influence science. And what kind of science gets done? Yeah, so I'm always suspicious of, and as we should all be, when you can kind of intuit a financial

otherwise motivation. I mean, that's actually often in the modern age where I'm suspicious of conspiracy theories. It's not that the logic doesn't make sense or something like that. I personally actually just enjoy conspiracy theories. I've been listening to Flat Earth. There's this stuff recently. It's kind of exciting for some reason. It's fascinating. Yeah. It's like because I consider like what if it's true, it's exciting to discover together like think through first principles like what does the world look like? It's exciting to discover together, like think through first principles, like, what does the world look like?

It's exciting. I mean, it's the childlike discovery of a new idea. But the reason I'm skeptical of a lot of conspiracy theories is when I see how popular you can get propagating those conspiracy theories, how quickly you can form a large movement. And it's like, hmm. Like, well, such thin evidence. It it's like, hmm, like, such thin evidence. It's like if Loch Ness exists, there's just one. I mean, how does the reproduction work on that?

See, but you talk about an animal that has only one in a population. It just doesn't some of the things don't make sense. No, but see, this is the logic side. I don't even go that far. I, the fact is, if you say there's a Loch Ness monster, I just see how quickly the idea is present in popularity. The people are hungry to discover something new, just like you mentioned with hominids. I'm very suspicious of where there's a strange hunger for ideas. Because then they're less likely to be objective and rigorous and considering the validity of that idea.

I'm not going to the logic because actually flat earth is pretty logical. Yeah, if your logic is not the problem. So it's but it's spread really quickly and I once again with conspiracy theories, I think it represents it, you have to think about the causes of causes, cause of causes, like you talked about, which is like it represents some deeper fragmenting of the common humanity, we have the trust in the big community that is science and the big community that is government all that kind of stuff.

Well, that's why things like ball lightning are cool because it's like the scientist denied it, but here it is. Exactly. Exactly. And that's ultimately ends up. Everyone said I was insane. But you said there's some breakthroughs that need to look it up. Yeah.

It's really cool. It's pretty exciting Yeah, there's some new theories of how it actually might Because I think I mean, there's obviously several ways to prove that like one of them is to recreate in the lab Which is probably standard that's probably very very difficult Just because we're on the topic of rocks. I don't know if you've heard about this Interstellar rock that flew through our called the mu-mu-a-form. Yes. That's the cigar-shaped one.

The cigar-shaped one. It's a fan of rocks. What do you think about that one? Well, I think that generally, I mean, when the people were speculating it might be a spaceship, I thought, come on, rocks do all kinds of crazy things. They do a lot more than you realize. They can do unbelievable, unbelievably cool things. They're parts of the desert there in Utah where rocks move and create these long tracks.

And it's now we know it's from liquefaction and wind and rest of the things. But they're still unbelievably cool. Rocks can do almost anything. And so just the fact that one comes from outside the solar system doesn't mean it has to be a spaceship. So, but nonetheless, I thought it was awesome. I thought it was really, really cool. And I sort of wish it would happen more often. I kind of hope it's trash from another alien civilization. Let me fantastic. Because if you're, if humans are all a lesson that we produce like more trash than we do intelligence signal. So the first thing to reach other civilizations I feel

like would be our trash, our pollution before the intelligence signal reaches them. You mentioned this interesting term Russianist. The things we do for love, for some reason you want to Germany. Yes. So you said you're pretty eloquent with German. I learned German. Yeah. Did you ever learn Russian a little bit? I did learn Russian. Yeah, I studied actually Russian as an undergraduate at Indiana University for several years, and

then I wanted to do Russian and Chinese as a graduate student because I thought this is kind of the future. And Harvard said, no, it has to be French in German. And, I wanted to do something with Russian. I wanted to study how much the Lamarcan ideology and biology in Russia at the time that led to their distrust of genetics, under Stalin, had to do with the fact that genetics was being pushed by the Nazis. And we tend to see those literatures in isolation. The Nazis were racist, the Russians were, you know, environmentalist biased by Lamarcan theories of retitude and rejected that part of Darwin. When they're right next to each other at the very same time, There must be a connection. And so I started reading into this. And I was actually got a full bright to go write a book on this. And canceled all my

classes. I was teaching at the new school for social research at the time. And I couldn't get a visa into the Soviet Union. I was just barred admission for doing this project, looking at how Stalin a science had this anti-Nazi aspect which we've overlooked, which year was this? This was the Soviet Union was still together. Yes. Yeah, it was in the late 1980s, but before Gorbachev was in power, but it wasn't before 89. But still then there was a careful attention to... Well, you never know how careful it was or all the cracks, or you never know when something fails, you don't know it was no way it failed, but I was very disappointed. And it sort of ended that project. I didn't have access to archives on it. I could have obviously done it later,

but you know. So there was that curiosity initially, but then you focused on Nazi on the Nazi side of... Yeah, I mean the other thing was I was trying to figure out where to go for a full bright on a different year and I wanted to go to China and turns out you could only go to Taiwan. I didn't really want to go to Taiwan and it was one in 50 odds of going to Taiwan, but it was one in three of going to Germany. And so I ended up going to Germany. I didn't have any particular interest in Germany at that time, but that's what I ended up

doing. So I wrote one book in German actually. I wrote two books on Nazi Germany. And otherwise I might have been doing the same thing in Russian or Chinese. Yeah, in other words, history chooses us as much as we choose history. Right? And those are really powerful cultures, right? Maybe can you comment on the German and the Russian and the Chinese? How much language when you are reading those medical journals?

How much are you able to understand? How important is it to understand language deeply in order to understand the culture? Did you struggle and the opposite of that? did you find the beauty of the moment, like, richly understand the moment because you had a hold of the language? Well, in the Russian or Chinese case, no, I never got that far with it. I knew enough I could read some Russian and I could tell they were anthropologists who were anti-Nazi and therefore anti-genetics. And they saw genetics as essentially Nazi.

And that was enough for me. I know there's something there, but I didn't have enough time. I wasn't allowed to go and actually research it. In the German case, you never fully know a language. We don't fully know English. There's always more to learn. I'm always learning new. I didn't know the word done last year, DUN.

I mean, some kind of brown color. And I'm always finding new words, you know, which is kind of, the words are near infinite as well, right? And new combinations. I've coined several words to it in my life. But it did help understanding the humor, understanding the romance, you know. And mainly just plowing through all of these medical journals, one after another, after another, there's a kind of a voyeuristic aspect to looking into this lost world. You're reading text by people who have died long ago.

And direct, it's not like reading books by famous people, it's like real people. It's real people and they make mistakes and fascinating little stories. I was looking at how the Nazi tobacco industry had their own denial campaign, which was pro-Nazi, but in pro-Tabacco, even though the Nazi regime was anti-Tabacco, and they developed a lot of these rhetorical tricks that were later used by the Americans. Like, oh, you can't trust that evidence, it's merely statistical. You can't trust the animal experiments because all it proves is that mice should not smoke. But I notice just in passing these remarkable stories, little hints, there's a report from a Japanese

military man in one of these tobacco journals, tobacco industry journals in the Nazi period, and they're talking about this brotherhood of all men through cigarettes and the tragedy that the Chinese and the Japanese who were fighting each other in a way that wanted nothing more than to smoke together and the Chinese would sneak up to the Japanese forts to try to find a Japanese cigarette that had been thrown away and they'd be glowing and the Japanese knew this and they would throw their cigarettes out. The Chinese would come and then the Japanese would kill these Chinese. And then this guy is poetically lamenting the fact that even though all they want is

a smoke, they nonetheless end up in the crosshairs and in death. And so it's just weird. And I'm reading this, translate from the Japanese into German, in a Nazi, tobacco industry, newspaper. I mean, the layers of weirdness are really fascinating and touching, but in those very kind of brotherhood stories, actually resonated later. I mean, that's how I feel about cigarettes. Some of my favorite moments in early life is about people connecting over a cigarette. Of course.

And that, you know, that works. That's those narratives. Yeah, it's the movies right the movie is called me cute they the tobacco industry when they put cigarettes and a movie they put it in right at the moment where Boy meets girl let me ask you just in all the research you've done with the with Nazi Germany. Just from me from a conversational perspective. I was I was listening to a bunch of Holocaust survivors recently just on YouTube, listening to interviews. Also listening to Nazi SS soldier, like they're still alive or were recently. Some of them, especially the ones that deny many aspects of the Holocaust, it's so interesting to watch because they're still, still, it's so fascinating. Anyway, in your research, are there interesting people to talk to? They're still alive, are they mostly that part of history is no longer living, is in the books.

It is mostly no longer living. That's one reason in the 1980s when I started working on Nazi science. I really did interview quite a few people and elderly people, people who would sort of slip through the cracks, you know, maybe even should have been prosecuted. So few people got prosecuted. But these were people who had racial theories, who published, yeah, you know, on these topics and they were guarded. But these were the lives they lived. And you know, mainly they wanted people not to be talking too much about this. So it gets sealed off and walled off. And that's why reading the medical literature itself was so much about this. So it gets sealed off and walled off. And that's why the reading the medical literature itself was so much more valuable because there's no self-sensorship

is just there. I'm sure there's some censorship, but it's what they said is what they said and it's immense. It's immense and largely unread. As I said, there are hundreds and hundreds of Nazi medical journals, and people had not been reading those before I really started looking at them. Given that you studied these really difficult parts of human history and human nature with big tobacco and just these mechanisms and manipulation, what gives you hope about the future? Oh, all kinds of things. Give me hope.

The forest gives me hope. The wikipedia gives me hope. Space exploration gives me hope. All kinds of things give me hope. I had this insight the other day. I walked through all of these giant redwoods, which were almost all cut. They're not very far from here. Just half an hour straight west of where we are now You know up in the in redwood country And I had this idea that you know they're growing back now and Every year they had how many you know cubic miles of wood if you count California as a whole But not only that the roots are old old growth If you think about it. They're these are resprouting. If you think about it, these are resprouting,

they're not from seeds, these are resprouting, and so they have this tremendous resource underground that even the loggers couldn't kill, right? And so from these stumps, you get what they call fairy rings, which are like five trees coming in a ring around it, each one competing to be a successor. So they've seen this story before, and they've told it to resprout.

Yeah. And that I think is a very hopeful thing is that the roots are old growth. And hopefully in 100, 200, 300 years, it won't peak until around a thousand years from now. You'll get these Restoration of all of this magnificent Old growth

But so many other things, you know, give me hope and you know, we have to have hope and I think that If the world is infinite there's infinitely may it went many ways for it to become Fixed I mean now that there we have some problems need to be fixed, but they're fixable. That's really beautifully put. That is a really hopeful idea that nature, that life, even human civilization is resilient to all the mistakes we make. So the roots are there. So it outlives us. It's patient with our adolescent fuck-ups. I mean, we're a thin layer on the crust. And eventually the earth will be swallowed by the sun, and humans will have long gone extinct by then.

But yeah, there's all kinds of grounds for hope. So us being a thin layer of crust, what is the meaning of this layer? What's the meaning of human existence? What's the meaning of life? Well, I think it depends who you're talking to. If you're talking to a raccoon, it might be one thing. If you're talking to an old-growth tree, it's making sure you're straight up upright

and not on a slippery slope. A lot of fish. Yeah, fish, I guess they're trying to avoid the hook, right? No fish ever. When they take the bait, no fish in the world is ever said, I hope I get hooked. And that's one of the problems with tobacco is that there's all this bait and people get hooked. But, you know, the fish don't have heads, we have heads.

One of the great innovations in the history of humanity going back way pre-human is the invention of the head, the mobile head, the turns and seas, you know. And the fish didn't have that, you know, they didn't have hands. The octopus have cool stuff. Yeah. It's not all about the head. It's not all about the head.

It's not all about the head. Well, in fact, the octopus, basically, they've got brains in their fingers. Maybe brains is not even a dead good of an invention and a long arc of history. Because the fish maybe got it right. Stay in the ocean. Well, of course, we evolved from fish, so. Yeah. But we moved on. Is there a why to this?

Or is it just the way it's like the current? It's just like these pockets of interesting complexity pops up like a law showing up in Iraq. This is what human civilization is. This weird little thing that showed up in Iraq and then it'll disappear civilization is. This weird little thing, they showed up in Iraq. And then they'll disappear. Well, we are probably the most remarkable creation that nature has ever belched forward. We're probably the only one if you don't count the KT meteorite that just almost destroyed the Earth.

We're the only ones that can really have the capacity to destroy the Earth. I'm fascinated by the meteorite that wiped out everything bigger than four feet long, the amount ever size meteorite that hit the Earth 66 million years ago and destroyed most species in the water and on land. There could have been some smart folks on then too. Well, actually, one thing I like to think about is that 232.3 million years ago, and 232.4 million years ago, that's 100,000 years, that tiniest of a sliver, maybe a millimeter in most parts of the Earth, it's enough time for a species of dinosaur to become intelligent,

build a civilization, and go extinct with no traces. And maybe that happened. Our ignorance can fully engulf the fact that that happened. Oh, there's the beautiful self-importance of us humans. It's easy to forget that multiple intelligence civilizations could have lived on Earth. It's possible and go extinct. Or even life may have evolved more than once. Not only that, but it proto-life may still exist,

and we are not even looking for it. Some type of clay that became life may still exist and we are not even looking for it. You know, some type of clay that became life may still exist and people... One thing I like to think about is always what is the before time that is now? Remember lecturing about this right before COVID, it's sort of like what is the... what is the our world now that we'll say? What was it like to be then before the amethyst? And that's the where we live and we live in a before time for something we really can't protect. Probably physical, you know, offended. You know, and being in person, being able to touch each other or wanting to touch each

other versus being in the digital world, right? This whole idea of the metaverse and more and more moving into a digital space. What was it like being born before most of your your life wasn't on the computer? Yeah. It's pretty damn good for the record, but maybe I don't know the alternative. Robert, this is a fascinating conversation. Thank you for taking us to some dark periods of human history, but I think they contain a lot of lessons for today that science is often inextricably connected to our values, to our ethics, to our politics, and that's something we have to contend with. So your work is really important, and thank you for shining a light on it. Thank you. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Robert Proctor.

To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Carl Sagan. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. you