The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe - 423: Alex Epstein—On Littering and Underpants

Episode Date: January 28, 2025

Alex Epstein is back! He's a philosopher and energy expert who argues that "human flourishing" should be the guiding principle of energy and environmental progress.

Hey there, it's me, Mike Rowe. Joined by the one and only, Chuck Klausmeier. And this is the way I heard it. My guest today is our old friend, Alex Epstein. Is that fair to say, I mean, it's fair to say he's a friend, but he's not old. No, he's a young guy. He's a jagged little pill, I would say this to his face. He's upset a great many people.

He's written a couple of books that have got the attention of a lot of smart folks. I almost said including me, but that would have been a tad. vain, glorious. And some not so smart folks like me. And some straight-up idiots. And some not-so-smart folks like Chuck. I was getting there. I was getting there. Alex and I are on, you know, I think, kind of parallel missions. I've been doing what I can through microworks to challenge the idea that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And Alex, through his books and his think tankiness and so forth has been challenging the idea that fossil fuels are the enemy. His book, Fossil Future, and is it the moral case for fossil fuels? Yes. Both excellent.

And he's just come out with something that got my attention called Energy Freedom, the Key to Energy Abundance and Environmental Progress. This is about 20 pages or so. Actually, that's not true. I think it's 11. It's 11. Or so, leaning into the or so. You know, I think he might have taken mild exception to this when I paraphrased, but it's like rational energy policy for dummies. This is the headlines condensed in a way that anybody who shares my addiction to affordable, reliable energy I think is going to appreciate. Look, man, I'll just say it.

We've been lied to. I believe we have been lied to about a great many things. And one of those things is this idea. that fossil fuel has brought about suffering. And is going to bring about the end of the world. Yeah. I've got some very passionate feelings about the madness of doom saying and prognostication around Armageddon and so forth.

But look, this isn't as political as I'm making it sound. This guy is the real deal. He's been pushing this rock up the hill for a long time now. And he's got the attention of a lot of important people. So I really like what he's done here. I think he's synthesized this in a way that idiots like us can actually understand. Yeah. What he focuses on is people.

I was talking to him off camera and I said to him whenever I talk about the environment, I always ask people, what do you care about more, the planet or the people on it? And he's a guy who cares about the people on it. It's kind of like what good is the planet if there aren't people on it? Right. And specifically, I think the people that come up in this conversation are the three billion. or so who live in India and parts of China and a lot of sub-Saharan Africa, who are still relying primarily on wood and dung as their primary source of energy. And of course, you know, the first time

I invited him on, I wanted to ask him about the fact that, you know, in spite of the Paris Accord and in spite of so many well-intended policies in this country, nobody's really talking about the fact that China and India combined are opening a coal-fired plant every week for the next 30 years. So there's just so much to talk about, about energy hierarchy and about getting billions of people into an industrial age that they're ultimately going to have to pass through in order to get to the promised land, which looks an awful lot like nuclear. There I said it. Yeah.

You know. So if your mind is open, I think you'll enjoy the. conversation. If it's closed, you might enjoy it as well, but for totally different reasons. And in an attempt to take some of the earnestness out of the topic, I'm calling this one, on littering and clean underpants. Delightful. With Alex Epstein. You'll see why. Right after this. The federal government is not going to close America's skills gap. They have an important role to play for sure, but if we're serious about reinvigorating the skilled trades on a national level,

we need more organizations like Skills USA making a real difference on a local level. These guys have been around since 1965, and today they are relevant like never before with hundreds of chapters in schools all over the country and hundreds of thousands of students participating and competing every year. Nobody is doing more to train the next generation of skilled workers than Skills USA. And I'm encouraging you to at least consider being a part of this movement.

Skills USA advisors and volunteers aren't just teaching trades. They're launching careers and strengthening the backbone of our country by mentoring the next generation of industry leaders. In high school, you could be among the people who are making this movement explode. Join the skilled trades movement. Support career and technical education programs through Skills, There's no better way to do it. You can volunteer at a local chapter. You can start a chapter in your own town. Or you can just go to their website and see the impact for yourself and see too how easy it is to get involved.

Thousands of kids are being introduced to the trades in a way that's absolutely positively moving the needle. The goal is a million members by 2030. I think it's doable. I'm doing what I can to help them. Learn more at skillsusa.org. slash Mike. That's skillsusa.org slash mic. I'm talking skills, U.S. Skills, U.S.S.S. U.S.S.S.S. USA. Is how what you going to wear? I hope so. Chuck came in and said, Alex is here and he brought a change of clothes just in case.

And I said, just in case of what? What would happen? You know, sometimes people have opinions. You know, whatever they do, I do the Prager You videos. They're like, bring several outfits. That is such a strong... That is such a different world. Yeah.

But you know what? They reach... Good grief, man. How many people did your video over there reach? Do you even know? It's somewhere in the tens of millions. I don't think it's as much as yours. Well, I mean, not that I'm keeping track, but Chuck, go ahead and Google that for me.

I think you're probably 100 million. But yeah, no, it's nuts. Although, what's interesting is sometimes what you get recognized for. Like, I get recognized for those a certain amount. Yeah. but then other things you might get disproportionately recognized for. Right. You really don't know, but I guess when you're in your line of work,

you kind of have to, well, you throw a lot of mud and see what sticks, right? You go here, you go there, some things resonate, but how much of what you do today do you think of in terms of persuasion? And, I mean, obviously advocacy, but the business of persuading has to be something. somewhere near the top of your to-do list. Yes, it's changed a little bit over time. I mean, I'd say what the objective persuasion is has changed over time.

So historically, it's been focused on primarily how do people think about energy, like what's their thinking methodology, their assumptions, that kind of thing. So are they thinking of energy in an even-handed way where they're, you know, looking carefully at pros and cons of different forms of energy versus, you know, being super biased against fossil fuels or bias against nuclear. And then I have certain conclusions that I think come from my method of thinking and the facts, like, hey, we should actually be using more fossil fuels. You know, the world is way too poor and way too energy poor and needs way more energy,

including from fossil fuels. I'd say now, though, my focus is still on those things, but more than anything, trying to convince the government to adopt certain policies. And in particular, you know, we're in early December now. we have a very energy friendly administration coming in, and they say they want to unleash American energy. And for the last year and a half, I've been preparing for that in case that happened with trying to lay out, hey, here are the exact policies that I and the smartest people I've ever talked to believe would actually do this. And I really like this mode.

I wish it were always like this, where there were actually an opportunity to make the ideas real. Do you feel like it's been a transition from playing defense to offense to a certain degree? Whereas for a while, I'm not sure what the default position is, but it seems like the conversation has to start with, well, wait a minute, what if fossil fuels aren't the enemy? Before you can get to, hey, wait a minute, what if fossil fuels are in fact the last best hope of civilized life as we know it? Like that's a good line. But that's a big curve. And so everybody, not everybody in the country, but it seems like 330 million of us who are all equally addicted to the very fuels we're talking about have a different relationship with that addiction. And so from a persuasive standpoint, do you have to judge the room?

Do you have to understand who you're talking to before you engage them on this topic? Or are you just always singing out of the same hymn book basically the same way? No, it's not basically the same way, but I would say I'm always playing offense in the sense of I'm interested in like, I think certain things are good, and that's what I'm focused on. And then I think things are bad in contrast to what I think is good. If you look at historically the fossil fuel industry, if you were to summarize their message, I think they're basically two accurate summaries of their message, we're not as bad as we used to be or we're not as bad as you think we are. Right. Right. It's the old argument of, hey, these underpants, are clean, there's only a little bit of poop in them. Okay, you should put them on anyway. Is that an old argument? It's one I've made. I've been hearing it for many years. Well, I mean, I just think that it's like how our own standards change with regard to, say, cleanliness. Like, how clean do you want your clothes? Is it good enough? You know, how clean do you want your environment? How clean do you want your underpants? I mean, you can walk around in a used diaper

or you can get them right out of the dryer without even the hint. of an ancient skid mark. You know, like, where, how do you know? It's okay to put them on. Yes, I'm not sure how much I'm going to be able to work with that, that particular analogy. I have faith in you, man. In terms of laying offense, you know, so my way of thinking has been,

hey, like, I only support, like, it's not like I had a background in fossil fuels or something like this, or like I came from the womb or even my education wanting to support fossil fuels. I probably told this last time, like, I came from Chevy Chase, Maryland a very liberal kind of place. I didn't learn anything positive about fossil fuels going to the allegedly top schools in the country or this kind of thing. I had no relationship with the industry or anything like that. I was basically a philosopher who really believes strongly in thinking about things in a very even-handed and precise way. And it was just pretty clear to me once I learned a little

bit about energy, fossil fuels have these amazing benefits that we have no near-term replacement for, like being able to feed 8 billion people with modern fertilizer and modern diesel-powered agriculture. And nobody's talking about these benefits. And they're only talking about negatives. And the main negative they're talking about is climate danger. And yet one of the main things we do with fossil fuels is neutralize all kinds of climate danger, which is why empirically we're safer than ever from climate. So just with that perspective, like I thought of this, because a pro-human philosopher

who pretty late in life, like age 27, had his eyes open to the facts. I was like, this is amazing. So I think of it as this amazing technology. That's what I thought of it from the beginning. So I didn't have this perspective of a necessary evil. I had a perspective of superior good and definitely not an addiction, but a healthy choice. And that's generally my orientation. I fight for things I like.

And then if I'm fighting against things, it's because first and foremost, they're depriving us of the good. I'm never, I just find this necessary evil thing. it's an incoherent idea. Like if it's evil, it's not really necessary. It's sort of like the flourishing thing. Yeah. Great conversation, by the way. I listened to you and Peter Thiel not long ago.

Oh, which one? Oh, God. The one where he was challenging me? This is the funniest conversation, Chuck. You should check it out because the two guys who fundamentally agree, but spend an incredible amount of time in the conversation, really trying to explain the nuance of the potential disagreement that might exist around.

some sort of prior parenthetical that may or may not impact the fat part of the bad. We're not quite sure yet, but like two big brains really trying to drill down and listening to it just reminded me of how important language is, the words that we choose in not just specific technical words, but back to the persuasion thing. Teal's persuasive in a lot of ways. By the way, I got to get him on here. Yeah, we were just talking about this before. So I'm going to see him in a week and a half, and I'm going to bug him again about this, because he said he wanted to do it. Talk about a jagged little pill.

I'll pay you $100,000 not to go to college. Uh-huh. Right? That was such a great example of one of the points he was trying to make to you, which was sometimes when big brains get bogged down with the wonkiness of an idea, we forget to just freaking do it. Yeah. Just do a thing that might result. in the need for forgiveness instead of permission. But do the thing.

You have to make some kind of gesture to cut through all the clutter. I just thought that was a really interesting exchange you guys had. Yeah. So I think it's called like Peter Thiel challenges Alex Ufft. And it came out because we have these dinners and he's like, I disagree with you on, like I don't like the concept of human flourishing.

We were already, I think, three hours in to this dinner and needed to go to bed. So I'm like, let's just do a show on this. Let's just have it out. You know, he's been very generous in supporting both my books. He did both my book launches. You know, he's been very praising and promoting the book. What do you mean he did them?

Like, he was my, when I launched Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future, he did the events. Like, we did an event in, I guess, the Bay Area in 2014, and then Palmer Lucky, have you interviewed him? I haven't. He's like a superhero. He's the, I call him the real Elon Musk. Like, that guy is amazing. And by the way, call Elon to, which you talk to me.

I'm going to get right on that. That's Elon Palmer Lucky. Palmer lucky Elon is. So, yes. The first two I have much better connections with and with Elon. But I was like going to say, oh, yeah, Palmer hosted at his house in Newport Beach and Peter did it, you know, which is not a trivial thing to get Peter Thiel to come down. And he's actually, we're doing an event, and he's 95% committed. We're doing an event in April, and he's doing it. So this is a guy who's very generous to me, very helpful to me. But I thought it would be really interesting to see. We also probably at least half the time we talk,

we're arguing about something, which I find interesting. And so I thought people would find that interesting. And I want to see, like, I want somebody smart to challenge me. My whole issue is, I don't like that Voltaire thing about, you know, God grant me one prayer, make my enemies ridiculous. I find it very annoying. My enemies are ridiculous. Right.

And I would like some better enemies. Well, this is the point I was trying to get to. I'm weary of people who were so clearly on opposite sides just stripping down and having a tickle fight, right? I mean, it's just like, God, we're never going to get to some sort of detente when there's that much distance, at least not in the course of a single conversation. You guys fundamentally agree, I think. Yeah, on a lot of stuff for sure. On the big stuff.

But talk about this weird relationship with flourishing. And I wasn't quite sure what to take from it because on its face it seems like such a nice thing. But unintended consequences, I guess, and applying it. to the masses? You know, I'm very much on the side of I think this is a great concept that should be used and defended and pursued in a certain way. I mean, it's always dangerous to summarize someone else's argument who isn't here. But it's also fun because, you know, he can't interrupt you this. I try to, I try to do my guess. But I think what he'd point to, which is valid, is that there are people who use the concept of human flourishing to pursue goals that he and I would disagree with. And in particular,

he brought up the bioethicist named Leon Cass, who was very prominently featured in President George W. Bush's Bioethics Council, which it... What was his book? He, geez, I used to be so familiar with these. I don't remember. What's his name again? Leon Cass. He has multiple books, but he's...

I mean, Peter and I have only explored our views on biotechnology to some degree, but I think in general, we both believe strongly that there's a lot of good innovation to be done in biotechnology and that this quote-unquote bioethics movement was in many ways anti-technology, which is not to say that you can't have a pro-technology, bioethics movement. This is actually one of the first concepts I explored in my early 20s was how to have a pro-human and pro-technology. But historically, it's been very anti-technology and then often socialist. So it's either we shouldn't play God, this just very broad mandate that would, of course, have prohibited anesthetics and birth control and all of this stuff.

or it's we need to make sure everything is evenly distributed before we can do it, which just means you're not going to do it. And so his view is, well, people talk about human flourishing is a term that's sufficiently vague where people can say depriving us of life-saving innovations is somehow consistent with flourishing because there's some spiritual damage it'll do if you can prevent your child from getting some disease in the future. Therefore, we shouldn't do it. So what he's objecting to, I think, is the idea of flourishing has a material and a mental part of it.

That's what I like about it. It integrates material and mental well-being. But when you deal in the realm of the mental, there's a room for a lot of flexibility in terms of what people can import into it. So they can say, well, our mental well-being is better if we don't play God, because it's sort of bad for our soul to play. I think they'd say these very vague things and say it's against flourishing. And my view is, well, that's true, but we still need a concept to to connote this phenomenon that we all really want of mental and material well-being. Because that's really what everyone wants.

I mean, I often think of life in terms of what do we want out of life is like an enduring, enjoyable experience. I think it's most people would like their lives to be that. Most people. Yes. This is the thing. the more I think about it, the more I come back to this micro macro thing, where flourishing or really any good thing makes a certain amount of sense

when you apply it to the individual and a different kind of sense when you try and apply it to the masses. Yeah. And it's so fossil fuels is certainly on the list of things when you're talking about anesthesia. And I think of Christian scientists or people who might say, no, no, I think I have a better chance of flourishing if I keep some of these technical breakthroughs at arm's length. You could even talk about vaccines. Yeah, the Christian scientists are a good example,

because did they really, like, is this really a considered view or is this a dog that they have? Right. My life is real, like, I'm having headaches all, let's say somebody has headaches all the time. They refuse to take aspirin or, you know, whatever, Tylenol or I'd say people want, in a sense, part of them wants their life to be an enduring, enjoyable, experience, but they certainly have lots of beliefs that get in the way of that. And I think many dogmas get in the way of that. And certainly the Christian science one is a very straightforward one where people will die prematurely or have their kids die prematurely or certainly suffer unnecessarily. I don't know the exact logic of like, you know, are they getting to heaven or whatever because they don't

take aspirin? I don't know the exact thing. But I know that it's not really working to forego modern medicine. Right. And I would assume you also know that from a freedom standpoint, a Rindian standpoint, for instance, like, okay, well, that might not be a super smart choice for you or your family. But hey, freedom is still a thing. Oh, yeah. All right. But then when you get into the world of vaccines, where your choice might impact a bunch of other people or the earth, where our impact on the earth, or at least as I understand the argument, you know, Greta might be saying, look, the more we impact the earth,

the worse we are, the worst we make it for ourselves. But really, our duty of care is to the earth. And so you've got this sort of benevolent, mother nature-y anthropomorphized thing that exist, I think, in the minds of a lot of well-intended people. But once we really start to talk about the impact of fossil fuels, you've got this sort of Faustian bargain.

You have to somehow navigate. You have to think about it in the way a politician thinks about it in terms of what can I sell persuasively to the largest number of people if we want to change hearts and minds That's the macro, but when you bring it back to the micro it's still like what is my personal relationship with oil and natural gas? What is my personal relationship with health and fitness? My personal relationship with littering, right? And so I'm just continually interested in the incredible scale and scope of the argument you're trying to make, and whether you're talking to the masses were one out of time. I love stories like this. Seven years ago, a guy named Ben Still was a musician. He had zero interest in running a food company,

but he was annoyed that so much imported meat was being deceptively marketed and labeled as domestic, and decided to fix the problem. The result was a company called Good Ranchers. It's a completely honest, totally transparent meat company that deals directly with American farms and ranches and promises to deliver high-quality American-grown meat for a fair price. Today, that promise, and Ben's absolute determination to keep it, has not only propelled good ranchers into the top tier of meat delivery companies, it's fueled enormous awareness among meat eaters like me, that we have all been affirmatively deceived by policies that allow imported me to be marketed as domestic. That's the reason I switched to good ranchers. If I'm

being honest, though, I doubt that I would have stayed this long had the quality not been so exceptional. Every single cut I've devoured from good ranchers has been straight up delicious and every morsel was raised on a small American farm or ranch. Give them a try. Subscriptions are affordable and flexible. In fact, if you start your plan today, you'll get free meat for life and $40 off your first order. Just use code mic at good ranchers.com.

Free meat for life, 40 bucks off your first order. Good ranchers.com. American meat delivered. If you could eat a steer, if you could eat a cow, don't take a chance on a foreign ranch, get good ranchers now.

A-ha! Yeah, there's a lot of dimensions here, but I think one concept in general that's really important when you think of this idea of flourishing is the concept of individual rights and how that relates to flourishing. Because I think of, like, I'm very much an individualist. I actually don't think it's remotely coherent to be anything other than an individualist. That's a whole discussion too. But, I mean, we exist as individuals. We sort of live and die and suffer and have joy as individuals. Like people think about like collectives and oh, we should sacrifice this to this and they act like this makes sense. It doesn't make any sense to any. It doesn't, it's unjust and it just doesn't make any sense.

Like, I mean, I'll just give you the most urgent example to me. Like I have a son who's five and a half months old. Good looking kid. Good looking kid. Oh, okay. Handsome life. He is good looking kid. And like the eye, just even thinking of at any point in his life, somebody saying, oh, the masses don't like you.

so they get to execute you like Socrates, right, which is a kind of utilitarian collective. Like that just is to the core of my being the most corrupt thing ever. Or the idea that like he is a pawn of everybody else in his life, like he should be miserable so other people should be so other people can be happy. I just don't believe this at all. So I think when we're thinking about flourishing, we need to recognize, hey, we're all individuals and we want rules of society that allow us to all flourish as individuals in harmony. with one another. So I reject this idea of humanities and organism. We're all individuals and we're

thinking ethically and politically, we have to recognize that fact. And so the concept individual rights is crucial because it's basically says, how do you define the sphere of action that individuals can take to take the actions they need to flourish without interfering with others? And this solves a lot of the supposed collective problems, like in terms of, you know, polluting somebody's land, right? It's like, well, you say you flourish by having a hog farm that pollutes on my land. Well, that's interfering with my freedom to pursue my life and to flourish. And then there are harder examples like air pollution, right? But even there, you can say, hey, we can study it. And there's a certain amount of air pollution that's fine, that's benign. And there's a certain amount that aggregates and it's unhealthy.

And we need to basically figure out at any given time what's the level that's sort of healthiest, but also consistent with us flourishing in all the other ways. So you take 18, I use this example on fossil future, like coal industry in the 1800s, right? Or let's just take the invention of fire, right? Fire has side effects. So should we have never used fire? Was fire a violation of individual rights

because your neighbors got smoke? No, right? Because at the time, the ability to make fire with smoke was totally essential to flourishing, and you would totally be willing to tolerate a certain amount of smoke because that prevented you from freezing, to that. And by the way, because civilizations don't progress at the same speed and at the same time, you still have, what, a couple billion people on the planet whose primary source of energy

is burning wood or shit. Yeah. And they should be free to do that, although we should do nothing to get in the way of them using better things like fossil fuels. This is what it means, I think, to think about flourishing is to think about people as individuals and to think about at a given time in a given economic and technological state, how do you define rights so that everybody has the opportunity to flourish? And with something like the global warming issue and the Greta issue, what you need to do is look objectively at what are the real dangers as well as benefits that come from increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? You absolutely cannot have this religious Mother Earth view that you didn't endorse, but you alluded to, whereas I call it the

delicate nurturer, right, where the Earth exists in this, it's stable, it's sufficient, it gives us what we need as long as we're not too greedy, it's safe, and then our impact ruins everything. That's a primitive religious dogma, like the earth is dynamic, deficient, and dangerous, and we need to impact it. So if you look at the climate system from the perspective of, what are the actual impacts of more CO2, what are the benefits and what are the challenges that come with that? And you compare that to the level of resilience and mastery that you get from having a lot of energy, what I think is definitive is just the resilience and mastery matter far more than any of the new challenges. The words you used before with regard to the Christian scientists, I think is really

interesting, a dogma. So talk about the dogma that exists in the religion of energy, on both sides, if you want, but it feels to me that my friends typically who have this benevolent earth sort of default believe very deeply in it. It's not just a notion. It's not just a hunch. Somehow or another, it metastasized into something. And so you're talking about conversions. I'm talking about persuasion, but I keep coming back to it because it's very difficult. So I don't think this one is actually that difficult.

There are other things. So like if you want to take the hierarchy or the line of things that are difficult, I would say like religion people are born with, political party and affiliation people are born with. I would say those are far more difficult to change. than this delicate nurture thing, although I agree it is very embedded. It's one of these things it's very embedded, but it's fragile because it's so, it's absurd if you study it, and it trades on being scientific, which is both its strength and its undoing. Because if you trade on being scientific, you get the status of being scientific,

but then you have the vulnerability of applying scientific method and seeing that it's total BS. So if you just point out to somebody... Example. Well, let's just take the issue of climate. Right. The idea that in the 1800s, we had a perfect climate, right? We had 270, 280 parts per million of CO2. That was somehow perfect. And we ruined the climate. And now the climate is angry at us. And therefore, we're experiencing unprecedented climate death and damage. Okay. Well, let's look at headlines from the 1800s and early 1900s. We're in a given year, millions of Chinese people will die because of a famine caused by a drought. And Related deaths are regularly under 10,000 per year now. Drought-related death has gone down by 99, about over 99% over the last century. Where's the headline?

Right. Where's the headline? It should be every day that we should. We did it again. Exactly. Like fossil fuels. Less people dead. Made us safer than ever from climate once again.

But the same thing is true with, and you just think of it common sense. Oh, yeah, I guess there's always drought. but if you have irrigation and crop transport, then drought isn't that big a problem. And by the way, both of those things take energy or storms. Oh, wait, storms used to just totally wipe people out. I mean, one example I think of is the same storm that now could be like, I mean, we live in Laguna Beach, so we don't have many storms.

But like, let's say we visit the D.C. area, which we're just visiting. And there's a storm like that could be a romantic evening with my wife and me, right? And the same storm would have wiped out of town. Let's light a candle. Well, not even the power, though, right? Even the power requires a certain amount of dysfunction to lose the power at this point. I mean, we can be so resilient. I mean, we have people who can keep the electricity on in Singapore. They can keep it on in Africa. They can keep it on in Antarctica. You just see that climate is naturally barely livable. And what matters is our degree of mastery. And you see this for our whole environment. Again, so you can take the idea that, you know, I put it as fossil fuels, didn't take a safe climate and make it dangerous. They took a dangerous climate and made it safe. And it's the same thing for resources. People think, oh, we had nature gave us all these resources, and then we've just squandered them. And, you know, now we've eaten all the slices of pizza. And now we have to eat the box and we're all going to die. Right? And it's no, wait a second. Like, the cavemen, there were very few of them, and they had very few usable resources. And now we have too many resources at the point where we're all getting fat. Like, that's our problem in terms of food resources. Oh, man. So, I mean, present company excluded, of course. Well, it's nice to be a say, but I'm just chuckling because this just came up. Bobby Kennedy said, show me a photo of Yankee Stadium in 1970, sold out, and go ahead and find the fat people.

Good luck. Right. Same with Woodstock. Same with Woodstock. Right. Today, something has happened. Right. I would differ with him in many ways.

And we've publicly debated before on energy. And we differ on many things. I differ with him on almost anything related to this. But it is a fair observation about the box. body composition of Americans has changed a lot. Well, I wonder what you would say about this, because I've had a chance to talk with them a couple times this year. He invited me into his world.

Okay. Yeah. And it's not my bag. I know, I'm not a political animal either, but I was really interested to hear his thoughts because he and I don't agree, obviously, on a bunch of stuff, too. But we do agree on some things. And one of the things is this relationship that exists in my mind anyway. I guess it's kind of a correlation of sort of.

and maybe there's nothing to it. But fitness is different than health. Like we hear about health and fitness all of the time. But the fitness, to me, goes back to sort of the individual. You know, you can do a lot of things to be physically fit. Health has this larger patina that sort of, it's more macro. Okay. Well, so too, green and climate is macro.

littering and some forms of pollution with a small pee is micro. Like when I think about that Keep America Beautiful campaign with the Weeping Indian, that wasn't an attempt to get people to think about the climate and to avoid an apocalypse that's supposedly coming in 12 years. That was an attempt to pick up your freaking big golf. Yeah. Right? So in the health and the fitness thing, I think they can, one is a valid subsist.

of the other, whereas I think the anti-littering thing is actually not a subset of the anti-impact movement. Yeah, go with that for a minute. Because it's, I think of a lot of, I mean, at the core, I think what I am is I'm a pro-human environmental philosopher. I want us to relate to our environment in a way that benefits us, which doesn't at all mean we're hostile to the rest of nature, but we have a pro-human relationship with the rest of nature. So the littering example would be, well, obviously we want an environment. that minimizes ugliness, let alone waste that could harm us.

But by the same token, just as we want to eliminate, let's say minimize because you can't always eliminate healthily, these kinds of things. But you want to minimize that kind of contamination. You also want to minimize the contamination of nature, which is massive, including you want to minimize the danger of infectious diseases, including you want to take advantage of technologies such as vaccines and antibiotics where they're in fact net beneficial, which I think is the vast majority of the time. You have to have a,

I want the world to be an amazing place for human beings to live. And to me, the mistake people make, which I think this will probably resonate with you, is they have this separation of the human as sort of unnatural and not our environment. Yeah, like we're not part of the chain. And I think of it as, no, us building, you know, this, I didn't build this podcast studio,

but you guys building this podcast studio is like a bird building a nest. and that's you making your environment better. And just as it would be absurd to say, it's bad for the bird's environment to make a nest, or it's bad for the beaver's environment to make a dam. It's absurd to say for a human, it's bad for our environment to have roads.

It's bad for our environment to have factories. But that's what they say. They use the term the environment because they want to separate environment from the species that's thinking about their environment. And I never use the environment. I always use our environment because I'm stressing whether it's a factory

or a beautiful ocean, it's all there for us to enjoy. That's how we should, not that somebody gave it to us, but that's how we should think of it. Just as a lion thinks of its environment, it's like it wants a lot of, you know, I was in, for our honeymoon,

I was in Tanzania and Uganda. Like the lion wants a good environment for a lion is the great migration, right? Where it can just be lazy and eat all these wildebeest and just hang out all day. And a good environment for us is one where we've industrialized production so we can just make all. all these amazing machines that do 70 times more physical work than we do.

And we can just sort of use our minds and have fun. So I think of it all as we've, this is all part of having a good environment. And so just I oppose littering for the same reason that I like making this podcast studio, for the same reason I like going into the ocean. And I think most people separate. They have the separation of there's like nature stuff and human stuff. And I think it's all human stuff.

Well, and they separate too. I mean, to take the metaphor with the birds, you know, sometimes the birds eat their young, too. Now, this is part of the story, and it never gets cut into the story. I cut my teeth narrating some of the most vivid natural documentaries, you know, for Nat Geo years ago. And you went to... Where'd you take your wife? Tanzania.

Tanzania and Uganda. Uganda in the springtime. You're such a romantic. By the way, Uganda is sort of shockingly beautiful. I was... That was very unexpected, even how... That's like one of the luscious paradise places. Have you seen Chimp Empire yet?

No, I haven't seen it. Oh, my God, dude. But, you know, we go there to see the gorillas. My wife actually got grabbed by one of the gorillas because she's very good with kids. And the gorilla child was taken by my wife. And the mom didn't take it anyway. No harm done. But it was, yeah, that's an amazing thing if you can do it, which, by the way.

I'm sorry, did you say that your wife was grabbed by a gorilla? Yes. Yeah. He just kind of glances. It's all part of the honeymoon experience if you're in the Epstein home. It was brief. It was brief, but it was there. I just would like to hear that unpacked a little bit more.

And I'll send you the footage. That's even better. I mean, it's, yeah, it's basically what I mentioned is that, so the way it works, it's primarily in Rwand and Uganda. And you can also do it in Congo, but Congo's a little bit treacherous to go for a honeymoon. A little bit. So we were, I mean, that's an fascinating place, by the way, in terms of like the most amazing environment if you have the right kind of civilization versus a terrorizing environment if you don't.

But in terms of resources, raw materials, scenery, like that could be one of the greatest places on earth. And it is not one of the greatest places on Earth. So Uganda does not have an ideal government at all, but it's a much better government. And so we were able to visit there safely. And yeah, you go visit these guerrillas and you're generally told to keep maybe 10 feet away from them. So you're very, very close to them. But of course, you don't control them. There's no glass. So yeah, my wife was just staring at this little child. Don't stare. Yeah, well, I mean, she felt like she's forming a bond and she's very good at bonding with, she's always been very good at bonding with children. And at least this is our interpretation. Yeah, the mom, I guess, saw this and didn't

like it and just went like, boom. And then that was it. I grabbed her by the neck. No, no, not the necks. I don't know. I think it was her ankle. It was her ankle. And it was just, it was just quick. I mean, we had other people who were deserving of adverse contact from the guerrillas, including, yeah, I mean, there's this silverback and just this woman, we went two days. If you ever go, by the way, go at least two days because you only get to go for an hour. And it's just such a surreal experience. But we went there. And this woman is just, she's prioritizing her good camera shot over the comfort of a silverback. Oh, dear.

That doesn't end well. Yeah. And so I believe it was a silverback just sort of brush right past her. and bumped her out of the way. So fortunately, these guerrillas are very used to humans. So the downside risk is pretty low, but I don't know why you would play with it. Also, it's there, you know, you want to be nice to them. I mean, you want to see them on their own.

So that was our experience. Well, are you sick of it yet? Are you sick of AI hogging up all the headlines and sucking up all the bandwidth? You find yourself wishing we lived in a simpler time. Do you miss the rotary phone? Well, get over it. The genie is out of the bottle. The poop is out of the goose, I'm afraid.

AI is here to stay. And every business in the country is asking themselves the same question. How do we make it work for us? Well, the answer to that question varies, but you'll find it in a free guide that you can get right now at netseweet.com slash mike. It's called demystifying AI. It's totally free. It's essential reading for anybody trying to make sense of a future that appears to

have arrived yesterday. NetSuite, of course, is the number one AI enterprise resource planning software out there, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. With NetSuite, you can use the AI of your choice, GROC or Claude or Chat, GPT, whatever else is out there, to connect to your actual business data, all of it, and automate all of those tiresome time-sucking, soul-deaddening manual processes. This is AI built into the system that's currently running your business. Learn more at netsuite.com slash Mike.

And while you're there, pick up their free business guy, demystifying AI. It's filled with super useful information. And again, it's free at netsuite.com slash mike. That's net suite.com. Well, I mean, good for you, man. That is not sandals for the honeymoon. That is a whole different deal. I mean, I assume you've done this.

I don't think there's any vacation that compares to safaris. And by the way, this is another reason why there's this harmony of the industrial pro-human society and the enjoyment of nature. Like, people who are poor don't get to enjoy nature. They certainly don't get to enjoy the incredible diversity of nature. And so people would say even like, oh, you're talking about going to safari. Like, you have to be rich to do that. That's an elitist thing.

Yeah, I want everyone to be rich, though. Yeah. So I'm not just trying to keep it to people. who like sell a lot of books and give a lot of speeches and can afford to go there. Like the cheaper energy get, I mean, it's really an energy problem, ultimately. Like the cheaper energy gets, the cheaper it is to travel, the cheaper it is to have accommodations there. Like ultimately want a world where not only people in those places can be wealthy, but we can just sort of trapes around the world super cheaply because we just have all these amazing machines

and energy costs one-tenth or one-hundredth as much, which is that's going to have to be nuclear, which is another reason to be pro-nuclear. We'll get to that and we'll get to this too. This energy freedom, the key to energy abundance and environmental progress. Basically, it's your life's work in like 20 pages or so. But before that, I just wanted to linger a little bit. Chimp Empire. Watch that.

Yeah. These guys live with a troop of chimps for a couple years. But they're living with, oh, wow. Oh, they. What's it all? They assimilate. It's Netflix. Netflix.

But do they talk about their experience living with them, or do you just see the chimps? They become trusted flies on the wall, and they document the incredible barbarism that exists within this world. It's always there. It's usually where the traditional documentary would end, right? So we're really just not going to show you the reality of what happens to say an old moose, who is not hunted, but simply is abandoned by the herd because it can't walk so well anymore, and then is eaten alive over the, the course of several hours by its natural predators. It's just nature, tooth, and flaw. It's just a reminder.

By the way, you mentioned the persuasion issue in this very embedded view that I call the delicate nurture view of the earth. And I call it the parasite polluter view of humans. Like, all we do is steal from the earth and ruin the earth. Right. We're a virus. It's the matrix, right? So this wasn't a view when people lived closer to nature.

It wasn't a dominant view. I mean, at most you might have a Frankenstein type thing where, you know, the technology is going to take us in a bad direction in the future. Yeah. But not like we've ruined the perfect environment that nature gave us. Nobody was dumb enough to believe that when they lived in nature because nature was so clearly deficient and usable resources and so clearly abundant in threats, right? And an environment is really, what are your resources and opportunities and what are your threats? And what we've created, including using freedom and fossil fuels, is in an amazingly, you know, nourishing, safe opportunity-filled environment. This is really the core argument of

Chapter 4 of Fossil Future. And what we had before was an incredibly unnourishing, dangerous, and low-opportunity world to live in. People who lived in that world, it wasn't plausible to them that we had this perfect environment and ruined it. Whereas now, when you have all this abundance and safety and opportunity as the given, you're the worst kind of conservative, because you feel like, oh, everything that I like about this world is natural and everything I don't like, or I imagine I don't like, changing climate that I'm afraid of, even though I don't really have a sense of it, what's going on. Like, I don't like that. But people's view of the delicate nurture is really the delicate nurture that is civilization. That's what they really are counting on.

That's what I look. Well-intended people can be equally passionate and certain about one of two things. They can be passionate and certain that their mission is to save the earth because without it, we have nothing, or they can be urgent and passionate about getting an industrial revolution to the three billion people who haven't had one yet, thereby increasing everybody's odds for a different level of flourishing. But again, it's just back to what's the price. What is going to happen to the earth if we... It'll get better. So I think of that second one is improving the earth. Like they want to save the earth from human beings. I want to keep improving the earth for human beings. Yeah. I don't think of it.

as, yeah, they're not saving anything. They're just regressing. It's such a perverse view because, I mean, people hold it innocently, but ultimately the view that human impact is a bad thing to be eliminated, that's one of the most evil views ever, because it's not about, it's much worse than Malthusian, because Malthusian, he seems to be, as far as my reading of him goes, he's sort of genuinely afraid of us running out of resources because he doesn't like human. So he's not intrinsically opposed, as far as as I can tell to human impact. He doesn't think it's sort of intrinsically evil for us to make the world as we want it to be. He just thinks that the way we happen to be doing it, particularly with the

numbers of the population, is outpacing the resources because he doesn't get that resources are created from nature, not taken from nature. But the view I'm talking about is much more, it's intrinsically wrong for us to change the earth. It's just as if there's a commandment, thou shalt not impact the earth. And it's so evil because it singles out human, as a uniquely evil source of impact. Like, they're not against beaver impact or bear impact or lion impact. And they don't even seem to care that much when sort of inanimate nature, like climate and storms and stuff, ruin things.

Their sole focus is human impact. So if you saw a creature like this, but instead of being against human impact, they were against bear impact, you would think this is a perverse person. Like, you have it out for the bears. Like, your whole goal in like, like, I'm an anti-bearist, right? And they're like, they want to, like, I don't want to, like, I don't. like the way that bears are impacting the forest and I don't like the way they move around. Obviously, this person wants to kill all the bears, right? If they're against bear impact,

that means you want, if you're against impact, you're against the thing. And you think, like, why do you have this bear, I don't know the right thing, but barrenthropy, right? I'm making up a term. No, it wouldn't be barrenthropy. Miss bear, misbarre, okay, I can't, you know what I mean. Like the equivalent of misanthrope. A misanthrope or a misogynist. But they're a misogynist. You got you, you got yourself a barragynous right there. Somebody's going to comments, put a much better version this because I never came up with us. I need to come up with it. So I'll be grateful to that person. But this, the barest equivalent of the misanthrope, you'd think was insane. And yet we think it's normal to hate the impact of our own species. And it's not about loving anything else.

This is, I was on Jordan Peterson's podcast and we had a long discussion about this because he was thinking of it, I think, more as the greens just want the earth to be green. But then he pointed out, wait a second, why don't they like it that CO2 has made the earth a lot greener? And my point is, they're not about a green earth. They're about a dehumanized earth. And if Earth on its own becomes greener, they're okay with that. But if dehumanizing Earth makes the Earth browner,

they're thrilled with that too. So it's really the brown movement because they're against human life, which makes the Earth a lot greener. So this is weird, dude. I did a special, an unauthorized dirty job special probably 10 years ago.

Who authorizes or unauthorizes dirty jobs besides you? Well, there's this network I work for, and they had many, many chiefs. And the show was just kind of running on its own and doing very well and nobody gave us much trouble. And then we started doing these specials where we would look back. And maybe, you know, we started with, let's take a look at all the crazy high places and then the claustrophobic places. Let's take a look at families with dirty jobs, dirty DNA, I called that one. Let's take a look at the unintended consequences of homeostatic risk and compensatory risk in our brains that are affected by safety.

protocols. And I called that safety third, where I made the case that complacency is often an unintended consequence of a safety first approach to life, which creates in people's minds this idea that somebody cares more about them than they do, right? So I'm like weighing in on stuff way out of my pay grade, but I'm using dirty jobs experiences to cobble together specials that make these philosophically adjacent big ideas. is it gives them some credence. And I start to make my case from the dirt on these ideas.

My favorite one was called brown before green. And I used a pig farmer who actually said that to me. He went on a rant. There's Bob Combs in Vegas. He's like, what's green man? Why green? It's such a stupid color.

I'm like, what do you mean? He says, I mean, yellow like the sun? Sure. Blue like the seas. Right, but green, the color of rot, gang green, the color of money, the color of envy. Well, money is good. I guess it's not even real money. Gold is real money. But we started to riff, you know, and he's like, look, every single thing that's green grows from something brown.

Brown is primal. Brown is the earth. Brown is where you start. So suddenly, I'm doing an environmental special. on dirty jobs called Brown Before Green, where I'm basically looking at farmers who are getting a lot of grief for doing things that run afoul of the greenies,

but in fact are rooted in good, solid conservation on a real simple individual level. Final point, and I'll end the filibuster. You won't even remember it. But there's a moral case for these individualistic choices that we're making. And you made it a second before we started rolling. you told him to take that label off of that water.

And he did. And then he got up and he walked around our little nest in this podcast until he found a trash can. Right. And then he threw it away. Amazing. And then he came back. Now, that's my point. In the end, swing for the fences all you want, talk to the politicians, write the reports, change the policies by all means.

but the world is still full of people who throw their cigarette butts on the ground. They didn't get the memo, right? There are a lot of people who would have sat right there and taken it off and just put it on the barrel or dropped it on the floor. Big deal. You got up and you went looking for a trash can.

Even in your, I mean, I would do this anyway, but wouldn't they be even smart enough to want to impress you if the thought occurred to them? People don't. They're not terribly interested in impressing. Those environmental protests, by the way. I have this, I don't know if you've seen this clip of me holding the I Love Fossil Fuel sign

on 6th Avenue, New York City. Look at you making friends, man. Yeah, that was, so one of the things is they just left that place a wasteland, these green activists. Like, there's nothing more polluting than a bunch of green saving. And one of my friends is always like, he's a Hollywood guy. He's always like, oh, people should get to know you.

They should know that you pick up trash on the beach and this kind of thing. I'm like, what a low bar that you don't want the beach to have, that you go to all the time to have, you know, like, I don't. a leading cleanup crews of young children. I just like see something and pick it up. But it's interesting how dehumanizing people are people who are pro industry, because they just have this caricature of them as, oh, they don't want a good environment to live in. And it's not, I mean, for me, it's I want a better environment to live in. That's why I want a bunch of machines

producing stuff for me. So I don't have to live in a cave or starve, you know, in a world of eight billion people without machines. That's part of, but the same reason, again, the same reason I like the ocean is the same reason I like farms. The same reason I like my son. The same reason I like my son. and the same reason that we devote inordinate resources to a 13-pound dog. Like, it's just all, it's all because, you know, loving life as a human on earth and then wanting other people to have that same right and opportunity. Okay. What the heck have you done here, man?

What is this thing? You've put together and why'd you do it? So this thing is, yeah, and it'll be public. Well, by the time people see this, hopefully it'll be public. It's just called the Energy Freedom Platform. And maybe the best way to think of this is ultimately in order for all these good things to happen in energy. So I'm saying fossil fuels are good, nuclear is good. And really any form of energy that's cost effective is good.

Ultimately, what has to happen is we need the government to have policies that allow, you know, the kinds of people you study all these heroic industrialists that I think of as heroic. Like ultimately, we just need government policies that allow them to do what they do best and to figure it out. give me an example of a heroic industrialist. Well, I mean, in terms of the industry. Well, actually, I mean, one of my favorites at the moment is Chris Wright, who just became nominated for Secretary of Energy and a friend of mine. And when I was asked for recommendations, I recommended people for the top 50 positions in energy, and he was my number one recommendation for any position.

So I was like a, so I mean, he's somebody who, I mean, in the oil and gas industry, he's just not just, but he's just a very good CEO. But for me, that's a heroic thing to do. So there are other things that make him very admirable. He's a very principled guy. He speaks up with basically the same ideas I have, but running a public company, which is a lot more downside risk than me, right? Me, I get frowns and criticisms on social media and sell a lot of books.

Like, people think it's hard being me. It's not hard. As long as you don't have an insane desire to be liked by idiots, it's very easy to be me. That's all I want is the, approval of idiots. That's all I search for. But that's the thing of people, this is a little riff. Like, people are, you know, you see these celebrities of present company excluded.

And they'd be like, oh, I get a hundred positive comments on Twitter. But then if there's one negative and it ruins my day. Back to my underpants theory. It doesn't need to be full of scat. Just a little bit. You'd look at it and go, nope, not putting them on. But it's, it's... One little comment.

But it's like, what does it mean? A negative comment, it's like, it's either true or not or partially true. So if it's true or partially true, it's a gift because then you can learn something from it. Presumably you want to be right, not just be what you were before, not just be validated and whatever you happen to start with. So that's easy if you're remotely responsible human being that, like you should want to know the truth and advocate the truth.

So somebody points out mistakes, which certainly happened with me before. And they're right, that's a gift. Okay. And even if it's like, oh, you did a, like, here's one that was a little hard. Like somebody was, hopefully it's not as bad today, but I was on Jordan's podcast the time I was on it. And I was filming in Laguna Beach Night. It was a little bit of a weird thing.

He was in Australia or something like that. And I guess my resting face was bad. And they're like, Epstein is the king of resting bitch face. Yeah, RBF. Yeah. Okay. That's not great, but that's still doing me a favor. Like, if that's real, that's a thing that I could work on.

So, like, even things like that can, you know, make us feel insecure. Like, that's ultimately a good thing. And you can't get that bent out of shape about something like that. And then if they're wrong, though, and they, like, who cares? So I really think of it as if a four-year-old makes fun of me for not believing in Santa Claus. Like when somebody says something like, you're a climate change denier or you're a shill for the fossil field. Like, anything that's just absurdly false and I know it's false, again, if the four-year-old comes up to me and says, or even the 40-year-old's like, you know, Santa Claus is real.

Like, I proved her. The earth is really flat. It doesn't register. So it's actually very easy to be an advocate. As long as you can are persuasive enough to find a bunch of people who like your ideas, it's a very easy life being an advocate of controversial ideas. And I want to give people the memo on this because I want more people to have the quote unquote courage to advocate controversial ideas, which I don't think takes all that much courage.

Like I'm not going to war, okay? I'm not risking my, I mean, you know, of course, once in a moment. But like, look, even Trump has not been killed. I mean, now people have tried. I used to use this example before people had tried. But even like presidents that people hate do not get assassinated. You're going to get assassinated for having controversial views on fossil fuels. Nobody cares that much. So I want to encourage people, if you believe that you have the truth on your side, you can have a really enjoyable life sharing it. And you're not a martyr. And you live in a free society. you're not in North Korea, right? You're not going to get shot. You're not going to get shot.

So I even forget what led to that rant. But I really try to encourage people. I do not want people to have the view that, like, I'm so courageous and it's hard to be me. I want them to have the view of I'm so happy and it's easy to be me because I want more people to tell the truth. Well, people are still raving, raving. I tell you, about my mother's performance in the latest Pure Talk commercial. And if you have a lot, haven't seen it, I encourage you to give it a look on my Facebook page and read the comments. They're hysterical. In this commercial, you'll not only see Peggy Roe gently criticizing her oldest son for his longstanding and well-established commitment issues. You'll learn about the latest offer from Pure Talk, which includes unlimited talk, text, and data for just $3499 a month, with no contracts and no commitments of any kind. You can see why I love these guys. If, on the other hand, you have better things to do with your time than watch my mom and me be impossibly charming

together than allow me to remind you here, without all the cleverness and charm, that unlimited talk, text and data on a blazing fast network for just $3499 a month really is an unmitigated bargain from an American wireless company that keeps all their customer service in this country, supports our veterans in a meaningful way, as well as the MicroWorks Foundation, and allows me to exploit my own mother in a national advertising campaign. Do what my mom did. Get yourself unlimited high-speed data for just $3499 a month at puretalk.com slash row. You can switch in as little as 10 minutes at puretalk.com slash row.

Pure talk. The quality, I think, that you're talking around, I think it was Gladwell who wrote about it. It's disagreeability. or disagreeableness. Uh-oh. Well, but it's a compliment. To get things done, to be out front of an issue or to be saying a great truth

that has not yet been embraced as truth requires you to be okay with people disagreeing with you. Whether they do it politely or not is neither here nor there. You're just indifferent. You don't care. If you know the truth is on your side,

you don't care nearly as much as a normal person would. Do you think it's level of conviction in one's own view that's the lever there? I think in part, I think... That's probably, that makes sense to me. Well, if it goes too far or if the other side were being less charitable, they would couch it as arrogance or some kind of hubris. That just happened.

Of course. Because you've got that resting bitch face. You're like, you just look so certain with your hair and your glasses and your multiple outfits to the podcast. You're just so certain. You're just so sure. That was a secret. Just in case, he says, I have a backup outfit.

I just love that. He's prepared. By the way, this relates to a random belief of mine. We'll talk about energy freedom in a second. But I think most imposter syndrome is earned. Oh, sure. People are just like, don't you have imposter syndrome? Actually, this is a good segue into politics.

Because one thing I've had is it's not really imposter syndrome because I knew about it. But even when I wrote Fossil Future, Chapter 10 is about energy freedom. It's about, okay, if you agree with me on Fossil Fulfur. fuels, you want us to be free to use fossil fuels and other forms of energy. What's the specific blueprint? And so I wrote it out as specifically as I knew then, but I knew that I didn't have it nearly specific enough to be politically actionable. And the way I think of it is if you think about in a business, like in a business, you need to set up the systems in a way where it actually works given the variable people who work in the business. You just think about a large business that

has 10,000 employees. You know, you need to set up the rules in the system such that of course you need competent people. With a wide variety of people, the thing actually has to work. And that's hard to do. It's hard to be able to specify things at that level. And in politics, it's the same thing. So if you take something like our grid is a perfect example, most people know not enough, but they know to some extent we have a problem with the grid. And the basic problem with our grid, which we experience in California, but we're only starting to experience is we have a few very problematically contradictory phenomena. So we have a few very problematic contradictory phenomena. So we have. have an artificial decline in the availability of reliable electricity, thanks to things like the EPA shutting down reliable power plants. We have an artificial increase in the demand for reliable electricity, thanks to things like EV mandates. So we have artificial decline in the supply, artificial increase in the demand through all the electrification stuff, and then an organic increase in demand through data centers and AI. And we already are at a point of critical shortages around the country where we just more frequently than I know of in any recent history,

where people are constantly being told we don't have enough power, and then sometimes it manifests in a blackout, like in California or in Texas in 2021. So we have this problem, and everyone can agree that there's a problem. Same thing with nuclear, by the way. Everyone agrees like our nuclear policy sucks. But then you ask, well, how do you fix it? And what I found is I and others, and even a lot of the smart people asked, did not have good solutions to it. Like they would have crappy solutions or no solutions. The nuclear was the worst because there's so much enthusiasm now for nuclear. And you ask all these people, what should the policy be? They're like, I don't know. It's just overregulated. Like, okay, am I going to tell my congressman that? It's overregulated,

go do something. And the more, so I run this thing called energy talking points at this point. We work with 200 major political offices, so congressional offices, Senate offices, and governor's offices, all at the national level except for governor's offices, is I know a lot of politicians. And one thing I know is they are way under-resourced to do the 25 issues that they have to work with. And so are you going to expect your politician, even who's really well-meaning, to figure out the solution to difficult electricity policy or nuclear policy? See, I'm going to take it back to persuasion, Alex, because, yes, a thousand times to all that stuff. But are you familiar with the exclusion zone around Chernobyl? Not that term.

Well, after the meltdown, a couple things happened. Like the big things that happened were the projections of the number of people who were going to be horribly impacted by this thing. Like a third of Europe was under a black cloud. The projections were astronomical. And then over a couple of weeks, that black cloud got a little smaller and then people really kind of stopped reporting about it. And of course, you know, if you look at Three Mile Island and Fukushima and, you know, ask the average person, well, how many people actually died as a result of those incidents? The estimates are always in many thousands. But the actual answer is like a couple dozen.

Well, in Three Island and in Fukushima, zero of radiation. Right. Like, you guys are falls on. But people drowned in Fukushima. Well, it was a tsunami. It wasn't a nuclear thing. Well, of course not. Right?

And so anyway, there was a. massive evacuation for hundreds of square miles around Chernobyl. And that was called the exclusion zone. And no one could go there. A couple of stubborn people didn't leave, you know, maybe 60 or 70. They're still there. They're in their 90s. They're still there.

And not only are they still there, but it is considered by, I forget who said it, but it's a, not the Sierra Club, but somebody in that world. One of the great models of biodiversity on the planet today. I got to study this. It's all back. All of the wildlife is back. Everything is back. Everything is growing.

Humans just split for a couple of decades. I got to study this. I only bring it up because as we try and think about why it is all the regulation exists around nuclear that exists today. I think part of it is we still have it in our head that we dodged three. terrible bullets that left an awful mark upon the land. So I... It just didn't happen.

It just didn't happen the way you remember. So that persuasion is important. I think the... I wish I could recall. Somebody in the nuclear industry made this brilliant point about... I can only give the thrust of it. They had a brilliant term for it.

That is, I'm sure I'll remember the minute after we stopped this podcast. But they basically... Check the comments, folks. They said I'll put it in the guns. Me again. The nuclear industry, basically has a persuasion, persuasion problem, which is basically the idea that they always

blame everything on persuasion. And they say, basically, first, we're going to change all the hearts and minds. And then we're going to put forward a reasonable policy. But we can't put forward a policy until we've changed all the hearts and minds. And my view is a couple of things. One is, within any given cultural environment, there is a huge range of possible political outcomes. And what I found is one of the highest leverage things you can do is, maximize the political outcome you want within the current cultural constraints. So you can think of it just as, like there's this huge range of things. So if you take nuclear, for example, as a perfect example, because at the moment, we have a lot

of enthusiasm for nuclear among Democrats and Republicans. So the Advance Act, which was passed by Congressman, I guess he's heading out. But Jeff Duncan, you know, he led this thing. And that had an overwhelmingly overwhelming majority of people passed. And it made some real improvements. And he would be the first to acknowledge there are a lot more improvements than need to be made. But that shows you there's a renaissance and nuclear enthusiasm to the point where, yes, those anti-nuclear forces could be, like, you could have policies that cater to them, but you could

also have radical improvements in nuclear. And my view is, if you want to maximize the outcome in a given cultural window, you need to know exactly what you want done. You need to make it as easy as possible for people to do what you think is right. And this was this idea I came up with four and a years ago called Energy Talking Points, which was at first for the messaging politicians used, but is now primarily for policy. And the idea of Energy Talking Points was, instead of handing them a big book, which I've done to you guys, right, hand them a big book. By the way, you guys should... Two big books, actually. Yeah, yeah. The second one, much bigger. And Fossil Future. So, yeah, by the way, everyone, definitely worth reading. But if you don't want to read a book, we have Energy

TalkingPoint.com. And the idea was, let's literally give them copy and paste messaging for every You did energy for dummies. But it's not for dummies. It's not for dummies. It's just if you want to be like, like I used to try to give people abstract lessons and how to talk like I did. And that somewhat works, but you really need hundreds or thousands of examples. So what we did is we have thousands of tweet length messages that you can copy and paste.

They're all self-contained. So you can copy any of them out of context and they work well. They have references, etc. We now have Alexepstein.a.i. By the way, which is now free. So people should check that out. So you can actually ask me like, hey, I'm at Snowler. or Thanksgiving, but whatever your next event is, like it's Valentine's Day. I'm out with my date.

She says fossil fuels are bad. I think they're good. What do I say to her? Like, it'll give you a really good answer. What's your goal? I mean, it is Valentine's Day. How do you want the night to end? Right, right. I'd go with, yes, honey, you make some really good points. I hadn't thought of it that way. You're amazing. We'll see. We'll see a bit. We'll ask it and we'll see what it says. But the idea was, let's make it really easy for politicians to say the truth about energy. And you saw the Republican campaign different people talking about things like 98% decline in climate-related disaster deaths. Well, that's partially because we just plastered that all over the place. It wasn't just in a book. It's copied and pasted on my Twitter and on energy talking points.com, et cetera.

So the same thing I figured is let's do that for policy. Let's make it really easy for politicians to do what we think are the right policy. So with nuclear, the first thing is let's work out what is the right policy and then make it really easy to explain. And if necessary, I mean, we hire a lot of lawyers. like we'll draft legislation for people. And so it's become this massive thing. But the first thing, which is related to this, is let's actually figure out what we think is right. The Green New Deal people were really good at that, right? They had all this stuff ready made for Biden. The second he came in, said, that's what you want to do. If you think you're right, figure out exactly what policy you advocate and make it easy for people to be your ally. Is there a role for the thing Teal was talking about

where sometimes just have to do it? Yes. Like just put a little nuclear. like get some big brain, for you can put a little nuclear reactor in your backyard and just start doing it. That was at the end of that interview. And that thing still bugs me because I know he's right and I haven't thought of enough good instances of it. Because he talks about the Uber example, right, where they just did it. Oh, right. As opposed to first reaching out to all the taxicab drivers to see what they think.

Right, exactly. Let's do it. Let's workshop it. So I think with the nuclear thing, yeah, there is a, I mean, I got to be careful here because you can't advocate that anyone breaks the law. But I wish there was some free zone of some of some of. country where they could do it. So I don't, but I mean one thing, you know, one thing that we're even advocating in terms of our nuclear policy is, hey, let's have certain parcels of DOE land, which we have all this DOE land. Let's really make them experimentation zones for all of these different technologies and do a lot of the performance testing there.

So there's a lot of details in how performance testing works, but you just basically want to validate anything you possibly can validate on government land without a lot of restrictions versus saying, oh, we have to validate. it on the site. We have to validate it with the first unit that we're building on the site. So it's one of many things where that would seem to apply here. With nuclear, like nine or ten things that you really need to do to really unleash it. And I think we've identified those. And I think we've done it in our electricity and environmental policy. And well, climate is mostly unwinding it, but they're like 10 things that need to be unwound. And then on the whole domestic production infrastructure front, like all the permitting stuff, there's some definite things you need to do there. And I think figuring it out has, that's the hard part, I think.

Like, Lyndon Johnson, I agree with on almost nothing. But if that, that quote, if this quote is truly his of doing what is right is not hard knowing what his right is, I really believe that for me. And it relates to the point about conviction. Like, once I am convinced that it's right and I've done all the work and I've had all these smart people challenge me. And I think this is the answer. Like, it's pretty easy for me to sell it to people and to be persuasive. But if you don't really know, you don't really have the thing developed. It's hard because it's vaporware. You have to know why you're doing a thing, even a good thing.

There was a great essay. I mean, you were a, would you study philosophy? In computer science, yeah, mostly philosophy. And so far as I did anything. I mean, it was basically just there to do my own thing. And I got the, I already knew philosophy, so it was very easy to get a philosophy degree. I guess this is philosophical. I think it was an essay by Tom Wolfe.

And he was trying to write about not the difference between a good thing or an evil thing, but the motivations for doing a good thing. Why do different people do good things? The example he used was if you're a responsible parent and you see your kid shoplifting something in the store, you go over and you can say, hey, what are you doing? Put that back. Go apologize to the shopkeeper. And then you say, teachable moment.

moment, look, son, if everybody did this, imagine what the world would be. It's not fair to that man. It's not fair to the people who brought the supplies here. It's not fair to anybody in any way, shape, or form. So it's bad. Don't do it. It's like a Kantian universalizability argument, which is one of the few things I think Khan is right about. Okay. But then he goes back 100 years. Same scenario, right? Same situation. And the teachable moment there is son. You don't do that because if you do, you'll go to hell. It's simple. Now, two examples of a lesson being taught in two totally different ways,

which brings me back to the label. You know, why did you throw it in the trash can? Was there a moral imperative to do it? Would you have done it had nobody been watching you? Would you have done it had the cameras not been rolling? It's so funny how little thought was put into this action. That's why it struck me, Because you know, because we can train our behaviors.

But not unless, in my theory, most good people, or at least thoughtful people, have asked themselves at some point why they do the things they do. And from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the micro to the macro. Is it weird to love people but despise human resources? If so, well, color me weird. It's not to say I don't respect the millions of people who work in HR departments and companies all over the country. I do. It's just that I don't envy him. That's why MicroWorks doesn't have an HR department for better or worse.

And it's also why I use ZipRecruiter whenever we need to expand. ZipRecruiter has proven themselves a million times over by helping countless employers get through the hiring process faster and more effectively than ever before. And now they have a new feature that instantly shows you the most interested, the most passionate, and the most qualified candidates first. This is a huge time saver, hours and hours of save time. And it helps people like me find the people who can function in a non-traditional work environment like MicroWorks. In other words, ZipRecruiter works for me, and they'll probably work for you too. Post a job for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash row. watch what happens. Odds are you'll find a human resource that just happens to be a great fit for your

company in 24 hours or less. ZipRecruiter.com slash row. Ziprecruiter.com slash row. The smartest way to hire. So. Oh, man. You have such good questions. I mean, this is, I have such a strong view on this. I'll relate it to the political thing because I found this fascinating thing. because I have a very weird approach to politics. Like I'm never, I agree with my wife as part of her marriage. I'm never going into politics. I'm never going into government. This was as the guerrilla was grabbing her.

They were saying, honey, it's going to be fine. This would be boring. I feel like that I will not serve. Yeah. Yeah. So, but I really want to influence policy. I work with a lot of politicians and advise a lot of politicians. And often they don't really know what to make of me at first.

Like it's really, and they're often suspicious, and I get it. And I get it. I think this is my current explanation of it. I think because some people, particularly when it comes to political motivations, they profess a self-sacrificial motivation that is phony in some way to mask a motivation that they think of as self-interested. I have a motivation that I think is healthily self-interested. and I don't have a self-sacrificial motivation.

But I'll give you the conventional one is... Your Ayn Rand is showing, by the way. Yeah, of course. Well, I hope so. I hope so. Because I think she really got this right. And I think the character of Howard Roark and the fountainhead really captures this.

The idea of somebody who lives by their own mind, primarily for their own sake. Like, they think life is this amazing opportunity that we all have. I want to make the most of it. And the way to make the most of it is by living in harmony with all these other people

around me who are this unbelievable asset if we deal with each other in a mutually beneficial ways. And if we don't, then they're the worst thing that happened to us, right? Because they can kill us, like they killed Socrates, right? Or do other kinds of things to us. But if you have this view that it's totally possible and desirable for everyone to pursue their self-interest, including happiness, in harmony with others, then that just affects everything. So for me, it's like, why do I want to change policy? Well, part of it is I really like the work of it. The process I enjoy is thinking about difficult problems that I think will make an impact. And so policy, it's weird. I become obsessed with it. I never expected to be because I kind of hated politics as a kid.

But I love this problem solving of figuring out, how do you actually get nuclear policy so it'll actually work? So people are actually safe and we actually have nuclear progress. Or how do you fix the grid? Like, how do you handle things like solar and wind that are intermittent? And it could be useful under certain circumstances, but if you don't account for their intermittency, are going to totally blow up the grid. There are all these really difficult things. And for me, it's an enjoyable way to spend time to think about those things. But also, I need to feel like I'm actually creating value because I'm charging people money in one way or another. Either they're listening to my speeches or, you know, we have a lot of donors for the energy talking

points. I mean, it's millions of dollars a year. Like, lots of smart people pay for this. So mostly for me to hire these smart people. But they need to be getting value. need to be getting value. So it's like I also, I want to have a process that I enjoy, but a purpose that I believe in and that's legitimately benefiting the customers. But for me, it's fun to do. And people don't, people call this like happy warrior. I don't even think of it as a warrior, but it's like, for me, it's enjoyable to work with really smart people, to solve interesting problems, to have effects in the world that I think are hugely value creating. And then to make a good living doing it. Like for me, that's my four piece of career, like process, purpose,

people and profit. And so I get excited about, hey, if the new administration is interested in the electricity policy I came up with, for me, the excitement is seeing my creation manifest. It's like seeing something I worked on actually work, just like an inventor sees his invention work. But I think a lot of people, for them, what they think would be thrilling is to be like given public credit for it or to have a position like the Secretary of Energy or something like this. And for me, that just doesn't seem too exciting. Like the credit, it goes back to the kid with Santa Claus, right? Like, if the four-year-old who believes in Santa Claus thinks in the greatest person in the world,

the worst person in the world, he doesn't know anything. And what determines whether my work is good is whether it has effects in the world and whether I believe those effects are good. It's not whether anyone, including the President of the United States, says I'm good or not. Like, that ultimately, I don't think that determines reality, what somebody else says. So to get elected to be a position, like, it's good if it allows you to do the work that you want to do.

It just doesn't appeal to me in a very selfish way. It doesn't appeal to me because I just think of it as approval. And like approval isn't that great. So is it, I think it was the same conversation. Maybe I'm conflating things. But I think Thiel said he was allergic to words like change. Yeah, I think so. It's the kind of thing he would say.

Well, I've been thinking a lot about that too because I, on the one hand, I know the futility of trying to boil the ocean. On the other hand, my foundation is really in the business of trying to change the idea that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And that's a big thing. It's a big swing. But you have changed a lot of people. And he certainly has in that domain as well. And you have in your domain.

You're trying to convince people that not only are fossil fuels, not the enemy, they are our last best hope for the most people, right? Right. These are big swings. And if I'm really being honest with myself, I'm like, yeah, man, I want to change the way the country thinks fundamentally about education. And then I want to impact slash improve the way the country thinks about the definition of a good job vis-a-vis a skill trade. Well, you know what, dude? I mean, who's swinging for the fences now? Oh, is that all you're trying to do is change the way 330 million people think? And so I say to myself, sometimes, look, you call your foundation microworks, because if you can do it for one person, take the win, man. Take that. And then two, and then maybe three, but careful. Because before you know it, you're talking about these big giant ideas. And look, I envy that.

I just, I don't know that I have it in me. Bobby Kennedy, the thing he said to me that haunted me was, you run with me. And we'll make microworks, macro works. I was like, well, that's what I meant. That's what I've been trying to do for 16 years. I want to get it bigger. I want to get it bigger. But do I?

I really don't know, Alex. But I think this issue of people who say they want to change the world, it is a very suspect in many ways. Because you have to think about it, it's different to say, like, the way I think of it is, I want to, you know, I mean, ultimately, I think the ultimate thing. is like establish energy freedom or advance, probably advance energy freedom is the best thing. Like, I want to do work that creates more freedom for people to produce and consume energy. Like, that's my job. But I don't think of it as, like, I'm ever going to reach this final heavenly ideal. Like, I'm either there.

I've either, like, changed the whole world or I've done nothing. I want to do more because that's part of just having goals and part of the process of achievement and enjoying things is that you figure out new things. And so part of the thing is, yeah, I know a lot more about energy policy than I did. two years ago. And in two years, I want to know a lot more and I want to know a lot more about influence. But it's always sort of the same thing. It's like the work involves setting, it's like the process, this is true of life too. I think the process of life involves and a happy life involves setting new goals. You're not living for the goal, right? It's not just like,

this is what happens to the Olympians, right? They think of it they're living for the goal. And then they get the goal. They get a gold medal. And then their life totally falls apart. versus I don't think there's any milestone I'm going to hit where I've made it. Like, I'm already there. Are you a stoic? No, definitely not. That's a whole other thing. But let me just bring it back to why people find this weird, because when I come in and, like,

they can tell that I want to have a lot of impact and that I believe in stuff, but it's like, why are you doing this? And it's often, do you really want to be secretary of it? Do you, like, secretly want to be secretary of energy or maybe president or maybe just, like, make a boatload of money from the industry. And it's like, no, I really like what I'm doing now. And I really want to see it succeed. And for me, that's, but I want to enjoy my life.

That's part of it. I'm not claiming that I'm doing this. So everyone else has energy and I'm miserable. Like, I'm not doing that at all. That can be hard for people who relate to, I think often because they pride themselves on saying, I'm just doing it for my country. Like, I'm not doing it for me.

I'm doing it for everything else. But then they kind of know, but I really do like, But it often, oh, I really do like being seen as high status. And I like people looking up to me. And I like having these titles. But then they have a sense there's something wrong with that. But what's really wrong with it is it's hollow and it's not really self-interested.

Rather, reason Fountainhead, I think, is the best self-help book ever written. Because you see in the character of Peter Keating, this is somebody who pursues the height of status in the society. And you can see how hollow it is to have a life where all you're doing is sort of acting or imitating what you think other people will smile. at. Like, that's a ridiculous life in my, and it doesn't matter how high you ascend in their view, because it's just their view. It's much better to be like a really good janitor or railroad worker who really believes in what they're doing. That's much happier than being a high status person who just cares about the approval of others. Again, you're just disagreeable, man. I mean, you're basically saying that in the end, the opinions of others, you get to assign whatever value,

to them you want. Yeah, they're for you to learn from. But they don't determine, by themselves, they don't determine everything. My mental model is like, there's reality, there's Chuck, there's Mike, there's me. I mean, besides the reality inside of us and what we creepily, we don't change the laws of physics, right? We don't change whether there's a Santa Claus. It's our job to figure it out. And so if somebody says something about me that's true, then it's true.

If it's not, it's not. But somebody saying Alex Epstein is the smartest guy in the world, or Alex Epstein, is an idiot. Neither of those really matters. And also like if you need to be the number one at something, that's also a weird. That's also another focus thing. Well, you can't change reality, I suppose, but you can change motion. You can change perception. Yeah. Through persuasion. I was thinking after we met the first time, Chadded, was a year and a half or so ago. You guys got together and went to the page of the master's. Yeah, that was really, that was unexpectedly cool, by the way, that thing.

Okay. So for those of you who don't know, Padgeon of the Masters is a, takes place at the festival of arts every year. It's been going on for like 90 years. It's down the Laguna. And it's a tableauvance, where famous works of art are basically. It's a really elevated way everybody. Well, it's very French. It was their idea. It was in the brochure. Yeah, it's in the brochure. It's all in the brochure. But I was equal parts titillated, delighted, and a little freaked out by it when I saw it the first time to see.

Because you're always like, that's not really people. That's it. That's obviously the painting. And then you see it move. That's right. So these are real people holding perfectly still for 90 seconds, usually during some narration and an orchestra is playing. And they are bringing the pictures to life.

It just struck me, as you were saying, making your point, that we can warp reality. We can do things to capture people's attention who might otherwise not be paying attention. And sometimes you can do it by holding perfectly still for a minute. Breaking a pattern, breaking a cycle. You know, you did it, standing in New York, holding that sign, right? There are a lot of ways to do it.

I mean, I want people to have a more accurate view of, I mean, I think of it as I'm interested in intellectual persuasion. So trying to get people who expect to disagree with me to agree with controversial but true things. That's my interest in persuasion. So, of course, what they think matters, I mean, right, the fact that I keep going to Socrates, but the fact that the Athenians thought he was a menace and wanted to kill him, that's a problem. And it's a problem for me that we have really crappy energy policy. And it's certainly a problem for me that we're foisting that on the rest of the world to some extent, which I think is just super unjust.

So I'm super interested in persuasion. But for me, it's, again, a lot of people interested in persuasion. It's like ultimately it's how to get people to like you or something. Well, it's how to change. I think it's how to change behavior. In the end, right? I mean, how do we get more people to pick up their trash when nobody is looking and throw it away? That's a simple question.

By the way, that campaign seemed to work quite well, didn't it? Took 15 years. But by every measurable metric, it moved the needle in the littering space. Once you got beyond that, right, it gets a little squishy. What's also interesting about that campaign, Alex, it was a real consortium. some NGOs, some government, some concerned citizens, and some big corporations, Coca-Cola, and the National Ad Council. And they hired Iron Eyes Cody, who wasn't really an Indian, just an Italian actor,

but he stood there in his headdress, weeping on the side of the road, and paddling his canoe through those backwaters choked with garbage, and people's hearts broke. And what it did was it created a stigma around a behavior that we wanted to curtail. And that can be healthy, by the way. There's too much about you shouldn't do that. The cancel thing, which you can be, I mean, people have tried to unjustly cancel me, and I'm certainly against those kinds of attempts. But in general, in a free society, unfortunately, neither conservatives nor liberals seem to realize this right now,

but like one of the great things about a free society is boycotting and shaming things. Consequences. Yeah, voluntarily. So like if you don't want to advertise on a particular platform or something like that, Like, you have the right to do that. Or if you don't, often people just take the fact that, oh, this person was unjustly shamed. Nobody should be shamed for anything versus, no. It's a very powerful weapon we have.

And you should think even Franklin Wright, I think it's an amazing character in American history. You know, when he was asked about what he thinks of American architecture, he said, I think it's a great shame. And his view, which I get it. I mean, I really, that guy, I think, really got it in terms of. of the relationship between humans and nature and how to make things beautiful in a very primal way

as just this amazing aesthetic. Like, I get it. So much of our stuff is ugly. But that's the kind of thing you want to deal with by persuasion by offering more beautiful things by giving them, you know, this is part of what Apple did.

Johnny Ivan, particularly, like he thought that most industrial design was a great shame. And this is hard for him to look at. And he changed that very materially. And you know, Steve Jobs is the same thing with things like typography. and thinking that that was terrible.

But there's the positive and the negative part of it. So it just reminds me, I think we've gotten to this point where people equate shaming or criticizing or boycotting things with the suppression of free speech. And those are all exercises of free speech that are very important to civilized society. So I'd look at that litter campaign insofar as it's as good as it seems. And think about how do you do that with other things that you would like to discourage. Well, it's been on my mind for 16 years. Our country had a dysfunctional relationship with littering.

We had to change it. I think the same is true now with our energy policies. I think the same is true with our educational policies. I think that sometimes what you need to do is create stigmas around behavior and other times you need to debunk them. The percentage of people today who are genuinely surprised slash skeptical slash disbelieving of the fact that many welders are making well north of six figures is amazing. They just don't believe it.

So to your point, if you're disagreeable and you have the facts on your side, well, that's what you play. You play the facts. And you say, look, just let me show you. Let me show you the facts. If you don't, then things get more nuanced. I won't mention the name of the energy company who called me last month. And this is a good place to start to land the plane, I think, because it comes back to persuasion. They are facing an incredible challenge.

when it comes to the climate, they have to turn off the electricity from time to time when the conditions exist for a fire. And the conditions exist for a fire, according to one side, because the planet's getting hotter, etc. And the other side,

because we just didn't take care of the forest. There's no forest management, right? And meanwhile, the laws exist in certain states that would allow people to literally sue the energy company out of existence if one of them, their lines causes the fire. And so they do the only thing they can. They turn off the power until the conditions abate. This has created a PR nightmare that's virtually unrivaled in the

21st century. And so they're calling me. Can you talk to our customers about this? Because we can't, because we're just fundamentally unpersuasive around this topic because our interests are too vested. it. I'll bet they could talk more persuasive. I mean, it's smart to get you if they can. No. It's so expensive, Alex. It's so expensive. To get you? Yeah, it really is. Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to try to con you into doing something after this. But I think in general, people in industries, this is a persuasion point, people in industries that are opposed by the public, so fossil fuel industry would be one, but chemical industry, you know, plastics, et cetera. They have a very deep misconception. I think this. I want to run this by you. And it relates to this issue I mentioned, the message of the industry is fossil fuels aren't as bad as they used to be, or fossil fuels aren't as bad as you think. Like, that's the message you get from the industry. Why do they think this is plausible is they think, well, if people hate us, we can't convince them to like us, we can only convince them to hate us less. But I don't think that's true. Because I think if you would acknowledge that you deserve to be hated just to a lesser degree, you create boredom and you create validation of the

idea that you should be hated. You let somebody else set the table. Yeah. So versus if you say, well, fossil fuels are good, that's at least interesting and it changes the frame. So I have two books, you know, that sold pretty well, the moral case for fossil fuels and fossil future. What if they had been, the second one, why global human flourishing requires more oil, coal, and natural gas, not less? So both those are very positive and provocative titles. What if I had written two books called fossil fuels aren't as bad as you think and fossil fuels aren't as bad as they used to be? Those underpants are clean enough. You've got to keep going back to that one.

It's called a light motif. It's kind of what I do. How would those sell? Like, nobody would be interested in the perspective at all. This is where it's actually much more powerful and persuasive. If you think you have a good thing that people hate, say that you're good. Don't say that you're not that bad. I mean, you can see this.

I mean, Donald Trump does this, right? He does like everyone says it's evil incarnate, and he says, I'm great. That's a lot different from, oh, yeah, I'm not as bad as you think. Right. That's exactly right. I'm not as bad as you think. There's our title with Alice Gapsign. Okay. Where can people go to get this thing that is now just suddenly been made available? So the best place is just follow the substack, Alexepstein.com, because that's where I will release it. Alexepstein.com. And then I mentioned resources for, you know, your Valentine's Daydates and everything else. Energy Talking Points.com and Alexepstein.com.

So those are resources. But if you subscribe to the substack, you'll just get everything and it'll be delivered to your inbox. Now, I assume the AI is an artificial insemination. Dope. Excellent. Yes. Only a matter of time. Just the like know about this?

I'm going to be like that, yeah, that guy or there's going to be lots of little Alex Fstein looking. Well, look, man, your hair looks terrific. Thank you. I'm sorry I missed the page of the masters. Maybe we can all go again next year and watch people hold perfectly still for 90 seconds as they contemplate the universe. and all that's in it and so forth. Awesome. Your mission, should you choose to accept it,

is go ahead and get Peter Thiel in here and Palmer Lucky and Elon Musk. Yeah. Might as well get Jordan Peterson too while you're at it. Oh, has he not been on the show? No, he hasn't. Well, so three of those people are going to be at the first Energy Talking Points conference, April 23rd, which I am going to try to con you into coming to. Where is it?

Newport Beach. I would love to come to that. Okay. That's not a con at all. That's just a request. And that's not a commitment either. His warning show. No, it's definitely not a commitment.

We're not paying any of the speakers, so it is a con. So this is a nice thing about getting billionaires and politicians to speak, is that they can fly themselves in it? Yeah, well, they can fly. We'll fly you if you need a private jet. We have plenty of people coming with private jets. But yeah. So I'll try to convince you do that. That'll be a great place to meet those guys.

Hey, I'm so glad you're doing what you're doing. I still think there's a little stoic in you. You're pushing the rock up the hill, and you're doing it with great good humor and just the right amount of disagreeability, which I love. Awesome. All right, I'm going to tell my wife I'm disagreeable, and I learned it's a good thing.

And give my regards to the guerrillas. Thanks, folks. We'll talk at you next week. If you leave some stars, could you make it five, and before you go, could you please subscribe? If you leave some stars, could you make it five, and before you go, could you please subscribe? If you leave some stars, could you make it five? And before you go, could you please subscribe?

If you work in university maintenance, Granger considers you an MVP, because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Granger is your trusted partner. Offering the products you need all in one place, from HVAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock, so your team always gets the win. Call 1-800 Granger, visit granger.com or just stop by,

Granger, for the ones who get it done. The ocean delights us as playful otters restore coastal kill forests. The ocean teaches us how our choices impact even the deepest places. The ocean connects us. Visit monterey Bay Aquarium.org slash connects.