In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris answers questions from listeners about his conversation with Jordan Peterson, the reaction to Milo Yiannopoulos at U.C. Berkeley, the “Muslim ban,” the echo chamber of social media, Trump’s lies, the value of the humanities, the ethics of ending aging, whether consciousness can be an illusion, evolution and morality, free speech and other topics.
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes at samharris.org/subscribe.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Welcome to the waking Pike asked Missus SAM Harris, okay, I spent a lot going on. Anyone else feel like this year has been going fast or about six weeks into it. Feels like six months fills. A trump has been put
for six months. Jesus any case I am doing in a May podcast today, so I went out to all of you want twitter and Facebook
and I got to say whenever I do this. The response is just hugely gratifying and overwhelming. I get no exaggeration thousands of questions whenever I go out to you guys. So I'm thank you for that. Needless to say, I can only answer a tiny fraction of them, but
and if you hit similar topics in similar ways, so I'm aggregating a fair amount here, also recovering from a cold. Hopefully that won't
play too much havoc with the listening pleasure and I dont
mention anyone's names when I do Cuba is like this because again I do
aggregate questions, I occasionally real word them a little bit.
To make them more. On point,
So if you
Any these, you will no doubt, recognise your handiwork, but sorry not to give you credit cause. I can't really keep track of how I change,
here and also, I can only assume that some of you actually want to remain anonymous, and, given that I haven't communicated with directly about this, I will err on the side of safety. Before I get to the questions, I will do some brief housekeeping just to put all this,
contacts I just did Bill MAR Show and you can see the response to it
plain out online
felt that interview was a bit of a tightrope walk. Given the
It is time I've been on the show.
I am reasoning
They satisfied that that the whole story came out in those twelve minutes. So that's good, of course, that doesn't prevent people from the left and the right going crazy in response to it,
and it's really been instructed to see that there is virtually no space to occupy between the extreme left and the extreme right that doesn't get you attacked by both sides
since, by virtue of that conversation, I am getting attacked as a islamist shill and a racist xenophobe. It's incredible
There is no place it is. It is not even a razors edge where you can stand to make sense on this issue at the moment. So I guess we miss now
You can see that on my blog, it sits on Youtube I've embedded in my blog
and thanks to bill for having me on it was some I've got to talk to him. I was, I suggest any
work with marginalize, and we finished film in this documentary on our collaboration,
I don't know when that's coming out, but I will keep you all apprised of that and it was a great to see much again face to face. It always instructive in the aftermath of an interview like the the
and I did with bill to receive margins hate mail, which is just mind boggling in the pit.
The self proclaimed moderates who attend
majin and ion on for their bigotry just proves how far we have to go. I just noticed residence among the usual suspects and
really is the usual suspects. There's been a Shaw who columnists for the New York Times and didn't, like my conversation with bill at all and
She disavowed margin and I e on and then says that she loves reformers like Terek Ramadan.
This is the way to wreak Ramadan who, when asked whether stoning women for adultery was ok here,
commander that there be a moratorium on it. We did. We just pause this edict
for a while, so that we can consider its wisdom. That's how far he would go. It's unbelievable this woman right for the New York Times. So, if nothing else it proves this is a necessary conversation and again to clarify- and I said this in my inner
with bill, I don't think I'm going to reform Islam. That is obvious. I am urging Muslims to reform Islam,
and to speak honestly about the need for reform, and, if you think, reform need go no further
then a moratorium on
stoning women to death for adultery, your theocracy is showing and the fact that you could be the
confused as a woman New York Times columnist is fairly jawdropping. Ok, first question: any update on the project manager position. Many questions of this sort came and, yes, we are still in power.
Says over here. There have been over nine hundred applications. At this point, I so close
and on a thousand I actually need this position filled in order to that the applicants unfortunately, but I do have some help with a veteran,
I'm not doing the first round. I will see only the final, fifty or so by dumb yeah there's been a lot of interest, and I look forward to hearing that person. We very helpful
Question too many questions on my conversations with Jordan Petersen. Jordan is the clinical
colleges I had on two podcast back and we got
down in a conversation about scientific epistemological. On the question of truth,
many listeners seem confused about my reasons for not accepting Peterson's version of truth, which
amounted to some odd form of pragmatism, peg to our ultimate survival as a species. If you recall, according to Petersen, a claim is true
helps us survive and false or not true enough. If it doesn't, I see
so much wrong with this claim that it was really hard to know where to begin and am.
I don't think I said this in the pot cast. One wonders whether this claim applies to itself. There is this claim about truth. Only true if it helps us to revive and what, if it doesn't, does it then bite its own tail and just disappear.
The problem there? But I went round and round with Petersen for two hours on this and has prevented us from getting into
objects that listeners really wanted us to explore. Again that he was my most requested podcast guest ever now, some
Peterson's fans blamed me for this entirely and they were alleging mostly that I'm a materialist and that I'm some hot dog
magically oppose the idea that mind my play: some role in defining reality or or parts of it, but that's just not true.
It, and it's not even relevant. As far as I can see me, even if it were true if mind helps create reality,.
I would just claim that we can stand outside those facts as well and say they are true
whether or not anyone knows them right so, for instance, if, if it's true to say that the moon really isn't there, unless someone is looking at it, which is a consciousness, is somehow constitutive of its being in reality,
Well, that fact about the mines. Power would be true weather
Not any of us know about it or understand it right. So this you can still get a realistic picture of truth. Bein a spooky as you want about them
and all I was arguing for which there are facts of the matter.
Whether or not everyone understands them- and some of these facts have nothing to do with the survival of the species. Now some other defend,
of Petersen have argued that I just don't understand pragmatism, but that's not true either. As far as I can tell,
the prank pragmatism in its usual form has to make sense of the kind of challenges I was posing to Peterson table. Peterson's version wasn't doing. That is that is pragmatism isn't just
predicated on survival is predicated on what works in conversation would actually conserves the data. What makes our
Our statements about the world seem to go here and the kinds of statements that
where, with our experience, the kinds it that become predictive of future experience scientifically. All of that is what it means to be pragmatic in the
since most of that has nothing to do with the survival of the species. So again, statements about prime numbers can be understood pragmatically
When I met her claim that there is a there is a prime number higher than any
we have represented unfortunate force, actually a paradox to say that there is a prime number, Lord
than any we have represented here is in fact represent it, but leaving that aside right, let's talk about explicitly representative, which is to say its hasn't, been discovered. Yet there are different ways to think about
had been true, but a pragmatic way is just to say. Well, it certainly seems true those kinds of statements function and conserve the experience of
what it's like to be us continually discovering new prime numbers or seeming to discover them.
It doesn't mean that there is a
reality outside of our conversation, were prime numbers really exist as what the pragmatists wants to say, of course,
The mathematical idealist wants it.
There is some realm of number on some level to be discovered by sentient beings like ourselves, and it exists in some sense whether or not we discover it is the kind of thing
got into it MAX checkmark, who seems to be fairly idealistic on this topic in any case now
formal. Pragmatism can skate across that thin ice fairly elegantly, if not persuasively, but a pragmatism that success
yes, that every statement about prime numbers must be resolved in terms of the survival of apes, like ourselves. That doesn't make any sense by couldn't seem to get Petersen to acknowledge that, and most of you
The vast majority of you, it seems to me, thought I made that case fairly well and you therefore, you agreed with me that Peterson's concept of truth was pretty wacky or LISA. He wasn't communicating it well, but many of you still
all me as a pie cast host for not being gracious enough to just move on to other topics. Once we reach that impasse,
I totally understand that criticism and even I think, anticipated at some point. The pie,
asked and I might have even learn something from it will say what
we'll see what I'm like next time I get bogged down like that with a guest but
for this. I am not a normal podcast host. I view these exchanges
as conversations not really as interviews, though occasionally it does play out a little bit like an interview. But
I'm usually trying to have a conversation and I'm trying to pressure test. My own views,
and refine my own understanding of the world, so it is of the person I'm talking to
isn't making any sense. At least to me. I really want to get to the bottom of what the problem is, and now this is
necessarily intrusive, because on many these points that really one of us
has to be wrong, or at least confused, and in this case that the disagree
and was so fundamental.
And I knew Jordan.
To move on to topics like they exist
of a union archetypes, for instance, I just
couldn't see how we were going to make sense on that topic. If we couldn't agree about what it means to say that something is true right and how'd, you distinguish fact from fantasy: we couldn't converge there
really at all, and the next topics on the menu were things like archetypes end mythology and
The reality of christian doctrine
and I wanted to get onto those topics, because I knew how much our listeners wanted us to get their hands make an increasingly desperate attempts to try to get some consensus so that we can move on, and it is had somewhat the character of my attempted to perform an exorcism
which didn't work it was. I was like that seen in the exorcist when MAX fancied out does
whole spiel in Latin and still ones up with a faithful of green vomit anyway, at the end of that podcast, those of you who heard it. No, if you got it
and I put it out to all of you to crowd source the postmortem on it to tell us what happened.
And to decide whether we should go forward and have a second conversation on other topics, and I put out a pole on Twitter
which, by thirty thousand of you, responded to and aid.
One per cent of you said yes, we should have another conversation now. I gotta think that poor went fairly viral among Jordans.
Out, because on my own social media channels, I got a lot of complaints about the conversation and I'd be very surprised. If
Eighty one percent of my listeners wanna hear Jordan. I go round and round again, but I will take this recommend.
Asian seriously. I don't you know what I'm gonna. Do it, sir,
somewhat amusing and somewhat disconcerting that a fairly frequent criticism from Jordan's crowd seems to be that that
I didn't let the conversation move on, because I was afraid that Jordan was.
Going to dismantle my atheists m that whose Gus
something there that was so powerful
so well reasoned that he would have referred
Healed my doubts about God to be completely bankrupt.
I am open to that, but the fact that anyone thinks that is the reason why I.
Didn't move on, I gotta hope that
Those of you who are regular listeners to the podcast know me.
Other than that anyway.
I will. I will let you know if Jordan's coming back on,
a few more podcast guests in the meantime before I rethink that I guess
Implications of putting into a vote would be that I would say
they do? Whatever the majority of you say, I should do not sure this is actually democracy.
I may be a little more autocratic than that, but term. Don't Jordan.
Eyes as there are no hard feelings, I just in everything he has said since the podcast, some of which I responded to my blog. None of that has clarified his position to me and dumb. If we do go for a second round,
and how I think we really do have to avoid getting bogged down again. The way we did so, I have to figure out some kind of guidelines so that we can actually have a conversation that is productive and not exclusive.
In for all of you, so more on that when I figured out question three.
Many of you asked me about my views on the so called muslim Ban. I'm just an
In this now, just to say that I wrote a blog post about it, and then I was until more show to talk about it, and both of those on my blog
pressure to say that in my last meeting with margin, we spoke about it and he had a good distinction
or a re of what is reasonable here, which I fully agree with. I think I had something like
it's hard to get away from the logic of some kind of religious test. It is actually relevant
once you realize you're looking for a jihadist. It is rare.
I want to know whether somebody is a solitary muslim right, because he was stand more of a chance of being a jihadist, then
a Unitarian universal list would but, though, the way margin talks about this
We just want to know about people's beliefs and attitudes right, we're looking for illiberal beliefs, and yes, it is true that Islam has more than its fair share of people who are fundamentally illiberal at this moment who don't support free speech,
Incapacitates should be killed, say, but we we are looking for ill liberalism of that sort in general,
and if there is some new cult born tomorrow that produces the same kind of liberalism will then we want to stop those people. The border to
if we could so a muslim ban doesn't make any sense, but nor does it
make any sense to say you can't ask people detailed questions about their world view in the process of vat. Them, of course,
have to ask people. How would you feel if your daughter, married outside your religion, say.
And there's a wrong answer to that question. If you say why would cut her head on
We don't want you in the country right, and we are right not to want you in the country and its instructive, that there are muslim organizations that dont want. Those sorts of questions asked in the voting process, of course, is a very common theme with me. This comes down to ideas and beliefs and the degree to which people subscribed to them, because this is the best predictor of what they will do.
In the world and we care about what people do and how likely they are to assimilate into our society in a productive way and we're right to care about
things? So, if you want a moron on trumps executive order and why I don't think it was a good idea, you can see those blog articles and the aforementioned interview with Delmore,
Next question: Milo at Berkeley wow, that was amazing. Well, I guess I would just point out the obvious that that was one of the best things that could have ever happened to Milo in terms of proving his points, both the legitimate and illegitimate ones and raising his stature right may will it just? Why
A short sighted, idiotic, counterproductive thing to do, and what worries me about this moment politically is the left seems capable of doing everything wrong in response to the rise of the so called alteration and the Trump presidency this antipathy to free speech. This idea that rioting to prevent a lecture is an example of liberal free speech in action that is just so confused and destructive.
That I am tempted to say that the left is just irredeemable at this point that there seems to be so little insight and coming fresh out of my interview with the more I can see. This means that there are people who have tweeted at me and written
to me who heard in my discussion with bill a horrifying expression
of racist hatred or our pretending to have heard such a thing, and this kind of judgment is
is again echoed by the usual suspects on the left.
That position is so crazy that I'd, I just don't know how to interact with it. So it's
accident that people on a right can't see any way to interact
with it- and all I can say- is that if I am a big it and a racist and xenophobic, if that's how I appear to you based on what I said
in real time. What words are you can use for the real bigots and racists and xenophobia.
And what I have said before about Milo Milo, is a at this point. Kind of a professional troll re missed. Some of his criticism of the left is no doubt sincere, but he's a kind of performance artist me he's. He just winding up the left and you know perhaps have missed it, but I haven't seen anything from him that is
Real racist bigotry. Please take this caviar on board. I have not read all of Milo Stuff or much of it
Maybe there's something. I've missed feel free to point that out to me, but.
The Milo I've seen is very far from being a NEO Nazi for someone who is whose attitudes are truly
the right- that's probably not an accident, I mean he's flam, buoyantly, gay and half jewish. I believe I dont know how right wing he could be in the end, but this response-
at Berkeley wouldn't even be warranted if he was actually a k, K, K member again
the moment you're using violence to prevent someone from speaking.
You are on the wrong side of the argument by definition.
How is that not obvious on the left at this moment me you're gonna?
what burn down your own university to prevent someone from expressing views that you could otherwise just criticise
all these protests were seen in response to right wing or quasi right wing. Speakers being invited to college campuses by, I am sure that the camp
Republicans. These are so uncivil and unproductive and again, this isn T always
entirely a phenomenon of the left. If America, if you heard generically that some college campus
had a rapid and violence, because a student mob had prevented a lecture from taking place
and the people who wanted to hear that lecture, worse, spat upon as they try to enter the hall and finally attacked. You could bet
well what ninety nine percent confidence that this was coming from the left
Now, in the age of Trump,
you really want to be able to say things against
been right wing authoritarianism having an authoritarian, anti
free speech, movement,
assume the left is a disaster politically, but I actually think the left is irredeemable at this point, and this is why begun to use
the phrase, the new centre. I think we need a new centre to our politics. May I don't know how you ever get the people writing for the intercept or the people on the young Turks to be reasonable human beings, given what they have done in recent years, and so that's the left,
as it currently stands course is no accident that the women's March, at which otherwise seem like a great thing, was
this created by its alliance with Linda Sorcerer and these closeted in semi closeted Islamists, who have cooperated the women's movement,
and convinced millions of women, apparently that they had job, is a sign of women's empowerment class, fairly mind boggling. Just so, there's no confusion on this point. I think you dear
sooner. You should be free to where the head job, if you want to, but you should also recognise that
most women the world over who are veiled to one or another degree.
Our living that way not out of choice or certainly not out of what could be considered a free choice there living in the context of a community that will treat them like whores or worse if they dont veil themselves
right. That's not the political empowerment of women and someone like Linda Sorcerer, again, one of them
Sensible organizers of the women's March is a theocratic who lies about this.
Tax. I on her sally. This is
The left will die
on the basis of its own moral relativism, locking arms with Islamism in stealth, theocracy, which is what it has done,
I just just as you know, if you travel to far right on the political spectrum, you will encounter the most repulsive, the most callous, the most authoritarian attitudes. I think you should know that if you travel to far left, you will encounter a kind of moral confusion and identity politics that is in its actual application to the world. Little better, and I don't I don't see how that changes at this point next question: how do you think we can reasonably expect to break the echo chamber, mentality and social media and online information? Do things possible or expect our conversation to grow increasingly factional ized? This is a good question to which I really don't have
have a good answer. Apart from my acknowledging that this, is it just a huge problem that has to be higher everyone's list of problems that really can make it hard to maintain our way of life and what we're talking about how human beings reach a common understanding of reality right? How do we get our view of the facts to convert
and how do we get our the moral norms that should guide our behaviour to become aligned collectively, and
if we are not dealing with the same facts if
my new sources are fake news according to your own and vice versa. It is hard to see how we will make any power
where this isn't just about agreeing that climate change is a problem. This is everything this is the wars. We fight the laws, we pass the research we fund or don't fund. It is everything there is a difference between truth and lies. There is a difference between real news and fake news, there's a difference between actual conspiracies, and
agent ones, and we cannot afford to have hundreds of millions of people in our own
society on the wrong.
Inside of those epistemological chasms, and we certainly
afford to have members of our own government on the run.
Inside of them has
said, many many times before. All we have is conversation right. You have conversation and violence, that's how we can influence one another,
When things really matter and words are insufficient, people show up with guns,
as the way things are. So we have to create the conditions, were conversations,
work, and now I live in an environment where words have become almost totally ineffectual.
And that this is what has been so harmful. I would say about trumps candidacy and his first few weeks as president may just the degree to which the man lies and the degree to which his supporters do not care. That is one of the most dangerous things to happen in my lifetime. Politically, there simply has to be a consequence for line on this level, and the retort from a Trump fan is well.
All politicians lie. No all politicians don't lie like this. What we are witnessing with Trump and the people around him is something quite new, even if I grant
that all politicians lie a lot. I don't even know if I should grant that our politicians lie sometimes say
but even in their line, they have to endure,
Worse than norm of truth telling that's what it means to lie successfully in politics in a former age of the earth, you can't be obviously line
You can't obviously be repudiating
very norm of honest communication, but what Trump has done and the people around him have gotten caught in the same?
vortex Thomas, like a giddy nihilism in politics right, whereas just you just say what ever you want, and it doesn't matter if it's true just try to stop me is the attitude is unbelievable,
So, finally, on this point I would just say that finding ways to span this chasm but
when people finding ways where we can reliably influence one another through conversation based on shared norms of argumentation and self criticism. That is the operating system we need. That is the only thing that stands between us and chaos, and there are the people who are trying to build that and there the people who are trying to tear down and now one of those people is president-
I really don't think this is too strong. Trump is, by all appearances, consciously destroying the fabric of civil conversation, and his supporters really don't seem to care, and I am sure that those of you who,
port him we'll think? I'm just windy now in a spirit of partisanship right. That's why I'm against Trump I'm a Democrat or I'm a liberal. This is not the case
Most normal republican candidates, who am I dislike for a variety of reasons, Marco Rubio or Jab Bush, or even a quasi theocratic, like TED crews,
would still function within the normal channels of attempting a fact based conversation about the world,
their lies would be normal lies and when caught there'd be a penalty to pay, they would lose face
from has no face to lose. This isn't a pistol, illogical potlatch do nor a potlatch is say traditional native practice, of burning up your wealth burning up your prized possessions so as to prove how
wealthy you're right. Look at me. I can burn down my own house. This is a potlatch of civil discourse. Every time trump speaks. He saying I don't have to make sense. I'm too powerful even have to make sense. That is his message and half the country
We're nearly half seems to love it. So when he's caught in a lie, he has no face to lose trumpets. Chaos.
And one of the measures of how bad he seems to me is that I dont even care about the theocratic, his brow
The power with him- and there are many of them- you know he has brought in.
Christian fundamentalists to a degree that would have been unthinkable ten years ago
And ten years ago I was spending a lot of time worryin about the rise of the Christian right in this country, while it it has risen under Trump. But honestly, it seems like the least of our problems. At this moment, it is me
in for me to say that, given what it means and might yet mean to have people like pence and Jeff sessions and the other christian fundamentalists in his orbit empowered in this way,
Next question recent giving thirty five hundred dollars each month from the pod cast to the against Malaria Foundation. Has he spoke about in your podcast with Wilma Castle? Yes, yes, I'm doing that. That's happening in automatically not continuing to talk about it, so as not to wear my philanthropy on my sleeve, but that was the result of my conversation with. Will I highly recommend you listen to that part? Caskets Wilma casket spent ass dick. I just came out. I feeling that damn, however conflicted I might be about the results of any podcast, however conflicts I might be about
the use of my time on any given month, however conflict I might be around asking listeners to support the podcast, I wanted to know that at minimum I was doing
I'm good in the world and the
are you of saving a human life each month really can't be disputed
and thirty five hundred hours is still the statistical minimum for what it takes to save a life through the most efficient means which still anti malarial bed nets,
so anyway? Listen to my conversation with will and you may find it-
as inspiring. As I did. Ok next question one hour
I've heard from someone who believes in God and an after life is that quote: energy can never be deceived,
good, I soon. What is meant by this is that consciousness survives the body as a soul. Perhaps I think this is
nonsense. I don't really have a good enough, come back for it. What would your response be?
why is not a matter of energy, so much as it is
formation and organization when you're talkin about mines and even living systems, the difference between a living system and a dead one is not merely a difference in
matter or energy. When you die, you dont suddenly become physically lighter. Actually, when your body begins to cool, you have to become a little later because you're losing kinetic energy, but I doubt the effect is measurable. Would Russia doktor at the beginning of the twentieth century named dunk?
and Macdougall, who assume that the sole must have mass and therefore he weighed people at the moment of death, and he claimed to have found that the weight of the human body, diminish by
something on the order of twenty one g. I think of a good experiment and dogs and found that there was no weight difference and it confirmed the thesis that, unlike human beings, dogs, have no souls right. Well, obviously, there's no reason to believe any of this is true, but you can sympathize.
With the good doctors? Thinking there? That's really not a question of manner or energy going somewhere else. Nobody thinks that heat energy is the basis of your conscious life,
in fact, you're losing heat every moment now, you're just producing more of it.
Like your mind, has.
Migrated out into the environment, because
of the molecular energy in your body has so whenever, whenever consciousness is whatever its relationship is to the brain, if it is the product of what the brain is doing, it is the product of the organised,
information processing in the brain and once that ceases to
the organised once those processes stop
Neurons are no longer firing once their connections begin to break down
It's not a manner of so much of matter
energy being lost as a matter of activity sees it
Where does a song go when you stop singing, whereas a dance go when you stop dancing
Do they still exist in some way the distinction between
Having a mind and not having one or being alive
I've and being dead is more like that, it's more like a verb than a noun living bodies. Do things the dead bodies don't and when they stopped doing those things there dead systems that process information and could be the basis of mines are doing things.
The disorganized systems dont and when they become disorganized, they cease to do those things
So this is a bad analogy. This idea that
the conscious mind is energy and energy can't be destroyed,
Energy can be converted into forms
There are no longer useful, where economic
do work where it contained
no more information. This is entropy and we
finding entropy every moment of our lives and when we die entropy wins. If you think in terms of pay
says it's a little easier to see that processes can become disordered and disrupted right end finally, cease.
So the snow output, my hopes for immortality
You say to someone who claims that the humanities are an unnecessary waste of money, because they have no immediate practical purpose and that should not be taught at universities were given funds for research. I referred a subjects such as history, socio
gee or philosophy, while I may huge fan of the Sciences, obviously, and also a critic of some
the ideological trends in the humanities, much of the duration of the left on college campuses that I've spoken about could be laid at the door. Steps of me
of the departments in the humanities, but speaking generally, there's much more to living life worth living
having a mind worth having, then just
we stand in the world scientifically or producing better technology. The humanities are absolutely central to intellectual life
and ethical life, and while there really isn't an infinite amount to learn and- and I wish I had studied some things differently
As an undergraduate, I am very happy to have done my undergraduate degree in philosophy, because it gets you thinking and arguing clearly about more or less everything or lease potentially can do that, and I think that x
really important. I dont you know. Well, it's not obvious what the jobs are for. Most people come out of a philosophy degree I, when people
me whether I recommend a degree in full.
If he I certainly do. Personally, I found it incredibly useful.
Sure, there's some degrees and humanities that I wouldn't say that about there's a lot of truth and beauty to be found almost everywhere
now, whatever you're studying, should be equipping you to have a civil conversation with other points of view.
This is the high wire act that we all have to aspire to. Again and again, we scientists
we're going to fall off the wire, but we should always want to get back on
whether you studying sociology or black history or women studies or whatever it is reasoned conversation,
based on facts rather than mere feelings, has to be the
the wire you attempt to stay on if you're part of the university
just becoming an outrage machine
something wrong with your university, not necessarily the subject matter.
No doubt there are some subjects that have become a kind of caricature, of everything, its potentially raw,
would the humanities I dont think that is actually intrinsic to the subject
fairly confident that there is a way to have a women studies department that doesn't become a reductio ad absurdum of everything on the left, but if your foundational philosophy in that
department, is that there is no biological difference between men and women. As a matter of principle will, then, obviously you can have a problem. This is where facts come in a uterus, Bein, perhaps the first to consider next question.
I'd like to hear your thoughts about the ethics of the anti aging movement led by organizations such as the sends foundation.
Human, longevity ink and so on. Why? I think aging is a problem. I think that more and more
every day and it would be nice if
it was something we can do about it. No doubt the fact that this is controversial in some circles is interesting. I think come operate. A grey has done a lot of very useful work on that point,
speaking so much about his his argument. That aging is a solvable engineering problem and should be viewed as a kind of master disease that needs to be cured. Above all others. I think I'm kind of agnostic on that point. It seems reasonable to
but I'm thinking more, the kinds of ethical arguments he's made- and I think a few TED talks now and in his book
people have this intuition, which seems a faulty one that there's something
terribly selfish, about not wanting to die. That is ever there's something disreputable about aspiring to cheat death permanently right, so they support curing cancer right, that's a good thing: they support curing heart disease. That would be a good thing. They were support.
During Alzheimer's right. That would be a good thing. You can make the list of diseases as law.
As you want, and therefore it. But if you add to that list aging itself right, which is part and parcel of all of these problems, many people seem to think well. No,
now. No, that is a moral failure to accept mortality. That is a defective character. That is a kind of selfishness
We should repudiate. We have a moral obligation to seed the stage to future generations. I dont get that in an operator, gray certainly doesn't get that and he manages to lampoon that an end and show the the internal contradictions too that pretty well in his talk. So I recommend those two year seems only natural to want to solve this problem, and I think you really can make a credible.
Pace that we should expect to at some point there only so many different ways to die. An only son,
many different ways for the body to degrade and cease to function as well as it did yesterday and with reason
to aging itself, there really only seven things that happen on obvious account at it
It reasonable to expect that at some point we could figure out how to engineer changes,
human body or develop therapies that will allow us to continue to repair ourselves. Now
this would obviously be a very different world and there are obvious ethical concerns about wealth, inequality being the doorway to a kind of death inequality note.
These treatments would initially be very expensive
It would also make death by other forms of bad luck. That much more poignant may imagine if we had solved Asian as a problem
with completely crack the code of DNA repair in others no,
cancer anymore. We keep our brains healthy indefinitely
No reason at all for you not to expect to live a thousand years except
It is still possible to get run over by a bus right. So just think of how much more depressing it would be.
Be cut down in the prime of your life, when the prime of your life could be
thousand years long. There are other problems to worry about: there's overpopulation, there's a decision not to have kids because of that
but for starting to colonise the rest of the solar system and push out toward the stars. Who knows if overpopulation would really become a problem under those conditions against those questions you have to pay the price
back of are becoming more and more knowledgeable and wiser, and imagine how good a person you could become in a thousand years. Also, I think not having to take death for granted in quite the same way, would weaken the hold that religion has on the human mind, and we would begin to see that. Yet there really is an opportunity here. In fact, the only opportunity we can be sure of to make human life and human consciousness as beautiful and profound as possible.
And that opportunity would be more compelling to most people. I think if our mortality warrant guaranteed the fact that you can be more or less certain, you will die within a century, no matter what you do, no matter how you live. That seems to justify the kind of nihilism and other worldliness that vitiate so much ethical or quasi ethical thinking. It seems we, the people, have terrible intuitions about right.
Wrong about how they should live in this world based on either the notion that nothing really matters, because it all comes to an end or-
The notion that there is a much better place to get too after death
and curing aging would created
come here where people can reasonably expect to have to live with the consequences of human behaviour.
In both our successes and failures for much longer time,
and therefore be motivated to solve problems that have a time horizon of many decades and even centuries. From this. What so difficult about a problem like climate change
Even for those who accept that it is in fact a problem is hard to be motivated by it and even haven't kids is somehow not enough, so I don't know who knows if we will get there? I am not especially sceptical that we will, but I'm not term, surely not expecting to live a thousand years. I shall ash privileges have operated grand podcast at some point. Cause he's he's very interesting guy, but damn it
about having reached escaped velocity. At this point a he thinks that some people now alive will in fact live for centuries, if not longer, because they will their part of the the cohort that has achieved escape velocity so that the improvements that will come
Life extension within their lifetime will extend their lives long enough, so they can be around
for the next wave of improvements they'll be abroad
through tomorrow, say that will add a reliable twenty years to human life. Rightness enemy-
young enough now those twenty years will be enough.
If you around until we have a breakthrough that adds forty more years to human life
and if you are young enough one that breakthrough came
you're gonna be around for the next four. The extra century, update and salt will go and again all of this makes a bus,
or an arrow to the head, all the more poignant, presumably they'll, still be such a thing as death under the conditions of having solved the problem of aging, but damn this remains to be seen.
On the contrary to you seem pretty obsessed with the fact that one can argue with the existence of consciousness, is consciousness really the best choice for an irrefutable proof. So, as referring to day cards famous statement constitute air goes some, which is usually translated. As I think
the sum which is usually translated, as I think, therefore, I am, and their future
ways of reading that line? I've? Always
taken him to mean thinking is somehow primary, but he could have meant and- and I think a few subsequent statements from him suggested that its really just the existence of subjectivity, in essence, consciousness that he meant so obviously I don't think
Thinking is primary if you're familiar with what I have said about the nature of the self and how its ill
Sweetness can be discovered through meditation. I dont think I e the subject of the sensitive. I is primary, but I do think consciousness is primary not onto logically but epistemological
The fact that things seem a certain way is the first fact and your daddy
yet you are wondering whether or not it is itself may be an illusion. That is just more evidence of it right and I actually can't understand the claims made by people who profess to doubt that the claim that consciousness might be an illusion just makes absolutely no sense to me where's. The claim that anything else may be an illusion is perfectly intelligible. The universe, maybe an illusion- this may all be a dream. I may be radically confused about everything, and yet there is this fact that something seems to be happening in this moment. That is just the fact,
consciousness again, that's not to prejudge any of the questions with respect to how consciousness arises in this universe or the relationship between mind and matter. All that still remains to be figured out
to be under the sway of an illusion about anything, demonstrate
is the reality of consciousness as much as any vertical perception would or any clear understanding would so there's one of those things where I just can't. I kick it behind consciousness, ass, not to say that the universe made of consciousness, where the car
this isn't the product of a brain. You want more of my thinking on that. You have to either read waking up or download the talk I gave witches on the homepage of my website on that topic.
Next question: SAM, I'm with you on the issue of Islamism and the effort to empower reformist Muslims and also about how liberals
the paradoxically ignored all the anti progressive views of much of the muslim world, etc. That said, I'm curious how you would envision the quote. Conversation unfolding. If suddenly, liberals woke up to understand all the right
national criticisms of Islam would have a rational conversation about Islam, still in power
islamist the same way that trump style rhetoric would. This is a good question of has. Certainly, this is the fear right that
Annie honesty on this point is just as provocative as bigotry and
is obviously indistinguishable from bigotry for many people. Again, I come back to the primacy of conversation here
All we have is conversation or violence, conversation or coercion on some level, and we can lie about this
weaken delude ourselves about it. We could be taken in by the lives of others, but at a certain point we need to honestly talk about people's actual beliefs and their consequences, people's actual goals and the and the efforts there may
in to realise them. I think is certainly the case that some percentage of the muslim world is not reachable by conversation right. We have to talk about the consequences of that being. The case is that that is the foundation for violent conflict,
and these people tell us who they are. Isis tells us that they're not reachable by conversation
tell us every way they can there's nothing. You can say to change what we think is true.
How we want to live in light of those beliefs and what we are attempting to do to you who don't share our beliefs. They,
advertised their immunity to conversation as eloquently as they possibly can. So that's that's where the guns come out. I dont see an alternative to that.
But the crucial war of ideas to win is the war.
Ideas, that is a civil war of ideas in the muslim community, and this is
just in the Middle EAST. This is everywhere. A majority of Muslims have to agree that these
ancient doctrines regarding blasphemy and passed a sea and martyrdom and g Hod in female.
Chastity and all the rest. All of these have to be reformed in light of twenty first century secular, liberal values,
And if not, if they can't agree on that, we will continually have conflict, because those now
is the seventh century version of those values are income
Annabelle with a universal conception of human rights right or real political equality between the sexes or tolerance of gay and lesbian rights or freedom of speech, and these are core values of western civilization. At this point free speech, above all
and for good reason, because, as I said somewhere recently, free speech really is the master value. Free speech is the only thing that allows us to improve our values. If we can't talk about reality, because certain topics are taboo, we can't correct our view of reality through conversation.
This is just on its face. Dangerous traditional Islam is hostile to these values. That should be obvious.
And when I say traditional Islam, I mean
jihadism, Islamism and much that passes war
mainstream conservative Islam.
It's not just the guys on the monkey bars in those terrorist train videos we're talking about anyone who thinks a novelist should be put to death for saying something, defamatory
About the prophet Mohammed, if you are on the wrong side of that particular controversy, you have prepared the ground for violent conflict in an open society. The only way to defend our open societies
and to keep them open, is to win a war of ideas with enough of those people at minimum to have our car.
Perception about human rights and free speech be sufficiently intrusive so that we
Claim. The next generation of kids for our side or education system has to be good enough
so that, no matter how crazy the parents are, the kids don't become the sort of people who one cartoonists killed or gaze thrown off a rooftop,
All of this could be accomplished in a single generation if we could only get through to the next generation of kids. This, why
keeping theocracy and moral relativism out of our education system is important. I think I have on that topic now,
question how much a morality in your view to inherit from evolution, frozen,
seems to me that our moral intuitions regarding a relationship between apparent had a child are shaped, partly by the fact that we tend as mammals.
To have children and small numbers, habitat
labour we were to meet a race of aliens. Who'd have all from something like squids or frogs did you
dump out offspring in large numbers and leave them to fend for themselves, seems like they'd harbour. Varied
ethical intuitions, about the prospect of raising children, also very good
question and yo. I fully agree with what is implied here much of what
seems morally salient us an important much of what we find disgusting
or laudatory in in the behaviour of other people. This is a purely provincial in biological terms. I think it was Eel Wilson who once said that, if
termites, worse, intelligent as we are, they would think it was stored, narrowly important, morally and politically to extra.
Change feces with one another upon greeting something like that. I forgot the details of termite behaviour. He was using their but point taken,
but you can. You can still ask the deeper question, which has really what I view as the foundation of morality is given the contingent facts of any particular biology. What states of well being are available, both individually and collectively, how
good. Can life be given that your brain is the product of Evelyn?
no changes in the primate line verses. Some line then moved on from frogs or squids.
What state of consciousness or available what sort of suffering is there to be avoided, and how can you avoid it
at the moment we begin to think about actually changing our
Europe has right or building conscious systems in computers, then the question of what is
Good reduces for me too, what are the best experiences available given where we are in
we are, and how can we move from where we are toward those experiences.
And while there may be more than one right answer to that question, which is to say there may be multiple peaks available, that
could reach for clearly many wrong answers there.
Any valleys weakened descend into,
lead nowhere worth going where people or Squid,
or whenever we are
more and more miserable to no good purpose, and that, if we should do anything, we should avoid so yeah. Well, it's interesting disk
give way to think about what is essential to
in moral terms, and what is just this vile,
logical veneer that might be stripped off by changes in the brain and is clearly a biological and cultural level to it that we keep encountering in
I've Threeg. You can see it pretty clearly in your notion of what constitutes food, what is good to eat right and what discuss two while their certain things
you would be disgusted to eat which are really no more disgusting than anything
do you eat, but you have been culturally conditioned to consider these things nonfood, I'm thinking of things like cats and dogs and rats. You know, I don't know that cats dogs,
rats, don't taste like chicken. Maybe there are reasons why there they would be less palatable. Then some of the animals most people eat, but still
most of us have a visceral reaction to the idea of
in a dog or a rat which, whilst it's not
then that we could imagine overcoming, and we would my view, overcoming it as undesirable. We don't want to be comfortable eating dogs and right.
It's pretty easy to see. The wrongness of the practice is historically and culturally contingent in a way that other things about us aren't scraps of confusing,
Dogs and rats in the same category here is certainly make the argument that dogs given are hissed,
with them, and their level of intelligence pose a special problem to eat, but he
to make the same argument about pigs, which are also very intelligent. In any case, there are things we dont want to eat with other people and other cultures have eaten, and you can see that these differences don't run very deep,
moral differences like that marital norms, for instance, where people from different cultures feel very strongly about certain things and
the question to which I think there really is a right answer or answers that are more right. Answers that are more wrong, is given all the tools available to us and given all the resultant experiences available to us, which sorts of practices Lee
to the most durable forms of human flourishing, and this is why not all heartfelt convictions are equivalent. I have no doubt that a father was about to commit an honour, killing
his daughter, based on his belief that she has shamed him and his family. I have no doubt that such a man is convinced of the rightness of his view but given
the consequences in the world. Given how limiting that view is on a hundred fronts. It's not
we went to my finding that behaviour, abhorrent
right. There is a more and less enlightened morality on offer here and we have it
find the more enlightened one. But this presupposes that there are things
it. Even the most enlightened of us have yet to be enlightened about not taken our current cultural norms as definitive. There are things we absolutely could be wrong about and yet feel deeply that they should be
as they are. This is my thesis on the topic of more realism. I think it's possible do not know what you're missing, no doubt, there's a war
thy wide range of human experiences and social arrangements and cultures. We might build that we're all cognitive leaned emotionally closed to, because we are apes
the sort that we are and what one thing that culture does in one thing, that the progress of human knowledge does is give us leverage.
Which we can pride ourselves out of the grip of
your biology, a mere
evolutionary imperative. Yes
All is social apes are programmed to feel jealousy say, but what's beyond.
Policy. You know how good is a marriage base,
on the norm of jealousy this is something we can get beyond through culture.
In conversation, and that way lies progress.
And the same analysis extends to tribalism and xenophobia
and everything else that is biologically contingent about us,
and there's a related question here? What.
Play. I necessarily require a survival instinct if it didn't have an evolutionary history. While there are a few arguments that suggest it might, because any goal you give an artificial intelligence would require that it survived in order to complete it, so ensuring its survival is an instrumental goal for any other goal, and intelligent system might have their stomachs.
This. Obviously, if its goal is to faithfully execute what its human designers want. Well, if its human,
I want to turn it off. I suppose that could supersede its need to stay on so people
Thinking about this, how could you design a system more intelligent than ourselves that would always submit
being turned off.
It's easy to see how you could fail to do this without him
Necessarily programmed in
Would a survival instinct next question with law
which portions of society already arguing about what constitutes fake news
How will we handle future technology that makes these lines even more murky, for example, voice?
Population, software or computer generated facial expressions in the near
Future may be confronted with situations where we literally can't believe specific video or audio due to this manipulating software. This at all,
open the door for anyone accused of wrong doing to deny just about anything thrown in their direction. More so
they do now how civilization handle this.
Well. This is a real problem. I don't you guys, have
seeing the state of the art now, but there
now which can manipulate facial expressions so that it looks like someone is delivering words. They never actually spoke. This still looks fairly crude and LISA versions. I've seen, but the audio is basically impeccable to the ear at least. Maybe there's some way of analyzing it and seeing that is not. But we are already at the point where someone could take
one of my podcast or any audio recording of a person speaking and match his or her voice. Two words that the person never spoke.
I saw this demonstrated, I believe, at the last TED Conference. I was an odd in what we do with that.
I guess there's some technological fix for this. I guess some kind of digital watermark
related to the blockchain could be attached to any piece of digital media
as he could see who handled it. Something like that should be possible. I assume, but without that, without being able to tell who produced a piece of media the damage this could do to journalism.
And politics and to basic human sanity that some it's hard to exaggerate. So I'm watching
space with some trepidation.
But it will be amusing to hear the podcast where
convert to Islam and apologize to
green, while the resource line for being wrong about everything in those will be amused,
bit of audio next question:
I've heard you use the term zero sum game when talking to guests on different subjects, which is
letting refugees into our country is not a zero sum game. I'm trying to get a bit
understanding of this term in how to use it and debate in conversation.
While the terms euro. Some means that one person's gain is another person's loss. By definition, most sports
that we like or zero sum, is no possibility of both sides winning
did you score goal on me, a soccer or when a game and tennis I am that much closer to losing, but most of human collaboration isn't zero sum
if you build a better machine and I buy it, you
have gotten my money, which you wanted.
Do whatever you wanted to do with it. But I got a better machine and society can keep improving. It
of based on me somewhat competitive, creative efforts of people, but life could, in principle, get better for. Everyone
in that space. Most of what we do, even if there's a competitive aspects to it in society, isn't zero sum. These are passed
have some games where, where no one is necessarily win,
in someone else's expense if your life gets better. That doesn't mean by definition, that someone else's life got worse. In fact, if your life is really going to get better in a better world, you need many other peoples.
Lives to get better as well. Otherwise, you can be living in a compound with barbed wire on your wall right and armed guards at your gate. Anyway, that's as the concept of zero sum, generally speaking, it's nice to not be
zero sum situation. So no, I don't think refugees coming to the? U S
is a zero sum situation because, given appropriate vetting of these people,
they make our society better, ultimately end the world better. I think this is generally true for variety
reasons, and this would only be zero sum if every refugee coming into our country made our country worse.
Simply stole our money, helped degrade our infrastructure and contributed nothing useful to our society.
So if that were the situation, that would be zero sum.
Paul blooms position on empathy has not received any pushed back from you. Why? I would have thought you might have had some probing questions. It.
Least well off his reasoning. Examples make perfect sense. His overall conclusion appears to go too far.
The darwinian empathy, algorithms, clearly flawed as our
any darwinian algorithms have
Why can't we use reason to combat these flaws? What can we develop quote
rational empathy. Dumping empathy for compassion feels like a leap to far well. I think compassion is justice, rational empathy- and I think Paul thinks that too, and I dont think Paul is against empathy, occur
ass, the board, and we want the capacity for empathy if for no other reason, it's fun right it. It's. What makes watching a movie,
a satisfying experience,
what allows for vicarious experience of fictional characters, you wouldn't feel anything watching a movie or reading a book. If you couldn't feel empathy, so you want to be able to access.
This state it for that reason alone, but you also want it in your social relationships. You just don't want
be deluded by it S. I don't. I never take Paul Assain
We don't want any empathy at all and what I think he means by compassion is having an appropriate level of empathy. True
Lee guided by a rational understanding of the consequences of actions in the world
You want to be aware of where the greatest harms are being committed, and you want to be able to prioritize mitigating that suffering. So I basically agree with him as why haven't push
back harder than I have. I may be misunderstanding him, but having had him on upon ass three,
times. I think I have a pretty good sense of how he thinks about these things.
Afraid to say my cold is now getting the better of me. I'm gonna make this the final question, as luck would have it has to do with President Trump. Are you
open to doing podcast. With someone who voted for Trump
yeah. I am actually have been trying to.
That podcast, I am actually hoping to get Peter TEAL on the past, which could be interesting for a variety of reason.
Because there are many other things are talk to Peter about. But honestly, I haven't heard any defensive trump. This concedes his obvious flaws, as a person must
less an argument for why these flaws. Don't matter right, and this is this- what you would have to do to defend him. An interesting
Can I really find this alarming omitted the people who defend Trump do not admit that there is anything wrong with him.
And if you have done this, I've basically missed. It is like the most
they can concede. Is that he's uncensored right and therefore will inevitably offend some people that
and even close to acknowledging the problem here is what I think is true.
There isn't a single fortune, five hundred company or a reputable university or any other respectable institution in this country, which has a board of directors which, three years ago, what
said the following: you know we need to take our organization to the next level. We need a truly brilliant leader,
we need someone with vision and integrity, someone who is ethical and deeply knowledge
we need the wisest person we can find to take us forward at this point. You know we need. We need Donald Trump. I am confident that have
his words been uttered in any board room in America. The result would have been to rice of laughter, and there are good reasons for that, and yet now Trump is president.
The United States and all the reasons why people would have laughed three years ago,
are even more obvious now, but the people who support him don't concede any of his obvious flaws.
They think they ve rebranded his pettiness and vindictiveness and boastful ness and dishonesty and inarticulate this assumption.
The twenty first century virtues
but when Trump stands up in front of them a moral wall, the CIA and brags about this,
eyes of his inauguration crowd rather Brad.
But the size he hallucinated or brags.
How many times has been on the cover of time magazine? This isn't stagecraft. This is
some brilliant manipulation of the media,
This isn't some next level communication
this is his cycle. Pathology leaking out into the world. This is what you'd have
due to defend drop, you really have to reconstruct that in a compelling way. I don't see how that's possible, when I see Trump in moments like that. As plain as day, I see the confessions of a disordered purse
reality. I see a child in a man's body and soul,
It is with his tweets ask yourself: how would trample look
If he really were an utter narcissist, any path,
article liar, if you, if you don't
leave that he is these things. The question is: how would he have to appear to be these things to you? What would come
Institute evidence of narcissism and dishonesty, and I think, if you can get out of
echo chamber for a second and just dispassionately? Look at this situation. You will see that
trump could give no more evidence of these things if he tried to put this in terms it
you might more readily understand if you're Trump, then this is
Zactly analogous to the people who claim that jihadists aren't motivated by Islam somewhat Michael,
to them as well,
Would you have to say and do in order to seem motivated by their religious beliefs, talk about these beliefs incessantly in public and in
I that claim to be motivated by religion and only religion whenever they speak, do things
that only make rational sense of a person actually believes in martyrdom in Paradise, because that's what's going on when you ask what would constitute ever
is that jihadism is directly linked to specific doctrines in Islam. You find that their could
actually be no more evidence than there is, and so it is with
From being a malignantly selfish, con man, look at his wife look at their reflexive this with which he lies about everything and has done so for decades. My argument is, there could not be more evidence of this and that's a problem,
so if you gonna defend Trump, you have to argue somehow at what I just said, isn't true and that's hard because again
is one of the most obvious things ever display,
aid by another human being calling trumpet pathological liar at this point
is rather like saying that Michael Jordan was a great basketball player
this is not open to much interpretation.
And so it is with most of his other flaws, as has had to
himself is so alarming, just as a person.
And the degree to which his egocentricity align have damaged our public conversation,
is so startling than I can.
We worry about the theocratic brought with him into government chaos scarier
having a government staffed by religious fundamentalists. But again the left seems like it's going to do nothing but further empower trump,
and until the left realises that identity politics is a dead end, its never going to recover, and I shudder to think what will happen in this
country if we have a major terrorist attack under Trump. The left's
Imbecility reaction is virtually guaranteed and then the
Only voice of security will be coming from Trump.
Anyway, I have David from on the party ass you and I
piquant systematically walk me through this topic, because he obviously knows much more about politics than I do and yes, I will have Peter or someone like Peter on the package.
Happily region I would like to do with Peter is because, while I don't agree with his back and of Trump, obviously I totally respect him in other areas, and there are many other things to talk about like artificial intelligence and the progress of technology generally and our economic future, and even religion and human values. So there's it there's a lot. We could talk about that, wouldn't just be Trump
and I think that's probably important for the past and if someone else I should talk to about Trump feel
free to send them my way, the people who usually get suggested in this vein are some version of internet trolls.
I won't even name some of these people. So I have one more question here. I should answer because is related to this Muslim ban issue. Some things you ve said in the past would lead me to believe that you would see
Port, a muslim ban, whereas lately you're saying you don't support it. If you dont support a ban yet admit that, no matter how thoroughly that
people. We will inevitably be importing some percentage of Muslims who either commit bad acts or tacitly support those who do watch had our policy be with respect to muslim immigration. So it that's a good question. I understand the basis for the confusion and, as I said before, about my conversations with Margaret, I think we have to keep people out of our society.
Who seem profoundly unlikely to ever share our values, and it just so happens that most of these people, the world over, are coming from a single religion, but not all
and no. This doesn't suggests that we need to deport
American citizens, who don't share values right around up all the white Nationalists and Islamists and racists, and we can't do that right, but the fact that we can do that should make us circumspect
About who we let in so the issue more generic one with respect to values and beliefs and a person's goals in life? What sort of world as any given person wanting
I don't know that much about the vetting process is actually just a episode of sixty minutes last week. I believe it was a repeat where they showed what it was like to that syrian refugees, and they said they followed a couple of families who.
Through that process, and I have no reason to think Contra trumps suggestion that were generally doing this badly. They certainly takes a long time
and just judging from some of the families you saw in the sixty minutes episode who, to my eye or
obviously not jihadists or Islamists. There was one widow with her kids right. Who was
not wearing avail issues pretending to be
liberal rational person she's like a Merrill street level actress. So I looked at her and I say, of course, this person should come to the: U S
Look at what she has suffered. Listen to what she says she wants out of life, there's a question that people like that should be led into the country.
And will only add value.
To say nothing of the people
actually no who are liberal
Muslims or former Muslims right
black eye on in Madrid and Oslo Money and finally,
amateur an alley risen
in Sarah Haider in you know not all these people are immigrants, some of the more but any policy that would systematically keep those people out or people like them,
of our country, is obviously the wrong policy now will
some jihadis get in or will some people get in? Who could later be
article Ized sure think, has probably inevitable, but it's outweighed by the benefit. In my view of having the most liberal, most secular, most grateful to be out of fear
Creasy allowed to come in these people are real immune system against these bad ideas
again. This is a war of ideas more than it is at war. Ultimately, it has to be how many people are we going to kill.
That's. Why I'm not for any sort of muslim ban, but that's why I'm for
a truly honest conversation about what's wrong,
with Islam is the way
I tried to thread the needle on Bill Marshall right. We have to talk.
The power of ideas honestly and converge on the best ones sufficiently criticized the worst ones and that's why free speech is the most important thing to protect
in our society is the only thing that allows that process of winnowing and self correction to continue.
And on that note, I will wrap up another podcast. As always, if you find this exercise of free speech, useful
you can support it. Sam Harris at orgy forts lashed support, and that is much appreciated until next time,
If you enjoy this,
cast. There are several ways you can support it. You can leave review
who's on Itunes or stature, where we happened to listen to it
you can share, and on social media with your friends, you
discuss it on your own blog or podcast, or you can support it directly
Transcript generated on 2020-03-23.