 I think we have time for a few questions. Well, thank you very much for your very interesting presentation. You know, well, I'd like to ask you if, don't you believe that, in fact, the situation, the atmosphere, is artificially created by some political philosophy and the education of we, first of all, like the former the way we were talking about. Even in the United States, if I remember properly that some educational problems like Head Start, something like that, it was... Head Start, yeah. Yeah, it was the basis for education, just for the high school or even the pre-school. Pre-school, Head Start is pre-school, so I can't hear anything. They put inside children, from the beginning, very special ideas about what is morality in the society. And I can give you an example. On the other hand, I come from Spain. You know, I'm sure you know, Amancio Cortella, who is the founder of Sara. So, you can imagine that right now, there is a political party in Spain that they try to push Amancio Cortella to avoid him, to provide very well-equipped medical equipment for some hospital and all these things. And all this group tried to criticize him because he provided for him this kind of equipment, so this kind of political morality that they tried to impose on him. But I don't think it's any particular group trying to impose a political morality. I think it's the morality that is in the air. It's in our churches, it's in our philosophers. If you read, you know, people like... You know, the word altruism, which we often characterize this idea of living fathers, was coined by a French philosopher called Augustine Comte, C-O-M-T-E. And Comte said if you, you know, if you must place as your highest value the wellbeing of other people. And if you think that by helping them, you're going to be better off, you're going to enjoy it or you're going to... Then it doesn't count as morality. Emmanuel Comte says the same thing. So, our basic philosophers who help establish, you know, in the early 19th century, they helped establish that all the trends, both left and right, within Western civilization are all saying the same thing. Self-interest is bad. Self-interest is exploiting other people and you must live for others. Then that, it becomes part of the education of what do we drink? It's just in the culture. It's everywhere. And of course you get it from religion. And if you combine religion with the secular philosophers, it's very hard to come back, right? You have to get them when they're very young, you know, to combat that. It's very hard to combat that. So, yes, I think they get it in the early educational system, but they don't get it in the early education because there's some conspiracy. They get it in the educational system because most people, you ask them, what is morality? They say, yeah, it's living fathers. It's sacrifices. It's mother Teresa. Mother Teresa's the ideal, right? That's the image. So, yeah, I mean, even when you're trying to do, even when you're trying to give away stuff, they don't want it because you're a billionaire, you're successful, they don't trust you, they don't believe in you, you've got an angle, you're gonna exploit people somehow. Even the charity you do doesn't count anymore. But that's in the philosophical air. It's in the philosophical curriculum. It's in philosophy departments everywhere. And unless that is challenged, I don't think we can make much progress in changing people's attitudes towards entrepreneurs. And we're not gonna change people's attitudes about capitalism or about freedom unless you change people's attitudes about entrepreneurs. Well, thank you for the great talk. I just have one question regarding the process on the basis for morality. I have two things that I would like to get at the bottom. First of all, we think of an evolutionary psychology perspective that that might be the reason why specific morality standards like altruism are more prevalent because maybe in some time in the past it was more beneficial to have the person sacrifice themselves to save the tribe from something that had a women's situation where they say, okay, I saved you from this, but if I survive, give me all your stuff. And the second part would be, I'm sure you're familiar with the personality types and political positions like John and Hyde sort of stuff. I get the feeling that there might be a similar thing with morality, like their personality traits type having different morality senses. So those two things, evolutionary psychology and morality, moral positions of personality. So they're both related because they're both related to this idea of what is within the realm of our choice and what is ingrained in us in personality type which is really genetic decoded, you know, and so on and so on according to some, including Hyde. I'm skeptical of the whole literature. I'm skeptical of evolutionary psychology. I think I don't think I know what they're talking about for the most part. And I'll give you a few examples, right? So there are a lot of things that you have. You have maybe, right, instincts, that's one category. You have emotions, different category. You have inclinations, that's a different category, propensities, talents, and then you have thoughts and ideas. I've never seen an evolutionary psychologist actually go through all of those and define them. And I'm probably missing some. And define them and tell me what is possible to genetically encode and what is not. Because I can guarantee that ideas can't be genetically encoded. Ideas are complex things that one has to have experience with in order to generate. So you can't have ideas. Can emotions be general? Some emotions, like the basic ones like fear and pleasure maybe, but most sophisticated emotions, don't you have some experience with in order to generate? So it's not clear to me that there's clear clarity within the science of what is and what isn't genetically possible. But they come up with these big declarations. Like Morale, these are a very sophisticated idea. And can you separate the choices people make, the influence the environment has, and maybe in some way a genetic manifestation of those? I doubt it. I doubt that anybody can today. I doubt that we have the knowledge to do it. And I can almost guarantee that we're not going to find morality in our genes. Morality is too sophisticated than an idea to sophisticated a type of massive abstraction. And what would it mean if we did? What would mean there's no such thing as morality? Because the whole basis of morality is choice. And if it turns out we don't have choice, or at least in this realm we don't have choice, then there is no morality. You can't blame somebody for doing something that they're programmed to do, and they have no choice about. There's no morality if you take out that idea, or if your pre-programmed to be Republican or Democrat, which I think is ludicrous with all due respect to Jonathan Hyde. So in my view, the whole field is young. They can think a lot differently in 50 years than they do today. They saw a lot of stuff they need to know. They don't know much, and I think we put way too much emphasis on it. Morality is about fundamental choices that you make about your life and about the direction of your life. It's not just after that act, it's more broadly. And there's still the question of I'm going to die for the tribe, right? Why? Right? And can I overcome? Can I not die for the tribe? Can I choose not to do it? And if I choose not to do it, are we sure that I did it because I was programmed to do it? Or because I felt pressure from the tribe to do it? And I gave into that pressure? Or because I really love my tribe and I did it for the tribe because I really loved it. Who knows, right? But the idea that that is somehow genetically encoded on us to jump and commit suicide partially, I mean, most of us won't do it in a modern sense. So I just don't think any of that is encoded in it. And one of the great, I mean, one of the underappreciated modern, among modern intellectuals, evolution has created this amazing thing called human consciousness, which is a leap beyond any other animal consciousness that exists because it has both free will and the capacity to reason, which means it doesn't need as much programming as others because it could program itself. Because of its uniqueness. And by doing that, you minimize the necessary coding that exists in it. So a lot of the stuff that we take for granted that animals have that are coded into it, human beings don't need to. And it's much more efficient because we can create the coding ourselves. So I think free will is a big deal. I think we have a lot of it, not a little bit like some intellectuals or like Sam Harris, not at all. I think it's a big deal. And I think that we under appreciate how much of it we have. And by doing that, we give people excuses for how they live. Your life is yours, it's in your control. Take hold of it and do something useful with it. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broad. Using the super chat. And I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...