 Welcome again to this series where we're exploring objectivism as a very interesting philosophy and we're trying to talk about different subjects. Now here with me is Yaron Brooke, one of the most famous faces in the objectivism world. You are working both in America and also in Latin America trying to spread the ideas of objectivism. All over the world, really. Good, good. Absolutely. Well, Yaron, you know that I've been talking with some of the scholars of the Andran Institute about different subjects and there is one thing that intrigues me about free will and of course, you know, the new research on neuroscience and biology and this debate on how free are we really if we are. And also evolutionary psychology because Andran always said objectivism is all about observing reality as it is and instead of denying it, accept it and try to make your life in a very coherent way according to what reality shows you. So if reality and these new scientific findings are showing us, you know, something different, how can objectivism apply these new findings or reject them? And I want to start with an exercise. Maybe I can say something generally about it and then we'll get into some of the particulars. Absolutely. So scientific knowledge is important and we have to be able to evaluate it and see whether our ideas hold up in the face of new knowledge. But this is the challenge, particularly in the world we live in today, which I think not only is corrupt in its politics and we share our understanding of the corruption in politics. But it's also corrupt, I think, in its philosophy and I think that affects a lot of the science. I think one has to be wary of definitive statements in the sciences today, particularly in young sciences, in new sciences. If you look at your biology, which is a fascinating field and there's a lot of new information in your science field, it's not the science I'm worried about, it's the way they interpret it. Right. And the interpretation is more philosophy than it is actually science. And I am suspicious of a lot of the so-called conclusions that the philosophers of science and scientists and social thinkers are coming to based on the neurobiological evidence. And suddenly that is the case, I think, with evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is very philosophical in the sense that it's dealing with philosophical concepts. It's assuming that we evolved ideas, we evolved inclinations, we evolved all kinds of things that I don't think the scientists are very clear on. For example, what is the difference between an idea, an emotion, an inclination, temperament and all these other things that describe, you know, human behavior in one way or the other? Can they clearly define all those things? Can they then distinctly say this is genetic and this is not? Exactly. And none of them even make an attempt, right? When I read it, I go, they're not even trying to distinguish these different features. They assume ideas are just like emotions and just like inclinations and just like temperament. And that is clearly not true. Ideas are not something we're born with. Ideas are something you have to use your reason in order to create. Now, when you're a baby, you don't know what a chair is, you have to create in a sense, you have to integrate to bring about the concept of chair, right? That is something that's an achievement, right? It's something that you have to actually make an effort to do and the more abstract concept of effort is greater. So this idea that you can evolve concepts is just wrong. Now, where is the evolution? The conclusions, as I think I understand it, I think a lot of psychology understands it, are responses, automatic responses to conclusions and thinking that we have done in the past. Well, again, thinking is not evolved, so our emotions evolved. I doubt it. I don't think they are. So then we're left with inclinations and temperament. Okay, I'm willing to accept that there's some interesting science about these things. But if it's really just that, then it's a lot less than what is being claimed today by these scientists. So I don't think they have a clear understanding of what it is they're even dealing with. It's a very young science, and I think in 50 years we'll have a much better understanding of these things. Let's not take what's written in popular books about this and say it's definitive, given how weak I think their analysis is, their philosophical analysis is, and then how young the science actually is. So I think, yeah, let's gain the knowledge, but let's be careful about how we interpret it. And for example, on the issue of free will, and I know you've talked to others about free will, free will is directly observable. But when I look at this and I see a glass of water, it's irrelevant in a sense what science says. This is a glass and it's, you know, maybe it's not water and the science tells me it's poison or something. But my sense is observe something. That is the reality. And the science explains it. The science can explain, oh, it's made of molecules and it has this shape because of the way it was formed. The same with free will. Free will is directly observable. Science cannot disprove that it exists. It can one day maybe explain it, but it cannot disprove it. Well, that is the thing. I mean, that corruption that you talk about in the philosophical world that is also poisoning the way that science is interpreted is something that, for example, I haven't read the other works of Steven Pinker. But I read the blank slate and he actually points this out. In one spectrum, the left side of philosophy and politics does not want us to talk about biology, genetics, because for them this sounds like these will be justifications of racism, Nazism, sexism, you know, attempting to the rights of minorities. And then in the right wing, more conservative side of the spectrum, they also don't want to learn about these new findings because it attempts against their religion. So he does recognize the corruption that the philosophical world is going through. And he also, you know, blames relativists. He said, in the scientific study of politically charged topics such as race, gender, violence and social organization appealing to facts or the truth in connection with these topics is just as rules the relative say, because there is no truth in the sense of an objective independent of cultural and political presuppositions. And he does blame this. Like, when I read Pinker, for example, he condemns communism. He does, he makes an extra, a very interesting case of why the individual mind should be free. In some senses you say, okay, the guy gets it. In others, and I know that in other books, he goes like, no, there's no free will. Well, I think in the blank slate, he gets to the nursery rule and I know, you know, based on other people have read it. So I don't have direct experience with it. But yes, I mean, Stephen Pinker is a contradiction. He holds these contradictions. On one hand, he's anti-communist, obviously, and he's anti kind of radical leftist views on many issues. On the other hand, he doesn't want capitalism. He wants kind of, we need to regulate capitalism. We need to control capitalism. So he's for a mixed economy. He's a centrist when it comes to politics. He wants many, many more regulations and controls than we would want. He wants redistribution of wealth. He believes redistribution of wealth is necessary and moral. He's very conventional when it comes to his morality. In many respects, it's kind of funny that he's very Christian in his morality. In spite of being an atheist, he still holds the same kind of sacrificial live for others type of moral code. And yet he's very smart and he gets a lot of things right. And you see among certain intellectuals of the center left a certain understanding of the role of reason, the role of the mind, the role of individuals, the role of markets, but they're not willing to go all the way and would really undercuts them. And this is tragic. Him and Sam Harris and many others is that they don't really believe in free will. They don't really believe that individuals making choices. And that kind of undercuts the whole argument because if you don't believe in free will, why are we even having the conversation, right? Why are we trying to convince anybody? Why are we debating? And I don't think reason and rationality mean anything without free will. Reason is something you have to bring forth. You have to engage your mind with. So, you know, again, because I haven't read the book, I don't want to, you know, and he's obviously, Pinker's not here to defend himself. But it's a challenge among a lot of modern intellectuals. And I think that one of the biggest issues of the day is this issue of free will. It's interesting. Ankar Ghatid did an interview with Dave Rubin on free will. And it's one of the best viewed videos we've ever made. And the reason is I think this is an issue that young people are really struggling with because there's so many modern intellectuals are saying, no, there's no free will because science can't explain it. Right. And yet, well, but if there's no free will, it's the point. And I know this free will because I could see it when I introspect that that that there's real angst. There's real confusion about these issues. And I think it's just, it's just, you know, it's, it's, it's the foundation of all knowledge is that we have the capacity to engage our mind to choose to think. But then something is going on and it shouldn't be and it should be pointed out because, for example, you've read other books of Pinker. I've only read the blank slate. He starts saying, this is not going to be one of those books that says that everything is genetic because it isn't. The environment is just as important as the genes. The things children experience while they're growing up are just as important as the things that they're born with. Yeah. But they see that's the cop out. That's that's terrible. Why is that terrible? So there are two theories in psychology. You're determined by your genes. Yeah. Or you're determined by your environment. Yeah. And the real radicals, like Steven Peake, I say you're determined by both. By both, yeah. But you're still determined. The most important point about who you are and what you are is this third option, which is the choices you make. Of course. The decisions you make. But that never comes up, right? So, so he says both are influencing. And I'm saying, yeah, both have an influence. But the thing that really makes you who you are are the choices you make given the genes that you have, given that the environment you were born into. Right? What do you do with it? What do you choose to engage your mind, to focus your mind, to think, to make choices, to take responsibility? Or do you choose to drift through life and to let the environment in your genes just dictate what you do or to let other people dictate what you do? So the most important characteristic in psychology of what you turn out to be is you. Of course. But it's not, of course, because it's not there. No, I know. He makes a case where I think it's a trinity for him. It's a little bit the environment, a little bit genetics. We still don't know how much you can actually decide. And I think that the room for confusion comes from the fact that, for instance, genetically now we know that your sexual desires and your sexual attractions are genetic. It's not that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. It's that the way they are coded in their DNA will make them more attracted to people of their same sex. So, you know, there's an element of truth to that. But I also think we don't know a lot. Again, we're overstating the case. Exactly. There's a lot about sexual desire, even among heterosexuals, that we don't understand. And a lot of it still has to do with choices that you make, both as a young person growing up and as an adult, that determine what you attract to do sexually and what you're not attracted to sexually, even among heterosexuals. What kind of woman am I attracted to? That's not genetically programmed into me. That is a function of my ideas. And indeed, when my ideas change, the type of woman I'm attracted to changes. It really does. So it's not, this whole idea of coding is way, way overstated in my view. And the environmental impact is way worse. I know it's from personal experience because my environment, really, I grew up in a place that taught you collectivism. It was given to you with your mother's milk. It was in the songs. It was in the stories. It was in the school books. It was everywhere. The whole environment was collectivistic, tribalistic, driving you. And I bought it. When I was 14, 15, 16, I was a hundred percent. I was just waiting for the grenades so I could jump and sacrifice my life for the sake of the collective, right? For my tribe, the Jewish tribe, as it happens to be. And I believed it and it was emotionally, it was completely integrated into who I was. And then I read Atlas Shrugged. And I said, oh my God, this is nonsense. This is wrong. My life is mine. And it took me a long time to distangle all that collectivism out of my soul, out of my emotions, out of everything. But, you know, maybe it took three years, four years, five years. But at some point, none of that collectivistic stuff meant anything to me. All those emotions were gone. I used to get tears in my eyes when the Israeli flag would go up. I don't anymore, right? So you can change your emotions, your inclinations, all these things that... If you read some of these books, you would think is just programmed into us. When you change your ideas, these things change. And I think that's true of sexual attraction. I think it's true of a lot of things. Now, certainly some stuff is coded into us. No question. But what is it? How impactful is it that science is still in infancy? And unfortunately, people like Stephen Pinker and others overstate the case. And it's a great story. They tell great stories about it. And it gets them a lot of attention. And good for them. You know, they're doing it, but I don't think it's science. I think it's too early to say. And what they discount, and they discount dramatically, is choice, ideas. Right. I mean, ideas change you emotionally. They change what you value and what you don't value. I mean, I know that. I'm sure you know that. You went through changes in how you viewed the world. And that changes partially who you attracted to sexually. Yeah, of course. That I agree. Maybe not in the sense of passing from heterosexual to gay. Yeah, I think that's right. You know what you value in people and like how they are, how they behave. That's huge. Yeah, of course it is. But the thing is, I think it's so hard to make this case because now people are like, wait a minute, maybe I just don't inherit the color of my eyes from my parents. What if I am inheriting other things, not only bad things, but also talents. Or like, because there is no way of defining what is genetic from what, because this is a very young science, as you say, there is room for a lot of confusion. But what is absolutely clear and really important is your ideas are not inherited. Of course. Your moral character is not inherited. Yes. The values and virtues that you have are not inherited. And at the end, because we can see emotions change with ideas, your emotions are not. If we can agree on that. Of course. I agree with that. And then, you know, that makes all the difference because now it's still your, see if we buy into determinism, and I know a lot of people and there's a lot of people in the free market world who are trying to integrate evolutionary psychology in ways that I think are very harmful. If we agree that there's no free world, then there's no moral responsibility. Then it doesn't really matter what political system we live under in the end of the day because we're just determined to live under whatever political system we're determined to live under. So it's really important that people know that they have moral agency, that they decide their values and virtues, that they decide the direction of their life, and they are responsible for the choices that they make in their own lives. And therefore, they're responsible for the political system that they have, and that the politician is responsible for the political system they have. We can't let anybody have to hook because they had bad genes or because they had a bad environment. There's no excuse at the end of the day. You have to make decisions and choices for yourself. And that's what's so crucial. But I think that these things should continue to be studied. I don't think that the left should ban it for the reasons or the conservative right rejected it because I think this is part of knowing yourself like Socrates said. For example, now you have the opportunity of knowing your ancestry. You can take a sample of your DNA. And in my case, I think that this is a great solution against racism because if everyone in the planet would take their DNA test to find out that we are all a genetic blender, we're exactly then the points for nationalism or racism would just like tear down. If you apply the right philosophy, I wish I was benevolent. I mean, optimistic as you are because I think the roots of collectivism and tribalism are much deeper than just the DNA. But yes, I agree with you. We're ultimately all months and it would be good for people to know that. And it would be good for them to get that. But I think that they didn't find a different tribe. They identify based on another thing because that urge to be tribal is ideological. It's intellectual. It's ideas again. And it's lazy. It's laziness, right? It's saying I'm not going to think. I'm not going to think for myself. You see, I think a lot of the tribalism is for a long time, we've been told by all kinds of intellectuals. Reason is useless. You don't know anything. We need philosopher kings to tell us how to live. You're not competent enough to live in this modern world and this complex world. And OK, if I'm told that and I have to engage in life, what emotion does that evoke in me? Well, fear. I don't know what to do. I don't know how to live. And I can't use my mind because I've told it's impotent. So what do I do? Well, fear, if I'm fearful, then I'm looking for other people I can get together with and maybe they know what to do and maybe they have a philosopher king who can tell us all what to do. Tribalism is really the consequence of people believing that their own independent thinking as an individual human being is impotent. And then they get into groups. But one way to eliminate this idea of getting together into groups based on race is to show that there is no such thing. Exactly. There's no race and therefore the concept of let's say the nation will also come down, also sexism. And you know differences between men and women. Of course there are differences. It's also proven, but not into discriminatory regulation for that. Now, if all of this we can tear them down using science and the right philosophy because only science will not get us there. It's also the right philosophy. Then maybe we become tribalists of the mind. We become elitists trying to find people that think like us. Which is what John Galt kind of did, right? He was like looking for people that were, you know, it didn't matter their race or their sexual preferences. He was looking for people that were mind-like. The independent thinkers that thought and were seeking the truth. You know, absolutely. Look, I'm not against science. I know, I know. I want the science to go forward. I just worry that in the meantime as the science goes forward the interpretations we get because a lot of it's based on bad philosophy. And it's not just philosophy of left and right. It's just philosophy. There's just this bad philosophy of the left and right. That the interpretations then we need to be wary of them. We need to be cautious of them. Not even ignore them. We need to challenge. We need to be challenged by them. We need to address them. Right. But we want the science to move forward because I think at the end of the day if what we believe is true then the science will confirm that. I mean, of course. And I said to Ankar, I wish we could bring Anne Rand to the 21st century and take her DNA both ancestry and health DNA. And maybe she could be fascinated by the fact that now she can know what parts of the world her family comes from or what kind of propensities to certain diseases. For instance, cancer or ephysema or Alzheimer or Parkinson's or whatever. And also the propensity to adrenaline rushes. Chemically there are human beings that are more needed or are more propens to adrenaline rushes and this makes them more propens to be drug addicts, casino gamblers or taking risks. Just people who travel all around the world not sleeping and delivering the message. Yes. Absolutely. I mean that has to do with you know, certain inclination and temperament. Right. And those clearly have a biological emphasis but even then. Yes. Even then we don't know how much of that is pure DNA and how much of that is things that happen to you in your childhood and that the body is responding to. Of course. So all of that is fascinating. But let me just say something about the 23andMe kind of genetic thing, which I think is fascinating. I did it primarily for the health stuff. I found the heritage stuff funny and curious and entertaining and stuff. But I think Anne Rand would say, you know, I don't care about my ancestors and I don't care about my ancestors. I don't care. I don't care about my ancestors or my heritage or like that. You know, it doesn't matter to me where I come from. It's just, it's kind of more fun than any kind of important value. But the medical stuff actually has important uses. I encourage people to actually get their DNA tested. Right. The medical stuff, you can change your behavior given that you are sensitive to certain diseases or inclined to have certain physiological problems. This is why I think that objectivism has a lot to give to the world and join this so recent science that is neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, do not abandon the battle of having an opinion on these books because if we leave it to socialism, then maybe we're going to have new collectivist measures about this and if we leave it to the conservatives, it's going to be just denial about these things. But I think that this kind of knowledge with the proper philosophy can help humanity get in another phase. Absolutely. Now I also want to talk about what science has showed us as reality and I want to go to another one of your favorites. Joval Harari. Also, the only book I read about him is Sapiens which I think is fascinating in the historical explanation on how homo sapiens came to be the predominant of all the species of humanity. And he talks about our moral codes and he puts two examples. The first one is the Hammurabi Code 4,000 or more years ago. And then he talks about the Declaration of Independence of the United States as one of the most important documents that as humanity we have come up with. Now he says if we would have to rewrite the declaration according to what science has shown us and he makes this exercise that I want to give you so you can have your opinion. So the Declaration of Independence says we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. According to the science of biology people were not created, they have evolved and they have certainly did not evolve to be equal. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity which argues that every person has a divinely created soul and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are equal? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code and it is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances for survival. Created equal should therefore be translated into evolved differently. So that's the first thing that he changed. Let's challenge that and then we'll go to the second part. So, you know, I mean, how he has no concept and no idea of what the Founding Fathers are talking about, unfortunately. He completely misunderstands them because he can't think in the terms and at the level that the Founders did. What do they mean by equality? Of course, they know people are different. You don't have to know DNA. You don't have to get into DNA to know people are different. You just have to look around the room. We're all different. Look at the two of us. We're very different. People are different. Of course, they are. They think differently. They look differently. They act differently. They have different temperaments, inclinations, ideas, moral characters. All of this, the Founders knew this. The idea that you had to have Darwin tell us the wall different is nonsense. No, it's true. Not all men. He's right about creator. Okay, so, you know. We evolved differently. We evolved, right? Yeah. But, you know, first of all, they wrote this before evolution. But secondly, they did believe in some kind of essential creator, although they didn't want to, they purposely did not write God because they were not very religious men. Yeah. But that's not the point I'm making. They're not making the point that we're all the same. And again, somebody is smarter, so are we. This is not that hard. They're making the point. I mean, I'm serious. It really boggles my mind that, and this is what I think philosophy plays a role. He's got a bad philosophy and it's shaping the way he interprets these things. What does they mean by created equal? He means equal, they mean equally free. Equally with the ability to make decisions for themselves. Not that those decisions would be equally good for them because some people maybe have better moral character than others, smarter than others and so on, but that they all have a right to make decisions for themselves. They all have the right to be free. They're all equal in their inalienable rights, not equal in their characteristics. I mean, that's just silliness. Of course, we're different. One of the reasons why we should be equally before the law equal in our rights, equal in our freedoms, is because of those differences. And when we have differences among us, one of the principles behind the declaration is we can't just pull out a gun and shoot each other. We can't just fight it out in the streets. We have a system of laws that protects our individual rights from the use of force against one another. So every individual is free to pursue their individual happiness as they see fit based on their own rational mind. That's what they mean by equal. That's all they mean by equal. And again, it's political equality, not metaphysical or biological equality. That's silliness. And yeah, I mean, I wish they'd written evolved. And I wish they'd said that this equality is in the rights of the climate of human survival. When we finish the exercise, we're going to make the phrase according to what objectives would write it. I have to say the funny fathers are pretty damn good. I know, I know, I know they work. And we're not trying to apply 21st century logic to 70s, 70s, because that would be impossible. But I think what equality means is really, really important because the left, as you know, this equality and Harare's concept, we all have to be the same. We all have to have the same outcome or the same opportunities or some sameness. That is impossible. And the founders are against that. Because why are they against that? Because they know that the only way to make us equal is to take from some and give to others. And they're saying, no, you can't take from some and give to others because that would violate some people's rights. That would actually treat some people unequally before the law. That's the quality that the left never wants to talk about, the quality under the law. So it's political equality that they're talking about, not equality of outcome, economic equality or metaphysical, biological equality. So no, I wouldn't rewrite the declaration the way Harare suggests. Okay, not the way he suggests it, but let's say what else. We'll improve on it later. So there are no such thing as rights in biology, Harare says. There are only organs, abilities and characteristics. Birds fly not because they have a right to fly, but because they have wings. And it's not true that these organs, abilities and characteristics are unalienable. Many of them undergo constant mutations and may well be completely lost over time. The ostrich is a bird that lost its ability to fly. So unalienable rights should be translated into mutable characteristics. I want to strangle him. Okay, I'll strangle him. I don't really, because I don't believe before we go on, let's do this. I mean, this is where Harare shows himself to be a complete materialist who rejects free will, rejects our ability to take, not just free will, but rejects our ability to conceptualize. Of course, rights are not things that exist within us. They're not like the glass or they're not like an organ. They're not like the DNA within us. Rights are an idea. They're an idea that's generated through reason. And this is what striking, right? But he does recognize that. He recognized that as humanity, we come up with the idea of rights so that we can live peacefully. It just doesn't exist in biology. Yes, but biology is not everything, right? So why would you rewrite the declaration? Based on biology, when it's not related to biology, it's related to political philosophy. It's related to how we live in society. But he's a materialist and he's rejecting and society doesn't come up with anything. Some geniuses, a few real geniuses came up with these ideas based on the work of philosophers, based on the work on Locke and the Enlightenment and came up with some ideas and formulations that are designed in order to make it possible for us to live in society in a peaceful way, in a way that is consistent with human flourishing and individual human flourishing. But he can only see the world in terms of biology. He only sees the world and he is writing a book about Homo sapiens, the characteristic of Homo sapiens. What makes us Homo sapiens, what makes us different from any other animal is not a biology. No, it's language and communication. No, it's not even language and communication because those are only the consequences. You can't communicate unless you think. You can't have language unless your mind is trying to integrate different concrete into a concept. The fundamental is thinking. Thinking, it's observing, it's awareness of the world that they're integrating the observations, forming concepts, and then integrating those concepts into higher concepts. It's using your mind, using logic. And that is not biology. That is something our consciousness does. How it does it exactly, we don't exactly know. This is part of neuroscience, doesn't yet know exactly how we do it. But we know we control it. This is where free will steps in. And again, something I think Harari rejects and I've seen him rejected in other articles he's written. We control it. We can, you know, we're fallible because we can make mistakes because we can make mistakes in how we control it and how we use our reason and how we use our rational faculty. So Harari is here imposing a materialism, a biological determinism on a declaration of dependence which is a massive achievement of conceptual thinking, a free will of man's at his best, at his highest. And he wants to bring us down to the level of chimpanzees. And it's true. Chimpanzees just have organs. So chimpanzees don't have rights and chimpanzees can conceive of rights and chimpanzees can conceive of political equality. And all of this is, you know, for them, for chimpanzees, irrelevant and true. But we're not chimpanzees. We're homo sapiens, which he should know. Daryl, we're running out of time and it's been amazing talking with you. This is fun. All this, all these subjects that I think that our audience is going to have more questions than... Well, we're going to have to do this again and have to do it more often. Maybe, you know, maybe we should do this regularly. Yes, yes. It's a blast to talk to you. We should do more, more, more shows like this and I hope you enjoyed it and you guys also enjoyed it. And at the end, I think that there's also something that Harari says at the end and he says, well, humanity has to come up with with all this technology and all this wealth. What do we want to want? This is one of his last sentences in one chapter. And I agree with that. What do we want to want? Where are we going to go from here as humanity when we have all this material wealth? We're living all those many, to so many years, but if we don't have the right philosophy, what's the purpose of it all, right? In many respects, in the Declaration of Independence, this is such a wonderful document, what we want is to be happy. What we want is the opportunity, the freedom to be happy. There is nothing beyond that. There is nothing that we want more than having a meaningful life, a fulfilling life, a flourishing life, the best life that you as an individual can want. And it's not what humanity wants. It's what you want and what I want and what individual wants. And there's nothing beyond happiness. There's no greater good. There's no, you know, there's no God out there that we have to sacrifice to. There's no race that we have to promote. There's no happiness. You know, you have one shot at living on this earth. You have one attempt at this. It's individual happiness and choosing the right values and choosing the right philosophy to make that happiness a reality in your life. Now, if someone could look from a giant telescope, all of planet Earth and the 7 billion people of us, like we're little ants, it is undeniable that it's always a minority. The minority of us is striving for freedom, looking for reasonable answers, stepping away from dogmas. It looks like in the great scale, the majority of us, and there was a Spanish philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset, he talked about the el hombre masa, the common man that it's with the masses, versus the unique man that even Anne Rand points out in her novels as an exception. So is it that all humanity strives for happiness and freedom? Or is it also something biologically in our species that only a few of us will strive for that? I don't think it's biological, and this is where free will is so important. I think it's a choice you make. It's a choice you make probably when you're quite young. It's a choice you make, am I going to get engaged with this world? Am I going to focus on reality? Am I going to use my mind? Or am I going to drift? And unfortunately, in the world in which we live, a lot of people choose to drift. A lot of people choose to follow. A lot of people choose not to think for themselves. And it's always been like that. It's always been like that. And I don't know as we move into the future if that percentage changes. I think it does, because there are a lot of cases where when we're young and we're thinking for ourselves, our parents shut us down, our teachers shut us down, the system shuts us down, the government shuts us down. And so I think there's certainly external motivations that can increase the amount of independent thinking. So I don't know what the percentage is at the end of the day. But this is also why what we do is so important. If it's true that a certain percentage of the population are followers, then who do they follow? They follow the intellectuals. They follow the people who speak up. They follow the people who have ideas and have philosophies. The fact is that in places like Latin America, almost all those people are real lefties, are real leftists, the intellectuals, the professors, the leaders, the people who are trying to move society forward. And if they're not, then they're religious conservatives, right? And that's all the options that they have. And part of all those ideologies discourage people from thinking for themselves. And I worry that Harawi and Pinkett, to some extent, discourage people from thinking for themselves because they're told they don't have free will. What we are doing is we're trying to find those gems that people are willing to think, are willing to be independent thinkers. And what we need to do is grow us. We need more intellectuals, more philosophers, more teachers, more professors. We need to replace the intellectual elite because then the intellectual elite determines the world. It determines the future. And as long as that's dominated by the left and religion, we're done. We have to kick them out. We have to replace them completely and replace them with rational people advocating for good ideas for individual freedom, advocating for the Declaration of Independence, what the Declaration of Independence really means, political freedom, individual rights, the pursuit of happiness, so egoism, all using the mind, all using our faculty of reason. Thank you very much, Jair. We're going to change the world. Little by little, one mind at a time. Yes.