 Welcome back to the Gorac Cafe. Today I'm happy to have joining us James Bradley, who is Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences here at Auburn. Before retiring, he taught cell biology and also gen ethics. That is the ethics of biotechnologies, involving genes and cells and so forth in the Biological Sciences Department. Before retiring, he also served as the W. Kelly Mosley Professor in Science and Humanities. As the Chair of the Littleton Franklin Lecture Series in Science and Humanities, and the Director of the Human Odyssey, which is an interdisciplinary sciences and humanities course that I had the pleasure of teaching in many moons ago. So you can me detect a science and humanities theme here. Also back in 2007 or so, Jim and I co-designed and co-taught along with faculty from Chemical Engineering in English an interdisciplinary course on the ethics of nanotechnology, which actually we got an NSF grant for, an unlikely entry on my CV. And that course we taught simultaneously face to face on the Auburn campus and as distance learning on the Auburn Montgomery campus and on the Tuskegee campus. So that was my first experience with distance teaching, which was a novelty then as opposed to the new norm once we come now. More recently, and this is the principal occasion for this interview, he's written a couple of books, Brutes and Angels, Human Possibility in the Age of Biotechnology from 2013, and Recreating Nature, Science, Technology, and Human Values in the 21st Century from last year, both published by with the University of Alabama Press. But I won't hold that against him. So, Jim, you say a little bit about these books. What motivated you to write them? What they're about? And how are they different from each other? OK, I'll start with the first one, Roderick, Brutes or Angels. And that book and the other one are both about modern biotechnologies and ethical questions that arise from these technologies either now or that I can foresee in the fairly new future. And so each chapter is on a biotechnology, like stem cells or cloning or age retardation. There's one on nanotechnology and what CRISPR gene editing. So a number of these technologies in the first half of each chapter is about the science, but it's written for non-scientists. And my wife is a music person. She's a music educator. And so I had her read each chapter as I was working on these books. And if she didn't understand something, which was happening many, many times, then I would rewrite it and rewrite it until my musician partner could understand what I was saying. So it is written to be informative for even scientists don't read in all these different areas, but it's written to be understandable for non-science kind of people. So that's first half of each chapter is about the science, for example, of stem cells. What is a stem cell? How are they used? And then the second portion of the chapter talks about the ethical issues that arise from this. And what I tried real hard to do, and I think successfully in the first book, is not reveal my bias on these issues. My bias is should human cloning be outlawed or not? Should embryonic stem cells continue to be researched on? Is it OK to use these stem cells? But rather, I presented viewpoints from lots of different directions, from different bioethicists that just agree with each other from religious points of view, different denominations, different religious traditions. And the idea was to help people become informed about the issues and then make their own choices. In the second book, I tried to do that with the chapters on the technologies, but it was a little different. The last two chapters, I decided it was time to reveal my bias on some of these things. And so I have a chapter on responsibilities of scientists, responsibilities of citizens and politicians, educators, science journalists, and scientists themselves. And then the last chapter after this chapter on what I feel, responsibilities of good citizens in the context of these technologies looks like the last chapter is on the urgency of doing something now in terms of decision-making about what we want our future as a species to look like. So that's a little bit by what the books are like. Just a phrase that you use, I think it's in the second book. And it was a phrase that comes up a couple of times. It's something like, humanity is the universe's or nature's way of understanding itself and recreating itself or something like that. So a metaphor there that at least suggests the kind of openness to certain kinds of transformations of nature, even if with the writer that it should be done with caution. These changes in transformation should be unconsciously. But there's this general idea that there's something appropriate about giving the caution, embracing certain kinds of transformations of what nature has given us as opposed to simply living it where it stands. Yeah, I think when I made that statement, I was trying to make the point that we are actually part of nature and we emerge from nature. And I guess when I say similar things to other places that have to do with evolution and their natural origins. And when I write things like that, I have in mind not only a few extended family members, but also other people I've known or know that subscribe to fundamentalist scriptural views of the origin of humans and nature. And so I think it's real important to teach and for people to learn that we are part of nature. So anyway, that's where that statement, that the universe understanding itself is kind of a mind-blowing thought. And you think the Big Bang and the origin of particles and eventually atoms and then galaxies and planets and that we are literally stardust, like the Crosby Stills Mansion Young song said back in the 60s, we are stardust, we are stardust. Or as Carl Sagan used to say, we are all, there are billions and billions of stars and we are all star stuff. Cosmos, so as I worked as a kid. Yeah, and that this matter has, through natural processes, evolutionary processes, arranged itself into a configuration that can think about these things and participate in this interview that we're having and develop these technologies that are able to actually change the course of evolution, if we so desired. Anyway, I really enjoy thinking about thoughts like that and I'd like to share them with other people, whether they subscribe to them or not. But I don't think that was your question. I got off onto the Big Bang and the fact that we are literally stardust. But yes, so we are literally the universe contemplating itself and contemplating aspects of its future, you know, it's kind of mind blowing when you think of it that way, to me. Yeah, it was a possibility. Yeah, yeah. I wanted to say just a little bit about the title of that first book, Roots or Angels. I had a couple of people recommend against that because they said, well, you don't believe in angels, do you? Well, no, well, then what are you putting that in the title for? We've been people of El Amirandola. That's what we're doing right now. We have to read the preface in order to understand it. I don't know if all of our viewers will be familiar with Pico, but here's a biologist telling a philosophical story to a philosopher. But I know, I know, don't know anything about Pico de El Amirandola. Well, he's got to be a hero of mine. When he was just 23 years old, he taught himself Greek and Latin and Hebrew and Arabic. And his whole project was to try to synthesize all the wisdom and knowledge that all the different traditions that were available to him. And I think he issued a challenge to other people, like, you know, come fight me on all this stuff. Yeah, he did. So he wrote these 900 theses about everything from philosophy to natural history and anything he could think about and any challenged people, anybody, to come in to debate him on these. And he was kind of been great in the internet age. Oh, he would have been. Yeah, it would have worked out better for him because his mistake was he, in his invitation, he said that this was going to take place in Rome. He was writing in Florence, but he said, well, go to Rome for this and the pope will be the arbiter and will decide who wins the debate. But he hadn't run this by the pope first. He just announced it. So the pope got wind of this and had some of his surrogates look over the 900 theses when they decided that a dozen or so of them were heretical. And so the pope sent out an arrest warrant for Pico. He said, I'm not going to participate in this. And I want this guy in chains. And so Pico ran away to France. But anyway, the title, he wrote this essay called The Oration on the Dignity of Man that was to be the introduction for this big debate. And in there, and he's speaking to Christians. And so he sets this essay in the Garden of Eden and he has God talking to Adam, Adam telling Adam how special he is. He says, I've made the birds with wings so they can fly and fish can swim. And to you, I've given no real special talent like this, but I've given you your reason. And with your reason, you can make out of yourself whatever you desire. You can be like the birds in the field or you can become divine like the angels. It's your choice. And so I liked that. It was a choice making that Pico was talking about and he, you know, being a Renaissance person that was pulling themselves out of the dark ages and realizing that humans can be their own navigators through life. And so I liked that. And literally now we've reached a place in the 21st century where we literally can make of ourselves whatever we wish, whether it be with nanotechnology or genetic technologies. And so it's back to the choice making. That's where the title came from. I hope not too many people pass the book by because of the title, but anyway, I liked the title. Yeah, and then the title of the second one, Recreating Nature, I guess that doesn't require as much explanation, but in a way it's sort of on the same theme that we've been handed this nature. Because one of the things Pico says is that human beings don't, in a way it almost anticipates sars. Humans don't have a fixed nature. The way that the animals do, we can sort of choose what nature we're going to have. And so recreating nature sort of picks up that theme. Yeah, the recreating implies that it had been created. And of course, I mean, through natural selection. And actually early in that book, I think I'd list a dozen things that I believe every schoolgirl and schoolboy should be taught. And evolutionary origin and history of the biosphere, including ourselves is one of those things. And then also the interconnectedness of life, that ecology, in fact, that we are a part of this complex web, which even ecologists today with all their mathematical modeling don't completely or sometimes even barely understand. So here we've developed methods, something called CRISPR, which is a gene editing tool where you can change the genetic composition of virtually any species on earth or decide to make a species extinct if you wanted to do that or maybe bring back an extinct species. And so with this ability to do these things, I think that the decision makers, which are all of us also need to have a sense of what natural selection has taken 3.8 billion years to produce and how tweaking it a little bit. And I'm not a Luddite when it comes to these things. I think there are places for doing some of this tweaking, but not by maybe people working in a Manhattan apartment laboratory that they set up and decide, well, let's see what can we create today and let loose. And not that that's happening this minute, but it could be happening in 10 or 15 years from now with some of these technologies that are really very easy to use. I found to my surprise that even a number of scientists that I've talked to who are not in biology, but in other fields, often have only the vaguest conception of what natural selection is. And I'm certainly no expert, but I found that I was explaining it to them. I thought, this is weird. Why am I explaining natural selection, which I'm no expert on to a scientist? But scientists in other fields often have sort of, have a kind of narrow compartmentalized vision when they may be experts on it. I think that's the worst thing, but they don't understand exactly what natural selection is and how it works. I think that's a reflection of the terrible job that this country does in teaching biology and evolution through K through 12. Maybe even, well, certainly K through 12. I remember growing up, my impression of how evolution work was that, as almost it was sort of Lamarckian, I mean, the giraffe stretches its neck in order to reach the higher leaves on the trees. And as a result, it ends up with a stretched neck, which it then passes on to its offspring. I remember in high school, I took a biology class where they showed a film that explained natural selection for the first time. And when I heard it, I thought, oh my God, this makes perfect sense. This is just a brilliant idea. And of course, if there's random variation among creatures, and if some of these variations are more likely to lead to survival and reproduction than others, then of course that will lead to those advantages proliferating the next generation and so on. And once I saw what natural selection was, I thought, well, this is such a cool idea. How could anyone coherently deny it? But some do. That's a problem in this country. And in a way, you can see artificial selection as a form of natural selection. And since we're, we are part of, if you're breeding dogs that say, you are part of their environment, it's just that you're a deliberate and conscious part of the environment rather than a random thing. But if you are trying to breed dogs with longer ears say, then can you constitute an environment that's more favorable to longer ears? And so you're, in a sense, just a special case of natural selection, which would fit in with your theme that these things we do to change, which obviously the things you're talking about in these books go way beyond the kind of breeding that have animals and plants that human beings have been doing for millennia. But they are, you know, they're just ways in which we affect the environment of things and we can affect the environment of ourselves. But of course we can make choices about those things in a way that, you know, when the, if the climate gets warmer or colder and that sort of affects the course of evolution, that's not the climate making a choice that wants more creatures like this and fewer ones like that, but we have one. Yeah, one thing on that subject that disturbs me is there have been a few biologists actually, but I would say biologists that aren't very well-versed in ecology, kind of what we would call gene jocks. People that are good at manipulating genes but don't have a sense of the broader picture of the biosphere. Anyway, a few people have suggested that, well, we have these problems that human-made problems to the environment now like global warming and the pollution and high salinity in places where there shouldn't be and changing all of these habitats. So now that we can re-engineer plants and animals, why don't we just create new ecosystems that can thrive in the mess that we've created and that this is a wonderful solution. And so that's, you know, that kind of scares me because there are two problems with that. One is it encourages you to just forget about, kind of do something about climate change. And then the other thing is it has this arrogance of assuming you can just create an ecosystem or change an existing one and it's gonna work just fine. Yeah, it's kind of an equivalent of Soviet central planning only for the environment, thinking, okay, well, here's this complex self-regulating system that's gradually evolved over time. And we can just come in we can just reorder it. We can, you know, we can design it all from scratch. And it seems like, you know, we're very far away from confidence of being able to do anything like that of not knowing enough about exactly what things are, what things are playing, what kinds of crucial roles in the system. In the second book, I call these technologies transformative. And someone might say, well, hasn't every technology been transformative on, you know, in some way or another. When these things that we're wearing, certainly I would hate to have lived before they were widely available would have really have. Exactly. They are my life. But transformative in the sense of changing our relationship to nature and then changing maybe even human nature itself, whatever that, whatever you might say that human nature is. And changing our relationships to each other. So just one interesting example to think about is age retardation. This is the, this is a technology of slowing down the aging process, maybe even halting it eventually so that humans would live easily for centuries, maybe millennia. And there are a few, we had a little confront from a lecture a number of years ago, Ray Kurzweil who was my age and I'm over 70 now. And he, when he visited Auburn, he told me he actually believes that he's going to be the first immortal human being because of technologies. And so therefore he always wears a seatbelt and takes vitamins because he doesn't want to die from some stupid accident or malnutrition before these come online. But anyway, back to what I was going to say with age retardation, imagine a portion of the world's population taking the pill or doing the genetic change or whatever it is that's necessary to greatly retard the aging process. And say you do this when you're 16 or 18 years old and a couple of years later, you fall in love with somebody and get married and have children, but your spouse isn't engineered this way for age retardation. So after another 10 years, your spouse is 30 and you're still behaving like a 19 year old or looking like one and you're on through the decades and you can just imagine all sorts of scenarios in society. Science fiction stories have been written precisely examining those kinds of scenarios. Yeah, and so this- Going all the way back to the 18th century with William Godwin who wrote a novel called Saint-Léon about a guy who discovers both the secret of eternal youth and the secret of turning lead into gold and then he explores sort of the actual practical consequences of what that would be like and how you deal with your personal relationships and your social relationships and your legal relationships and so on. It turns out, not to be quite as delightful as he had hoped. Yeah, well, these do sound like science fiction. I've got to look that one up. I'd like to read that one you just told about. He achieves this eternal youth through alchemy. So it's not exactly cutting edge science from a point of view, but then here I am with a mug that has the basic elements on it. Earth, water, air, fire and ether. It's the periodic table of elements. I don't, I'm not really up to date. I don't know if anything's been added since Aristotle's time, but this is what I wrote. Now this mug is empty, but I've got another one. Came prepared. Oh, that's a real costume. I'll show you the motto of my video on it. Anyway, that's a complete digression. Anyway, you were saying so that you've got a problem if someone's been engineered to have age retardation and then they have social relationships with other people who have not been so engineered. And so that's what you were saying when I started interrupting you with. Well, I was finished with that. And it's, I mean, just then everybody can use their own imagination to envision the various problems. Some of the- Is that what happens if there's like an elite that has access to this technology and ordinary people don't. And so you get a sort of elite of sort of immortals who are living on and on forever I mean, they're not really immortal because they're gonna be hit by a bus or something, but semi-immortals living on and on forever and ordinary people aren't that can create a nasty power imbalance. And of course, if ordinary people turn against them they could turn into a nasty power imbalance in the other direction, but in either case it could be problematic. Yes, that further social stratification of society actually is a issue with all of every one of these technologies. The problem of what philosophers say, distributive justice. So who gets the benefit? And that's maybe one of the easier, it's not easy to solve, but that's not a new ethical question. And all of these have their own kind of new ethical issues as well, but distributive justice, and I think it's a real big one that goes across the board. So of course, some people are gonna have the response of just sort of, so you're trying to steer between two extremes, because on the one hand there are people who say, oh, what does it matter? I'm just gonna, I'm just going to pursue this however I want and I don't care what the distributive effects are, blah, blah, blah. On the other hand, the people, the hyper cautious people say, this is a reason not to engage in any of this stuff, just leave nature untouched as we found it. So then people are sort of, they're the people who are sort of hyper ambitious and not worried about consequences or not humbled about their ability to manage these things versus people who takes kind of an ultra cautious attitude that you should just accept the nature that God has given us. And so I see these books as sort of, you're trying to steer a path between those two extremes. Yeah, I'm particularly in the second book in the last chapter. I talk about, and maybe it's pie in the sky wish, but I talk about the importance of a global decision-making process to think about long-term goals for the species. And these would have to be general because we can't really imagine, well, people 200 years ago couldn't imagine things, the specific things that we're living with now. And so of course it's the same for us, but we could talk about goals like, do we want different forms of humans? Some may be specialized for space travel and some specialized for interfacing their minds with computers, and so do we want to go down that path toward different, we call them races of, but different types of humans for specialized for different things. So do we want to go down this path of trying to engineer ecosystems that I mentioned earlier? And so some of these paths, once you start down them, I think are irrevocable. And you can't just turn around and decide, well, I didn't mean to take that fork in the road, I'm gonna go back and take the other way. And that's not gonna be possible with many of these once we start down the road. So in the context of this global decision-making process, I wanna mention that there's a person named Gerald Feinberg who was a physicist, I think at Columbia in the 60s and 70s, and he wrote a book, a little book called The Prometheus Project. And I picked up a paperback copy of this when I was a graduate student in some used bookstore and I carried around with me all these years and I'd never read it. Well, when I was writing this, what second book, The Recreating Nature, I found it on my shelf and I read it, it's just a short little book. And he, I think in 1969, he published this and he was at that point as a physicist concerned about the ethical implications of computer, the future of computer science, genetic technologies and information technology. And so The Prometheus Project was this 25 to 50 year long project he envisioned. And this is before social media and email and everything, where there would be a global democratic process of deciding on long range goals. And he really had it pretty well planned out in the vetting process and how the committee would be selected that would vet all of these ideas that would come in and then they'd have to go out again. And he thought that, like I said, the whole process might take 50 years. Well, and here it is more than 50 years since he wrote that book. And nobody's even talking about this and let alone initiating anything. And here now we have the technologies that can lead us down these irrevocable paths that he talked about. Given the realities of politics, there's always the worry, suppose we had this global decision making process, who's actually gonna be making the decisions? Because on the one hand, if it's really democratic, you might get lots and lots of input from people who don't even believe in evolution. And the other hand, if it's not democratic, if it's some kind of educated elite that are being appointed by someone, and who's appointing them Donald Trump? I mean, there's, so there's sort of the, just as the worry about how to design the ecosystem is also the way about how to design a political ecosystem in the same way. So it's, one thing that I've often puzzled over is that in sort of disputes about the left and right is that there'll be people who are very confident about their ability to redesign social systems, but you have to leave the ecosystem alone. And other people are very confident about their ability to redesign ecosystems, we have to leave the social system alone. And they seem to present similar problems. And yet it seems often that in order to leave one of them alone, you have to do something with the other. Yeah, anyway, so it's just a very big problem. That's an interesting interaction that I hadn't thought of between biological and political ecosystem. We should follow up on that, Robert. Yeah, that was an idea I had back, back when I was teaching at Chapel Hill, I was part of a reading group on, I guess, broadly speaking, environmental ethics. And that was, I worry that if you, if you try to, that I thought about you, if you try to interfere with what people are doing with these technologies, you are trying to micromanage a social economic system that's very difficult to do. But if you don't, then you're allowing them to try and micromanage a natural ecosystem that's very hard to do. Though I think that tackling things from the distributive justice end might be helpful for that. If you think of the distributive justice end, not so much as sort of micromanaging who gets what, but as trying to remove some of the factors that privilege certain powerful and wealthy groups against others. But it doesn't mean that's a panacea. This isn't an area where there are any panaceas. Yeah, I'll be thinking about this now for a long time. So, we're here, what else would you like to? Well, after writing the first book on Brutes or Angels, what motivated you to write the second one? Because there's some overlap over there not, there's also some significant difference, but what makes you think? Yeah, well, five years later, oh, I need to revisit these questions. Part of it was very, very practical. There are chapters in the second book as you just alluded to that aren't in the first book. So like a nanotechnology, because their CRISPR technology wasn't around yet when I published the first one. And there's genetically engineered agriculture was not in the first book. Robots, and then Roboethics, that's a new topic. And then for the human, the brain research project that Obama initiated on a similar project that the European Union initiated, those were all news. So there are new topics. And so anyway, for the practical aspect of it was when I submitted the first book, I had chapters in there on nanotechnology and on a couple of these other topics in the second book. And the University of Alabama Press person immediately rolled back and said, you either have to cut each, every chapter in the book in half or you're gonna have to leave out four of these chapters because it's gonna be too long. And nobody's gonna wanna pick up a book that's 450 pages long. And some of us might, but. So I left the chapters out. And so that's part of the reason for the second book was to cover these other topics. But then also the main reason was that I'd read this book by Fine Berg that I just mentioned. And I got to thinking about the importance of educating as many people as possible about these and getting them to think about decisions, making decisions. And so I just felt compelled to do this second one and include the material in there about the urgency of actually thinking about these things. Now, when the pandemic is over, maybe people can begin thinking about something else if that ever happens. It never will be over. It probably will be, probably not. If you had asked me, why did I write the first one? I had an interesting story, which I won't make real long. But I was about four years from retirement and I had spent about 35 years working on cricket ovaries. And I thought, oh, and I had just bought a book by a biologist at Harvard named Ernst Meyer. And he was 95 years old at the time. Yeah, you mentioned that in the introduction. Yeah, and so he liked to write about philosophy and philosophy of biology. And he challenged in a new book he published just before I started on the first book called What is Biology? And in the beginning of it, he challenged all biologists and scientists in general to take time out from their work and their research at some point in their careers and write about the philosophy of science in the context of what they do and the relevance of their work for society at large. And he said, every scientist should do this at some point. While I was having a beer at the Amsterdam cafe at the time and I was four or five years from retirement and he kind of, I thought, well, I can work real hard for four years and maybe publish five or six papers on crickets that about six or seven people in the world would be really interested in reading. Or I could just forget about the crickets and start on something to respond to this challenge of Ernst Meyer. And so I talked to my department head and he was supportive, which I'm very grateful for. And so I started working on the Roots or Angels and stopped working on crickets. Well, I mean, of course you've had the sciences and humanities interdisciplinary interest for a long time. As I mentioned in introducing you back with the humanities course and the lecture series and the nanoethics course and all these things. And so it's not as though you had been completely ignoring this dimension until you admire. Right, talk about transformative. The human odyssey was transformative for me when I was first taught in it and remained involved. Yet it's opened my mind to so many different things that I wouldn't have thought of. And I really enjoyed teaching in that course. That was a lot of fun. Well, I'm glad and I was really grateful that you were in it and contributed a lot. And also with the nanotechnology, that was fun too. I don't know if the students thought it was as much fun as we thought it was, but. Yeah, and of course we had a lot of problems with not so nano technology, trying to connect to the various campuses. Probably that would go smoother nowadays. I think so, that aspect of it, but yeah, that was fun. Well, Roderick, I'm gonna come to your cafe and check it out and listen to some of your presentations. And I don't know if you have other interviews or what all you have on it, but I'm. I've got more interviews coming up. Some of them are with me, and sort of my libertarian and anarchist pals, but not all of them. One of the ones that I just did was with my own colleague here at Auburn, Kelly Jolly in philosophy. That's one that some of my viewers may find dismaying because it has no political content, whatever. But to them they're just gonna say, gosh, there's more to life than politics. Come on, I really enjoyed doing that interview. And yeah, my brief when I started this channel was both, you know, the sound off. Sorry about this, you think there'd be a way to silence this phone or unplug it, but it's a long story. The, my brief was just a sound off on whatever I wanted to sound off on and also to interview various interesting people and didn't have any particular preconceived notion about they're all having to be political or they're all having to be philosophers or anything like that. Just whoever it was was someone I thought would be interested to talk to. And then I read these two books of yours and I thought, well, this is definitely something interesting and I'm gonna put links in the description of this video to your books so that people can buy them and read them because they should, because these are very interesting books. Well, thank you. Thanks for having me on your channel. Thanks for coming on. Any final thoughts? Well, no, just encourage everybody to self-educate on these topics and try to think beyond the current obsession with viruses. I guess, do you have any thoughts on the coronavirus situation since it is sort of a biological issue in some sense? Any thoughts on how it should be handled as opposed to how it's actually even handled? If we took three weeks right now and shut everything down and kids were staying at home instead of going to school and the same with university, all over then we'd come back after three weeks and things would be as Trump likes to say under control. I mean, it would never be completely gone and if we had done that four months ago, just three weeks across the board, everybody doing the right thing. And you see, in China and a number of other places in Europe that have tremendous outbreaks, they're practically back to normal now because they did the right thing and in here for all sorts of different reasons, but mainly, in my opinion, because Trump wanted to be re-elected and figured the only way he was gonna be re-elected is if the stock market was really good. Then he figured, if I just ignore, if I say it often enough, the virus is gonna hear me and it's gonna go away. It was gonna be gone away in April and it was to be gone away by Mother's Day when everybody was gonna be back in church and it was gonna be gone away by Labor Day and, but anyway, as a biologist, just haven't done the logical thing. Need to listen to Dr. Fauci. That's my comment on this, very frustrating. We got football gonna start at Auburn on September 26. And the whole stadium packed, that's... That's just great. Even with it not packed, I mean, how can the players face each other in the line? It's hard to physically distance yourself from someone you're tackling. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, it's frustrating because there are very simple logical things to do and we just haven't done them. Governor Cuomo in his little island of influence did very well. We ought to elect him as the philosopher king for a while. Anyway, thank you, Roderick, for the review. It's been fun. Sure, thanks. All right, so farewell. Okay, you too. Take care. Bye-bye. Bye.