 Welcome back to Building Tomorrow, a show dedicated to the ways technology and innovation are making us healthier, wealthier, and wiser. Okay, maybe not wiser. Okay, okay, definitely not wiser. But on the theme of wisdom, today we're going to explore some of the hopeful future scenarios that are currently popular among technologists, including self-driving cars, designer babies, and meat that's not meat. With me is my regular co-host, Will Duffield, who runs the prototype column for Libertarianism.org, and we are talking today with special guest, Peter Van Doren, who is the editor of Regulation Magazine and Kato's in-house expert on the regulation of transportation, labor, housing, you know, the three sectors where you spend almost all of your time every single day of your life. Welcome to the show, Peter. Thanks for having me. Here's how we're going to structure today's show. So Will and I will take turns setting up the most bullish possible interpretation of how a currently emerging tech might transform society for the better. Then Peter is going to help us assess just how realistic these outcomes are from an economic and regulatory perspective. So Will, how about you start us off with designer babies. What do you want your franken baby to be like? I mean, hopefully like me. Tall, looking, brilliant. All of those traits that I have. Of course. We're seeing a couple means of altering who our offspring are likely to be by either selecting from a host of potential embryos that could become that child or even tinkering with their genetic code in order to potentially select for specific traits. Now a lot of that sounds like science fiction, but the cost of IVF has fallen dramatically and is putting embryonic selection into the hands of a wider variety of would-be parents. As well, we've seen when it comes to animal populations, a great deal of exciting research with regard to the ability of CRISPR to select for specific traits. So people are now expecting that in a couple decades, they'll be able to design the child of their choosing. How realistic is a scenario like this? My sense is, well, first of all, just the disciplinary silos we bring to this discussion in terms of the traditional economics of regulation perspective that I would bring to bear. Nothing in my training actually helps me deal with this question. So I'm winging it a lot. My understanding of the genetics comes from reading the New York Times and the New Yorker and the Atlantic. And lately what I've been reading is that the supposed ability through CRISPR of and then the mapping of the human genome to in effect design babies with various traits and then without various negative traits may be vanishing as fast as we can approach it kind of like in Star Trek or something. So I wouldn't be surprised 20 years from now if we look back at this discussion and think that we were kind of ahead of the possibility. Certainly for selecting for things that are complicated traits. Some of the articles I've read lately suggest it's not one gene that turns on or off. It's like a mess of genes that turn on or off and then make proteins and then interact with the environment in very complicated ways so that that sort of possibility may be difficult. On the other hand, eliminating some single gene horrible diseases seems to be a more promising possibility. But even then again just from what I read, notice that there so this falls into religion and culture and norms and values. Everything other than economics and so I'm winging it here. But I'll say the following. I have seen certainly there are some parents. Well we now have the possibility the technological possibility called abortion and we have early in fetal genetic testing for some rare very negative chromosomal diseases and parents are informed of Down syndrome and other such genetic anomalies. And there are many more people than I certainly would have thought that think it immoral to have an abortion to eliminate that person from existence because of the likely very medically intensive very limited existence that they will have while they live. And so I can see this ending up being not a scientific debate at all but rather a very given America and given religion and given how many different religions we have and given abortion and how volatile and difficult a topic that is has been and is. I can see this just adding to the more gasoline to that fire and kind of the science ends up being probably not what people will be discussing but rather whether why and whether one should have children and what should they be like and that many people more than you would think even well educated people may be very opposed to this kind of scientific possibility. Well there was an article not that long ago about Iceland which was trumpeting its success in essentially eliminating Down syndrome that the abortion rates for doing fetal testing and essentially they had approached something like 99% of all suspected cases of Down syndrome were being aborted and this played very well in Iceland obviously because the government was trumpeting the results but in the United States there was a wave of negative coverage often from the new religious right from evangelicals, Catholics, other religious groups who were angry about the idea of what amounts to destroying an entire population of people because of the chromosome defect. So that's sort of what I was expecting that across cultures and I hadn't thought of Northern Europe but you're quite right that the Northern Europe is less officially religious and yet has state sponsored religion and many have argued there may be a relationship between that. America was founded by isms that fled various places for various reasons and those isms are strong and so I did you do you know about the case let's see it was in the New Yorker I think right the. So goodness this is a child that was declared legally something or other and then the parents disagreed and it was transferred to a hospital in another state and kept alive through life support for 1012 years something like that and so. Or the UK example I'm trying to name it was Tommy or there was a the and they are they going to be allowed to air flight them to the Vatican the Pope is going to go to the Pope's hospital and all the again. Disagbasic disagreements between religious and nonreligious communities medical communities over OK we have the technology to do some fairly remarkable things when it comes to selecting embryos when it comes to end of life care keeping people live on ventilators. It's not often the tech itself that's the point of disagreement whether or not the tech works but whether or not you should use it the ethics of the use. Again I think that's a Cato kind of argument which is could we get to the point where we these issues everyone could decide for themselves and their own children rather than the state deciding you have to live this way and you have to live this other way and so because once you interject a kind of zero some abortion like thing into politics which is this is bad and I define it bad not only for me and I don't do it but I don't want you and your family to do this as well. Then it's just zero some either you win or I win and we fight to the death until there's more of us or more of you and. That's I mean abortion discussion has been for me an unpleasant political reality my entire life and and I wish we could find some way out of it but I don't but but if people think this way not only about their behavior but about other people's behavior then if if this designer baby thing is along those lines that's a it's a hellish future when you already see expressions of a sort of zero some concern with regard to more of the far fetched genetic editing ideas. Noah Smith had a column about a year ago now concerned with the potential distributional effects of the wealthy being able to select for the most intelligent of their potential offspring and what intergenerationally particularly if there are attempts to restrict access to this technology but the wealthy can still jet around the world to jurisdictions where it's legal. You can find yourself in a scenario in which any state attempt to prevent this technology from being used and thereby generating inequality ends up generating yet more inequality as those with the money to use it go where they can. You can imagine a you know a literal class of Uber mention who have been selected for you know desirable traits that we that gets rid of neurodiversity that has the plus the advantages of of socio economic class of going to elite schools of you know and since that tech will be available to those who are wealthy first. There will be a lag before mass adoption you can imagine all the political economic and social implications of that kind of structure social structure that could emerge from that. So let's move on to our next topic depressing opening with the Zyder babies but I think this next one is something that that's going to be even more in in Peters wheelhouse dealing with transportation policy. And that is the idea that in the next say 20 to 30 years we will see the end of the personal automobile as we know it. Now even the most bearish car experts at TechCrunch Disrupt predicted that a majority of personal vehicles will be fully level five automated that means without the steering wheel within 20 to 30 years. Though some suggested China would get there first in this age of driverless cars it's been suggested you know it won't make much sense to own your own vehicle. After all why pay for a car that spends like 20 hours a day sitting in parking lots sitting in driveways baking in the sun and silently depreciating in value. So it's a terrible financial proposition why not instead pool together with a few dozen hundred thousand other people to own a share in a self driving car fleet. So while you are at work that car is zipping around taking other people to work right it's a more efficient use of cars you just tap the car share button app on your phone. A few minutes later a fleet car pulls up to your house to take you to work to shopping to the newsstand to buy the latest issue of regulation magazine wherever you want to go. Now again in theory this means more efficient use of vehicles which means fewer cars per person right now I think the rates like 1.8 cars per American household. That also means the capital costs of car upgrades of car maintenance that would be pooled would be amortized across the across the fleet. All of this would mean that it should become cheaper to have access to a car's stream of service to site Mike Munger in his book tomorrow 3.0. This expands access to cars to people currently unable to afford one and given that cars are the second largest expense in most people's budgets that could demonstrably improve consumer finances. And since self driving cars are safer than human drivers that means fewer fatal accidents. You know kids might one day regard stories of you know great great uncle Brett who died in an automobile accident like we do stories about polio or typhoid some you know. It's the pro natalist argument for self driving cars. I kind of like it. It sure is. I'm here for this. Yeah. You're on board. You're on this corner. So Peter this you do transportation policy. What do you think the the prospect of this is what are the proponents of this this vision potentially missing. I guess for analytic purposes I think I would separate two things you mentioned. One is whether cars are automated or not. And two is whether we share them or not. I guess I'm my senses. I know I'm supposed to be the economist here. You gave the economist argument in my senses there we're forgetting culture. And even though we economists don't know what culture is I guess some of it it exists. And I guess again I cannot imagine well for me getting a car and owning it and then petting it on Saturdays and then washing it and then keeping it clean. I do not want anybody else in my car. I could not conceive of it. I would not want it. I would not use but I can't conceive of anyone using my home. I would never consider Airbnb to rent my home. That's just that's just creepy to me. I know that and if I were young I mean I just I never crashed on people's couches and I just hotels. They're there for a reason etc. But you're just just my idiosyncratic weird Dutchness or something. This segment brought to you by the National Hotel Industry Association of America. So anyway I'll just be up front that those are my so then the other thing is people use their cars as extensions of themselves. They store everything in them. I mean I have friends who just throw everything they've ever eaten in the back seat and never touch it. And so for people like that sharing any people wouldn't want to share their car. And B when I get in my car I want the radio to be set to the stations I want. I want the CDs. I know that dates me that I want in the player. I have my sunglasses on the right hand side. I mean you just have to take everything in. So I think the whole sharing thing may make sense for younger people. Again it's if you're price sensitive and this gets you access to a vehicle sooner in your life than you otherwise would have fine. But we already have taxis and Uber and Lyft where you already have the options to share. The driverless feature the weather or not will have automated cars. Again my nostalgia the sort of I like driving in the country on the weekends on roads that have curves and and whatever and like. When I talk to younger people particularly if you live in cities that's not what driving is about. But if I'm in the country on weekends driving my 1986 alpha. I cannot imagine not having a steering wheel and not being able to do that being illegal because I'm I've resisted technological change. But for I get the throughput I mean I get the notion I mean I see lots of bad drivers out there. And if we all were closer together and computer driven and all of that the throughput of our current transportation road system would be much greater and we're going to need that. So automation might be endogenously adopted under congestion pricing if we had that anyway. The whole sharing thing I'm I'm I just but that I'm probably idiosyncratic on that. I think there is something to it we think about the sort of vulgarities of public transport having gum on your seat that sticks to you. And taking all of that to your car doesn't seem like a winning proposal. Now from an efficiency standpoint when we bring culture into the usual expectations we have around self driving cars do we end up with or are we likely to realize the off anticipated efficiency gains. I.E. if instead of people buying shares in a fleet of self driving cars they simply buy one for themselves and perhaps instead of just going out in it they send it out to do errands for them. You could end up with a scenario in which cars are on the road or more cars are on the road and you still don't really eliminate the parking issues or anything else we would expect to. Well certainly the history of transportation innovation is anything anything that makes driving more easy. But we don't price driving means there's more driving. So their econ does come into play. So anything that people perceive is making their lives easier that isn't priced is going to lead to more whatever that thing is and so more. So we're going to have to have congestion pricing. We may need to have it even on local street right if we get congested and you can't build any more streets and you can't. And then because of more centralized jobs rather than decentralized more people have to come downtown. New York will grind to zero right there. Nobody will be getting me now they're not getting around but it will literally everyone will be in an automated car going nowhere. And then we're going to have to have congestion pricing on every street all the time to keep all these automated wonderful things off the road. One of the things you mentioned right that making people's lives easier leading to a certain level of adoption. People want stuff that makes their lives easier in a way that's kind of I guess less price sensitive. I mean some of this is a function of if you make things cheaper more people will do it. Sure. So if you make car ownership cheaper it might not lead or car use cheaper. It might not lead to fewer cars. It could just lead to it will be have everyone will have the same number of cars. They'll just do more drive more miles because they don't leave people behind the wheel anymore. But one of the things I was thinking of it uses to innovations texts that are currently being being used. So you can have your car have keyless entry for Amazon packages. So rather than them leaving your Amazon box on your front step Amazon currently has a program where you give Amazon couriers access to your car so they can put the box in your trunk where it's safer. We also have essentially grocery pickup services. Walmart does it other companies do it. You take someone picks your groceries for you loads them you just drive to Walmart they load the cars in the trunk. So you add on top of that a driverless car and yeah from work you just say here's the groceries I want. Go pick them up. Walmart loads them in your car using a keyless feature you know function not unlike what Amazon currently uses. I mean you can see how close we are to that kind of system. But I think your point will and Peter that this might not actually lead to the kind of efficiencies on the road that I laid out my scenario are apt and we might not lead to that at all. That's a good thought. I mean at the same time there are those gains. I mean I any kind of system where you're saving lives on the roads is going to lead to a pressure to make people driven cars. We've teased this on the show before the idea that someday it's not only a question of will most cars be self driving cars. You can imagine a tipping point where there's pressure to put you in your 1986 alpha off the road entirely because who wants this you know older driver who's veering around corners on Sundays like a madman putting young people at risk. No we gotta get rid of that. And so maybe you'll only be allowed to drive your your your alpha on a closed track. You know you that it has to be put on the self driving car trailer to get there because I can't trust them the roads. I mean you can imagine that kind of future world. Yes. Then they'll they've already done it. Then the the old codger called Peter will be I'll be at the door with my shotgun. You'll take Clint Eastwood. Right. You're going to take the cold. What was that phrase the from my cold dead hands. Yeah. See I mix up my old white guys. The emotionally repressed old white guys. It's a it's a it's more like the basis for a cake song. They tell him he can't drive and he just goes out doesn't stop. I don't know. I mean you already see subcultures of people with very expensive race cars that just trailer them to the track to drive drag racers. Yeah. But I don't want to it's interesting. I mean we we go through Frederick County Maryland on weekends and and these wonderful beautiful country roads and there's no one on them and the hills are rolling and there's usually a whole bunch of old guys on motorcycles and people like me and then some pickup trucks and that's I know I'm so but so to to give that up. It seems I would resist. Well we have kind of a you know the indication of how that works. I mean there was a point in time where nostalgia for the days when you know you and your your dad often bought an old beat them up and rebuilt the engine yourself in the garage. This was like a marker of what it meant to become a man in the 70s. We did. Right. And now the cars are computers that haven't have wheels and my brother and I took apart 1964 Dodge and 1970 Chevy Vega probably and learned how everything works and that's not possible now. No. So we accepted that that transition. The same thing could be true for driving itself. I don't know if you'd end up seeing a totalizing ban. I mean today if you have a horse and carriage you can take it on the road. You can't take it on the interstate but you can tool around Frederick Maryland in a horse and carriage if you want to. So it might just be. The Amish the Amish. Yeah. Where I grew up in Northern New York actually there's lots of Amish conflict over in the because they're they they're farmers and they they have. Anyway there's lots of car buggy crashes and the St. Lawrence County officials and district attorney have had to wrestle with how to deal with matching the 20th century and the 18th century together. Imagine doing that with the 21st century. Yeah. Peter and his old alpha causing trouble. So apparently the moral of the story there is that I mean because a lot of the Amish exception legal exceptions are a function of religious freedom. Right. They've been able to successfully argue in court that we need to be allowed to drive our bug and carriage on the road. Is that. Yeah. Other people can go out with a horse and buggy though. Well if they can it's because. Well actually there are issues where the New York state where they're they're against colors. So the all you have to do with a slow moving vehicle is have a slow moving vehicle triangle. Yeah. On the back of your but and they resist that because it is ostentatious because it's color. Yeah. Same idea. But that Chrome black. The exception got carved out though. I mean even if non Amish people can enjoy it. It got carved out because of the kind of religious freedom exemptions. So the key clearly Peter is that if you want to resist the trend of self driving cars eat the form of religious group around car ownership and maintenance and self driving. Okay well why don't we move on to our next subject and for this one. Why don't we go to you. You will. I titled it where's the beef. Yeah. In the lab. I guess getting around lunchtime here in the studio. But we've seen a couple a number plethora even now of efforts to create meat in the lab without killing any animals. And a lot of people who either for ethical or to some extent health concerns don't consume meat now are very excited about this. They're also potential environmental upsides. So back in 2013 the first lab grown burger was eaten in the Netherlands for the eye watering price of $330,000. Since then however the cost of this sort of artificial in a sense meat has fallen. And they're currently we're currently expecting that we'll see it in stores in the next year or so at a markup from meat but not certainly not an incredible one. Now in terms of the environmental context here. There's a thought that growing meat in this way could cut the amount of land required by almost 99% if I'm doing the lab I guess rather than bunch of fields. Even in terms of the inputs and all of that. Wow. And from the chef's perspective for the gourmet you can grow only the cuts of meat you want. So if you want fillet or particular kind of marbling in your steak you can know that you're going to get that and not waste any other bits of an animal that you aren't going to consume. So it's possible that in our lifetime people will be hitting an inflection point where they're consuming more lab grown or they like to call it non slaughter meat than they're buying from farmers or ranchers. And obviously that'll frustrate the farmers and ranchers. So you've already seen the U.S. Cattleman's Association lobbying the USDA to demand that cultured meat not be allowed to be called meat or beef or treated as an animal product. And this seems as though it's to some extent an extension or the next frontier of a number of fights we've seen between legacy food producers and folks trying to create either more ethically or environmentally friendly versions of their products. So are Peter likely to see this meat in stores soon and if so what kind of conflict will attend it? You've described the conflict very well which is there'll be fights by the legacy producers and they will use their lobbying efforts to try to engage in labeling fights as you've described what is meat, what isn't meat, what's dairy, what's not dairy. We've already actually gone through this and I'm surprised while I'll bring it up since which is we've had a fight over margarine versus butter. Oleo margarine. Oleo margarine which was a product of industrial chemistry, right, polyunsaturated fat was made and formed. So the big issue in the state of Wisconsin was could it be colored because what this product looked like would be like Crisco. Yeah, yeah. When it comes out of the, so but butter is yellow. A block of pale, gray Crisco. Don't put Crisco on your toast, what? So there were laws, if memory serves me correctly, Wisconsin in particular being the dairy state, Wisconsin, it was illegal to sell colored margarine. I don't, I should have, I did not look up the history but there were court cases. I don't know if it went to the Supremes or not but eventually coloration was allowed. Now the irony of all this of course is that this particular new industrial food called margarine turns out to have trans fats and turned out to be just horrible for our health but we didn't know it at the time. It was thought to be better than, you know, so we, in my lifetime we've gone through this whole innovation being better, dairy being bad and then now it's all been flipped on its head which is the innovation turned out to have been horrible and we now have banned trans fats. And so now margarine is still sold but now it doesn't, it's not made the way it was originally. So, but yes the, so the meat folks and the, the, we're having this with milk as well which is consumers are being misled about oat milk and this milk and that milk and the organic sections of stores. But I'm seeing some blowback which is the dairy industry actually isn't getting very far. I mean sort of a basic American sensibility which is people sort of, people understand what they're doing and they know that almond milk isn't milk and et cetera, et cetera. So I, the dairy industry at least is not getting far in its attempts to ban the use of milk to describe. I'm less aware because it really hasn't come forth yet about whether, whether the Cattleman's Association attempted to find meat in a certain way will be more successful. So on the topic of milk FDA Chairman Scott Gottlieb has entered a quote for the ages on, on while ruling that almond milk shouldn't be allowed to be called milk because in his words an almond doesn't lactate which is undeniably true. There are no lactating almonds but the question. And also completely besides the point. It's as if there's vast numbers of consumers out there who thought that there were lactating almonds and little sheds being milked regularly which is ludicrous, the lack of trust in consumers. But I think this is an interesting thing you've pointed us to Peter which is there's almost the, it's, it's very narrative driven. So each side in this argument your legacy producers, your, you know, new tech fueled insurgents are trying to seize on the right narrative to win, you know, consumer approval. So, you know, if you can frame it as, as you mentioned Will, slaughter free meat. You know, it's like you get your cage free eggs, your slaughter free meat. So you're appealing to the kind of animal rights consciousness. Or that Oatly and oat milk, I'll call it oat milk producer, which was not allowed to call its oat milk, oat milk and instead fell back on the slogan like milk but made for humans. So that's, that's pretty good. So, you know, again, I think we've come to this with designer babies. We're coming to this again now it's the tech actually seems pretty good. And the cost estimates. I mean, you're seeing this declining cost of cultured meat. There's clear advantages to it. There might be unforeseen ill consequences. Maybe we'll find out in 30 years that actually cultured meat was killing an entire generation like trans fats, who knows. But, but you see the, the, the use case of the tech is pretty good. It's a question of culture when it comes to adoption or not, right, which is something kind of beyond economics and beyond even tech. And from a regulatory standpoint, when we do see these attempts to limit how something can be labeled, what legs are the restrictionist standing on? Are they able to draw upon, say, anti-adulteration laws when you talk about coloring margarine or how does the regulatory system get enlisted in this anti-competition effort? Well, most successful, maybe all, but certainly most successful regulatory coalitions consists of what we call bootleggers in Baptist. The most famous article ever published in regulation by, by an economist. Bruce Yandle? Bruce Yandle. Right. Way back it was. The subtitle was the education of a young FTC economist. And the metaphor persists and correctly so, which is, so incumbent producers want to use the state to restrict competition. That's a constant. It is not a variable. Once one has made a lot of money selling something, one would like the money to keep coming in. And I think we could perfectly emphasize with that sentiment. And one can use freedom of speech granted under the Constitution to then say, the newcomers are slime, are bad, are no good. You can do all the negative advertising you want about the newcomers. But what if people adopt that product? And then you need a philosophical rationale which delegitimizes the competitors. That's where the Baptist part of the bootleggers and Baptists come in. So you need activists who have a normative view that comes from somewhere, be it religious or philosophy or culture. And then they say the new product is bad from their point of view. And so the Baptists and the bootleggers form an electorally useful coalition of people who gain economic advantage from a regulation. And then people who morally want the regulation to come in because of the set of views they have that resonate with the wider public in some way. So here you'd have cattlemen and GMO skeptics? Could be, yes. Think of the, yes, that'd be a good example, which is the, you know, there's this among some upper middle-class people, there's an odd anti-scientific odor. The anti-vaccine crowd, the anti-GMO crowd, and there, you know, Franken food and this and that and the other thing. And these are not poor, these are usually college-educated but non-science people who object to something called product of a lab and who love something called nature. And they may often be environmental and you could think of it as a quasi-religion and they're out there and they vote. And the cattlemen will exploit that view and then say, this regulation prevents all this stuff you don't want from occurring and, yes, the cattlemen benefit, but that's... I'm thinking here of the, there was a bit of a panic a few years ago over Pink Slime. Do you remember Pink Slime? Yes, I wrote, yes. I assume I'm still eating it and that nothing's changed? Well, actually it was irradiated beef, right? If you want to stop E. Coli. If you want to stop E. Coli infections, which are just horrible, why would anyone be... Well, you can expose ground beef that because of the way ground beef is made, the possibility of E. Coli contamination in the slaughterhouse is not zero. Whereas with steaks and things that are cut from the center, but once you throw the remnants of a carcass into a grinder, then whatever bacterial infection or viral infection exists, or remnants exist, that then is spread through the, by the grinding process and it's in everything. Well, then how can you stop that? Well, one is cook it to above a certain temperature, but then that's well done and then that's not very tasteful. So the other way is to irradiate the beef. The second was this Pink Slime. They used an ammonia exposure process. They used, they exposed this very cheap ground beef to ammonia in the slaughterhouse. To kill the bacteria. To kill the bacteria. Well, that didn't, people did not like the sound of that. And it was, it's very cheap and it was used in the federally subsidized, you know, at school lunch programs and things like that. So it was very, very, very cheap and culturally offensive. And it did not, it died a very loud death, I guess it would be the way to... So it's not used anymore in the federal program? Well, I think the manufacturer, I mean, yeah, I think either it's used and I don't know about it and it went away or it's still there, but it's very quiet. Or the uproar sort of resulted in them, in the manufacturer losing out because they just couldn't sell it. So was it an opt by the folks who produced beef irradiation machines? Was it a... An operation, PR, campaign, you know, thinking about trying to find the bootleggers everywhere? I don't know. I don't know. I do remember it during the, I mean, there's a lot of breathless, you know, 6 a.m. news stories at the time about it. And the definitely, I don't know if the Kalman's Association specifically, but there were a lot of legacy producers who said, see, this is why you need real meat from, you know, for our kids. Our kids deserve the best, not this fake stuff. And yeah. The irony is that the pink slime was the real stuff. It was just, it had been discard. I mean, it was going to more marginal, marginal cuts that were then ground. And the question was how to make it safe for mass consumption without E. coli possibilities. And this industrial process was the way to do it. It looked bad. And once you show, you know, tracking shots of a tube of meat paste coming out, once you see how the sausage is made, you can't unsee it. I think it is a good reminder that, you know, it's easy for us to have this, like, for tech, for technologists to have kind of a teleological narrative of progress, which is a fancy way of saying things get better and better. And the right side will triumph in the end. But, you know, sometimes culture narrative, you know, the religious concerns will trump things just because even if they are technologically or economically preferable or superior. Like, there is no guarantee that olio-margarine wins out over Big Butter. There is no guarantee that pink slime will win out over whatever else, right? And the same thing applies here to cultured meat. This is a site of contest. There are no guarantees. I think with that, we should wrap up for today. So thank you, Peter, for coming on the show. Thank you, Will. And until next week, be well. To learn about Building Tomorrow or to discover other great podcasts, visit us on the web at libertarianism.org.