 Fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Brook Show. Okay, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brook Show on this Tuesday, May 16th. I am still in New Rome. It's late here. It's, let's see, 11 p.m. But I thought I'd do a quick show, give you a news update. Let's see, why is this so low? Let me just increase volume on this. So, yeah, I'm going to try not to speak too loud, given that I'm in a hotel room at 11 p.m. But, yeah, thanks for joining. And we are going to go through these news stories. And I'll get there, I'll get there. All right. So, you probably all heard about the Jordan Neely's death, what happened on the subway. I'll go through, I guess, the main events to bring everybody up to speed. And then we'll talk about kind of what's been happening. But as you probably know, Jordan Neely, a man with significant mental health issues and a history of violence, somebody who had been arrested 42 times in the past, a convicted felon, with a history of brutal assault. But really, bottom line is somebody who was clearly mentally ill, mentally disturbed, starting harassing people on a subway in New York City. Now, we still don't have a lot of details on exactly what happened on that subway and the nature of the harassment and everything else that was going on. So, that some people, some of the people on the subway were calling 911, 911, we do know that Neely was saying things like he'd had it and he was ready to die and things like that, that he was acting in threatening ways towards people. We do know that the police were not present. And again, people dialing 911, trying to get police attention. And then what we also know is that another passenger on the train, Daniel Penny, landed up restraining Jordan Neely, putting him in a headlock with the help of two other passengers who I guess held Neely down and inadvertently killed Neely in the subway cop. Since then, New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has decided to prosecute Daniel Penny for manslaughter and Penny has been arraigned and is going to appear in courts on July 17th, so nothing's going to happen very quickly, but he is being prosecuted for manslaughter. I think the straightforward kind of what we know of the facts of the case, I mean, there's not a lot of controversy and a lot of issue here. We know that Alvin Bragg is about as leftist and liberal as it gets. We know that Jordan Neely is black and Daniel Penny is white, so the guy who died was black and the guy who restrained him was white. We know that Alvin Bragg, given how leftist he is, if you remember there was that kind of grocery store, it's not a grocery store, I forget what they call it, the little grocery store thing where a guy was defending himself and used a knife and Alvin Bragg was all ready to go after him and also for manslaughter, and then they landed up, I think if I remember right, dismissing those charges. In this case, I don't know if manslaughter is the right call, probably not, probably you could argue that he didn't intend to kill him, but he was restraining him because the guy was a threat to other people and inadvertently killed him and it's not obvious to me that he should be tried for manslaughter, but it's not obvious to me that he shouldn't. That is, I think this is why we have a court system and this is why we had a justice system. And again, I think all of that would probably come out in trial and my guess is that ultimately you'd get a reasonable outcome from something like this. Nobody's claiming that murder was committed here and nobody's claiming yet that this is somehow a race crime and racially motivated or anything like that. It's just a question of is manslaughter a prosecution of manslaughter completely unreasonable, completely nuts or is it reasonable to go to trial and something like that. And the reality is most of us don't have the facts. I think we should be legitimately suspicious given that the district attorney is Alvin Bragg and he's such a leftist and so progressive, so motivated by these kind of issues and not a big believe in self-defense. But we don't know. I think the story here is not so much what happened and even the prosecution itself. It's how all of this has become hyper-super politicized and how this has become all about politics and scoring political points and your opponents and how everybody feels like they have to take sides. This is kind of the left-right divide. You have to, in every criminal case before you have the facts, you have to decide and if a white man kills a black man, if you're on the left typically, well, I mean go after him. I had a quote here from AOC. What did AOC say? I mean AOC said that Neely was executed for the crime of being homeless. So AOC goes completely nuts, berserk and this is an execution. This is the problem. This is an instance of systemic racism. This is the big problem of white versus black criminality and black people are afraid of white people because they do this kind of stuff, which is bizarre because if you look at the statistics, there's very, very little white on black crime. Relatively speaking, little black on white crime, much more black on white crime than white on black. Most crime is black on black and white on white but the reality is this has become a BLM-like issue. This has become a racial issue for the people responding. We don't know that it's a racial issue for the prosecutor but it certainly is a racial issue for the people responding and of course the flip side is that the right is, I mean Neely's a hero and let's celebrate him and Ron DeSantis is going to score political points by going all in on Penny's defense fund and let's give him money and let's support everything this guy does because he's a hero because he stood up to, well, maybe it'll turn out he's a hero, maybe it'll turn out that he overreacted. It's very hard to tell. You know, New York Subways can be a very scary place particularly for women and if you went all out against everybody who was scary on the New York subway you'd be putting in headlocks a lot of people so the question is was it justified in this case? Maybe it was, probably it was. You know, if I had a guess right now I'd say Neely probably did the right thing but we don't know. You need facts, you need evidence. We still haven't heard from the people in that subway car with Neely, we haven't heard from the two people who helped restrain Neely, right? So we don't know if you overreacted but politically it doesn't matter. Politically somebody like DeSantis is going to jump on it because everything now is politics. Everything is a cultural issue. Again, AOC doesn't need facts. A white man killed a black man on a New York subway. That's enough for her. Whether the skin color is relevant, whether anybody who's motivated by the skin color doesn't matter. Or for her it's about, you know, they're now homeless is considered a non-PC would, you're not allowed to say homeless anymore. Now it's houseless. I don't quite have to do a little bit of research to figure out why this is. But now it's houseless. So AOC actually, you know, rather than race it's just because this guy was houseless. That's why he was executed. Because we don't like houseless people so we go after them. Where does that come from? I mean, I know exactly where it comes from. We'll get to that. I mean, really what we're seeing here from the left is just this emotionalist altruistic response. Here's a guy who was homeless, struggling, clearly, you know, mentally ill, you know, in bad shape. On the interse... and black. So on the intersectionality graph he's pretty high up there as, by definition, virtuous. And then you get a white former Marine killing him. Well, obviously the guy who's suffering, obviously the guy who was lower down in the social hierarchy but higher up in the hierarchy of virtue is in the right and the guy who killed him is in the wrong. I mean, how can you even argue with that? Sacrifice, the able, the strong, the healthy, to the homeless, the mentally ill, the unhealthy, and tell with facts. This is... it's determined completely by your suffering hierarchy. I wonder if it was two homeless people, one choked the other one to death, this would make the news, nobody would care. So, you know, this is playing constantly on Neely's suffering, Neely's horrible condition, the fact that the city didn't help him, the fact that he wasn't housed or sheltered or whatever they want to call it these days. And the fact that in spite of his mental illness he was allowed to roam through the streets, it all plays to that. It's all about the altruism. It's all about they are the people, you know, the people who suffer the most in our society who are the lowest in our society from the perspective of suffering. They are the ones we should care about. They're the only thing we should care about. They're the standard of what we should be sacrificing to and if they're suffering and if they're being killed, whether justifiably or not, doesn't matter, what matters is we have not sacrificed enough to them. We have not sacrificed enough to them. This is just an indictment of the fact that we live in a selfish culture that doesn't care enough for the people who are suffering in the world. You know, Neely, the city was fully aware of Neely. He'd been in and out of treatment. He'd been, you know, the city had dealt with him. Again, he'd been arrested 42 times. He was often helped hundreds of times. He was often forced to take the help. Recently, he had shattered the bones of an elderly woman's face. I mean, this is a violent, horrible, you know, mentally ill human being. So why are we making him into a martyr? It turns out his family's all upset. Well, what was his family in trying to treat him? Where's his family in trying to solve these issues that he obviously had? You know, he has been in care facilities. He's been out of care facilities. There's been a warrant issued for his arrest. All of these things, he's had multiple run-ins with social workers and police. And now he's dead. And you can blame the system. I don't see how the system seems to have really tried to help this guy. Obviously, this guy was in trouble and was doing threatening things, and somebody responded. And again, we don't know the exact evidence. You know, we don't know the details of whether, in this case, you know, vigilante justice, if you will, was justified. But the reality is that, you know, nothing good was going to come of this guy's life. Doesn't mean he's just a fight to kill him, but he's not some saint that we have to... that we should, you know, that the left wants us to worship and who now is the standard of goodness is the standard of what is right and the standard of what is good and determines all of this. Right? Yeah. And the fact that it's politicized and the fact that the right is using this as an all-in, you know, why can't we let the justice system work if when it's worked, when we get the evidence, when we get all the facts, we think it's wrong, there are appeals, you know, we can get it wrong, but why assume that everything is going to be, is politicized and political? If it is, deal with it. But stop making this about politics, both on left and right, and again, all of it. You know, the mayor of New York has made this about race. And again, people who are trying to make this about race beware because once we start looking at crime statistics based on race, you might not be, they might not be too happy with what actually comes out of it. Another angle in this which I read, this is in The Free Press by an article by Kate Rosenfield who was, by Kate Rosenfield, anyway, this is Barry Weiss's publication. And she wrote, this is a, watch how she says Me Too flips here. During the Me Too Revolution, they called it, I don't know if it's a revolution, but anyway, during the Me Too movement's peak, the whole idea was women should not tolerate men harassing them. They should stand up, they should fight it, they should zero tolerance. They should shut them down. And if a male did harass a woman or disrespected her, he should lose a job, he should, the reputation should be destroyed. Any kind of harassment from just a few words to an inappropriate hug to inappropriate, too much worse, but all of it was out. Women should have, and when older women said, well, you know, show some resilience. This is the world we live in. Men are going to be like this, they're going to say these things. Younger women said, why should we? No zero tolerance. What's interesting is that the same women who said zero tolerance about men in the workplace and Me Too, in this case, are saying, oh, come on, people. So this crazy guy was harassing people in the subway. Come on, give it a break. Crazy people harass people in the subway every day. Why can't you show a little bit more resilience? Well, why should we? Weren't you the one saying we shouldn't show that resilience in the workplace? We should have zero tolerance? Well, why should we not have zero tolerance in the New York subway? Why shouldn't we stand up and stop this? Why shouldn't we deal with it? And, you know, and what she identifies and I think she's right is that the standard is flipped. The standard used to be Me Too, but Me Too is out. What's in now is BLM. What's in now is skin color. What matters now is skin color. There was a white man harassing these women and another white man had strangled him. Again, probably not making the news. But the fact that it was a black man, the fact that a white man strangled him, that you relevant, those irrelevant facts, as far as we know, irrelevant facts, they changed the equation. So if you're a white woman, or a black woman, any woman, I guess, you should tolerate. You should be, and I think it's deeper than BLM. It's this intersectionality. You should be willing to tolerate abuse from somebody who is of a skin color that has been discriminated against in the past. You should be willing to accept abuse from somebody who's homeless, who's worse off than you. You should be willing to accept abuse from somebody who on this hierarchy of intersectionality is more oppressed than you are. That is, at the end of the day, what the left is obsessed about is this idea of group power, power of people over, if all relationships are power relationships, they will tell you. And all power relationships, according to them, are determined by identity, whether it's skin color, whether it's sexuality, whether it's all ultimately determined by your group identity and by past sins against your group and mentally ill. That's a group that's clearly discriminated against because their life kind of sucks. So the more oppressed you are, the more you can harass other people, and they should show resilience. But if you're in a position of what they would consider power, a white male, you can't harass anybody because you're already in a position of power. So it's all about where you are on this hierarchy of suffering. It's all driven by this weird, you have to say sophisticated, weird complex, maybe not sophisticated, you know, structure of suffering, structure of oppression that is basically being created and basically being pushed out there by the culture, by the left, by the left. And this is, you know, only academics hold this nonsense. I mean, this is not something that is common people even hold. So it's who harasses you that determines what kind of response, whether you should be resilient, whether you should turn the other cheek, stand up and fight and destroy his life. And in this case, because a white man was the one who stood up to them, to a black man, that's unacceptable. So what this case is really all about and what this case is really revealing is the state of our culture and how corrupt the left has become. This is all in the context of rising crime in New York. This is all in the context of rising crime, particularly in the subway in New York, videos showing crimes of co-ing in New York, a woman dragged by her hair on a YouTube video, just horrible situations like that. Now remember, I'd like to say this, crime in New York is still relatively low, relative to other cities in the U.S. and relative to what it was in the 90s and the 80s, but it's higher and it's rising and it's bad. It's much worse than it was three, four, five years ago. So we will see, right? One of the things this woman writes, I like the way she ended it, she said, look, the Me Too generation demanded vigilance, constant vigilance, constant vigilance. She can't tolerate any offense. Well, when you demand vigilance, what you usually get is vigilantes. And, you know, here we got a form of vigilante. Again, we don't know all the details. And somebody took action. But, you know, and then this is not what you want. What you'd want is, I mean, what I think we need right now in New York is a lot more policemen in the subway, a lot more police presence, a lot tougher stance on crime. And with rising crime, you're going to see people taking the law into their own hands in a sense or taking their own self-defense into their own hands, which is valuable, or defending other people themselves. And things like this will happen where somebody is killed. All right, so I thought that was a great, great, this was a good illustration of the whole issue of altruism and the whole issue of intersectionality and how it plays out. We'll keep watching this case. It'll be interesting, particularly if it goes to trial, what exactly happens. And again, this becomes one more chapter in this cultural wars on top of everything else. But in this case, it's become a cultural war issue because the left has turned it into one. I mean, it is ridiculous. It's a simple case. And it should just be viewed as a straightforward case, was what he did justified or not from the perspective of defending himself or defending the other people in the carriage. Okay, let me just see if there's any questions related to this before we go to the next topic. PB says, I came on Mayor Adams for stoking racial division with his recent statement on this case. I didn't see that statement. It is not appropriate for politicians to weigh in on criminal cases under investigation. Poisons, jury pools, and creates public unrest. I agree completely. This is why I don't think DeSantis should comment. I don't think Mayor Adams should comment. I don't think anybody should comment. I think this is just a straightforward issue that has to go in front of our system. To deal with these things, it's called the justice system. Now, if you think the justice system is so corrupt that it's completely politicized and it's completely corrupt and there's nothing, no legitimacy there, then you're basically calling for a revolution. It's the end of this country. Then it's a free fall. Then you're calling for vigilanteism because you can't trust the justice system anymore. We have a system in place. We have a mechanism for appeal and we can evaluate the quality of the justice system once the evidence is displayed. Bragg is clearly a political animal, but that doesn't mean that this guy will not get a fair trial. It doesn't mean that that fair trial won't have the right verdict. But if we start questioning every arrest, every prosecution, then forget it, civilization is over. It's gone. So let's let this play out and see what happens. It could very well play out in a way that he's completely acquitted and everything's fine. Maybe they dismissed the case once they hear more evidence from witnesses. But let's see, again, let's play this out and see what happens. Just like it was done with that kid who shot those protesters in Wisconsin. I forget his name. I mean, in the end, he was acquitted. I think there were a lot of problems with what he did and he shouldn't have been where he was and I talked about this at the time. But in the end, he was acquitted and the system worked. He was prosecuted, probably legitimately and the jury found him not guilty. And that's how our system works. That's how our system works. I think the hands of the politicians off of it. West says, I've studied the martial arts for 22 years. There's always a chance you can kill someone in an altercation, no matter what you intend. Four should always be the last resort. Be careful out there, people. I agree with you, West. I think four should always be the last resort and if you're going to use force, I hope you know what you're doing and you have to be aware of the real dangers. And again, here we had three people holding this guy down. Maybe that was completely justified but until we have the facts, we don't completely know, probably was given this guy's violent background. But yes, force, you can easily kill somebody. This is why I always think about whether you want to carry a gun and if you're carrying a gun out of a holster, then you're aware of all the consequences. You realize what it means. This is why I think if you own a gun, you should be trained. You should practice. I mean, the danger of pulling out that gun and actually shooting somebody that you didn't intend to shoot are massive and dangerous and you should be really thoughtful in using lethal force. Nick says, proud to be a fan, keep up the good work. Thank you, Nick. Kim says, as someone who used to take public transportation to San Francisco and saw a ton of people acting completely crazy and threatening others and the police will not act, what is one supposed to do, let it happen? No, I mean certainly not and well, I would leave San Francisco. But you know, if the police won't act, then I don't know what you do. I mean, this is the thing. If you get to the point where the police are not acting and you can't trust the police, then civilization is breaking down. What's alternative that private citizens start policing the public transportation system and start beating up everybody who acts crazy and threatening? How's that going to end? Is that going to end positive? You know, I'm not saying that's not what you have to do in an emergency. It is what you have to do in an emergency. But you don't want to live in a place where that is the standard. This is why I said you leave San Francisco. Because that is the breakdown of civilization. That is the end. If the police won't act, now the police are not always there. Here in the subway, the police won't there. But if police are not there, no, sorry, if the police won't act, literally won't do their job, then you should move. Get out of there. Because you're basically asking you're living in a place where violence is okay. And where you're only alternative to live in a place is to start using violence. And that's not a place I would want to live. It's not a civilized place. And that's what makes it so horrible when you have police like in San Francisco. This is why I think a lot of people are leaving. Like in San Francisco where crime is on the rise. One of the reasons where crime is just out of control in certain parts of the city nobody will go to. And I think a lot of people don't use public transportation because they're being harassed. But you can't my point is this, if we're really at the point where the police won't act against real legitimate threats then civilization is indeed breaking down. And that might be the case. And the first step is to get away from those places that are the worst because when civilization breaks down it's going to be very, very ugly and very, very painful for all of us. And of course if you're threatened and you have the capabilities of defending yourself then you need to do it. The challenge then is if you do it and somebody gets hurt you might land up going to jail. Which is not good. So yeah, this is why you want to avoid those kind of situations. This is why when the police don't act you want to get out of town. See if there's anything here. Let's see. Brie says, it took my family 15 years to get my sister involuntarily committed. The years of not being treated has caused permanent damage. Not locking mentally ill people up is not caring. It is evil. I think that's right and I think this is the fact that this guy's family suddenly cares now that he's dead but didn't work to try to get him either locked up or treated in some way. That's a little ridiculous, right? But yes, mental health is a real issue and it's a real problem and people and the worse our culture becomes the worse our culture becomes the worse these conditions will become or the more people having these conditions will be around us. Let's see. Alright. Dave says Uber must be doing well in New York City. New Yorkers are no longer taking public transportation. The subway is an hour across between a jail and a homeless shelter. Honest people try and get to work without triggering the wildlife. Yeah, it's hard and I think Mayor Adams said that he was going to deploy a bunch of police down there into the subways and try to clean it up so even the Mayor of New York recognizes it's a problem. The problem is a lot of cops don't want to be cops. It's hard to recruit. They don't have enough police. They defund the police and they hate the police movement if you will have done a lot of harm to policing have destroyed the capacity to hire new policemen to train them properly to deploy them effectively and to have the resources to be able to do all that. So there's a lot of work to be done to clean up the city. And New York is in relatively good shape. Chicago is a lot worse and St. Louis and Baltimore there are plenty of cities in this country that are a lot worse than New York City. As bad as New York City seems to be. Thanks Dave. Really appreciate the $50. Alright. So if you thought that was bad I came across a document that was put out I think yesterday I think it was an update to a project but it was put up I think it was put up out yesterday or this week and it's called Absolute Zero and this is a climate change document by a group called UK Fires which is led by an engineering professor from the University of Cambridge this group is supported by the University of Cambridge but as part of this it has a number of faculty members including from the University of Cambridge Bath, Nottingham Strathclyde and University of Oxford as well as Imperial College so some of the best universities in the world are participating in this. And this is the problem that they're saying look we've we have this clear mission of cutting of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 the whole world agrees with this we have to get to net zero emissions by 2050 and that's just 20 something years away 27 years away and most of the focus on getting there is to try to come up with what are called breakthrough technologies technologies that will allow us to maintain our quality of life our standard of living and still achieve net zero emissions and what this document is saying is look that's just not going to happen it's just not going to happen they are no breakthrough technologies that can provide us with the energy we need and everything else that we need without us being willing to change our lifestyle and look the world is going to end we have to do things again there's somebody out there that needs to be sacrificed and you know scientists have identified this goal to save the world zero emissions by 2050 and the reality is that having faith in technology to deliver solutions to all the issues it's fantasy it's just not going to happen and they're probably right and he says look for 20 years we've been trying to solve the problems with new or breakthrough technologies and I'm reading for this report from the executive summary of the report that supply energy and allow industry to keep growing so we don't have to change our lifestyles so investing heavily in these technologies so we don't have to change our lifestyles and they say but although some exciting new technology options are being developed it will take a long time to deploy them and they won't be operating at scale within 30 years so what do we do what do we do and what he says what the conclusion they come to is look if we're serious about zero emissions by 2050 then we're going to have to accept the fact that we have to change our lifestyle and life is going to have to change on planet earth we can't continue living the way we do today zero emissions technology is not going to save us it just won't happen so he says if we really want to read zero emissions in 30 year times what does that involve and they say most of what we most enjoy spending time together notice the orientation of what we most enjoy spending time together families and communities leisure sports creativity continue and grow unhindered I mean we'll come back to this because that's just not true but notice that that's what we care most about it's not about careers it's not about wealth God forbid it's about families and communities leisure sports and creativity what makes all of that possible you know work and industry and so on but that's what's that's what's important that already tells you something about the orientation of this and whether that can be preserved under the zero environment is bizarre he says they continue writing we need to switch to using electricity as our only form of energy and if it continues today impressive rate of growth in non-emitting generation we'll only have to cut our use of energy to 60% of today's levels only so we don't have to cut it to zero all we have to do is eliminate 40% of the energy we use today and we can enjoy and we can get to where we need to be and we can enjoy family and community and leisure and sports and creativity at least whoops a mosquito he says they write we can easily achieve this with incremental changes to the way we use energy we can drive smaller cars and take the train when possible trainers energy efficient they tell us use efficient electric heat pumps to keep warm use vehicles and equipment that are better designed and last much longer notice the we we we your individual preferences by the way don't actually matter nobody actually gives a damn about you we are going to tell you what is important for you family and community leisure sports and creativity that's what's important for you and we are going to determine for you what car you're going to drive and we are going to determine for you how much electricity you're going to use what the planet needs and if you have to sacrifice a little bit if we have to sacrifice you a little bit so be it no big deal don't get too excited but they say we face two big challenges the two big challenges we face with an electric future are flying and shipping although there are lots of new ideas about electric planes they won't be operating at commercial scales within 30 years zero emissions means that for some period we'll all stop using airplanes I love the fact that they don't mince words here they're not hedging for some period of time we'll all stop using airplanes can't go on their vacation to Rome you're on, nope you're not going to see the Sistine Chapel ever again because you're stuck in America you're just not going to be able to fly anyway and by the way if somebody lives in Puerto Rico I am really stuck I can't leave the island unless I swim or I guess a boat will get the boats in a minute no flying not some flying not we won't do any international flights no we'll stop using airplanes shipping they write is more challenging although there are few military ships run by nuclear reactors we commonly don't have any large electric merchant ships but we depend strongly on shipping from importing food and goods and they say look we have a climate change act this is in the UK so we have to obey the act and that means that we have to stop doing anything that causes emissions regardless of its energy source that's going to require it's going to require that we stop eating beef and lamb no more beef no more lamb because they release methane as they digest grass so we're going to have to people are going to have to switch to vegetarian diets or switch to I guess chickens although I'm sure there's something wrong with chickens and then one of the most difficult problems is cement making cement releases emissions regardless of how it's powered there are currently no alternative options available at scale and we don't know how to install new renewable or make new energy efficient buildings without it so what are we going to do stop building stop building because we can't build without cement we need to discuss these challenges as a society making progress of climate change requires that the three key groups of players, government, business and individuals work together together rather than waiting for the other two to act first but until we face up to the fact that breakthrough technologies won't arrive fast enough we can't even begin having the right discussion so and then they give you the fairy tale stuff here's the fairy tale stuff committing to zero emissions create tremendous opportunities tremendous there will be huge growth in the use and conversion of electricity for travel travel away I can't I mean I can drive can't cross the Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean with a car what do the Japanese do I guess they don't go anyway conversion of electricity for travel warmth and in industry growth in new zero emission diets wow I can't wait to get rid of lamb and beef so I can go on a zero emission diet I've always wanted to be in a zero emission site wouldn't that sound so interesting I just had a meal at a Michelin star restaurant I don't think it was zero emissions growth in materials production manufacturing construction capability with zero emissions growth in lesion domestic travel growth in business that help us to use energy efficiently and conserve and value materials of course they're ignoring in all of this they're ignoring these in these opportunities the breakthrough technologies that they're assuming will happen they're ignoring the cost they're ignoring how poor we will become they're ignoring the fact that these new sources of energy are primarily unreliable they're ignoring just the sheer insanity of the goal and what it's actually we're going to acquire of us so they're honest when it comes to can't go boat can't go fly so no more global trade no flying anyway they're honest about that but they're not honest about all this you know bizarre I mean if zero emissions were so economically great you wouldn't have to subsidize them so absolute zero creates a driver for tremendous growth in industries related to electrification true but death in other industries from material supply through generation and storage to end use the fossil fuel cement shipping and aviation industries face rapid contraction while construction in many manufacturing sectors can continue at today's scale with appropriate transformations how will the construction sector adopt all new build should be zero energy standards of use the impacts of construction are primarily about to use the materials primarily steel and cement by 2050 we will have only very limited cementious material and we'll use only recycled steel only recycled steel but there are myriad opportunities for radical reductions in the amount of materials used in each construction really no skyscrapers forget skyscrapers forget tall buildings generally how are you going to how are you going to build bridges without steel recycled steel it's not enough recycled steel to build new stuff international freight global trade any kind of trade we currently have no non-emitting freight ships so there is an urgent need for exploration of means to electrify ship power and options to transfer to electric rail electric rail from the UK to the United States this would require an enormous expansion international rail capacity where's this money going to come from who's going to make these investments and why is there no discussion here of the costs of all this and the cost of the standard of living and quality of life even if we have if we don't fly anyway global trade collapsing countries are going to have to become self-sufficient we know the cost in standard of living quality of life of that is massive we know the benefits of trade we know the benefits of specialization I mean what they're really asking here is for the destruction of modern civilization and pretending that the great opportunity is here nobody's going to have to suffer so you won't be able to fly big deal aviation they say there are no options for zero emission flights in the time available for action so the industry faces a rapid contraction that's interesting rapid contraction developments in electric flight may be relevant beyond 2050 fossil fuel industries all coal, gas and oil fuel supply from extraction through the supply chain to retail must close within 30 years although carbon capture and storage may allow some activity later travel and tourism without flying there will be growth in domestic and train reach tourism and leisure food and agriculture beef and lamb phased out by 2050 and replaced by greatly expanded demand for vegetarian food electricity supply for food processing and storage will be cut by 50% so we're going to cut electricity for storing and for processing food by 50% but we're going to have enough food to feed everybody we, we, we it just goes on and on like this and the beauty of a document like this is that it's right here it's laid out literally under the section of traveling it will say stop using airplanes take the train not the car when possible use all the seats in the car or get a smaller car choose an electric car next time if possible which will become easier as prices fall and charging infrastructure expands lobby for more trains, no new roads airport closure and more renewable electricity I mean again this is the end this agenda is an agenda for the end of humanity the end of civilization the end of economic progress the end of economic wealth the end of economic growth one of some of the recommendations about heating and appliances wear warmer clothes in winter wear warmer clothes in winter I mean this is going backwards how many hundreds of years and it goes on so this is backed by engineering department they've got graphs, they've got pictures they've got the whole thing it's all worked out they you know it's truly unbelievable this is evil and a scale that is hard to imagine the evasion of these people to pretend that there's opportunities here there's opportunity for a much smaller population 8 billion people can't survive in this and they know it so this is we're talking about maybe 1 billion people on planet earth Africa can't do this they don't care they just don't care if not the world will end well maybe it's better that the world end that we have to live like animals this is the agenda of the environmentalist they naked in front of us this is what they really after the end of modern life the end of civilized life as we know it alright let's see let's jump into let's jump into the super chat hopefully I've scared and terrified and depressed you enough it's it's worse than a racket because these people are taken seriously these people are taken seriously alright micro picor picorari sorry if I'm mispronouncing the name micro says thanks for changing my life wow I'm 56 owner of an aircraft design studio in Modena that would be cool aircraft design studio sounds very cool and Modena of course is the those of you don't know Modena is the home of Ferrari and I think Lamborghini as well I once visited the factory the Ferrari showroom and factory and museum it's also the Modena is the home of one of the best restaurants in the world which I eat at so I'm a fan of Modena by the way I designed the planes and rockets on Alex's book I guess on the book cover but that's great and I didn't realize I changed your life and I mean this is what why I do what I do I really really appreciate the support thank you Michael and thank you for letting me know that I've had an impact this is to a large extent why we do the show clock says are we so early in the movement that even most objectivists haven't gotten rid of their altruistic irrational tendencies and premises when everyone around you is irrational it's hard to stay the course I think that's absolutely right I think we are early in the movement we're early in the movement in that and it is hard as individuals to get rid of all our altruistic and all our collectivistic and all our irrational tendencies it's very hard to live in a culture that is infused with irrationality and irrationalism and altruism and collectivism and everything else and and stand up against that and stick to a philosophy that's completely counter to it and stay consistent to it and I think very few people do and it is very early and this is why we have to build a movement we have to build a bigger and bigger movement we have to build a movement where people support one another where it becomes easy and easy to get rid of those tendencies and to spend more and more of one's time interacting with good people and rational people we have to impact the culture the culture generally becomes better less altruistic, less irrational and it's going to take decades it's going to take decades but it is quite early still it's quite early, it's earlier than you think for the culture it's earlier than you think for the objective movement Michael, by the way just to remind everybody you can use the super chat feature to ask questions please make them $20 or more just because it's midnight here in Rome I'm tired and if we're going to go longer than let's do it for 20 bucks Michael says do some people not feel an ounce of guilt after they do evil I don't know I mean supposedly there are psychopaths who don't but I don't know I'm not a psychologist but I think almost all people do feel because depending on the level of evil but I think most people have to engage in evasion in order to do it and that evasion expresses itself in certain negative feelings whether it's guilt or other kind of feelings negative self-esteem more broadly I think most people do but I'm not saying every psychology psychology can be weird psychology can be weird that's not what I want to say psychology is complex and hard to tell how people psychologically handle what they do does it ever scare you being a lonely, sane voice in a world gone mad I don't think it scares me I don't usually get scared it's rare that I get scared it's depressing it's it's scourging it's it can make me sad but you know what's the difference I don't we'll see hopefully the world doesn't collapse but I don't see it collapsing and but it is depressing to be I don't think it's a lonely sane voice but one of the few sane voices in a crazy world Hopper Campbell says can you respond do a response video to Hassan Pika on Stephen Graham's show exposing the evil dark side of capitalism I think Hassan Pika would be willing to debate you I mean the problem with debates is you have to have a forum that will sponsor the debate and post it and do the whole thing I'm happy to debate them I'll look at the video I don't know if those people but I'll find it Liam says the corollary of being responsible for others is that they are responsible for you and therefore you try to control each other true concern and caring requires selfishness I agree completely absolutely you know if if we are all responsible for one another then we start having to need to control one another I'll give you a simple example if I'm going to pay your health care bills as in socialized medicine as in Medicare the way the system works today in most countries around the world then I care about what you eat and I care about how fat you are and I care about whether you exercise or not and I want to control you and I'm going to vote in the next election to have mandates for daily exercise and mandates for for healthy food so yes that control definitely comes from that sense of mutual responsibility Harper Gamble says do good guys ever not win in the end the end may be a long time away but I don't see how good cannot win by the nature of causality I think that's right but think of it this way it's still true that we could have a nuclear war where all mankind is wiped out and the good guys don't win so you can certainly imagine circumstances where good doesn't win in the end but given the continuation of human life then yes I think truth and goodness win in the end because you're right from the nature of causality but to take a very very long time and in the meantime accidents can happen that could make it irrelevant there's no necessity well there's nothing necessitated Michael said it does altruism make us constantly scan for victims we have to take care of in some capacity yes yes I think the culture is constantly doing that constantly looking and it's become now quasi scientific intersectionality where they actually can categorize you and think about and what is a victim has now changed to incorporate all kinds of things that were irrelevant I think in the past like sexuality or skin color maybe they were relevant in the past but in a different way and but altruism yes conditions you to look for we know there's a future and that's it that's all you have to know so there is no starting point what was before the starting point if there was a starting point and think about a time is inside the universe time is not outside so you can't measure the age of the of the universe to measure something you have to be outside of it just like you can't measure the size of the universe just like you can't really determine in a sense the shape of the universe to do all that you'd have to be outside of it but if the universe is everything that is you can't be outside of it you're in it and in it there is no meaning to the question how old is the universe how much time has passed because again time is you know you'd have to be outside of the universe to not to measure that not to determine that Michael asks what is the objective criteria for having the state force someone into a mental institution without violating rights because some mentally people could still feed and close themselves well you'd have to establish those I don't know that I have a click cut determination for that but certainly being a threat to other people being a threat to other people and not being control of them that is the person is not in control and therefore they could become a threat there's objectively determined that they are a threat to other people and they can't control it they can't give you a guarantee that they won't be that would be enough so you'd have to think it through I don't know that I have the answer but that's certainly the key is violating other people's rights they'd be committed or you know a threat to other people's property you know in a lezific economy where all property is privately owned and they can't they don't have a home and they can't find a home and they don't want a home and they then they're violating other people's property rights because they're living another people's property so you commit them whether it's a jail or a mental institution because they don't have anywhere to go in any way they go they're violating rights Rafael that's funny I'm going to Rome and Florence this week as well I booked the Vatican Villa from Messina Uffici