 I mean, there's this one question here about global, about climate change that I want to answer. The best, it says that objectivism is the best metaphysically and ethically, but climate change has created a model dilemma in Rand's system. Unregulated capitalism and the unlimited pursuit of profit leads to the destruction of the planet, hence the destruction of life. If objectivism addresses that dilemma, it will become relatively dominant in standing intellectually. I mean, we have addressed that dilemma. First, I mean, it's non-objective to say that climate change is going to destroy the planet and destroy life on Earth. That is just non-objective. It's not scientific. It's because it's stating things about the future that you don't know. It also is clearly, goes against the idea in objectivism that resources are limitless and that human beings have the ability, have the ingenuity to solve any problems that they face. So what is it about climate change that's going to destroy life on Earth? It's going to get warm. So we have air conditioning. We've cultivated agriculture in the desert. Certainly, we can deal with it getting warmer. The oceans will rise. We have in our history built dykes. We can do all kinds of systems that protect cities that are on the coastline and the worst-case scenario, we will have to evacuate some of the coastlines and the coast will move inland. So what? Why is that endangering all of human life? Why is civilization in mankind going to end because of any of that? And then let's say it really does get to the point where man, it's, I don't know, the whole ecosystem is changing in the way that's hostile to mankind and really we can't come up of any way to live in this world, which is unimaginable. I mean, human beings lived through the ice age with no technology. Human beings have lived on this planet when it was warmer with none of the technology we have today. So if I say something like, you know, even if global warming happens, even if everything you think is going to happen, if you believe in the human mind, if you believe in human ingenuity, if you believe in technology, then it's not a problem. So that's my first comment, right? The second is, I mean, there are kinds of ways in which we could solve the issue of climate change that have nothing to do with government force or with stopping the use of fossil fuels. I mean, Zizik talked about this in the debate, horrified by the idea, though we might be able to put something in the atmosphere that actually cools things down and he was saying, oh my God, it would destroy the planet because it's worse than the... Well, how do you know that? That's just being afraid of technology, right? So, Sal, you're not listening to what I said. I didn't say that climate is not changing, that things are not getting warmer. I'm just saying that that does not constitute. That does not constitute a threat on human life. That does not constitute a threat to the human species. No, there's no contradiction between production and a changing climate, even if production is causing a changing climate. First of all, capitalism is not about production to no end and pollution to no end. So individuals can voluntarily stop producing. But the point is that what's the threat? We got all this and things are changing that are making life a little bit more difficult, so we'll have to adapt a little bit. But there's no obstacle to human happiness. There's no obstacle to human survival. There's just maybe some challenges that we would have had to face. I mean, look, let's assume global warming is out, let's assume there's no climate change. At some point, there would be an ice age on planet Earth. Naturally, without any human activity, so what? So we'd adapt. At some point, without any human activity, they might be warming up. So there's no question that there's some activities that we do that have some negative consequences. Fine. In the 19th century, production actually created soot in the air that caused disease, lung disease. Now it had a positive impact on human life in spite of that. And what I'm saying is that continued capitalism has a positive impact on human life in spite of climate change, even if you accept climate change, the net benefit to human life is astronomical to the continuation of capitalism. Particularly if you're poor in Africa, you want more capitalism, not less. You want more production, not less. And yes, you'll deal with climate change when climate change happens. You'll deal with the heat when the heat happens. But it's just not true that climate change is such a catastrophic evil that it wipes out all the benefits of capitalism. Just untrue. And if that were true, then capitalists would change their behavior because capitalists don't want to die. And what we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads.