 So radical. Fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Alright everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow. It is Wednesday, December, what is it? December 6th. I hope everybody is having a great week, and I hope everybody is having a great week, and yeah, we've got a show right now. Three shows tomorrow, the first Hebrew show ever. We'll be at 10 am tomorrow morning. Then we'll have our news roundup, and then we'll have an evening show with Don Watkins. We'll be talking about effective egoism. So hopefully you will join me for that. If you missed effective altruism yesterday, you can catch up on that tonight, and so that you're ready for effective egoism tomorrow. Effective altruism, effective egoism. You'll have it all covered. You'll be completely covered. Let's see. Yeah, I think we're good. So we can jump right in. You might have, this has been all over the place, particularly in social media. But yesterday, as you probably know, three major university presidents appeared before Congress, Harvard, Penn, and MIT. All three appeared in front of one of the House Committees, Committee on Education and the Workplace. And to talk about the state of the workplace, of the state of education at Harvard, MIT, and Penn, three of of the premier universities in the country, really, in the world, if you look at global rankings. At the same time, I think some Republicans brought out some students at these three universities at MIT, Harvard and Penn, had them describe Jewish students and had them describe what is going on on campus. If you haven't seen those videos, I highly recommend watching them. They're truly horrifying and very disturbing. It is quite evident that there is massive amount of antisemitism. There is intimidation. Jewish students on campuses are afraid. They are harassed. And some of them are just terrified for their lives. I suspect that is also true of faculty. Although we didn't get into that, but certainly this was the case when it comes to students. The testimony of the Gulf of MIT and the Gulf of Harvard were really, really spooky. I mean, they could have been testifying about 1930s Germany. And this is, of course, the 21st century. Massachusetts, liberal Massachusetts, Harvard, MIT, a bastion of science and technology, not even a bastion of the humanities. So I highly recommend you listen. You watch them. I think each is about three minutes long. It's definitely worth catching up on. It could also be, and maybe this is the better analogy, it could also be the South. It could really be the South in the 1950s and 60s. Maybe when the first black students arrived on certain campuses and were harassed, truly unbelievable. And it's not just that these are Muslim students, many of them are, but it's not just Muslim students. Many of the students doing the harassing are American, born and bred, at two of the most prestigious universities in the world. Anyway, the presidents of the universities were brought in front of Congress, in front of the Committee on Education and Workplace, to discuss this and to answer questions about this. That, too, is available on video on social media. And I encourage you to watch it because that, too, is mind-boggling and just unbelievable. They were asked whether the cause for the basically killing of Jews violated their harassment policies. All of them wouldn't answer. I mean, all three, basically said, well, it depends on context. If speech becomes action, then it violates. It's really interesting, right? Now, if these universities took the position of we are basically at these universities abiding by the First Amendment of the Constitution, we will use the First Amendment as a guide to determine free speech issues at the university. And that will be the principle by which we did. They don't have to, because these private universities, they could determine their own speech codes. But if they took the position that the First Amendment is a guide, then I get it. Okay, so you can shout and yell as long as it doesn't count as incitement when it's calling for the annihilation of another country, a people counts as incitement and when it's just expression of speech. Okay, you can quibble about that. And indeed, Jonathan Haidt writes, Jonathan Haidt, the professor and a big, big proponent of free speech. He says, quote, as a professor who favors free speech on campus, I can sympathize with the nuanced answers given by university presidents yesterday about whether calls to attack or wipe out Israel violate campus speech policies. But he says, what offends me is that since 2015 universities have been so quick to punish microaggressions. By the way, microaggressions telling people we want to kill Jews or we want to annihilate Israel, it's not exactly a microaggression of in the context of the kind of speech we're talking about. Anyway, have been so quick to punish microaggressions, including statements intended to be kind. If even one person from a favorite group took offense, the presidents are now saying Jews are not a favorite group. So fending or threatening Jews is not so bad. For Jews, it all depends on context. We might call this double standard, Haidt continues, institutional anti-Semitism. University presidents, if you're not going to punish students for calling for the elimination of Israel and Israelis, it's okay with me. But only if you're also immediately dismantled the speech policing apparatus and norms you created in 2015, 2016 in particular. You know, we're talking about universities, Harvard, for example, where the university diversity administration threw a fit when Caroline Hoeven, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, stated on Fox News that there were only two sexes. The firestorm that this caused, the claim that there were only two sexes, caused that they have to take a leave of absence. Gay, the president of Harvard University was asked about this versus calling for violence against Jews. That's okay. But saying there were only two sexes, not okay. How do you square this with this idea of free speech? The president of Harvard was asked this at the hearing yesterday, but she did not answer. Over and over again, for example, at University of Pennsylvania, attempt to punish Amy Wax, a tenured law professor who I really don't like, who I think is indeed a racist. But attempt to, you know, she was, despite, she was critical of diversity programs. And as a consequence, the university tried to sanction her, right? It's okay to argue for the destruction of the state of Israel. It's okay to call for global interfahta against Jews. We know exactly what interfahta means. It's just not okay to criticize diversity programs. Or Huda, I can't pronounce the second name, a professor of Arabic literature who told Jews, go back to fucking Berlin or Ahmad Al-Mahya, a creative writing instructor who laid chance of interfahta revolution. They are fine. No problem. Calling for the genocide of Jews depends on context. It's unbelievable, the extent of intimidation that exists on these campuses, that the administration is completely, both administrations of all schools are turning a complete blind eye to the intimidation, the harassment, the real physical harassment that these universities are doing nothing about. Students who are afraid to go out of their dorms because they happen to be Israeli or they happen to be Jewish. But how many times have these universities silenced professors? How many times have these universities shut down speakers, disinvited speakers for challenging, I don't know, something like the common claims about climate change, as MIT did, when asked about whether it would be okay for groups of students to be out there chanting reimposed slavery, black should be slaves, or, you know, all gays should be executed, stoned to death. Whether that was not equivalent to the calling of genocide around Jewish people, university presidents had no, literally no answer, evaded the questions, ignored them, or just didn't answer. But we all know that if you call for the murder of gays, or if you call for the murder of blacks, if you call for murder of some minority, you would be thrown out of the university. As a student, as a faculty member, you wouldn't have survived. If there was a march through Harvard of students, pro the KKK, they would have all been expelled. And I'm not saying Harvard shouldn't do that. Harvard should set his policies the way it wants to, but it seems right that you don't want KKK members at your university. I would expel them. And yet, the equivalent, celebrating Hamas rape, pillage, murder, torture, that is fine. That is fine. And of course, this goes to the ideology I've talked about a lot of my show and this idea that the left has that if you're a victim, if you're meek, if you're poor, if you're the oppressed, you can do anything. No standards apply to you. You can literally do anything. If you're the strong, if you quote privileged, if you are white-skinned, if you're wealthy, if you come from a civilized society, if you come from a successful culture, you must just stay quiet if you're going to be abused. The abuse is, you just need to keep quiet. You just need to turn the other cheek. So gays must be protected because they're weak, oppressed, blacks, minorities, except Jews, must be protected because they're weak, oppressed, Jews, or we can't protect Jews. They're strong. They're typically upper middle class and wealthy. They have a whole country that's kind of civilized and successful and relatively rich. So, oh yeah, we can abuse them. They don't need protection. Abuse all you want. This is the morality of intersectionality, the morality of woke, the morality that exists today. If you're white, if you're Jewish, if you're successful, you get no protection. There's no equal protection before the law, no equal protection in morality. There's no equal treatment. Your treatment is determined by the group that you belong to and how oppressed it has been. How oppressed it has been. All right, so I'm going to make a request of all of you. I mean, I've made this request for years now. I don't know if anybody takes me seriously or not, but here's the request. It's a serious request. Stop funding the universities. Stop it. You're on my mother calls. Tell them. No, I'm not supporting my enemies. I'm not supporting the destroyers of Western civilization. I'm not supporting an ideology that now is through and through throughout the university. From an administration to the professors, to the students. I will not support an ideology that's anti-American. It's anti-the principles of this country and it is fundamentally racist. So stop supporting your alma mater, particularly if you have money, but all of you don't even send them five bucks. And I know some of you support your alma mater because you want your kids to go there or you want your gang kids to go there. Stop. It's not good for your kids to go there. These have become destructive institutions. Now, there might be better institutions out there. Find the universities that are better. Support them. Send your kids there. But these institutions, Harvard, MIT, Penn, and I've mentioned in the past USC who treat students the way these institutions do, treat in this case Jewish students the way they do, treat the faculty the way that they do. I told you the story about the university professor at USC that got basically put on leave because he argued with the poor Hamas students. Yeah, I mean, these universities have, they either change their behavior or they should not get us support. Don't send your kids there. And by the way, what would really be effective, particularly if you're a alum, send them letters. Let them know how you feel, particularly if you've given them money in the past. Now, I know a lot of people have stopped. Not enough have stopped. Starve these universities. Starve them. They've been living off of you. They have been your enemy for decades. Now it's just gone over the top. But this has been going on for a long time. By the way, Douglas Murray asked Chad GPT at Harvard, discalling for the genocide of Jews violate the university's code of conduct. Chad GPT answered advocating for genocide violates Harvard University's policies against hate speech and harassment, which are outlined in the code of conduct. They prioritize creating a safe and inclusive environment for all members of the community. There you go. Maybe we should replace the president of Harvard with Chad GPT, because Chad GPT knows and understands the actual policies the university itself has adopted better than the president of the university. Disgrace all three presidents based on their performance yesterday should be immediately fired. The boards of trustees should invoke this. And by the way, the boards of trustees, you should resign if you can't fire the president or if you're in the minority and the others don't want to fire the president. There should be massive protests. Faculty members, leave Harvard, leave MIT, leave these universities. Many of you have got tenure. You're very successful. You can find jobs elsewhere. These universities need to be boycotted by everybody, everybody. Talking about Chad GPT, there's a real effort right now in Congress to regulate artificial intelligence. In other words, destroy the technology before it's really even been born. They are this week, four committee hearings, four different committees, hearings about AI, all with the goal of designing regulations. The scariest of these is already a proposed framework for new legislation proposed by Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat from Connecticut, and my favorite Republican Senator, Josh Hawley, Republican from Missouri. They are both ranking members of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. They are suggesting new regulation that would basically recreate kind of a, you remember the old Mar-Bell regulatory environment where the government, government agency, would basically control, right? It would be a new federal AI agency, a new federal artificial intelligence agency, which would provide licensing, auditing, and transparency mandates. I mean, this kind of bureaucratic micromanagement, it would destroy this industry. But even if it survived somehow, the bill would expand liability and new private rights of action after the fact that would allow individuals to sue AI over a variety of different issues. You can just imagine in our litigious and culture filled with frivolous lawsuits what this would entail. Hawley, Josh Hawley, the Republican, who many of you think should be my ally, Josh Hawley said he wants AI to be an, once AI to be an, sorry, he said he didn't want AI to be an accelerant for any job losses and suggested he wouldn't mind seeing government take steps to stop automation technologies from being used for even routine tasks like fast food ordering at drive-thru restaurants. So Josh Hawley is anti-automation. He's a real Luddite. He wants to drive us backwards. Maybe we should get rid of the automation we already have to bring back those jobs. By the way, there's a good article in this in Medium by Adam Tiria, who's very good on these kind of issues, on issues of economic growth, regulation, technology. So his name is spelled T-H-I-E-R-E-R. It's some of what I'm reading to you from his article. I mean, maybe what we need is a robot tax, which is what Bernie Sanders has proposed in the past, but I wouldn't be surprised if Blumenthal Hawley supported this. I've told you in the past, the scariest legislation is bipartisan legislation. The scariest legislation is when Democrats and Republicans agree. Okay, so yeah, I mean, what Blumenthal and Hawley want is basically a complete top-down regulation of AI. I mean, I'm curious who the regulators are going to be, because how many people in the world actually understand AI? How are they going to find people who can actually regulate this industry without destroying it? Well, they can't, so they will destroy it. I mean, this is unbelievable given the upside that AI has. It is unbelievable that given the global race and the national security implications of AI, it is just a guarantee to cripple American industry, to cripple innovation, to cripple progress and economic growth, and to set the United States on a backward track, not just of stagnation, but of actually what's the opposite of progress of decay, slow and absolute decay. Yeah, I mean, I don't know if anybody listens to me in Missouri, but if anybody's listening to me in Missouri, please never, ever, ever vote for Josh Hawley, Congresswoman. It's better that these kind of ideas come from the left, and that we don't get people who claim to be somehow affiliated with some version of pro-free markets that are, you know, associated with stuff like this. Josh Hawley is as bad of an authoritarian as anybody the left has, and much more dangerous, him and JD Vance, two worst senators in the Senate. Talk about a bipartisan legislation. You remember last year, two years ago, two years ago now, Congress passed an infrastructure bill, this huge infrastructure bill that Republicans voted for, and as part of this infrastructure bill, they allocated an enormous amount of money, $7.5 billion, to build tens of thousands of electric vehicle chargers, part of this EV revolution across the country, so that drivers would buy EV cars, because in order to buy EV cars, I'm not going to buy an EV car if I can't charge it anyway. I mean, particularly America, it's a big country, people like to drive, they drive long distances. You want to have lots of EV chargers all over the place, and of course, we can't trust the private sector to actually provide these EV chargers, even though there's clear profit motive to do so, and Tesla has indeed done so. Not enough exists out there, so the government's stepping in to fix that, and they're going to devote $7.5 billion to doing this. This was supposed to be allocated to the States, and the States were supposed to go build these things. It's been two years since this bill passed, two years since the bureaucracy has been created to facilitate the distribution of these funds and the building of these EV facilities. Guess how many EV chargers have been built with the billions, billions, that's with the B, of your tax money that Congress has allocated towards this? How many actual chargers have been built? Well, the numbers exactly zero, exactly zero. None have been built. There might be a few that go live next year, but this is way, way behind. The reasons are all bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. Central planning doesn't work. It's inefficient. It's unproductive. How much of the $7.5 billion is going to actually go to the administration of this program, to sitting on the money, to not doing anything, to corruption, to distortion, to perversion? Two years, not a single one has been built. Maybe a few will go live next year. Pretty pathetic, but pretty typical. Now imagine a regulatory agency responsible for all AI functionings. Pretty, pretty scary. Finally, we talked about yesterday how the United States oil production has reached a record level, record level. And the United States is producing more oil today than ever before. I read a story today, which I found really interesting about Saudi Arabia and stuff that I didn't realize. Right now, the United States is producing more oil as a percentage of crude oil production in the world than Saudi Arabia or Russia. 16% of all the oil, crude oil production in the world right now is being done by the United States. Saudi Arabia, which was producing close to 14%, has cut production significantly in an attempt to drive prices up. Of course, just as they cut production, the United States, and this is all private sector United States, increased production. The consequence of that is that the Saudi cuts have not actually raised prices. As a consequence, all revenue to Saudi Arabia has shrunk, indeed collapsed. Now this is devastating to an economy that is almost exclusively dependent on oil. Indeed, the country, Saudi Arabia, is right now in a recession. GDP shrunk in the third quarter by 4.5% annualized, but that's huge. The United States, by the way, in the third quarter, grew by over 5% GDP growth, maybe partially because of all that investment in shale oil. Indeed, this is what I didn't really realize. Saudi Arabia's GDP has basically not grown, the GDP per capita is basically being flat for 30 years. The population has grown, but GDP per capita is flat. So, yes, GDP has grown a little bit, but only to compensate for the number of people they have. Saudi Arabia is trying to diversify its economy, trying to get into tech, trying to get into other areas, but the fact is that it today is still dominated by oil and the economy is shrinking. Now, why did they reduce outputs? Probably a mistake. They assumed that the United States could not make up the difference because of Biden's antagonism towards the oil industry. I mean, there was some speculation that maybe they reduced production because they actually have less reserves than they're claiming. We don't know. The ruler of Saudi Arabia, the guy who runs it on a day-to-day basis, really Solomon Bean or something, is trying to diversify his economy. But Kenny is, do they have what economists call the human capital? Do they have educated people? Do they have the entrepreneurial spirit, the entrepreneurial ability? Is foreign capital going to flow into Saudi Arabia? Of course, half their potential workforce is unemployed, i.e. women are undamployed. Maybe they're not completely unemployed, but they're certainly undamployed. Saudi Arabia is in deep trouble and this cut has not helped them at all. Probably a strategic mistake, which they're going to have to figure out how to get themselves out of. Okay, just finally a quick story. It turns out that 40 White House interns, every time I think of White House interns, I remember Monica Lewinsky. I don't think Biden is quite as the appetites that Clinton had, but who knows and he's a little old. But here's 40 interns in the White House have written a letter to the president demanding that a ceasefire in the Middle East, i.e. you've got 40 interns in the White House who disagree with the White House's support of Israel, Israel's war. And you can tell the Democratic Party has a massive problem, massive generational problem, a massive problem between its young people who basically despise Israel and are strongly pro-Palestinian and older leftists who tend to be pro-Israel. The Democratic Party is in big trouble as a consequence of this. Biden could lose a lot of votes because he's too pro-Israel. Part of, if you've seen the latest polls, you'll see that Biden has lost a lot of support among young Democrats, somewhat because of his age, but to a large extent because of what's going on in Israel and his perceived support of Israel. There we have it. That is the news for December 6th. All right. Let's see. We don't have a lot of super chats, very few actually. So this will go quickly. If you want to get in, ask a question, or if you want to support the show in any kind of way, please consider doing a sticker. We've got 94 people watching, $188 to go for the goal. Be good if we could keep the street going of reaching our targets on shows so we don't lose the momentum we got last month where we had a record month. It would be nice if we didn't drop off a cliff from that record. All right. Anyway, James, $50. Thank you, James. James asks, this is a reason that I'm having such a hard time picking living in Boston or Dallas. Both have many negatives and a few positives. Seeing how minorities are treated in both is crazy. Any advice. I'm in M&A, private equity, is either better short or long term. I mean, look, from a professional perspective, I think both places are pretty phenomenal. I mean, Boston is where the firm that Mitt Romney worked for, the private equity firm, Boston is a big private equity location, Boston is a big tech, particularly biotech location, and has done pretty well. It's the Massachusetts on a GDP per capita is the richest part of the United States. But Dallas, too, is very strong in private equity, probably a little different, but lots of good private equity firms there, strong, what do you call it, a lot of wealth in Dallas, a lot of wealth in the oil patch, but from other sources as well. Texas, of course, you won't pay state income tax. That's a big deal. And in Massachusetts, state income taxes are quite high. I think both have advantages and disadvantages. Boston has much more of a culture. Dallas, on the other hand, is newer, right? Everything is new in Dallas. Dallas is an easier place to live, probably cheaper, quite a bit cheaper. Real estate is a lot cheaper in Dallas than it is. Boston is one of the most expensive cities in the United States. So I think you have to take all that into account. Look, living in Boston does not commit you to being affiliated with or to going to Harvard and MIT and being engaged with their horrific policies. Right? But it is a challenge to pick. But again, Dallas is hot in the summer. Boston is super cold in the winter, a lot of snow. So there are a lot of considerations in life. How each city treats minorities is just one of many, many factors you should consider when going there. What does Marybeth say, Marybeth say? She's a scientist in biotech outside of Cambridge, Massachusetts. And my family and I love it here, especially if you don't have to drive much. Yeah. I mean, look, in many respects, it is an exciting place. It's a dynamic place. It's a very intellectual place. And so from a professional perspective, it could be fantastic. But there are a lot of people who love Dallas, love Dallas. So you have to take into account all the different factors. And the fact that you're living in Boston, in particular, surrounded by so many scientists, so many engineers is pretty cool. It's pretty cool. All right. Savanos, thank you. Savanos came in with $250 questions. All right, you guys, you're becoming way too reliant on Savanos to get us to our goals, every one of these news roundups. We need to diversify the contributors. All of you get value from the show. Otherwise, you wouldn't be listening. Only a small percentage of you contribute through the Super Chat. If you're listening live, this is a great way to support the show and show value for value. And you don't have to ask a question. John Bales, Stephen Hopper, thank you to both of you, didn't ask a question. They just made a contribution towards the show. You can too. So please please consider doing that. All right. Savanos asks, why has the Arab population of Israel proper been silent, ignored in the discourse? Do they not enjoy a far superior quality of life worth talking about? Yeah, I mean, I think that it's been ignored for two reasons. From the perspective of the pro Hamas side, they don't want to talk about it because yes, the Arab population within Israel, it lives in the most rights-respecting country in the Middle East. Their rights are respected and they know it. They make a better living. They do well. They're better educated. And generally, they again, they have more property rights. They have more rights to free speech. And the pro Hamas people don't want you to know that. The Arabs, the challenge is, of course, that some of the Islamism, the religiosity, and some of the nationalism that have infected the Palestinian people over the last 40 years have also infected some Arabs within Israel. So there is a fraction of them, not a small faction, a faction of them, that generally supports Hamas. Now, after this last October 7th, I think that faction is smaller. There was a lot of fear in Israel after October 7th that, and when Israel went into Gaza, that the Arabs in Israel would protest and would side with Hamas and there would be an internal challenge that Israel would be ill-equipped to handle because they'd be fighting a multi-front war. The fact is that the Israeli Arabs have not demonstrated, have not gone out into streets, have not vocally supported Hamas. And the reason is that they're far more civilized. They might generally be more religious than they used to be. They might generally support the Palestinians. They do not support what happened October 7th. They do not support barbarism, at least the overwhelming majority of them. Maybe many of them are very critical of Israel, but they're not critical of Israel enough to support this. Now, there is a segment within the Arab population in Israel that is super supportive of Israel. Some of them volunteer and serve in the Israeli army. You can see some of them are social media talking and being incredibly pro-Israel. So the Arab population in Israel is complex. The alliance is complex. Some of them are pro-Palestinian, but not pro Hamas. Some of them are Islamists and therefore more likely to be pro Hamas, or at least they thought they were pro Hamas. Maybe they're not so much after October 7th. And some of them are 100% pro-Israel. Some of them are confused. Some of them just want to make a living and to be left alone. Unfortunately, the Arab political parties in Israel tend to be far out on the left and tend to be more hostile to Israel than I think the actual Arab population in Israel is. So if I'm not supposed to say, given Rand's teaching in media, is it worth to read Aristotle or other preceding philosophy writings? I don't know if it's worth to read the actual writings unless you're an intellectual. What would be good is to get like a introductory book that explains the philosophies of different philosophers. To read like a history of philosophy, a book, or take a course, take Lenny Peacock's course, for example. But the actual texts of the philosophers are very hard. And it's not clear it's worth your time and effort unless you're a professional intellectual to actually do that. But it is worth your effort, I think to many of us, with our effort to have an understanding of the history of philosophy, the different philosophies of views, and Peacock again is very good at that. There are books. I have an old Will Durant book on the history of philosophy. There's one that Lenny Peacock, what is it? This one, A History of Philosophy by William Wendell Band, Wendell Band, which Lenny Peacock recommended. So I definitely think that reading about the history of philosophy, trying to understand the scope of philosophy, understand the major philosophers without necessarily reading them just because it's hard and it takes a lot of time. So you could also take courses from the learning company or place like that online. Something will be more accurate, some less, some better, some worse. These books I think are pretty good. So they'd recommend Will Durant and Will Band II that I would recommend. All right. Let's see. Ryan, two years ago, I was super disappointed. I couldn't get into MIT. After hearing this news, maybe it's not so bad. I'm going to a state school. I agree. I don't think it's that bad. It really is a question, does it hurt you in terms of job applications that you're not an MIT grad? That is really the only thing that really matters, I think, because the education you're going to get is probably just as good at where you're going. Taisie, thank you for the support. AE Art, first super chat. Thank you. Thank you as well. Thank you to all the superchatters, but first super chat. Really appreciate it. Okay. John Parker, happy to say no support of Harvard since 1969. Good for you, John. Paul Azusa is looking forward to the New Year's Eve show. Me too. Me too. Should be fun. And Buzz, Galileo, Galileo says, buy some Bitcoin, secure your freedom. All right. That's all the super chats I have. Let's see. What did I want to say? I want to remind you that those of you, particularly if you're a student or if you're young or if you'll have any thoughts about an academic career or just would like to really delve much deeper into studying the philosophy of INRAN and you've read INRAN, I would encourage you to apply to, for the INRAN conference in Austin, Texas, that will happen at the end of March. You can get a scholarship, you can go, but you have to apply to go. So go to INRAN.org slash start here and fill out an application. I know a number of you applied for the European conference. Thank you. That's great. It also helps justify the support of the sponsorship of the INRAN Institute for the show when you guys respond to kind of their marketing on the show. So please, those of you who think that it would be interesting, I know Greg Salamiere will be teaching there, Ben Bear will be teaching there. It should be a great conference in Austin, Texas at the end of March. I will be teaching at the one in Amsterdam and I hope you join in in that. Mary Ben has asked, can you preview the next AIU courses? So I'm not teaching an AIU course until the summer. I assume you're asking me about my course because I don't know about the others. I'm not teaching until the summer where I'll be teaching a public speaking seminar for a small number of students, but this will be the introductory course. During the next, I'm teaching a class right now on how to evaluate current events, but during the next school year that is starting in January, I'll be teaching together with Harry Binswing, I think, an advanced course, an advanced course, basically covering communication, communicating objectivism, and dealing with kind of advanced topics, and that will be for really our graduate students, the equivalent of our graduate students. But I don't know what else is going to be taught at AIU. I haven't seen the list. I know they're changing the structure again a little bit, so check back with me once I get updated by the people at AIU. Thank you, Mary Benz. All right, Silvano stepped in again. How do you think the right would react if science progressed enough to bioengineer human bodies and seamlessly solve the trans issue? I mean, I really think they would freak out. I think they would freak out from the whole idea of bioengineering human bodies. I think as it is, I think they freak out over IVF. I mean, the next big thing they're going to freak out over, and this is being talked about right now, is genetically engineering embryos. So right now, there is a research project to test fetuses for genetic defects, and then, if they are genetic defects, use CRISPR while in the womb to try to fix the genetic defect. Now, you can see this whole thing becoming an issue about genetic engineering and test your babies and the whole thing. And the right is going to freak out on the soul of the left, by the way. The left is not pro-science, but the right will, you know, we're playing God. Now we're playing God with human beings, and the right will completely freak out. And then, of course, if you could literally bioengineer yourself to change your sex and your gender completely, that is change the genes, I don't know how that would happen. I don't know how you would do that, right? In a sense of, would you change your brain? The brain patterns, would you genitalia literally change? But imagine you could do that. Yeah, I mean, that's really playing God, and the right hates the idea of playing God, right? So they would freak out. They would freak out. But again, watch how we're going to have more and more and more people freaking out over the advancements in CRISPR genetic engineering and everything else. And, you know, the right is very much against life extension, right? The right is very much against life extension. Again, playing God. And I've done shows on this, all kinds of things that the right objects to people living well into their hundreds. It will destable society. PB, the most effective altruism is to abandon donation taxation in favor of capitalism, catch a fish, feed a feed for a day, teach the fish feed for life. We need more easy examples to teach principles to others. Yeah, I mean, no question freedom, capitalism, but nobody's going to buy that because that wouldn't be altruistic. The whole idea of altruism, whether the effective altruism wants to admit this or not, is ultimately the pain and suffering that are involved in dishing out the benefits. Ian says the discussion of editing genes made me think of the science fiction book Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress. If you haven't read it, it's highly recommended. I have not. Sounds kind of interesting. I wouldn't have thought a book called Beggars in Spain would be a science fiction book. All right. Thank you for the recommendation, Ian. All right, guys. Thank you. I will see you all tomorrow. As I said, three shows tomorrow. So hopefully you'll catch one of those. Those of you in Israel, don't forget first Hebrew language show tomorrow. We'll see how I do. You'll probably have to correct my Hebrew. I'll be stuttering a lot, but hopefully we'll get into a pattern and I'll recall that part of my brain that is responsible for Hebrew will revive itself. Maximus has a quick question. How would prices be set in public transport system buses? If we had capitalism, would they be one company making buses? I mean, I don't know. Maybe there'd be several companies. There'd be competition. Prices would be set through competition, but prices would all be set with competition with trolleys and subways and flying taxis and regular taxis. And so buses would all be privatized and it would be set by private companies. There would be no government interventions, zero zilch in transportation. That's what capitalism means. And the prices we set by the private sector through supply and demand and competition. And don't forget competition is not just other buses. It's also alternative means of transportation. If you charge more for a bus ride than it would cost you to drive a car, you're going to drive a car. If you charge more on a bus than you would using some other means, you would lose other means. So they're always substitutes. Don't buy into the idea that these things are natural monopolies. There's no such thing. Thank you. Thank you, Carolina, for stepping in from Mexico. And thank you to everybody, particularly Sivanos, who covered more than half of today. Thank you to everybody who contributed through Super Chat. I will see you all tomorrow. Bye, everybody.