 It's the whole philosophical framework that is causing people to think about this in a way where their focus is, we got to get rid of fossil fuels, we got to stop impacting the climate. And my view is that they don't understand the fundamental how fossil fuels improve the world so dramatically. And it's because their moral focus is on the view that the ideal is an unimpacted planet. So we should be green, we should minimize our impact. And so it's a real, it's a moral view that if we're impacting climate, that's wrong. And then there's this practical rationalization that, oh yeah, if we impact it, it's going to invariably destroy us. Like nature's going to bite us back. But I'm saying if you look at the history of the earth, there's no reason to believe that. What you could believe is yes, some discrete challenges like storms in the sea levels is the most plausible, because that would, because you have all sorts of coast, we build stuff near the coast for very good reasons. But you have places all, you have hundreds over, I think it's 110 million people already live below sea level in the world. You have the Netherlands. I know. And then when you start to get into the science, then you really get angry because you take the UN, which has a history of over projecting these things. And they're talking about if we get rid of, if we, you know, if we keep using fossil fuels without restriction, sea levels are going to rise three feet in the next 80 or 100 years. Like that's a high scenario. But then they say, if we don't, they're going to rise 18 inches, they're going to rise a foot and a half. So it's like, you're going to shut down all fossil fuels to save a foot and a half of sea level rise. And when did the Netherlands build a dike? Well, I mean, they've modernized, but hundreds and hundreds of years ago. So the technologies existed for a long time and the technology should be like a thousand times better. And imagine if you focus on it. Yeah, and imagine if you find part of what fossil part of what machine labor does is it frees up time for human innovation. And now, of course, we have machine mental labor too, which is great. So we have human mental labor plus, you know, AI machine learning. So the idea that we can't handle, like we're talking about, we're not talking about feet per decade, right? We're talking about a few feet per century maybe talking about inches. So there's just it's all a more I just the more I study the science, the more I realize it's just a it's just an issue of philosophical framework because people think it's wrong to impact nature. They hear we're impacting climate. They assume that nature is a delicate nurture that any impact is going to destroy the delicate balance. And so they just believe all these things and then they fall for things like the great reset which is basically saying, let's get rid of the thing that sustains everyone who's prosperous in civilization and that everyone who's not prosperous needs. And then particularly what's revealing if you look at some of these great reset things. When they talk about alternatives. How often do they talk about nuclear. Yeah, never, never we get to that before you get. So part of this nature biting back because I think that's so key is this view of nature. I mean a lot of I think part of what makes the great reset acceptable to people is that they view covert is nature but biting back right. So covert is the consequence of globalization and capitalism movement and all this stuff and China advancing and the world of China and the in the world and they this idea that nature gets back at you is so prevalent out there as a as a philosophical as a philosophical Have they ever heard of the plague. Like, I know, but even the plague you can blame on, you know, people started leaving the farms and going into these towns and cities and you know congestion, congestion is bad. But yes, of course, people have been wiped out throughout history. And once you'll always, you know, during the plague, by the way, what was the idea of nature biting back the idea of nature biting back was they weren't following. I mean, this was God right they weren't following God's law closely enough. So God bit back and God nature, it's it's that's exactly the. Yeah, that's exactly the parallel so it is it is a hell I mean global warming in particular as a hell narrative so it's saying, you know, yeah you violate you violated like you're this evil, what I call like a parasite polluter by nature all of your impacts you're either plundering resources from the earth, or you're making it ugly and dirty right and so your obligation is, you need to minimize your impact you need to act on the ideal of an unimpacted planet minimize your impact as much as possible be green. And if you don't, if you impact the planet, then you're going to get punished and it's you're literally going to hell the whole earth is going to warm up, and it's going to be uninhabitable, but it's really you violated the commandment and you shall not impact, and then you went to hell, but just the reason I bring up the plague and these other things is part of our job as people who have a better philosophy is to just give people the streets to get to show them how the world actually works and in these environmental issues, what's never shown is what our environment is like for human beings, absent, we can call industrial civilization or absent what I call machine labor civilization, that just should be showcased all the time what because nature bites back, what did nature do in the first place it didn't feed us, and it bid us all the time. 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, whims 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, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show, we've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100, I figured at least 100 of you actually like the show, maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see, I want to see a thumbs up, there you go, start liking it, I want to see that go to 100, all it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know the likes matter, it's not an issue of my ego, it's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it, so you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes, but if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share, and you can support the show at your own bookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals, and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe, because that way you'll know when to show up, you'll know what shows are on, when they're on, you'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.