Episode 369 Scott Adams: Whiteboard Discussion of Border Persuasion

Date: 2019-01-10 | Duration: 51:12

Topics

Great examples of CNN mind reading by Stephen Collinson Guesses and hunches are being presented as news Solar panels on the wall and vandalism Whiteboard: Border Barrier Debate Dems are winning on topics of drugs and crime Effective mocking and sarcasm If Mexico pays for the wall, would it then be “moral”? Current immigration policies mostly benefit rich white people VISA overstays versus sneaking across the border About 70% of climate change skeptic points aren’t valid Did Michael Mann use tree ring estimates for gaps… …and later discontinue tree rings as an unreliable proxy? Are testosterone levels in males decreasing, or are men evolving? lifestyles that increase or decrease testosterone Soy is everywhere, in a lot of our food

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:13]

hey everybody hello Nicholas Tyler come on in gather around you still have a few seconds to go grab your beverage because you know what time it is it's time for coffee with Scott Adams that's me and I hope you have your mug your cup your glass your chalice your Stein if you will I hope it's filled with your favorite liquid I like coffee en join me for the simultaneous
sip Ah that's the best so I hope you've all seen uh probably the best example of CNN mind reading you've ever seen now when I say mind reading I'm talking about a news organization that tells us without any without any sense of embarrassment they say in clear terms that they believe they know what

[1:14]

that they believe they know what strangers are thinking in their private thoughts now in what world is that not batshit crazy but here's I want to read to you the first line of an article in CNN politics by uh step or Stefan Collinson right so here's the first sentence the very first sentence of an article today on CNN it says Donald Trump's hatred of looking
foolish uh and Democrats conviction that they have a winning hand is leaving the president with no way out of the Border situation now they've got two mind reading bits in the first sentence the first one is that Donald Trump's hatred of looking foolish is what's driving his negotiating now first of all can you name somebody who doesn't hate looking

[2:17]

who doesn't hate looking foolish are there people who don't like so is that like a special special feeling that needs to be called out I'm pretty sure everybody likes to win I'm pretty sure people don't like to lose right so there's a lot of nothing in that but more importantly they signal out they they single out the nothing as his primary thinking process I think there are other thoughts I don't think the entire policy is about not being wrong you know there are issues about getting reelected there are issues about serving the base there are of course issues about what's good for the country and I think some genuine disagreement about that Etc but uh it's pure mind reading and then they in this case they did it also for the Democrats talk about the Democrats conviction that they have a winning hand do you think that Nancy poosi and Chuck Schumer are they they use the word

[3:20]

Chuck Schumer are they they use the word conviction so I feel that that u connotes a sense of certainty do you think they're certain they have a winning hand against this president do you think Chuck and Nancy are thinking yeah we got them now I don't think so now I'm also not a mind reader so I'm just pointing out that this mind reader is working on a guess or a hunch but he's presenting it as if it's some kind of an obvious fact that we should all agree with no backup needed let me just put it out there it's president Trump's hatred of looking foolish and of course the Democrats have a conviction of a winning hand here's how that could have been written to also be true all right I'm just going to reverse the mind reading and watch How It's True even if you reverse it so I'll reverse it Donald Trump's conviction that he has a winning hand right I mean just as good as the

[4:22]

hand right I mean just as good as the other way and then the democrat's uh hatred of looking foolish everybody hates looking foolish I'm pretty sure everybody hates that uh so anyway the reason I point out the mind reading is that um I don't see as much of it from Fox News but I also maybe I haven't been tooed to it so I think I'll pay a little more attention to see if I'm seeing much of that on that side but it does seem like there's an epidemic of people reporting the news as if literally as if they can read other people's minds and just putting it out there like there's no question about it all right let's talk about uh there was an idea floated Yesterday by a few people Ben spau among them notably uh Reviving the idea from last year about putting some solar panels on the border wall and and then selling it

[5:24]

the border wall and and then selling it as a you know good for climate change I guess now some critics say that will never work because of vandalism and I say pretty good point you know I could I could imagine that vandalism would be a problem especially because the uh the direction of the solar panels would be on the Mexican side because they need to face South so that actually the the Border barrier is perfectly um perfectly directionally uh good good for solar because it faces South just the way you'd want it to but they are subject to you know being monkeyed with so uhoh I just said something that if I don't catch it it's going to sound racist they are subject to people messing with them where I grew up it's common to say people are monkeying with things and it is not racist let me point that

[6:25]

is not racist let me point that out
out um so yeah they they definitely are subject to uh know BB guns and rocks and everything else but I ask you this uh I ask you this is it something you could test small and the answer is yes you could pick a an urban area that already needs a wall or should have a wall because those are the places you want wall according to the border security people the places you might want a solid barrier is where there are lots of homes or businesses on each side you don't you don't need it so much in the long Barren areas but that's also where you need electricity so you could just try a little bit of a solar wall in a place that makes sense put it up run it for a couple years see if it works that you know if the company that makes and I guess there is a company that's has a prototype that has solar panels on it so

[7:27]

prototype that has solar panels on it so that's that that exists as a design already why not just try it you don't have to try 100 miles of it you could try one mile of it you could try one block of it and just see if the if the uh folks on the Mexican side hate it because if they hate it and they throw rocks on it then it's bad now um now imagine that now imagine that uh let's say we split the you know electricity or something you know maybe we share a little electricity with Mexico uh so there there are ways to test this idea but I think it's perfectly valid to say it wouldn't work because people would throw rocks at it um let's go to the board and talk about the persuasion game I'm going to sort of score it in the middle of the game to see how we're doing on

[8:27]

doing on persuasion on the border your debate who's winning who's got the best arguments so uh two of the big two of the big arguments used by people who like the wall are that it's going to be good for drugs and crime the Democrats are winning the persuasion battle on the questions of drugs and crime now remember we're talking about persuasion so we're not talking about what's true true we not talking about the facts but on a persuasion level I think the I think the Democrats have made a convincing case that the drugs are mostly coming in different ways and it's hard to stop drugs with a wall anyway and they're also making a convincing case that the crime rate of immigrants whether legal or illegal or you put them together is is not so high that it's a a special type of uh risk

[9:30]

type of uh risk now of course Republicans would say wait a minute it's not about the percentage of crime if somebody kills you you don't care that they're part of a group that has a low percentage of crime you just care that you're dead but I would say that the Republicans have not made this argument they have not made the argument that the percentage of crime is a stupid way to look at it if you can stop if you if you have a way that's economical and practical to reduce your risk of crime you're not going to care if you're red reducing your risk of crime in a neighborhood that already has below average crime right you're not going to care about the ratio of crime you're just going to care about protecting yourself so I would say Al although somebody said in the comments here it's not that the Republicans haven't made the case but they made it weekly and meaning weak uh they really haven't hammered that they've sort of let that

[10:30]

hammered that they've sort of let that sit out there it seems to me that the the Democrats are getting the better of this argument and again remember I'm not talking about facts or truth I'm only talking about the argument or persuasion the here would be in my opinion the best way to handle both of these weaknesses in the Republican position so instead of saying we're going to stop drugs because the wall won't do that and nobody's going to believe it will and instead of saying that immigrants have higher than normal crime rates or even suggesting it don't do that just say that we're going to funnel if if you have a better border wall you're going to funnel people toward the legal PS ports of points of Entry so apparently most of the drugs and probably a lot of bad people are coming through the the legal border checks now my understanding is that part of this $5.7 billion um budget is to improve the

[11:32]

um budget is to improve the electronic um you know I guess detection at those places so what you have here is a fairly I think and you'd have to fact check me on this but I think what the plan is is that if you strengthen the the external borders that you help to funnel people toward the the places where we'll be also improving detection um it's so so the question is could you take this argument where the Republicans are losing and describe it this way you just say oh yeah we know that walls don't stop everything but it will be a a point of friction that will funnel people toward the you know the main points of Entry where we do have people checking and we're also going to greatly upgrade the technology at those points so you need to do two things you need to funnel them into the place that you have the best

[12:32]

into the place that you have the best detection that's actually a very rational plan if you say to me uh there's too much crime coming in I say well as a percentage it's not bad and and really we're all just people so if people are people and they don't bring in more crime than other people why are we complaining about it it just sounds racist and it does it totally sounds racist so as an argument it's a bad one but if you say everybody agrees that the process should be organized and Humane so part of the advantage of getting people away from the illegal Crossing areas and toward the legal Crossing areas is that you have a humanitarian benefit there are fewer people trying to do it the dangerous
way the other argument that the Dems are using and I'm not even sure it's an argument it goes more in the in the category of using sarcasm and mocking um so it's good for

[13:33]

sarcasm and mocking um so it's good for the base when they say stuff like oh the president said Mexico would pay for it I don't see Mexico paying for it so it's it's sort of good in the political back and forth Etc but it's not really the key point is it the key point is not whether Mexico pays for it or not but here's the interesting thing the Republicans as a group are also Al saying that the wall is immoral does it make sense that they're saying the wall is immoral unless Mexico pays for it is the wall moral if Mexico pays for it why are the Democrats talking about who pays for the immoral wall is it because if Mexico pays for it it be it transfers from immoral to moral because somebody else paid for it so I think the question needs to be asked uh to uh let's say Eric swalwell my

[14:33]

to uh let's say Eric swalwell my representative who was talking about this today or yesterday so he he just tweeted mocking uh the president for saying Mexico would pay for the wall the question needs to be asked if Mexico paid for the wall would you suddenly be okay with the immorality of it all and if not shut the up because that's not the point at all stick with the point make a point and live with it if your point is that it's immoral die on that Hill damn it die on that Hill go to that hill and just die if that's your point stick with it don't talk about how how if it were cheaper it would be moral is that your point if I can get a discount it's okay I'll do something immoral as long as the price is right is that what you're saying representative swell so I think the answer to this is to mock it back off the table because it's it's

[15:33]

back off the table because it's it's just a distraction it doesn't work for either side it's not moving the ball forward I would just mock this back out of out of uh the system here's another argument that I haven't seen um I have well let me put it this way I don't think I've seen this from the president packaged in a very effective way and it's weirdly maybe the best argument the the people who most want illegal immigrants are go what what category of Americans demographically are most interested in having a lot of illegal immigration who
benefits me
me me I got to tell you if there were not massive illegal immigration life in California for rich white people would be a lot harder that's just a fact that

[16:34]

be a lot harder that's just a fact that is a fact and nobody I don't think anybody doubts it if they're rich and white as I am uh so our current immigration policy which is a poorest border is really for the benefit of rich white people now let me ask it the the opposite way who
loses Afric African-American mostly men who are the ones who are competing with manual labor type jobs uh the people who would like to maybe work hard in this generation so that the Next Generation can go to school and get you know even better jobs in generation 2 how how does the African-American Community you know take the you know sort of what do you call the entry level economic position so that the Next Generation or even many of the current generation can can move on up well if they don't have jobs it's going to be harder so here's the

[17:36]

going to be harder so here's the argument that I think is the strongest I would I would go after the the the strongest part of the um of the opposition's argument is that all of this is a smoke screen for a bunch of racism right all of these reasons are kind of not really the reason are they the real reason is that people think in their mind mind reading thank you CNN people are mind reading the president and his supporters and saying hey I think this is a racist thing to have fewer brown people I think that can be turned around by saying the current system benefits rich white people fact check me fact check me on that will you who benefits by the current system I'm pretty sure that the big companies which are probably mostly you know run and managed and owned by Rich white people I'm pretty sure they're the ones who want immigration to be just the way it

[18:37]

be just the way it is I'm pretty sure it's true that African-Americans don't want to have more trouble getting jobs It's probably hard enough already right I'm pretty sure that they're on board so here's the here's the statement that I think captures it all that the president's border policy is designed to protect the people who are already here which would include 22 million uh people who already came here illegally because the only way to protect the people who are already here including all the people who came over the border illegally is to slow down the number of people who continue to come that's how you protect the African-American Community that's how you protect the immigrants who are already here legal or illegal you know they also need jobs and they don't want to compete any more than anybody else does um and that the current system is racist as hell the

[19:38]

current system is racist as hell the current system is designed it looks just to benefit rich white people and it's working and by the way when I talk about this stuff um I should tell you that I actually have pretty mixed feelings about border security because if you live in California you're you're living living among and working with you know every kind of person and I can tell you personally that illegal immigrant immigration has been nothing but good for me just unambiguously good for me because it's just you know I meet great people they you know they can do work for me at at the moment's notice um and you know I pay them Well everybody's happy so so I would say that you know in every case immigration has been good for me I've never been victimized by any crime um and by the way the people let

[20:40]

crime um and by the way the people let me say this I'm going to tell you a story that uh just so you can see that that my bias is not All in One Direction um when I owned restaurants it was well understood that the the folks who came from Mexico they all had identification and that's all the that's all the business can tell if they have two forms of
of identification restaurant owners and small business owners are not asked to go beyond that right if they have identification that's all you know so we would hire people who had identification like every other business in the area and that's that's as far as you would go and but it was our experience uh I'll tell you a real a real event there was a uh a bus boy who tried to steal a towel from the restaurant and he was stopped at the door by another uh uh

[21:44]

was stopped at the door by another uh uh Mexican you know immigrant who stopped him at the door and basically turned him in CU he didn't want to be part of a business where somebody from Mexico stole from the business so there is a lot of you know there is some self polic going on because the people who go through all the trouble and the risk and the hardship to get here they really want to stay and they don't want somebody else ruining their stuff so uh so I'm just telling you my own bias that as a rich white guy um immigration from Mexico has been unambiguously positive in my life so if there's less of it I imagine that would be bad for me in a variety of ways but I think it would also be good for a lot of other people and I think that has to count too so if the president is making a case that he's the president of the people who are in this country legally or illegally you know once once

[22:45]

legally or illegally you know once once they're in the Border they are sort of under your control and protection in a sense um even if you prefer that they were they were legal all right uh the last point just so I've covered it all is that uh the Democrats make the case that most of the illegal people are coming in through the the airports I haven't seen anybody address that in an effective way because it is true that Mo the vast majority of the illegal immigration is coming through the airports but here's my question is somebody who can afford a plane ticket uh the same level of crime risk as somebody who is snuck over the Border I don't know that that's the same level of crime risk if you were to if you were to measure the crime rate of people who came in who could afford a plane ticket those are those are the people

[23:45]

ticket those are those are the people who probably have college degrees uh I would think that anybody would who could afford a plane ticket it you know and has ID and and comes in that way even if they're over days they're probably exactly the people who have the lowest level of um of crime so I'd love to see the stats on that but my guess is that you're looking at um you're probably looking at a lot of people coming from say India and Europe and stuff who are overstaying and they may have a lower crime rate than people who are coming from below the Border who are an entirely different economic group now so that I can be free from the accusations of racism my statement is the following people from lower economic groups tend to have higher crime rates and why wouldn't they if if I were poor enough that I needed to steal to eat I'd probably steal to eat you know I'm I'm

[24:46]

probably steal to eat you know I'm I'm not so holy that I wouldn't do what I needed to do to live so I would say as a general statement you know the less money you have the more likely you're going to be drawn to crime and the people who can afford a PL ticket and come in through an airport probably have less Temptation because I would imagine a lot of them are coming in and staying because they have work they they've got relationships they've got things going on all right so I would say that the best argument here is that there may be a difference in the crime rate of people coming in through airports uh but the the second part of the argument is uh second part of the argument is that uh it's just a separate problem so if you've got two holes in your bucket let's say you have a bucket that has two holes and one is bigger than the other do you not plug the smaller hole because a bigger one exists I don't think so I think you plug

[25:49]

exists I don't think so I think you plug whatever you can plug and you hope that you can get them all you know it may take a while to get there but if you have problems you solve the ones you can solve you don't not solve small problems because large problems
exist so see my uh Dilbert cartoon that I I tweeted this morning on analogies uh I've said this before but let me just close on this thought um I don't know how many of you have seen me struggle with the the million times I've had to say this publicly all right so I criticize an anies as not being persuasive and usually it's talk about Hitler analogies as not being persuasive uh those are the worst ones um but analogies are great for explaining a concept so the concept I was explaining is that if you have two problems why would you leave one you know on un

[26:52]

would you leave one you know on un solved if if you didn't need to so that's a perfect use of an analogy a bad use of analogy is my cat has markings that look like Hitler's mustache therefore I think my cat might try to attack Poland that's a bad use of an analogy all right um I continue to dig in to the problem and the question of climate change um I talked to a number of people yesterday uh using the interface by whenhub app so yesterday I just uh said in the app this this is my startups app it's called interface by whenhub it's free app you can download it and you can talk to people like me and I'll tell you the the coolest thing that happened yesterday so the coolest thing that happened yesterday was I got a call on the interface app from someone who had read a number of my books and followed me on

[27:54]

a number of my books and followed me on Periscope and uh it it was a young man who was who had set his own affirmation to talk to me personally about the topic of affirmations so there was somebody in the world who was doing affirmations to somehow reach me and I guess he tried a number of ways but hadn't hadn't found a way to do it he found he wanted to find some way to speak to me personally on the topic of affirmations and yesterday my phone rings and it's my my app called calling and I I answer it and it's this young man and he's and he succeeded by using my app now what are the ads that he would be doing affirmations specifically to reach me and that I would be working somewhere in the world to create an app that allows you to reach people like me without having my contact information so he actually got on a live video call

[28:55]

he actually got on a live video call with me and neither of us exchanged any contact information because that's what the app does it lets you talk to people just by who they are not not their contact information so he uh he had probably one of the most unusual um affirmations and it came in it worked for him so that was kind of cool but I also got to talk to a number of people who uh who were help helping me fill in some you know blanks in my knowledge about climate change and the the uh the mystery just keeps getting deeper and deeper I will tell you the preliminarily I'm still on the fence as to whether climate change is either real or we need to worry about uh I would say here here's my current prediction is that the uh the Skeptics if you and I'm not talking about any individual skeptic because

[29:55]

about any individual skeptic because some of the Skeptics are stronger than others right some of them are pretty solid and some of them are a little flaky I would say that the the skeptical Community the ones who are skeptical about climate science risk are at least 70% meaning that a lot of it like um the correlation between the Sun and the temperature is so easily disproved by the scientists that it's it's just amazing that it still comes up so I would say that 70% of what the Skeptics say is clearly and fairly easily dismissed the rest might also be untrue but it's harder to dismiss in other words it's credible and it's solid and they show their work and I don't see the response to it right so in that case in that sense it's credible I would say on the climate alarm side that without being a scientist it's hard to know what is credible and what is not but at least 20% of everything

[30:59]

is not but at least 20% of everything the climate scientists say as a group not as an individual but as a group appears to be at least 20% Which Still Still leaves a solid 80% that would completely you know uh confirm their Theory but there's about 20% of it that just doesn't seem believable at all now some of what doesn't seem believable to me has been filtered through the Skeptics so it may be that I'm I'm hearing a biased presentation but I'll I'll give you one example and I want you to fact check me on this so I'm not presenting this as true I'm presenting this as one of the many things that puzzle me because the two sides are just saying opposite same things is it true that um the I'm why am I blanking out on the name of the hockey stick remind me in the comments here what's

[31:59]

remind me in the comments here what's the name of the hockey stick uh graph guy why am I forgetting him it's not Hansen it's not man yes Michael man so one of the skeptical claims and I have a hard time believing this is true so I'm not going to present this as true I'm going to present it as a skeptical claim that I want you to fact check me on and the skeptical claim is that um that there was a a gap in the let's say temperature records or the temperature records were not reliables for a certain period and then Michael man adjusted for that period where the other ways of measuring temperature were not good by using uh an analysis of tree rings so we used tree rings to fill in a gap in the temperature record now so far and I think I mentioned that there were other tree ring experts who said he didn't do it right but you know there's always that so so far you know there

[33:02]

always that so so far you know there there's a flag raised about how good that is but we're not we don't have a solid opinion yet and then the other part of the skeptical claim is that the tree rings don't match the actual measured temperatures that we have currently in other words if you look at the tree rings for the period where we don't have good measurements measurements if you like then you know that's the best you can do is so you fill it in but right now the skeptical argument is that the tree rings clearly don't match the temperatures in other words there's no cor the correlation isn't good enough to use them as a temperature proxy is it true that Michael man used tree rings to fill in a period where they didn't have good measurements in the history and is it also true and this is the important part that he stopped using them as a proxy because it became clear that they

[34:04]

proxy because it became clear that they don't match the the more modern readings of temperature true or false because if it's true it tells you a lot and if it's false it tells you that the Skeptics are just making stuff up and I don't know the answer to
that somebody's making a bold prediction and they're saying that I will eventually come down on the side of climate alarm I don't know you know here's the interesting thing and I hope I hope you know me well enough by now because you've been most of you have watched me for a while now I hope you know me well enough to know that if I tell you I'm not sure which way this is going to go that I really mean that I mean I really mean I really don't know what my opinion on climate change will be in one year I really don't know um my preliminary

[35:04]

really don't know um my preliminary feeling is that the the our abil here I'll give you a preliminary um reading it seems to me that our ability to measure accurately enough sea level and temperature historically couldn't possibly be good enough
and but I realize that when I say that um I sound like a uh what a trite or something uh because it it act that statement sounds like oh you don't believe science can do it somebody gave me the argument recently that uh that our satellites even decades ago could read the date on a dime on Earth so if a satellite can read the date on a dime certainly you can can measure measure the temperature and and the sea level to which I say Can it can it really because it seems to me

[36:07]

it can it really because it seems to me that the Earth has a lot of has a lot of variation the ocean has a lot of variation I'm just not so sure that we can measure those things from space now if you tell me that the satellites are pretty good at measuring the the lower troposphere I think I would find that in the believable range it feels to me you know as a non-scientist like yeah that's what you're trying to do probably do that uh but I'm not ruling out the scientists actually can measure the temperature that well now one of the things that causes great uh conflict is looking at the the map if you've seen the the map of the globe with a DOT for where we have uh physical measurements it turns out that they're they're vastly concentrated in the United States now it turns out and I may have

[37:09]

States now it turns out and I may have this part wrong too because this is a skeptical claim so you have to fact check me on everything on this topic um the claim is that apparently the temperature in the United States which is the only one that has really really good measuring devices that go back a number of decades doesn't show the warming have you heard that have you heard that the only place that we have really good measuring devices is coincidentally the only place it's not getting warm because I believe that's the
claim and I had to dig pretty hard to get to that but I'm still not sure it's true because I think there's also some issue of there was maybe some uh adjustments to the data to may maybe make it look you not not like it's schooling and I think the argument was that sure sure there

[38:11]

the argument was that sure sure there might be one region where things are not so bad but it could be really bad in other regions and I I was just looking at one of those skeptical Mac uh skeptical maps on um Tony hel's site the uh the Steve G Gard under his pen name anyway I was just looking at one of his tweets and one of his maps and it showed that uh it showed the difference between what the actual temperatures were and what what the official people say and it's very different and but here was the interesting thing it showed that there was uh unusual warming in just different parts of the world so it told the story of yeah the Earth is is warming on average but it's not warming up like you know it's not warming everywhere in the same way some places are actually cooler you know not as many so a few places are cooler but other places are warmer but then you look at where it got extra

[39:13]

then you look at where it got extra warm and and the places that it was getting extra warm were places like Northern Russia you know up up where the one place in the world you'd want it to be extra warm is the place that's getting warm so the the other thing that I don't see as an argument is um what's wrong with what's wrong with the coldest places on Earth getting warmer if the warmest places on Earth are staying the same because that's largely what was happening so the the map didn't show for example it didn't show that Death Valley was you know going to be 200° it just showed that the places that are already pretty Frozen are are warming up now if the problem is that the warming up of those places that really could use a little warming if the problem is that it'll melt the ice and the sea level will rise I'm just not sure that's the biggest problem in the world it's a big problem for certain

[40:14]

problem for certain places and you know you can't discount that but I've got a feeling that 98% of the world well let let me ask you this what percentage of the population of the world lives on the coast I don't know the answer to that might be pretty high huh um but if you if you're talking about near the coast it's very high but the number that are let's say close enough to the O ocean to be in big trouble somebody says 95% are near the
ocean but how many are so near the ocean that they would be impacted by climate change because that's a that's a very different question because poor people don't have homes on the beach right those are mostly hotels and stuff

[41:14]

so yeah if how big of a problem is it if 1% of the Earth had to relocate over 80 years and it was mostly the rich
people um but there would be defin ly some poor places where it would be a problem if if the if the water level is going
up um check evacuation info on hurricanes
yeah yeah I'm not saying that there wouldn't be plenty of poor areas as as well but is it is it you know keep in mind that the the rising sea level is not going to rise like you know in an afternoon because uh literally over 80 years it's like an entire lifetime you know if if the only thing that happened

[42:17]

know if if the only thing that happened are the children of the people who live on the coast moved away I think about this if the only change was that the children of the people who live in the coast decide not to continue living on the
the coast in 80 years there's nobody left on the coast a few senior citizens um lots of military bases yeah they can be
moved have we talked about toxic male ma uh toxic masculinity I have not talked about that um I will I will the the way that I've talked about it is uh it is increasingly clear that the the power of women in society is is increasing at an increasing rate and that it seems to be expressed primarily in the um in the Democrat party is at this point is

[43:19]

Democrat party is at this point is really the party of women you know if you look at Pelosi and Schumer it just doesn't feel like Schumer matters I mean it honestly doesn't he matters because of his job but it just feels like Pelosi's in charge doesn't it it feels like a uh a woman's sort of a woman's party at this point um I'm not sure what is the what is too much masculinity you know the the trouble is when you argue about stuff like toxic masculinity it all really depends on specific situations so it's hard to make some kind of general statement about it but you know in any given situation um I guess you could argue it
out now I do wonder do I I've I've wondered if I've said this before and I don't mean this as a joke but I'll just put this out

[44:20]

as a joke but I'll just put this out here as uh something I would love to know the answer to so I'm not I'm not saying this is true I'm just saying it's something I'd like to know the answer to apparently we do know that uh men are losing their uh testosterone so I think that part's true that uh testosterone levels in men are dropping now I don't know if that's in every culture and in every country but I but I'm sure it's true in the United States and I would say that in my lifetime uh it feels obvious to me does it feel obvious to you also that testosterone levels in males are dropping or have dropped in my lifetime anyway do do others of you see that to be true because I can't tell you know I think the popular probably the the popular understanding of that is that men are

[45:21]

understanding of that is that men are becoming more enlightened if you ask a woman what's happening in the world I think let's say a feminist they would probably say well men are finally becoming more enlightened so they're you know treating women as their equal Partners now they're taking responsibility for child care you know they're they're they're becoming more equal Partners so there there's certainly a way to describe it where it's all good um but I don't think that what's happening is that men are making a mental decision about what's the best way to organize the world and then they say I think I'll fit into this slot I don't know that that's happening I think what might be happening is that their testosterone is low and that causes them to make different decisions than if it were high and again you don't have to put a value judgment on this it could be that they less trouble they less less

[46:21]

that they less trouble they less less abusive less likely to cheat you it might be that lower testosterone is just what Society needs or it might be just what you know is safer for women it's hard to know what's the plus and the minus here because it's it's unevenly distributed um but the other possibility and I would like to present this the other possibility is that the lifestyle that makes your testosterone rise is not the current lifestyle for example if you are male let me ask you this this is a question just for the men watching men only answer this question when you spend time around kids typically your own kids I'm hoping but when you spend time around children do you not feel your testosterone going down like actually feeling that your aggressiveness even your sex drive drop

[47:21]

aggressiveness even your sex drive drop precipitously if you put me in a room with a bunch of kids my sex drive goes from 10 where it's normally nailed to gone it's a complete right yeah now it's also true that men are spending more time around children because in the old days you know the the guy worked all day and he came home and had a beer and went bowling and went to sleep and you know his his spouse was taking care of the kids but now if you know if you go to the mall today and you see a couple with a
a child who who is the one who's got the baby beorn thing on you know the baby is always attached to the man right and the man is pushing the uh the baby carriage now it makes sense because in all likelihood the man may have done less of that during the week and now it's the weekend so he's he's you know jumping in doing his part nothing wrong with that you know if you're going to get married you're you got to be a partner right so

[48:23]

you're you got to be a partner right so there's nothing wrong with the the situation I'm not criticizing it I'm just saying that there is a natural I believe a natural reflex for a ordinary non pedophilia male that when they spend time with children their testosterone plummets and so I think that might be it so I don't know what his cause and what his effect I will tell you that I tried recently to see how much soy I could get out of my life so I said to myself hey I don't want this I don't want soy in my body because it you know mimics some hormones and I I just don't think it's a good idea for men to have soy in their bodies now not speaking necessarily in a scientific way this is one of those risks which if I can easily remove it um I will even if it turns out the risk was Zero you know should I know more but since I don't know the risk of

[49:25]

more but since I don't know the risk of soy and I have reason to suspect it might you know change my temperament or my Effectiveness or my joy of life in what some way just because I suspect it if I can I'm going to get it out of my life but I started looking at um ingredients in food do you know how many ingredients I'm sorry do you know how many foods packaged Foods this is so anything in a can or a package any frozen food do you know how many things have soy in them that freaking soy is everywhere man you try to buy um salad dressing that doesn't have soy in it I don't even know if you can at at my local Safeway I went down I write down the list I was going to buy I was going to buy whatever salad dressing did not have soy that was just my only filter couldn't find one they all had soy in them so there's probably two things going on one is that I think our food is

[50:26]

going on one is that I think our food is reducing testosterone and two I think that our lifestyle is putting us in situations where men are less competitive spending more time in a Cooperative way spending more time around children especially and I think there's just a natural um you know genetic reflex to to lower your testosterone when it would be a problem so you know if if a man is always going hunting and killing and and defending the tribe and stuff probably testosterone is pretty high all the time all right that's enough for today I'm going to close it on this we've covered everything from immigration to Soy I think we're complete I'll talk to you later