464: Palmer Luckey—The Department of War Has a Mullet

(upbeat music) - Hello friends, it's Mike Rope. This is the way I heard it. My guest today is a young man who I had the pleasure to meet Saren Dippitously some months ago at an energy summit sponsored by our podcast Good Friend Alex Epstein. Chuck, you were there as well as I recall. - I was, yes. I was quite fascinated by Palmer and I was so glad. I've been trying to get him on the podcast ever since. And thankfully he was able to be here today. - Palmer Lucky, if you're unfamiliar, is I think he's 33 years old. - Yeah. - He was just a boy, like many boys, obsessed with video games and computers and his hobby got out of hand and he came up with this idea called Oculus and Mark Zuckerberg bought it for $2.2 billion. And so young Palmer wound up with a lot of, - A reddy cat. - A lot of jack, lot of docks on Jingoa. - Ooh, shekels raining down and he was just a young man. I think he was like, he was 20 or 22 when that sale went out and then they fired him. - Yeah, you know, he, well he was a young man and he heard some things he liked coming out of the mouth of one Donald Trump of all people and donated a modest amount, like $9,000 I think to a pack. Anyway, yeah, Facebook hated that, fired him. - Yeah, and I believe he got even though. - Well, you know, it worked out for him and you know, he and Mark are friends again and he doesn't seem to hold a grudge with anything but what this guy has done is a launcher company called Andrew Rill. And this company is a part of the industrial military complex. There were billions of dollars and he makes drones and uses AI to create autonomous weapons that the Department of War is seriously enamored of. So obviously I wanted to talk to him about that but as you'll hear, it doesn't much matter what I want to do. (laughing) When Palmer lucky is in the room, he comes in hot. I'm so glad and really grateful that he came at all. He's as busy as you might imagine a defense contractor would be. - He's blue himself here in a helicopter. - Right, with a giant bodyguard, a giant of a man. I won't use his name for security reasons. - Nice guy, that was my second time meeting him 'cause they did in advance. - Last week. - Oh, they came here? - Well, he did, yeah. - Palmer doesn't skimp when it comes to security and when it comes to this country's security, he's deadly serious. He's not serious about a great many other things. In fact, this episode is called The Department of War has a mullet because Palmer lucky does. - Man, he rocks that mullet. I'm serious, that's a good head of hair. - It's, I mean, honestly, if I had a head of hair like that, I'd probably go with a mullet for one. - Why not, man? - Why not? - Luxurious locks in the back. - His standard uniform is a Hawaiian shirt and like board shorts usually with sandals of some kind or flip flops today because he flew his helicopter. He's got these special shoes with individual spaces for each toe. - Yeah, it's like a glove for your feet. I don't think I'm overstating it. It's certainly a stream of consciousness, but it's one of the most intelligent conversations that I've had. I knew it would be, but I had no idea the Ziggs and Zags, it would take from the ring of power to the aforementioned gloves for your feet. It's a homeostatic risk to the very clear present dangers that we face as a country and to the absolutely deadly weapons this guy's making. - And he's dead serious about protecting this country. It's obvious he really loves this country. And as serpentine as the conversation was, it don't be fooled. He's a deep, deep thinker who really, really considers things. He has a lot of very interesting ideas and he gets them like that. - That's not to say you'll agree with every single thing you're about to hear, but in the aggregate, if you don't walk away like in this guy, well, I don't know what's wrong with you. Palmer Lucky, the Department of War has a mullet right after this. (humming) - Dumb. - Everybody loves the season of giving, but now we have entered the season of paying for it. That not so wonderful time of the year when millions of Americans open their credit card statements, stare and horror at the balance and resolve right then and there to find new ways to start saving money. If you're among those Americans, looking to spend a little less this month, why not start by cutting your wireless bill in half with Pure Talk's Save a Plan? Unlimited talk, unlimited text, three gigs of high speed data on a super fast, nationwide 5G network for just 20 bucks a month. Go to puretalk.com/row, make the switch today. You can do it in as little as 10 minutes. Again, talk, text and data for just 20 bucks a month. That's puretalk.com/row, where you'll save an additional 50% off your first month. Pure Talk, America's wireless company. - Pure Talk. (upbeat music) - Gavin is Bobby Kennedy's oldest, oldest friend. Who did security for three presidents? I think he's currently on Jeff Bezos. - Oh wow, well that must have been three presidents as it gotta be a pretty interesting time. - Oh, dude, his story's, I'm surprised your paths haven't crossed. He's about 70 now and he's sat here a couple times and he's one of those guys, you just say, how's it going? And then two hours later, you're like, you gotta be shitting me. - Yep. - You did that. - You started Elizabeth Taylor. I mean, this is the story after story after story. Wrote a great book called The Gift of Fear. - Interesting, how long did you write it? - 25 years. - Okay. So before his Jeff Bezos time. - Oh yeah, yeah. - Yeah, he just wrote another one though that's blowing the freaking people out. It's called Forbidden Facts. And it's just all the stuff around childhood vaccines that is making people's heads explode. - Interesting, Forbidden Facts. I gotta check this out. I've got a whole category of stuff that I follow that are different for Bidden Facts. - Oh, what better you do? - Yeah, like, did you know that it is illegal to market devices that use electrical stimulation as burning calories? It's a rule that goes back to the 1960s, 1970s. And the problem is that there are lots of devices that use electrical stimulation that burn lots of calories. And so it's like, if you were used like a tens unit, you know, like where you're getting, - Oh yeah, yeah. - Rehabilitation. So that's burning calories. And remember, it's triggering your muscles and how it would work. And of course they're burning calories. And there's people who use similar things to do various like rehabilitation, muscle toning. But if you were to say, here is my product. Here's my device. And it burns this many calories per hour when used in this way. Here are 100 peer reviewed clinical trials that prove that this is the case. The government says you can't say that. That's not allowed. That's forbidden. Because it is illegal to market electrical stimulation devices burning calories. And the reason that is there were devices that were scams back then and they didn't really work. But even then they were burning calories, but they weren't really safe. - Yeah. - And so it's like, wait a second. The safety or efficacy of those devices shouldn't have impact on whether you're allowed to say something that's true. - Well that's the double whammy. Safe and effective. - Right. And then just like the vaccine. - That's exactly it. Well, but almost every controversial thing has some combination of those two terms. - That's right. - Over top of it. - There's things that are in it. Are we rolling? - Yeah, we're rolling. - Okay. - Yeah, he's very interesting. That's one of those interesting things. It's just like you are not allowed to state that true fact. It is a true fact that you are prohibited from saying because they think it might lead to bad things happening. And I've always wished that one of these companies would pursue this not like they should pursue it on first amendment grounds. - Yeah. - But see that's the magical part of the language, right? It's like words phrases. It's like the, we all know it, but the act of uttering the thing. Saying the thing. Well, another interesting example is you'll have, in California, you're not allowed to take certain factors into your hiring and without getting into all of them, like one of the most interesting ones to me has always been age and I'm playing with fire here as someone who's-- - 20, 33. - Well, you're hired. - Well, for my age, it's fine, but I'm in a hiring, firing authority running a company and running here in California. And without getting into the specifics of it, and without me making any particular claims, suppose that science showed not that old people are better or young people are better. Let's just say it demonstrated that old people have superior performance at certain tasks. And suppose that young people showed superior performance at certain other tasks. Now, if you were to say this in the context of a baseball team, everyone would agree with you, of course. Everyone would say, oh, I mean, you, this is like, the easiest kind of commentary. Oh man, you know, this is last year, he hasn't been keeping his numbers up, his contract's not gonna get renewed. Why? It's his age. And his age, it doesn't mean, and they'll talk through this, he's got the strategy, he knows what to do, he knows how to get people's head, but he just doesn't have the footwork that he used to. He doesn't have the arm strength that he used to. But then all of a sudden, you do this in the context of an engineering firm, or really any other business, to even imply that perhaps there are certain areas where people of one age would do better, and certain, you can't, it's illegal. They would say, "Well, this is indicative "of illegal hiring practices." I might be able to say, "I believe this is the case, "and the science showed this is the case." And then when they say, "And have you ever made a hiring decision "on the basis of this information "that is scientifically confirmed and proven?" And in fact, you have to say, "No, of course not." I would never act on this information that is inarguably true, and everyone knows it, at a common sense level, at a scientific level, at a even social commentary, ever understands. You ever heard, you heard it guys, "Oh man, I can't pull these long nights like I used to." I mean, people themselves realize this. I mean, I realize that I'm weaker at things that I used to be better at when I started my first company, Oculus, when I was 19 years old. There's things I could do then that I can't do today, not that I would ever make a business decision based on that fact, but this idea for a few-- - You just can't point it out. - You're just so expansive. - If you're the employer, you can't point that out. You can know it, but you can't say it. No one can say it. - Anyone can throw it in your face, and you can't acknowledge it. So you're familiar with a concept of like a lot of Soviet propaganda, where the point wasn't really to trick people into believing it. It was to force them to acknowledge propaganda that was obviously untrue. In fact, that was how you showed the power. The power of the state propaganda apparatus was such that you couldn't deny these things that were being said, even though everyone knew that they weren't true. It's a similar thing. They can say, "Oh, so on your use saying you've ever acted in this obvious way that you would on these obvious facts, and you have to bend the knee and say, "No, of course not." - That's Hans Christian Anderson. That's the Emperor's new close. - Yep. - Right? - What do you mean he's naked? - You can't say he's naked. - That's right. - And the thing is there are people who know it, and they can throw it in your face and force you to perform the ritual. - That's right. - Perform the ritual for us. - Right. - Say that you refuse to acknowledge the reality, and I want to stay in business. - So the more you can get, and otherwise sensible person to say that the clearly naked man isn't naked. The more of something truly fundamental you take from that person, you whittle them down to a single dimension. Until pretty soon you're saying, "Yes, the man who just won "that medal who's standing on the podium, "whose phallus is clearly visible is not a man." I'll say it out loud. - Did you see the South Park about the trend - Oh, yeah. - gender sports issue? - And this was before it was really actually a pretty issue. - Greatest satire. - I think of all time. It'll surely be remembered. - If people aren't familiar, they have Macho Man Randy Savage as before he passed, and he gets on, he's just Macho Man Randy Savage, and he just beats up a bunch of woman and beats them bloody, and then the reporter is going up to all the women, and he says, "And Randy Savage, "that's a real woman, right?" They're like, "Yes." And you don't have any concerns, 'cause he's a real woman, right? He says, "Yeah, yeah, he is." - Yep. - And it's the act of. - Well, isn't that, you know what, hold on. - I had not even. - You came in hot, dude. - Randy Savage says, "I'm not here to talk about my transition. "I'm here to keep sight and ass." - Paul Merlucky came in hot. I appreciate it. - A helicopter? - Yeah, yeah. - Like you told my modest, I flew in in, I own a few helicopters, but today I flew my Eurocopter EC120, although now it's owned by Airbus. - You flew it? - Yeah, yeah, I flew it. So I flew it with a co-pilot. I may. - So you're still under some level of supervision. - I'm on, look, when you get to a certain level of responsibility, it's irresponsible to not spend a little money and have somebody who's a lot better at it than you. And I'm an okay beginner helicopter pilot. I'm not competent enough to be flying around on my own. If I could, I'd bring a co-pilot on my motorcycle, but I can't see. That's the level of disclosure and honesty. I'd like to hear on United or American Airlines. As I'm strapping in, I just like to hear the guy up front or the woman just level with me. It's my second year. I feel pretty good. I think I've got room for improvement and I appreciate you guys letting me work through some of the bugs here. - Well, it's helpful and they can say in the guy, I'm the co-pilot and the captain has 40 years of experience. That's what people want to hear. - Yeah, somebody's, we want the warm milk that says, you know what, it's gonna be okay. Somebody's got an eye on you, ignore the sirens outside it as to the very similar to it. But it's funny, the first time I met you, I think it must have been nine months ago. Alex Epstein, Newport, it was the energy conference. - That's right. Now, I don't know if you remember this. You arrived at that event on a motorcycle. - I did, I do remember that. Dude, you were wearing what I think may have been a jacket made of copper. - That's right, actually, it's so funny. I don't even wear it all that often. And I wore it on Joe Rogan and I wore it on that motorcycle. I'm actually not sure I wore it more than once or twice between those events a year apart. It's funny that that jacket comes up yet again. - Well, I mean, you know, it's really cool though. - That's, it's what they call a Sui generous, right? It's a one of a kind, I would assume, unless you shop at a copper store. - Now, there's a company called Volabok, V-O-L-L-E-B-A-K, and they make a bunch of really interesting, like they give us like clothing from the future out of really novel materials. And a lot of those are very novel performance characteristics. Like they make one out of carbon fiber and dynema thread and it's like, it's like an ultra light set of pants that weighs nothing, but it's as strong as any motorcycle suit sliding on the ground. They make a jacket out of the same material used for these supersonic parachutes that landed the Mars Rovers on Mars. So like, you have really, really strong Kevlar back stuff and there it is. Yeah, so this is, yeah, this is some new thing. The Martian Aero Gel jacket. Let's even, let's read what the Aero Gel jacket is. I don't even know what this is. - What is Aero Gel? - So Aero Gel is a compound that was invented by NASA. That you do a hydrated silica, and then they remove all of the moisture and you're left with a, basically a gel with no moisture. And it is one of the strongest per unit weight things there is, most of 'cause it's so light, but mostly it's extremely good at insulation. It weighs nothing and it has extremely powerful insulation. See how scroll down, what does it say about it? Built with the same advanced Aero Gel and parachutes that land rovers on Mars. So, they do some really cool stuff like that. - Look at the expression on this guy's face, Chuck. Scroll a little more. I don't know what to make of a model who assumes such an odd mix of insuseants, confusion, deliberate five o'clock shadow, and malaise. - Well, you know, when you get into the world of fashion, there's a lot of things that are hard to explain. But one of the things I like about this is, like clearly there's some momentum that's like a fashion play. It's just cool, but I do like that all of it is also driven by the actual technical material science. You know, these things are actually better. I've never liked fashion for the sake of fashion, nearly as much as fashion for the sake of functionality. Like I'm wearing these, my five finger shoes. - Well, at least I mean, I was expecting flip flops. That's the standard. - So this is the thing. I normally do wear flip flops, but in this case, I had to fly my helicopter. And so I want to wear shoes that are fire retardant. In case I crash, I don't want my shoes melted in my feet. In case, you have to step through some fire. I need to do something that is really flexible, really thin so I can feel the pedals really well. It's important to be able to operate the foot controls in a helicopter even more so than an airplane. And so I'm not wearing these for fashion reasons. I'm wearing them for function reasons. And that's the best kind of fashion. - Well, it's the more type of disclosure I'd like to hear, again, from the average pilot getting me from here there. You know, you'll be relieved to know folks that my footwear is made out of a space age polymer materials. So if I have to walk through fire, I'm gonna be okay. - Oh, I would love that. (humming) - Dom. Statistically speaking, I know that someone listening to this right now is struggling to hire the right person for a key position in their organization. I know it. I also know that that person has heard me talk before on this very podcast about the incredible simplicity and effectiveness of posting a job for free at supercruiter.com/reel. Now, what I don't know is whether or not this is the day that that person will finally take my advice and post a job for free at supercruiter.com/reel. But I sure hope that this is the day. Why? Because statistically speaking, I also know that four out of five people who post a job for free at supercruiter.com/reel will find a quality candidate in 24 hours or less. In other words, it works. That's why supercruiter is America's number one hiring site and that's why I hope that this is the day when you finally post a job for free at ziprecruiter.com/reel. Zip Recruiter, the smartest way to hire. ♪ The smartest way to hire ♪ - This is another one of the things that edges on the idea for Benin, but you could look at statistical averages on who gets into crashes. Based on their flight hours and their training and where they're going to work. they went to school, you could probably build a pretty decent statistical model of which planes are safer to fly on. And I mean, I mean, I don't mean the aircraft. I mean, literally like which flights. Well, that would be. Because I'd pay more to be on a flight than what it was. Yeah, but it was just. There was at the upper limits of what's the, the safest aircraft, the particular one in the fleet that's never had a grounding error. So if people could book based on the safety record, both of the equipment and the pilot that you know you're going to get, well, you'd have total chaos because that, that would mean every single thing in the experiences ranked. And you would have to adjust the price, I suppose, you get the crappiest equipment with the worst pilot. Well, you know, you know it now and you paid less. You know, honestly, I, I, I, and now that you've set it out loud like that, I, I know what the outcome would be. It wouldn't be the people who pay for the safest. They would just, still what they want today, which is the cheapest flight. The cheapest flight. But just for all the dice. Oh, I mean, like one of the thought experiments I've always pondered is suppose. All the available pilots are drunk. So it's $9. Hell yeah. From here to the East Coast. The one of the, one of the things I've always pondered is what if TSA was optional? Like suppose that you said, hey, you can buy a, you can, you can either go to, you know, the TSA process or you can do the no TSA process. And it's somewhat cheaper and a lot faster to get onto the plane without TSA. What would people choose? And what I've found is that it tends to be, it tends to be that most people would, would be just fine with danger error. Well, I remember we did this for a long time, you know, it's like, it's like, the question isn't so much do you think that, you do you think that it's better to have security or not? It's, do you think the security is there is going to catch any of the bad things that actually do happen, right? You have to, you have to believe, you have to believe that you should have security. And that also the security will catch things. But I know people who say, oh yeah, there should be security. Yeah. I just don't think TSA can catch any of the things that matter. And so it's basically, it's a waste. It's a different argument. You're saying one extreme or the other. Yeah. So let's say guns, right? Would you rather be in a stadium where everybody was armed? Yep. Or nobody was armed. Now in reality, there's never been such a stadium. That's right. Which is why you've got anxiety and uncertainty. Yep. I take my chances on the plane where nobody went through TSA because every single person on the plane basically was weighed and measured in the same way. That's what the TSA tries to do now. But the price for that sameness involves endless humiliations from your shoes to the grobings and the cavity searches and all of it. But don't you think in the end it's the squishy middle that always jacks us up, leaves us disappointed and frustrated and also creates opportunities for guys like you to capitalize on some sort inefficiency. I think it does create opportunities where it gets tricky, of course, is where it's tied to legislation, especially where it can get very prescriptive. There's certain areas where you can innovate relatively freely. And those tend to be the areas that see the most innovation. There's a reason that I think the internet and social media and all these things got so much investment. It was partly because those were nascent technological spaces. It was also because there were basically no rules. You could just do anything. Right. Whereas one example of this is with automobiles. There's a lot of safety devices that are legal in other places like automatic steering headlights. There's not legal here in the United States yet. And eventually, usually we catch up with these things. Automatic steering headlights. You mean headlights that have been as you turn. Yeah, exactly. So they can basically keep more, like imagine if you're going around a tight turn, your headlights are pointing forward. Now you can't see anything in the inside of the turn. They solve this in Europe a while ago. I don't usually give kudos to Europe, but this is one thing. But yeah, croissants are good too. Well, that was a done a long time ago. I've got a whole theory that a lot of these European nations are kind of living in graveyards where they're like monuments to their forebears who invented the croissants. But like another example is seat belts. People wonder why seat belt technology hasn't advanced and why we haven't had something that like replaces seat belts. And the answer is that when seat belts were being first introduced, there were actually active research and development programs around things like total immobilizers based on airbag technology, on cars that had just different schemes for protecting someone in a crash. But then Congress passed legislation that required all cars to have a seat belt. And a seat belt is defined in an extremely specific way. It's a three point harness. It does this. It does that. For example, this is my favorite example, race cars. Those guys are not using three point harnesses. They're using 4.5 point harnesses. Seven. And why are they doing that? Because it's safer. And I've heard people say, well, so I have a buddy of mine who has a car and it has a five point harness in it. And it has a three point seat belt in it. Why? Because if he gets pulled over on the highway, wearing his inarguably, scientifically proven to be safer, five point harness, well, that doesn't meet the definition of a seat belt. You're supposed to on the highway be wearing that three point harness. And so this is one of those things that kills innovation. Why would GM or Ford invest billions in a new safety technology that would replace a seat belt when the law says you have to have a seat belt. And here's exactly what a seat belt is. Anyway, the point is these tightly regulated spaces, it's where you see the least innovation, which is why I'm crazy for starting a company in the defense space. Because it's so highly regulated. And yet, well, right. But look, it's that you're talking about the trap of doing it right. In other words, just because you're in compliance doesn't mean you're out of danger. Yeah. The theory, as I understand it, goes back to something called homeostatic risk or risk equilibrium or compensatory risk, right? And this, I'd love to get you take on this because it's anethema to OSHA. But it basically says that everybody in that same stadium, I just hypothesized, has a different capacity for risk. Yep. They process it differently. Yep. And a lot of this is subliminal. But the unintended consequence of introducing various mandates and safety protocols will make you safer environmentally, but emotionally, you will compensate. So now you know you're safer because your seat belts on, your helmets on, you're locked in five points. Every study indicates that the driver who feels that way will accelerate corner more tightly. That's right. And take more chances, not on purpose. But because your brain is trying to get back to some sort of equilibrium that is only pegged to your individual tastes and everybody's protocols are different. Well, there's a pretty good proposal on how this should be handled. That's been proposed at the NHTSA, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration level. And DOT have had this idea proposed before and I actually, I'm a supporter of it. It's that you should measure the safety of vehicles based on the actual observed outcomes, rather than hypothetical compliance to the points you'll just made. In other words, right now they say, do you have a safety backup camera? Can you survive a crash of this speed in this way if such a crash occurs? And they say, well, you have the seat belt. You have the crash test safety rating. Therefore, this is a safe car. Well, what if for unrelated factors, other factors, some of the factors you're talking about, what if people take more risk in these cars? What if, for example, one of my favorites, what if in building an SUV to survive a crash event better? You make it more likely to get into crash because it has worse handling, less ability to break. Well, you don't get penalized for that. NHTSA doesn't give you bonus points for being able to avoid a crash. They only give you points for being able to survive a crash. So naturally, you'll have cars that are designed to hit this checklist. So what would cars look like if they were designed to, you know, the kind of this homeostasis theory that you're positing? What if you said, we're just going to look at the total outcome, total. And what are the fatality and injury rates associated with this model of vehicle? Or, you know, like even literally like, we're going to look at a Honda Odyssey. Like what, what are the risks associated? And what if they pace regulations on that? I think there'd be a lot healthier. And like the theoretical win here in the long run is, imagine if I as an innovator could make a car where it has terrible crash test safety ratings, right? It cannot survive a crash at all. Right. But I prove that through psychological changes and maybe better maneuverability, maybe automated braking systems or even steering systems that get you out of accents, what if you could prove that it gets in a tenth of the accidents? And therefore, still has a higher survival rate than this big giant beastly tank that survives more crashes, but also gets in more. But nobody looks at it this way at a regulatory level. And so this is, that's it's just another area. We're only looking at that way. We go to where we just were, which is to say, wait, wait, wait. Now everybody has to have this fundamentally unsafe car because then everybody will realize that they're not going to survive a crash. Therefore, you don't need speed limits anymore because everybody is going to compensate their risk equilibrium. But same argument and FL take away the helmets more or less brain injury. Well, right, because the theories you give them the helmets and they're using the helmets as weapons. Basically, yeah, they're slamming each other 100%. Well, something else that people. - No, probably don't you do that. Like, would you favor that? Knowing it like the way I'm trying to figure out how your brain works. - I, well look, I lean libertarian. So what I would say is, that'd be a voluntary contract that you can enter into. I think if somebody wants to enter into a contract that has a 50% chance of them suffering brain injury over the course of their career, they should be allowed to do it. And I have people who fight back on this, they say, "Palmer, how could you be, "everyone's life is sacred and shouldn't we protect that?" Say, okay, but, I mean, you look at the fatality rates for like EMS helicopter pilots. It's something like one in 30 of them will die over the course of their career. And I mean, that's insane. That's an extraordinarily high rate. And it's not because these are crazy people, it's because it's a dangerous job. And so then the question, and people say, "Well, that's to save lives." You know, that doesn't count. But if I point it's like racing cars is dangerous. Racing motorcycles is dangerous. And people, I guess what I'm really getting, here's how I think about this. These players are making tens of millions of dollars a year or some of them. If they want to enter into a contract to do that, knowing that there's risk of concussion, what they should do is they should try to mitigate that risk. They should advocate for things that are meeting their restaurants. And if people don't want to participate in that, that's fine. But with all the problems that exist in society, the long term health impacts of people who sign up for what is effectively a combat sport. And then, to have other people advocating for these combat athletes on their behalf, I've always thought, rings a bit hollow, given all the other problems you could fight for. - I'm just interested though, big, but look, that fundamental problem that I think we're talking about and around gets applied from the sublime to the ridiculous. And it's certainly applicable in defense contracting. It's certainly applicable in the fact that the most dangerous intersections in the world are the ones with the little man who tells you when to walk. The ones with no lights are very safe. (humming) - Dumb. - Four years from now, our country is going to need to generate and transmit 55 gigawatts of additional energy. That's enough new energy to power 46 million homes every year. That means a lot more lines, a lot more rebuilds, a lot more recovery work. And most of all, a lot more lineman. Linework is one of the few careers where you can go straight from the classroom to a high-paying, purpose-driven, AI-proof job in less than four months. With four campuses across the country, Northwest Lyman College, is ready to help you build your future and nobody does it better than these guys, founded by journeymen over 30 years ago. NLC has one vision to be your pathway to the electrical trades. Because Northwest Lyman College is part of the Qantas Services family, you've got direct access to the nation's number one employer of craft-skilled labor. I've said it before, I'll tell you again, we are entering the golden era of the craft trades where you can earn big, live well, and do work that actually matters. Visit lineman.edu to learn more and explore the possibilities at Northwest Lyman College. That's lineman.edu. It's your pathway to the trades. There is an exception here, which is maybe something to introduce to the conversation, which is these things actually vary, not just person by person, but also state by state and country by country. So, I've ever been to, have you been, ever been to the Shibuya Scramble in Japan? No. It's this five-way intersection. It's a famous, insanely large intersection. It's got all the little walk-in-man lights. And it's actually totally fine. It's totally fine because it's in Japan. Because it's in Japan. It's because it's in Japan. Okay, have you been to the Kaisa Scrocs in Amsterdam? No, I haven't. Okay, so two-way, highway, fine, in between tram car. That's interesting. On either side, bike lanes. Now, it takes a high-trust society to make that work. You have to be blessed and lucky to cross all six of these, right? Because each one, it's half a dozen ways to die. And they're all moving at vastly different speeds, I imagine. Totally different. So, it's impossible to handicap or anticipate. It's so bad that there are no signs. You just have to figure it out. Yep. There's no way anybody could try and take the responsibility to say, okay, now it's good. You just can't. So, look, all of this, it's like the unintended consequences of forced compliance. And where we started, if I remember, was basically how that impacts language. That's right. In a joky way, we talked about what would happen to the state of mind of a passenger on a plane if he or she was confronted with the blistering truth of the pilot. 'Cause right now, to your point, we're being lied to. Like, when I sit down and strap in, as I will later, my pilot's gonna tell me that safety is our priority. Yep. Now that's bullshit. If it were, we wouldn't be, you know, in an aluminum tube flying 550 miles an hour to find gravity. We simply wouldn't do that if the most important thing was to be safe. But he's gonna tell me it is, and then he's gonna say, he's gonna serve a bunch of warm milk, designed to make everybody, you know, feel a special way if he told the truth, on the other hand. If he said, look, my name's Jack McGillicutty, I've been flying for this airline now for 20 years, and I'm a big fan of everybody on the plane. We're so grateful for your business, but in the scheme of things, I love my wife more, and my kids are super, super important to me. So here's the good news. I'm gonna get my ass home to them tonight, come hell or high water. You guys, you just sit back, strap in, don't give the flight attendants a hard time, and you're welcome. I would feel so much better. Because of course, his selfish self-interest is obviously much more compelling than a corporate value written where they say, he doesn't care really, that, you know, United Airlines or American Airlines is the safety priority. I mean, I don't know if you know that my grandfather was a United Airlines pilot for about 45 years. - I'm ashamed to say, I'm not up to speed on your past. - No, it's not curriculum to be a take. - It's all good. And so he ended his career flying Boeing 747-400s, which were incredible, incredible plane, really sad that there's no commercial passenger flights on them anymore. To your point, he's flying to go home and see his family. He's not, you know, he's, what is he looking at when he takes off? It's a picture of his family out of his wallet, not the United Corporate Safety Guidelines. - No, and look, if you're on that plaza-- - He complies with them, but it's not what's driving him. - And he's no different than anybody on the plane. You know, we're all creatures of self-interest. In the, see, let's, before we pivot, I think maybe the truth is always out there. It's just not the thing you're allowed to say, but if you're run around for it, you'll find it on the carriage of travel. You'll find it on the back of your ticket and the finest of print. Now, on the front, like on the back of the seat in front of you, it will say safety first, your safety is our priority. On the back of the ticket, it says, "By purchasing this thing for an indiscriminate amount of money, which will in no way, "comport or match with any other ticket sold "on this same flight, welcome to randomness." You understand that we are defying the laws of gravity. You understand there's great risk in this activity and blah, blah, blah, blah. - It's inherently risky and you understand that. - The truer, it gets the smaller the print, the bigger the lie, the more color is employed, and the splash year it seems. - My favorite waiver is that I've ever been to go cart world in the Los Angeles. - Yes, yes. - I love their waiver. It's some, you know, it's actually, we've talked a lot of that dishonesty. That's actually probably the most honesty I've seen from a business they say, go cart are extremely dangerous. These vehicles are, these vehicles are not designed to comply with highway standards. They are controlled in unpredictable and severe ways. There is a real, a real and substantial risk of death or dismemberment. And I'm like, yeah, that's like, that's completely. - What do I sign? - I know. - What do I sign? That's interesting that there is honesty. So why is the go cart world can do it and united can't? - There you go. That's it. I've signed between 300 and 400 waivers in my life. My favorite was for shark diving. I was testing a stainless steel shark suit. - That's cool. - With the guy, like a chain mail one. - Yeah, the guy who invented it, Jeremiah Sullivan. The job was to make it with him. So we got on the Bahamas that we make it. And then of course, he's like, well, let's see if it works. And then we're on a boat and then we're charming the water. - Yep. - And then we jump in and then the shark's bite us. And the thing I signed before I did that basically said, I understand I'm engaging in a self-destructive activity. - Yep. - What follows will hurt. There will be blood. I could lose a body part and quite possibly die. That makes you like snort. It's so not because it's funny though, because in a way, it's so bracing to be confronted with the on adulterated truth of a thing at a time when the facts are forbidden. And we dare not articulate that. - That's interesting. - The bizarre nature of the humor is that they're telling the truth. In a time where you can so rarely find out. - Have you been to Mount Washington? Have you ever climbed? - No. - Where's it, Taylor's a Vermont. Where is it? Mount Washington famous up in New England somewhere not main. I think it's I don't know it's New Hampshire It's so hamsy It's the worst weather in the lower 48 like it can literally go from yet in the white mountains. It can go from 70 degrees to negative 10 The signs as you climb We've got a what do they say stop turn around don't be an asshole Honestly, you're approaching a place where the weather is so volatile This is going to be unpleasant for you. They just get increasingly. That's great. It's like a mildly drunk Irreverance subversive was asked to just lay out the truth on the way up. I love that doesn't work No, but But it makes life better You know, it makes it better. It's like you mentioned seatbelts I had a neighbor guy named Gans he's 99 years old now he invented the The thing that allows it to catch Like the most critical part of it. Yep, which didn't exist in the original model It there was some mechanism. I believe it was it was a fixed mechanism So you had to adjust it perfectly. That's it is this drove people to just not use them and also they are very uncomfortable. Yeah Yep, you couldn't like lean forward slowly and get something and that yeah, so we yeah That was that was what made it really usable all right. Let's conclude the rhetorical linguistic vernacular part of the conversation and and and try and if we can Explain to people Oh, there it is stop the area ahead as the worst weather in America many have died They're from exposure even in the summer turn back now if the weather is bad. That's the first one That's really good Later, it's just like you again. You're still here. You're still walking in Hawaii There's a number of beaches where they have a death Count on the sign if those are good too and it says you know There it's a there's one that says something like there are 38 People who thought they could out swim the current don't be the next one and it really puts it into Stark relief. There's a There's a highway in the outback They literally call it the road to Cooper-Pity and it's the most dangerous stretch of world of road I think anywhere But my god the billboards there they're just guys with toothpicks literally holding their eyes open their memorials all along the way where people have died and it's the same sort of thing man Does it is is any of this applicable in the business of defense? You'd be surprised I think so. I mean One of the interesting things about the defense industry is that we've built kind of a similar set of Fictions around our capability and how we're safe and we're secure and we're spending all of this money on On defense to good end. I think it's started to fall apart Slowly first as we just spent more and more and more and I think people realized we're just spending too much on it Wait a minute are you talking about you or the big five? I'm talking about I'm talking about big picture the United States of America Just big picture the United States really since the end of the Cold War has erected these ideas that the things that we're spending money on are going to keep us safe and that they're gonna Help our allies win win any potential war that comes along and then we've been confronted with this stark reality Things like the Ukraine invasion where we realize that actually a lot of these tools are sitting ducks You're gonna have 50 million dollar bombers blown up by five hundred dollar drones That we don't have the tools that we need to stop them uh that we that the globalization of our economy and allowing containers and ships and everything else to move around the world Basically unimpeded means that you don't even have to use an ICBM to deliver a nuke into a port You can just put it in a shipping container and put it over on a ship and it will go right up to the same place And it only cost you like six hundred bucks, too Yeah I think people are realizing that there were all of these unders underlying assumptions that that just aren't true That we kind of assumed that a war would look like how we assumed it would during the Cold War And we're realizing actually we live in a world where people are gonna exploit every advantage they have and every disadvantage That you have and it probably doesn't look anything like uh the conflicts that pass and that's that's actually why I got into the defense space It wasn't because I thought this was an area that was ripe for innovation It wasn't because I thought oh this is the place where I'm gonna be able to just very easily come in and change things It's because I was so terrified of what would happen if we didn't get people out of working on things like tech Search engines and social media and put them to work on building the things that can stop the actual Threats at the United States face think things that are being built by Russia by China by Iran even by North Korea And then really whatever comes next there's a lot of there's a lot of these things you don't need to be a superpower to build Small drones or cyber warfare tools or really interesting novel bio weapons You don't need to be like a US style hyper power to try and build a bio weapon that Exterminates your ethnic neighbors in Africa that aren't quite exactly the same type of African that you are Those are types of the types of things that we need to figure out at defend against and uh the You know the big five But also the United States in general was not equipped to work on those problems So who just so people understand it maybe me too, but the general dynamics Raytheon Stiacall part of them Or that's that that's more rocket it depends on the year, you know, it's a north rope. Yeah, Northrup. Yeah I mean what what happened post-Cold war was a consolidation of About 50 companies of note into maybe five six seven depending on you know how What point do you count the mergers? Yeah, there was a massive amount of consolidation that that happened and there That was that was not an accident and it wasn't even a free market thing It was actually directed by the government There was there was a dinner called the last supper where they brought together the executives from all these top companies Right after the end of the Cold War. This is the military industrial complex. That's right. It's large And there was a dinner literally one dinner called the last supper For the it's known to this day in the defense industry as the last supper And the the the quote the quote from it from the joint chiefs was consolidate or die It was they said we will not support a defense industry of all these different companies You need to consolidate you and I think the theory was we're gonna be spending less on defense We won't be able to support all these large companies. Therefore, you need to become more efficient The problem is that oftentimes consolidation in an industry leads to less competition Hey, if you want to give your kid a head start in the unbelievably competitive job market They are destined to enter Consider K12's career and college prep program. There is no better way to give a high school student the tools They need to figure out what's next while they're working toward their high school diploma K12's career and college prep program allows students to explore real-world careers starting as early as middle school I'm talking about careers in business health care IT and of course the skilled trades where business is booming They'll get hands-on experience and the opportunity to earn industry certifications That'll help them get ahead before they graduate. That's the key and look if college is the right fit for your student K12 provides dual enrollment programs for the opportunity to earn college credits While there's still in high school and career coaches who can guide them through Applications and scholarships and financial aid see what's possible with K12's career and college prep at k12.com Slash row that's the letter K the number 12.com/row And there's another thing that it leads to which is a lot of too big to fail type of decisions When you have 50 companies It's easy to let the one that trips and falls because they were running too fast uh parish You know if someone does a risk if they're taking too much risk I don't even talk about technical risk you have to take technical risk in research and development I'm talking about things like they were paying too much of their profits out to shareholders as dividends And so they don't have any cash reserves to cover to cover the shortfall when when a program is running long You know that type of risk But when you what what do you do when you only have one company in the entire Country that can build fighter jets. What do you do when there's one company that is able to build submarines? You end up in a really NARLY situation where you either have to prop them up no matter how bad it gets or you have to let them die And probably you're you're now just screwed for decades until you can restand up that capability elsewhere And I think unfortunately the people who made the centrally planned decision As people doing centrally planned government uh often do they did not realize what that First the second and third order impacts of their decision would be this consolidate or die They didn't understand what it was really going to bring about well. It's like the indigenous were the Invasive non-indigenous species, you know, it's a they're brought in with good intentions. That's right like there There's a logic around that last supper. There's a logic to solve it. We need the cats to eat the rats. Oh, but now there's too many cats. Well, we're going to bring in coyotes. Oh, but now the coyotes have transmitted this disease to the fox. And now that's all dying out. Yeah, this has happened over and over again. So it goes. I mean, it's truly the story of our lives. It's the story of. Yep. It's the story of an environment. You tracking the mule deer problem on Catalina Island right now? Well, I live up there. Oh, on Catalina? Well, I'm sorry. I was thinking of Sosolito. No, no, no. No, Catalina Island off the coast. Channel Islands. No, what's happening with the mule deer? Well, they've got about. People don't know exactly. It might be 2000. It might be 4000. We haven't figured out quite how many there are. But there are these non-native deer that were introduced a really, really long time ago. There used to be goats on Catalina as well. I think those were brought by the Spanish for food and milk. Classic. We class-expand your move. We wiped out the goats a long time ago after the goats wiped out a bunch of endangered species all over Catalina. And now you still have these mule deer. And this problem is that they eat all of the young fresh saplings and young fresh flowers. And then they don't eat all the dry scrubby stuff. And so what happens is you have more and more of the stuff that wants to catch on fire. You have stuff that doesn't have deep roots over a long time. And so they've actually fundamentally changed the composition. Yeah. And they've been trying. They were hoping for a while that hunters would just wipe them out recreationally. That's been kind of the theory was we're going to grant hunting permits and people are just going to shoot them. But they're reproducing like deer do. And there's so many of them they can't stop. So now the Catalina island is trying to figure out what to do. They. To save all these other species they need to get rid of the mule deer. So actually what's happening now is a lot of people are saying, "But the mule deer are so cute." They're so cute. Oh my god. So now you literally just yanked us back to the beginning here with what you can say, what you can show and what you can do. That's right. We went to a place once called. Although if I could before you say that I have to say, I am on the wrong side of the issue here in one way. I think we need to get rid of the mule deer for environmental purposes. However, there are also a bunch of buffalo that live on Catalina Island that were left there by a movie production and I am a big fan of the buffalo and I don't want to get rid of the buffalo. So even I'm captured by this idea, I'm like, "No, buffalo are cool. Don't get rid of the buffalo." You know what? You got buffalo guilt, man. Because you know. We killed them all. We really killed these guys. They're like the last handful. Vomit Island is this little spit of rock in one of the great lakes. I forget which one. It's home to the Comarants and all these sea birds and you've never seen so much avian life in places teeming with it. And I went there with my crew years ago because when these birds get freaked out when humans come in and they end up in the trees, they throw up on you. I mean, that's literally their defense. They throw up on you. So it's a great dirty job. And it was just one of these feel good things and I was like, "God, that was such a. I learned so much." And then one of the guys, one of the park rangers says, "You want to see something really amazing. Come back in two weeks." I'm like, "What happens at two weeks?" Because I shouldn't tell you, like his boss is going, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." So that. Because my crew stars are cameras up and stuff. And I said, "Not only does it just tell me we'll keep it in the circle at trust." Enough time has gone by, and that doesn't matter. But a team goes back in two weeks later because there's so many birds on the island that you can't sustain them. Yep. These are rare birds. These are beautiful birds. These are sea birds. And these are men with 22s, suppressed, and just. They have to call them. 70, 75% of them. That's a bummer. Now, that happens. That cannot be shown. That probably can't even. Certainly can't be talked about or written about. Well, to your point, he said, "Hey, don't talk about it." That's the same thing at the hatchery, Murray and McMurray. You separate the baby chicks. Right? The pull-its from the cock rolls. They're cute. You send them through the mail. It's amazing. And then the cameras turn off and the lights go down. And as it turns out, you really only need one cock roll for every 30 pull-its. So thousands, thousands of adorable baby chicks go through a quesanard. It's just a giant grinder. And they come out and they're chicken food. Now, when Seize This, no one discusses it. Which brings me to this question. The Department of War. Yep. Did somebody just actually speak the truth? So I don't know if you know this either, but I was one of the people who was pushing for the name change, Department of War. I swear to God, I have no idea. It was actually. The first. Literally, I had a handful of things on my list, but when I was at Mar-a-Lago right after Trump won, one of the very first things that I started pushing was that we need to be honest about what the Department of Defense does. And remember, it used to be the Department of War. Sure. For a long time, in fact, the Department of War, as the Department of War, has a better track record than the Department of Defense. I don't know if that's totally unrelated. Obviously, there's more factors than just a name. But when. You should think of it as a sliding scale of possible names and possible meanings. Mm-hmm. Department of War, is it one end? It's very, very clear what it is. Your goal is to win wars, not necessarily to start wars. Remember, the Department of War, it's. They don't get to decide who they're fighting. That's up to Congress, that's up to the President, that's up to the civilian leadership that are accountable to leaders. You shouldn't want the people in the Department of War to be people who are measured people, weighing what might be right geopolitically. It's not the time for nuance. But their job is to win wars and to maintain a posture that will allow them to win wars, so that the civilian leadership has that as the strength part of the peace through strength equation. They need you to say, "Hey, we can do this the easy way or the hard way." And we'd prefer to not fight, but if there's a fight, the Department of War will win that war. And then there's. So on the other end of the scale is not defense. I would actually say it's peace. Imagine if you called it the Department of Peace. This would be very 1984, I think. Well, what is our business's peace? And of course, that's just hiding the truth. It's wrapping it in this. It would be like, "Farcical to do." The Department of Defense in some ways is worse, but it is maybe more back towards the middle of the spectrum. Because when you're spending on defense, well, is there ever too much do you devalue your defense? Can you ever spend too much on defense? And shouldn't defense also include things like fighting, defending our country from climate change? Shouldn't it also be that we are defending ourselves from misinformation? And these are things that the military intelligence community, the military transportation logistics, are used for. And you end up with this kind of hugely expanding set of duties. And I think that it's way more honest to just say the Department of Wars purpose is to fight wars, to be ready to fight wars. And every dollar that we spend on it is a dollar that goes towards that purpose. I think I actually think it would have been harder for the defense budget to grow as much as it has if you were more honest about it. Because every year you say, "You want to spend money on education or fighting ability?" And I think it's a different weight than if it's Department of Defense. And of course, if I actually said, "Well, what do you want to spend more on? Education, healthcare, or peace?" That would be like the ultimate lie. We're just spending more and more on peace. So I'm a huge fan of the name change. I think that it's better to be one. I think it's good to. The department is trying to get back to the basics. They're trying to get rid of a lot of cruffed and graft and overspending, overdoing, even over-training. You saw, they've removed a lot of training that is not required for particular occupational specialities. Now, people need to focus on the things that they are doing, not this long laundry list of other things. And so in a department that's getting back to the basics, I think it's good to say we're going. It harkens back to that time. And then even independently of the history, I think it's better for the department to have an honest name. Well, defense, people get confused and maybe a little offended if like, in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Well, I think there's a corollary in language. If there's a department of defense, where's the department of offense? Exactly. Who do we call when it's time to be offensive, belligerent, obnoxious? That's right. Grabby, as clearly we have been and always will be. So it's a kind of virtue signal. Correct. I mean, I mean, Carl and talked about the general softening of the language. And it attracts a different kind of person too, which then it's a self-reinforcing effect. That person comes in, they change the nature more. The more the nature changes, the more the type of person that attracts changes. And so the organism over time, itself reinforces more and more and more towards whatever its stated purpose is purported to be. So did you. I mean. Well, I think I know the answer. But to what extent was your interest in forming Andril? And the real or Andril? Andril. It's constantly mispronounced. There's a philosophical and grammatical. And. You know, it's a. Here's the pronunciation debates don't get settled by the company they get settled by the general public eventually people decide what something is called Well, in this case deferred to token. I mean, I'm assuming this is the like the sort of power Right, it's probably something more like undur real undur real which is Elvin and so this is why I've not I'm not I'm actually a fan of of underl Which is which is closer to the Elvin So you're a token geek. Oh, I mean huge token geek, but I'm also I'm also I'm a geek with a high enough charisma stat to know that you can't fight people to pronounce things the Elvin way and still walk out of the room being a Well-likes guy so I've had to learn that well when you when you when you crack open the Silma Rillian as your reference, right? You have to wreck yeah, you have to recognize You know look all debate it with other with other, you know token nerds, but I'm not gonna I don't I don't need to fight about it with you know like CNBC when they call it when they call it andrill Right I say let it go. That's right. You bet it is that's right. It's 100% you got to pick your battles I want to circle back to What the defense industry or the department of forward today can learn from the ring of power and all the token wrote about so file that back there in a Minute from now. Can do but ring of power why To what degree did the inefficiencies that you mentioned before especially regarding cost yep motivate you a guy who created Oculus Rift sold it for a couple billion dollars got himself fired from Facebook for donating nine grand to some back that supported Trump To get back into this world To what degree was your desire to save the country some money a motivating factor is a huge motivator factor and The way to look at it you know it's some combination of having better having better capability because we desperately needed it But then also saving money and these two things actually go hand in hand if you don't have efficient innovation and you don't have a Fish at product creation you'll never be able to build the right tools to move forward in other words Think about it this way spending money is really just a proxy for something else in theory You could just spend more and more and more on defense and if it was only a matter of money I'd actually be okay with it like it wouldn't be great But I'd find it hard for me to become passionate about it's hard It's hard for me to become passionate about things something that's just saving Tax-payer dollars as good as that is but you have to remember that money is a proxy for something it 's a proxy for someone's time working in a factory or for a building that had to be constructed that took two years to build or For raw materials that had to be extracted from the earth processed turned into something else and so when you're spending lots of money on something Ignoring you know like you know graphed and fraud. Yeah, it represents in some way The efficiency of a product when a product causes twice as much It's because you're probably doing what it costs ties as much as it should it means it's twice as hard to build as it should be And that was the thing that I was really worried about because if you get into a war with another superpower And let's say that you need to start making fighter jets fast enough to replace the ones that are being shot out of the sky And you need to start building ships fast enough to protect not just us, but all our allies who are now at threat all over the world Even if I have unlimited money like let's say And surely we can print unlimited money. There is not unlimited productivity in the country, right? Even if you could somehow see Palmer here's a Hundred trillion dollars for the defense budget a hundred times more Well that factory still takes two years to build and that guy who was slowly building that wiring harness under a cost plus contract that incentivized him to do it slowly He's he only knows how to build harnesses in that way slowly and and and then the materials Maybe we select the materials that are really hard to process really hard to mine Maybe we don't have enough reserves of them. So saving money Really means that you're probably figuring like if I want to build something for 10th of a cost I'm figuring out how to build faster factories and figure out how to train people faster and trying to and now if I give myself that budget I can actually do stuff so yes I care about the cost but more as a proxy for productivity Total because that's what we actually need is the ability to make this stuff if we need to make enough of it to win a war and interestingly Regarding money on the other end of things when you run out of it It sure seems like war follows This is true both inside of countries and then in between countries, you know when when countries become I would say It's not even that you run out of money. I'll even go a step further than what you're saying like it's true States that run out of money and collapse war does tend to follow you get strong men in power You need people who need to seize resources seize resources. They can't do it through their own productivity And so they look outward, but I would go a step further war can also happen through economic irrelevance There's a lot of country here. Here's an example. I don't want to be too mean to the Dutch But I'll bring it up an example. They ask for it. So the Dutch the wooden shoes. So the Dutch the Dutch used to have Arguably the world's most powerful navy sure and there's a very reasonable question while why is that not today? Why is this tradition of maritime prowess not continued into the modern day even through world war one? You still had the Dutch having a quite powerful navy and the answer is not that duck is not that the Dutch have a You know seen this economic collapse. It's not that their population has disappeared It's that the world grew up around them so much faster that they became irrelevant nobody destroyed the Dutch navy. They just Made it not something you have to think about anymore They were made irrelevant exactly and so it's not even just that countries are in a race to not collapse and run out of money To a certain extent they are in a race against everybody else whether they like it or not another example. This is South Korea South Korea has a Rapidly declining birth rate. They're now down to about 0.67 Births per woman on average and you need to be at about 2.1 to meet replacement rate And what that means is that North Korea doesn't need to fight South Korea to win all they have to do is keep having kids and Making artillery shells and within about two generations There's going to be eight times more North Korean military age males than South Korean and I'm not saying military Males just because they're going to get into a fight military age males are reasonable proxy for economic productivity Right, you know the people who are going off their starting businesses their running factories and then you wait for generations Not that long right you can do for generations inside of a lifespan inside of a lifespan You're looking at something like 16 maybe 20 times as many North Koreans the South Koreans So what happens when South Korea is like what happens when there's less than a million people in Seoul and the answer is It doesn't matter how smart they are and maybe they're really rich per person in Seoul But they're economically irrelevant and so you have to ask is the United States going to be able to justify Let's say fighting World War III over a country that has shrunk down to be smaller than a small town Yeah, you're country just turned into the Dutch Navy exactly and so this is the this is the real rat race that we're all stuck in whether we like it or not But this is also the globalized economy has made it where you have to hit a certain level of growth or you will Even if you don't run out of money you become irrelevant you become a target and people are There's a side nice idea like well I've heard people say I think we would still stick out for South Korea I say you can't possibly predict what the world looks like a lifetime from now And I bet that Americans a lifetime from now are not willing to send their kids to go die for a tiny enclave of people they've never met on the other side of the world who are economically irrelevant to our economy Like there's a reason that we have such strong ties with South Korea today because we have incredible economic bonds in the automotive space the resource space shipbuilding semi-conductors displays tv's computers phones where's your phone man my phone's made in Korea If that's not the case the world changes Yeah, both gondor and mordor. I mean how much did they think about the shire really? It's an interesting question actually the um you know there there was this uh I mean what you have in the shire and actually there's a there's an incredible quote I need I need to I need to bring it up. It's it go ahead so you know cs. Lewis was a was a close friend of Love token after tokens death. He had a really interesting Take on what he thought the story was really about give me just one moment to find this No do it cs. Lewis of course one of the great Christian apologists um wrote uh what did he write you wrote the screw tape letters I believe um yeah uh mere Christianity yeah I believe um Yeah, yeah he was something Oh, yeah, I mean it's gonna take me a moment give me a second one ring to rule them all One ring to find them the lion and the witch in the wardrobe one ring to bring them all and in darkness Find them in the land what's more one ring to rule them all one ring to find them one ring to bring them all and in the darkness Find them there we go that's my there's there's there's my my my nerd nerd them coming through the shadow It's the quote that I'm looking for is I I if he talks about how About how they're fighting against Powers that they can't understand I'm gonna find it. I'm gonna get it. It's good Why you're doing that I'm I mean that's That's, I'm gonna fight, it's such a good quote that I have to find it, even if we have to stop it. - No, no, do your thing, I'm just gonna say some things are allowed so I don't forget them. What do you really do in a world where most of the wars are so determined by the size of the populations? Well, you have to do what Andrew is doing. You have to figure out a way to fight them autonomously. - Well, I mean, an important point that I often make to people is we have this time advantage on China where we were prosperous before they were. It's only an advantage in time. It's hard to imagine, even talk to the most anti-Chinese, most racist guy you can think of, Chuck. But let go find him and ask him, do you think, and he'll say, well, America's better person than any Chinaman. And so that's why we're gonna beat them in the long run. And what I would argue with them is it doesn't matter how convinced you are of American exceptionalism and superiority. How can a country of 500 million people in the long run out-compete economically and militarily, militarily, a country of two or three billion people? You'd have to believe that each American is six times as productive or useful as each Chinese national. That doesn't seem likely. I don't even the most anti-Chinese person is not going to say that they're that different from us. 'Cause they, because they aren't. I talked to Jim Farley the other day, over at Ford, who would just come back from China. And it's just they're kind of stunned. The factories, these dark factories. Oh yeah, you don't even have people. You don't even have people. I found the quote, here we go. By the way, I brought this up recently on Twitter in September because there's a lot of people who they looked at Tolkien and they say, oh, I can't believe Palmer named his company after something from the Lord of the Rings. He doesn't understand the novels. They don't understand that Tolkien hated war blah blah blah. So do I, that's the whole point. Tolkien was not someone who, he was not someone who was pro-war by any means, the things he saw in World War I, that made that very clear. But he did believe in good and evil and he did believe in wars that needed to be fought. And he made very clear that those are the wars you need to focus on fighting. So here's the quote, this is from CS Lewis. When someone asked him about this, they're like, how could, well, he didn't support war. And he said, almost the central theme of the book is the contrast between the hobbits or the shire and the appalling destiny to which some of them are called. The terrifying discovery that the humdrum happiness of the shire, which they had taken for granted as something normal, is in reality a sort of local and temporary accident that its existence depends on being protected by powers which the hobbits forget against powers which the hobbits dare not imagine. And I think that describes a lot of Americans and a lot of American allies. They're being protected against powers that they forget against forces they dare not imagine. And they forget that it is a local and temporary situation. - And you look at the map of Middle Earth and you see where the shire is. - That's right, it's far behind lines. You have the men of Goddorf basically holding the line, fighting every day. And one of the interesting themes also that I think that Tolkien understood, he didn't, by the way, Tolkien hated allegory. I don't know if you know this. It's very difficult to say this is an allegory for this. It's more some of the themes around universally what is good and what is evil. You can tease out his world of interest. - Because we take the times we live in and immediately juxtapose it to whatever the story is. - And it's not quite so simple. - Right, it's like they're not really Nazis. - But one of the interesting things that he does call out is how you had this human nature for the people who live far away from Mordor to basically not believe any of these things. They literally don't believe in this invasion. They don't believe that these monsters exist. Contrast that with the men who are living literally on the front lines of this conflict. They are the last line of defense for the entire kingdom of man and everyone who lives behind them. They don't have the luxury of wondering if these things are real. They don't have the luxury of thinking that maybe evil doesn't exist. They're confronting it every day. And I think there's very similar analog to our modern military. You'll talk to people who say, oh well, I don't think that anyone's truly evil. And I think that nobody deserves to die, nobody deserves to die as a result of their actions. We need to bring these people at worst. We need to try them and bring them to justice. There are a lot of people who have been on the front lines of conflicts who could never think of one of the luxury of that. Someone who's been who's looked evil in the eye, can't pretend, well, I think it doesn't exist. And really, we shouldn't be killing anybody. There's nobody who deserves to die. It is a luxury belief. You get to believe it because somebody else doesn't have to. You get to be an isolationist. That's right, because you're isolated. That's right, that's right. There's no isolationism in, you know, Habsburg or the World War I Europe, right? You're like, hey, you're sharing a border with everybody. That's right. You're out all of the time. Well, I think too, in World War II, we got a really good, you know, not to use the vaccine analogy, but I kind of have to. We got a good bit of immunity to these problems in that every family had someone who fought. I mean, almost with that exception, the draft was so extensive and the number of volunteers was so broad. There was a home front. Exactly. And so people understood that we were fighting for something that mattered, that we were fighting for. Allies who mattered, that we were fighting a just war against a real foe. And I think that as those people have died off, we now live in a country where less, I think it's something like, I don't want to get this wrong, but I think it's less than a third of families in the US have a family member who is in the military. And you wonder what does that do to the character of a nation? It becomes much easier for a whole family of people to become, you know, anti-military, not anti-war. There's a difference between these things to become anti-military in their pursuit of being anti-war. And it's because they don't know anybody who's actually been part of it. They don't know anyone who's been part of that, at least not directly. Maybe they did in their past, but they forget. There's a lot of kids today who can't remember 9/11. Do you really think that they are going to be remembering the lessons of World War II or World War I? Unfortunately not. I'm looking at the results of a recent election in New York City. And I'm looking at the primary demographic that got this guy elected. Well, the question people said is how could New York City elect someone like that? And the best response I said, they said, how could the New York City that saw 9/11 elect someone like this? I said, it's not the same New York City. It's a different New York City. And I think that it's the same. This is why it's such an incredible quote where it costs, you know, a sort of local and temporary accident really describes the relative piece we've had since the end of World War II till now. It is a local and temporary accident that comes as a result of Paxamericana, this post-World War II era. Well, riddle me this. How do you square? I've heard you say in various interviews that you'd much rather have our wars and battles being fought with the kind of hardware that you're creating better to have the gear over there than our blood and treasure. That's right. But you've also made the point. And I certainly agree with it that if the country itself becomes disconnected from its military, either consciously or unconsciously, then we're not in the fight in the same way. And the more disconnected we get from the fight, the more likely it is the fight will come to pass. And that's right. The goal is to avoid the fight in the same way that our goal with cars is not to crash or get TMI's playing football. These would be all the unintended consequences and language that we've talked about. How are we to think about the positives of all the tech that's allowing us to fight without being there? So I think that these things go hand in hand. I've often said-- I'm beating a dead horse on this. I've been saying it for like eight years. But I've been saying the US needs to stop being the world police and start being the world's gun store. In other words, we shouldn't be sending our own people to die for other country's interests. We should be giving them the tools that they need to maintain their existence as a nation that the US wants to be allied with. The monology I prefer is to turn them into porcupines. You give them tons of surface tear and missile defense systems, tons of local defense systems and offensive weapons that make it where you just don't want to put this guy in between your teeth. Because even if you could win, it's going to be so painful you're not going to want to. What you're talking about, the perils of becoming more and more likely to become involved in these wars as the people are pulled out. I think that's one of the reasons it's so important to stop being the world's police and instead leave that decision as to whether to fight up to the people who are dealing with the consequences. So like somebody in, uh, somebody in Ukraine. for example, they're not thinking about whether or not they'll fight on the basis of whether or not it's a robotic system or not, whether they're on the front line of the back line. For them, it's much more fundamental. It's actually a little bit like the pilot analogy earlier looking at his family. They're fighting so that their country exists. - They're in it, man. - They are. - They are in it. I think that that's actually a very healthy motivation to fight. If you are fighting for the existence of your country and your family and your business and your culture, that's the person who should be deciding whether or not this is a life or death fight. It shouldn't be another country on the other side of the world fighting that for you. And then also how does that country know when to stop fighting too, right? I think this is what we saw in the Middle East. We fought these wars in the Middle East long after the people we were supposedly helping wanted to be fighting them. And that's of course why the Taliban was able to come immediately back into power in Afghanistan, like within weeks of the US pulling out. It's because the Afghani military that we were propping up what were they fighting for, right? They, nothing, they were, I'm not saying nothing, nothing at all, obviously. It sucks that all of these all-girls-- - We can't shut down. - We can't want your sovereign team more than you do. - Exactly. And we shouldn't be making that decision. And so I think these things go together. If you give people the tools that they need, I think that they are gonna be motivated not by the fact that they have robotic weapons to fight or not fight. It's gonna be about the existence of their countries. I think countries shouldn't generally not be making decisions about the prolonged existence or fighting decisions of another nation that is not there. I'm like, the US shouldn't be deciding if Ukraine continues their war or not. And the US shouldn't be deciding if Taiwan is gonna defend itself or not. That has to be their decision. - Sure. - And I wanna give them the tools that they can use to make that decision. - I wanna talk about, and I forgive me. I don't wanna pull you out of your way. - Sorry, one more thing, real fast. I believe this partly is a moral thing, but I can make a very practical argument that I've had with the kind of real, politic GOP side of things in particular where they say, "Oh, you know, we'll Palmer, "sometimes we do need to go abroad." And sometimes we do have interests that we have. And my point to them is, we don't have the political capital to do that as a nation anymore. The America is done with it. We burned all of that credibility that we built up into World War II. We burned most of it during Vietnam. And we burned up the rest of it in the Middle East fighting this war on terror. And you will not convince Americans to go fight another war, even if it is just. - This is not a judgment on whether we should. I would argue, I don't think that America could work itself up enough to go fight the Nazis again. I think that if it came to us, they said, "We're gonna have to lose a few million people "and we're gonna have to mobilize our economy. "I think we literally don't have it in us." And whether it's spiritually or morally or politically, whatever you wanna call it, we will not be able to muster the political will or capital to make that happen. And so this is kind of the remaining solution whether you want it to be or not. - Well, that worries me. - Oh, it's me too, it's worrisome. - I want America to be in a world where if there is a just reason to rise to the occasion that we're able to, but I just don't think that we have it in us. I don't think the kids coming out of modern schools are ready to go. I don't think that the kids who are, look at the kids who are on the beaches in Normandy on D-Day. Do you think that we have a few million of those? - I do not. - That's the problem. - I do not, stipulate. Two things, I think all that was true in 2019. I think it's doubly true now because along with the death of the things that you mentioned, our trust has also died in the very institutions that we used to immediately defer to. And so building that back is way outside my pay grade. It has to happen, but I suspect it won't happen until things go splat first. - Sometimes, well, it's a Churchill, right? When you're marching through hell, keep going. You've got to get through it. - Historically speaking, you're right. It's very rare that when, it's very rare that something with a lot of inertia stops without a sudden impact. - Well, that's just, because it takes, it's very Newtonian of you. - That's right. - No, but here's the thing that I think, politics is very Newtonian. - And linguistic and so forth. The thing I think we can control, but I'm not quite sure how. And I really want to get into it with you. I know we've been talking one hour, 20 minutes or something, but you're still late. I mean, the helicopter's not leaving without you. - No, I'm totally fine. - Okay, and I know you've got like national affairs to attend to. But why were you at that energy summit? How important is our energy policy in enabling you to make the tools that we need to prevail in this coming population collapse. - This is a world. And skilled labor. We have to reinvigorate the trades somehow. That's why I was at that conference. And you made some remarks with Alex that makes me think that we might be singing out of the same hymn book in this regard. - 100%. So these are two other things that go hand in hand. So if you want to have skilled jobs in manufacturing, making goods, processing minerals, I mean, all you can pick almost anything. It has to be competitive. And I look, this is another one of those things where we live in a globalized world. And so in a world where the US only buys stuff that's made in the US and we're not competing against anyone overseas and we don't need to export overseas, you could maybe choose a different strategy. But let's say it's a given, right? We live in a globalized world. Other countries get to sell to us and we are selling to them. If that is the case, you have to have low energy cost because it goes into everything. It drives the cost of everything. If your energy costs are too high, there won't be any jobs for skilled labor because the products that would come out of that energy cost will be too expensive to compete against foreign options here in the US. And they'll be too expensive to export to other countries. They're just gonna choose other people. And so if you want there to be skilled jobs and if you want there to be jobs for people to, there has to be an economic impetus for that. And that only happens if we're competitive on energy, ideally much cheaper than interesting about energy. This you can be competitive, which means like, let's say you can be competitive with Asia and Europe. And if, but it's also a bit of an easy button to be hyper competitive. If I can drop my energy cost down to near zero and other countries can't do it, now they're the ones that are screwed. Now they're the ones that are saying, oh my God, how do I compete with American automobiles? Their cost of energy is so low that they're able to extract metals easier, process metals easier, weld metals easier, run their factories so much more easily. And then as a result, there's all of this demand for skilled labor. They have this economy built around all these people do this. How can we compete with them when our energy costs are five times as high? And I think that America is one of the few countries that is actually well positioned to turn that knob to zero. This was the dream of the early age of atomic power. It was power that was too cheap to meter. It was so cheap to make electricity. It wasn't even worth keeping track of how it was being used. And I think that that dream maybe is not gonna be viable on like an industrial scale. Like, you know, an aluminum-spelting plant draws a lot of power. You it's definitely worth, it's definitely worth running it through a meter. But I think that we actually will get to the point where things like residential power consumption are gonna be such a rounding error that it literally isn't even worth billing people. I just walked through a data center for the first time. - Yep. - Big tour, Plano. - Our buddies over at Aligned, right? - Man, I talk about metering a thing. I like the amount of energy that it's gonna take to run those things. - And we need to make that energy. And the thing is like, it's gonna take everything. Like we're gonna need oil, we're gonna need gas, we're gonna need a nuclear. I'm a huge nuclear fan. I think we, by the way, US has great reserves of uranium. This is another thing we have that other countries don't. We were blessed with incredible farmland and an incredible river transportation system. And isn't it just incredible as we move into the atomic age? Turns out we also have more of the stuff you need for the atomic age than anybody else. - Yep. - What a stroke of luck that we've just kind of thrown away. And in California, we're shutting down our nuclear plants just like Germany is shutting down their nuclear plants. We need more and more and more energy. It's just been really discarded for largely political reasons. And you know, there was a great bit that AOC did when the Green New Deal was going through. And originally, it didn't include any subsidies for nuclear power. And somebody asked her, "Hey, why are there no subsidies for nuclear power?" Isn't that lowering about lowering carbon emissions? And she said, "The Green New Deal isn't about lowering carbon emissions. It's about fundamentally restructuring the power of energy generation away from private corporations into the hands of the government." And I was like, "Oh my God." - You just said the quiet part out loud. - She said the quiet part out loud. - And actually, I used the pilot who just leveled with the crew. - I actually maxed out to AOC. I wrote a, I guess it was like a $5,400 checkter campaign. They ended up returning it. But my thought was, you know what? I want more people who are honest about what they're doing in politics. I'd rather have someone who's honest about it. [BLANK_AUDIO] Then somebody who's you know talking out both sides of their mouth and concealing their true their true intentions Also, she's from the Bronx and nobody from my favorite political parties likely to win the Bronx So it's kind of a it's kind of a free a free-duty. Well, I mean six years ago. She told me and the rest of the world that We had 12 years and then you know life, you know Yes, that's the other year and Bill Gates just what four days ago. Did you read that? I did well Lee crap Well, he's I mean he's he's he's admitting that things will generally be fine I mean, you know What Bill was saying is we should focus on mitigating you know the changes that will occur Humanity will still do better. It is going to prosper and we need to make a lot more energy But I you know one of the things I talked about at the conference. I think was This whole concept of climate change is Predicated on the fact that Nobody wants it to change, but that's not really true This is actually I think one of maybe the great conspiracies of the modern time the reality is The global South has basically no political power globally Mm-hmm, and they are the people who will be most negatively impacted by Temperature going up a few degrees. I'm not saying it's gonna be like a catastrophe that destroys the world I'm just saying if you count the impacts positive and negative sure they probably come out negative However, for a huge chunk of the world the temperature going up by a degree or two is actually really good for their economy Massive for their economic stability look at all the land that China is gonna unlock for agriculture Look at all of the northern European nations that are gonna have somewhat more agricultural independence Russia don't even have to get into it. It's just obvious Siberia Exactly and so this in the spring and so the my theory here has been like as I've looked at the things that you can do to control climate It's not actually that hard if you want the Earth to get warmer That's not hard if you want the Earth to get colder. That's also not hard It's the type of thing one country with a geoengineering program could just do it unilaterally on their own Now what would happen is they would probably be stopped by other countries, but technologically the US could do it Japan could do it Russia could do it if they want to make the Earth's temperature go up 10 degrees They can if they want it to go down 10 go down 10 degrees They could and so my my my working my working hypothesis here is the real reason nobody's doing anything to So-called stop climate change is because a lot of people realize actually We don't really have an interest in stopping it until it gets to a certain point and then all of a sudden We're going to care all of a sudden we're going to do all these things and I wish we could be honest about this I wish so we say you know what? We're just gonna pick a temperature that we think we want to be at and we're not gonna We're not gonna try to stop change. We're going to actively Engineer the planet to be whatever we think the thing is that we'll lead to the you know the least loss of life the most economic Productivity the most reliable agriculture you can you can pick what your values are everyone different people have different values I'm saying and do you really think we can control the temperature of the planet to that degree? I am absolutely confident. This is something where I've I differ from the Republican party There's the Dems have basically been saying Climate change is coming or global warming is coming and it's gonna destroy the world The Republicans was saying oh it's not really gonna be that bad no matter how bad it gets and we're not causing it anyway I said all that aside and say no We should actively be changing the climate to be exactly what we want it to be and it and it's crazy to say we can't Change the climate because we very very easily can there's men and this isn't like this isn't like a crazy conspiracy There's maybe a half dozen very real Technologies that could allow us to instantly modulate the temperature of the planet like one of my favorites is called cloud brightening So more sun reflects off of white clouds than dark stuff underneath right like if you have a cloud over the ocean a lot of sun hits that cloud Bounces back into space never makes it to the ocean It's really really easy to just take salt water Shoot it up out of big giant pumps up into the air and have it make big giant clouds that attract moisture around the little tiny salt crystals And you just make big giant clouds in the middle of the ocean It would take a handful of nuclear powered ships to raise sorry to lower the earth's temperature by two or three degrees using cloud brightening You think you could just go out in the middle of the Pacific Make a big giant patch of clouds that's there all the time and you would do it. Oh did you follow the you follow the cargo the cargo shipping cloud effect? Yes, so this is another example the tiny amount of sulfur allowed for nucleation sites to occur then caused artificial clouds We've basically been running this experiment for about 30 years Is this a chemtrail thing is it related adjacent something? It's a little bit chemtrails are usually Similar in technology in technology to the theory, but you know, I don't think anyone thinks chemtrails are for you know climate change They mostly think they're for you're drugging people or or changing their minds or or vaccinating them or something like that I think that the vast and overwhelming majority of chemtrails that people have identified are just normal atmospheric effects and Aviation related effects. You know, it's it's condensation Wakes and in in engine trails. There are a extremely small Vanishingly small handful of situations where there clearly have been things that have been dispensed I think most of those end up being things like antibacterial agents or pest control agents. I've also seen one where there's like it was an egg They were like oh my god. They're spraying they're spraying this town and what it ended up being was it was a plane that was going to crash It was a crop sprayer and it needed to dump its it needed to dump its Stuff before it crashed because you know, so it's so heavy that you don't want to you know crash a plane like that so but like we're talking That's like 0.01 percent of the cases. So I have to admit. I'm not a chemtrails guy. I think as as a guy who does a lot of flying around in planes Everything that someone sent to me that was a chemtrail like no man. That's that's just how our planes work That's that's just what they do. What kind of security clearance do you have? I? think I I am not supposed to get into the details in a public forum like this, but I I have a security clearance and and I'm and it's and it's appropriate for the level of information access that I have I could say I do I have a secure. I do have a security clearance. I mean you have how how big is your company? We're about 4,000 people Kind of like full-time truly internal people actually maybe closing on 5,000 and then if you count contractors People who are people who are like People who are working with us part-time people you know if you count everything it's it's over 6,000 people Where will you be in the in the in the Pathion of Raytheon's Well, I mean there they're a lot bigger than us, but this gets back to what I talked about earlier which is that you know but uh You know money is a proxy for productivity and so is people you know how you it's possible for a company to have 10 times as many people And still be slower than the first company sure so I I think we're we're we're definitely a lot smaller than the big guys I mean each they have tens of thousands or like like low hundreds of thousands of people if you count all the contractors working for them But the but the potential for you guys to scale the potential for us to scale is is there because I don't need that many people to do what I do a lot of what I do for example in the manufacturing side a lot of it is automated And it's not that it's it's not that we don't have any people already manufacturing with thousands of people doing it It's just we're augmenting them with technology so that each of them can fight with the strength of a hundred men Or in our case build wiring harnesses with the strength of a thousand men or you know build composites or sensors or or or or rocket motors But uh that that that's going to be the key I guys what I would say is I don't measure the progress of my company that much in terms of the people Uh, it's it's in our output like what are we making are we successfully making AI fighter jets robot submarines rockets and munitions and missiles and you know self-aiming rifles and force fields like if if we're making that stuff I'm okay if my company isn't growing is if those people are becoming more and more and more capable You know the Bill Gates thing I just as we start to land this the energy thing metaphorical plane yeah like We started with forbidden facts And we started with the idea that you know when you understate or overstate a thing It's only a matter of time until the people catch up to your smack. That's right right. So here's Bill Gates You know six seven years after Alexandria at all Told us we had 12 years He comes out and he says no. I don't think that's true. I still think it's an issue But and three thousand words later. He's basically walking a lot of stuff back right and so all of that kind of happened Because people who genuinely cared About the future of the climate and yeah planet overstated it right They abused the language they didn't certainly understated the benefits to this is what Alex makes a point yes, they don't they don't talk about You know the millions of people in India who will die if fuel becomes more expensive because they already don't have enough to heat their homes You know he doesn't they there's a three billion people burning yeah Dung and would people like to yeah, and they don't talk about like the deaths caused by all the particulates when they burn that dung Because they can't afford fossil fuels. They said so yeah, it's it's simultaneously overstating the negative impact And then understanding or even ignoring the positive impact when really these things need to be Taken as a balance and I think the reason people haven't done that Is because it means taking responsibility Hmm imagine that I'm a imagine I'm like a you know, I'm a euro euro politician What's an easier position for me to take I'm a you know, I'm a I'm a I'm a politician. Maybe maybe I'm the prime minister of some small European country that isn't relevant anymore. - Goch, the Netherlands. - I can't pick a particular one because I like some of those guys, small or not. But suppose, what's an easier position for me to take? To say climate change is a huge problem. It's not our problem, it's being caused by the United States and by China and by Russia, but it's a big problem. And it's kind of this act of God that we just have to try our best to stop. Who knows if we can stop it or not? Well, we're gonna do our best to be good moral people and fight the good fight. Or imagine a position where he says, I believe the global climate should be exactly this. The average should be, you know, the average should be 65 degrees Fahrenheit right along the meridian at exactly this point. And that should be our climate target because that is what I believe will harm the right number of people and hurt the right number of people and people, the thing is, if you said this, think about what happens next. It's the back of the ticket. It's the truth and the fine print. And they say, but wait, if we do that, those guys who live on the equator in Africa are gonna be destroyed agriculturally. And what's easier to say? To say, I hope those people make it. Or to say, I am willing to trade the prosperity of that African nation for our agricultural security and doubling the number of crop yields that we get from our marshy fields. And to do that takes response, you have to own it and take responsibility. And so I think the real reason that people have been talking about climate change is this, you know, huge problem where everyone's causing it and all we can do is fight it together is because nobody has to take responsibility for the winners and the losers. And I wish we would just be honest and say, you know what, we're gonna pick a temperature. That's what it's gonna be. There's gonna be winners, there's gonna be losers. We can fight it out in the UN. You know, that African nation can come and make their case. Maybe we pay them off and we say, hey, you know what, you are gonna get turbo screwed here. We'll give you some of the surplus profits of what we're doing here and you can use it to subsise your economy. I don't know the answer, I'm not a politician. But what I do know is that pretending that we can't control the climate in both directions is only possible if you ignore the wealth of risks. I have to say one more thing about forbidden truths. Did you know that geoengineering is prohibited research at many universities. You're not even allowed to research it and you can't get any funds to do it, you won't get any approval. And they say because it's irresponsible. - It's playing what it is exactly. - So geoengineering, you know, you're filled with terraforming. Let's go to other planets like you're in the, it's just the same thing but on earth. Let's make earth more habitable. Because by the way, if you were coming to earth from space today and there were no people on the planet, the climate of earth today is not what you would probably choose for optimum human habitation. So if you were to look at it and say, what just, what should it be? What's the optimal? Where we are is probably not it. It's just where we happen to be right now. And humans have been, we've seen a lot. We've been through ice ages and we came out okay. But the, oh, what was the point that I was, that I was making? - Forbidden fact. - Oh, that's right. So a lot of these universities, what they've done is they've said you cannot research geoengineering and they're saying, well, because geoengineering's dangerous, like what if we use geoengineering and then because it's able to keep the climate perfectly stable, we start using too many fossil fuels and we cause ocean acidification. So let's say temperature is constant, but there's more carbon dioxide in the air and so the ocean's, we're asking, now I agree that's a problem. I care a lot about marine life. I've spent a bunch of money conserving marine life and researching marine life. But the way to do that is not to prohibit people from learning about the problem and examining it. But you know, the real reason they don't want to do it is because it's a forbidden fact and politically, they don't want it to even enter the equation that perhaps climate change isn't about cutting back on consumption. Perhaps there are other levers we can pull. It's as AOC said, it's not really about changing the climate. It's about moving the levers of power out of the hands of private industry and back into the hands of the people, which of course means the bureaucrats. Sorry, Charlie, I can't let him go. That's too good. How about this one? Fracking. Yep. Right? I mean, this is the ultimate F word in the energy game. That's right. My friend Harold Hamm, more or less pioneered it. In the old days, if this were an oil field, there'd be 50 wells. That's right. And I'll be right. Today there's one. It goes down a couple miles and it goes out. And I don't know. I believe fracking was the proximate cause, horizontal drilling, the proximate cause of energy independence in this country. And we still-- that was such a failure of communication. And there's still so much misinformation around the reality of what that is. I'm thinking now about, since you mentioned the oceans, polymetallic nodules. I have. Oh my deep sea mining. God. I mean, look, we just got to go get them. We've got to get them. We got to go get them. What is it? It's a 16 to $20 trillion industry. And there's a few months from now. It's going to be headline. We're going to have the same giant conversation about the ethical moral dilemma of going down 5,000 meters and scooping up these rocks. That's right. Meanwhile, there's the rainforest. Well, what's left of it? That's right. Well, actually, here's another thing that's there. So we're going to be doing all of this. We're going to be doing all of this debating whether or not we should do in this mining. Meanwhile, Europe and America are going to keep paying for Russian minerals that are only in Russia that we could be getting off of their supply. Same thing with oil and gas. I mean, Germany's given tens of billions of dollars to Russia. They've given them more oil and gas money than they've given Ukraine's arm support. And so these things have a real trade. When you say, we're not going to drill from oil and gas. What you're really saying is, we're going to fund Russia's war in Ukraine by giving them money for their oil instead. That's actually the real trade that's going on. But it's kind of out of sight, out of mind. That's another country. I need your opinion, or maybe even your advice if you want to give it. I've been at this 17 years now, trying to reinvigorate the trades. That's right. And we've had a huge amount of progress. In fact, this year we had 10 times the number of applications as we did the year before. Wow, that's extraordinary. I'm not doing anything different. Something's tipped. Yep, right. Now, I look at the maritime industry. They need 250,000 welders and electricians for submarines. There's going to be another 100,000 for the deep sea mining. Automotive, energy, AI, so forth. Like the stakes are really real. And I'm a little freaked out. Because after that conference where I met you, I went to a few others. Yep. And the people who are helping us with this national campaign are not the people that I thought would call. It's Wells Fargo. It's Larry Fink of all people. BlackRock. It's Fisher Investments. He's big. And the whole ESG network. It's crazy. But I think what they've done is they've looked into their own portfolios. Yes. And they've seen a lot of companies who aren't just crapin' up their backs, man. They're scared. Yep. They don't know where these people are coming from. So the question is, I believe we need a national campaign. Certainly a series of statewide campaigns. I think I can get the money necessary from some unlikely places. But it's still-- this is the Manhattan Project in my world. Yep. Who do I talk to? How do I get the attention of the people who are truly at the grown-up table, who I know want to help? But are having a hard time looking at the difference between a big persuasive campaign versus another scholarship program? Sure. Where do you think that communication needs to be? That's interesting. Best delivered. Well, you're catching me unaware. So I haven't given a good thought. So you're just going to get-- you're going to get just an initial first thought. So the part of the problem, like what you're talking about, a persuasion campaign versus, let's say, just another scholarship is actually probably a better use and more productive use of money. And you don't have to pay for someone's education so much as convinced them, hey, the US is back. This stuff is real. The vibe shift is underway. The stock market goes up when the president says that he's going to hit 6% GDP growth. Partly because people just psychically decide, well, if he's saying that and they're going to make policy that makes that happen, that means things are going to go well. People also choose careers on this. High schoolers decide what their degree is going to be in this. People, gold rushes are real. And you can create them by saying that they're going to happen. There's gold and then narwholes. Exactly. And so a persuasion campaign of what you're talking about probably makes a lot of sense. It's probably effective. However, my initial read is you're stepping into a poisoned environment. You're stepping into a world where one of the big problems that this government has been trying to solve is that there's been tons of money going out to these kind of softer, harder to measure things. And it's to help convince-- it's like cultural-- gender awareness in Uganda. And oh, is it good that we do this? We're helping kids learn to code in Rwanda. And the problem is those campaigns. So many of them were just grafts. Yes. Fraud. And badly executed on top of it. Badly executed. You know, things that were meant to be built didn't get built. Things that were meant to happen didn't happen. And there were a lot of things that we shouldn't have been doing. Like, I'm kind of glad it didn't work because they were ridiculous, propaganda campaigns anyway. So unfortunately, you're stepping into a poison. It's like a poison well problem. You have people who have made these things look like they're bad on its face. And so I can tell you, there's people in government who had a hundred percent agree with what you're saying. And there's others who on their face are like, no, we are not going to use government funds to do these types of hard to measure. These are a scholarship you can measure. Did the gig go to school? Did he get his degree? Did it work or not? Yeah, but I can also measure it. Do we want South Korea to make our ships? Yep. Right now, it's an academic question. We need them to. That's right. We can't do it. We don't have the capacity. We don't. You should talk to, you know, I mean, these are your, you are, I'm asking you this question because-- My current theory there, by the way, is we should maximize our strengths. We do, for example, make some good power trains, electronic sensors. Like, I think we should basically say, hey, let's work together. We're going to build parts of the superstructure. We're going to build power plants. Like, the power plants of these ships. Like, we should be left. The US has a lot of friends around the world. Let's do stuff together. Of course, in the long run, we need to be building our own ships. It's crazy that we're not. Yes. I think coming back to the electrician I ran into in Plano in a data center who had been poached from four other projects in the last year. Yep. He's making 230 grand a year. He's 26 years old. He has zero debt. He learned the skill he has over like a 14-month period. And he's working. And his first kid's on the way. And this is a young guy. His career is only going up from here. Right. Eventually, he's going to-- not even into his real earning years. Take your big brain. On your next helicopter ride, just if you've got a few sit-ups as despair, I have to find a way to make that kid a household name. Yep. Times 100,000. There are a lot of men and women who are prospering in and around your space as a result of mastering a skill. And American manufacturing is really poised in a good way. Because I think-- finally, finally, people have realized there is a cost to outsourcing an exp-- I mean, you've been on this for decades. So it's not new to you. But I think a lot of people are truly just now coming to terms with the cost of exporting all of your critical industry around the world. And what it looks like to be a country that can't make anything itself. That's it. And it's scary. And I think, look, if I had an alarm bell here, I would ring it. And I was in the room with Howard Lutnik and Alex Carp and 36 other CEOs. And the president of the United States in Pittsburgh, when they announced $92 billion earmarked and allocated for data centers in Pennsylvania alone. And there I am. Just Debbie Downer going, hey, man, you're talking about creating 2 million jobs in manufacturing. And they're 482,000 open jobs right now. We have to fill. What are we going to do? Where are they going to come from? Right. Now, you've talked about population collapse. You've talked about all these other things. And man, it's all real. Well, it's all time together. I mean, I'm a big pro natalist, too. I think everyone needs to have a lot more kids. Congratulations. So on yours, you got-- Thank you. I've got one so far. But I haven't even hit replacement rates. So I'm-- Keep reversing. I know. If I don't hit replacement rate, then I'm a real hypocrite. But yeah, like I said earlier, the US can't compete with countries that have billions of people if we're only hundreds of millions of people. And so we've got to keep up the pace. Dude, I just-- I can't wait to see what happens next. You're very interesting, as you know. But the whole Shire, Hobbit, Ring of Doom, juxtaposition, industrial military complex, the complexity is of our language and our airline pilots and AOC and the ability. We've covered a lot of good stuff. We made good time across a lot of ground. I'll put this conversation against most. That was fun, man. Really, really fun. I appreciate it. That was really fun. Well, thank you. It's fun, too, because usually people just-- they want to talk-- most people, they want to talk about fighter jets. That's it. It's fun to be able to talk about these bigger picture questions. I can't bear to ask you questions. Then I know you've been asked 1,000 times. This was a-- so I've done two events recently where-- instead of sending me, I sent a robot. And I tell Operated it using a VR headset. And I've been getting away with it so far. Eventually, the novelty is going to wear off. And people are going to want me to start showing up in person again. But man, what a time saver when you can pull it off. And thank how much I'm saving in terms of carbon emissions by not flying. Just clone yourself, man. How hard can it be? Look at that. So where is this creature? Where did you send it? So there were two events that I've done. There was the reindustrialized conference. And then this was actually here, actually, at the Newport Beach Country Club for a recent send-in event. This is home for you, right? Yeah, this is home for me. I live in Newport Beach. If Alex does that thing again, are you going to swing by? Oh, yeah, for sure. He's going to do it. There's-- oh, good. Well, there's a lot of good people there. And I mean, we just-- there are so many things that the United States needs to do on the energy front if we're going to be competitive globally. And we have all the pieces. And the good news is it looks like this administration is going to allow nuclear power to really come roaring back. Like that one piece alone is maybe half the puzzle. But do you imagine, like, small reactors? I do. I do. So I think that particularly for things like factories, data centers, it doesn't make sense to have a grid that makes energy in one place and then ships it across the city to the building that uses it. They should just have on-premises power generation. Like, they should have small nuclear plants. And that way, they're also not degrading everyone else's grid. Like, right now, if you pull from the grid, you're pulling all that power. That's power that you now have to overbuild the grid to handle things that it was meant to. Like, people's TVs or running their air conditioning. And then you add in this massive, constant base power load that they were never designed or intended to take. In general, I think the grid, the other problem is the grid has also become a political vector. So like in California, most of our energy cost is not the cost of making the energy. It's all of the political pulls that have been placed on top of an inform of taxes. So California has like what is it? It's like $0.32 a kilowatt hour. The national average is like $0.8 a kilowatt hour. There's some places that are approaching two or three cents per kilowatt hour. If they've got nearby sources-- Not so different at the gas pump, right? So like, the whole point of a grid is that it's supposed to be cheaper to make power-- cheaper and more reliable-- to make more power to central site and then distribute it to all of the end users. So why is it that I can run a gas generator at my house at a scale of just my house? And it's cheaper than buying it from the grid. So this is another reason I'm a big fan of factories and data centers building their own power on board and for people being OK with that. It means you can't have somebody temporarily get into power and say, all right, I'm going to basically put all of you under my thumb because it's not just the cost. It's also the threat. You can say, oh, I just want to tax energy more equitably. But what you're really doing is saying, local data center. If you don't do what I want politically, and if you support my candidate, I'm going to make your costs go through the roof. You're no longer competitive with the data centers in the next state. And so your whole company is going to go bankrupt because you can't compete with them on AI cost-pertokened prices. That's a lot of power to give to a politician. So I think energy generation needs to become just like a lathe, just like a screwdriver. It's just another tool. You have it, your factory that you use to get the job done. From your mouth to God's ears, man. What a pleasure. Thank you again. I know you got to run, but if I don't talk to you first, I'll see you at the energy summit. You bet. Palmer lucky. Much obliged. Oh, so far. Hey, finally, are you in a world now where people go to a thing to get a book or watch a doc or something that you've done? I didn't even think to ask you. Do you want to hack anything? I love it. Is like any shameless pluggory? If you want to-- if you like video games, check out modretro.com. This is my side project I've been running since I was 15 years old. And we are doing things like making modern heirloom grade tributes to the most important game consoles of all time. For example, we have a clone of the Nintendo Game Boy called the Mod Retro Chromatic. It plays Game Boy and Game Boy color games. It has in a magnesium aluminum alloy shell. It's the same metal that's used in some of our attack drones at Android. The lens on it is not a piece of plastic over the screen. It's a lab-grown sheet of sapphire crystal. It's the largest piece of sapphire crystal on any product anywhere in the world. And we're about to launch a new product, the M64, the Mod Retro 64, which plays Nintendo 64 games. We've got some other stuff coming. Anyway, it's $199. I lose money. So I've used my money to deeply subsidize it because I really like this type of stuff. And we've been releasing new Game Boy games, re-releasing old Game Boy games, and even doing new releases of Game Boy games developed in the 90s that never came out. So GameStop just launched a new game in-house. We just relaunched a crock back for its 25th anniversary. We're doing Rayman. We did a thing with Atari. We brought back three of their 90s classics. You can buy those in a set. And if you scroll down a little bit, you can see we have the chromatic available in a whole bunch of different colors. So if I'm going to get a shameless plug, this is my shameless plug. There's no economic reason for something like this to ever exist. But I really wanted it to happen. And in fact, it even has a custom screen. This is the lowest resolution screen you'll find in the world right now. It's 160 by 144 pixels. So it's about 80 times less pixels than your iPhone display. 80 times less. What a delightfully shitty product, man. That's how you make it authentic. Yeah, we didn't want to be scaling on a modern screen. We did to recreate that old screen. And so, yeah, that's, I wasn't even expected. But yeah, that's my shameless plug. Go check out modretro.com. Check out what we're doing there. It makes a great gift for dads. It makes a great gift for husbands. It makes a great gift for boyfriends. Women like it too, but mostly, but mostly, this is maybe one of those hidden truths. I'll tell you, it's like 90% men that are buying this stuff. Yeah. Well, I'll tell you another hidden truth. You're some kind of geek, Palmer Lucky. I appreciate you. Come and play Dungeons & Dragons with me and my crew sometime, where we play every week, D&D Night is tomorrow. So I'm a, I'm a, I'm a wizard named Nilrim V from, from Atlantis, trying to figure out what happened to my country. Anyway, that's it. This is, this is the guy with his finger on the button, creating the next generation of weapons to protect truth, justice in the American way. On behalf of 330 million of our compatriots, it's much obliged. Thank you. Wayne Yeliva, if you only five stars will do not just one or just two or just three, we were hoping for more. As in a one more than a four, please war. Just a quick review with five stars too, from the you five stars will do.