September 6, 2021 • 49 mins
Can technology end war? Several people thought so at one time or another. We look at five examples of idealists who thought tech would end warfare.
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host
job in Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart
Radio and I love all things tech and it is
time for a tech Stuff classic episode. This episode originally
(00:24):
published back in September of two thousand, fourteen September to
be precise. It is titled five Technologies to End All
Wars that Didn't And I think the title pretty much
sets it all up. Let's dive in. People who are
are real innovators, really uh forward thinkers, for lack of
(00:47):
a better word, often get kind of idealistic and optimistic,
sometimes perhaps unrealistically so. Right, and so we have some
examples here of people who very confidently at the time
proclaimed that the technology either they invented or that they
were an advocate for would be the end of war
(01:09):
for one reason or another. And they fall into different
kinds of categories. So we're gonna talk about all of them. Yeah,
So there are several different ways I guess you could
imagine that war between humans could end. And on one hand,
it's kind of hard to imagine that because it's just
such a fundamental part of human nature and human history,
and obviously it would be a fantastic thing for us
(01:29):
to not violently kill each other in great numbers at
intervals of time. But there are a few ways you
could look at how this might happen. So one would
be to sort of make war too risky, so that
it's just not in your self interest to pursue it, gotcha.
So the idea of being that even if you feel
(01:49):
you have an advanced military that to wage war of
any type would would incurage such losses as to nullify
any positive effect that that war might have, So it
just cannot be of a net advantage to you. The
only way to win is not to play. I guess
another way, though this is kind of harder to imagine
(02:11):
how it would be done, would be to say that
you would make war completely impracticable or physically impossible. So
it's just you somehow create a technology that makes it
so that people cannot actually do it. You want to
shoot somebody, but your gun doesn't work. It's just filled
with crayons. Yeah, that would be a more difficult kind
(02:31):
of technology to imagine, but some people have sort of
gone down that road, and it will blur together with
the category I just mentioned. Um, another way would probably
be to sort of make war irrelevant, like to eliminate
the motivations that would drive people to war. So you
imagine that you might come up with a list of
different reasons people would declare war on one another, and
(02:56):
if you can eliminate all of those reasons for people
wanting to go, hypothetically they won't go. Gotcha. So this
would be kind of the Star Trek future where you
have created a world where where you've eliminated need. Therefore
war is a thing of the past. Yeah, got you.
The other one would be to sort of change us,
(03:17):
to to change our outlook or to change our nature,
or at least give us some kind of perspective that
would make war ridiculous to where we just realize it's
no good and we don't want to do it. And
we've got some some actual examples that fall into these
various categories in more than one well, and they're One
(03:37):
of the funny things is you don't have to go
digging into the annals of crank history to find people
who thought world peace would come about by one of
one of these methods. In fact, you can find really
smart famous, powerful, influential people who thought technology could get
us down one of these roads to world peace. And
(03:57):
I think the first one we should talk about is
a guy who's very Internet famous these days, Nicola Tesla.
Although you did say, you know, you don't have to
look at cranks, Well, oh, you're you're getting on your
anti Tesla. Look, I just electrical Horse. The episode that
just published was a rerun about our episode on Tesla
(04:19):
where I talked about advocating for Tesla and the Tesla
versus Edison debate. Well, I mean, it's it's not that
I'm against Tesla, but it's pretty true that he had
some mental health issues. But at any rate, let's talk
about this idea, this idea of a of an invention
that negates war. Right, Tesla thought that you could build
(04:41):
something that would make war impossible. What was that thing? Well,
it's Tesla's famous death ray, which immediately as soon as
you hear the name, you think, yeah, that that sounds peaceful.
I don't know if he actually called it death ray.
I don't think those were The New York Times called
it a death ray. Yeah, so we've got a quote
from Gla Tesla. This is from an article from nineteen
(05:03):
thirty seven called a Machine to End War, which featured
an extended interview with Nikola Tesla, where he gives the
following quote. We cannot abolish war by outlawing it. We
cannot end it by disarming the strong. War can be
stopped not by making the strong week, but by making
every nation weak or strong, able to defend itself. Hitherto,
(05:26):
all devices that could be used for defense could also
be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the value
of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was
fortunate enough to evolve a new idea and too perfect
means which can be used chiefly for defense. If it
is adopted, it will revolutionize the relations between nations. It
(05:48):
will make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes,
and other means for attack. My invention requires a large plant,
but once it is established, it will be possible to
destroy anything men or machines approaching within a radius of
two hundred miles. It will, so to speak, provide a
wall of power, offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective aggression.
(06:14):
So when he says plant, he of course means power plant.
He does not rout. Yeah, not yet, not an enormous
redwood or something. So this death ray, as as was
referred to in the article, I was never actually fleshed out.
As far as we know. Tesla, first of all, was
famous for not writing a lot of stuff down. He
or at least that's why he claimed. He claimed he
(06:34):
could envision inventions completely fully formed in his head and
even take them apart virtually in his head and examined
them to see how they worked, and then eventually build
the things, and they worked exactly the way they were
supposed to. Uh, that's part of the Tesla story. Whether
or not that's true, I don't know. But at any rate,
(06:55):
we don't have any evidence that Tesla had anything remotely
resembling a ray or what the actual mechanism would have been. Well,
and he says, my apparatus projects particles which may be
relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey
to a small area at a great distance trillions of
times more energy than it's possible with rays of any kind,
(07:18):
which doesn't really sound like it means anything. But at
any rate, Uh, during this time of Tesla's life, he
was in his seventies, and this was when he was
really kind of mentally it appeared he was breaking down.
He had already shown some signs of obsessive compulsive behaviors,
(07:40):
possibly even some paranoid schizophrenia, because it was around this
time also when he claimed that he had received transmissions
from people, either from Venus or Mars, So you know,
it's things were a little rough for Tesla. He was
also in the process of moving from one hotel to
the other because he would get evicted due to incurring
(08:01):
enormous debts. But because he had such a rock star
status as a physicist and uh an electrical engineer, he
would be invited to go live in another hotel until
he had run up the debts there. So he may
very well have just been trying to earn as much
money as he possibly could selling this idea. Uh And
you know, not necessarily. I don't mean that he didn't
(08:23):
think it was real. He may very well believe that
he could in fact produce this device, but he didn't.
So uh. But this definitely falls into the realm of
let's make war impossible to happen by creating something that
would prevent the very act of aggression. From reaching the
intended target. Once another country knows that you have this
(08:44):
capability to stop any incoming attack, there's no reason they
would ever attack you because it wouldn't work, right, of course,
I mean that's the that's the logic behind it, and
the idea actually, Now, whether you're talking about array or
a thing that he does don't want to call array
but is instead projecting particles or whatever it is, this
(09:05):
idea has not necessarily died, the basic idea of creating
a technological infrastructure that would repel automatically all incoming attacks
and make them pointless. How about the Star Wars initiative. Yeah,
the the Strategic Defense initiative in the nineteen eighties often
referred to as the Star Wars program derisively. Yeah, I've
(09:26):
really wanted to do a full episode about this, to
really explain what the concept was, what the motivations were,
because this is this ends up being a very political, uh,
a very political story, not just a technology story. In fact,
it's more political than technological in many ways. The whole
Strategic Defense initiative was fueled by the Cold War between
(09:47):
the United States and the then Soviet Union, and the
idea was that if you have a system in place
that can block any incoming missile attack, then your country
is going to be at an advantage and be safe
from aggression. Uh. This was during an era that we'll
talk about very shortly, the whole idea of mutually assured destruction,
(10:11):
but we'll get to that in a little bit. So
very similar idea. Yeah, there's another idea that's a lot
like this, which is actually in use today, Israel's Iron
Dome system. Have you read about this has been in
the news lately. Yeah, it went into effect in two
thousand and eleven. This is an anti rocket defense system.
So it's meant to intercept rockets that are fired from
(10:34):
outside of Israel into Israel, and it does this by
firing off interceptor missiles. They're called Tamure surface to air missiles.
And you've got a radar system that first to texts
an incoming rocket, and then you have computers running predictive
software that will look at the pathway of the rocket,
(10:55):
predict which way it's going, and then send an interceptor
missile to destroy that rocket before it reaches its intended target.
It's even supposed to only focus on rockets that are
aimed at populated areas, So if a rocket were to
be aimed at an open area where there's not likely
anyone to be harmed, it won't target that rocket. The
(11:17):
reason being that interceptor missiles are expensive. We're talking like
just shy of a hundred thousand dollars a pop. So
also I'm imagining that the system at large must just
be incredibly expensive and complicated, because if it's actually able
to calculate the trajectory of an incoming rocket to figure
out whether it needs to intercept or not, I mean wow.
(11:40):
And there's been some criticism of the system. One is
based on just a skepticism that it's really effective. The
idea being that it's possible that in a display of
its effectiveness when because just recently there was a news
story where the system was able to shoot down fifty
different incoming rockets that were fired simultaneously. Uh, and that
(12:04):
that's really impressive. But there's some critics who suggest it's
kind of in a conspiracy theory way, that it could
just be the is the Israeli government firing off the
interceptor missiles and then having them detonate because you can't
see these rockets with the naked eye. When they're flying
through the air, they're they're too small for you to notice,
and they fly too high for you to notice. So
(12:25):
it's possible that you could detonate interceptor missiles then uh,
and then say, oh, that's a successful interception. I'm not
going to go so far as to say that that
conspiracy theory holds merit. I more inclined to believe that
this is in fact an actual demonstration of it working. Um.
But there are also critics who say it gives any
(12:46):
system that's like this, whether it's the Strategic Defense Initiative
or the Iron Dome initiative, it can create an unhealthy
political environment, meaning that if you have this kind of
technology that you're disposal, you may feel that you are
to some degree invulnerable. It's weird to say to some degree,
(13:06):
but at any rate that you are largely invulnerable to
incoming attack, which some argue means that you have less
of of an incentive to pursue peace. Well. Yeah, if
we want to transition to the next item on our
list here, some people might say that it's very important
that we all feel vulnerable in order to maintain peace. Yeah. Yeah,
(13:27):
this is where we get into the idea of mutually
assured destruction. So this is uh, it doesn't have a
very friendly name, but believe it or not, for the
past century, there have been a lot of people who
thought that this was one of the best technological routes
to world peace. Yeah, And in fact, this is this
is kind of piggybacked onto Tesla's idea, right, the idea
that if you are in possession of enough firepower of
(13:50):
whatever sort, that that's enough to to deter people or
other countries from attacking you. This ends up being repeated
over and over a in up and up through the
Cold War and before the Cold War, the Cold War.
Really yeah, Hiron Maxim, who invented the machine gun, said
this device is going to end all war because it's
so dangerous that no one would dare attack. Yeah, and
(14:13):
that ended up being very much wrong, especially in the
whole story of World War One and World War Two.
Certainly proves that Orville right believe that the airplane would
end war. The airplane would be such an incredibly superior
vehicle that there'd be no reason to ever declare war
for fear of what would rain down upon you. Obviously,
(14:35):
that became a very important tool in war. In fact,
I think there are some people who would look at
those two examples you just cited and say that those
might have been some of the leading causes of World
War One obvious at least the leading tools. Well, I
mean causes in the sense that obviously there was a
lot of international political tension. I mean, does anybody really
(14:55):
know what caused World War One? I think a lot
of confusion, But certainly an opinion that I've heard before
and I don't know enough to dismiss it out of hand,
is to say that a major factor in what led
to World War One was the acquiring of new warmaking
technology and people building up their military stockpiles and basically
looking for a way to test this new stuff out. Well,
(15:17):
that's part of it. I mean, during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, you had all these different countries
in Europe, including Germany, which had just formed as an
actual country. I mean a lot of people forget that
Germany as a unified country didn't really exist until the
mid nineteenth century, Uh, you know it, since it had
previously been part of of various empires. Before we talk
(15:41):
about some more technologies that were supposed to end wars,
but didn't. Let's take a quick break. These different countries
were all trying to make sure they cemented their city,
that they made sure they were safe from other nations,
(16:03):
which meant investing in militaries. For Germany and for the
United Kingdom that was largely naval. They were investing heavily
in their navies. Um. But what it What it also
meant was that you had these these incredibly powerful armies
around Europe that were ready to go at any moment
with no particular opponent. But you also have these incredibly
(16:27):
complex treaties between countries, so when there would be a
precipitating event, it wasn't in at least in hindsight, it
wasn't a huge surprise to see it kind of escalate
into the major conflict. It became that historical onion headline
about World War One. I think it's something like war
(16:47):
declared by All. It's a that's fairly accurate. I mean,
it certainly didn't all happen simultaneously, but it it's again,
in hindsight, you can totally see how it happened. But
at the time I'm sure people just thought it was
it was unimaginable but that that philosophy continued beyond World
War One. Yeah. Well, so it's quite obvious that machine
(17:10):
guns and airplanes have not made war obsolete. But there's
a more questionable proposal, which is that, um, maybe nuclear
weapons have. Yeah. Alright, so you've heard of the the
scientist Edward Teller is born in Hungary and uh immigrated
(17:31):
to the United States. And he had this to say
about scientists in general, which was, the scientist is not
responsible for the laws of nature. It is his job
to find out how these laws operate. Is the scientist's
job to find the ways in which these laws can
serve the human will. However, it is not the scientists
(17:51):
job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed,
whether it should be used, or how it should be used. Now,
the reason he said that was that he worked on
the Manhattan Project, all right. He was one of the
science In fact, he was one of the three scientists
who convinced Albert Einstein that he should tell the president
about the powers of nuclear fission, which then of the
(18:13):
United States. The President United States yes, in order to
precipitate the development of the atomic bomb. And then there
became another discussion within the same group of the Manhattan
Project about the development of what they were calling a superbomb,
a thermonuclear weapon, and tell her was very much on
(18:33):
the side of we should make this thing. This this
is something we should invest in. Uh. And then there
were other scientists like Oppenheimer who said this is a
bad idea, we should not do this thing. And there
was a lot of disagreement, which led to some pretty
controversial stuff down the line. But at any rate, you
had tell her advocating for this. Now, why did he
(18:54):
advocate for this? Well, he grew up in Europe during
a very tumultuous time and developed a distinct dislike for
fascism and communism before leaving to come to America. Yeah,
he saw Europe being torn apart. I mean it was
already uh, it had already gone through World War One
(19:16):
and was entering World War two or was about to
enter World War two by the time he was leaving,
and things just got worse from there. So in his mind,
one of the worst things in the world was the
formation of the Soviet Union. He saw communism as being
probably the greatest danger to the human race, and his
argument was that if we don't pursue this sort of
(19:40):
weapons program, this arms race. The Soviet Union certainly will,
so if we don't do it, we're gonna be left
behind and we'll be vulnerable. The only way to ensure
that we're safe is to also engage in an arms
race to develop these incredibly destructive weapons and thus be
a big a threat where the Soviet Union would never
(20:01):
attack us. I mean, we would surely never attack anyone
else unprovoked. So this is just for us to make
sure that they don't attack us. That was the That
was the general philosophy. So build up your arms to
the point where you would be such a destructive force
that it would be crazy to attack you, which is
again very similar to what we've already talked about. Right,
(20:23):
So now we have gigantic nuclear stockpiles on Earth as
a result of this doctrine. But this is this is
interesting because I feel like, while on one hand, it's
not a very friendly sounding doctrine, some people might still
argue for the wisdom of mad Well it's there. I mean,
there would be a lot of people. I think it
(20:45):
is completely wrong to say that it would make war obsolete.
I mean, there have been tons of war since nuclear
weapons were invented, you know, involving nuclear powers. But it's
some people I think might still say that, well, maybe
the presidence of all these nuclear weapons did prevent all
out war between say the United States and the Soviet Union.
(21:07):
We just have to keep in mind that there have
been tons of proxy wars throughout the years, fought by
these powers sort of through other countries and sure so,
so essentially what you're saying is the existence of thermonuclear
weapons has prevented a thermonuclear war. That without the existence
of these thermonuclear weapons in one or other of the parties,
(21:28):
the possibility of thermonuclear war rises. But because you have
this this balance where you have people, you know, who
realized what the implications of starting such a war would be,
it hasn't happened. Yea. Even if you were to agree
with this this idea, you might not necessarily think it's
good for the world as a whole. It might be
(21:49):
better for the people living in the United States and
the Soviet Union and not so much for their allies. Uh.
But I'm not even saying I agree with this. I
just wanted to say, well, this is one that we
can't put it in the totally ridiculous camp, because I
think there are still people who think that mutually assured
destruction had some kind of effectiveness. Now, this has also
(22:11):
led to the very popular trope of creating a doomsday
device that is so dangerous that that's what protects you
from attack, right right. The idea of a fail deadly
device as depicted in the movie Doctor Strange Love, which
how how would something like a fail deadly device work? Well,
Doctor Strange Love. The way it works is that it's
(22:33):
a device that, once initiated, cannot be canceled, and and
and Dr Strangelove, it's it's the Soviet Union has built
a device that will automatically activate if any sort of
oncoming attack, bombing attack were to target the Soviet Union,
and once it detects such an attack, it then initiates
(22:53):
this device, which is you can't turn it off, and
and it's designed to kill essentially everything. It's automatic. Yeah,
And because you can't turn it off, then the idea
is that's the perfect deterrent, because you just tell everyone, hey,
if you attack us, this thing goes on, it kills everybody,
and we can't stop it. We even if we want to,
we cannot stop this thing. And uh, the the main
(23:17):
character or the title character of the movie, Dr Strangelove,
He's not the main character, but he is the title
character points out that this particular kind of device is
only useful if the world knows about it, if it's secret,
as it is in the movie. But then it turns
out like the Russian Uh, and the Russian ambassador was like, well,
(23:37):
we're going to have a big event next week. Unfortunately
you jumped the gotten type of thing. And uh, supposedly
Doctor Strangelove himself was based off of Teller. Yeah, that's
the that's the rumor. Although whether or not that's true,
I do not know, but it's um, it's certainly interesting
that uh, you know this, this kind of idea has
(24:00):
filtered into the fiction as well as into reality. This
is also what fed into that Star Wars program we
talked about earlier, the idea that, well, if the Soviet
Union also has these major, massive weapons, and we have
these massive weapons, do we really feel comfortable that just
the presence of those weapons is enough to deter a
(24:20):
thermonuclear war? What if we could end up creating a
system that would shoot down enemy weapons so that we
remained safe and that was what really led to this,
that strategic defense initiative, and tell her was a major
opponent for that. He he really wanted to see this enacted. Uh. Ultimately,
that technology did not prove to be very reliable and
(24:43):
it didn't really seem like it would actually do what
it was supposed to do. Um at the time, we
probably could develop much better technology now, but it's a
very different world now because the Cold War is over. Sure.
So even if we accept that, Okay, what if we
believe that mutually shared destruction prevented all out nuclear war
(25:05):
between the United States and the Soviet Union, it still
didn't prevent all kinds of other smaller wars during that
time period. And we can't say that it will necessarily
always work in the future. I mean, it's something that
depends on everybody being sort of rational and self interested,
(25:26):
and on your technology being reliable and not breaking and
not just there are a lot of contingencies that go
into this being a good strategy for avoiding major warfare, right,
not mistaking a flock of geese for incoming missile attack
that yeah, um yeah, I mean you could argue that
saying mutually a shared destruction is the reason we haven't
(25:49):
had a nuclear war is equivalent to saying, hey, I've
got this magic rock that keeps tigers away. Do you
see any tigers here that proves it works? Right? I
think that's pretty apt. Yeah, so we don't want to
just be doom and gloom here. I mean, no, let's
stop talking about weapons and look at other ways technology
could in fact prevent all war in the future and
(26:10):
lead to a happy, peaceful flower time. Yeah. This is
more of the idealistic version of people who came up
with technologies and and the their reasoning behind why they
thought the technology they had either developed or advocated for
would end war. And one of them goes back to
uh a fellow named Marconi. You know he didn't just
(26:32):
play the momba. No, he did not listen to the radio. Uh.
He did listen to the radio. He made the radio
make noise. Uh. So Marconi often credited as the inventor
of the radio. Can you pronounce his first name? Can I?
I could try Googli Elmo, Googli Googlielmo. Yeah, I would say,
(26:52):
but my my, sorry, I imagine Elmo from Sesame Street,
but with googly eyes. My my Italian is worse than
any of the other foreign languages I don't speak. It's
probably the worst out of all of them. Well, the
Greek is maybe worse. Please enjoy our ignorance at any rate. Yeah.
So Marconi, who is credited as the inventor of the radio.
I know the Tesla fans out there are up in arms,
(27:14):
and I agree. Marconi used a lot of Tesla's patents,
according to Tesla's like, he's a good fellow. He's using
seventeen of my patents. But but he is the first
person to transmit a an encoded letter in Morse code
across the Atlantic, and that's why he is often referred
to as the inventor of the radio. So he's into
wireless very much. So he believed that we were going
(27:36):
to enter a wireless age where we wouldn't just have
wireless communication, we'd have wireless power, which goes back to
what Tesla believed to He was very much an advocate
for that as well. But he also thought we'd have
wireless commerce and wireless fertilization. I don't know what that means,
(27:57):
but yeah. There was an article where a reporter had
interviewed Marconi's in a technical World magazine in October nineteen twelve. Yeah,
so this way back in nineteen twelve and and Marconi
was kind of just thinking out loud about the possibilities
of the future. I mean, think about this. This is
an era where we just had really mastered the the
(28:21):
harnessing of electromagnetic radiation for the purposes of communication. It
seemed to at this point like anything could potentially be possible. Well,
and let's go right ahead and say it. I believe
radio certainly did change the world absolutely. I mean it
changed the world even you would say changed the world
almost definitely for the better in lots and lots of ways.
(28:44):
But when he says, quote, the coming of the wireless
era will make war impossible because it will make war ridiculous, yeah,
it turned out a little bit wrong. Yeah. Now, I
greatly admire the reason behind what he said, you know,
because it now grant it assumes that people will try
(29:07):
to comport themselves with compassion and rationality and also let
go of things that are culturally ingrained for generations, sometimes
millennia in some areas, and that is a lot to
ask for. But his idea was that this wireless era
(29:27):
would result in a world where we are able to
understand one another and communicate with one another so freely
that we would end up resolving disagreements before it would
ever get to a point where warfare would even be
a consideration. I mean, I don't want to say this
about someone who's obviously a brilliant man, much smarter than me.
(29:49):
But that's so naive, it is. It's but it's so
sweet you want it to be true. Yeah, the the
idea that, well, maybe we're just having lack of communication,
we're not getting through to each other, but if we
have wireless radio going from every country to every other country,
we can just talk it out. Now. The truly ironic
(30:11):
part of this is that radio would play an instrumental
role in warfare, everything from communication to radar and all
sorts of other applications. I mean, not to mention just
stoking anger around the world with talk radio hosts. Yeah, well,
propaganda is a huge part of it. I mean, and
in fact, propaganda, you could argue, would be the opposite
(30:32):
of what Marconi was envisioning, instead of it being this
kind of nationalistic approach where you know, it's it's a
very simple US versus them story where you make us
as as noble as possible, and them as evil and
wicked as possible. In your in your narrative, I mean,
that's hell, that's that's probably. It seems to me exactly
(30:54):
the opposite of what Marconi's idealistic vision of the future
would have been. He also thought with this wireless age
that we would probably have more access to resources than
we do now, which would help alleviate the reasons for
going to war in the first place, not just communication
but resources. Well, he's not the only person in history.
In fact, he's not the only famous, brilliant person in
(31:17):
history to have predicted that changes in access to resources
would be able to obviate the need for war. I mean,
there is an idea that, Okay, at least a large
number of the struggles that we experience in our lives
are over resources. We need food, we need water, we
need space and shelter, and so we are. I mean,
(31:40):
life is a struggle. We are competing for things that
we need. I wonder how much you can really chalk
war up to this, But let's take a look at
somebody who thought that you basically could. So you're talking
about the chemist Pierre Yogene Masselein. Berto, Yeah, Bertello import chemist,
(32:01):
very important chemist, brilliant man, absolutely brilliant man. And uh
he had some pretty pretty amazing things, some amazing predictions
that he made. He was also interviewed for a magazine article.
This was in McClure's magazine in September eight and the
article was titled Foods in the year two thousand Professor
(32:21):
Bernelow's theory that chemistry will displace agriculture. Now, some of
his predictions in here, while they haven't exactly come true,
are kind of perceptive of some of the food innovations
we might see coming down the road. I mean, obviously
not by the year two thousand, but still on the way,
and not not not solely through chemistry, which was his
(32:42):
his vision. He was we do now have lab grown beef.
Absolutely yes. So he was looking at the world through
the eyes of a chemist, and this is right of
the era where synthesizing chemicals was starting to really become, uh,
you know, an amazing industree. And he foresaw an era
(33:03):
where we'd be able to synthesize organic compounds as easily
as anything else, to the point where we could synthesize
in the lab anything. We could synthesize meat, we could
synthesize vegetables, we could synthesize alcohol and tobacco. And his
idea was that once we get to this world, which
he thought would be around the year two thousand, I've
(33:23):
got more of his quote in a second that um
will Will really kind of pull in his idea of
why this would change the world. He was sure that
this kind of development would mean that one you would
end up eliminating a lot of the problems of the
world because you would have a surplus of resources, no
(33:43):
longer scarcity, which would be a good thing on its own,
of course. And keep in mind this is late nineteenth
century Europe, a time when there were some serious famines
going on around Europe that we're leading to lots of
of strife, and so hunger was definitely one of the
big motivators, and he thought, well, if you can eliminate hunger,
(34:05):
you've eliminated a large reason why countries go to war.
Take care of that resources problem. He also thought that
we would develop food that is so delicious and nutritious
and edifying that it would improve the moral nature of
mankind itself. So in other words, you would eat this
(34:26):
food and you would become a better person. And that
would also help lead to the end divorce. So not
only would we have a surplus of resources, but we'd
be better people and therefore we would not go to
war because we would have compassion for our fellow men,
which is again an interesting concept. Uh, the idea that
you know, make sure you get your your fruits and
(34:47):
vegim otherwise you'll go to war with Spain. I mean,
that's kind of well. There were a lot of weird
ideas floating around at the time about how nutrition like
created the personality of a nation and stuff like that. Yeah,
they thought weird stuff in Europe in the nineteenth century.
This is true. Here is one of his longer quotes,
and I think it's absolutely charming. Again, you probably would
(35:10):
have to chalk this up as being naive, but still
very charming. Man should grow in sweetness and nobility because
he will have done with war with existence based upon
the slaughter of beasts. Perhaps this is only a dream. Remember,
synthetic chemistry, or something that we might call spiritual chemistry,
will develop means to as profoundly alter man's moral nature
(35:33):
as material chemistry will change the conditions of his environment.
There is no fear that art, beauty, and the charm
of human existence are destined to disappear. If the surface
of the earth ceases to be divided and I may
say disfigured by the geometrical devices of agriculture, it will
regain its natural verdure of woods and flowers. Man becoming
(35:55):
familiar with the principles and responsibilities of self government will
be more easily governed. The favored portions of the earth
will become vast gardens in which the human race will
dwell amid a peace, a luxury, and an abundance, recalling
the golden age of legendary lore. These are dreams, of course,
but science may surely be permitted to dreams. Sometimes. If
(36:18):
it were not for our dreams, where would it be
our impulse to progress, which I think is a beautiful thought. Yeah, sure,
I I wish it had turned out that way. Yeah. Well,
I mean this is like Tesla's case. This is one
where we haven't actually achieved the technological advance that he
says is required to bring about this future. So unlike
(36:42):
mutually assured destruction or unlike wireless radio, it's not one
we can look at and say, well, the technology is here.
In your prediction fell flat. The technology is just not
here yet, and maybe it never will be. So well, yeah,
and even if it does get here, and even if
we get to a point where it's incredibly neutri shift,
I think this, this moral improvement is probably based upon
(37:04):
more nineteenth century philosophy than than our current understanding. Also,
you know, unless you just take it off the menu,
you're not gonna stop me from eating some of the horrible,
horrible food I love. The other thing I would say
about this is, obviously, at the ground level, the struggle
(37:26):
over resources does matter very much. But we're talking about
war here. I mean we're talking about nations mobilizing vast
organized forces and superior weaponry. I mean, at that level,
how many wars are started by people who aren't getting
enough to eat? Yeah, a lot of those. A lot
of reasons for war are outside of resources. Resources often
(37:47):
play a very important part. Oh sure, sure, but there
they might be resources beyond what we need to survive
and be healthy. You know, we might. I can see
a world where everybody has complete access to nutritious pills
that are delicious and fill you with happiness. And butterflies
and all that, and and that would be a great
thing in itself, but I still can see in that
(38:11):
world people going to war over other things, over boundaries
of national territory, over ideologies, certainly whether religious or or
over ethnic division, and just hatred. I mean, there are
lots of reasons that people do the horrible thing we
call war, and not all of them have to do
with competing for resources, right, There are a lot of
(38:33):
other fundamental issues that would have to be addressed, and
this particular approach would not necessarily address us. So how
do we get to a point where we're able to
get a different perspective, be able to to expand our
minds and and see what's really important? I mean, what
does it take. It's time for another break, but we
(38:56):
will be right back to talk about technologies that were
intended in war just didn't turn out that way. Maybe
once we call anized space, does this Sidmyer civilization? Is
(39:17):
that what we're doing now? No? No, I want to
tap into one more idea here. And this isn't so
much a specific prediction of one person, but there's a
general idea that's been propagated by several people, including some
former astronauts known as the overview effect. Now, that was
coined by Frank White, right, that particular term, Yeah, that's right.
(39:38):
Uh So. The idea is when astronauts go up into
say the International Space Station, or to a space capsule
or orbiting the Earth, y're traveling to the moon, whatever
it is, and they look back down on the Earth.
It's striking that many astronauts have independently reported this feeling
(40:01):
of euphoria and connectedness and togetherness with all of humanity,
where national boundaries seem to fade away, right, and the
idea of human strife suddenly seems very ridiculous and pointless
because we're all in it together, right. I mean, it's
(40:21):
when you're from that distance and you see that everybody,
every single human being that is alive, with the exception
of less than a dozen people, are in your field
of view right then, because they're all on that planet,
it's hard to say that, you know, why are why
(40:41):
are their divisions? I mean, why aren't they're more? Why
isn't there more of a connectiveness? Were clearly all in
the same place. We're all on this one planet. This
is also where you get this idea that a lot
of astronauts report feeling that the world is is ultimately
a fragile place. It's this tiny blue spec the tiny
(41:02):
blue dot that you know, you heard Carl Sagan talk
about another phrase you often here, hanging in space. I
mean it is it. It's it's floating out there, just
vulnerable to the universe, and this is where we all
have to live, and that this results in this cognitive shift.
That that is a phrase that's come up, cognitive shift
(41:24):
because it's not just reported as a sort of momentary
feeling of euphoria revelation, but something that stays with astronauts
after they return to Earth. And so if it really
does happen to to everybody. Now, obviously not all astronauts
have talked about this, but not all astronauts have been
asked about it. So it may very well be that
(41:46):
this is a universal or near universal experience, but some
have chosen to talk about and some may not have
right now, sure, yeah, so we don't know yet, but
the fact that so many of experience this does make
someone wonder, well, if we become a space faring species
and everybody can have that profound moment of looking back
(42:10):
at the Earth and realizing the togetherness that we really
must feel in the face of the vast universe that
wants to kill us all right, then maybe it would
become widespread enough in humanity that war just couldn't happen anymore. Yeah,
that's a tough solution, right, Ye. Getting a lot of people,
(42:31):
I mean we're talking. I like the idea of it.
I mean, if you if you narrow it down to say,
let's get the people who would be the ones responsible
for waging war in the first place, like the ones
who would be the ones to initiate war, take all
the executives in generals and everybody up into space, then
maybe that's a little more magable than say everybody. Um. Yeah.
(42:53):
This is one of the things where I don't doubt
that there is a truly profound moment that a person
experiences when they are able to look back on the
Earth and see it as this hanging globe in space.
I don't doubt it at all. I wish I could
(43:14):
experience it. It's one of those things that I think
would really mean a lot to me personally. But because
I seriously doubt that this is ever going to become
something within the near future, anyway that the average person
or even the quote unquote important people would be able
to do. It's it's one that I fear is moot
(43:37):
in this discussion, at least for you know, the the
near future, like the next twenty to fifty years. Um,
maybe I'm wrong, which would be the best to be
the best mistake I ever made. I would love to
be wrong about that. Well. I mean, as with what
we were just talking about with Berna Low having widespread
nutritious food, this is something that would be would in
(44:00):
its own right, and we can see reasons that it
would be great to get lots of people into space
for exploration and scientific discovery, even if it didn't cause
this show. I mean, if this is a side effect
of something that would be good anyway, that that's a
sort of double plus, unlike something like mutually assured destruction,
where you're just hoping it works out and it's not
(44:22):
a side effect of something that's nice. Yeah, So Joe,
what if, Um, what if during this era of space exploration,
the astronauts go up, they look back on Earth, they
have this profound moment, they go to Mars and then
declare war on each other because they're like this is Mars.
It's totally different from Well, and it's Mars, the planet
of war. Yeah, it's it's it's it's a named Mars, Mars.
(44:46):
I think it was the Mars bar Candy Company, if
I'm not mistaken. You know, I have the need to
renew their contract with NASA or it's gonna expire and
become the Snickers planet. Yeah, I haven't. I haven't researched that.
I mean, I know Disney Nickers owned by More. I
don't know Disney name Pluto, so um yeah, I don't know.
(45:07):
I have to they did not. Okay, look, this is stopsformation.
This isn't stuff to blow your mind. I don't know science. No, no, obviously,
I'm I'm just having a little goofy fun here. But
this is really like, On one hand, you could say
we're kind of bumming everybody out because we're talking about
these technologies that were meant to end war but have
(45:29):
it and at least in a couple of cases the
jury could still be out. But I like to think
of it as there's no reason why we can't truly
examine the the concept of war and really work towards
eliminating it. Whether technologically or otherwise. I think probably otherwise,
(45:50):
because a lot of the technological solutions pretty much end
up with, well, we won't have war because we'll wipe
everybody out. Yeah, I mean, they're all so plenty of
doomsday science fiction scenarios about that. Right, You create the
perfect artificial intelligence that's super smart, it's super humanly smart,
and you asked the computer, you say, I want you
(46:11):
to end all war on Earth, and the computer then
runs through all the various scenarios and says that the
most realistic one is to wipe out all of humanity.
Therefore you cannot have war anymore. And then the humans go, whoops,
that's not a great it's not a great outcome. So
but you know I am, I am a peaceful kind
of person myself. I really hope that that we continue.
(46:35):
I like the optimism and the idealism, even if it
does border on the naive. It appeals to me that
people who are really sincere in that and who really
uh pursue that are also these folks who are far
more intelligent than I am. I mean, not one of
these people is a dummy. No, they're all like absolutely brilliant.
(46:56):
I mean they're their discoveries, their contribution to science. You know,
I talk about Teller and his he's often called the
father the hydrogen bomb. He made so many different contributions
to science that have nothing to do with war, but
that's what he's known for. But all of these people
had made amazing contributions to the world knowledge and too
(47:19):
technology and science. And so I certainly hope that we
see more idealistic innovators out there. Uh, Like I feel
that that. Uh. In some ways, Musk comes across as
that Elon Musk. He's certainly also an entrepreneur, but he
does seem to genuinely believe in a lot of the
(47:42):
idealistic things he talks. Well, he's one of those big thinkers,
is he's certainly he's certainly more intelligent than I am
as well. I have no problems. Don't mean like he
has a big brain. I mean like he has big projects.
He's he's willing to take on things that might seem
ridiculous at first glance. And I think it's good to
have people like that, absolutely because even let we say this,
(48:04):
on forward thinking all the time, even if you fail
in your efforts along the way, you learn, and by
learning probably going to be useful to That wraps up
this classic episode. One of the things I love about
technology is how it inspires optimism. But one of the
issues I have with unfettered optimism is that it ignores
(48:25):
other aspects of reality that you really should take into
account before you start proclaiming this is going to end
all war or it will conflict will no longer be
a thing after this happens. I feel like optimism tinged
with realism is important because it means that you know
(48:45):
you're you're working toward a worthy goal, but you're also
acknowledging that they're going to be challenges in the way,
and I think that if you do that, you have
a better chance of success. That's just my general full
a soophy. However, I consider myself an optimist. I just
consider my pragmatic optimist. If you have suggestions for topics
(49:08):
I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff, let
me know. The best way to do that is over
on Twitter. The handle for the show is text stuff
H s W and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Tex Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For more
podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio
(49:31):
app Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host
job in Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart
Radio and I love all things tech and it is
time for a tech Stuff classic episode. This episode originally
(00:24):
published back in September of two thousand, fourteen September to
be precise. It is titled five Technologies to End All
Wars that Didn't And I think the title pretty much
sets it all up. Let's dive in. People who are
are real innovators, really uh forward thinkers, for lack of
(00:47):
a better word, often get kind of idealistic and optimistic,
sometimes perhaps unrealistically so. Right, and so we have some
examples here of people who very confidently at the time
proclaimed that the technology either they invented or that they
were an advocate for would be the end of war
(01:09):
for one reason or another. And they fall into different
kinds of categories. So we're gonna talk about all of them. Yeah,
So there are several different ways I guess you could
imagine that war between humans could end. And on one hand,
it's kind of hard to imagine that because it's just
such a fundamental part of human nature and human history,
and obviously it would be a fantastic thing for us
(01:29):
to not violently kill each other in great numbers at
intervals of time. But there are a few ways you
could look at how this might happen. So one would
be to sort of make war too risky, so that
it's just not in your self interest to pursue it, gotcha.
So the idea of being that even if you feel
(01:49):
you have an advanced military that to wage war of
any type would would incurage such losses as to nullify
any positive effect that that war might have, So it
just cannot be of a net advantage to you. The
only way to win is not to play. I guess
another way, though this is kind of harder to imagine
(02:11):
how it would be done, would be to say that
you would make war completely impracticable or physically impossible. So
it's just you somehow create a technology that makes it
so that people cannot actually do it. You want to
shoot somebody, but your gun doesn't work. It's just filled
with crayons. Yeah, that would be a more difficult kind
(02:31):
of technology to imagine, but some people have sort of
gone down that road, and it will blur together with
the category I just mentioned. Um, another way would probably
be to sort of make war irrelevant, like to eliminate
the motivations that would drive people to war. So you
imagine that you might come up with a list of
different reasons people would declare war on one another, and
(02:56):
if you can eliminate all of those reasons for people
wanting to go, hypothetically they won't go. Gotcha. So this
would be kind of the Star Trek future where you
have created a world where where you've eliminated need. Therefore
war is a thing of the past. Yeah, got you.
The other one would be to sort of change us,
(03:17):
to to change our outlook or to change our nature,
or at least give us some kind of perspective that
would make war ridiculous to where we just realize it's
no good and we don't want to do it. And
we've got some some actual examples that fall into these
various categories in more than one well, and they're One
(03:37):
of the funny things is you don't have to go
digging into the annals of crank history to find people
who thought world peace would come about by one of
one of these methods. In fact, you can find really
smart famous, powerful, influential people who thought technology could get
us down one of these roads to world peace. And
(03:57):
I think the first one we should talk about is
a guy who's very Internet famous these days, Nicola Tesla.
Although you did say, you know, you don't have to
look at cranks, Well, oh, you're you're getting on your
anti Tesla. Look, I just electrical Horse. The episode that
just published was a rerun about our episode on Tesla
(04:19):
where I talked about advocating for Tesla and the Tesla
versus Edison debate. Well, I mean, it's it's not that
I'm against Tesla, but it's pretty true that he had
some mental health issues. But at any rate, let's talk
about this idea, this idea of a of an invention
that negates war. Right, Tesla thought that you could build
(04:41):
something that would make war impossible. What was that thing? Well,
it's Tesla's famous death ray, which immediately as soon as
you hear the name, you think, yeah, that that sounds peaceful.
I don't know if he actually called it death ray.
I don't think those were The New York Times called
it a death ray. Yeah, so we've got a quote
from Gla Tesla. This is from an article from nineteen
(05:03):
thirty seven called a Machine to End War, which featured
an extended interview with Nikola Tesla, where he gives the
following quote. We cannot abolish war by outlawing it. We
cannot end it by disarming the strong. War can be
stopped not by making the strong week, but by making
every nation weak or strong, able to defend itself. Hitherto,
(05:26):
all devices that could be used for defense could also
be utilized to serve for aggression. This nullified the value
of the improvement for purposes of peace. But I was
fortunate enough to evolve a new idea and too perfect
means which can be used chiefly for defense. If it
is adopted, it will revolutionize the relations between nations. It
(05:48):
will make any country, large or small, impregnable against armies, airplanes,
and other means for attack. My invention requires a large plant,
but once it is established, it will be possible to
destroy anything men or machines approaching within a radius of
two hundred miles. It will, so to speak, provide a
wall of power, offering an insuperable obstacle against any effective aggression.
(06:14):
So when he says plant, he of course means power plant.
He does not rout. Yeah, not yet, not an enormous
redwood or something. So this death ray, as as was
referred to in the article, I was never actually fleshed out.
As far as we know. Tesla, first of all, was
famous for not writing a lot of stuff down. He
or at least that's why he claimed. He claimed he
(06:34):
could envision inventions completely fully formed in his head and
even take them apart virtually in his head and examined
them to see how they worked, and then eventually build
the things, and they worked exactly the way they were
supposed to. Uh, that's part of the Tesla story. Whether
or not that's true, I don't know. But at any rate,
(06:55):
we don't have any evidence that Tesla had anything remotely
resembling a ray or what the actual mechanism would have been. Well,
and he says, my apparatus projects particles which may be
relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey
to a small area at a great distance trillions of
times more energy than it's possible with rays of any kind,
(07:18):
which doesn't really sound like it means anything. But at
any rate, Uh, during this time of Tesla's life, he
was in his seventies, and this was when he was
really kind of mentally it appeared he was breaking down.
He had already shown some signs of obsessive compulsive behaviors,
(07:40):
possibly even some paranoid schizophrenia, because it was around this
time also when he claimed that he had received transmissions
from people, either from Venus or Mars, So you know,
it's things were a little rough for Tesla. He was
also in the process of moving from one hotel to
the other because he would get evicted due to incurring
(08:01):
enormous debts. But because he had such a rock star
status as a physicist and uh an electrical engineer, he
would be invited to go live in another hotel until
he had run up the debts there. So he may
very well have just been trying to earn as much
money as he possibly could selling this idea. Uh And
you know, not necessarily. I don't mean that he didn't
(08:23):
think it was real. He may very well believe that
he could in fact produce this device, but he didn't.
So uh. But this definitely falls into the realm of
let's make war impossible to happen by creating something that
would prevent the very act of aggression. From reaching the
intended target. Once another country knows that you have this
(08:44):
capability to stop any incoming attack, there's no reason they
would ever attack you because it wouldn't work, right, of course,
I mean that's the that's the logic behind it, and
the idea actually, Now, whether you're talking about array or
a thing that he does don't want to call array
but is instead projecting particles or whatever it is, this
(09:05):
idea has not necessarily died, the basic idea of creating
a technological infrastructure that would repel automatically all incoming attacks
and make them pointless. How about the Star Wars initiative. Yeah,
the the Strategic Defense initiative in the nineteen eighties often
referred to as the Star Wars program derisively. Yeah, I've
(09:26):
really wanted to do a full episode about this, to
really explain what the concept was, what the motivations were,
because this is this ends up being a very political, uh,
a very political story, not just a technology story. In fact,
it's more political than technological in many ways. The whole
Strategic Defense initiative was fueled by the Cold War between
(09:47):
the United States and the then Soviet Union, and the
idea was that if you have a system in place
that can block any incoming missile attack, then your country
is going to be at an advantage and be safe
from aggression. Uh. This was during an era that we'll
talk about very shortly, the whole idea of mutually assured destruction,
(10:11):
but we'll get to that in a little bit. So
very similar idea. Yeah, there's another idea that's a lot
like this, which is actually in use today, Israel's Iron
Dome system. Have you read about this has been in
the news lately. Yeah, it went into effect in two
thousand and eleven. This is an anti rocket defense system.
So it's meant to intercept rockets that are fired from
(10:34):
outside of Israel into Israel, and it does this by
firing off interceptor missiles. They're called Tamure surface to air missiles.
And you've got a radar system that first to texts
an incoming rocket, and then you have computers running predictive
software that will look at the pathway of the rocket,
(10:55):
predict which way it's going, and then send an interceptor
missile to destroy that rocket before it reaches its intended target.
It's even supposed to only focus on rockets that are
aimed at populated areas, So if a rocket were to
be aimed at an open area where there's not likely
anyone to be harmed, it won't target that rocket. The
(11:17):
reason being that interceptor missiles are expensive. We're talking like
just shy of a hundred thousand dollars a pop. So
also I'm imagining that the system at large must just
be incredibly expensive and complicated, because if it's actually able
to calculate the trajectory of an incoming rocket to figure
out whether it needs to intercept or not, I mean wow.
(11:40):
And there's been some criticism of the system. One is
based on just a skepticism that it's really effective. The
idea being that it's possible that in a display of
its effectiveness when because just recently there was a news
story where the system was able to shoot down fifty
different incoming rockets that were fired simultaneously. Uh, and that
(12:04):
that's really impressive. But there's some critics who suggest it's
kind of in a conspiracy theory way, that it could
just be the is the Israeli government firing off the
interceptor missiles and then having them detonate because you can't
see these rockets with the naked eye. When they're flying
through the air, they're they're too small for you to notice,
and they fly too high for you to notice. So
(12:25):
it's possible that you could detonate interceptor missiles then uh,
and then say, oh, that's a successful interception. I'm not
going to go so far as to say that that
conspiracy theory holds merit. I more inclined to believe that
this is in fact an actual demonstration of it working. Um.
But there are also critics who say it gives any
(12:46):
system that's like this, whether it's the Strategic Defense Initiative
or the Iron Dome initiative, it can create an unhealthy
political environment, meaning that if you have this kind of
technology that you're disposal, you may feel that you are
to some degree invulnerable. It's weird to say to some degree,
(13:06):
but at any rate that you are largely invulnerable to
incoming attack, which some argue means that you have less
of of an incentive to pursue peace. Well. Yeah, if
we want to transition to the next item on our
list here, some people might say that it's very important
that we all feel vulnerable in order to maintain peace. Yeah. Yeah,
(13:27):
this is where we get into the idea of mutually
assured destruction. So this is uh, it doesn't have a
very friendly name, but believe it or not, for the
past century, there have been a lot of people who
thought that this was one of the best technological routes
to world peace. Yeah, And in fact, this is this
is kind of piggybacked onto Tesla's idea, right, the idea
that if you are in possession of enough firepower of
(13:50):
whatever sort, that that's enough to to deter people or
other countries from attacking you. This ends up being repeated
over and over a in up and up through the
Cold War and before the Cold War, the Cold War.
Really yeah, Hiron Maxim, who invented the machine gun, said
this device is going to end all war because it's
so dangerous that no one would dare attack. Yeah, and
(14:13):
that ended up being very much wrong, especially in the
whole story of World War One and World War Two.
Certainly proves that Orville right believe that the airplane would
end war. The airplane would be such an incredibly superior
vehicle that there'd be no reason to ever declare war
for fear of what would rain down upon you. Obviously,
(14:35):
that became a very important tool in war. In fact,
I think there are some people who would look at
those two examples you just cited and say that those
might have been some of the leading causes of World
War One obvious at least the leading tools. Well, I
mean causes in the sense that obviously there was a
lot of international political tension. I mean, does anybody really
(14:55):
know what caused World War One? I think a lot
of confusion, But certainly an opinion that I've heard before
and I don't know enough to dismiss it out of hand,
is to say that a major factor in what led
to World War One was the acquiring of new warmaking
technology and people building up their military stockpiles and basically
looking for a way to test this new stuff out. Well,
(15:17):
that's part of it. I mean, during the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, you had all these different countries
in Europe, including Germany, which had just formed as an
actual country. I mean a lot of people forget that
Germany as a unified country didn't really exist until the
mid nineteenth century, Uh, you know it, since it had
previously been part of of various empires. Before we talk
(15:41):
about some more technologies that were supposed to end wars,
but didn't. Let's take a quick break. These different countries
were all trying to make sure they cemented their city,
that they made sure they were safe from other nations,
(16:03):
which meant investing in militaries. For Germany and for the
United Kingdom that was largely naval. They were investing heavily
in their navies. Um. But what it What it also
meant was that you had these these incredibly powerful armies
around Europe that were ready to go at any moment
with no particular opponent. But you also have these incredibly
(16:27):
complex treaties between countries, so when there would be a
precipitating event, it wasn't in at least in hindsight, it
wasn't a huge surprise to see it kind of escalate
into the major conflict. It became that historical onion headline
about World War One. I think it's something like war
(16:47):
declared by All. It's a that's fairly accurate. I mean,
it certainly didn't all happen simultaneously, but it it's again,
in hindsight, you can totally see how it happened. But
at the time I'm sure people just thought it was
it was unimaginable but that that philosophy continued beyond World
War One. Yeah. Well, so it's quite obvious that machine
(17:10):
guns and airplanes have not made war obsolete. But there's
a more questionable proposal, which is that, um, maybe nuclear
weapons have. Yeah. Alright, so you've heard of the the
scientist Edward Teller is born in Hungary and uh immigrated
(17:31):
to the United States. And he had this to say
about scientists in general, which was, the scientist is not
responsible for the laws of nature. It is his job
to find out how these laws operate. Is the scientist's
job to find the ways in which these laws can
serve the human will. However, it is not the scientists
(17:51):
job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed,
whether it should be used, or how it should be used. Now,
the reason he said that was that he worked on
the Manhattan Project, all right. He was one of the
science In fact, he was one of the three scientists
who convinced Albert Einstein that he should tell the president
about the powers of nuclear fission, which then of the
(18:13):
United States. The President United States yes, in order to
precipitate the development of the atomic bomb. And then there
became another discussion within the same group of the Manhattan
Project about the development of what they were calling a superbomb,
a thermonuclear weapon, and tell her was very much on
(18:33):
the side of we should make this thing. This this
is something we should invest in. Uh. And then there
were other scientists like Oppenheimer who said this is a
bad idea, we should not do this thing. And there
was a lot of disagreement, which led to some pretty
controversial stuff down the line. But at any rate, you
had tell her advocating for this. Now, why did he
(18:54):
advocate for this? Well, he grew up in Europe during
a very tumultuous time and developed a distinct dislike for
fascism and communism before leaving to come to America. Yeah,
he saw Europe being torn apart. I mean it was
already uh, it had already gone through World War One
(19:16):
and was entering World War two or was about to
enter World War two by the time he was leaving,
and things just got worse from there. So in his mind,
one of the worst things in the world was the
formation of the Soviet Union. He saw communism as being
probably the greatest danger to the human race, and his
argument was that if we don't pursue this sort of
(19:40):
weapons program, this arms race. The Soviet Union certainly will,
so if we don't do it, we're gonna be left
behind and we'll be vulnerable. The only way to ensure
that we're safe is to also engage in an arms
race to develop these incredibly destructive weapons and thus be
a big a threat where the Soviet Union would never
(20:01):
attack us. I mean, we would surely never attack anyone
else unprovoked. So this is just for us to make
sure that they don't attack us. That was the That
was the general philosophy. So build up your arms to
the point where you would be such a destructive force
that it would be crazy to attack you, which is
again very similar to what we've already talked about. Right,
(20:23):
So now we have gigantic nuclear stockpiles on Earth as
a result of this doctrine. But this is this is
interesting because I feel like, while on one hand, it's
not a very friendly sounding doctrine, some people might still
argue for the wisdom of mad Well it's there. I mean,
there would be a lot of people. I think it
(20:45):
is completely wrong to say that it would make war obsolete.
I mean, there have been tons of war since nuclear
weapons were invented, you know, involving nuclear powers. But it's
some people I think might still say that, well, maybe
the presidence of all these nuclear weapons did prevent all
out war between say the United States and the Soviet Union.
(21:07):
We just have to keep in mind that there have
been tons of proxy wars throughout the years, fought by
these powers sort of through other countries and sure so,
so essentially what you're saying is the existence of thermonuclear
weapons has prevented a thermonuclear war. That without the existence
of these thermonuclear weapons in one or other of the parties,
(21:28):
the possibility of thermonuclear war rises. But because you have
this this balance where you have people, you know, who
realized what the implications of starting such a war would be,
it hasn't happened. Yea. Even if you were to agree
with this this idea, you might not necessarily think it's
good for the world as a whole. It might be
(21:49):
better for the people living in the United States and
the Soviet Union and not so much for their allies. Uh.
But I'm not even saying I agree with this. I
just wanted to say, well, this is one that we
can't put it in the totally ridiculous camp, because I
think there are still people who think that mutually assured
destruction had some kind of effectiveness. Now, this has also
(22:11):
led to the very popular trope of creating a doomsday
device that is so dangerous that that's what protects you
from attack, right right. The idea of a fail deadly
device as depicted in the movie Doctor Strange Love, which
how how would something like a fail deadly device work? Well,
Doctor Strange Love. The way it works is that it's
(22:33):
a device that, once initiated, cannot be canceled, and and
and Dr Strangelove, it's it's the Soviet Union has built
a device that will automatically activate if any sort of
oncoming attack, bombing attack were to target the Soviet Union,
and once it detects such an attack, it then initiates
(22:53):
this device, which is you can't turn it off, and
and it's designed to kill essentially everything. It's automatic. Yeah,
And because you can't turn it off, then the idea
is that's the perfect deterrent, because you just tell everyone, hey,
if you attack us, this thing goes on, it kills everybody,
and we can't stop it. We even if we want to,
we cannot stop this thing. And uh, the the main
(23:17):
character or the title character of the movie, Dr Strangelove,
He's not the main character, but he is the title
character points out that this particular kind of device is
only useful if the world knows about it, if it's secret,
as it is in the movie. But then it turns
out like the Russian Uh, and the Russian ambassador was like, well,
(23:37):
we're going to have a big event next week. Unfortunately
you jumped the gotten type of thing. And uh, supposedly
Doctor Strangelove himself was based off of Teller. Yeah, that's
the that's the rumor. Although whether or not that's true,
I do not know, but it's um, it's certainly interesting
that uh, you know this, this kind of idea has
(24:00):
filtered into the fiction as well as into reality. This
is also what fed into that Star Wars program we
talked about earlier, the idea that, well, if the Soviet
Union also has these major, massive weapons, and we have
these massive weapons, do we really feel comfortable that just
the presence of those weapons is enough to deter a
(24:20):
thermonuclear war? What if we could end up creating a
system that would shoot down enemy weapons so that we
remained safe and that was what really led to this,
that strategic defense initiative, and tell her was a major
opponent for that. He he really wanted to see this enacted. Uh. Ultimately,
that technology did not prove to be very reliable and
(24:43):
it didn't really seem like it would actually do what
it was supposed to do. Um at the time, we
probably could develop much better technology now, but it's a
very different world now because the Cold War is over. Sure.
So even if we accept that, Okay, what if we
believe that mutually shared destruction prevented all out nuclear war
(25:05):
between the United States and the Soviet Union, it still
didn't prevent all kinds of other smaller wars during that
time period. And we can't say that it will necessarily
always work in the future. I mean, it's something that
depends on everybody being sort of rational and self interested,
(25:26):
and on your technology being reliable and not breaking and
not just there are a lot of contingencies that go
into this being a good strategy for avoiding major warfare, right,
not mistaking a flock of geese for incoming missile attack
that yeah, um yeah, I mean you could argue that
saying mutually a shared destruction is the reason we haven't
(25:49):
had a nuclear war is equivalent to saying, hey, I've
got this magic rock that keeps tigers away. Do you
see any tigers here that proves it works? Right? I
think that's pretty apt. Yeah, so we don't want to
just be doom and gloom here. I mean, no, let's
stop talking about weapons and look at other ways technology
could in fact prevent all war in the future and
(26:10):
lead to a happy, peaceful flower time. Yeah. This is
more of the idealistic version of people who came up
with technologies and and the their reasoning behind why they
thought the technology they had either developed or advocated for
would end war. And one of them goes back to
uh a fellow named Marconi. You know he didn't just
(26:32):
play the momba. No, he did not listen to the radio. Uh.
He did listen to the radio. He made the radio
make noise. Uh. So Marconi often credited as the inventor
of the radio. Can you pronounce his first name? Can I?
I could try Googli Elmo, Googli Googlielmo. Yeah, I would say,
(26:52):
but my my, sorry, I imagine Elmo from Sesame Street,
but with googly eyes. My my Italian is worse than
any of the other foreign languages I don't speak. It's
probably the worst out of all of them. Well, the
Greek is maybe worse. Please enjoy our ignorance at any rate. Yeah.
So Marconi, who is credited as the inventor of the radio.
I know the Tesla fans out there are up in arms,
(27:14):
and I agree. Marconi used a lot of Tesla's patents,
according to Tesla's like, he's a good fellow. He's using
seventeen of my patents. But but he is the first
person to transmit a an encoded letter in Morse code
across the Atlantic, and that's why he is often referred
to as the inventor of the radio. So he's into
wireless very much. So he believed that we were going
(27:36):
to enter a wireless age where we wouldn't just have
wireless communication, we'd have wireless power, which goes back to
what Tesla believed to He was very much an advocate
for that as well. But he also thought we'd have
wireless commerce and wireless fertilization. I don't know what that means,
(27:57):
but yeah. There was an article where a reporter had
interviewed Marconi's in a technical World magazine in October nineteen twelve. Yeah,
so this way back in nineteen twelve and and Marconi
was kind of just thinking out loud about the possibilities
of the future. I mean, think about this. This is
an era where we just had really mastered the the
(28:21):
harnessing of electromagnetic radiation for the purposes of communication. It
seemed to at this point like anything could potentially be possible. Well,
and let's go right ahead and say it. I believe
radio certainly did change the world absolutely. I mean it
changed the world even you would say changed the world
almost definitely for the better in lots and lots of ways.
(28:44):
But when he says, quote, the coming of the wireless
era will make war impossible because it will make war ridiculous, yeah,
it turned out a little bit wrong. Yeah. Now, I
greatly admire the reason behind what he said, you know,
because it now grant it assumes that people will try
(29:07):
to comport themselves with compassion and rationality and also let
go of things that are culturally ingrained for generations, sometimes
millennia in some areas, and that is a lot to
ask for. But his idea was that this wireless era
(29:27):
would result in a world where we are able to
understand one another and communicate with one another so freely
that we would end up resolving disagreements before it would
ever get to a point where warfare would even be
a consideration. I mean, I don't want to say this
about someone who's obviously a brilliant man, much smarter than me.
(29:49):
But that's so naive, it is. It's but it's so
sweet you want it to be true. Yeah, the the
idea that, well, maybe we're just having lack of communication,
we're not getting through to each other, but if we
have wireless radio going from every country to every other country,
we can just talk it out. Now. The truly ironic
(30:11):
part of this is that radio would play an instrumental
role in warfare, everything from communication to radar and all
sorts of other applications. I mean, not to mention just
stoking anger around the world with talk radio hosts. Yeah, well,
propaganda is a huge part of it. I mean, and
in fact, propaganda, you could argue, would be the opposite
(30:32):
of what Marconi was envisioning, instead of it being this
kind of nationalistic approach where you know, it's it's a
very simple US versus them story where you make us
as as noble as possible, and them as evil and
wicked as possible. In your in your narrative, I mean,
that's hell, that's that's probably. It seems to me exactly
(30:54):
the opposite of what Marconi's idealistic vision of the future
would have been. He also thought with this wireless age
that we would probably have more access to resources than
we do now, which would help alleviate the reasons for
going to war in the first place, not just communication
but resources. Well, he's not the only person in history.
In fact, he's not the only famous, brilliant person in
(31:17):
history to have predicted that changes in access to resources
would be able to obviate the need for war. I mean,
there is an idea that, Okay, at least a large
number of the struggles that we experience in our lives
are over resources. We need food, we need water, we
need space and shelter, and so we are. I mean,
(31:40):
life is a struggle. We are competing for things that
we need. I wonder how much you can really chalk
war up to this, But let's take a look at
somebody who thought that you basically could. So you're talking
about the chemist Pierre Yogene Masselein. Berto, Yeah, Bertello import chemist,
(32:01):
very important chemist, brilliant man, absolutely brilliant man. And uh
he had some pretty pretty amazing things, some amazing predictions
that he made. He was also interviewed for a magazine article.
This was in McClure's magazine in September eight and the
article was titled Foods in the year two thousand Professor
(32:21):
Bernelow's theory that chemistry will displace agriculture. Now, some of
his predictions in here, while they haven't exactly come true,
are kind of perceptive of some of the food innovations
we might see coming down the road. I mean, obviously
not by the year two thousand, but still on the way,
and not not not solely through chemistry, which was his
(32:42):
his vision. He was we do now have lab grown beef.
Absolutely yes. So he was looking at the world through
the eyes of a chemist, and this is right of
the era where synthesizing chemicals was starting to really become, uh,
you know, an amazing industree. And he foresaw an era
(33:03):
where we'd be able to synthesize organic compounds as easily
as anything else, to the point where we could synthesize
in the lab anything. We could synthesize meat, we could
synthesize vegetables, we could synthesize alcohol and tobacco. And his
idea was that once we get to this world, which
he thought would be around the year two thousand, I've
(33:23):
got more of his quote in a second that um
will Will really kind of pull in his idea of
why this would change the world. He was sure that
this kind of development would mean that one you would
end up eliminating a lot of the problems of the
world because you would have a surplus of resources, no
(33:43):
longer scarcity, which would be a good thing on its own,
of course. And keep in mind this is late nineteenth
century Europe, a time when there were some serious famines
going on around Europe that we're leading to lots of
of strife, and so hunger was definitely one of the
big motivators, and he thought, well, if you can eliminate hunger,
(34:05):
you've eliminated a large reason why countries go to war.
Take care of that resources problem. He also thought that
we would develop food that is so delicious and nutritious
and edifying that it would improve the moral nature of
mankind itself. So in other words, you would eat this
(34:26):
food and you would become a better person. And that
would also help lead to the end divorce. So not
only would we have a surplus of resources, but we'd
be better people and therefore we would not go to
war because we would have compassion for our fellow men,
which is again an interesting concept. Uh, the idea that
you know, make sure you get your your fruits and
(34:47):
vegim otherwise you'll go to war with Spain. I mean,
that's kind of well. There were a lot of weird
ideas floating around at the time about how nutrition like
created the personality of a nation and stuff like that. Yeah,
they thought weird stuff in Europe in the nineteenth century.
This is true. Here is one of his longer quotes,
and I think it's absolutely charming. Again, you probably would
(35:10):
have to chalk this up as being naive, but still
very charming. Man should grow in sweetness and nobility because
he will have done with war with existence based upon
the slaughter of beasts. Perhaps this is only a dream. Remember,
synthetic chemistry, or something that we might call spiritual chemistry,
will develop means to as profoundly alter man's moral nature
(35:33):
as material chemistry will change the conditions of his environment.
There is no fear that art, beauty, and the charm
of human existence are destined to disappear. If the surface
of the earth ceases to be divided and I may
say disfigured by the geometrical devices of agriculture, it will
regain its natural verdure of woods and flowers. Man becoming
(35:55):
familiar with the principles and responsibilities of self government will
be more easily governed. The favored portions of the earth
will become vast gardens in which the human race will
dwell amid a peace, a luxury, and an abundance, recalling
the golden age of legendary lore. These are dreams, of course,
but science may surely be permitted to dreams. Sometimes. If
(36:18):
it were not for our dreams, where would it be
our impulse to progress, which I think is a beautiful thought. Yeah, sure,
I I wish it had turned out that way. Yeah. Well,
I mean this is like Tesla's case. This is one
where we haven't actually achieved the technological advance that he
says is required to bring about this future. So unlike
(36:42):
mutually assured destruction or unlike wireless radio, it's not one
we can look at and say, well, the technology is here.
In your prediction fell flat. The technology is just not
here yet, and maybe it never will be. So well, yeah,
and even if it does get here, and even if
we get to a point where it's incredibly neutri shift,
I think this, this moral improvement is probably based upon
(37:04):
more nineteenth century philosophy than than our current understanding. Also,
you know, unless you just take it off the menu,
you're not gonna stop me from eating some of the horrible,
horrible food I love. The other thing I would say
about this is, obviously, at the ground level, the struggle
(37:26):
over resources does matter very much. But we're talking about
war here. I mean we're talking about nations mobilizing vast
organized forces and superior weaponry. I mean, at that level,
how many wars are started by people who aren't getting
enough to eat? Yeah, a lot of those. A lot
of reasons for war are outside of resources. Resources often
(37:47):
play a very important part. Oh sure, sure, but there
they might be resources beyond what we need to survive
and be healthy. You know, we might. I can see
a world where everybody has complete access to nutritious pills
that are delicious and fill you with happiness. And butterflies
and all that, and and that would be a great
thing in itself, but I still can see in that
(38:11):
world people going to war over other things, over boundaries
of national territory, over ideologies, certainly whether religious or or
over ethnic division, and just hatred. I mean, there are
lots of reasons that people do the horrible thing we
call war, and not all of them have to do
with competing for resources, right, There are a lot of
(38:33):
other fundamental issues that would have to be addressed, and
this particular approach would not necessarily address us. So how
do we get to a point where we're able to
get a different perspective, be able to to expand our
minds and and see what's really important? I mean, what
does it take. It's time for another break, but we
(38:56):
will be right back to talk about technologies that were
intended in war just didn't turn out that way. Maybe
once we call anized space, does this Sidmyer civilization? Is
(39:17):
that what we're doing now? No? No, I want to
tap into one more idea here. And this isn't so
much a specific prediction of one person, but there's a
general idea that's been propagated by several people, including some
former astronauts known as the overview effect. Now, that was
coined by Frank White, right, that particular term, Yeah, that's right.
(39:38):
Uh So. The idea is when astronauts go up into
say the International Space Station, or to a space capsule
or orbiting the Earth, y're traveling to the moon, whatever
it is, and they look back down on the Earth.
It's striking that many astronauts have independently reported this feeling
(40:01):
of euphoria and connectedness and togetherness with all of humanity,
where national boundaries seem to fade away, right, and the
idea of human strife suddenly seems very ridiculous and pointless
because we're all in it together, right. I mean, it's
(40:21):
when you're from that distance and you see that everybody,
every single human being that is alive, with the exception
of less than a dozen people, are in your field
of view right then, because they're all on that planet,
it's hard to say that, you know, why are why
(40:41):
are their divisions? I mean, why aren't they're more? Why
isn't there more of a connectiveness? Were clearly all in
the same place. We're all on this one planet. This
is also where you get this idea that a lot
of astronauts report feeling that the world is is ultimately
a fragile place. It's this tiny blue spec the tiny
(41:02):
blue dot that you know, you heard Carl Sagan talk
about another phrase you often here, hanging in space. I
mean it is it. It's it's floating out there, just
vulnerable to the universe, and this is where we all
have to live, and that this results in this cognitive shift.
That that is a phrase that's come up, cognitive shift
(41:24):
because it's not just reported as a sort of momentary
feeling of euphoria revelation, but something that stays with astronauts
after they return to Earth. And so if it really
does happen to to everybody. Now, obviously not all astronauts
have talked about this, but not all astronauts have been
asked about it. So it may very well be that
(41:46):
this is a universal or near universal experience, but some
have chosen to talk about and some may not have
right now, sure, yeah, so we don't know yet, but
the fact that so many of experience this does make
someone wonder, well, if we become a space faring species
and everybody can have that profound moment of looking back
(42:10):
at the Earth and realizing the togetherness that we really
must feel in the face of the vast universe that
wants to kill us all right, then maybe it would
become widespread enough in humanity that war just couldn't happen anymore. Yeah,
that's a tough solution, right, Ye. Getting a lot of people,
(42:31):
I mean we're talking. I like the idea of it.
I mean, if you if you narrow it down to say,
let's get the people who would be the ones responsible
for waging war in the first place, like the ones
who would be the ones to initiate war, take all
the executives in generals and everybody up into space, then
maybe that's a little more magable than say everybody. Um. Yeah.
(42:53):
This is one of the things where I don't doubt
that there is a truly profound moment that a person
experiences when they are able to look back on the
Earth and see it as this hanging globe in space.
I don't doubt it at all. I wish I could
(43:14):
experience it. It's one of those things that I think
would really mean a lot to me personally. But because
I seriously doubt that this is ever going to become
something within the near future, anyway that the average person
or even the quote unquote important people would be able
to do. It's it's one that I fear is moot
(43:37):
in this discussion, at least for you know, the the
near future, like the next twenty to fifty years. Um,
maybe I'm wrong, which would be the best to be
the best mistake I ever made. I would love to
be wrong about that. Well. I mean, as with what
we were just talking about with Berna Low having widespread
nutritious food, this is something that would be would in
(44:00):
its own right, and we can see reasons that it
would be great to get lots of people into space
for exploration and scientific discovery, even if it didn't cause
this show. I mean, if this is a side effect
of something that would be good anyway, that that's a
sort of double plus, unlike something like mutually assured destruction,
where you're just hoping it works out and it's not
(44:22):
a side effect of something that's nice. Yeah, So Joe,
what if, Um, what if during this era of space exploration,
the astronauts go up, they look back on Earth, they
have this profound moment, they go to Mars and then
declare war on each other because they're like this is Mars.
It's totally different from Well, and it's Mars, the planet
of war. Yeah, it's it's it's it's a named Mars, Mars.
(44:46):
I think it was the Mars bar Candy Company, if
I'm not mistaken. You know, I have the need to
renew their contract with NASA or it's gonna expire and
become the Snickers planet. Yeah, I haven't. I haven't researched that.
I mean, I know Disney Nickers owned by More. I
don't know Disney name Pluto, so um yeah, I don't know.
(45:07):
I have to they did not. Okay, look, this is stopsformation.
This isn't stuff to blow your mind. I don't know science. No, no, obviously,
I'm I'm just having a little goofy fun here. But
this is really like, On one hand, you could say
we're kind of bumming everybody out because we're talking about
these technologies that were meant to end war but have
(45:29):
it and at least in a couple of cases the
jury could still be out. But I like to think
of it as there's no reason why we can't truly
examine the the concept of war and really work towards
eliminating it. Whether technologically or otherwise. I think probably otherwise,
(45:50):
because a lot of the technological solutions pretty much end
up with, well, we won't have war because we'll wipe
everybody out. Yeah, I mean, they're all so plenty of
doomsday science fiction scenarios about that. Right, You create the
perfect artificial intelligence that's super smart, it's super humanly smart,
and you asked the computer, you say, I want you
(46:11):
to end all war on Earth, and the computer then
runs through all the various scenarios and says that the
most realistic one is to wipe out all of humanity.
Therefore you cannot have war anymore. And then the humans go, whoops,
that's not a great it's not a great outcome. So
but you know I am, I am a peaceful kind
of person myself. I really hope that that we continue.
(46:35):
I like the optimism and the idealism, even if it
does border on the naive. It appeals to me that
people who are really sincere in that and who really
uh pursue that are also these folks who are far
more intelligent than I am. I mean, not one of
these people is a dummy. No, they're all like absolutely brilliant.
(46:56):
I mean they're their discoveries, their contribution to science. You know,
I talk about Teller and his he's often called the
father the hydrogen bomb. He made so many different contributions
to science that have nothing to do with war, but
that's what he's known for. But all of these people
had made amazing contributions to the world knowledge and too
(47:19):
technology and science. And so I certainly hope that we
see more idealistic innovators out there. Uh, Like I feel
that that. Uh. In some ways, Musk comes across as
that Elon Musk. He's certainly also an entrepreneur, but he
does seem to genuinely believe in a lot of the
(47:42):
idealistic things he talks. Well, he's one of those big thinkers,
is he's certainly he's certainly more intelligent than I am
as well. I have no problems. Don't mean like he
has a big brain. I mean like he has big projects.
He's he's willing to take on things that might seem
ridiculous at first glance. And I think it's good to
have people like that, absolutely because even let we say this,
(48:04):
on forward thinking all the time, even if you fail
in your efforts along the way, you learn, and by
learning probably going to be useful to That wraps up
this classic episode. One of the things I love about
technology is how it inspires optimism. But one of the
issues I have with unfettered optimism is that it ignores
(48:25):
other aspects of reality that you really should take into
account before you start proclaiming this is going to end
all war or it will conflict will no longer be
a thing after this happens. I feel like optimism tinged
with realism is important because it means that you know
(48:45):
you're you're working toward a worthy goal, but you're also
acknowledging that they're going to be challenges in the way,
and I think that if you do that, you have
a better chance of success. That's just my general full
a soophy. However, I consider myself an optimist. I just
consider my pragmatic optimist. If you have suggestions for topics
(49:08):
I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff, let
me know. The best way to do that is over
on Twitter. The handle for the show is text stuff
H s W and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Tex Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For more
podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio
(49:31):
app Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.