October 2, 2025 • 56 mins
Join Martin Willis in a groundbreaking conversation with Jensine Andresen, PhD, a scholar whose work bridges religion, philosophy, ethics, and the mysteries of UFO/UAP and extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). In this interview, we explore: What “Acculturation with ETI” means and why it matters for humanity’s future. How UAP and ETI discussions intersect with geopolitics, including the risks and realities tied to nuclear weapons. Why our current data-centric and militarized approach to the phenomenon may blind us to deeper truths. Why Dr. Andresen is adamant the visitors are extraterrestrial—and the theoretical mechanisms she believes could allow them to traverse the vast distances to reach us. The potential for creative engagement with ETI to transform human institutions, ethics, and global society. Dr. Andresen challenges conventional thinking and offers bold perspectives on how contact with ETI could reshape not only our science, but also our politics, spirituality, and collective future.
SHOW NOTES
Support the Show & Stay Connected!
👉 Join us on Patreon — Get ad-free podcast episodes (for any media player) for as little as $2/month:
https://www.patreon.com/MartinWillisPodcastUFO
🛸Did you have a UFO/UAP Encounter? Leave Us a Voicemail: https://podcastufo.com/ufo-sightings/ufo-encounter-voicemail
🧢 Podcast UFO Merch (Shirts, Hats & More): https://tinyurl.com/mrybmnwb
📬 FREE Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter — Get updates on upcoming guests, blog posts, and more:
http://eepurl.com/LPHKD
🌐 Our Website:
https://podcastufo.com
📱 Follow us on Social Media:
Twitter (X): https://x.com/PodcastUFO
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PodcastUFO
📺 Subscribe on YouTube (It’s Free!):
https://www.youtube.com/user/PodcastUFO?sub_confirmation=1
SHOW NOTES
Support the Show & Stay Connected!
👉 Join us on Patreon — Get ad-free podcast episodes (for any media player) for as little as $2/month:
https://www.patreon.com/MartinWillisPodcastUFO
🛸Did you have a UFO/UAP Encounter? Leave Us a Voicemail: https://podcastufo.com/ufo-sightings/ufo-encounter-voicemail
🧢 Podcast UFO Merch (Shirts, Hats & More): https://tinyurl.com/mrybmnwb
📬 FREE Sign Up for Our Weekly Newsletter — Get updates on upcoming guests, blog posts, and more:
http://eepurl.com/LPHKD
🌐 Our Website:
https://podcastufo.com
📱 Follow us on Social Media:
Twitter (X): https://x.com/PodcastUFO
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PodcastUFO
📺 Subscribe on YouTube (It’s Free!):
https://www.youtube.com/user/PodcastUFO?sub_confirmation=1
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Hello, and welcome to the show. I'm Martin Willershure, host
and while this show is airing, I'll be doing my
job as the mc UP at Shag Harbor UFO conference.
So I had to pre record this show with Jensen
Andrisson and I hope I said her name sort of
right correctly. She is an amazing person and she's been on.
(00:37):
She was on a few years ago. She was part
of two people that were on with another researcher. So
her background is just incredible. She has a PhD from
Harvard and several degrees social anthropology. And part of the
talk today she is going to be talking about a culture,
(01:00):
which is a term I never really had heard before.
But it's like, if we are going to be associated with, say,
extra trestles, we'll just put it out there. Then how
would we, you know, react to them, how would we
accept them? So she's got a really interesting view on
that and it's a real pleasure to have her back.
(01:24):
Jen Scene, did I sort of say your last name? Okay?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Just fine, I'm Jen Scene andreson and thank you Martin
so much for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
It's nice to be back.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And we'll have to say that is a virtual background,
but it is quite beautiful.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
All my backgrounds are aspirational, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, yeah, So I have to ask you, you know,
you were on before and we may have had the conversation,
but what in all your studies and everything, what made
you decide that, you know, this is an interesting topic
for you. Did you have some type of experience yourself?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
You know, I really approach it as an academic. And
for me, I've been a reader, you know, since like
I don't even remember learning to read. I read really early,
and I read every like, I just read voraciously.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
So I'm a big reader. And I guess, you know,
all the way.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Back to my childhood, I read on this topic mostly
because I would go into the local library and just
like check out half a wall of books at a time,
and you know, at some point all.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
These UFO books were part of that. And I just
read and read and kept reading for years.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
And it became apparent to me that there is so
much documentation, government documentation, you know, going back, let's say
to the forties and the fifties, and not just US
government documentation, but also Scandinavian reports to you know, let's
(03:00):
say that the nineteen thirties, the documentation seems to me.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
To be irrefutable.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
So I began publishing more formally on this topic in
twenty twenty one when I was invited by Ted Peters,
who is an editor of an astrobiology textbook, to do
a chapter on UFOs, and to the best of my knowledge,
that was the first chapter anyone had written on the
(03:29):
UFO slash UAP topic in a formal astrobuck biology textbook.
And you know, in the process of researching that, you
know again, you just you're confronted by this overwhelming preponderance
of evidence, documentary evidence, and you know, so it's it's
been a real reading government document kind of thing.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
And then at certain points along the way, also.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
I've been in contact with researchers in other countries who
have provided me with enormous numbers of scams.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Let's say, of.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
The reports of the ghost rockets in Scandinavia from local
newspapers that are written in Scandinavian languages, so you know,
Ukrainian documents written in Ukrainian Russian.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
So I've seen a lot of things in foreign language
sources too.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
So.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Yeah, very interesting. Now a lot of people don't realize this,
but there's a lot of information on the CIA's website
about UFOs, and yeah, pretty fascinating. And all you have
to do is, I think it's CIA dot gov or
something like that. I can't and just type in UFOs
and you're going to get a lot of information.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
A lot of good, I mean, amazing documents and you
have to wave through the actions and sometimes some.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Of the documents, you know, are a bit like.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Maybe I don't know intent whatever, but they come out
a little bit funky. You have to like really wade
through the reading of them.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
But also another great source that I've made.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
And I've downloaded that group of documents and gone through them.
But another great source of material too is on Black Fault.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Right, the Black Fault.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Website has a lot of amazing you know, based on
Foyer requests accumulation of government documents too.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, he has done a great jobs. He's invited on
the show. He's we're just talking. He's been on a
number of times, but he does. He started out I
think it was at age fifteen or believe when he
sent for his first Foyer. It's pretty amazing. And years
ago I asked Stanton Friedman, I said, who's the next
(05:44):
Stanton Friedman, and he said, John Greenwald, you know this
is back in like two thousand and twelve or thirteen.
I asked him that question.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
And so he's been He's been really a great asset
to the community. I think as much as it's really
system it kind of indefatigable. He just keeps going after
his documents year after year after year, and you know,
presents them very nicely on their website.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Right right. It's not an easy thing to do. It's
something you have to be patient. And I've had people
that I've talked to on this show say something like, oh,
I all of a sudden it came in the mail
and I forgot all about I sent that in like
two years ago, you know. So you have to be patient,
and you have to word it exactly the right way.
(06:31):
That's the tricky part about a four year If you
have one phrase wrong or something just one little thing incorrect,
it just gets rejected and you have to start all
over again. So he should, John should teach a course
on how to apply for a four year.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Attimes he does because I used to watch a lot of.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
His podcasts and sometimes you'll say, and I'll make sure
you know you'd write it this way, and.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
But you're right, of course.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Would be right right, So I guess I'll ask you this, okay,
with your wonderful academic mind and your research, do you
really think that do you think do you lean toward
with what we're being visited by could be extraterrestrial instead
(07:18):
of the other things that people mentioned, you know, interdimensional
time travelers, you know that type of thing. Do you
do you lean toward extraterrestrial?
Speaker 2 (07:29):
For me, it's not even a leaning from you know,
I always say it's extraterrestrial full stop, So I wouldn't.
I think the notion of interdimensionality is how do I
put it, not a very well, you can't really go
very far with it when you start to ask what
(07:50):
is a dimension that's not even well understood?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
So then now we're talking between dimensions. And I've heard.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
People like in that well, you know, it's a little
like this, or it's a little like that. And I
think that this dimension, this crossing of a threshold, let's
put it that.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Way, between one type of experience.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Of reality and another type of experience of reality reality.
I think that experience of crossing the threshold might feel
like interdimensionality, But something, feeling a certain way and being
that per se are two very different things. And so
(08:34):
I am a very strong proponent of what we call
the et H right, the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and I do
think this civilization is an extraterrustrial one.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
That is my viewer.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
That's why every one of my books or whatever I write, like,
I never debate.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
I'm always using the word extra trusture.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Okay, so I'm to talk a little bit about that,
but first I wanted to also mention a couple of
things that make me it's a puzzle to me and
that could almost explain another dimension. And that is just
for instance, there was a Francis Francis Cherimuda who's been
(09:20):
on this show from Southern from South Africa, who was
at the Zimbabwe the Ariel school incident, and he was
mentioning that a there were two beings and one was
running toward a pool and it's blinked out and then
blinked in ahead of itself. You know, those those type
(09:42):
of situations. And also a number of people will say
that a ufo above them or whatever that they're seeing
all of a sudden blinks out, and then some of
them will say, it blinks out and then it blinks
back in in another location, So that just kind of
you know, but that just also so maybe a way
of a time dilation situation. There's a lot of people
(10:05):
talk about time being involved in this, which it might be.
So now I'm going to ask you about the extraterrestrial
part of it coming back up. Sure, absolutely go ahead.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Because I'm not at all saying that witness reports of
that type of experience are not credible. I'm not saying that.
I think they probably are very credible. So what I'm
trying to The distinction I'm trying to make is from
(10:37):
the experience of what with your perceptual apparatus, your eyes,
you know, which I have a limited spectrum right what
you perceive, and what really is going on.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
At a physics level. And I think that's an important
distinction to make.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So I'm not doubting the witness reports at all, and
quite honestly, I think that the stranger, the more anomalous
witness reports probably give us a lot of really important
clues understanding what the actual underlying physics might be. So
let's just take this issue of like blinking in and
(11:13):
blinking out, for sake, you know, I think it's a
great one.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
I've tried to.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Look at that from a different well, I've tried to
look at that in two different ways. One is, I've
tried to look at that through the lens of Boone's
David Bohm's Physics, which I'm a real fan of David
Bohm and his discussion of the difference between the implicate
order and the explicate order.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
So I've looked at it through that lens.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
But I think there's another even more fundamental lens that
you can begin to approximate what might be going on there,
and that's this notion of morphogenesis. And I drop it
in a few of my publications this notion, and I
have talked about it more morphagenesis, and let me try to,
(12:08):
you know, because I don't a few other questions. I
don't necessarily want to spend the whole time on this.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I think it's really important. Actually, So what is morphogenesis? Right?
So genesis meaning the arising of form?
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Right. There's David Bone a lot of great interviews with
him one can watch, and a wonderful film about his
life called Infinite Potential that you can find the website
and watch the film.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
That's really great anyway. He is.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
He distinguished himself among physicists for developing what's called an
ontological interpretation of quantum theory. And I've talked about that
and in other interviews, so I won't go into that
and too much depth now, but it is I think
the farthest we've come as human beings to understand how
(13:07):
quantum phenomenon.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
And gravitation might work together.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
I'll leave it at that, but nevertheless, my point is this,
if you really, if you're a civilization, let's say a
million years ahead of us, a billion years ahead of us, whatever,
you are a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization, and you're here,
and you've managed, through one means or another to be
(13:34):
here visiting Earth, then you will understand already the relationship
between gravitation and the quantum level of reality. There's no
way you can get here without understanding that. If you
understand that, and we don't human beings don't. We have
(13:57):
not figured this out yet, but you can't get there
from here without understanding that level of physics. If you're here,
and if you understand that, it is very possible that
you might also understand morphogenesis and that is the sort
(14:19):
of the unfolding the arising of form. And if you
can understand, if you understand how to operationalize morphogenesis, right,
then this idea of appearing and then sort of folding
(14:40):
back in and then appearing somewhere.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Else, that would be within your repertoire.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
So that's the road I go.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Now, it does intersect with boom in the sense that
any and it really intersects very well with the whole
Sanskrit world. You know of what's discussed a lot in
ancient texts, the difference between rupa form and a roup
of formless, the difference between the form realm and the
(15:13):
formless realm. And so but I'll leave that. That's like
a whole nuther thing. We'll just talk about the bone piece.
So the implicate order is that from which everything unfolds
into what we perceive as explicate order. If you understand
that process of unfolding into the explicated, then that may
(15:40):
be the kind of thing that people are witnessing.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
It's possible.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Wow, I got to tell you, that's it's very well explained.
Thank you for that for us kind of late people. No,
I mean, it's that's really amazing. And I've had conversations
that I know you just answered when I have talked
to people like Seth Shostak from the CETI and I
(16:10):
remember the first interview I did with him was very
early on in my show, like twenty eleven, I do believe,
And everything went wrong that day when I was interviewing him,
and it was a pre recorded show, but everything went wrong.
The internet went down in my location, so I went
to a hotel room and the internet didn't work there,
(16:31):
so I used my hotspot in the window of the
hotel room to actually do the interview with him. But anyway,
I pulled it off. But one of the questions I
said to him, and I said, how about that we
don't understand everything in physics and they have a way
of getting here, Because he's very solid on saying over
(16:53):
and over again, you can't get here from there. And
I understand the vast distances in the star. When I
say I understand, I've said on the show a number
of times because I had to explained to me by
Jeffrey Bennett astrophysicists that if you if the Sun was
the size of a basketball, the Earth would be the
size of a ball. And a ballpoint pen, and if
(17:15):
that was located in Washington, d C. The nearest stars
in San Francisco. So that's kind of how you can
kind of visualize the vast different the distances that we
have to deal with. So anyway, if you're.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Using conventional propulsion, sure you can't.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's right, we're not, obviously.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
I mean that's why I'm kind of I kind of
argue it the other way around. I mean, I take
the witness testimony very seriously, I take the government documents
very seriously. I think there's an overwhelming preponderance of credible,
solid evidence.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Okay, let's just accept it already.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Then what then they understand physics. They're much more advanced
in their understanding of the fundamental properties of physics and
how they interrelate, and they can utilize them in ways
that would not require them to depend upon a conventional
(18:23):
you know, propulsion source.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Chemical source. Now it's it's kind of like they have
to reverse engineer. Yes, in a way, yes, because okay,
they're here. It's like I just I just was at
a lecture with Dan Brown, who did the Da Vinci
Code and stuff like that, wonderful lecturer, and he said that,
he writes the end of the book, first any reverse engineers,
(18:49):
how do you get there?
Speaker 3 (18:50):
You know?
Speaker 1 (18:51):
And I love I love that. I loved hearing that
because now that's kind of what we have to do, okay,
or try to do, like try to piece together how like, Okay,
so they're here from wherever they're at, wherever they're from,
how did they get here from there? And because if
you look at like if something travels like light speed
(19:14):
or whatever, I always think of things like debris in
the way. I mean, they're going to be hitting things,
you know, along the way. They just have to you know,
space junk, meteors or whatever it is flying around. So
there's always that as far as conventional travel. That's kind
of you know, something that you know that I've thought
of over the years, like how do they get here
(19:36):
from wherever they're coming from? So there are different ways
that we just can't even I don't think we can
even imagine. Like you said, we don't quite understand things,
but I don't. I think we've got a long way
to go before we could actually understand.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
I mean what I was saying something that's like so
basic in a funny way and so powerful at the
same time.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Right, It's it's.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
This imagine if you could generate form. Imagine if you
knew how to generate form, right, then like essentially almost
anything's possible at that point, right, And it also would
begin to explain I think this wide variety of forms
(20:24):
that people perceive or people experience in like let's say,
vehicle type or type of beat, right, because I think
the underlying intelligence simply knows how to generate forms. So
now you can you can appear any way you want
to appear, and you can appear in a way that's
(20:45):
maybe more the most pedagogically useful and culturally appropriate to
the species at any point in time. So you know,
I remember, Martin, you kindly sent me that one account
from was it the seventeen ninety six or something?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Oh, yes, the Perkins account, yes.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Right, and then in it, oh yeah, that's that's just
so beautiful.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Thank you for sending that to me. And then I
know you've talked about it.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Now there are also accounts, let's say, from the late
eighteen hundreds in New Mexico, and what people describe is
something like an airship. Well that's kind of culturally within
reach at that point in time.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Right.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Then in the thirties in Scandinavia they're describing these kind
of ghost.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Rockets or ghost ships, right.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
So again, it's not so far out of reach that
people completely melt.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Down, you know, like inability to wrap their heads.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I mean, it's so it's out of reach, but it's
not completely out of reach, right.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
And and then you come into the you.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Know, let's say modern era, you have like the food fighters,
you have the orbit So things are slightly out of reach,
but interesting enough people can kind of wrap their heads
around it sufficiently that it generates curiosity in human beings.
So that's another reason that I've said I think this
(22:29):
is a pedagogue.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
I mean teaching. They're teaching, they're putting, because that's how
you teach.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
You put something just out of reach of your students,
just barely, not too far.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
It's too far.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
They get disappointed and they stop trying, but it's just
far enough that they're intrigued and they kind of chase
after it to learn.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
And I think that's what's happening here.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
And then's Henson Are you familiar with Are you familiar
with Rob Henson?
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Cool?
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Rob Henson? Rob Henson has a very much of philosophy
very similar to that, that they're just far enough out
of reach. And yeah, it's very I will connect you
with his he's a great person and I had him
on my show prior. So maybe that's why, you know,
(23:21):
the people say, well, they wouldn't be bipedal, they wouldn't
look like us. You know, there's people that you know,
always argue that, like, oh, this is crazy. They shouldn't
be that way because they evolved somewhere else. But now
I'm going to ask you that, and you can address that,
but I'm going to ask you this question also, why
here are we that spectacular Why all these visits would
(23:45):
come here?
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Maybe we're that spectacularly stupid. We're spectacularly stupid, aren't we,
in particular around nuclear weapons?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Oh yes, yes, in.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Particular around our weapons systems and our stubbornness and our surveillance.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
And and our just so dumb, so incredibly.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
And if we were just dumb, maybe we'd be left
to our own devices. But I do think that it's
the pairing of the stupidity with the nuclear weapons that
is exstination and why there is so much you know,
(24:36):
now some research will researchers say.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Well, this you know, the the heavier A number of
sightings really occur as starting in the forties.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
But if you and this is what intrigued me so
much about the accounts in the Scandinavian press in the thirties.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
There's so many of them.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
I was set hundreds of them in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish,
and so.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
That essentially, and.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
I make this argument one of the things I published,
which is I think it wasn't just once we had
developed the first atomic bomb, but it was when we
were already at the level of the precursor science, when
we were starting to understand the science that would be
(25:26):
necessary for nuclear vision, and that's when it seems that
the level of interest in human beings really increased.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
And this is something that.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
I think this correlation is well documented at Robert Hayes.
A lot of people have documented this correlation between nuclear
weapons and UFO sightings. So I just think that documentation
effort was very helpful against the community, and.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
A lot of good work has been done on that.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
So okay, let's just take it for what it is
and try to understand why. And I think, you know,
the first order answer is because well, we might wipe
ourselves out, we might become extinct, we might you know, pollute,
(26:24):
pollute the planet with radioactive fallout, all of these sort of.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Obvious things, and they all make sense.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
If UFOs and an extradustrial civilization is in our near proximity,
the blasts might be harmful to them.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I think, you know, all of that makes sense, right.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I had a strong intuition that it was something deeper
going on, like that's all true, but it's worse than that,
Like there's something fundamental about fundamental physics that is disrupted
by nuclear fission, and that that's the real core concern
(27:12):
that I just really strongly wanted to look into that.
And in sort of prior interviews I've talked about like,
you know, where we're we're ripping through the fabric, you know,
And I mean, you can describe it in this metaphorical
way because you are literally splitting atoms, so you are
literally ripping through the fabric of the way things in
(27:34):
a way should be organically. But this niggling, you know,
feeling that I had that there's something even deeper than that.
So in the last it's actually within the last week
I started to look into it to see if I
could get a handle.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
On what might be going on, and if you want,
I give you my newest idea. Uh yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
So, and I might have to look at my notes
because this is new physics.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
So I know more about quantum theory.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
I know less about biophysics, the field of biophysics, so
I'm learning about biophysics right to pursue this line of
inquiry about have you ever heard of chirality?
Speaker 1 (28:24):
No?
Speaker 3 (28:24):
Okay, So.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Essentially, have you ever heard of the scientist Louis Pasteur, Yes, okay,
so in eighteen forty eight, and I might look down
at my notes for a moment. Here he developed some
experiments that led to articulating this concept of chirality. Essentially,
(28:50):
it means handedness, right, So at a molecular level, you've
got to just bear with me a little science here.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Oh that's good, put up some pictures.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Well, I look at my note okay, fine, oh yeah,
please please okay. Molecular chirality is the property of a
molecule and its mirror image being non super imposable like
a right and left hand right and the discovery of
(29:25):
molecular handedness is considered the origin of stereochemistry and that's
the branch of chemistry that studies the three dimensional spatial
arrangement of atoms within molecules. Okay, So, according to a
direct quote from Pasteur, although probably translated, kirality is one
(29:46):
of the links between life on Earth and the cosmos.
So when basically it's like this at a molecular level,
the needed to be handedness for biological life to evolve
in the way that we have it now, things had
(30:09):
to be a bit asymmetrical.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
That's what essentially it boils down to. So really we're
coming back around to.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Morphogenesis, aren't we like the evolving a form. So for
anything biological to evolve, and in fact, he's arguing for
the cosmos itself to exist. And this is what he's saying,
is the common idea between the evolution of biological life
and the origin of the cosmos, you needed this asymmetry,
(30:40):
this chirality an atomic level.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Okay, that's sort of the general idea.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Now, what happens with nuclear fission, and essentially nuclear fission,
right when you split the atom, there's a process called
beta decay and that involves the weak force. Okay, and
(31:08):
it now this is it really it disrupts chirality. So
it's not just the radiation, it's that the disruption, the
damage of fission is much deeper than just the radiation.
It's DNA damage, it's molecular damage, and it alters cellular processes.
(31:36):
So now that is spread across all the species. Anybody,
you know, anybody around So I you know, I have,
like I said, I've just been at this for a
couple of days.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
So I think it's that.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
I think it's at least that's part of it.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
We are doing so much. I mean, the potential.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Is catastrophic, not just in terms of the potential extinction
of our species and other you know, other species, but
at this much deeper level.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Of fundamental.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Molecular arrangement that is necessary, completely necessary for biology.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Wow. So when you're saying that this can alter DNA, basically,
that's kind of what I'm hearing. How does it do that?
Does that do that with direct contact? Like to say,
if we had a nuclear war, is this what we're
talking about or are you talking about what we've already done.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
It happens.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
It happens whenever you have fission, whenever you split the atom.
Splitting the atom creates beta decay, beta decay is related
to the weak force. So there are four fundamental forces, gravitation, electromagnetism,
(33:18):
the strong and the weak force. So beta decay is
relating to the weak force, and it's disrupting at a
molecular level. It's kind of it's a bit almost like
a double negative. So I'll say it maybe twice. It's
disrupting at a molecular level the fundamental asymmetry, because it's
(33:43):
not symmetry that's necessary for life as we experience it.
It's asymmetry, handedness, chirality.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
It needed to be skewed just a little.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Bit for the universe and for all of myology to
evolve in the way that it did. It needed to
be asymmetrical. So that fundamental asymmetry is really important. But
nuclear fission disrupts that fundamental molecular asymmetry. So what I'm
(34:20):
you know, just if you just want to leave all
the science out of it, it's really happening that the
dangers that are really deep, deep, deep level deeper.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Than the danger from radiation and fallout.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
Wow, I was it amightner. I'm trying to think when
the very first atom was was split, were they very
first the very first thing I'm trying to remember was
in the late nineteen thirties. But I've talked about this before.
(34:58):
It's kind of scared or that. I think it was
being presented somewhere in the US, and all these physicists
were sitting there, and the very first thing everyone thought
of was a bomb. You know, the energy, the amount
of energy released, and a bomb right off the you know,
right off the bat, you.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Know, I mean, how stupid can we get?
Speaker 2 (35:20):
Yeah, I mean it's just like the level of stupidity
is just like sort of overwhelming.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
Right, right.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
And so but that tendency to want to weaponize energy,
right is a really big issue. And so I think that,
you know, back to where we started with this notion
of a culturation, some people are sort of, you know, impatient, Well,
(35:51):
why don't they just this, or why don't they just that?
Speaker 3 (35:53):
Or why don't they just do the next thing?
Speaker 2 (35:55):
And I say it's because, you know, everybody and their
brothers heavily armed, right, And then you've got this enormous
number of nuclear weapons. Now we don't just have fission bombs,
but we have thermonuclear devices. Thermonuclear devices use fission and fusion.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
They use fission, fusion fission kind of in a in
a in a sequence.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
Right, and now you've got the new gravity bombs that
are being developed actually assembled I guess by pantecs B
sixty one DESH thirteen. And then now you know, and
we haven't even thrown on top of it, AI being
introduced into all of this. So essentially you have a
(36:46):
situation where it's so precarious. It's already precarious even without
let's say a disruptor, although I'm not sure I want
to use that word, such as an extraterrestrial contact event.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
It's already very very precarious.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Right, people are already melting down, people are already snapping
all the time.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
And now, but.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
We are doing these things that have massive ramifications not
just for our own species but for fundamental biology. And
so you have, I think, this extrastrial specie that trying
to figure out how do we get through to human
beings in an effective way without causing some other kind
(37:39):
of cascading you know, panic reaction. Meanwhile, you have, if
what I'm saying is right about morphogenesis, you have a
culture that I mean where in a sense it even
transcended mass. I mean the whole notion of energy per
(38:02):
se is different. If you understand morphogenesis, right, more energy
becomes like a sort of almost a shrug off because
morphagenesis so much more powerful.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
But you have a species who clearly, if.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
They understand morphogenics, also understands intense how to interact in
a safe way with enormous amounts of energy.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
And then you have human beings.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
In contrast, and in your anecdote was perfect there the
first thing they think when confronted with enormous amounts of
energy is how do we reaconize it? So you kind
of need to be incredibly careful of you know, you
can teach, but you can teach up to a point, right,
because if you deliver too much knowledge, it's going to
(38:54):
be weaponized. And it's why I think the whole quote
unquote disclosure conversation becomes problematic because this a culturation process
is so fine tuned.
Speaker 3 (39:13):
You know, let's imagine you're.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
The extraterrestrial spece, so you're trying to figure out how
to do this in a safe manner, and you see,
you know, the bricks block against NATO, or you see
or if you want to slice the pile a little differently,
you see Russia US in China, and you see these rivalries, right,
and you see these arms build up.
Speaker 3 (39:35):
You know, let's just look at the recent military parade
in China.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Then you see this introduction of artificial intelligence, and you're
trying to figure out, now, how can we, you know,
interact safely. We can't give them too much knowledge. They'll
run off and weaponize it. Right, And if we give
one let's just take it as a game of threes, Russia,
(40:04):
China and the US.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
If we give one side a little more than the other,
then it just becaus it becomes.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
A really actually very complex culturation. Is really complex. It's
not very simple, and it's also not so straightforward that
let's saying throwing open the doors of the barn and
letting all the classified tech out is a good idea.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
You know, I don't think it is.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
I think that that balance is very very fragile.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
So I agree. I mean, I can understand. The one
thing that I think of that I'll just throw at you.
It's it's sort of I like your view. I think
that's you know that we really have to do this
as us, as species. However, we really have no idea
(41:03):
of the way of thinking that a non human has,
you know, I mean we can kind of project our
thinking into what they would think, but we have, in
my opinion, we have absolutely no idea the way they think.
So how do you is this idea of yours mostly
for us and not for them? Like how we would
(41:28):
adapt to whatever we find out they are? Is it
mostly for us? Is my question.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
I wrote a book called Extraterrestrial Ethics.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
And it's I don't know how accessible it is, but
I try to take on that question a little bit,
and I tried to say, again, this idea of sort
of a cognitive or a mental conceptual reverse engineering, Right,
(42:01):
how is it that you survive if you really understand
the physics of let's say, unlimited energy.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
How can your.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
Species know that and continue to survive without weaponizing that
knowledge and rendering itself extinct?
Speaker 3 (42:21):
That's the question.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
So again, we take just the fact of the extraterrestrial
presence for granted, we say we've reversed engineer. Well, they're here,
so they must understand the fundamental physics because of the distances, so.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
They must have another way of doing it. Okay, that means.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
By extrapolation, they also will understand how to let's say,
utilize enormous amounts of energy, but somehow they managed to
get across that threshold in their own development as a
(43:02):
species without weaponizing it, turning it upon themselves in a
negative way and destroying themselves. Right, then, now the question
how must they think for all those things to be true?
Because I think all those things are true? So how
must they think?
Speaker 3 (43:24):
So I took? I took.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
I was trying to make it somewhat accessible, so I took.
In ethics, there's a sort of well discussed differentiation between
two kinds of ethics, utilitarian right, where the ends justify
the means, and a non utilitarian or deontological approach where
(43:49):
the ends do not justify the means.
Speaker 3 (43:52):
And that's discussed by epicis, Like do.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
The ends justify the means or do they never justify
the means?
Speaker 3 (43:59):
Right?
Speaker 2 (43:59):
As a base for the development of morality, Let's put
it that way, And I said, okay, let's most human
geopolitical decision making, especially now, especially since international norms are
(44:21):
being just shredded on a daily basis, is being pushed forward.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
I argue this in a different place, I think through
a kind of.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Again, incredibly stupid implementation of game theory, where essentially the
ends justify the means, so you can do anything you want, Like,
you can be as immoral as you want, as unethical
as you.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Want, as long as your end is somehow you think
it's just right. And so that entire way.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Of thinking iStrategic and tactical. Mostly it's very tactical, but
it has a strategic component. Okay, So now let's look
at the other kind of ethics where the ends do
not justify the means deontological right. So let's say the
(45:18):
ends do not justify the means. How do you need
to think for.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
That to be? Like, that's a massive shift.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
Because we are so taught and all of our institutions,
our entire intelligence, all of that is based on strategic
and tactical. Our departments of defense or war what, it's
all strategic and tactical thinking, all of it. Nobody's saying
what if the end is? I mean, like, what if
(45:49):
the ends don't justify the means? And we can't even
take a single step forward unless it's a moral step,
unless it's justifiable just in and of itself. Regardless of
what direction we think we like, every moment has to
be moral, right that, Like, so I think that is
(46:11):
a way to start to approximate what would have been
necessary for a species to have unlimited energy at its
disposal and not to have rendered itself extinct by the
misuse of that energy. You would almost need to be complete,
like everything would need to be moral, like everything would
(46:34):
need to be good.
Speaker 3 (46:38):
It's really hard.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
It's so hard, Like if you've even try it for
a day, try it for two hours.
Speaker 3 (46:44):
It's so hard, you know, because you know, like going,
you're gonna go, I'm gonna go to the road.
Speaker 2 (46:49):
Grocery sorting, and then you see my car and they
want the spot, like you want the spine, like the
whole tactics, and it just keeps in.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
Yeah, you think of it this way too, like if
if that's well, I'll just put it this way. This
is I mentioned Jeffrey Bennett earlier, he astrophysicists. He said,
and I've quoted this a number of times on this show.
He basically said that water cooler talk at NASA was
(47:26):
if a society can get through the bottleneck of technology
without blowing themselves up, they'll be traveling the stars.
Speaker 3 (47:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (47:33):
It was just that one little phrase means quite a bit,
because you know, that's we have to develop in a
way to survive as a species with you know, look
at ais another thing thrown in the mix. We have
to be able to go this way without blowing ourselves up,
and techniques have a lot of maturity. We have to
(47:57):
be more mature to do that because.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Now we're not development and the ethical development has to
happen like at the same time, yes, because if it doesn't,
this will overcome that.
Speaker 1 (48:11):
Exactly. So, I don't know how you feel we're doing.
We're not doing so well. I don't think right now.
But maybe things, you know, maybe some things will change
in our society where we it always you know what
they say the mother invention. I forget that term, but
I mean like we when we're forced by pressure of
(48:32):
some type, like if we actually see the doom is near,
maybe we'll get our act together. I don't know, you know,
but uh uh, we don't have to go down this
total philosophical lane here. But still, you know, I do
have hope that we can, you know, when we're up
against it, we can finally, you know, like a simple
(48:55):
question here, would you give up your you know, I
think you said you didn't even have an iPhone, it's
no problem for you. But would the average person give
up their cell phone if they knew it would save
the world. I wonder how that question would be answered.
Speaker 2 (49:08):
Hope that that'd be one hundred percent yes, but maybe
it would like I don't know, Like that's hard for
me to that's really difficult for me to wrap my
head around that it wouldn't be an automatic.
Speaker 3 (49:20):
Of course, yeah, but I don't know, like maybe maybe
we're really I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (49:27):
You know, I.
Speaker 2 (49:31):
Tend to be an optimistic person and I have a
lot of determination, and I wake up every day and
I keep trying, right, And I think a lot of
people are like that, and you might as well, right,
because it's a good use of your time to keep
on trying and keep trying to figure things out and
do the right thing to the best of your ability.
Speaker 3 (49:54):
All that being said, I think something.
Speaker 2 (49:59):
I think we're really in a very dangerous time, and
I think it is important to be honest about that.
I you know, I've been struggling to articulate because the
some of these events that are happening both at a
local level but also you know, in other parts of
(50:21):
the world geopolitically where a lot of norms are being
violated in rapid succession, and so, you know, in a
weird way in one or two cases, maybe you know,
I can understand it. All that being said, we're at
a place so I was asking myself, like, what is
(50:43):
what is going on here? Because this seems very very
different than life.
Speaker 3 (50:51):
In the eighties, and what is the nature?
Speaker 2 (50:56):
It's almost And I was really struggling to articulate it
until you know, essentially last night, and then I thought,
that's what it is. It's we're almost in a system,
a global system that has already begun a sequence, a
self destruct sequence like the at a systems level, we're
(51:21):
already in self destruct mode and that is playing out
in local events, and it's playing out at macro global geopolitical.
Speaker 3 (51:33):
Events, and it's picking up pace.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
And I think we we need to get a handle
on that very very quickly. If this just doesn't slide
how you know, I'm not entirely sure, but I think
(52:01):
it's it's imperative and it's not something where we can
continue business as usual and then say, well, you know,
we'll just develop, We'll just like modern quote unquote modernize
our nuclear weapons, or we won't renew New Start.
Speaker 3 (52:17):
Which we should renew.
Speaker 2 (52:18):
You know, we'll just do some other stupid thing and
let it continue to cream.
Speaker 3 (52:24):
Off the cliff. I think we we have to.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
It is sounds so cliche, and I don't mean to
be cliche, but we really need to get our heads
on straight, very very quickly, because the pace of this
is you know, I don't know how much you You're
very busy with your podcast, and I know doing that
would take a lot of time and research. So you know,
(52:47):
I don't know how much you listen to, you know,
world politics or whatever.
Speaker 1 (52:53):
But well, I'm a person who's in the last few
years decided to kind of put my head in the
same and I know that's totally wrong, but it's like
almost a survival for me. I'm not someone who likes
to it's I get discouraged to I take it too
personally or whatever, and I can get really upset about it.
(53:14):
So I try not to look as much as I
used to at the news. I'm just talking about on
a personal level.
Speaker 2 (53:23):
I think that reaction Martin is completely understandable, and I
don't think it's a wrong reaction. I mean, it is overwhelming.
It's overwhelming, and it's so rapid. I intake hours a
day of global news while I do sanscrit translation. So
(53:43):
I've kind of gone in the outlet like I'm just
because it's hard for me to just do Sanskrit, like
I get a little antsy, so I have to have
something else playing in the background in order to stay
stay with the Sanskrit.
Speaker 3 (53:56):
Hard as hard, so hard, and it's.
Speaker 2 (54:03):
It's sort of completely out of control, and it's it's
out of control in an accelerating way. The out of
controlness is accelerating, and that's even within the last six months.
Speaker 3 (54:16):
And so I do think.
Speaker 2 (54:21):
People who have the ability to make a difference at
a macro level, you know, hopefully hopefully you know, will
will do their best too.
Speaker 1 (54:35):
Well. I have to say, you know, to try to
try to end a little bit on a positive note.
Here's one of your books here, but to try to
end a little bit on a positive know what I
mentioned earlier that I was at a lecture with Dan
Brown and he his last book, The Secret of Secrets,
which is really amazing. It's basically on consciousness and things
(54:57):
like that, which is really he really dove into that,
but he said in his travels around the world, he
says that he realizes that the news is the headlines
are addictive, and they're they're negative, and there, you know,
there's so much bad you can look at when it
comes to headlines, and it's what sells, and the Google
(55:18):
ads come up and the Facebook ads come up on
the stuff that sells, the things that infuriate everyone. But
he says, I'll tell you there's a lot more love
out there than there is hate in the world. With
all his you know, the travels and research that he's
been doing, and I'd like to I'd like to believe
that that, you know, we can you know that that
(55:39):
maybe is the way forward is to have empathy and
and accept each other. And I'd like to kind of
end on that possibility because we're basically out of time.
Speaker 3 (55:52):
That is the way forward, and let's let's hope that
more people embrace it.
Speaker 1 (55:57):
That's right, all right, Well, you take care. It's been
really a wonderful conversation. Thank you so much. I really
really enjoyed it very much. All right, Okay, all right, everyone,
So next week we'll be back with Dave Marler for real.
This time. That was my mistake last time. And then
we have Joshua Bertrand a week from today at the
(56:17):
same time, eight pm. Thanks so much everyone, and remember
to keep your eyes to this
Hello, and welcome to the show. I'm Martin Willershure, host
and while this show is airing, I'll be doing my
job as the mc UP at Shag Harbor UFO conference.
So I had to pre record this show with Jensen
Andrisson and I hope I said her name sort of
right correctly. She is an amazing person and she's been on.
(00:37):
She was on a few years ago. She was part
of two people that were on with another researcher. So
her background is just incredible. She has a PhD from
Harvard and several degrees social anthropology. And part of the
talk today she is going to be talking about a culture,
(01:00):
which is a term I never really had heard before.
But it's like, if we are going to be associated with, say,
extra trestles, we'll just put it out there. Then how
would we, you know, react to them, how would we
accept them? So she's got a really interesting view on
that and it's a real pleasure to have her back.
(01:24):
Jen Scene, did I sort of say your last name? Okay?
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Just fine, I'm Jen Scene andreson and thank you Martin
so much for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
It's nice to be back.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
And we'll have to say that is a virtual background,
but it is quite beautiful.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
All my backgrounds are aspirational, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, yeah, So I have to ask you, you know,
you were on before and we may have had the conversation,
but what in all your studies and everything, what made
you decide that, you know, this is an interesting topic
for you. Did you have some type of experience yourself?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
You know, I really approach it as an academic. And
for me, I've been a reader, you know, since like
I don't even remember learning to read. I read really early,
and I read every like, I just read voraciously.
Speaker 3 (02:18):
So I'm a big reader. And I guess, you know,
all the way.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Back to my childhood, I read on this topic mostly
because I would go into the local library and just
like check out half a wall of books at a time,
and you know, at some point all.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
These UFO books were part of that. And I just
read and read and kept reading for years.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
And it became apparent to me that there is so
much documentation, government documentation, you know, going back, let's say
to the forties and the fifties, and not just US
government documentation, but also Scandinavian reports to you know, let's
(03:00):
say that the nineteen thirties, the documentation seems to me.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
To be irrefutable.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
So I began publishing more formally on this topic in
twenty twenty one when I was invited by Ted Peters,
who is an editor of an astrobiology textbook, to do
a chapter on UFOs, and to the best of my knowledge,
that was the first chapter anyone had written on the
(03:29):
UFO slash UAP topic in a formal astrobuck biology textbook.
And you know, in the process of researching that, you
know again, you just you're confronted by this overwhelming preponderance
of evidence, documentary evidence, and you know, so it's it's
been a real reading government document kind of thing.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
And then at certain points along the way, also.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
I've been in contact with researchers in other countries who
have provided me with enormous numbers of scams.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Let's say, of.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
The reports of the ghost rockets in Scandinavia from local
newspapers that are written in Scandinavian languages, so you know,
Ukrainian documents written in Ukrainian Russian.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
So I've seen a lot of things in foreign language
sources too.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
So.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Yeah, very interesting. Now a lot of people don't realize this,
but there's a lot of information on the CIA's website
about UFOs, and yeah, pretty fascinating. And all you have
to do is, I think it's CIA dot gov or
something like that. I can't and just type in UFOs
and you're going to get a lot of information.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
A lot of good, I mean, amazing documents and you
have to wave through the actions and sometimes some.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
Of the documents, you know, are a bit like.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Maybe I don't know intent whatever, but they come out
a little bit funky. You have to like really wade
through the reading of them.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
But also another great source that I've made.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
And I've downloaded that group of documents and gone through them.
But another great source of material too is on Black Fault.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Right, the Black Fault.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Website has a lot of amazing you know, based on
Foyer requests accumulation of government documents too.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, he has done a great jobs. He's invited on
the show. He's we're just talking. He's been on a
number of times, but he does. He started out I
think it was at age fifteen or believe when he
sent for his first Foyer. It's pretty amazing. And years
ago I asked Stanton Friedman, I said, who's the next
(05:44):
Stanton Friedman, and he said, John Greenwald, you know this
is back in like two thousand and twelve or thirteen.
I asked him that question.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
And so he's been He's been really a great asset
to the community. I think as much as it's really
system it kind of indefatigable. He just keeps going after
his documents year after year after year, and you know,
presents them very nicely on their website.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Right right. It's not an easy thing to do. It's
something you have to be patient. And I've had people
that I've talked to on this show say something like, oh,
I all of a sudden it came in the mail
and I forgot all about I sent that in like
two years ago, you know. So you have to be patient,
and you have to word it exactly the right way.
(06:31):
That's the tricky part about a four year If you
have one phrase wrong or something just one little thing incorrect,
it just gets rejected and you have to start all
over again. So he should, John should teach a course
on how to apply for a four year.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Attimes he does because I used to watch a lot of.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
His podcasts and sometimes you'll say, and I'll make sure
you know you'd write it this way, and.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
But you're right, of course.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Would be right right, So I guess I'll ask you this, okay,
with your wonderful academic mind and your research, do you
really think that do you think do you lean toward
with what we're being visited by could be extraterrestrial instead
(07:18):
of the other things that people mentioned, you know, interdimensional
time travelers, you know that type of thing. Do you
do you lean toward extraterrestrial?
Speaker 2 (07:29):
For me, it's not even a leaning from you know,
I always say it's extraterrestrial full stop, So I wouldn't.
I think the notion of interdimensionality is how do I
put it, not a very well, you can't really go
very far with it when you start to ask what
(07:50):
is a dimension that's not even well understood?
Speaker 3 (07:53):
So then now we're talking between dimensions. And I've heard.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
People like in that well, you know, it's a little
like this, or it's a little like that. And I
think that this dimension, this crossing of a threshold, let's
put it that.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
Way, between one type of experience.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Of reality and another type of experience of reality reality.
I think that experience of crossing the threshold might feel
like interdimensionality, But something, feeling a certain way and being
that per se are two very different things. And so
(08:34):
I am a very strong proponent of what we call
the et H right, the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and I do
think this civilization is an extraterrustrial one.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
That is my viewer.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
That's why every one of my books or whatever I write, like,
I never debate.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
I'm always using the word extra trusture.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Okay, so I'm to talk a little bit about that,
but first I wanted to also mention a couple of
things that make me it's a puzzle to me and
that could almost explain another dimension. And that is just
for instance, there was a Francis Francis Cherimuda who's been
(09:20):
on this show from Southern from South Africa, who was
at the Zimbabwe the Ariel school incident, and he was
mentioning that a there were two beings and one was
running toward a pool and it's blinked out and then
blinked in ahead of itself. You know, those those type
(09:42):
of situations. And also a number of people will say
that a ufo above them or whatever that they're seeing
all of a sudden blinks out, and then some of
them will say, it blinks out and then it blinks
back in in another location, So that just kind of
you know, but that just also so maybe a way
of a time dilation situation. There's a lot of people
(10:05):
talk about time being involved in this, which it might be.
So now I'm going to ask you about the extraterrestrial
part of it coming back up. Sure, absolutely go ahead.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Because I'm not at all saying that witness reports of
that type of experience are not credible. I'm not saying that.
I think they probably are very credible. So what I'm
trying to The distinction I'm trying to make is from
(10:37):
the experience of what with your perceptual apparatus, your eyes,
you know, which I have a limited spectrum right what
you perceive, and what really is going on.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
At a physics level. And I think that's an important
distinction to make.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
So I'm not doubting the witness reports at all, and
quite honestly, I think that the stranger, the more anomalous
witness reports probably give us a lot of really important
clues understanding what the actual underlying physics might be. So
let's just take this issue of like blinking in and
(11:13):
blinking out, for sake, you know, I think it's a
great one.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
I've tried to.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Look at that from a different well, I've tried to
look at that in two different ways. One is, I've
tried to look at that through the lens of Boone's
David Bohm's Physics, which I'm a real fan of David
Bohm and his discussion of the difference between the implicate
order and the explicate order.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
So I've looked at it through that lens.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
But I think there's another even more fundamental lens that
you can begin to approximate what might be going on there,
and that's this notion of morphogenesis. And I drop it
in a few of my publications this notion, and I
have talked about it more morphagenesis, and let me try to,
(12:08):
you know, because I don't a few other questions. I
don't necessarily want to spend the whole time on this.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I think it's really important. Actually, So what is morphogenesis? Right?
So genesis meaning the arising of form?
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Right. There's David Bone a lot of great interviews with
him one can watch, and a wonderful film about his
life called Infinite Potential that you can find the website
and watch the film.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
That's really great anyway. He is.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
He distinguished himself among physicists for developing what's called an
ontological interpretation of quantum theory. And I've talked about that
and in other interviews, so I won't go into that
and too much depth now, but it is I think
the farthest we've come as human beings to understand how
(13:07):
quantum phenomenon.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
And gravitation might work together.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
I'll leave it at that, but nevertheless, my point is this,
if you really, if you're a civilization, let's say a
million years ahead of us, a billion years ahead of us, whatever,
you are a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization, and you're here,
and you've managed, through one means or another to be
(13:34):
here visiting Earth, then you will understand already the relationship
between gravitation and the quantum level of reality. There's no
way you can get here without understanding that. If you
understand that, and we don't human beings don't. We have
(13:57):
not figured this out yet, but you can't get there
from here without understanding that level of physics. If you're here,
and if you understand that, it is very possible that
you might also understand morphogenesis and that is the sort
(14:19):
of the unfolding the arising of form. And if you
can understand, if you understand how to operationalize morphogenesis, right,
then this idea of appearing and then sort of folding
(14:40):
back in and then appearing somewhere.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Else, that would be within your repertoire.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
So that's the road I go.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Now, it does intersect with boom in the sense that
any and it really intersects very well with the whole
Sanskrit world. You know of what's discussed a lot in
ancient texts, the difference between rupa form and a roup
of formless, the difference between the form realm and the
(15:13):
formless realm. And so but I'll leave that. That's like
a whole nuther thing. We'll just talk about the bone piece.
So the implicate order is that from which everything unfolds
into what we perceive as explicate order. If you understand
that process of unfolding into the explicated, then that may
(15:40):
be the kind of thing that people are witnessing.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
It's possible.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Wow, I got to tell you, that's it's very well explained.
Thank you for that for us kind of late people. No,
I mean, it's that's really amazing. And I've had conversations
that I know you just answered when I have talked
to people like Seth Shostak from the CETI and I
(16:10):
remember the first interview I did with him was very
early on in my show, like twenty eleven, I do believe,
And everything went wrong that day when I was interviewing him,
and it was a pre recorded show, but everything went wrong.
The internet went down in my location, so I went
to a hotel room and the internet didn't work there,
(16:31):
so I used my hotspot in the window of the
hotel room to actually do the interview with him. But anyway,
I pulled it off. But one of the questions I
said to him, and I said, how about that we
don't understand everything in physics and they have a way
of getting here, Because he's very solid on saying over
(16:53):
and over again, you can't get here from there. And
I understand the vast distances in the star. When I
say I understand, I've said on the show a number
of times because I had to explained to me by
Jeffrey Bennett astrophysicists that if you if the Sun was
the size of a basketball, the Earth would be the
size of a ball. And a ballpoint pen, and if
(17:15):
that was located in Washington, d C. The nearest stars
in San Francisco. So that's kind of how you can
kind of visualize the vast different the distances that we
have to deal with. So anyway, if you're.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Using conventional propulsion, sure you can't.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's right, we're not, obviously.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
I mean that's why I'm kind of I kind of
argue it the other way around. I mean, I take
the witness testimony very seriously, I take the government documents
very seriously. I think there's an overwhelming preponderance of credible,
solid evidence.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Okay, let's just accept it already.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Then what then they understand physics. They're much more advanced
in their understanding of the fundamental properties of physics and
how they interrelate, and they can utilize them in ways
that would not require them to depend upon a conventional
(18:23):
you know, propulsion source.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
Chemical source. Now it's it's kind of like they have
to reverse engineer. Yes, in a way, yes, because okay,
they're here. It's like I just I just was at
a lecture with Dan Brown, who did the Da Vinci
Code and stuff like that, wonderful lecturer, and he said that,
he writes the end of the book, first any reverse engineers,
(18:49):
how do you get there?
Speaker 3 (18:50):
You know?
Speaker 1 (18:51):
And I love I love that. I loved hearing that
because now that's kind of what we have to do, okay,
or try to do, like try to piece together how like, Okay,
so they're here from wherever they're at, wherever they're from,
how did they get here from there? And because if
you look at like if something travels like light speed
(19:14):
or whatever, I always think of things like debris in
the way. I mean, they're going to be hitting things,
you know, along the way. They just have to you know,
space junk, meteors or whatever it is flying around. So
there's always that as far as conventional travel. That's kind
of you know, something that you know that I've thought
of over the years, like how do they get here
(19:36):
from wherever they're coming from? So there are different ways
that we just can't even I don't think we can
even imagine. Like you said, we don't quite understand things,
but I don't. I think we've got a long way
to go before we could actually understand.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
I mean what I was saying something that's like so
basic in a funny way and so powerful at the
same time.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
Right, It's it's.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
This imagine if you could generate form. Imagine if you
knew how to generate form, right, then like essentially almost
anything's possible at that point, right, And it also would
begin to explain I think this wide variety of forms
(20:24):
that people perceive or people experience in like let's say,
vehicle type or type of beat, right, because I think
the underlying intelligence simply knows how to generate forms. So
now you can you can appear any way you want
to appear, and you can appear in a way that's
(20:45):
maybe more the most pedagogically useful and culturally appropriate to
the species at any point in time. So you know,
I remember, Martin, you kindly sent me that one account
from was it the seventeen ninety six or something?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Oh, yes, the Perkins account, yes.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Right, and then in it, oh yeah, that's that's just
so beautiful.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
Thank you for sending that to me. And then I
know you've talked about it.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
Now there are also accounts, let's say, from the late
eighteen hundreds in New Mexico, and what people describe is
something like an airship. Well that's kind of culturally within
reach at that point in time.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
Right.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Then in the thirties in Scandinavia they're describing these kind
of ghost.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Rockets or ghost ships, right.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
So again, it's not so far out of reach that
people completely melt.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Down, you know, like inability to wrap their heads.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
I mean, it's so it's out of reach, but it's
not completely out of reach, right.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
And and then you come into the you.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Know, let's say modern era, you have like the food fighters,
you have the orbit So things are slightly out of reach,
but interesting enough people can kind of wrap their heads
around it sufficiently that it generates curiosity in human beings.
So that's another reason that I've said I think this
(22:29):
is a pedagogue.
Speaker 3 (22:29):
I mean teaching. They're teaching, they're putting, because that's how
you teach.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
You put something just out of reach of your students,
just barely, not too far.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
It's too far.
Speaker 2 (22:40):
They get disappointed and they stop trying, but it's just
far enough that they're intrigued and they kind of chase
after it to learn.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
And I think that's what's happening here.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
And then's Henson Are you familiar with Are you familiar
with Rob Henson?
Speaker 3 (22:58):
Cool?
Speaker 1 (22:59):
Rob Henson? Rob Henson has a very much of philosophy
very similar to that, that they're just far enough out
of reach. And yeah, it's very I will connect you
with his he's a great person and I had him
on my show prior. So maybe that's why, you know,
(23:21):
the people say, well, they wouldn't be bipedal, they wouldn't
look like us. You know, there's people that you know,
always argue that, like, oh, this is crazy. They shouldn't
be that way because they evolved somewhere else. But now
I'm going to ask you that, and you can address that,
but I'm going to ask you this question also, why
here are we that spectacular Why all these visits would
(23:45):
come here?
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Maybe we're that spectacularly stupid. We're spectacularly stupid, aren't we,
in particular around nuclear weapons?
Speaker 1 (23:58):
Oh yes, yes, in.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Particular around our weapons systems and our stubbornness and our surveillance.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
And and our just so dumb, so incredibly.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
And if we were just dumb, maybe we'd be left
to our own devices. But I do think that it's
the pairing of the stupidity with the nuclear weapons that
is exstination and why there is so much you know,
(24:36):
now some research will researchers say.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Well, this you know, the the heavier A number of
sightings really occur as starting in the forties.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
But if you and this is what intrigued me so
much about the accounts in the Scandinavian press in the thirties.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
There's so many of them.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
I was set hundreds of them in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish,
and so.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
That essentially, and.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
I make this argument one of the things I published,
which is I think it wasn't just once we had
developed the first atomic bomb, but it was when we
were already at the level of the precursor science, when
we were starting to understand the science that would be
(25:26):
necessary for nuclear vision, and that's when it seems that
the level of interest in human beings really increased.
Speaker 3 (25:39):
And this is something that.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
I think this correlation is well documented at Robert Hayes.
A lot of people have documented this correlation between nuclear
weapons and UFO sightings. So I just think that documentation
effort was very helpful against the community, and.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
A lot of good work has been done on that.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
So okay, let's just take it for what it is
and try to understand why. And I think, you know,
the first order answer is because well, we might wipe
ourselves out, we might become extinct, we might you know, pollute,
(26:24):
pollute the planet with radioactive fallout, all of these sort of.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
Obvious things, and they all make sense.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
If UFOs and an extradustrial civilization is in our near proximity,
the blasts might be harmful to them.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
I think, you know, all of that makes sense, right.
Speaker 2 (26:49):
I had a strong intuition that it was something deeper
going on, like that's all true, but it's worse than that,
Like there's something fundamental about fundamental physics that is disrupted
by nuclear fission, and that that's the real core concern
(27:12):
that I just really strongly wanted to look into that.
And in sort of prior interviews I've talked about like,
you know, where we're we're ripping through the fabric, you know,
And I mean, you can describe it in this metaphorical
way because you are literally splitting atoms, so you are
literally ripping through the fabric of the way things in
(27:34):
a way should be organically. But this niggling, you know,
feeling that I had that there's something even deeper than that.
So in the last it's actually within the last week
I started to look into it to see if I
could get a handle.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
On what might be going on, and if you want,
I give you my newest idea. Uh yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
So, and I might have to look at my notes
because this is new physics.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
So I know more about quantum theory.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
I know less about biophysics, the field of biophysics, so
I'm learning about biophysics right to pursue this line of
inquiry about have you ever heard of chirality?
Speaker 1 (28:24):
No?
Speaker 3 (28:24):
Okay, So.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
Essentially, have you ever heard of the scientist Louis Pasteur, Yes, okay,
so in eighteen forty eight, and I might look down
at my notes for a moment. Here he developed some
experiments that led to articulating this concept of chirality. Essentially,
(28:50):
it means handedness, right, So at a molecular level, you've
got to just bear with me a little science here.
Speaker 3 (29:00):
Oh that's good, put up some pictures.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
Well, I look at my note okay, fine, oh yeah,
please please okay. Molecular chirality is the property of a
molecule and its mirror image being non super imposable like
a right and left hand right and the discovery of
(29:25):
molecular handedness is considered the origin of stereochemistry and that's
the branch of chemistry that studies the three dimensional spatial
arrangement of atoms within molecules. Okay, So, according to a
direct quote from Pasteur, although probably translated, kirality is one
(29:46):
of the links between life on Earth and the cosmos.
So when basically it's like this at a molecular level,
the needed to be handedness for biological life to evolve
in the way that we have it now, things had
(30:09):
to be a bit asymmetrical.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
That's what essentially it boils down to. So really we're
coming back around to.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Morphogenesis, aren't we like the evolving a form. So for
anything biological to evolve, and in fact, he's arguing for
the cosmos itself to exist. And this is what he's saying,
is the common idea between the evolution of biological life
and the origin of the cosmos, you needed this asymmetry,
(30:40):
this chirality an atomic level.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Okay, that's sort of the general idea.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Now, what happens with nuclear fission, and essentially nuclear fission,
right when you split the atom, there's a process called
beta decay and that involves the weak force. Okay, and
(31:08):
it now this is it really it disrupts chirality. So
it's not just the radiation, it's that the disruption, the
damage of fission is much deeper than just the radiation.
It's DNA damage, it's molecular damage, and it alters cellular processes.
(31:36):
So now that is spread across all the species. Anybody,
you know, anybody around So I you know, I have,
like I said, I've just been at this for a
couple of days.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
So I think it's that.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
I think it's at least that's part of it.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
We are doing so much. I mean, the potential.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Is catastrophic, not just in terms of the potential extinction
of our species and other you know, other species, but
at this much deeper level.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
Of fundamental.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Molecular arrangement that is necessary, completely necessary for biology.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Wow. So when you're saying that this can alter DNA, basically,
that's kind of what I'm hearing. How does it do that?
Does that do that with direct contact? Like to say,
if we had a nuclear war, is this what we're
talking about or are you talking about what we've already done.
Speaker 3 (32:53):
It happens.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
It happens whenever you have fission, whenever you split the atom.
Splitting the atom creates beta decay, beta decay is related
to the weak force. So there are four fundamental forces, gravitation, electromagnetism,
(33:18):
the strong and the weak force. So beta decay is
relating to the weak force, and it's disrupting at a
molecular level. It's kind of it's a bit almost like
a double negative. So I'll say it maybe twice. It's
disrupting at a molecular level the fundamental asymmetry, because it's
(33:43):
not symmetry that's necessary for life as we experience it.
It's asymmetry, handedness, chirality.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
It needed to be skewed just a little.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Bit for the universe and for all of myology to
evolve in the way that it did. It needed to
be asymmetrical. So that fundamental asymmetry is really important. But
nuclear fission disrupts that fundamental molecular asymmetry. So what I'm
(34:20):
you know, just if you just want to leave all
the science out of it, it's really happening that the
dangers that are really deep, deep, deep level deeper.
Speaker 3 (34:30):
Than the danger from radiation and fallout.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
Wow, I was it amightner. I'm trying to think when
the very first atom was was split, were they very
first the very first thing I'm trying to remember was
in the late nineteen thirties. But I've talked about this before.
(34:58):
It's kind of scared or that. I think it was
being presented somewhere in the US, and all these physicists
were sitting there, and the very first thing everyone thought
of was a bomb. You know, the energy, the amount
of energy released, and a bomb right off the you know,
right off the bat, you.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Know, I mean, how stupid can we get?
Speaker 2 (35:20):
Yeah, I mean it's just like the level of stupidity
is just like sort of overwhelming.
Speaker 3 (35:25):
Right, right.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
And so but that tendency to want to weaponize energy,
right is a really big issue. And so I think that,
you know, back to where we started with this notion
of a culturation, some people are sort of, you know, impatient, Well,
(35:51):
why don't they just this, or why don't they just that?
Speaker 3 (35:53):
Or why don't they just do the next thing?
Speaker 2 (35:55):
And I say it's because, you know, everybody and their
brothers heavily armed, right, And then you've got this enormous
number of nuclear weapons. Now we don't just have fission bombs,
but we have thermonuclear devices. Thermonuclear devices use fission and fusion.
Speaker 3 (36:15):
They use fission, fusion fission kind of in a in
a in a sequence.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
Right, and now you've got the new gravity bombs that
are being developed actually assembled I guess by pantecs B
sixty one DESH thirteen. And then now you know, and
we haven't even thrown on top of it, AI being
introduced into all of this. So essentially you have a
(36:46):
situation where it's so precarious. It's already precarious even without
let's say a disruptor, although I'm not sure I want
to use that word, such as an extraterrestrial contact event.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
It's already very very precarious.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Right, people are already melting down, people are already snapping
all the time.
Speaker 3 (37:10):
And now, but.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
We are doing these things that have massive ramifications not
just for our own species but for fundamental biology. And
so you have, I think, this extrastrial specie that trying
to figure out how do we get through to human
beings in an effective way without causing some other kind
(37:39):
of cascading you know, panic reaction. Meanwhile, you have, if
what I'm saying is right about morphogenesis, you have a
culture that I mean where in a sense it even
transcended mass. I mean the whole notion of energy per
(38:02):
se is different. If you understand morphogenesis, right, more energy
becomes like a sort of almost a shrug off because
morphagenesis so much more powerful.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
But you have a species who clearly, if.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
They understand morphogenics, also understands intense how to interact in
a safe way with enormous amounts of energy.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
And then you have human beings.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
In contrast, and in your anecdote was perfect there the
first thing they think when confronted with enormous amounts of
energy is how do we reaconize it? So you kind
of need to be incredibly careful of you know, you
can teach, but you can teach up to a point, right,
because if you deliver too much knowledge, it's going to
(38:54):
be weaponized. And it's why I think the whole quote
unquote disclosure conversation becomes problematic because this a culturation process
is so fine tuned.
Speaker 3 (39:13):
You know, let's imagine you're.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
The extraterrestrial spece, so you're trying to figure out how
to do this in a safe manner, and you see,
you know, the bricks block against NATO, or you see
or if you want to slice the pile a little differently,
you see Russia US in China, and you see these rivalries, right,
and you see these arms build up.
Speaker 3 (39:35):
You know, let's just look at the recent military parade
in China.
Speaker 2 (39:40):
Then you see this introduction of artificial intelligence, and you're
trying to figure out, now, how can we, you know,
interact safely. We can't give them too much knowledge. They'll
run off and weaponize it. Right, And if we give
one let's just take it as a game of threes, Russia,
(40:04):
China and the US.
Speaker 3 (40:05):
If we give one side a little more than the other,
then it just becaus it becomes.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
A really actually very complex culturation. Is really complex. It's
not very simple, and it's also not so straightforward that
let's saying throwing open the doors of the barn and
letting all the classified tech out is a good idea.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
You know, I don't think it is.
Speaker 2 (40:31):
I think that that balance is very very fragile.
Speaker 1 (40:38):
So I agree. I mean, I can understand. The one
thing that I think of that I'll just throw at you.
It's it's sort of I like your view. I think
that's you know that we really have to do this
as us, as species. However, we really have no idea
(41:03):
of the way of thinking that a non human has,
you know, I mean we can kind of project our
thinking into what they would think, but we have, in
my opinion, we have absolutely no idea the way they think.
So how do you is this idea of yours mostly
for us and not for them? Like how we would
(41:28):
adapt to whatever we find out they are? Is it
mostly for us? Is my question.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
I wrote a book called Extraterrestrial Ethics.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
And it's I don't know how accessible it is, but
I try to take on that question a little bit,
and I tried to say, again, this idea of sort
of a cognitive or a mental conceptual reverse engineering, Right,
(42:01):
how is it that you survive if you really understand
the physics of let's say, unlimited energy.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
How can your.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
Species know that and continue to survive without weaponizing that
knowledge and rendering itself extinct?
Speaker 3 (42:21):
That's the question.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
So again, we take just the fact of the extraterrestrial
presence for granted, we say we've reversed engineer. Well, they're here,
so they must understand the fundamental physics because of the distances, so.
Speaker 3 (42:35):
They must have another way of doing it. Okay, that means.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
By extrapolation, they also will understand how to let's say,
utilize enormous amounts of energy, but somehow they managed to
get across that threshold in their own development as a
(43:02):
species without weaponizing it, turning it upon themselves in a
negative way and destroying themselves. Right, then, now the question
how must they think for all those things to be true?
Because I think all those things are true? So how
must they think?
Speaker 3 (43:24):
So I took? I took.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
I was trying to make it somewhat accessible, so I took.
In ethics, there's a sort of well discussed differentiation between
two kinds of ethics, utilitarian right, where the ends justify
the means, and a non utilitarian or deontological approach where
(43:49):
the ends do not justify the means.
Speaker 3 (43:52):
And that's discussed by epicis, Like do.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
The ends justify the means or do they never justify
the means?
Speaker 3 (43:59):
Right?
Speaker 2 (43:59):
As a base for the development of morality, Let's put
it that way, And I said, okay, let's most human
geopolitical decision making, especially now, especially since international norms are
(44:21):
being just shredded on a daily basis, is being pushed forward.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
I argue this in a different place, I think through
a kind of.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Again, incredibly stupid implementation of game theory, where essentially the
ends justify the means, so you can do anything you want, Like,
you can be as immoral as you want, as unethical
as you.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Want, as long as your end is somehow you think
it's just right. And so that entire way.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
Of thinking iStrategic and tactical. Mostly it's very tactical, but
it has a strategic component. Okay, So now let's look
at the other kind of ethics where the ends do
not justify the means deontological right. So let's say the
(45:18):
ends do not justify the means. How do you need
to think for.
Speaker 3 (45:25):
That to be? Like, that's a massive shift.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
Because we are so taught and all of our institutions,
our entire intelligence, all of that is based on strategic
and tactical. Our departments of defense or war what, it's
all strategic and tactical thinking, all of it. Nobody's saying
what if the end is? I mean, like, what if
(45:49):
the ends don't justify the means? And we can't even
take a single step forward unless it's a moral step,
unless it's justifiable just in and of itself. Regardless of
what direction we think we like, every moment has to
be moral, right that, Like, so I think that is
(46:11):
a way to start to approximate what would have been
necessary for a species to have unlimited energy at its
disposal and not to have rendered itself extinct by the
misuse of that energy. You would almost need to be complete,
like everything would need to be moral, like everything would
(46:34):
need to be good.
Speaker 3 (46:38):
It's really hard.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
It's so hard, Like if you've even try it for
a day, try it for two hours.
Speaker 3 (46:44):
It's so hard, you know, because you know, like going,
you're gonna go, I'm gonna go to the road.
Speaker 2 (46:49):
Grocery sorting, and then you see my car and they
want the spot, like you want the spine, like the
whole tactics, and it just keeps in.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
Yeah, you think of it this way too, like if
if that's well, I'll just put it this way. This
is I mentioned Jeffrey Bennett earlier, he astrophysicists. He said,
and I've quoted this a number of times on this show.
He basically said that water cooler talk at NASA was
(47:26):
if a society can get through the bottleneck of technology
without blowing themselves up, they'll be traveling the stars.
Speaker 3 (47:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (47:33):
It was just that one little phrase means quite a bit,
because you know, that's we have to develop in a
way to survive as a species with you know, look
at ais another thing thrown in the mix. We have
to be able to go this way without blowing ourselves up,
and techniques have a lot of maturity. We have to
(47:57):
be more mature to do that because.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Now we're not development and the ethical development has to
happen like at the same time, yes, because if it doesn't,
this will overcome that.
Speaker 1 (48:11):
Exactly. So, I don't know how you feel we're doing.
We're not doing so well. I don't think right now.
But maybe things, you know, maybe some things will change
in our society where we it always you know what
they say the mother invention. I forget that term, but
I mean like we when we're forced by pressure of
(48:32):
some type, like if we actually see the doom is near,
maybe we'll get our act together. I don't know, you know,
but uh uh, we don't have to go down this
total philosophical lane here. But still, you know, I do
have hope that we can, you know, when we're up
against it, we can finally, you know, like a simple
(48:55):
question here, would you give up your you know, I
think you said you didn't even have an iPhone, it's
no problem for you. But would the average person give
up their cell phone if they knew it would save
the world. I wonder how that question would be answered.
Speaker 2 (49:08):
Hope that that'd be one hundred percent yes, but maybe
it would like I don't know, Like that's hard for
me to that's really difficult for me to wrap my
head around that it wouldn't be an automatic.
Speaker 3 (49:20):
Of course, yeah, but I don't know, like maybe maybe
we're really I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (49:27):
You know, I.
Speaker 2 (49:31):
Tend to be an optimistic person and I have a
lot of determination, and I wake up every day and
I keep trying, right, And I think a lot of
people are like that, and you might as well, right,
because it's a good use of your time to keep
on trying and keep trying to figure things out and
do the right thing to the best of your ability.
Speaker 3 (49:54):
All that being said, I think something.
Speaker 2 (49:59):
I think we're really in a very dangerous time, and
I think it is important to be honest about that.
I you know, I've been struggling to articulate because the
some of these events that are happening both at a
local level but also you know, in other parts of
(50:21):
the world geopolitically where a lot of norms are being
violated in rapid succession, and so, you know, in a
weird way in one or two cases, maybe you know,
I can understand it. All that being said, we're at
a place so I was asking myself, like, what is
(50:43):
what is going on here? Because this seems very very
different than life.
Speaker 3 (50:51):
In the eighties, and what is the nature?
Speaker 2 (50:56):
It's almost And I was really struggling to articulate it
until you know, essentially last night, and then I thought,
that's what it is. It's we're almost in a system,
a global system that has already begun a sequence, a
self destruct sequence like the at a systems level, we're
(51:21):
already in self destruct mode and that is playing out
in local events, and it's playing out at macro global geopolitical.
Speaker 3 (51:33):
Events, and it's picking up pace.
Speaker 2 (51:39):
And I think we we need to get a handle
on that very very quickly. If this just doesn't slide
how you know, I'm not entirely sure, but I think
(52:01):
it's it's imperative and it's not something where we can
continue business as usual and then say, well, you know,
we'll just develop, We'll just like modern quote unquote modernize
our nuclear weapons, or we won't renew New Start.
Speaker 3 (52:17):
Which we should renew.
Speaker 2 (52:18):
You know, we'll just do some other stupid thing and
let it continue to cream.
Speaker 3 (52:24):
Off the cliff. I think we we have to.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
It is sounds so cliche, and I don't mean to
be cliche, but we really need to get our heads
on straight, very very quickly, because the pace of this
is you know, I don't know how much you You're
very busy with your podcast, and I know doing that
would take a lot of time and research. So you know,
(52:47):
I don't know how much you listen to, you know,
world politics or whatever.
Speaker 1 (52:53):
But well, I'm a person who's in the last few
years decided to kind of put my head in the
same and I know that's totally wrong, but it's like
almost a survival for me. I'm not someone who likes
to it's I get discouraged to I take it too
personally or whatever, and I can get really upset about it.
(53:14):
So I try not to look as much as I
used to at the news. I'm just talking about on
a personal level.
Speaker 2 (53:23):
I think that reaction Martin is completely understandable, and I
don't think it's a wrong reaction. I mean, it is overwhelming.
It's overwhelming, and it's so rapid. I intake hours a
day of global news while I do sanscrit translation. So
(53:43):
I've kind of gone in the outlet like I'm just
because it's hard for me to just do Sanskrit, like
I get a little antsy, so I have to have
something else playing in the background in order to stay
stay with the Sanskrit.
Speaker 3 (53:56):
Hard as hard, so hard, and it's.
Speaker 2 (54:03):
It's sort of completely out of control, and it's it's
out of control in an accelerating way. The out of
controlness is accelerating, and that's even within the last six months.
Speaker 3 (54:16):
And so I do think.
Speaker 2 (54:21):
People who have the ability to make a difference at
a macro level, you know, hopefully hopefully you know, will
will do their best too.
Speaker 1 (54:35):
Well. I have to say, you know, to try to
try to end a little bit on a positive note.
Here's one of your books here, but to try to
end a little bit on a positive know what I
mentioned earlier that I was at a lecture with Dan
Brown and he his last book, The Secret of Secrets,
which is really amazing. It's basically on consciousness and things
(54:57):
like that, which is really he really dove into that,
but he said in his travels around the world, he
says that he realizes that the news is the headlines
are addictive, and they're they're negative, and there, you know,
there's so much bad you can look at when it
comes to headlines, and it's what sells, and the Google
(55:18):
ads come up and the Facebook ads come up on
the stuff that sells, the things that infuriate everyone. But
he says, I'll tell you there's a lot more love
out there than there is hate in the world. With
all his you know, the travels and research that he's
been doing, and I'd like to I'd like to believe
that that, you know, we can you know that that
(55:39):
maybe is the way forward is to have empathy and
and accept each other. And I'd like to kind of
end on that possibility because we're basically out of time.
Speaker 3 (55:52):
That is the way forward, and let's let's hope that
more people embrace it.
Speaker 1 (55:57):
That's right, all right, Well, you take care. It's been
really a wonderful conversation. Thank you so much. I really
really enjoyed it very much. All right, Okay, all right, everyone,
So next week we'll be back with Dave Marler for real.
This time. That was my mistake last time. And then
we have Joshua Bertrand a week from today at the
(56:17):
same time, eight pm. Thanks so much everyone, and remember
to keep your eyes to this
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.