July 6, 2025 • 39 mins
I wanted to talk about politics and combating polarising opinions… but I didn’t want to get dark about it.
So, to help, I’ve called in my friend and optimism security blanket, Dave Richards. He’s one of those people who has realistic but optimistic insight into the world. He’s lived all over the world, has a deep cultural understanding, and just makes me feel better about the state of things.
So I thought I’d have him join me for a bit of a wide-ranging, mostly optimistic chat about the state of the world.
In this episode we talk about:
- The importance of maintaining optimism amid global and local challenges
- Why politics often seems theatrical, but politicians may genuinely care about making change
- The fact that environmental progress over decades shows improvement, even if it’s hard to see in the short term
- The significance of media literacy, critical thinking, and recognising manufactured divides and misinformation
- The potential of podcasts and open dialogue to foster understanding across political and ideological lines
- Why we should meet people where they are, find common ground, and avoid polarisation
- The myth of political and societal "us vs them" divides
- The importance of science-based policies and genuine conversations, even with those holding opposing views
- How media, algorithms, and social platforms influence polarisation and radicalisation
If you want to check out Dave’s incredible photography head along to his Instagram.
Giveaway! This week, I'm giving away copies of Talking Across the Divide, by Justin Lee. It’s a brilliant read on how to actually talk to people you disagree with - something we all probably need a bit more of. Join me over on Instagram to enter.
Find our full podcast via the website here: https://www.nowthatswhaticall.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nowthatswhaticallgreen/
You can follow me on socials on the below accounts.
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/briannemwest/
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@briannemwest
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/briannemwest/
For our latest big project, find out more about Incrediballs here: https://incrediballs.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Kyodo Kaitaki and welcome to NowThat's what I Call Green.
I'm your host, Brianne W, an environmentalist and
entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I
am. I'm all about creating a
scientific approach to making the world a better place without
the judgement and making it fun.And of course, we will be
chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our
planet with. So if you are looking to
(00:26):
navigate through everything green or not so green, you have
come to the right place. Jonah, welcome back.
Now, I know today's episode is another one on politics, but
it's actually a good one becauseI'm joined by Dave, who is a
long time friend and photographer of mine, actually.
But he's one of these people whohas like realistic but
(00:46):
optimistic insight into the world.
He's had a career where he's lived all over the place.
He spent a lot of time in the USA.
He's been a great deal of time in the Middle East.
He has this depth of like cultural understanding that I
don't and it just makes me feel better about the state of the
world. This is a bit of an unscripted
conversation because frankly, I wanted to let it run.
(01:08):
I think gives you a bit of a different perspective because I
can tend to be a little bit nihilistic and he definitely
helps with that. Dave has joins me today because
Dave is my what I'm going to call you.
I think you're like my optimism security blanket, which is a
thing. That's a thing.
I'm making that a thing because you're always the person I talk
to on Instagram or whatever. And I'm like, well, this person
has has done this and the world has ended and there's no point
(01:30):
in being alive anymore. Perhaps I'm overstating that as
much. And then you always come back
with but yeah, like this happened last time and none of
it really matters. And they're all friends.
I very specifically remember during the election, probably
last time you said they're actually all really good buds.
So this is all theatre. Yeah, which makes you sound like
a conspiracy theorist, but like all politics, all media is
(01:51):
designed to get us clicking and liking and so, so it has to look
like two sides. But all the stuff, particularly
in New Zealand is, I don't know,sound bites for the media.
But then everything happens in select committees where they
will generally get on and get a lot of work done.
So it gives you a bit of faith. I don't know, like, and I've
photographed quite a few politicians and I've never met
one. This is in New Zealand that
isn't in it for the right reasons.
(02:12):
So you might think I'm against them for this and that, but then
they get into politics because they care.
They want to make a change. It's a bit of a thankless job.
I I, yeah, It's not as grim as what you think.
No, you and you do, you do see the media where the headlines,
which are usually when people are being particular, they're
probably frustrated. Or in the case of Winston
Peters, who's been there for about 820 years, it's just sort
of over and doesn't care, right?But I have to say, when you see
(02:35):
things like Question Time and you just see them hurling
insults at one another, it doesn't fill you with confidence
that these adults can run this. This country, it's very dated,
isn't it? Yeah, and a parent is also
manufactured. Like they already know what
they're going to be saying backwards and forwards, so why
bother doing it? They're scripted.
Yeah, that's and the the questions and answers are often
submitted before, hence the answer What?
Do we? What do we what?
What is that for? I don't know.
(02:57):
Us never sit there and watch that TV channel.
I've watched it a few times, OK.Yeah, I'm not judging.
I remember watching a couple late at night once.
It was, I think it was Nikki Kayat the time and Jacinda Ardern
before she was Prime Minister and they were talking about the
rights of the child. Well, some people, they were
passing it out. My partner and I were watching
it late at night and we were agreeing with them both.
(03:19):
And I think they ended up agreeing.
It was really good because. Nikki was the lady who's just
recently passed away from breastcancer.
Right. Yeah.
And she was, I think her end. Pretty sure Jacinda Ardern were
separate times MP for Auckland Central.
I'm not sure if Jacinda was actually but but yeah.
I wouldn't have a clue. Interesting.
That's what I I, I think of Jacinda, what you want.
(03:41):
If you think that she ruined this country, I don't think
you're paying any attention. That's probably some bias
creeping in there. But also, if people think that
because of what they say on TV, if you met her, you'd probably
like her. Yeah, I think she'd asked to
come and come to take a few times and it always, I'd always
tried to stay away from politics.
It wasn't something that I been interested in.
(04:03):
But also it comes with a whole lot of baggage.
Finally, we said yes. 2022 I wasthere the day before you.
Were for the Barbie shoot like it was a big terrifying week of
stress. But I may remember walking out.
The first thing I thought was, oh, she's way shorter than I
thought she was. And then because I have no
ability to not get stage fright in front of people I consider
(04:23):
impressive or even just anybody actually, I'm intimidated by
everyone. I walked up to her and there was
like this, this flash of like, oh God, across Jacinda's face
because I obviously made a face or forgot to breathe or forgot
my name or did something stupid and she was ever civilized.
However, she did disappoint me because we got a better, I don't
know, a 30 minute chat with her at some point later during that
(04:44):
day. And I asked her, single use
plastic, there is a seriously easy solution.
Why aren't we putting a tax on virgin plastic and putting all
that cash into infrastructure fund if you like.
And her, her response was, it's just a bit more complicated.
I have no doubt it's more complicated than that.
That isn't a reason not to do it.
(05:06):
And that seems like a really easy solution.
I mean, imagine if you could putit could be as little as a cent,
right? So the consumer really wouldn't
notice a cent on, say, a Zuru toy.
And yet there's so many of thosethings sold.
Imagine the recycling facilitiesyou'd be able to put in or Coke
you're not going to notice. Things like that, though I often
(05:28):
wonder if that is the role of politics and politicians or if
it's the role of businesses, because you look at what you've
done and the plastic you've removed from the ecosystem.
And I don't know many people starting businesses today that
pollute on purpose. Like everybody's a lot more
aware of it. Totally.
So my thing when I was talking about the optimism is whenever I
look at the world and at the time, when you zoom in right
(05:51):
now, it looks pretty terrible. But every 1020 years it
improves. So what we're looking at now it,
it does always get better. People.
I don't know, I think it. Doesn't get that.
You're absolutely right. Cyclically it does.
Actually, I will go back to yourpoint.
It absolutely is the role of business to do better.
Historically, businesses haven't.
But as you are pointing out, historically businesses have got
(06:13):
better. But is it because they've had
truth regulation, health and safety regulation would be an
example of that, Or is it because consumers have demanded
more and there are examples of that too.
So perhaps both exert some kind of pressure.
Just because something has happened historically, does that
mean it will in the future? No, I wanted you to lie to me.
That was one of the optimism things.
I don't know. I don't know if it does, but
(06:33):
even pollution and that like I, I look at when I first moved to
Christchurch, there was a bit ofa smog problem, but then the
earthquake got rid of a lot of chimneys and that changed.
But you look at London in the 50s and 60s when people died
from it, where it would get smogtrapped under an inversion
layer. So we are, we are improving.
Like in the Crown. Yeah, exactly like the Crown,
But we feel that we're improvingor or that things are bad now,
(06:54):
but we have improved quite a lot.
Yeah, and the anti vax movement is a good sign, right?
Because all these people are saying, oh, the vaccines don't
do anything good. RFKI don't want to talk about
him or he fills me with so much rage.
But they don't remember what they went around for, what it
was like when people drop dead of things like diphtheria or
rubella or even measles, right? You don't remember what life was
(07:17):
like prior to vaccinations. I really hope we don't have to
find out again for these people to remember though.
No, I think that's what carries me.
Insulin was quite good. Yeah, that was a good creation.
Well done. Oh my God, I've forgotten who
did that. And we?
Doctor insulin, I made that up. Well, he was.
He didn't even patent it. Yeah, but now, of course, we're
charging $1000. Well, not we, they, they.
(07:38):
Yeah. Yeah.
In in some areas, yeah, You have, as we've already
determined, A deeper understanding of politics than I
ever do. I mean, I don't even know what
libertarians are, because that guy Damian Grant, who writes
articles on stuff, I probably disagree with 101 out of 102
things he says. That's a really specific number.
Yeah, yeah. But then he'll say something
(07:59):
like, oh, why do you have that opinion?
Because you're a Dick about everything else.
Yeah, it's almost. That whole broken clock is right
twice a day thing, which probably almost be
mathematically correct for what you said.
But I find that when we get intothis football team ISM where
it's like we've got our side andthen there's the devil.
But sometimes the other side says good things and it's just
(08:22):
sort of, I don't know, I think maybe a bit more understanding
of all that. Whenever I try to convince
someone of something and I'm arguing with them, it doesn't
work. So it's more what have we got in
common? What do we, it's like we we talk
about climate denial and stuff like that, but I'm like, nobody
likes pollution. Are we angling it?
Are we wording it wrong? Are we hitting pressure points
that they think is political? Like where people think our
(08:45):
climate change, that must be a political view.
No, it's common sense. But because what they associate
it with is parties they don't like or football teams they
don't like. You've got to meet people where
they are, right? You've got to see what you have
in common. It's the 101 negotiations.
Yeah, but we don't do that. No, and we're becoming more and
more separated, which is if you are a conspiracy theorist, which
(09:07):
I don't know, I feel like there's a basis intrusions, but
I feel like it is manufactured these divisions because the idea
of someone being left or right is stupid.
You often share beliefs on both sides.
Yeah, or more polarized, but that that can be algorithms.
True. Yeah, because you start to exist
in your little ecosystem. And it shows you what you want
to see. And I have been radicalized
online. Yeah.
By Taylor Swift. That's that's reasonable.
(09:29):
I don't get the music. I'm you know, it's not raging
enough for me. I'm a Three Days Grace woman.
There's something for everyone. My dad and I were talking about
it the other day, actually. And I'm immune to propaganda
because I can think critically, you know, I understand research
and sources. And then I fell for something.
I don't even remember what it was about.
It was something to do with Palestine and how something
(09:51):
horrendous, something else horrendous, it happened to a
group of Palestinians and it turned out it wasn't true.
But because I wanted to believe it and expected it to be true, I
didn't bother looking to see whether it was, wasn't even from
a decent source. It was just goes to show you
that even if you think you know what is what to look for, you
don't. It's very easy to fall for
manufacturership. I think you and I are similar
(10:12):
like that. Like we'll look outside
ourselves, whereas a lot of people don't or, or I, I start
thinking I, I look at people whoshare different views to mine
and I'm like, have they been radicalised?
I'm like, what am I radicalised about?
Because we all have certain things that we or I had it once
where someone asked me of a political opinion of mine and I
I gave them what I thought. And then they gave me my views
on about 20 items, exactly what they were.
(10:35):
And they said, oh, because of this, I know you believe this
and this or you interesting. And it was quite frightening.
I was like, well will that. Oh God, am I they predictable?
Oh. We, we can be.
Interesting. So much of what we believe and
think to be true is not necessarily have any places in
fact. Yeah.
Or it can. It can, but it's I don't.
We have tightly held beliefs, but I often think it can be in
(10:58):
the middle. The truth of it, yeah.
Which I. Don't like to think but.
Because you you've travelled to the Middle East quite a bit.
Yep. Lived there.
How old were you? I wasn't that long ago.
Gosh, how old am I now? I was probably 40, early 40s,
but yeah. But lived there and really liked
it. And I don't know, when I see
things, I, I guess the media only wants to show you the worst
(11:20):
of something or something that gets you clicking or arguing.
But you go to the Middle East and everyone's quite fantastic
and lovely and. Yeah, I beautiful, really safe
place, really lovely all. The people I've known who've
travelled there, which isn't very many, but they will say it
is wonderful and it it's not as any way restricted as you think
it is. I mean, there are countries in
the Middle East of course that are far from forward thinking
(11:40):
and particularly when it comes to women's rights and and LGBTQ
rights. But I don't think it's anyone
here as terrible as it's portrayed.
On purpose. You don't see it like what
people tell you. It's actually, I don't know.
I thought everyone was very polite and patient.
I just imagine the beautiful. I don't know why I probably
overcompensated by now, assumingthat all of it looks like.
(12:02):
Petra, which obviously doesn't. It is beautiful and the people
beautiful. It's quite peaceful.
Ramadan was actually quite beautiful as well.
Like it was just a really slow time and you learn about the
culture and what that meant and everything.
And it was, yeah, it was quite nice.
You have photographed and talkedto and have speak a decent
because photographer. You have met every single time
somebody comes up in conversation, somebody famous
(12:23):
comes up in conversation. Oh, you and I met da da da da
da. Oh, not.
Everyone, but it's just basically music, just being a
photographer. I, I think even when I go out,
there's so many people, you know, because you work with them
and it's just your job. But yeah, my thing about that
where I'm quite optimistic on itis you just, I don't know, you
get to see what they have in common.
A classic example, actually, Jerry Brownlee had a podcast
(12:46):
which I think he stopped when hebecame speaker and it was called
the Backroom of Politics. And he had lots of people on
there. And it was actually one of my
favorite podcasts. It was brilliant.
But he had goal as the Greens MPon a couple of times or one in
particular where they were talking about the environment
and what they thought. But they they had this real
common ground where they were agreeing on things and you could
(13:07):
see, oh, we've all got the same once at heart.
It was actually quite brilliant.Also once with Shane Jones and
Willie Jackson on Co governance.That is a really good listen.
OK. I know, I know.
It's incredible. It's a really good podcast.
You, you are right. And I, I do keep saying this to
other people and then I I struggle to remember it myself
(13:28):
that ultimately we do by and large, if we wants the same
thing. Right?
Yeah. And depends on this country,
like, even though there's lots of things we're sort of at
loggerheads against nobody. I, I mean, admittedly they want
to cut them or change them, but you don't get people who come in
and say, oh, we want to stop benefits, we want to stop this
or that. It's not like other countries
where they're diametrically opposed.
At least here there's some things, you know, we don't
(13:50):
really care about. They're off the table.
Yeah, you want to achieve the same outcome, but you just have
very differing opinions how to get there.
Yeah, yeah. But we still kind of want the
same thing. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, yeah, nobody wants more people having to live in their
cars, I'm sure. Yeah.
Hopefully, yeah. Unfortunately though, this
particular coalition government does seem to ignore sort of
(14:10):
experts in science in favour of I'm not sure what in favour of
wishful thinking. What do you think they're
ignoring that month? Well, there's an awful lot of
reports. I mean, a good one actually was
the budget and the oil and gas bill, which was obviously
something I'm particularly interested in.
And repealing the moratorium on exploration.
(14:33):
It takes 7 to 10 years from finding something to extracting
it. So even if we found something
next year in 2026 we wouldn't bepulling it out of the ground
till the earliest 2033 and by that time carbon is going to be
costing. Unless, you know, we're all
wrong. 97% of scientists are wrong.
The climate change is fake. Which God.
(14:54):
The thing is, how much would we love that to be true?
Right? That's the the side of the
argument I think they're forgetting.
But carbon is going to be incredibly expensive per tonne
by the end, right? So this country will be facing
an enormous deficit for that to occur.
That was provided in a report basically a financial breakdown
of what this 200 million in Co investment alongside oil and gas
(15:15):
companies for extraction. But they chose to ignore it
anyway. And I find that baffling.
There is lots and lots of I readan article, it was, I will say
scathing about Shane Jones. So there was significant bias in
that article itself. But it was saying how he himself
often ignores evidence and reports because he doesn't need
experts. He'd rather go with his gut.
(15:36):
That is very irresponsible decision making and what
disappointing to hear. Yeah, well, with with the
process taking that long, I didn't realise that.
But I think, do you think we're going to become a country like
others where every time the government changes, they'll just
flip things? Yeah, that worries me.
And then we'll just. Go back so we never achieve
anything. Yeah.
Like, like, almost like they do in the States when a president
gets in and signs everything. Yeah.
(15:58):
Like he did on day one, right Trump?
My only thing with that, when they did stop, I don't know if
it was the exploration, but whenthe previous government stopped,
I think it was the nuclear free moment.
We simply imported coal, which Iknow you have to do in the
meantime, but it actually added to it.
But it looked good on paper. It's, it's such a double edged
sword that you think the other side have got in and it's
(16:22):
immediately worse than your side.
But what they were doing wasn't actually that effective anyway,
Yes, whether whether there's a way around it that we can
improve. And they shifted a lot of
boilers away from oil onto wood pellets.
Less thermodynamically efficient, worse.
The environment looks better on paper, though.
You're absolutely right. And that's exactly the same
thing. So both sides, if you can look
(16:42):
at that right, Both sides of thepolitical debate, do the same
thing. They make things look better
than they are and ignore scientific evidence.
And that's very frustrating and I don't understand why.
They do also have to work with coalition partners, which I
think always changes what, what expectations people have of
(17:02):
their party. Like I remember in Australia
when Julia Gillard was our PrimeMinister and I, I forget what
some some election she got in, but she had to change a few
things based on partners that she had in the Coalition or
senators or whatever it was. But at the time that the media
were doing a big thing, oh, she's a liar because of this and
that. And it's like, no, no, she's
just negotiated and had to make some changes.
(17:25):
Yeah. It wasn't.
You don't even want. That's the whole point of
compromising. Yeah, although I did.
Is it in the 12 Laws of Power orThe 40 Laws of Power?
I've never read the book. That's pretty psychotic, is it?
Yeah, I read it recently. There's a few that are a bit bit
odd. I mean, I mean, I know it's a
bit Silicon Valley, bro, but there were certain things that I
was like, I don't know about that.
(17:45):
That's a bit sociopathic. I, I remember reading a
breakdown and there was some of them that I was like, well,
that's quite manipulative and OK.
Well, in negotiation too, a lot of really manipulating
Destroyer. Destroyer doubled down.
I was like, I don't know. I don't know.
There is a whole side of the debating argument who who say
you actually shouldn't compromise because you both
lose. That's not how I'd look at it.
(18:08):
Yeah, it's very unlikely that one side is extremely right and
the other side is extremely wrong or or has no merit in what
they're asking. For Oh, you've got to read the
book. I'm scared.
Of it. It's quite all in here.
It's quite frightening in part. There were some more intrigued.
There were some things you go, OK, that's OK, but there will be
it. So I was like, yeah, I don't
know about that. It's being weaponized by podcast
Bros. Yeah, OK.
(18:28):
The irony of continually hassling podcast Bros on a
podcast. The Brosphere.
The Bros Yeah, yeah, yeah. Spotify still has Andrew Tate on
Spotify. Wonder why?
I don't know. Does he have something on the
CEO of Spotify? I don't know how any of that's
accepted, but. Yeah, his, his, his clothing's
(18:49):
always too tight. It's very annoying.
Yeah, I remember the first time I heard him.
I don't even know why we got Andrew Tape, but remember the
first time I heard about him andsaw some of those quotes and I
thought, well, that's not real. No, but actually say that.
Oh no. You know, I think that exist.
I may have actually heard about him through you in an Instagram
story, because I remember a few people I know were like this guy
(19:11):
sucks and it was obviously he obviously he did, but having
listened to it, I was like, and this is a problem with
algorithms. If people say that person sucks,
does that then get multiplied and pushed upon people who would
find that it would be a receptive audience for them?
I like often if I find somethingnow that I don't like, I think,
(19:31):
no, I'm not sharing that. I'm just, I don't know, hoping
they will away quietly because it is, it is a worry.
We should have more responsibility in what we share
and it is something we should all be mindful of, particularly
with misinformation. So it's not just that, but you
are also manipulating other people's algorithms.
Manipulated sounds a bit strong I suppose, but you are.
But you wonder if you're not bringing it to an audience or or
(19:54):
or the the likes and shares or or not necessarily likes but the
shares in someone like Andrew Tate's case blows them up a bit.
Yeah, you're adding to. It's a viral moment, yeah.
Although then when people say I wouldn't give someone a
platform, I do believe that sunlight being the greatest
disinfectant, when you see him, it's actually quite a laugh.
It it's very easy to be like, Ohyeah, no, he is a piece of shit.
(20:16):
Yeah, that's fine. Unfortunately you've got 13 year
old boys who are like, oh, oh, OK, no, he speaks sense because
I am not getting what I need growing up.
Can't speak to the experience ofa teenage boy, but so I that
makes sense because I want bitches.
I might get a T-shirt with that written on it.
Yeah, well, yeah, it's strange. 0 appeal.
(20:40):
Yeah, but unfortunately, becauseI've sort of faced a post about
how we need to report Andrew Tate's podcast because it was a
disgrace, Of course, I searched on Spotify to find it and now
Spotify say, oh, would you like to listen to this new episode
from Andrew Tate? Fuck no I wouldn't.
Yeah, with that whole platforming voices you don't
like, Have I told you about Gavin Newsom's podcast?
Have you ever listened to that at all?
No, I haven't. I forgot.
(21:01):
It's really good he's. Brave.
Yeah, Governor, I don't know howto.
Describe him, Yeah. But he's had Steve Bannon on
him, people. Charlie Kirk, other people that
are so opposed to his viewpoints.
Yeah. But his whole thing is about
having a discussion and seeing what we have in common.
And it's really, it's really interesting.
And I, I know he's getting a lotof hate for it from both sides
of the aisle probably, but I quite like it.
(21:21):
I quite. And.
That is the way it should be. It's a great idea.
Yeah. It is a little bit Sunlighty
disinfectant actually, because if you can have a discussion
with someone who you share no beliefs with.
Yeah. You might actually find you meet
in the middle more and then again we go to that point that
ultimately everyone wants the same thing.
Yeah, he's quite open minded too.
Like a couple of times he's picked up on something and he'll
(21:41):
realise, oh, maybe I was to heara politician say I think I was
wrong there or maybe what? Why do you think I was wrong
rather than going straight to his defence?
It's it's he's really grown on me a lot.
I thought, always thought he wasreally impressive.
But to admit I don't know, just some of the things on it.
I'm not. He's quite open minded.
Admitting you're wrong feels a little bit oh God, because it
nibbles at your eager. But the more you do it, and the
(22:02):
more you realise you can't possibly be correct all the
time, yeah, the better off we all would be.
And I don't think I've ever heard a politician say that they
were wrong. Or he'll he'll say, why do you
think I was wrong? And it it is an actual genuine
conversation, which also leads me to podcasts.
I think because you have that long form discussion, it's much
better than the silly sound bitein Question Time or got your
(22:24):
questions from a journalist. It's just, you know, yeah.
Short form yeah. Content in any respect.
It doesn't get across nuance. Yeah, which to make me sound
like a conspiracy theorist makesme think that we'll see Gavin
Newsom 2028 as Democratic candidate and all these open
minded interviews will get people on the left and right
going. Oh yeah, yeah, I agree with what
(22:45):
he said there to Steve Bannon orsomeone like that.
So you think it's part of a verylong run up?
Well, not, not I don't, I don't think it's that.
I don't think it's manipulative or, or thawed out or, or do you
know what I mean? Disingenuous 'cause it's a
really genuine podcast. But I think it's.
But it could still be part of a strategic.
The strategy is not necessarily a manipulative yeah, but.
Healthy conversation or open conversation, which what I
(23:05):
started doing. Yeah, I, I've thought on
occasion to see, I don't know, Judith Collins would be
interesting. She's a successful woman.
She was, I'm not sure if she still is the minister of science
and things. So obviously we would share some
interest there, particularly to talk about the GE bill, which is
not great as written, right. But then the other side of me is
(23:25):
like, people would get really cross about that because she is
diametrically opposed to a lot of what this podcast is supposed
to stand for. But this podcast stands for in
these discussions should really stand for science and exploring
a little bit of the world, but also having genuine
conversations and genuine knowledge.
I. Think you should reach?
Outside of the aisle I'm too terrified because she why would
(23:47):
she say yes? Fuck no.
She'd be like, hell no. No, to have a conversation like
that or, or another thing too, because people think the current
government on some things are diametrically opposed to the
previous. But when you look at their the
Paris Agreement, their targets are currently I think about to
be stricter than what James Shawsigned up to.
Which which people stand at the thing because you've got two
(24:10):
parties bleeding on about how weshould just withdraw to being NZ
1st and act right. The MMP thing again, do you
think? MMP is good.
Well, to be honest, I I find it gets us all a bit engaged.
I do think that you hear voices that are a bit more extreme on
both sides that you don't normally hear, to the point that
often I think could Labour and National do a coalition?
(24:30):
Yeah, Well, well, our Deputy Prime Minister is a guy who got
a percent of the vote, right. It's it's a good example of
that. And it would appear by the
public response to his bills that that is not representative
of what Altierro wants. So should he be in that, in a
position of such great power? I would argue no, but you're
(24:51):
right. You don't get the the streams of
of the two party thing, which doesn't seem to be going well in
other countries. You told me about the Swiss
thing. Yeah, tell me about the Swiss
thing again. My understanding of it is it is
it proportional? Now I'm going to sound like a
real idiot. There's going to be some expert
out there, a representational proportionate democracy where
you do have your heads of state and everything like that.
(25:13):
But it's just things are a bit more decided with absent
people's agreement on certain things.
So a bit more like referendum oncertain things, which
occasionally I think could be bad depending on what what
you're being asked the question of.
But it seems to work quite effectively without all the
theatre. But my thing here, where is my
big grand theory where all the parties similarly want the same
thing, is because you have your left wing who are hardcore left
(25:38):
and your right wing sticking to that.
I just think why can't they cross pollinate?
Like when you look at this last election, I think the numbers
were there that National could have done a partnership with the
Greens, but they're too opposed on certain issues.
And I'm like, well, they surely if you play to your strengths,
the Greens should be part of every government and ask for
(26:00):
within cabinet certain portfolios that they want.
That would make sense to me. But but because of the other
issues or because of voters, they might go off their party.
Was it not the the Greens that said they would?
I don't know if it was the selection cycle or the previous
where they said they will not work with National.
Yeah, they did say that. Such a silly thing to do.
It's a shame so, so many. People would love a blue-green
(26:20):
party. Yeah, didn't we just have a tea
party? We did.
I don't know what that meant, though.
I know there's a section within National called the Blue Greens,
right? Yeah.
But I agree. Like there's certain policies of
either that I'm not a fan of, but I think something like that
could work. I do not understand why people
think it is economy or environment or economy or social
issues. You can actually have a happy
(26:42):
healthy economy. It doesn't mean growth at all
costs though, obviously. And you know, an environment
that's better protected and people that live happily ever
after, which is a silly trite way of saying it.
But there's, there are countrieswho eaten that bounce far far
better. But of course then you get
called a communist, which is hilarious because people who
call you communist or socialist probably don't know what that
(27:03):
means. Marxist is being thrown around a
lot. That's very in fashion.
Yes, I had. To Google what it was because I
certainly understand a lot of what Marxism was and actually a
lot of it sounds great I don't think people who throw Marxism
around know that Actually some of it kind of sounds utopian.
Yeah, probably the the. Idea does.
(27:24):
Don't look too closely into, youknow, it's a bit dodgy.
Oh. Yeah.
Oh OK, tell me more. Yeah, some of some of the ideas
get a little bit odd and some ofthese letters to angles.
Oh, oh, OK. They're a bit dated.
Oh dear. Yeah, right.
But I think that as a blanket, but it's like any ideology,
there's good ideas in Yeah, to to use that as an excuse.
Yeah, to disparage it. So, you know, what don't you
(27:47):
like about it or what don't you think works?
But even the term socialist, because I wouldn't consider
myself a socialist at all and would probably not use it as an
insult or a compliment. But our society here, or the
system we have, is largely socialist in lots of ways.
And it way more socialist than people realise.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, they, they, they talk
about it like it's a disparagingterm, but I'm like, well, we
(28:09):
have public transport, we have things that work.
Our community or government owned, yeah, yeah, again, my
very rough understanding becauseI don't actually have a great
deal of interest in politics. Yeah, although it's correct that
can. Be good though, that can be good
as well. Not yeah.
Because you're sort of coming upfrom a different angle.
Yeah, yeah. Communist.
No one owns anything but the government, to my understanding.
Socialist, the workers own the stuff that they do, right?
(28:33):
So it's, it's almost like an extension of ESOP or you're in
an employee share scheme. So you're also working not only
for your wage, but also for a share of the profit, which a lot
of companies do now anyway, which is fabulous, right?
That doesn't sound insulting. You often hear that where
they'll say the national debt per household is this or that or
per individual. So I guess that makes sense from
(28:54):
that viewpoint too. Yeah, but we are a lot more
socialist in the states. Healthcare perfect example.
Which to me, like they would probably see as communist, but
I'm like, oh, it kind of works. Like when I've been in the
States where you see people and they're walking or limping and I
think, oh, right. So because of our healthcare
system, a problem like that thatmay have contributed to this
(29:15):
would have been fixed. It's quite frightening and I
don't think how right wing you are.
Nobody here thinks that's a bad thing, that we have healthcare.
For. Universal healthcare I've never
heard an argument against. It and it starts to worry me.
I think it was David Seymour nottoo long ago when he talked
about creating a, a sort of a pay as you go healthcare system.
So and his, his argument was andon the face of it, the argument
(29:38):
sounds fair, right? So you're taking people who
could afford it out of the public healthcare system, which
is massively overloaded and theyare paying for what they need,
so they get what they need. But the problem is you're taking
a massive chunk of income out ofthe public health care system,
which will gradually be less andless and less and less and less
funded. And eventually you'll only have
a pay to play health care systemthat's.
(29:59):
Slop, isn't it a little? It can sound OK a little bit,
but then where does that end up?And his like like you can't
fault his theory there. He is trying to take the load
off his off a health system which is struggling and is being
underfunded. That doesn't lead to a good
place. Yeah, one of my things with that
superannuation, yeah, is a really big thing where people
say should the age be extended, blah, blah, blah, but they don't
(30:22):
want to upset voters. I just think that's common sense
that they should be extended. We're all living longer, we're
all working longer. Plus I think it controversial
opinion. I think it should be means
tested. Yes, and I would go one step
further and say it should be occupation.
I don't know if Tesla is the right word, but it should be
based on your occupation. So Greece, for example, my
parents were telling me this. It's long ago Greece.
(30:44):
Hairdressers could retire at 45 because they had exposure to
pretty horrendous things back inthe day and so they had greater
occupational risk. Builders farmers is probably not
so much the same. Farmers, you've got your.
Own land right you're you're more broken at 65 than you are a
an office worker I. Think you'd get called a
socialist or something. Oh God no.
(31:04):
I've been called socialist all week and it's Friday so I'm I'm
due. What did someone say on YouTube
the other day? I think it was rage bait and
really if you're going to rage bait, try and be clever about
it. But they said ovaries detected.
Opinion denied. What was that?
Sorry. Ovaries detected, opinion denied
or ignored or something. It's just, it's not really very
insulting. You're just a twat.
(31:26):
Nice try. Yeah, I I just, I don't care
overly. Opinions like that, that is just
designed for rage Bay, isn't it?It's just to shut down comment
that. That's a good example of that
not talking. It's just stupid.
You're just like. Then you wonder, are you talking
to a human or a bot? That's a very good question.
And people say they can tell. I don't know what to look for to
be able to tell. I know where people will click
(31:46):
on a a profile on something and then see who they're following
or who their followers are and it's just they're talking
nonsense to everybody. True, or if you they're
repeating the same comment to a bunch then it's easy to spot.
But there's also a lot of peoplewho never bother filling out
their profile because maybe theyhave 100 different ones.
They comment all sorts of nonsense on people and they are
real people. Because there are people out
there who have that opinion about women.
(32:07):
It is not an unusual opinion forpeople to predominantly blokes
to say that women don't have theemotional temperament to run
businesses. Which is really irritating
because a lot of people don't consider anger as an emotion
because men can show anger, that's OK, but women can't show
sadness, that's not OK. Which is harmful on both sides,
(32:28):
right? But those opinions definitely
exist out there. But those people are just loud.
Like the climate confused because I'm not going to call
them climate change denies anymore.
I think that's more patronising and I'm on board with that.
But there's not as many of them as it as it feels.
They're just really loud about it.
And we don't need to convince them anyway.
And you're never going to convince them ever.
Episode a couple about it a couple of weeks ago.
(32:49):
Basically it's part of their belief system.
It's part of the core belief. System.
Yeah, yeah. You're just not going to change.
It I often wonder if 90% of the population are in the middle and
5% are on the other end. I.
Don't even know it's 5%, might be one, yeah.
But it's so loud. The loudest voice.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think most people are
quite moderate. Yeah, I often think that when I
(33:11):
think of the States, because from what we see here, you'd
look at their system and think, well, maybe going back a month,
you would. Right now it's erupting, but you
look at it and think they're at each other's throats.
It's pretty toxic. It's bad.
Yet you go over there and everyone's lovely.
Yeah, they all seem to get on. It's I don't know.
Individually, Americans are someof the nicest people you'll ever
meet, but they're in a group in the the stream.
(33:31):
Opinions come out and I it's bizarre, although I will not, I
do enjoy or I did do. I haven't been there in a in a
while now, but I really enjoyed bringing out politics and
American dinner parties because I thought that was funny.
Oh. Did you do that?
I do that a lot. Yeah.
Yeah. I it is a little bit like
lobbing A grenade and stepping back, though.
It's terribly selfish and dramatic and.
Were they polite? They always seem to have
(33:52):
fantastic manners. One time after Thanksgiving,
they weren't. And how?
How did you meet these people? They were a distributor who were
have now become, I guess you could say, friends.
Yeah, Yeah. And the family was divided.
And I didn't know that. And this, this in my defence
was, was quite innocent. I did not know that one side of
the family was, I guess you'd say more blue collar, right
(34:13):
versus what sort of it's a whitecollar, right, I.
Think so. Yeah, so they were roughly
split. This was Trump's first term when
he'd just been elected. And yeah, it it was.
It was a shame how nasty family members turned on one another.
Probably two years ago. My dad and I did not share the
(34:34):
same opinion on parties, although as we were saying
earlier, we shared the same wantfor the country to become more
productive and happy for everybody, right.
But we didn't think, I didn't think either the other one's
party of choice would do that. So dad was previously a national
voter. I'm not sure where he is now,
but I don't think he's very happy with what's going on.
(34:54):
And I, I'm, I'm sort of, I've never really been a party line
voter per SE. More policy.
Very much policy in which I do wonder if we should get better.
Can you get rid of parties in general and just vote for people
or policies? I don't know.
I often wonder whether it's not our system that's dated like
that whole Westminster arguing, debating, as we said the
(35:15):
questions written out. It's just a bit dumb.
It just seems unnecessarily theatrical.
Yeah. And they're making all the laws
and it happens in select committees.
I don't know. I don't.
I don't, I think part of that. Get rid of the drama.
Yeah, the disaffection with it could be that people like us are
it. It can turn you off, yes.
Yeah. And to be honest, the way you
vote on policies, it never really changes.
(35:35):
So whatever you watch isn't going to sway your opinion, it
just makes you angrier regardless where you sit.
It's peculiar to me that people don't change who they vote for
based on policies and things that are happening.
The fact that, again, to use America as an example, that
they've registered Democrats or Republicans.
Yeah, that's what isn't it. Why is that a thing?
Yeah, well, some of my most interesting people that I talked
(35:56):
to have voted for four differentparties in New Zealand.
Like they they alter where they stand depending on what's going
on. I find that fascinating.
Yeah, I. Get more open minded.
I think when I was married, I still had the same opinion.
I was possibly less extreme in some of well, I don't think I
have particularly extreme views.Well, although in saying that I
(36:16):
did, I did do a what are you? Because everyone keep calling me
a socialist or a communist. And I said, well, I don't think
I am, but I'm going to do this big interactive quiz.
And it told me that I'm mostly anarchist.
OK. Which, by the way, I'm not, I'm
not actually happy as throwing molotovs and I I have funny, I
don't know, I've never met an anarchist.
I don't want the fall of society.
Oh, I want change, but I don't want it to just vanish because I
(36:39):
don't think that would go well for the majority of people,
right? No.
Oh, see, I don't think you're that at all.
I think you want a lot of changeand you want things to happen.
But if why you may have triggered that is because I
think you can see a lot further and a lot more clearly than a
lot of people because of your science background and you will
just get up and change it. As.
Opposed to going through a system which politics in a way
(37:02):
businesses that change things making politics seem outdated.
Just as the laws that come in around AI and that it's moving
faster than politicians can table laws.
Yeah, which is scary. Like we need to be doing
something. And I am surprised that they're
not about video AI because people are now sending videos.
And it's not just, you know, theolder generation, such as baby
(37:23):
boomers, but people are sending me videos that I think are
obviously AI. But they're like, oh, my God,
have you seen this? There was one that it did get me
on the first round. But when you watch it again, it
was obvious. But it said Canada's declared
war on America. And I thought that cannot be
true. But it was a news reader who
looked very familiar in the typical American CNN setup.
(37:43):
And immediately afterwards, the natural CNN reporter came on and
was like, did you believe that or blah, blah, blah.
That goes to show you how good this shit is.
And in six months time, no one will be able to tell.
That's terrifying because you could alter so much without
realising. Why haven't we got laws?
I don't know how you'd control it.
I don't know anywhere near enough about.
It someone's usage or image or yeah.
Yeah, I don't. One that creeped me out, I saw
(38:06):
one of President Obama speaking and it was that well done that I
thought, oh, yeah, I'm totally watching him.
And then he just started saying things that were a little bit
odd. Yeah.
And it was, yeah. But then they they used that as
an example. This is what AI can do.
And I was like, oh, OK, that's not ideal.
And you've got smart lobbyists, for lack of a better term.
I don't know what you'd call these guys behind the scenes,
right? Who would know to do it subtly
(38:28):
enough that it would be, it wouldn't be jarring, and that
eventually, over time, you'd be like, you'd fully believe that
you'd know none of this was real.
Yeah, that's scary. And there have been examples of
that. I remember a couple, not even
AI, but with Nancy Pelosi where she was slowed down a bit and it
sounded a bit like she was slurring and then they played
(38:49):
the actual footage and she wasn't.
And I, I, there's on, on both sides, There's been examples of
that where they can make people seem to be odd.
It's. Certainly not just a a bad right
wing at all. No, no, not at all.
And and it's the same thing withsound bites, as you were saying
earlier. Yeah, well, did that make you
feel bitter? Honestly, he is one of these
people that just brings sort of calm and a little bit more, I'll
say it again, perspective to conversations because it does
(39:12):
feel like the world is an absolute dumpster fire at times.
But there are lots of good things going on and I really
appreciate his insight on many, many, many issues.
If you want to go and learn a little bit more about him, his
name is Dave Richards and I'll put his details in the show
notes. If you want to go and learn a
little bit more Kyoto Katiaki and I will see you next time.
There you go. I hope you learned something and
(39:33):
realise that being green isn't about everything in your pantry
matching with those silly glass jars or living in a commune.
If that's your jam, fabulous. But sustainability at its part
is just using what you need. If you enjoyed this episode,
please don't keep it to yourselfand feel free to drop me a
rating and hit the subscribe button Kyoda and I'll see you
next week.
Kyodo Kaitaki and welcome to NowThat's what I Call Green.
I'm your host, Brianne W, an environmentalist and
entrepreneur trying to get you as excited about our planet as I
am. I'm all about creating a
scientific approach to making the world a better place without
the judgement and making it fun.And of course, we will be
chatting about some of the most amazing creatures we share our
planet with. So if you are looking to
(00:26):
navigate through everything green or not so green, you have
come to the right place. Jonah, welcome back.
Now, I know today's episode is another one on politics, but
it's actually a good one becauseI'm joined by Dave, who is a
long time friend and photographer of mine, actually.
But he's one of these people whohas like realistic but
(00:46):
optimistic insight into the world.
He's had a career where he's lived all over the place.
He spent a lot of time in the USA.
He's been a great deal of time in the Middle East.
He has this depth of like cultural understanding that I
don't and it just makes me feel better about the state of the
world. This is a bit of an unscripted
conversation because frankly, I wanted to let it run.
(01:08):
I think gives you a bit of a different perspective because I
can tend to be a little bit nihilistic and he definitely
helps with that. Dave has joins me today because
Dave is my what I'm going to call you.
I think you're like my optimism security blanket, which is a
thing. That's a thing.
I'm making that a thing because you're always the person I talk
to on Instagram or whatever. And I'm like, well, this person
has has done this and the world has ended and there's no point
(01:30):
in being alive anymore. Perhaps I'm overstating that as
much. And then you always come back
with but yeah, like this happened last time and none of
it really matters. And they're all friends.
I very specifically remember during the election, probably
last time you said they're actually all really good buds.
So this is all theatre. Yeah, which makes you sound like
a conspiracy theorist, but like all politics, all media is
(01:51):
designed to get us clicking and liking and so, so it has to look
like two sides. But all the stuff, particularly
in New Zealand is, I don't know,sound bites for the media.
But then everything happens in select committees where they
will generally get on and get a lot of work done.
So it gives you a bit of faith. I don't know, like, and I've
photographed quite a few politicians and I've never met
one. This is in New Zealand that
isn't in it for the right reasons.
(02:12):
So you might think I'm against them for this and that, but then
they get into politics because they care.
They want to make a change. It's a bit of a thankless job.
I I, yeah, It's not as grim as what you think.
No, you and you do, you do see the media where the headlines,
which are usually when people are being particular, they're
probably frustrated. Or in the case of Winston
Peters, who's been there for about 820 years, it's just sort
of over and doesn't care, right?But I have to say, when you see
(02:35):
things like Question Time and you just see them hurling
insults at one another, it doesn't fill you with confidence
that these adults can run this. This country, it's very dated,
isn't it? Yeah, and a parent is also
manufactured. Like they already know what
they're going to be saying backwards and forwards, so why
bother doing it? They're scripted.
Yeah, that's and the the questions and answers are often
submitted before, hence the answer What?
Do we? What do we what?
What is that for? I don't know.
(02:57):
Us never sit there and watch that TV channel.
I've watched it a few times, OK.Yeah, I'm not judging.
I remember watching a couple late at night once.
It was, I think it was Nikki Kayat the time and Jacinda Ardern
before she was Prime Minister and they were talking about the
rights of the child. Well, some people, they were
passing it out. My partner and I were watching
it late at night and we were agreeing with them both.
(03:19):
And I think they ended up agreeing.
It was really good because. Nikki was the lady who's just
recently passed away from breastcancer.
Right. Yeah.
And she was, I think her end. Pretty sure Jacinda Ardern were
separate times MP for Auckland Central.
I'm not sure if Jacinda was actually but but yeah.
I wouldn't have a clue. Interesting.
That's what I I, I think of Jacinda, what you want.
(03:41):
If you think that she ruined this country, I don't think
you're paying any attention. That's probably some bias
creeping in there. But also, if people think that
because of what they say on TV, if you met her, you'd probably
like her. Yeah, I think she'd asked to
come and come to take a few times and it always, I'd always
tried to stay away from politics.
It wasn't something that I been interested in.
(04:03):
But also it comes with a whole lot of baggage.
Finally, we said yes. 2022 I wasthere the day before you.
Were for the Barbie shoot like it was a big terrifying week of
stress. But I may remember walking out.
The first thing I thought was, oh, she's way shorter than I
thought she was. And then because I have no
ability to not get stage fright in front of people I consider
(04:23):
impressive or even just anybody actually, I'm intimidated by
everyone. I walked up to her and there was
like this, this flash of like, oh God, across Jacinda's face
because I obviously made a face or forgot to breathe or forgot
my name or did something stupid and she was ever civilized.
However, she did disappoint me because we got a better, I don't
know, a 30 minute chat with her at some point later during that
(04:44):
day. And I asked her, single use
plastic, there is a seriously easy solution.
Why aren't we putting a tax on virgin plastic and putting all
that cash into infrastructure fund if you like.
And her, her response was, it's just a bit more complicated.
I have no doubt it's more complicated than that.
That isn't a reason not to do it.
(05:06):
And that seems like a really easy solution.
I mean, imagine if you could putit could be as little as a cent,
right? So the consumer really wouldn't
notice a cent on, say, a Zuru toy.
And yet there's so many of thosethings sold.
Imagine the recycling facilitiesyou'd be able to put in or Coke
you're not going to notice. Things like that, though I often
(05:28):
wonder if that is the role of politics and politicians or if
it's the role of businesses, because you look at what you've
done and the plastic you've removed from the ecosystem.
And I don't know many people starting businesses today that
pollute on purpose. Like everybody's a lot more
aware of it. Totally.
So my thing when I was talking about the optimism is whenever I
look at the world and at the time, when you zoom in right
(05:51):
now, it looks pretty terrible. But every 1020 years it
improves. So what we're looking at now it,
it does always get better. People.
I don't know, I think it. Doesn't get that.
You're absolutely right. Cyclically it does.
Actually, I will go back to yourpoint.
It absolutely is the role of business to do better.
Historically, businesses haven't.
But as you are pointing out, historically businesses have got
(06:13):
better. But is it because they've had
truth regulation, health and safety regulation would be an
example of that, Or is it because consumers have demanded
more and there are examples of that too.
So perhaps both exert some kind of pressure.
Just because something has happened historically, does that
mean it will in the future? No, I wanted you to lie to me.
That was one of the optimism things.
I don't know. I don't know if it does, but
(06:33):
even pollution and that like I, I look at when I first moved to
Christchurch, there was a bit ofa smog problem, but then the
earthquake got rid of a lot of chimneys and that changed.
But you look at London in the 50s and 60s when people died
from it, where it would get smogtrapped under an inversion
layer. So we are, we are improving.
Like in the Crown. Yeah, exactly like the Crown,
But we feel that we're improvingor or that things are bad now,
(06:54):
but we have improved quite a lot.
Yeah, and the anti vax movement is a good sign, right?
Because all these people are saying, oh, the vaccines don't
do anything good. RFKI don't want to talk about
him or he fills me with so much rage.
But they don't remember what they went around for, what it
was like when people drop dead of things like diphtheria or
rubella or even measles, right? You don't remember what life was
(07:17):
like prior to vaccinations. I really hope we don't have to
find out again for these people to remember though.
No, I think that's what carries me.
Insulin was quite good. Yeah, that was a good creation.
Well done. Oh my God, I've forgotten who
did that. And we?
Doctor insulin, I made that up. Well, he was.
He didn't even patent it. Yeah, but now, of course, we're
charging $1000. Well, not we, they, they.
(07:38):
Yeah. Yeah.
In in some areas, yeah, You have, as we've already
determined, A deeper understanding of politics than I
ever do. I mean, I don't even know what
libertarians are, because that guy Damian Grant, who writes
articles on stuff, I probably disagree with 101 out of 102
things he says. That's a really specific number.
Yeah, yeah. But then he'll say something
(07:59):
like, oh, why do you have that opinion?
Because you're a Dick about everything else.
Yeah, it's almost. That whole broken clock is right
twice a day thing, which probably almost be
mathematically correct for what you said.
But I find that when we get intothis football team ISM where
it's like we've got our side andthen there's the devil.
But sometimes the other side says good things and it's just
(08:22):
sort of, I don't know, I think maybe a bit more understanding
of all that. Whenever I try to convince
someone of something and I'm arguing with them, it doesn't
work. So it's more what have we got in
common? What do we, it's like we we talk
about climate denial and stuff like that, but I'm like, nobody
likes pollution. Are we angling it?
Are we wording it wrong? Are we hitting pressure points
that they think is political? Like where people think our
(08:45):
climate change, that must be a political view.
No, it's common sense. But because what they associate
it with is parties they don't like or football teams they
don't like. You've got to meet people where
they are, right? You've got to see what you have
in common. It's the 101 negotiations.
Yeah, but we don't do that. No, and we're becoming more and
more separated, which is if you are a conspiracy theorist, which
(09:07):
I don't know, I feel like there's a basis intrusions, but
I feel like it is manufactured these divisions because the idea
of someone being left or right is stupid.
You often share beliefs on both sides.
Yeah, or more polarized, but that that can be algorithms.
True. Yeah, because you start to exist
in your little ecosystem. And it shows you what you want
to see. And I have been radicalized
online. Yeah.
By Taylor Swift. That's that's reasonable.
(09:29):
I don't get the music. I'm you know, it's not raging
enough for me. I'm a Three Days Grace woman.
There's something for everyone. My dad and I were talking about
it the other day, actually. And I'm immune to propaganda
because I can think critically, you know, I understand research
and sources. And then I fell for something.
I don't even remember what it was about.
It was something to do with Palestine and how something
(09:51):
horrendous, something else horrendous, it happened to a
group of Palestinians and it turned out it wasn't true.
But because I wanted to believe it and expected it to be true, I
didn't bother looking to see whether it was, wasn't even from
a decent source. It was just goes to show you
that even if you think you know what is what to look for, you
don't. It's very easy to fall for
manufacturership. I think you and I are similar
(10:12):
like that. Like we'll look outside
ourselves, whereas a lot of people don't or, or I, I start
thinking I, I look at people whoshare different views to mine
and I'm like, have they been radicalised?
I'm like, what am I radicalised about?
Because we all have certain things that we or I had it once
where someone asked me of a political opinion of mine and I
I gave them what I thought. And then they gave me my views
on about 20 items, exactly what they were.
(10:35):
And they said, oh, because of this, I know you believe this
and this or you interesting. And it was quite frightening.
I was like, well will that. Oh God, am I they predictable?
Oh. We, we can be.
Interesting. So much of what we believe and
think to be true is not necessarily have any places in
fact. Yeah.
Or it can. It can, but it's I don't.
We have tightly held beliefs, but I often think it can be in
(10:58):
the middle. The truth of it, yeah.
Which I. Don't like to think but.
Because you you've travelled to the Middle East quite a bit.
Yep. Lived there.
How old were you? I wasn't that long ago.
Gosh, how old am I now? I was probably 40, early 40s,
but yeah. But lived there and really liked
it. And I don't know, when I see
things, I, I guess the media only wants to show you the worst
(11:20):
of something or something that gets you clicking or arguing.
But you go to the Middle East and everyone's quite fantastic
and lovely and. Yeah, I beautiful, really safe
place, really lovely all. The people I've known who've
travelled there, which isn't very many, but they will say it
is wonderful and it it's not as any way restricted as you think
it is. I mean, there are countries in
the Middle East of course that are far from forward thinking
(11:40):
and particularly when it comes to women's rights and and LGBTQ
rights. But I don't think it's anyone
here as terrible as it's portrayed.
On purpose. You don't see it like what
people tell you. It's actually, I don't know.
I thought everyone was very polite and patient.
I just imagine the beautiful. I don't know why I probably
overcompensated by now, assumingthat all of it looks like.
(12:02):
Petra, which obviously doesn't. It is beautiful and the people
beautiful. It's quite peaceful.
Ramadan was actually quite beautiful as well.
Like it was just a really slow time and you learn about the
culture and what that meant and everything.
And it was, yeah, it was quite nice.
You have photographed and talkedto and have speak a decent
because photographer. You have met every single time
somebody comes up in conversation, somebody famous
(12:23):
comes up in conversation. Oh, you and I met da da da da
da. Oh, not.
Everyone, but it's just basically music, just being a
photographer. I, I think even when I go out,
there's so many people, you know, because you work with them
and it's just your job. But yeah, my thing about that
where I'm quite optimistic on itis you just, I don't know, you
get to see what they have in common.
A classic example, actually, Jerry Brownlee had a podcast
(12:46):
which I think he stopped when hebecame speaker and it was called
the Backroom of Politics. And he had lots of people on
there. And it was actually one of my
favorite podcasts. It was brilliant.
But he had goal as the Greens MPon a couple of times or one in
particular where they were talking about the environment
and what they thought. But they they had this real
common ground where they were agreeing on things and you could
(13:07):
see, oh, we've all got the same once at heart.
It was actually quite brilliant.Also once with Shane Jones and
Willie Jackson on Co governance.That is a really good listen.
OK. I know, I know.
It's incredible. It's a really good podcast.
You, you are right. And I, I do keep saying this to
other people and then I I struggle to remember it myself
(13:28):
that ultimately we do by and large, if we wants the same
thing. Right?
Yeah. And depends on this country,
like, even though there's lots of things we're sort of at
loggerheads against nobody. I, I mean, admittedly they want
to cut them or change them, but you don't get people who come in
and say, oh, we want to stop benefits, we want to stop this
or that. It's not like other countries
where they're diametrically opposed.
At least here there's some things, you know, we don't
(13:50):
really care about. They're off the table.
Yeah, you want to achieve the same outcome, but you just have
very differing opinions how to get there.
Yeah, yeah. But we still kind of want the
same thing. Yeah, yeah.
I mean, yeah, nobody wants more people having to live in their
cars, I'm sure. Yeah.
Hopefully, yeah. Unfortunately though, this
particular coalition government does seem to ignore sort of
(14:10):
experts in science in favour of I'm not sure what in favour of
wishful thinking. What do you think they're
ignoring that month? Well, there's an awful lot of
reports. I mean, a good one actually was
the budget and the oil and gas bill, which was obviously
something I'm particularly interested in.
And repealing the moratorium on exploration.
(14:33):
It takes 7 to 10 years from finding something to extracting
it. So even if we found something
next year in 2026 we wouldn't bepulling it out of the ground
till the earliest 2033 and by that time carbon is going to be
costing. Unless, you know, we're all
wrong. 97% of scientists are wrong.
The climate change is fake. Which God.
(14:54):
The thing is, how much would we love that to be true?
Right? That's the the side of the
argument I think they're forgetting.
But carbon is going to be incredibly expensive per tonne
by the end, right? So this country will be facing
an enormous deficit for that to occur.
That was provided in a report basically a financial breakdown
of what this 200 million in Co investment alongside oil and gas
(15:15):
companies for extraction. But they chose to ignore it
anyway. And I find that baffling.
There is lots and lots of I readan article, it was, I will say
scathing about Shane Jones. So there was significant bias in
that article itself. But it was saying how he himself
often ignores evidence and reports because he doesn't need
experts. He'd rather go with his gut.
(15:36):
That is very irresponsible decision making and what
disappointing to hear. Yeah, well, with with the
process taking that long, I didn't realise that.
But I think, do you think we're going to become a country like
others where every time the government changes, they'll just
flip things? Yeah, that worries me.
And then we'll just. Go back so we never achieve
anything. Yeah.
Like, like, almost like they do in the States when a president
gets in and signs everything. Yeah.
(15:58):
Like he did on day one, right Trump?
My only thing with that, when they did stop, I don't know if
it was the exploration, but whenthe previous government stopped,
I think it was the nuclear free moment.
We simply imported coal, which Iknow you have to do in the
meantime, but it actually added to it.
But it looked good on paper. It's, it's such a double edged
sword that you think the other side have got in and it's
(16:22):
immediately worse than your side.
But what they were doing wasn't actually that effective anyway,
Yes, whether whether there's a way around it that we can
improve. And they shifted a lot of
boilers away from oil onto wood pellets.
Less thermodynamically efficient, worse.
The environment looks better on paper, though.
You're absolutely right. And that's exactly the same
thing. So both sides, if you can look
(16:42):
at that right, Both sides of thepolitical debate, do the same
thing. They make things look better
than they are and ignore scientific evidence.
And that's very frustrating and I don't understand why.
They do also have to work with coalition partners, which I
think always changes what, what expectations people have of
(17:02):
their party. Like I remember in Australia
when Julia Gillard was our PrimeMinister and I, I forget what
some some election she got in, but she had to change a few
things based on partners that she had in the Coalition or
senators or whatever it was. But at the time that the media
were doing a big thing, oh, she's a liar because of this and
that. And it's like, no, no, she's
just negotiated and had to make some changes.
(17:25):
Yeah. It wasn't.
You don't even want. That's the whole point of
compromising. Yeah, although I did.
Is it in the 12 Laws of Power orThe 40 Laws of Power?
I've never read the book. That's pretty psychotic, is it?
Yeah, I read it recently. There's a few that are a bit bit
odd. I mean, I mean, I know it's a
bit Silicon Valley, bro, but there were certain things that I
was like, I don't know about that.
(17:45):
That's a bit sociopathic. I, I remember reading a
breakdown and there was some of them that I was like, well,
that's quite manipulative and OK.
Well, in negotiation too, a lot of really manipulating
Destroyer. Destroyer doubled down.
I was like, I don't know. I don't know.
There is a whole side of the debating argument who who say
you actually shouldn't compromise because you both
lose. That's not how I'd look at it.
(18:08):
Yeah, it's very unlikely that one side is extremely right and
the other side is extremely wrong or or has no merit in what
they're asking. For Oh, you've got to read the
book. I'm scared.
Of it. It's quite all in here.
It's quite frightening in part. There were some more intrigued.
There were some things you go, OK, that's OK, but there will be
it. So I was like, yeah, I don't
know about that. It's being weaponized by podcast
Bros. Yeah, OK.
(18:28):
The irony of continually hassling podcast Bros on a
podcast. The Brosphere.
The Bros Yeah, yeah, yeah. Spotify still has Andrew Tate on
Spotify. Wonder why?
I don't know. Does he have something on the
CEO of Spotify? I don't know how any of that's
accepted, but. Yeah, his, his, his clothing's
(18:49):
always too tight. It's very annoying.
Yeah, I remember the first time I heard him.
I don't even know why we got Andrew Tape, but remember the
first time I heard about him andsaw some of those quotes and I
thought, well, that's not real. No, but actually say that.
Oh no. You know, I think that exist.
I may have actually heard about him through you in an Instagram
story, because I remember a few people I know were like this guy
(19:11):
sucks and it was obviously he obviously he did, but having
listened to it, I was like, and this is a problem with
algorithms. If people say that person sucks,
does that then get multiplied and pushed upon people who would
find that it would be a receptive audience for them?
I like often if I find somethingnow that I don't like, I think,
(19:31):
no, I'm not sharing that. I'm just, I don't know, hoping
they will away quietly because it is, it is a worry.
We should have more responsibility in what we share
and it is something we should all be mindful of, particularly
with misinformation. So it's not just that, but you
are also manipulating other people's algorithms.
Manipulated sounds a bit strong I suppose, but you are.
But you wonder if you're not bringing it to an audience or or
(19:54):
or the the likes and shares or or not necessarily likes but the
shares in someone like Andrew Tate's case blows them up a bit.
Yeah, you're adding to. It's a viral moment, yeah.
Although then when people say I wouldn't give someone a
platform, I do believe that sunlight being the greatest
disinfectant, when you see him, it's actually quite a laugh.
It it's very easy to be like, Ohyeah, no, he is a piece of shit.
(20:16):
Yeah, that's fine. Unfortunately you've got 13 year
old boys who are like, oh, oh, OK, no, he speaks sense because
I am not getting what I need growing up.
Can't speak to the experience ofa teenage boy, but so I that
makes sense because I want bitches.
I might get a T-shirt with that written on it.
Yeah, well, yeah, it's strange. 0 appeal.
(20:40):
Yeah, but unfortunately, becauseI've sort of faced a post about
how we need to report Andrew Tate's podcast because it was a
disgrace, Of course, I searched on Spotify to find it and now
Spotify say, oh, would you like to listen to this new episode
from Andrew Tate? Fuck no I wouldn't.
Yeah, with that whole platforming voices you don't
like, Have I told you about Gavin Newsom's podcast?
Have you ever listened to that at all?
No, I haven't. I forgot.
(21:01):
It's really good he's. Brave.
Yeah, Governor, I don't know howto.
Describe him, Yeah. But he's had Steve Bannon on
him, people. Charlie Kirk, other people that
are so opposed to his viewpoints.
Yeah. But his whole thing is about
having a discussion and seeing what we have in common.
And it's really, it's really interesting.
And I, I know he's getting a lotof hate for it from both sides
of the aisle probably, but I quite like it.
(21:21):
I quite. And.
That is the way it should be. It's a great idea.
Yeah. It is a little bit Sunlighty
disinfectant actually, because if you can have a discussion
with someone who you share no beliefs with.
Yeah. You might actually find you meet
in the middle more and then again we go to that point that
ultimately everyone wants the same thing.
Yeah, he's quite open minded too.
Like a couple of times he's picked up on something and he'll
(21:41):
realise, oh, maybe I was to heara politician say I think I was
wrong there or maybe what? Why do you think I was wrong
rather than going straight to his defence?
It's it's he's really grown on me a lot.
I thought, always thought he wasreally impressive.
But to admit I don't know, just some of the things on it.
I'm not. He's quite open minded.
Admitting you're wrong feels a little bit oh God, because it
nibbles at your eager. But the more you do it, and the
(22:02):
more you realise you can't possibly be correct all the
time, yeah, the better off we all would be.
And I don't think I've ever heard a politician say that they
were wrong. Or he'll he'll say, why do you
think I was wrong? And it it is an actual genuine
conversation, which also leads me to podcasts.
I think because you have that long form discussion, it's much
better than the silly sound bitein Question Time or got your
(22:24):
questions from a journalist. It's just, you know, yeah.
Short form yeah. Content in any respect.
It doesn't get across nuance. Yeah, which to make me sound
like a conspiracy theorist makesme think that we'll see Gavin
Newsom 2028 as Democratic candidate and all these open
minded interviews will get people on the left and right
going. Oh yeah, yeah, I agree with what
(22:45):
he said there to Steve Bannon orsomeone like that.
So you think it's part of a verylong run up?
Well, not, not I don't, I don't think it's that.
I don't think it's manipulative or, or thawed out or, or do you
know what I mean? Disingenuous 'cause it's a
really genuine podcast. But I think it's.
But it could still be part of a strategic.
The strategy is not necessarily a manipulative yeah, but.
Healthy conversation or open conversation, which what I
(23:05):
started doing. Yeah, I, I've thought on
occasion to see, I don't know, Judith Collins would be
interesting. She's a successful woman.
She was, I'm not sure if she still is the minister of science
and things. So obviously we would share some
interest there, particularly to talk about the GE bill, which is
not great as written, right. But then the other side of me is
(23:25):
like, people would get really cross about that because she is
diametrically opposed to a lot of what this podcast is supposed
to stand for. But this podcast stands for in
these discussions should really stand for science and exploring
a little bit of the world, but also having genuine
conversations and genuine knowledge.
I. Think you should reach?
Outside of the aisle I'm too terrified because she why would
(23:47):
she say yes? Fuck no.
She'd be like, hell no. No, to have a conversation like
that or, or another thing too, because people think the current
government on some things are diametrically opposed to the
previous. But when you look at their the
Paris Agreement, their targets are currently I think about to
be stricter than what James Shawsigned up to.
Which which people stand at the thing because you've got two
(24:10):
parties bleeding on about how weshould just withdraw to being NZ
1st and act right. The MMP thing again, do you
think? MMP is good.
Well, to be honest, I I find it gets us all a bit engaged.
I do think that you hear voices that are a bit more extreme on
both sides that you don't normally hear, to the point that
often I think could Labour and National do a coalition?
(24:30):
Yeah, Well, well, our Deputy Prime Minister is a guy who got
a percent of the vote, right. It's it's a good example of
that. And it would appear by the
public response to his bills that that is not representative
of what Altierro wants. So should he be in that, in a
position of such great power? I would argue no, but you're
(24:51):
right. You don't get the the streams of
of the two party thing, which doesn't seem to be going well in
other countries. You told me about the Swiss
thing. Yeah, tell me about the Swiss
thing again. My understanding of it is it is
it proportional? Now I'm going to sound like a
real idiot. There's going to be some expert
out there, a representational proportionate democracy where
you do have your heads of state and everything like that.
(25:13):
But it's just things are a bit more decided with absent
people's agreement on certain things.
So a bit more like referendum oncertain things, which
occasionally I think could be bad depending on what what
you're being asked the question of.
But it seems to work quite effectively without all the
theatre. But my thing here, where is my
big grand theory where all the parties similarly want the same
thing, is because you have your left wing who are hardcore left
(25:38):
and your right wing sticking to that.
I just think why can't they cross pollinate?
Like when you look at this last election, I think the numbers
were there that National could have done a partnership with the
Greens, but they're too opposed on certain issues.
And I'm like, well, they surely if you play to your strengths,
the Greens should be part of every government and ask for
(26:00):
within cabinet certain portfolios that they want.
That would make sense to me. But but because of the other
issues or because of voters, they might go off their party.
Was it not the the Greens that said they would?
I don't know if it was the selection cycle or the previous
where they said they will not work with National.
Yeah, they did say that. Such a silly thing to do.
It's a shame so, so many. People would love a blue-green
(26:20):
party. Yeah, didn't we just have a tea
party? We did.
I don't know what that meant, though.
I know there's a section within National called the Blue Greens,
right? Yeah.
But I agree. Like there's certain policies of
either that I'm not a fan of, but I think something like that
could work. I do not understand why people
think it is economy or environment or economy or social
issues. You can actually have a happy
(26:42):
healthy economy. It doesn't mean growth at all
costs though, obviously. And you know, an environment
that's better protected and people that live happily ever
after, which is a silly trite way of saying it.
But there's, there are countrieswho eaten that bounce far far
better. But of course then you get
called a communist, which is hilarious because people who
call you communist or socialist probably don't know what that
(27:03):
means. Marxist is being thrown around a
lot. That's very in fashion.
Yes, I had. To Google what it was because I
certainly understand a lot of what Marxism was and actually a
lot of it sounds great I don't think people who throw Marxism
around know that Actually some of it kind of sounds utopian.
Yeah, probably the the. Idea does.
(27:24):
Don't look too closely into, youknow, it's a bit dodgy.
Oh. Yeah.
Oh OK, tell me more. Yeah, some of some of the ideas
get a little bit odd and some ofthese letters to angles.
Oh, oh, OK. They're a bit dated.
Oh dear. Yeah, right.
But I think that as a blanket, but it's like any ideology,
there's good ideas in Yeah, to to use that as an excuse.
Yeah, to disparage it. So, you know, what don't you
(27:47):
like about it or what don't you think works?
But even the term socialist, because I wouldn't consider
myself a socialist at all and would probably not use it as an
insult or a compliment. But our society here, or the
system we have, is largely socialist in lots of ways.
And it way more socialist than people realise.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, they, they, they talk
about it like it's a disparagingterm, but I'm like, well, we
(28:09):
have public transport, we have things that work.
Our community or government owned, yeah, yeah, again, my
very rough understanding becauseI don't actually have a great
deal of interest in politics. Yeah, although it's correct that
can. Be good though, that can be good
as well. Not yeah.
Because you're sort of coming upfrom a different angle.
Yeah, yeah. Communist.
No one owns anything but the government, to my understanding.
Socialist, the workers own the stuff that they do, right?
(28:33):
So it's, it's almost like an extension of ESOP or you're in
an employee share scheme. So you're also working not only
for your wage, but also for a share of the profit, which a lot
of companies do now anyway, which is fabulous, right?
That doesn't sound insulting. You often hear that where
they'll say the national debt per household is this or that or
per individual. So I guess that makes sense from
(28:54):
that viewpoint too. Yeah, but we are a lot more
socialist in the states. Healthcare perfect example.
Which to me, like they would probably see as communist, but
I'm like, oh, it kind of works. Like when I've been in the
States where you see people and they're walking or limping and I
think, oh, right. So because of our healthcare
system, a problem like that thatmay have contributed to this
(29:15):
would have been fixed. It's quite frightening and I
don't think how right wing you are.
Nobody here thinks that's a bad thing, that we have healthcare.
For. Universal healthcare I've never
heard an argument against. It and it starts to worry me.
I think it was David Seymour nottoo long ago when he talked
about creating a, a sort of a pay as you go healthcare system.
So and his, his argument was andon the face of it, the argument
(29:38):
sounds fair, right? So you're taking people who
could afford it out of the public healthcare system, which
is massively overloaded and theyare paying for what they need,
so they get what they need. But the problem is you're taking
a massive chunk of income out ofthe public health care system,
which will gradually be less andless and less and less and less
funded. And eventually you'll only have
a pay to play health care systemthat's.
(29:59):
Slop, isn't it a little? It can sound OK a little bit,
but then where does that end up?And his like like you can't
fault his theory there. He is trying to take the load
off his off a health system which is struggling and is being
underfunded. That doesn't lead to a good
place. Yeah, one of my things with that
superannuation, yeah, is a really big thing where people
say should the age be extended, blah, blah, blah, but they don't
(30:22):
want to upset voters. I just think that's common sense
that they should be extended. We're all living longer, we're
all working longer. Plus I think it controversial
opinion. I think it should be means
tested. Yes, and I would go one step
further and say it should be occupation.
I don't know if Tesla is the right word, but it should be
based on your occupation. So Greece, for example, my
parents were telling me this. It's long ago Greece.
(30:44):
Hairdressers could retire at 45 because they had exposure to
pretty horrendous things back inthe day and so they had greater
occupational risk. Builders farmers is probably not
so much the same. Farmers, you've got your.
Own land right you're you're more broken at 65 than you are a
an office worker I. Think you'd get called a
socialist or something. Oh God no.
(31:04):
I've been called socialist all week and it's Friday so I'm I'm
due. What did someone say on YouTube
the other day? I think it was rage bait and
really if you're going to rage bait, try and be clever about
it. But they said ovaries detected.
Opinion denied. What was that?
Sorry. Ovaries detected, opinion denied
or ignored or something. It's just, it's not really very
insulting. You're just a twat.
(31:26):
Nice try. Yeah, I I just, I don't care
overly. Opinions like that, that is just
designed for rage Bay, isn't it?It's just to shut down comment
that. That's a good example of that
not talking. It's just stupid.
You're just like. Then you wonder, are you talking
to a human or a bot? That's a very good question.
And people say they can tell. I don't know what to look for to
be able to tell. I know where people will click
(31:46):
on a a profile on something and then see who they're following
or who their followers are and it's just they're talking
nonsense to everybody. True, or if you they're
repeating the same comment to a bunch then it's easy to spot.
But there's also a lot of peoplewho never bother filling out
their profile because maybe theyhave 100 different ones.
They comment all sorts of nonsense on people and they are
real people. Because there are people out
there who have that opinion about women.
(32:07):
It is not an unusual opinion forpeople to predominantly blokes
to say that women don't have theemotional temperament to run
businesses. Which is really irritating
because a lot of people don't consider anger as an emotion
because men can show anger, that's OK, but women can't show
sadness, that's not OK. Which is harmful on both sides,
(32:28):
right? But those opinions definitely
exist out there. But those people are just loud.
Like the climate confused because I'm not going to call
them climate change denies anymore.
I think that's more patronising and I'm on board with that.
But there's not as many of them as it as it feels.
They're just really loud about it.
And we don't need to convince them anyway.
And you're never going to convince them ever.
Episode a couple about it a couple of weeks ago.
(32:49):
Basically it's part of their belief system.
It's part of the core belief. System.
Yeah, yeah. You're just not going to change.
It I often wonder if 90% of the population are in the middle and
5% are on the other end. I.
Don't even know it's 5%, might be one, yeah.
But it's so loud. The loudest voice.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think most people are
quite moderate. Yeah, I often think that when I
(33:11):
think of the States, because from what we see here, you'd
look at their system and think, well, maybe going back a month,
you would. Right now it's erupting, but you
look at it and think they're at each other's throats.
It's pretty toxic. It's bad.
Yet you go over there and everyone's lovely.
Yeah, they all seem to get on. It's I don't know.
Individually, Americans are someof the nicest people you'll ever
meet, but they're in a group in the the stream.
(33:31):
Opinions come out and I it's bizarre, although I will not, I
do enjoy or I did do. I haven't been there in a in a
while now, but I really enjoyed bringing out politics and
American dinner parties because I thought that was funny.
Oh. Did you do that?
I do that a lot. Yeah.
Yeah. I it is a little bit like
lobbing A grenade and stepping back, though.
It's terribly selfish and dramatic and.
Were they polite? They always seem to have
(33:52):
fantastic manners. One time after Thanksgiving,
they weren't. And how?
How did you meet these people? They were a distributor who were
have now become, I guess you could say, friends.
Yeah, Yeah. And the family was divided.
And I didn't know that. And this, this in my defence
was, was quite innocent. I did not know that one side of
the family was, I guess you'd say more blue collar, right
(34:13):
versus what sort of it's a whitecollar, right, I.
Think so. Yeah, so they were roughly
split. This was Trump's first term when
he'd just been elected. And yeah, it it was.
It was a shame how nasty family members turned on one another.
Probably two years ago. My dad and I did not share the
(34:34):
same opinion on parties, although as we were saying
earlier, we shared the same wantfor the country to become more
productive and happy for everybody, right.
But we didn't think, I didn't think either the other one's
party of choice would do that. So dad was previously a national
voter. I'm not sure where he is now,
but I don't think he's very happy with what's going on.
(34:54):
And I, I'm, I'm sort of, I've never really been a party line
voter per SE. More policy.
Very much policy in which I do wonder if we should get better.
Can you get rid of parties in general and just vote for people
or policies? I don't know.
I often wonder whether it's not our system that's dated like
that whole Westminster arguing, debating, as we said the
(35:15):
questions written out. It's just a bit dumb.
It just seems unnecessarily theatrical.
Yeah. And they're making all the laws
and it happens in select committees.
I don't know. I don't.
I don't, I think part of that. Get rid of the drama.
Yeah, the disaffection with it could be that people like us are
it. It can turn you off, yes.
Yeah. And to be honest, the way you
vote on policies, it never really changes.
(35:35):
So whatever you watch isn't going to sway your opinion, it
just makes you angrier regardless where you sit.
It's peculiar to me that people don't change who they vote for
based on policies and things that are happening.
The fact that, again, to use America as an example, that
they've registered Democrats or Republicans.
Yeah, that's what isn't it. Why is that a thing?
Yeah, well, some of my most interesting people that I talked
(35:56):
to have voted for four differentparties in New Zealand.
Like they they alter where they stand depending on what's going
on. I find that fascinating.
Yeah, I. Get more open minded.
I think when I was married, I still had the same opinion.
I was possibly less extreme in some of well, I don't think I
have particularly extreme views.Well, although in saying that I
(36:16):
did, I did do a what are you? Because everyone keep calling me
a socialist or a communist. And I said, well, I don't think
I am, but I'm going to do this big interactive quiz.
And it told me that I'm mostly anarchist.
OK. Which, by the way, I'm not, I'm
not actually happy as throwing molotovs and I I have funny, I
don't know, I've never met an anarchist.
I don't want the fall of society.
Oh, I want change, but I don't want it to just vanish because I
(36:39):
don't think that would go well for the majority of people,
right? No.
Oh, see, I don't think you're that at all.
I think you want a lot of changeand you want things to happen.
But if why you may have triggered that is because I
think you can see a lot further and a lot more clearly than a
lot of people because of your science background and you will
just get up and change it. As.
Opposed to going through a system which politics in a way
(37:02):
businesses that change things making politics seem outdated.
Just as the laws that come in around AI and that it's moving
faster than politicians can table laws.
Yeah, which is scary. Like we need to be doing
something. And I am surprised that they're
not about video AI because people are now sending videos.
And it's not just, you know, theolder generation, such as baby
(37:23):
boomers, but people are sending me videos that I think are
obviously AI. But they're like, oh, my God,
have you seen this? There was one that it did get me
on the first round. But when you watch it again, it
was obvious. But it said Canada's declared
war on America. And I thought that cannot be
true. But it was a news reader who
looked very familiar in the typical American CNN setup.
(37:43):
And immediately afterwards, the natural CNN reporter came on and
was like, did you believe that or blah, blah, blah.
That goes to show you how good this shit is.
And in six months time, no one will be able to tell.
That's terrifying because you could alter so much without
realising. Why haven't we got laws?
I don't know how you'd control it.
I don't know anywhere near enough about.
It someone's usage or image or yeah.
Yeah, I don't. One that creeped me out, I saw
(38:06):
one of President Obama speaking and it was that well done that I
thought, oh, yeah, I'm totally watching him.
And then he just started saying things that were a little bit
odd. Yeah.
And it was, yeah. But then they they used that as
an example. This is what AI can do.
And I was like, oh, OK, that's not ideal.
And you've got smart lobbyists, for lack of a better term.
I don't know what you'd call these guys behind the scenes,
right? Who would know to do it subtly
(38:28):
enough that it would be, it wouldn't be jarring, and that
eventually, over time, you'd be like, you'd fully believe that
you'd know none of this was real.
Yeah, that's scary. And there have been examples of
that. I remember a couple, not even
AI, but with Nancy Pelosi where she was slowed down a bit and it
sounded a bit like she was slurring and then they played
(38:49):
the actual footage and she wasn't.
And I, I, there's on, on both sides, There's been examples of
that where they can make people seem to be odd.
It's. Certainly not just a a bad right
wing at all. No, no, not at all.
And and it's the same thing withsound bites, as you were saying
earlier. Yeah, well, did that make you
feel bitter? Honestly, he is one of these
people that just brings sort of calm and a little bit more, I'll
say it again, perspective to conversations because it does
(39:12):
feel like the world is an absolute dumpster fire at times.
But there are lots of good things going on and I really
appreciate his insight on many, many, many issues.
If you want to go and learn a little bit more about him, his
name is Dave Richards and I'll put his details in the show
notes. If you want to go and learn a
little bit more Kyoto Katiaki and I will see you next time.
There you go. I hope you learned something and
(39:33):
realise that being green isn't about everything in your pantry
matching with those silly glass jars or living in a commune.
If that's your jam, fabulous. But sustainability at its part
is just using what you need. If you enjoyed this episode,
please don't keep it to yourselfand feel free to drop me a
rating and hit the subscribe button Kyoda and I'll see you
next week.
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.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
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