The Science Behind Everything: From Phlogiston to AI with Chem Thug

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
But you know, like, yeah, this like whole idea of
this theory of phlogiston, right, and how things burn, right.
So, like I said, you know, theidea was that like, oh, okay,
well, when I burn something,like, say, if you take a piece
of charcoal, right, you light iton fire, you grill, you burn it
, like if you weighed it before,if you took the weight of the
charcoal beforehand, and so itwas like 100 grams, if you weigh
it afterwards you're going tohave I'm pretty sure the mass is

(00:22):
going to go down a little bitat least, because you're going
to lose particulate and the like.
But, like, things tend to loseweight when you burn them, right
.
So where does the candle go,right?
But metals metals are a littledifferent because they combine
with the oxygen but most of thematerial kind of stays there.
It doesn't leave as carbondioxide or anything like that

(00:43):
which is part of it.
We didn't quite get the wholecarbon dioxide thing yet.
So the solution to how to makeall of this work is the idea
that this phlogiston stuff is inthings and when you burn it
they lose this mass, exceptmetals, which get heavier.
This must mean that phlogiston,whatever it is, has negative

(01:03):
mass.
I'm just like, wait a minute.
So phlogiston is dark matter,has negative mass.
I'm just like, wait a minute,so phlogiston is dark matter.
Like, how do you?
I don't, I don't.
Thankfully, we figured out howthis actually works, but that's
how we thought burning worked upuntil like the 1700s.
Wow, yeah, and think about howlong it all, think about how
much of our history we've spentburning things for the purpose

(01:25):
of making other things.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
I just assumed we always thought it was black
magic and didn't look into it atall.
We were just like that'ssorcery.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Nah, like yo dog, like for real, bro.
Like the advent of publiceducation has been like a
ridiculous game changer forhumanity overall.
Right, Like the fact that, likebecause you're right, a lot of
people were just like yo, it'ssorcery, like this is god.
It wasn't that long for no deadass like, yeah, right, long ago

(01:54):
that people were like yo.
Insects just arise, fullyformed out of the dirt.
That's just where they comefrom.
Maggots just form and meatthat's been out too long.
Like somebody had to do anexperiment.
But but yo, like, because noweverybody's like, oh yeah, the
fire triangle burning, that'show it works.
It's like yo, no, no, no, no, Idon't think you understand.
So this was like knowledgereserved for, like, the monks.

(02:17):
You know what I mean.
Like this was not publiclyunknown things, but it, yo, it,
it.
It is wildly amusing to me.
There's just that as an exampleof like, just like, how much
stuff we just did not know, we,we still don't know, but
definitely definitely just like,made it.
Just like stumbling throughhistory, just like dodging, you

(02:39):
know not even good word for itnot even dodging.
Like you know, like just so manypeople just probably died from,
just like you know, just likenot washing their hands or just
like not knowing that youcouldn't combine certain things
because, like I don't know ifeither y'all saw the video I
didn't know sulfuric acid, butlike we had sulfuric acid as
like a substance for years andit was just like people at a
certain point people were justlike yo, this stuff is great,

(03:00):
let's just put it on everythinglike it was a.

Speaker 2 (03:03):
Frank's red hot?

Speaker 1 (03:04):
I'm not even joking on everything you know, and I
mean we did, though we, wereally kind of did dog Like that
video was only 20 minutes long.
It could have easily been anhour If I just like listed all
the actual uses that we've hadfor sulfuric acid.
Like I started finding otherones after I finished the video.
I was like wait, what?
Like just like randomindustrial uses, like what was

(03:27):
it in a?
In a I didn't mention it much,but like in like leather tanning
, apparently dilute sulfuricacid solutions would get used
for something.
Or like with dyes I didn'treally talk about this at all,
but, like, in order to makecertain, in order to make like
dyes and pigments dissolveactually in the water that
you're using to dye the cloth,you sometimes need to add a

(03:47):
little acid in order to make, inorder to change them into like
a protonated salt situation,kind of like you know if you
were to like, you know if youwere to take like well, it's the
same as, like you know, bakingsoda and vinegar soda situation
where, like, when you mix thebaking soda with, when you mix
the vinegar into the baking soda, the vinegar loses a proton.
Proton goes on to thebicarbonate from the baking soda

(04:08):
, breaks down the carbon dioxide.
But in the case of the dye,instead of the dye breaking down
the carbon dioxide, it justbecomes something that dissolves
more easily in water andsulfuric acid is really good at
giving that proton to things.
So, like it just got used allover the place in dyeing fabrics
, all the chemistry stuff thatgo into it.

(04:28):
But the point of me bringingthat up is that we didn't know
what it was of sulfur, oxygenand hydrogen, bonded in this
specific way with these specificproperties like PKA values and
heats, of enthalpy and all ofthat.

(04:49):
We didn't know any of that.
We just knew that if you tookit and you diluted it like 10
times and then you took somecloth and put that cloth in
there, the cloth will come outbleached, white and we were like
, bet, we doing that.
But it's crazy to me, yo,because, especially as I've
learned this stuff, and we werelike, bet, we doing that.
But it's crazy to be yo, like,because, especially you know,
it's like as I've learned thisstuff and I'm like there's a
meaningful degree to which, likeI want to have confidence, you

(05:11):
know, in my knowledge, and belike nah, I know that this is
how this works and I've reallycome to realize that like, no,
this is just like how we thinkit works.
That's always what it's been.
It's always just been that thisis very much kind of like how
we think it works.
That's always what it's been.
It's always just been that thisis very much kind of like how
we think it works.
But it is, and it's just alwaysbeen based off of experiment.
But like, give you anotherexample of where I'm like like

(05:34):
experiment, like where there'slike an unknown component where
you're just like, I mean, likeyou know, we're going to do the
best we can with what we got.
I'm trying to make this oneinto a video, but I, you know, I
gotta, I gotta figure it out.
There was this guy, yon BaptisteVan Helmont, who's kind of I
don't want to say he's importantin early chemistry, but like he
was a dude you know what I meanwho was like out here actively

(05:56):
trying to like prove that it'snot just sorcery.
You feel me, but like my man.
So this was in like the mid 15,mid late 1500s, early 1600s,
and my man was like yo, this wasstill the time when people were
like fundamental elements air,earth, water, fire Although I
think at this point they hadmoved on to like mercury sulfur

(06:16):
and something else I forget.
Those were supposed to be likethe three primary elements which
I'm just like.
Everything is made out ofmercury sulfur.
Anyway, he did not believe that.
He believed that everything wasmade of water and air.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
That was it okay, I mean you can start somewhere.
You have to start with the yeahand it's like you know.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
please no for real.
But here's the best part.
My man had an experiment toprove that water was one of the
fundamental elements thatcomposed all of matter, at least
plants and it turns out.
Apparently the experiment wasreally important for plant
biology.
I'm not a plant biologist, Idon't know.
I guess I assume it was, butthe chemistry was all fucked up.
So my man took a willow treebranch and he planted it in a

(07:01):
pot that had about 200 pounds ofdirt in it, and he grew this
tree in a pot that had about 200pounds of dirt in it and he
grew his tree in this pot forfive years.
Incidentally, I think Iactually know what kind of
willow he used.
It's this.
I think it's called a curlingwillow, which I don't know.
If either of you are familiarwith it, it's a very distinctive
looking plant, but the thingthat's really cool about it is
that I don't know why it's likethis, but the branches of this

(07:24):
plant, even if they're dried andhave been dried for a long time
, if you stick them in somewater or some really moist dirt,
they will regenerate and juststart a new tree.
It's kind of wild.
I've done it a couple times.
Yeah, because a lot of plantswill do this.
I've rooted coleus, I rootbasil.
A lot of herbs are very good atthis, is famous for doing this,

(07:48):
you know I mean.
But like it's not necessarilythat common for trees, I think
to do it, although I might bewrong about that.
Maybe it is very common, but I,in my experience, it's not been
common for a tree.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
you just take a plant biologist I'm not.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
I'm not.
I've gardened, I've done a lotof horticulture and landscaping
work, but I'm not.
I don't got that one down as ascience Legit, but as far as
I've ever seen, I've only everseen one tree where I took a
branch and stuck it in some dirtand I got a new tree out of it
within a couple months.
So I think that's the kind oftree he actually used.
It is said that it was a willowtree.

(08:21):
So he grows this tree for fiveyears in this pot with 200
pounds of dirt and he covers thepot so that nothing but the
water he's giving the tree canget in and out.
That's the you know.
It's the key right there.
So after five years, he takesthe tree out the pot, right, and
he's like all right, this treeweighs like 164 pounds now
approximately bet, definitelyheavier than when I started
Takes the dirt out the pot andhe's like oh, there's still only
200 pounds of dirt in here,minus like 60 grams Bet.

(08:44):
So therefore, the only thing Iput in this pot was water.
All the soil is still here.
This tree is comprised entirelyof water.
Water is a fundamental elementof all plants.
I can't be that mad at him.

Speaker 2 (08:57):
Right, I see the logic there.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
Exactly.
It's like, yo, if you don'tknow that photosynthesis is a
thing and you don't know thatcarbon dioxide is a thing, if
you don't know thatphotosynthesis is a thing and
you don't know that carbondioxide is a thing and you don't
know that plants use carbondioxide in photosynthesis, then,
yeah, that is a very reasonableconclusion to come to.
Now, here's the funny thingabout it, though, or the thing
that I think is even funnierabout this whole situation.
Beyond the fact that my manlegit did an experiment to prove

(09:21):
that water was a fundamentalelement, One of the things that
this Jan-Baptiste von Helmontperson is kind of famous for is
for being the first person todiscover that carbon dioxide is
a gas separate from air.
He didn't know it was carbondioxide, of course, because we
didn't know that carbon was anelement like that, but he was
the first person to be like, hey, if I mix I think he legit did

(09:42):
basically like mix like vinegaror like some acid with baking
soda, and was like, yeah, thisair that's coming out of this
isn't the same as like the airthat we're breathing.
I don't remember I'd have tolook to see exactly like how he
came to that conclusion, tonotice and make a record that

(10:02):
survived through history.
Important detail there thatthere is this gas that he called
gas Sylvester or something likethat.
I don't know what that.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
I like it, though.
No, I mean, that's more fun,though I like.
I mean, if you tell me likecarbon dioxide or gas Sylvester,
I'm going with gas Sylvester.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
Yo, I love the old names, man.
Like mean, none of them areiupac accepted anymore.
I don't think I'm pretty surelike if I were to refer to
sulfur, to sulfur compounds, asbrimstonious compounds at a
conference I would get in a lotof trouble.

Speaker 2 (10:41):
A few people.
A few people would love it,though.

Speaker 1 (10:44):
Right Like if you were like you know what.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
That fucking kicks ass.

Speaker 1 (10:47):
Oh man, maybe you know, if, if, if my life, if my
life takes, takes theappropriate path, maybe one day
I'll be enough of a chemist tosuggest to the international
union of pure and appliedchemistry that we go back to
refer to sulfur as brimstone.
Just that one, just that one.

Speaker 2 (11:03):
Just that one, just that one, just that one.
Yeah, I would start with one.
You could go on from thereafter that you might, if you
could get the first one and getthe ball rolling Right.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
You could start with one.
Yeah, you know, just like itbrings some of the whimsy back.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
Bring up Shrek, because then Shrek-y brings up
brimstone and be like it's in,you know, like the, the common
lingo, like we it's even inmovies like I, I.

Speaker 1 (11:28):
I think you could do it no, legit also, just like you
know, for like helping toengage people more with you,
know the sciences in general.
It's just like, oh, brimstoneis a real thing what is wait I?

Speaker 2 (11:36):
hear about this all the time?

Speaker 1 (11:37):
isn't that in the bible?
Wait a minute, you know yes, Ilike it.
oh man, no, yeah, no, yeah.
The history of us figuring outour world is so wild.
Admittedly, it is easier for meto appreciate it because I have
a degree in chemistry, so I seethe nuanced differences and all

(12:01):
of that.
But beyond that, justremembering that, like it could
happen tomorrow Probably not,but it could happen tomorrow
that, like chemistry is justturned on its head.
This has happened at least.
Well, it happened majorly oncewith like Lavoisier and like the
death of that Phlogiston theory.

(12:23):
Actually, Like the dudeLavoisier, if you've't know, you
may have heard, you may haveheard the name, because that's
one of the names that getsthrown around a lot, even
outside of chemistry but, um, hewas the dude who was like no,
no, no, no, no, no, no, no, this, this, he was an asshole about
it.

Speaker 2 (12:37):
apparently, like he was, he wasn't a bad dude, but
when it came to like science andresearch, apparently he was
like very, very much like, kindof a kind of like arrogant I
feel like it makes sense for me,sir, to those type of people to
be that way because, like,they're so much smarter than
everyone else that, like, whenother people come up, they're
like listen, just, you'refucking stupid.
Just stop being so stupid.

(12:58):
Let me just tell you to be lessstupid, like no, so apparently
not.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
Apparently he was kind of.
He was kind of about that life,like when he, when he published
this, when he published thispaper, where he was like, yeah,
flocus did his bullshit.
Like he was like, oh wait, Igot, I want to see if I can find
I might just happen to have atab open because he says he like
he had words, dog, he was likenah, this he was like it's a
veritable phantom that shifts inform from iteration to
iteration, changing its natureto fit the whims of whatever

(13:25):
researcher is using it.
And I was like, geez dog, likeall right, dog, just let us know
what you think, bruh, none ofus knew.
And it was another one that Iread about recently I'm not
going to get too much into itbecause this one's a little more
technical what was once knownas the radical theory of
chemistry, which is veryspecific to my subdiscipline of

(13:46):
like making molecules this isbefore we actually understood,
like how atoms come together tomake molecules, like the whole
idea of bonding and like I'msure you've heard the whole,
like you know, carbon can onlyhave four bonds and all that
good stuff.
Like we didn't know that for awhile, for a good while, for
like mad long and that wasstraight up a guess.
That was just straight up aguess from people being like all

(14:07):
right.
So look, this is what we'regoing to like.
Once we figured out that therewere elements and we figured out
that we could identify thoseelements in some way and
quantify it, the easiest way todo this frequently was just like
take a bunch of whatever it isthat you're trying to figure it
out and like burn it you knowwhat I mean and then collect all
the stuff that comes off thewater, the carbon dioxide,
everything that comes off allthe residues, weigh them and

(14:30):
then figure out how much of eachof those things.
So, like you know, it's likeall right, I got this much
carbon dioxide, I got this muchwater.
Carbon dioxide is, you know,two thirds oxygen, one third
carbon.
So I know that that's what thisweight is.
Two thirds of its weight isoxygen, one third is carbon.
Do the same thing with water.
I, you know two thirds is goingto be hydrogen, or you know, as
as it goes.
And then, like you kind of addup the rest and you're like all

(14:52):
right, so this is the elementalcomposition, right, and this is
the relative amount of eachelement to each other.
So it's like all right.
So you know, I got this muchcarbon dioxide.
That means that there's likethis many carbons and this many
oxygens relative to the rest ofthis.
After you do all of that, thenyou literally just kind of got
to sit down and like figure outhow these can all fit together

(15:14):
mathematically.
Basically, it's like all right,carbon can only attach to four
things, roman can only attach toone thing, oxygen can attach to
two things, except we didn'tknow a lot of that at the time.
So this is just like.
I think this is how it works.
Like yo, we had at one pointthere was like 17 different
structures for acetic acid, oneof the simplest fucking

(15:35):
molecules out there, because wejust yo dog, like we just did
not know so much shit.
And yet, and and fucking yet westill made wild amounts of
things.
You know what I mean Some ofour early medicines, early
materials, alloys andmetalworking, like that.
That in and of itself.

Speaker 2 (15:55):
So listen, you do an intervention and you're like
okay, did this work?
No, all right, so let's not dothat again, let's try something.
Did this work?
Okay, it kind of worked.
Okay, can we refine that?
Let's try it, but with a littlebit of this as well, and
eventually it just kind of works, and you don't know why.
But as long as it works, that'sall that matters.

Speaker 1 (16:13):
I'll never forget.
I feel like I want to say itwas one of my professors in
undergrad.
It wasn't an Orgo professor, itwas.
It was one of my non-orgoprofessors, because I can't
imagine an orgo professor sayingsomething like this to an
undergrad.
But they were like you know,mechanisms for reactions are
cool and all, but don't nobodycare about the mechanism if the

(16:33):
reaction works.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
If the reaction works , nobody cares.
Now, when you buy a house andthey build it, you're like, well
, we're going to do this andwe're going to put up these
floorboards and we're going toput up this drywall.
They're like, no, we're goingto do this and we're going to
put up these floorboards andwe're going to put up this
drywall.
They're like, no, no, no, is itdone?
Is the house, is it built?
Is it sturdy?
It's done.

Speaker 1 (16:51):
I do want to know a little bit about how they do it,
what they're doing.

Speaker 2 (16:54):
I want to know it's done and it's sturdy and I'm set
.
I don't care about no, Idefinitely want to know that.

Speaker 1 (17:01):
It's up to code.
You know what I?

Speaker 2 (17:03):
mean, I'm snuffing all of that.
It's like you did it right,right, but you wanted the end
result it's up to it's done.
It's good.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
But you don't need to know exactly how they put it
together, why you're a doctornow, just because you wanted to
know.

Speaker 2 (17:18):
I guess so.
But I mean like hey, burningthings shit, and it worked, like
that's how we figure out howmany calories are in food.
We put them in a calorimeterwhich we fucking burn the thing
and we check it out and we gookay, yeah, that's how many
calories are in this food, weburned it I mean incidentally.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
Incidentally, this might be interesting.
Hopefully this is interesting.
I think it's interesting.
So part of how we figured outthat, like you know how
combustion works and all of thatwas realizing that like, oh, so
like when, when you burnsomething, if you burn a certain
amount of carbon with the rightamount of oxygen, you get X
amount of energy.
If I put this guinea pig in anenclosure and I give it X amount

(17:53):
of oxygen or it produces thesame amount of carbon dioxide
that I got from burning acertain amount of carbon, I get
the same amount of energy out.
And that was kind of how wefigured out that, like,
respiration and combustion arekind of essentially the same
amount of energy out.
And that was kind of how wefigured out that, like,
respiration and combustion arekind of essentially the same
process.
It's just funny that you happento mention it that way.
And it was like yeah, no, likeyeah, it's like that's kind of
yeah.
When you burn your body, likeoftentimes, you know the, the

(18:16):
phrases we'll use to describesomething will be like you know,
so you, you will notnecessarily be accurate, but
it's actually not thatinaccurate to say your body's
burning calories because it isin a lot of it's a very similar
process, it's just.
But yeah, no, like bro, like Iam almost always amazed and

(18:38):
shocked at, like the ways inwhich we just like literally
stumbled into something thatworked throughout history.
Like literally stumbled intosomething that worked throughout
history, you know I mean.
And and then somewhere,somebody, somewhere along, was
like oh, let's see what happensif we like tweak this a little
bit more, like yeah, like Idon't know if either y'all in
anime like that.
But uh, I know, you know I'mabout to bring up dr stone,
right, you know, you know that'swhere this is going, right I, I

(19:00):
I'm along for the ride, but Idon't know where it's going.
Okay, oh, oh, oh, wait.
Are neither of you familiarwith the anime Dr Stone?

Speaker 2 (19:07):
I watch a little anime, but I'm not a big anime
person.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
I would say so I'm actually a pretty big anime head
, or at least I used to be.
I haven't watched a lot lately.
I'm trying to get back up.
I'm trying to get back on it itbut uh, you're only on episode
806 of one piece no, actually,and I might, I might guess I
might get some flack for this,but I, I really don't like one
piece personally.
I don't know what it is, it'snot for me.

(19:32):
I got really into death note.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
That was the only anime I got really into.
I was like I love the, thetheory, I love just the idea
behind this.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
This is interesting have either of you watched full
metal alchemist brotherhood?
Yes I hear that's really good,but I haven't watched it.
It's you watch it, watch it,it's good, it's good, I promise,
I promise you, I promise youit's, it's really good.
It's one of the few animes thatI've like watched through from
beginning to end more than likethree times.
Um, what do you call?

(20:01):
But just to be clear, watchfull metal alchemist brotherhood
, that's that's right.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
I hear no.
I know there's a.
I've heard there's a differencebetween those two but no.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
So dr stone, is this anime that recently I guess
recently came out, although I'msure the manga is rather old, as
mangas tend to be.
Um, but it's about, you know,without giving too many spoilers
, it's essentially like a postworld kind of ending event, sort
of situation where, likehumanity's kind of reverted back
to the Stone Age, if you will,for reasons, that lab, as you

(20:32):
know, like he was these, thatkind of character, like man,
like like mandark from that shit, from from that show, he's,
like you know, he's superchemistry genius, knows, has all
of chemistry memorized,essentially, which I'm like he's

(20:54):
rick and morty like this excuseme kind of, but only with
chemistry, like only with, and Iguess in physics too, because
you know, and also biology,because at some point they all
kind of become the same science.
But I digress, the show is allabout him, with the help of some
other survivors from this event, basically reestablishing

(21:18):
technology within the world.
And so, like the first episodeis him, like you know,
discovering, or one of the firstepisodes is him like
discovering the ability to likereverse this thing that's
happened and all of that, and Imean um to one of his friends,
uh, uh, and like it's.
It's just like the whole thingis like chemistry, it's just
like the chemistry of how I cando this and how I can.

(21:40):
Now that I'm thinking about it,I'm like, uh, I can't really
talk about it too much withoutgiving like, just go watch it.
Yeah, it is.
If you're into chemistry, ifyou think chemistry and science
are interesting and, inparticular, if you find it
interesting to think about howwe got to the point that we have

(22:01):
gotten to, technologically atthe very least, it's a very
interesting and good anime towatch.
Thus far, I've only come acrossone thing that they did that
I'm like this isn't accurate.
But or not even that it's notaccurate, it's a bit of a
stretch.
But they literally, like they,they kind of cover it in the
name that they give it in theshow.

(22:22):
So I'm like, all right, I'lllet it slide.
Then, like you know, they, theykind of admit within the show,
just like writing, that likethis is very unlikely to happen.
But you know, but no, I mostlybecame aware of dr stone because
after I did, after I postedthat video on sulfuric acid,
apparently that's like a hugepart of, like the plot of one,

(22:42):
one part of the show is himbeing like, all right, well, I
need to get some sulfuric acid,um, and so, like I've been, I've
been thinking about doing athing where I like I just like
pick out certain specific scenesand aspects from the show and
just be like, yeah, so I'm justgoing to explain, like, how this
is actually legit.
Nah, this is, they didn't handwave this one.
This is, this is real, is realscience.

(23:02):
But I love it.
I love it specifically for that.
And then, as I was saying, likethis, this idea that because I
feel like a lot of people lookat science and I feel like the
two of you probably come acrossthis more than I do with, when,
when, when, interacting with,with, with your communities and
that, like a lot of people, Ifeel like just look at science

(23:23):
as though it's like nah, we justlike came up with these rules,
right, like we just decided thatthis is the case, and they're
like I don't want to believe it,and it's like no, no, no, no,
no, no, no, no.
We, what we talk about inscience is our way to explain
the things that we see happening, regardless of whether or not
you understand why it'shappening.

(23:45):
You know, I mean, like that'swhat science is.
It's not us being like this isthis and this is this and this
is this.
Necessarily, it is more amatter of things are happening
in our world around us and wewant to know why those things
happen the way they do, but Idon't think that enough people
quite get that.
Like we had to develop thisunderstanding over time.

(24:07):
It's not like, like, like one ofmy favorite things about
reading about these old theoriesof chemistry that are wrong is
that a lot of the greats, thelike big celebrity names or
whatever in chemistry believedthem.
Like they were straight wrong.
They were just straight upwrong, but they were the giants
at the time.
Like what's his name?

(24:27):
This dude?
I think Leibish, justice vonLeibish, one of the.
He came after Lavoisier.
It's kind of like that Flogistonone where like it's almost
right, it's very close to beingright, but like it's missing
certain key elements that youcouldn't know without us having

(24:52):
a better understanding of theworld to begin with.
You know what I mean and that'swhy I go back to what I was
saying, what I was sayingearlier, where it's like, you
know, I feel like a lot ofpeople don't get that this is,
this has been a process, itcontinues to be a process, but I
don't even just mean like, Ialso mean people who practice
science is like this is all aprocess.

(25:13):
We are actively learning this,but most of what we've learned
at this point and figured out atthis point is accurate, based
on the fact that it'sreproducible, and that's the key
.
That's really what it is.
It's like yo, it doesn't.
It's like people say facts don'tcare about your feelings.
It's like not.
It's not that facts don't careabout your feelings, it's that

(25:35):
things are going to happen,whether or not you understand or
know why they're happening, andthat is a fact.
The sun is going to rise.
It doesn't matter how you feelor what you think about how the
sun's.
You know the sun rising.
It's going to rise.
That's going to happen.
So understanding why it happensalso kind of helps to
understand other things.
Potentially, but ultimately,it's going to happen regardless

(25:59):
of whether or not you understandit you know, I think it's more.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
People just have, like a distrust in science.
I think that it's less thatthey think people just came up
with this willy-nilly, it's more.
They're just they think thereis an entity or something that
is controlling it and giving usinformation to, for some reason,

(26:23):
whatever they, whatever thatperson, that person thinks Like
Big Pharma, big Pharma, whatever.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
You can name it all sorts of different things.
My feelings say, accuratethough they may not be, that a
large portion of that mistrustis born out of the capitalist,
for-profit nature of research.
Also, that has a lot to do.
That has so much to do with it,for sure, but also kind of to

(26:57):
your point right.
People are like oh well, you'rejust handing down these edicts
from on high telling us thatthis is how we have to think,
handing down these edicts fromon high, telling us that this is
how we have to think and thisis what we have to do and this
is what we have to believe.
And I do imagine that at leastthere are some people within the
populace who are skepticalabout, in part because they just

(27:17):
don't understand how thoserules get developed.
I don't think enough peoplereally get that.
It's not like a scientist justgoes into a room, reads a bunch
of books and comes out and islike this is the answer.
Sometimes that kind of happens,but most of the time, if they
did, that, what was written inthose books came from years of

(27:39):
people for lack of a better termputting their hands into fires
and being like is this fire hot?
How hot is this fire?
Can I make the fire less hot?
Can I make my hand more able towithstand the fire?
People actively poking atthings, like you said, just like
does this work?
No, does this work.
No, does this work.
It kind of worked.

(28:00):
Okay, let's try doing that, butlet's change this one thing.
That didn't work.
Let's change the next thing.
Change the next thing.
Oh, oh, we got it.
We got it.

Speaker 2 (28:10):
You know I mean, we don't know why it works.
But hey look, this fungus.
We put this, we grew thisfungus and now, like it helps us
with well, they didn't evenknow bacteria there's.
Just like it helps people makepeople less sick, there we go.
Oh yeah, we'll name itpenicillin.
Perfect, doesn't?
It doesn't matter how we, if weknow how it works.
It just saves lives yo aspirin,aspirin, aspirin.

Speaker 1 (28:31):
Yeah, that's a wild one.
That's kind of a wild one likeso straight up, um, like we
didn't actually figure out how,like the full picture of how and
why aspirin has so broad aneffect on the body in terms of
like health and wellness orwhatever as a medication until
like the 70s.

(28:53):
We've been selling it as like adrug since like the 19th, since
the turn of the 1900s, but itwasn't.

Speaker 2 (28:58):
People have been using it for longer than that
because it comes from what?
Which tree?

Speaker 1 (29:02):
oh, oh, oh, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no, no,
no so real quick, yeah, becauseI don't want to spoil anything.
No, no, no, no, no, you're fine,you're fine, you're fine oh, I
am working on uh, I'm working ona long-term project with acs
reactions youtube channel thatinvolves aspirin.
Um, just plug that, I guess Idon't know what it's got.
I got to wait till the weathergets warm because I got to do

(29:24):
some stuff outside because Idon't have a fume hood.
I try to do things safely andI'll be where I can, but no to
that point.
So willow bark does not haveaspirin in it, nor does it have
salicylic acid, which is theprecursor to aspirin.
Willow bark has somethingcalled beta salicin, which is a

(29:48):
glucose molecule attached tosomething that looks like
salicylic acid, but it's analcohol instead of the
carboxylic acid.
That part's not that important.
What is more important is that,yes, willow bark does still
have those medicinal properties.
It will still act verysimilarly to aspirin if you were
to make a tea of it and drinkit.
This is how we figured out thatwe cared about the bark in the
first place.

(30:08):
Incidentally, the reason why,the reason why the, the I forget
, I forget the name of the, ofthe, of the he was like a pastor
or something that like firstfigured it out, but like he
tasted the bark from a willowtree and was like, oh man, this
is really bitter.
Wait, the bark from thatquinine tree in South America is
also or I guess it wasn't SouthAmerica at that point but, like

(30:30):
you know, the bark from thatquinine tree that we found that,
like you know, cures malaria,is also bitter.
So maybe I can get the samecompound from this willow bark.
Again, entirely fucking wrong,like completely incorrect.
That's so.
Many things taste bitter, likemost plants taste bitter.
Dog, what are you doing?
But?
But my man was like let me makea tea of this willow bark and

(30:51):
give it to the people of myparish to see if it helps.
He was his.
His account of making tea ofthis willow bark to treat, I
think like 50 of hisparishioners from like for for a
fever, was one of the first, ifnot the first, accounts that
like, yeah, willow bark iswillow bark is medicinally
useful.
We should investigate willowbark for its medicinal uses.

(31:12):
Like it's high, because my manwas wrong.
He just had.
He was wrong that it was.
He was wrong that it hadquinine in it, but he just
happened to be lucky that it hadthis other, completely
different molecule in it thathappens to be medicinal.

Speaker 2 (31:26):
But yeah, like you said, that happens all the time
where they're like what am Ijust trying to say?

Speaker 1 (31:30):
It's mostly, you know it's not.
It's honestly.
It's mostly like there's a lotof things that we just basically
figured out by accident, likeconducting polymers, for example
.
That's a popular story fromrelatively recently.
I forget exactly when thishappened, but the long and short
of it is that the graduatestudent who was working in the
research lab where these conductoh, just real quick, conducting
polymers, Sorry, I justprobably defined that.

(31:52):
So you got molecules that arelike single molecules.
They got maybe like 10, 20, 30atoms in them or whatever and
then you got things likeplastics, which are made of long
, long, long chains of molecules, right, Polymers.
These don't usually conductelectricity.
One of the holy grails ofchemistry and sustain it in like
new materials has been makinglike really good quality

(32:13):
conducting polymers, essentiallyplastic that can conduct
electricity.
This is something we have notreally been able to do super
well just yet, but developmentshave been made.
One of the first developmentsthat was made in this field,
though, was when a graduatestudent who was working in a lab
misunderstood what he was toldto do in a reaction and added

(32:33):
like a hundred to a thousandtimes more of the catalyst he
was supposed to use in areaction.

Speaker 3 (32:41):
Yeah, that's um.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
That's quite a significant difference there so
what you're saying is, peopleshould start doing that to see
if we can come up with newthings.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
Well, you know?
Honestly, honestly, dude, Idon't know if you knew this, but
like sticky notes were inventedby a dude in his house I've
heard the sticky notes thingyeah, like there's.
There's not an insignificantamount of stuff.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
You're talking about creating things by accident.
I wanted to bring up the onething.
I saw a video of yours that I'mlike I want to talk about
because it's near and dear to myheart.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
Oh boy, all right.
All right, what I do?
What did I do?

Speaker 2 (33:15):
no, no, it's a good thing, I want you to talk about
it.
It's artificial sweeteners.
Talk about discovering thingsby accident.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
Yeah, no, that's a man.
I cringe.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
How did the?
Because I heard the storyvaguely before I saw your video,
but it was kind of interestinglistening to the process, was it
?
Sakharin was the firstartificial sweetener, I think is
like a long time ago.
Yeah, saccharin was.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
Yeah, saccharin was one of the earliest ones.

Speaker 2 (33:47):
But how did that?
What's his name?
I forget his name, but how didhe, you know, come about
discovering this artificial?

Speaker 1 (33:52):
sweetener.
I mean like it's interesting.
Actually it's reallyinteresting to me when I think
about it, because back it wasn'tuntil maybe like the mid-1800s,
late, mid mid to late 1800sthat that chemists finally kind
of stopped tasting the thingsthat they made.
I guess I mean, I know, when Isay it like that, it's like what

(34:15):
, bro?

Speaker 2 (34:16):
of course you wouldn't take no back.
Then they're like no, put it onyour tongue.
That's how we knew people haddiabetes.
Right, you just tasted theirurine Diabetes.
Is that true?
That is true, wait for real.
People have diabetes.
Their sugar is in their urine.
So doctors would drink theirurine would taste it they
wouldn't chug it, but they wouldtaste it.

Speaker 1 (34:40):
I bet you.
There was at least one doctorwho was like, who volunteered,
who was weird.

Speaker 2 (34:45):
Yeah, it was like.
It was like no, I'll do itagain.
And they're always like ohfucking Jeff wants to taste the
urine every time.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
No, I'm sure there was.
It'll just be Jeff's job.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
It's fine he likes it but like what is there was like
something that came from thatLike doesn't.
What is.
Like.
The term diabetes comes fromsomething.

Speaker 1 (35:04):
I'm going to tell the thing about artificial
sweeteners, because, yeah, abouttasting this is interesting,
though, because I feel likemaybe I'd also heard that and I
just assumed that it was likeapocryphal.
So I was like that can't beright.
Like no, there's no way thatthat's true.
But it is true that like couldbe, mostly because, like you
know, how else are we going tobe able to describe it?
You have to be able to describethe compound that you made in
as many ways as possible.

(35:25):
What does it smell like, whatdoes it look like?
And they don't really make asound.
Most of them have the sametexture if it's a crystalline
solid.
So what you got left?

Speaker 2 (35:51):
no-transcript.
And so basically, there was anEnglish physician, there was an
English physician.
The term mellitus was added byan English physician, thomas
Willis, in the 17th century todescribe the sweet taste of
urine due to the high sugarlevels.
Therefore, the term diabetesmellitus translates to sweet
passing through.
So yeah, it's, it literallycomes from the sweet taste.

Speaker 1 (36:14):
Oh man, I gotta, I gotta, I gotta tell everybody.

Speaker 2 (36:16):
I know this now, like you see, I had no idea that
that was accurate.
We were like, what if we justdrink their urine?
Hey, that's sweet, so that'ssomething.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
Yo, but like I mean that's what we had.
But anyway to artificialsweeteners that don't come from
you know, urine, I suppose.
Like it's kind of interestingto me and at the same time not
that we didn't find likeartificial sweeteners sooner,
maybe we, I guess technically wedid.
There was sugar of lead.
People have known about sugarfor a while acetate yeah, but

(36:49):
people also knew that lead wastoxic for a while.
So you know, it's like, ah,maybe not, maybe I'll just use
some honey, I'll just usesomebody I know there are like
they say, there's people whohave used things like stevia or
like monk.

Speaker 2 (37:00):
These things are more natural, though.
They come from plants and stuff, so I guess that's kind of
different.

Speaker 1 (37:05):
Yeah.
So I didn't talk about thosekinds of sweeteners in that
short video and if I were tomake a longer one, I probably,
if I mentioned them, I wouldmake a distinction, just for my
own mind.
Because when I think aboutartificial sweeteners, like,
yeah, I'm thinking about likemolecules that were
intentionally synthesized in alab, yeah, uh, that were found

(37:28):
to have a sweet taste right, um,that doesn't necessarily now
and I don't know.
Now, just to be clear, as clearas nuanced as I can, I don't
want to suggest or assume thatsaccharin, sucralose, aspartame
or any of these acyclomate anyof them don't occur in nature.
But our first brush with themas compounds was when somebody

(37:49):
made them in a lab.
So that's kind of my.
That's kind of my because, yeah, like stevia is a thing, monk's
fruit is a thing you know whatI mean Like are those artificial
sweeteners at that point?
They're just zero artificialsweeteners at that point.
They're just zero caloriesweeteners at that point.
And there's also arguments tosuggest that these sweeteners
aren't necessarily zero calorie.
So much as they are zerocalorie at the levels that we
would normally be adjusting,they're just so much sweeter.

Speaker 2 (38:10):
So you use a little bit of them yeah yeah, exactly,
you know.

Speaker 1 (38:13):
Just you know to give the nuance, to give the little
details and all that.
I feel like, at least for somepeople, that helps.
But no, it surprises me that wedidn't find any sooner from
like lab experiments, because,yeah, it wasn't uncommon for
people to be like, oh I madethis new thing, let's see what
it tastes like.
Oh, okay, you know, sofortunate.
I guess that the first, thatthe first one we found saccharin
was like right around the endof people being like it's cool

(38:35):
to just like eat what you made.
Like did I mean, you made it inthe lab, don't make it?
Um, but my man, like my man,went in, though, apparently,
wasn't he working with like coaltar or something?
yeah, you know, like it's likecoal tar derivative, you know,
it's basically like you know,it's like it's kind of the
equivalent of it's not exactlythe same as crude oil, but it's
a very similar sort of situation.

(38:56):
It's just like a like a densemixture of hydrocarbon compounds
with few some of them have,like you know, some of them have
like sulfurs in them and someof them have nitrogens in them,
like you can get aniline fromcoal tar and things like that.
But yeah, it's just like amixture of like there's a lot of
benzene in there, probably too,like you know, stuff that you
probably don't actually want tobe ingesting.
So my man's like you know hemakes this thing and like, first

(39:17):
and foremost, as far as Iunderstand, he didn't actually
taste it when he made it.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
He just like had some on his hands when he went to
eat his lunch, which I'm likeyeah, I'm pretty sure his wife
called him to like dinner orsomething and he was just like
rushing, he's like, all right,I'm still working with this coal
tar, I gotta do this quick.
And I think he was eating breador something and his hands were
kind of sweet he's like why ishis bread so sweet?

Speaker 1 (39:38):
let me go.
Here's the thing, though here'smy thing.
I want to know how many thingshe had to taste before he
figured out which one it wasyeah, oh god, go back up there.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
He's just like licking his whole lab, yeah I'm
just like.

Speaker 1 (39:51):
So.
I mean, I'd like to imaginethat my man, like, took a
pipette, dipped it into eachthing.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
All right, no, no I really hope it out afterwards
just kind of taste like oh gross, or if he's like actually just
swallowed it, because that'sjust like problematic oh man,
I'm pretty.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
Oh man, oh, and I think about it, I'm just like
yeah, there's definitely acouple things I imagine.
He probably tastes like you.
Definitely, if he tasted theaniline he'd have been like ah
no, it wasn't that that burns ohman, but like you know, it's
just like.
I mean the dedication, I supposeyou know I was like I don't and
I wondered to what extent inhis head he was like I can make
money off this, or he was justlike fascinated by the idea.

(40:28):
But I genuinely like I, just I,just I just the idea of me
having to go into, like mygraduate school lab, right Like
my fume hood where I worked as agrad student, and being like
yeah, there was something inhere that was an artifact, that
could probably be an artificialsweet, or I had a sweet taste

(40:50):
and I got to figure out what itwas, and I have to taste things
to figure it out.
I don't know, fam, I don't, Idon't think, I don't.
We might not have thoseartificial sweeteners.
If it was me, it straightenedme down, especially because I
don't like with the way most ofthem taste.
But like beyond that like, evenif I did, like there might have
been like ah no, we never wouldhave had diet soda.
That's why I don't drink dietsoda no, no, I'm.

(41:10):
I'm being very selfish there Ineed coke zero, I need my coke
zero no, I feel you, I know, Ijust like I, yeah, I it's, it's
kind of funny to me, uh, in inthat way that like, had I been
like how subjective it is, likethere are some chemists I
imagine that like had like thedude who figured out aspartame,
right, like he, he, uh.

(41:30):
Or the dude who figured outcyclamate, which we don't use
anymore because I think it'sactually, I think that one
actually like gave rats bladdercancer and they were like, yeah,
maybe not, but he figured thatone out because my man went out
to have a cigarette while in thelab and again didn't wash his
hands.
It was like, why is thiscigarette so sweet?
What's going on here?
And I don't know what the storybehind that one is, but I'm

(41:52):
just like, how did you?
Because that was in the earlymid-1900s, like 1930s, 40s or so
, I think.
So I don't actually know.
I have trouble calling to mindwhat techniques there would have
been at the time to try andidentify the various things that
he had made.
But even today, if we want tomake artificial sweeteners, I

(42:13):
think Neotame was one of thefirst ones that was made without
somebody having to like tastethings.
Because we at this, because atthis point it's we we understand
enough about, like whatstructures of types of molecules
will tend to give you somethingthat's going to have a sweet
response on the tongue.
And, incidentally, neotame isis aspartame, just with like an

(42:37):
extra little like bit of carbonattached to it, basically you
know.
So it kind of tracks.
But as far as I understand theway they did, that one was a
little, was pretty slickactually.
So they effectively did likethey.
They basically made anartificial tongue.
They took a bunch of what arecalled like well plates, which
are essentially what they soundlike a little plastic tray that

(42:59):
has a bunch of little holes andit referred to little bowls or
cups in it, referred to as wells, and each of these wells is
filled with.
I might have the details of thisa little off.
Definitely feel free to doublecheck this, but effectively, in
each of these wells they haddifferent enzymes that would

(43:20):
respond to certain molecules and, based off of their response to
known sweeteners, they usedthat to then test out like a
bunch of different molecules tosee if they would get a similar
response and after mapping, likeI don't know, it might've been
a hundred, it might've been athousand, I'm not sure how many,
but after mapping a lot ofdifferent molecules in this way,
with this quote unquote,artificial tongue situation,

(43:42):
they came to the conclusion thatthis one, neotame, is something
to like 13, like 7,000 to13,000 times sweeter than sugar,
which I'm like.
Who needs that?

Speaker 2 (43:51):
Well, when you can, only when you know you use a, a
milligram of something you knowlike.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
It's like yo, dog, like you, better never yo.
If anyone anyone's evershipping that overseas, you
better never spill that shit inthe ocean.
So it's a wrap.
It's a wrap, but yeah so that'skind of.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
I think that's kind of interesting because I could
see how people would think likeoh, natural sweeteners are like,
oh, stevia is better becauseit's like oh, how are the
artificial ones made?
Uh, coal tar and like tastingcigarettes and stuff.
Okay, I mean like well, how did?

Speaker 1 (44:21):
how did you, bro?
The first antibiotics were madefrom coal tar.
What you want?

Speaker 2 (44:25):
no, I get it but like , think of the layman who
doesn't know like this one camefrom a leaf or this one came
from coal tar, like I can seehow people might be like well,
I'm a little concerned about theone that comes from coal tar.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
No, yeah, and I mean, but, to be fair, the thing that
know and I kind of go back towhat I said what I said, what I
said very much earlier on theadvent of public education has
done so much to help alleviate alot of this.
You know what I mean, cause alot of that, a lot that whole
idea.
I might be this this is alittle bit more my opinion, I

(44:57):
think, than anything, but I dothink it's a well-founded
opinion.
A lot of that ideology, I think, is rooted in the concept of
vitalism, still this idea thatthings that come from plants and
nature and organic systems orwhatever are somehow different
and better and cleaner orwhatever for you, than things

(45:17):
that come from petrochemicalfeedstocks.
Basically, I don't think mostpeople who ascribe to this idea
think of it in this nuanced way.
I think most of them think ofit more in the way that you just
described, liam, where it'slike well, it comes from a plant
.
I eat fresh vegetables.
Therefore, things that comefrom plants are probably better,
because I can't eat rocks,except you can.

(45:39):
I was about to say yo, what doyou think table salt is, dog?
It's a rock.
It's just a tiny, tiny rockthat dissolves in your mouth,
like you know.
But you know, I get it, I doget it.
People like I come fromgasoline can't drink gasoline.

Speaker 2 (45:53):
But a lot of that petroleum.
That's what we see.

Speaker 1 (45:55):
I'll hear a lot with, like you know, food dyes or
whatever it's like, and it'sderived from petroleum and
that's that, like I, as achemist, will scream to the
ether that that's perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with the
.
But there is nuance, of course,to every discussion.
That is to say that there arethings you would derive from
plants that can have all kindsof other things left over in

(46:17):
them, depending upon how good ofa job you did extracting the
stuff from the plant and alsowhat you used.
You know.
Similarly, there are processesthat you can use to make
something from petrochemicalfeedstocks that are going to be
much cleaner, much safer andmuch easier than if you were to
try to get it from plants.
You know, I mean aspirin is aperfect example of this.

(46:39):
Actually, you know, a big partof why we moved away from using
willow bark tea was in partbecause somebody isolated
salicylic acid and recognizedthat.
You know, as I said, thatsalicin, that beta salicin, is
like essentially salicylic acidprecursor attached to a sugar
molecule.
So if you think about that andthis is kind of if you think

(47:00):
about that only half of thismolecule is the actual medicine.
The other half is literal sugar.
So when you take it, but if youcan separate that sugar bit
right and you just get thesalicylic, what's called salicyl
alcohol and you turn it intosalicylic acid, which just
happens in your body.
But if you have just the puresalicylic acid, now all of that
is the medicine.

(47:21):
You know what I mean?
It's not this.
So that helped a lot.
But, like, the other thing thathelped with developing aspirin
as like a medication that couldbe widely administered around
the world was the fact that wefigured out a way to make it
from guess what Coal tar Likedead ass.
I actually did a little shortvideo about it where I made a

(47:42):
slight mistake with thedirections that I pushed some
arrows.
Most of the mechanism isaccurate, but I accidentally
drew arrows going in the wrongdirection.
It still haunts me.
Yeah, for real, I kind of feelbad about that.
My point the reaction is calledthe Colby-Schmidt carboxylation
.
You take this stuff calledphenol and you heat it in the

(48:02):
presence of a base and somecarbon dioxide and when you do
this, a reaction takes placewherein the carbon dioxide
attaches to the phenol ring andthat gives you salicylic acid.
Can make so much more of it inthis way than you can.

(48:22):
If you were to try and harvestthe necessary amount of willow
bark, I can tell you for a fact,I have tried to extract up to
500 grams of willow bark at thispoint and have yet to been able
to get a single gram of betasalicin.
Like, yeah, if you drink it asa tea it'll work, because you
don't necessarily need that higha level of it in your body for
it to do something.
But if you want to actuallyisolate it and then try to, like
you know, use it to do things,you know, and it also, like you

(48:46):
know, it's like people like oh,get it from plants, get it from
plants, get it from plants Likeyo, what plants, what plants.

Speaker 3 (48:54):
We ain't got them.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
She was like have you ever, you know, looked into the
whole?

Speaker 1 (48:58):
like you know belgium harvesting rubber trees in the
congo, and you know africa andstuff like all that's not so
great a lot of you know that'snot sustainable bad yeah, sorry
and like I shouldn't say whatplants like that that is.
That is not nuanced of me, butthat is my.
That is the point I'm making.
It's like yo.
Okay, so you want to get thisall from, like, green natural

(49:22):
plant sources?
That's fine.
Where are we going to get,where are we going to grow all
those plants?

Speaker 2 (49:26):
yeah, and who's going to harvest them and what kind
of slave labor might go?

Speaker 1 (49:30):
in.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
I mean like yo and like we can make a whole lot
more from hey, whatever thisother thing we have in a lab.
Oh no, it's in a lab now.

Speaker 1 (49:37):
It's terrible yeah, it's like and but but again,
like I said, I think a lot ofthat really just has to do with
the fact that people have thisunderstandable knee-jerk idea.
It's like well, I eat plants, Idon't eat gasoline.
Therefore, things that comefrom plants are probably more
likely systems.
That's different from thethings that come from non-living
systems.
And you know, there's anargument to be made for the fact

(50:10):
that, like, the whole planet isa living system.
So really, this is ameaningless distinction.
I personally don't think thatwe as humans are separate from
nature in that way.
I don't like capitalism, butcapitalism has become part of
the nature of humanity, and Imean just like slavery was part
of the nature of humanity, justlike great, great bouts of, you

(50:30):
know, pro-social and what do youcall it and altruistic behavior
are also parts of the nature ofhumanity.
I digress A lot of people don'tget that.
There isn't actually adifference.
The water in our bodies iswater that's been on this planet
likely for billions of years.

(50:51):
There is a good chance thatthere's a water molecule in your
body that was dinosaur pee atsome point, at least one
probably.
There's a good chance thatthere's some carbon atoms in
your body that were once part of, like pterodactyl poop.
I shit you not pun fullyintended.
Like you know, but like youknow, but people don't.

(51:22):
Without an appropriate amount oflike, prior knowledge, and like
developed understanding, andand and and the and drawing the
full line, that still doesn'tquite get the home to get, get
the point across.
You know.
Drive the point home.
Stop mixing my metaphors.
It doesn't quite drive thepoint home.
You know, and the way that, ifyou understand, you know, if
you've, if you've learned it, ifyou've had the privilege or the
ability to learn it, you knowwhat, the way that, if you
understand, you know, if you, ifyou've learned it, if you've
had the privilege or the abilityto learn it, you know.

(51:43):
I mean like, then then a lot ofthese things just stop being
scary because you understandthat there is actually no
difference between, like vitaminb that was made in the lab,
what, what's, what's, what's thewhat's?
The one that most people arelike afraid out of is by, is b12
right, that's the oneeverybody's like, yes, 12 of
it's.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
B12, right, that's the one that everybody's like.
Yes.

Speaker 1 (52:03):
B12?
Cyanocobalamin right.

Speaker 2 (52:04):
Cyanocobalamin yes.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
Which is like yo, I don't understand.
Not that I don't understand, Iget where it comes from.
Like you said, people are likeah, we made it in the lab.
It's different, we got to dothings differently.
And that's not untrue.
If you do make thingssynthetically, you do have to
make, you do have to do it insuch a way or at least you

(52:31):
should try, you should endeavorto do it in such a way that the
process doesn't end up leavingbehind a bunch of gross, fucked
up, toxic shit that you're notactually supposed to be
ingesting.
Right, like you know, you gotto purify it, right, and it's
like I don't know why, like andthis is where, like that fear of
big pharma, I think, reallyreally is able to take hold,
because people don't understandthat that's a whole process.
It's like it's not just that,like somebody goes into a room

(52:51):
and like poops in a cup and islike here's your medicine.
Like it takes months, it takesyears, it takes decades of
people like actively doingresearch and like asking the
question and changing like alittle small thing to be like,
did this make a difference?

Speaker 3 (53:06):
No, Did this make a difference.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Yeah Well, actually no, if you work in like flavors
and food chemistry, it's notuncommon for you to taste some
of the things that you makeafter you, you know, do
appropriate analysis to makesure that, like, everything is
Gucci, you know, but I mean likethey sell food grade sulfuric
acid, which was shocking to me.
So you know, I mean like andlike really that's where a lot
of that comes from is like nottasting things that are in the

(53:30):
lab.
It's just a matter of like you,unless you can be a hundred
percent sure that nothingharmful came in contact with
whatever it is that you're using.
So there's a way that you cando that right.
Like if you take all theglassware you're going to use
and you give it like a base bathovernight and then a nitric
acid or nitric or sulfuric acidbath overnight, you're going to
destroy pretty much anythingthat was on that glassware and

(53:52):
etch a layer of it off.
So at that point it should bepretty food safe, especially if
you use food grade sulfuric acidand food grade sodium hydroxide
, right, and then you just makesure you use all food grade
materials.
At that point you can berelatively confident that these
materials were prepared in sucha way that they are free of
things that are free ofcontaminants that are going to
be particularly harmful topeople.
Right, and you can even go alittle further if you want.

(54:13):
The solids, you can try torecrystallize them to get them a
little cleaner.
The liquids you can distillthem to get them a little
cleaner.
If you're feeling real froggy,you can do some chromatography
if you really want to.
I don't recommend it.
Nobody should do chromatographyat home.
It's a pain, not unless you gotone of auto columns, but you
can do these things.
But people just hear what theyhear and without having that

(54:36):
broader understanding that cancome from publicly available
educational resources, you knowwhat I mean they jump to these
conclusions that our brains aredesigned to jump to to make our
lives easier to live, right, butI mean therein lies kind of the
problem is that, like, peopleare able to jump to these
incorrect conclusions becausethere isn't enough access to

(54:57):
information regarding this stuffand we don't do, we don't
prioritize teaching it.
Like I don't know how I, like Ifeel like the only reason like
I got into science early on inlife was because, like, my
parents noticed that, like I wasvery interested in it and we
had some resources available athome like textbooks and
encyclopedias, and my parentsgot me some things but I didn't
start learning.

(55:17):
I didn't start learning sciencein school until, like I feel
like middle school, which isridiculous to me.
Why would you wait that long?
The best time to introducesomebody to science is when
they're young, when their brainsare flexible, when they can
still participate in magicalthinking and they can still look
at the world in abstract waysand see those crazy connections.

(55:39):
Like one of the things I hate iswhen people is like oh, I hate
for my childhood a little bit.
I don't say I hate, but I wasseverely dislike in hindsight
when I would ask my parentssometimes why something happened
.
They would give me some kind oflike fanciful like you know.
Like I'm going to ask them likewhy does it rain when the sun's
out sometimes, and I think mymy mom's is the one who was like

(55:59):
oh, it's because God's goingbowling or something like that.
In hindsight I hate that.
I don't hate a lot of things,but I really kind of hated that
now in hindsight because thatprimes me to think that things
don't have mechanisticexplanations.
That primes me to think thatthe world is this magical,

(56:20):
chaotic place that cannot beunderstood, and that's incorrect
.
We don't necessarily know allthe rules, but we've spent
literal thousands of years andpeople's lives in some cases
tweezing out some of these rules, clawing this truth from the
ether for the benefit ofeverybody right Fundamentally,

(56:43):
and it pains me that we wait solong to start teaching this
stuff to people when, in a lotof ways, advances in technology
are a big part of just howhumanity as a species was able
to advance.
Advances in nautical technologyand astrology allowing us to
navigate and travel the worldGranted not necessarily to the

(57:06):
greatest of ends, but at leastpeople got around, I guess.
But things like that.
Advances in medicine.
Advances in medicine allowingfor people to finally realize
that no, it's not the dirtyother people over there that are
causing the sickness.
It is the fact that there arethese microorganisms that we can
just take medicines to stop orjust wash our hands.

(57:26):
Advances in fertilizersallowing us to grow enough food
that we don't necessarily needto have wars over food anymore.
Advances in our understanding of, like just the physical world
around us, allowing us to figureout how to make water clean and
potable.

(57:46):
Like then people don't have tofight wars over water, child
mortality goes down.
Like all of this really camefrom the fact or not all of it,
but a lot of it really is rootedin the fact that we learned
something.
Somebody went out and was likeyo, wait a minute, wait a minute
, wait a minute.
There's this fire over here.
Is it hot?
Is it really hot?

(58:17):
Let's go see, let's go, let'sgo.
Let me't shock me, because weexist in a capitalist world and
there are reasons why this wouldbe the way it would be right.
Let me be fair.
I understand what capitalism isabout, but that aside, the fact
that we don't spend more timeand effort earlier on for people
in childhood actively teachingscience in some way- and maybe

(58:39):
this has changed since I was akid True, real talk.
I don't have kids.
Maybe this has changed.
I don't think it has, thoughI've spoken to some of my nieces
and nephews and as far as Iknow they, you know, they're
still in grade school, they'restill like in before middle
school and they're like scienceI don't know and I'm like
Rainbows are God farts?
I'm like yo, can we not?
Because that's the sort ofthing that prompts people to not

(59:01):
try to dig in.
That's the sort of thing thatprompts people to be like oh
well, the leaves are good for meand the oil is bad for me.
So you know, I'm just going togo with that.
You know what I mean, because ifyou don't teach systematic
critical thinking, if you don'tteach people that you can
understand something you knowwhat I mean Then people aren't
going to try to.
That's just the way it works.

(59:28):
People will not do things thatthey're not taught to do.
Fundamentally, you will neverwalk if you are not taught to
walk and you don't learn to doit.
Some things you can learn onyour own, but a lot of things
you can't.
When I think about the hundredsand thousands of years that
we've spent as a species like,like I said, clawing truth from
the ether, trying to understandthis world around us, and I
watch us squander it today andI'm like what you know.

(59:49):
That's why I'm came out here.

Speaker 2 (59:50):
I think it depends on the way also, like the way we
teach in schools oh yeah, it hasa whole lot to do with it,
that's.
I don't want to get really toomuch into that, because you
could spend an infinite amountof time talking about it.
I was going to say it could bea whole nother hour you
basically try and teach kids topass a test.
That's the main goal is beingable to answer these questions.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
That's capitalism for you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
Yeah, I mean right.
Instead of we trying to fostertheir desire to learn and that
sort of of thing.
I went to a school like firstthrough eighth grade.
I went to a school that had nodesignated tests, like at all.
The whole idea was just to tryand teach kids to want to learn
like, hey, what are youinterested in?

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
this.

Speaker 2 (01:00:30):
Okay, let's find somebody who teaches that, who
likes that and you can talkabout you know that sort of
thing.
So, and I think it also right,like it depends on the person
being able to take a child who'slike really interested.
No, I want to know why itfucking rains, I want to
understand and being able totake them, and while other
people might not be interestedin that at all, they're like, I
just want to be able to dance ordraw or whatever, which is fine

(01:00:54):
, like that's fucking.
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:01:00):
Like that's great.
No, the arts are so important,the arts are so insanely
important.
No, I feel like I need to saythat because I'm the one who's
like, I'm the one who's spentthe last hour being like
chemistry, chemistry, science,science.
No, the arts are incrediblyimportant, probably as important
as technological advancement.
Because you know what, ifpeople can't communicate, if

(01:01:43):
people can't express themselves,if people don't have language
and a medium through which toshare ideas that from somebody
taught them?
The humanities, as they'rebroadly called, are largely an
effort and an endeavor of ourspecies to be able to
communicate with each other onlevels and in ways.
I mean, it's a many of manythings, but that is one of the
major, major things about thearts and the humanities that I
think that a lot of people don'treally appreciate is that it

(01:02:04):
has been a big part of how we asa species have been able to not
only communicate with eachother contemporarily but
communicate with our past even.
You know, because there's way,like you know, it's like a
painting will speak to 10different people in 10 different
ways, but there'll still besomething central to it.
Like 20 different people canread a poem and they'll all have

(01:02:26):
a slightly differentinterpretation, but they're all
probably going to still befocused around the same
emotional ideas.
You know what I mean Like, andthat that, to me, is also of
incredible value, and I don't,like I understand, I guess, how
and why it gets so sidelined.
Ultimately, because nobody wantsto pay people to be artists,
especially now in the world ofchat, gpt, making art, which

(01:02:49):
please, don't do that.
People, please, just you know,pay your artists and all of that
.
Just do that, please, please.
But yeah, like I just it killsme.
It's like oh, you know, draw.
You want to draw Timmy?
Oh no, I don't know, timmy,you're not going to be able to
get a job with them.
Doodles, bro, you might need topick up a calculator and figure
out some accountant orsomething.

Speaker 2 (01:03:09):
And you bring up AI.
That's just going to be a veryinteresting tool.
I'm scared yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:03:16):
I don't think humanity is in a good place for
that.
I don't think we're in a verygood place for something like AI
.
I know that's very arrogant tosay and that, like you know, I
don't think humanity, but like Idon't think that it will be
used by most people in a waythat is ultimately beneficial.

Speaker 2 (01:03:36):
I see why you're saying that.
I think that's definitelypossible, but at the same time,
I think it can be used by thepeople who know how to use it in
a very beneficial way, by asmall percentage of people who
will be able to use it to solvecomplex problems like plastics
in the ocean or whatever it is.

Speaker 3 (01:03:54):
Oh for sure you know those artificial tongues to try
things.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
Exactly we need better artificial sweeteners.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
Those are the main problems we have.

Speaker 1 (01:04:02):
My problem, though, is or not my problem, but I want
that.
That is what I want thistechnology to be used for, that
sort of thing.

Speaker 3 (01:04:13):
But instead we're using it to rip off artists.

Speaker 2 (01:04:16):
It's going to be used for things like that, which
sucks the problem is capitalism.

Speaker 1 (01:04:21):
Let me just be clear about it.
I don't like AI undercapitalism.
That's what it is.
I don't like AI undercapitalism because, just like
every other productivity toolthat got developed in the 60s
and 70s and 80s and 90s, it wassupposed to mean that fewer
people had to do as much workand we would all just be kind of
chiller and anything would becool.
But no, as with every other bitof productivity gain that we

(01:04:42):
get, what's going to happen isthat the corporate owners, those
who sign the checks thecapitalist class, will just reap
as much of the benefit as theycan from it by not hiring as
many people and making a singleindividual do even more work
because they now have this AItool Meanwhile.
This is going to lead to afurther deterioration of quality

(01:05:05):
of output for all sorts ofthings Like yo.
What's going on with Boeingright now?
What's going on with Boeing?

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
The planes?
Yeah, I don't really knowwhat's going on with Boeing.
I've heard some things, but Idon't.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
The quality controls.
The quality controls have goneout of the window.
There have even beenwhistleblowing engineers talking
about it.
It's like yo, we bring stuff upand they're like, whatever, we
just got to get this plane outbecause they coast, they're
coasting, they're coasting onthe Boeing reputation.
Right, this is vaguelyspeculative on my part.
Just to be clear, I have heardand read about whistleblowers

(01:05:37):
from Boeing.
You know what I mean and theirplanes have not been living up
to snuff.
But a lot of this cornercutting, a lot of this like oh
well, you know, I thinkKitchenAid is another one where,
like, kitchenaid's mixersapparently are just not what
they used to be.
People used to be able toinherit their grandmother's
KitchenAid mixer and it wouldstill work, but now apparently

(01:05:58):
people's KitchenAids are justbreaking down.
And it's this quality creepwhere it's like companies are
like oh well, you know what?
Look, people are going to buymy brand because they're going
to buy my brand and it's mybrand and that's what they want.

Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
Do you think AI will affect that and just make it
more intense?
I think it'll make it moreintense.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
I think you'll see more of this sort of thing
happening, as more companieslean on their employees to use
more AI tools to do things in anoverworked capacity and while
trying to save as much cost asthey can.
It just sounds so because AIhas such potential to improve
things.

Speaker 2 (01:06:29):
You know what?
I'm saying Like I think AI canbe our greatest savior.
I really think, like, usedcorrectly, it can reduce errors
by, you know, drastic margins.
It can solve problems that wehaven't even thought of.
Have you looked into like theMajorana one from like I was
looking for it?
I haven't thought of it at all.

(01:06:49):
No, okay, I'll send it.
I'm going to send it to youafter, but basically they've
created like a new state ofmatter with this fucking thing
and it's oh I read about that.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
I want to, I want to, I don't know, new state of
matter.
That's saying a lot, it islisten, I listen I'm not an
expert on all this but likelistening to the experts talk
about this.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
It's wild and I think it has a lot of potential.
Totally, they have to store itat negative 200 degrees.
I don't remember they have tostore it so low because it
creates so much energy.
It's wild, it's absolutely wild.

Speaker 1 (01:07:28):
You know like here's.
But you know here's, here'slike company X develops.
Why, wonder drug that can save,you know, literally 90% of the
population from a disease thatnobody knew existed?
What's going to happen to thatdrug?
Right, I get 10% of thepopulation that doesn't have the
disease is going to be able toget it because they have the

(01:07:50):
money Right.
That's my problem, dog.
Like I feel you, I'm rightthere with you.
This is an amazing tool.
It has amazing potential, eventhough it still needs a lot of
work, but it already has a lotof potential.
But, as somebody who wasteaching around when ChatGPT

(01:08:10):
dropped and I was teaching anorganic chemistry class, dog,
dog, I still had studentsturning in work that was chat
GPT.
Oh yeah, that's gonna happen.
Yeah, that's what most of itends up being and that's the
part that I'm like, right.

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
I get most of it's gonna be used for creating
images for people's dnd groupand their.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
No, that's fine, that's fine like whatever,
because you know the gig youwant to.
You want to that.
I don't mind that, I mind whenyou use it.
I mind when you use it to writeyour essay, you know I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
And then the overworked adjunct professor who
teaches your class but doesn'thave the time or ability to be
like, listen it created theproblem, but you could also use
it as the solution to detect ifstudents are using AI right Like
you could.
It still could be used for that, which I understand.
It's creating the problem tomake the solution.
Listen, I get it.
I get it.
I feel like that doesn't work.

(01:09:02):
I think it's like capitalism.
With capitalism you have tofight fire with fire.
Sometimes that is the onlyoption.

Speaker 1 (01:09:11):
No, I feel you, it's just, it's it.
It it frustrates me.
I agree with you pretty muchwholesale.
I I more or less agree with youwholesale.
I think where our opinionsdiffer here is entirely in just
the like, in potentially ouroutlooks for where this might go
, mostly just because, as muchas I really want there to be
like amazing innovations andwild developments that are

(01:09:33):
enabled by these AI tools andI've used a couple of them on.
I've used a couple of them onoccasion to like, help me work,
work through something you knowlike, come work through an idea
that I have about something, or,you know, come up with some
information about something.
Like, although you gotta becareful.
You gotta be careful, though,cause they they do just straight

(01:09:57):
up a lot of you.
They do just, they do juststraight a lot like I.
I was looking up when I was,when I was trying to finish my
thesis, I was trying to, uh, Iwas trying to find references
related to some of the moleculesthat I was making and their use
as, uh and and like detectingmetal ions and like I thought
I'd done like my due diligencewith searching and all of that.
You know, I found a few, so Iwas like, oh, you know, I'll
give ChatGPT a try.
Let's see if ChatGPT can comeup with something, can find some

(01:10:17):
papers for me that I didn'tknow was a thing.
So I asked it for some papersand it gives me these five paper
titles that I'm like what thefuck?
This is exactly what I need.
How did I not find this with mysearch terms?
So I start trying to dig forthese papers.
I dig for the first one.
I'm like I can't find thispaper.
What's going on with this paper?
So I go back to ChatGPT.
I'm like, can you give me DOIsfor these papers?

(01:10:37):
And it's like, oh no, I can'tgive you DOIs.
And I was like, why can't yougive me DOIs?
It's like I don't have accessto the DOIs.
And I was like, yeah, sure, andhere's the, here's the shit
that fuck with me.
I told it to give me some realpapers and it still gave me

(01:10:59):
papers that weren't real.
I did not ask it for dois thesecond time around, but when it
gave me those papers the secondtime around, it gave them to me
with doi numbers, which I assumey'all know what the doi numbers
are.
Yeah, yeah, okay, um, and thosewere fake.
Those are also fake.
One of them, no one of them.
One of them happened to be thedoi number for a completely

(01:11:22):
different paper, right.
The rest of them were fake.
That's great.
So you know this.
Like this, there's a lot oneone I feel.
I feel like I feel like mostpeople are.
You know.
People say like you know,humanities attention span is
like going down the toilet.
I think most people have justbecome obsessed with
destinations rather than thejourneys that get them there.

(01:11:42):
Trying to sound as deep as Ican.

Speaker 2 (01:11:44):
But also like AI is created for shortcuts, Like it's
supposed to be that's likethat's my problem.

Speaker 1 (01:11:51):
Shortcuts are fine sometimes, but the value of most
things, the value of rawmaterials, is in A what they can
be used for and B the laborneeded to extract them from the
earth.
That's the Karl Marx idea ofvalue, and that first one might
not actually even be in there.
It's mostly just like the valueof like.

(01:12:12):
How hard is it to get thisstuff?
Like the value of thingslargely or in my mind at least
should arise from what it tookto get it Right.
So if you consider that thejourney right, getting the thing
, and then the thing that yougot is the destination, I feel

(01:12:32):
like a lot of people at thispoint are like I don't care
about the journey, I don't wantthe journey, I don't need the
journey, I just need thedestination.
But without that journey thosedestinations are meaningless in
most cases.

Speaker 3 (01:12:45):
If you don't stick your hand in the fire and you
read that fire is hot, you don'thave a reference for what hot
is to that degree.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
Sure, you know the fire is hot and you know to some
degree that you probablyshouldn't touch it, but you
don't necessarily know how hot,you don't know the nuances of
the hot and that matters.
That matters for things likethat matters for things like uh,
for, like, uh, like like wewere saying, going back to it
was like, oh well, if it comesfrom plants is good, if it comes
from oil is bad.

(01:13:12):
It's like no, no, no, no.
There's a ton of fucking nuancein that, bro.

Speaker 2 (01:13:16):
But if you don't care about the journey, all you care
about is the destination,you're gonna miss all that shit
and the destination becomes wayless useful and way less
meaningful but the thing is likeai is just a giant flamethrower
right that just throws shit outthere, but for some things like
that could be good creatingit's like when we created, you

(01:13:37):
know, before we fucking sew shit, and then we have sewing
machines and then we have thesegiant fucking factories that can
pump shit out.
That would take, you know, a10,000 people working every day
and they do it in a minute.
That creates more stuff, moredowntime for humans, which I
think is a good thing, and AIcan do that in other ways.

Speaker 1 (01:13:57):
Sure, but what do you end up doing with that downtime
, if you even get the down firstof?
all if, even if you get thedowntime, let's, let's be clear
because that kind of goes backto what I was saying before
about like how productivitygains and productivity
technology oftentimes end upjust hurting the working class
more.
You know what I mean, but likeyou're not wrong, you know, I
absolutely don't mind the factthat, like I can just go to a

(01:14:20):
store and buy a shirt if I needa new shirt and I don't have to,
like you know, contract withsomebody nearby who makes shirts
and have them.
Like, take my measurements andmake sure.
Yeah, you know, but it might bea nicer shirt.
Honestly, I probably keep itlonger and, frankly, I'd
probably just do thingsdifferently at that point, and I
don't necessarily know thatthat's that has to be.

(01:14:41):
Like they're like, like, you'renot wrong.
It is nice that, like, you canhave this centralized
manufacturing location where youno longer need 20 people to do
a thing.
In fact, I was on my way backfrom the grocery store earlier
and I was watching this dude usea forklift to take these like
large steel tubes off of a offof a flatbread truck and bring
them into their warehouse.
And I was thinking to myself Iwas like man, that forklift is

(01:15:01):
great.
You got one person doing thejob of like, maybe like seven to
10 people.
But then I thought about I waslike but what about those other
nine people who need jobs?
Now, you know what I mean.
Like, that's like, and also,but also, but also, how many
shirts do you really need?
Like, yes, we have a factorythat can pump out a million
shirts in a week Great, do weneed a million shirts?

(01:15:24):
Like sure, cool, I don't need ahundred people making clothes
anymore.
But like cool, I don't need ahundred people making clothes
anymore, but like I also don'tneed all of these clothes that
are being made now and that'slike one of the things.

Speaker 3 (01:15:40):
Part of the reason we need the million shirts being
made is because they're lowerquality, so they're they last.
They don't pass this one, yeahyou know, but there's.

Speaker 1 (01:15:48):
And you know there's.
But, as with all things rightlike there's, there's multiple
aspects and multiple angles toit.
Right, and to kind of likebring it back to the AI thing,
there are absolutely going to besome people who do some
absolutely amazing things usingAI and I'm excited for that.
But I do feel that the ubiquityit's not even just that it

(01:16:09):
exists, but the ubiquity ofthese AI tools is part of the
issue, because it is encouragingpeople to not seek the journey.
I think I think that's myfeelings.
I ain't got no evidence forthat.
You can at me about it if youwant.
It's fine.
I think that tools like these,like ChatGPT you know what I

(01:16:31):
mean do a lot to encouragepeople to not do things the
quote unquote hard way.
Sometimes it is worth it to dothings the hard way, even just a
little bit, every once in awhile, just to remind yourself
of why the shortcut is valuablein the first place.

Speaker 2 (01:16:52):
I think the like, but also like I think people said
that when Google came around,right Like, people are like what
?
Now kids are going to thelibrary and looking it up.
Well, the shit's all on Googlenow, so I can just look it up
and I can find it.
Yeah, so like in the same sense, chat, GPT can take it and make
it even more accessible andmore you know it's, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
If it's accurate, if it's not lying to you, sure, but
people dog, you're not wrong.
I got like three tabs openright now to like various
organic chemistry resources,cause I teach an online, I do an
online office.
I would check on Thursdays andI still got this Orgo textbook
open right here behind me CauseI still go to the book because
at the end of the day, it's justgoogle as an example.

Speaker 3 (01:17:32):
We know the people who rely entirely on google.

Speaker 1 (01:17:36):
A lot of them don't know how to reference things
properly, and so they'll put thewrong thing into google there's
also that you know, I mean I Iadmit I'm not necessarily the
I've never been amazing at usinggoogle and that, like I, I have
to sit there for a while andlike use a whole bunch of
different search terms, whichmaybe that's just the way you're
supposed to.
I don't know, I feel likethat's the way it's supposed to
be.

Speaker 2 (01:17:54):
I mean it just takes a while to find, you know
whatever it is you're lookingfor, depending on how the task
you're doing, but it still makesit, still has more information
out there.
Yes, some of it's going to bewrong.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
Well, so I think there's.
There's also a slightdifference, I think, with regard
to Google, now that I thinkabout it.
Maybe I'm wrong about this,maybe I'm just, I just thought
it just occurred to me, but likebecause I can only have so many
books, right, excuse me.
So it's like Google, I feellike is a little.
Or the ability to search theinternet for information, as as

(01:18:29):
in with regard to it being likedevelopment that improved our
ability to do things akin to AI,is perhaps a little different
in that internet searching waskind of like a big global
library that opened up.
You still have to go and do itright.
You do still have to go andsearch things and then read

(01:18:53):
things and evaluate themcritically on your own.
There is still a journey there,you know, and so there's a
degree to which, like you know,for you know, for the sake of
that being like misinformationand things that are incorrect,
you know there are books thatare incorrect for sure.
Believe me, I've.
I got this healing crystalsbook on my shelf behind me.
I don't know if you can seethat blue one right there at the
top, and I'm excited to makesome videos about that one, but

(01:19:16):
maybe not, I don't know, I don'twant to disparage anybody or
make anybody feel bad, but I wasflipping through that book, man
, there was this one chapterthey were talking about like
legit inorganic chemistry, likelegit symmetry groups and the
different types, arrangements ofcrystal structures and all of
that.
And then, like the next chapter, they were like and now we talk
about how this is magic?

Speaker 2 (01:19:36):
And I was like, ah, but magic's fun, like, come on.
Sometimes we want to believe inmagic.
I love Harry.

Speaker 1 (01:19:41):
Potter, chemistry is magic.
Chemistry is magic.
I don't care if I know how itworks.
I don't care if I know howthese reactions happen.
It is still magic.
Dog Like yo, have you ever seenan ester hydrolysis happen?
I haven't.
We just think that that's howit works.
It's a pretty good explanation.
It holds pretty much every time, based on all of our

(01:20:02):
investigations.
But at the end of the day,don't nobody know for sure if we
do mix some lye with somegrease, if there are little like
fairies that pop out of theatoms and like shuttle them each
over, all over the place.
I have no idea.
We just don't have evidencethat that is the case.
And that's what I think a lot ofpeople miss with science in
general.
Is that, like yo, the thingsthat we say are a thing?

(01:20:25):
We say they're a thing becausethere is actual measurable you
can observe it yourself evidence, something that says this
actually works, and thisevidence has held for multiple
people trying it in multipledifferent places.
Like that's what the whole ideabehind reproducibility is and

(01:20:46):
that's why people get like theyfeel some type of way.
They're like oh, my anecdotalevidence doesn't count, and it's
like I mean it can, but youneed like literally hundreds of
thousands of anecdotal accountsthat line up before somebody is
going to be like, okay, thisfeels like empirical evidence.
Like because there's just toomany variables.

(01:21:07):
This kind of goes back to whatI'm saying, like we don't know
if there are fairies involved.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
We just don't have evidence for the fairies, okay
so here's the thing, though,with ai though like we're
talking about.
Ai is in like chat gpt, whereyou just I don't know how I got
there, my bad yeah, no, I'mbringing it back to that just
because, like we talk, whenpeople talk about ai, they often
talk about chat, gpt, whereyou're like and then and that
that's the answer.
But like, ai is a lot more thanthat no, like there was this

(01:21:32):
other.
Oh sorry, my bad, they're aboutbasically what I'm just gonna
say.
It's like ai has the potentialto do what humans have been
doing for the past 10 000 yearsand do it all at once, in a few
minutes, and go through as manyas many calculations, as many
experiments as we've gonethrough, and they can just do it
in in an instant, in secondsone day has the what One day.

(01:21:53):
What I'm saying is how fastit's growing, how fast the
technology is advancing.

Speaker 1 (01:21:59):
But who gets to use that?
But who gets to use that, andto what?

Speaker 3 (01:22:03):
end and what's going to be done with it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:05):
But I mean, you can't escape that dog, I mean yo.

Speaker 2 (01:22:09):
But we can't escape that no matter what, so we might
as well have something else.

Speaker 1 (01:22:13):
No, no, no.
No.
Well, hold on, wait, you knowwhat like let me, let me pull
that back.
I don't want to, I don't wantto get any of us in trouble, but
we, we can't escape capitalism,we can't just just
theoretically it's.

Speaker 2 (01:22:25):
In theory, it's possible, but this is where
we're at, and so, like we, I, wehave to work within the
confines of what we have, and atleast with with.
Ai we have the potential tocure diseases, to solve problems
.
And like yeah, will thebenefits from that go to the
rich, but wait, wait, wait, holdon, hold on, but wait but wait,
wait.

Speaker 1 (01:22:44):
Just like philosophical question, Like if
you develop a cure for a diseasethat no one can access, did you
really develop a cure for thisdisease?
If you develop a cure for adisease that literally less than
1% of the people who actuallyhave the disease can access it?

Speaker 2 (01:23:02):
not that those are real statistics, just to be
clear, I don't know that thoseare real statistics.
I think the chances of thathappening where the cure becomes
a thing that we find is a thingthat only like a tiny
percentage of people can accessI think we'll be able.
I think through AI, throughmodern medicine, we'll be able
to cure things on a bigger levelthan that, than just like 1%.

Speaker 3 (01:23:24):
I think John Green might disagree with you.

Speaker 2 (01:23:27):
Listen, nobody knows right now.

Speaker 1 (01:23:29):
No, yeah, I mean like no dog like Liam, liam again,
just to be 100% clear dog.
I don nobody knows right now.
No, yeah, you know, I mean likeno dog like Liam, liam.
I again, just to be a hundredpercent clear dog.
I don't disagree with you.
I am very excited for thepotential of AI, of artificial
intelligence tools, and thedevelopments that can be made
using them.
What I'm not excited for is howthis is going to play out under
capitalism.
That's just I, I, I, I want tobe optimistic about it, dog, but

(01:23:56):
I've I've read, and I've readtoo much in the history of how,
like, the phone changed things,how the facts changed things,
how the internet changed thingsI lived through how the internet
changed and it goes to makingsmall percentage of us richer
and like yo and I'm like I'm notexcited for this supercharged
version of that, you know.
I mean, that's the part it'slike, as good as it can be, it

(01:24:17):
can also be really bad and I'mnot excited for that really bad
aspect and I'm not gonna.
I can't ignore that.
But I do agree with you.
100 there are amazing thingsthat we can potentially do we
have an example.

Speaker 3 (01:24:30):
Unfortunately.
I mentioned john green, becausetuberculosis wait.
It's only the rich countriesthat have been able to vaccinate
for it.
We have the potential toeliminate tuberculosis, but
because of rich people, vaccinesaren't getting to poor areas.

Speaker 1 (01:24:48):
You know and I, I don't.
I don't know that that's theonly example of that, but like I
can't imagine it is you know,like, or even just like you know
.
So it's like I, yo, I want, Iwant so bad, I want so bad for
ai to be the thing that bringsabout the death of capitalism.
That's what I want yeah, I I,yeah, I know, I, yeah, I know, I

(01:25:09):
know that's.
That's what I saw.

Speaker 2 (01:25:10):
You said I have optimistic views, but you know,
let's calm down a little here.
Don't be that ecstatic on me,bro.

Speaker 1 (01:25:20):
What are you on?
No, I feel you, I mean, but,like you know, it's like I look.
I would love for it to happenthat, like you know, more people
use AI tools to enrichthemselves mentally and
intellectually, not necessarilymonetarily, Although you know,
if you can't do it monetarilywithout hurting somebody, cool,
no problem.
You know, but like and I'll goback to what I was saying it's

(01:25:42):
like I feel like we've gotten tothis point where, as a species,
as a society at least in the US we've lost the plot.
Everybody's out to get a dollar, Nobody really cares about how
they do it, and so everybody'slooking for that shortcut, that
I got listen.

Speaker 2 (01:25:55):
Here's the thing, I think, that has been going on
for a long time like railroadtycoons and they're just like
fuck everybody else no, no, no,no, no but at this point, it's
like it's super charged now,like now, like so I think about.

Speaker 1 (01:26:09):
I think about it like this I remember when I was in
undergrad there were a lot ofpeople who were just like pure
actual chemistry majors, right,who were just like I just want
to learn chemistry, I want to bea chemist, I want to go do
chemistry.
Now a lot of universities areactually cutting their chemistry
programs because you don't havea lot of students who are
coming in wanting to be chemists.
They're coming in wanting to bedental hygienists.
They they're coming in wantingto be dental hygienists.

(01:26:30):
They're coming in wanting to be, you know, a very specific and
technical professional nurse.
You know nurses aid veryspecific and technical
professions that will get them ajob that will make them some
money.
It's not about the pursuit oflearning.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
It's about the pursuit of a degree that will
get them a paycheck, which, Imean, makes sense, right?
You got to pay bills, Like youknow, like okay, we'll do
something yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
Sure For sure, absolutely.
That totally does make sense.
But that's not dissimilar fromteaching to a test at a certain
point, right At that point.
Is college any different fromjust more expensive high school?
I mean, but I would argue thatit shouldn't be Put it like that

(01:27:12):
.
I guess, I mean, but I wouldargue that it shouldn't be like.

(01:27:32):
But like you know, like I, youknow, I studied chemistry, in
large part because I lovechemistry and I think it's
fascinating.
I also studied creative writingbecause I wanted to study
creative writing.
You know, I went to college forthe sake of just and I was, I
was very fortunate.
I busted my ass as hard as Ipossibly could.
I went to school like six daysa week in high school so that I
could get into like a decentcollege what do you call it?
And I just wanted to learn.
I won't pretend like I didn'tstudy chemistry, banking that
I'd be able to find some form ofemployment, although quite
frankly I don't see that clearlyhas not served me very well.
I've yet to be able to find ajob in my field.
So you know, bollocks to that,I guess.

(01:27:53):
But you know.
But I find it kind of almostconcerning, that people seem to
be less interested in again likethe raw pursuit of something
rather than just the end goal ofmoney.
And it should like it never.
It never should have gotten tothis point right, like the point

(01:28:14):
of the money was to be able to,was to be able to quantify our
ability to exchange things.
It wasn't really supposed to beabout the money.
It was supposed to be aboutwhat the money will get you.
Now I feel like for a lot ofpeople, it's just gotten about
the money.
That's why you see more peoplescamming now and like you see
that, and also just a greaterability of people to do it you
know, but it's, yeah, it givesus an ability, more people, the

(01:28:36):
ability to scam like that's yeah, you know for sure I was.
I wasn't even thinking aboutthat way with regard to ai, but,
like you know, I I just I feellike I feel like fewer people
have an interest in things forthe sake of themselves, beyond
this thing's ability to providethem money.

Speaker 3 (01:28:55):
You know what I mean and unfortunately the people
that do is particularly in thearts have trouble finding money,
yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:29:04):
Cause it's like well, you know, I'm not trying to
just do anything, you generallydon't go to college for
philosophy Cause you thinkyou're going to make it big and
get rich and all that.
But people should go to collegefor philosophy because you
think you're gonna make it bigand get rich and all that.
But people should go to collegefor philosophy and they should
be able to.
If I quote by socrates on mytattooed on my body like I love
philosophy, it's great, but likeyeah, it doesn't really pay the
bills very well but it should.

Speaker 1 (01:29:25):
You know, I mean like that, or like, or, or do we, or
do we need to rethink the bills, you know, I mean like, you
know, like, but again, again,honestly, dog, like, I feel like
half these podcasts chatsreally just center around like
us being like.
So this is why capitalism isthe problem I get like, I get it
.
I won't argue about that youknow, because it's like, yeah,
like I mean, half of this, halfof this is me just in some weird

(01:29:48):
way kind of playing devil'sadvocate because I ain't going
front layup.
I feel very similar to you aboutlike, yeah, yo, there's so many
crazy, wild things that wecould potentially do with with
these even just like hold up,hold up, hold up, hold up, hold
up because consider this right,like with this, with that
relatively recent breakthroughand like the potential for

(01:30:08):
quantum computing, thatcompletely changes the game for
what we could potentially dowith ai tools, because one of
the big issues with ai toolsright now is like the heat
generated and, like you know,the greenhouse that's the thing
I was talking about, myrona one.

Speaker 2 (01:30:18):
It's like quantum could be.
Yeah, it's, it's you know.

Speaker 1 (01:30:21):
Yeah, exactly, you know.
So it's like I I am.
I mean we'll see quantumcomputers.
I don't know they they may.
Still I don't know.
I don't know enough enough toknow how legitimately possible
it is to make a quantum computer.
I've heard arguments from bothsides saying that it's just like
it defies the laws of physicsand you can't do it.
And other sides are being likewe just haven't figured it out

(01:30:42):
yet.
But assuming that we get there,yeah, dog.
Like there's an insane, there'slike a ridiculous future that
we could live in.
That is akin to star trek,almost.
But like we won't get there ifwe can't move past capitalism.
I can't, we just won't we won'tjust just.

Speaker 2 (01:31:04):
I just want to bring it down to like a base thing
here.
Listen, would you?
I, if you ask me, would Irather be a poor person now or a
rich person in the year 1200,?
I'd rather be a poor person nowwith the technology that we
have.

Speaker 1 (01:31:21):
I think it depends.
I think it depends on where youare in the world.

Speaker 2 (01:31:25):
But no, I mean like yeah, no, no, no, I'm not going
to die, hopefully less likely Ishould say less likely to die of
, like you know, of a randomdisease or just some bacteria I
picked up.
I have access to many things.

Speaker 1 (01:31:40):
I'm definitely being facetious.
There is no world where I willmake an argument that the
quality of life for the averageperson on this planet has
improved since we made theswitch from feudalism and
monarchies to a cap, to a morecapitalist framework rich people
used to eat pineapples on theirtables because it was so
expensive to get.

Speaker 2 (01:31:57):
They'd be able to get this pineapple and everyone's
like what the fuck mine's blown?
What is that?
And now you pull up a fucking.
You pull up a pineapple,dancing on chat bt.
If you want to like it, doesn'tmatter, like I.
So I think technology, you know, does improve lives.
It fucks us in a lot of ways.
No, it absolutely does.

Speaker 1 (01:32:14):
No, no, no no, no, technology improves lives.
Not understanding thattechnology, how we got to it,
why it improved the life andwhat things were like before it
is part of the problem.
Like capitalism or any othersystem that's mostly focused on
like the results, thedestination and making as little

(01:32:36):
journey as possible becausethat costs money, then you start
to run into that problem, youknow I mean, then you start to
run into the problem of likewell, now it's too, though right
, because the results are whatget you further, right so?

Speaker 2 (01:32:47):
you need the results so capitalism does push these
things like.
It does push to people toinvent more and to create things
so that they can enrichthemselves, so they can make
money, so that they can makemore money than everybody else.

Speaker 1 (01:33:01):
That's an interesting discussion, that's actually a
whole you stumbled into a littlebit of a can of worms there,
dog, because that's actually oneof those.
That's, that's a.
That's one of those things thatgets debated somewhat fiercely
the idea that capitalismactually pushes innovation In
its early days, for sure, whenwe were first kind of working

(01:33:22):
out the system andindustrialization was kind of
first happening and there wasstill a lot of wild, wild west
and open commons and lots ofresources available.
Sure, yeah, capitalism did awhole lot to push people to
figure out well, you know, whatcan we do with this, now that I
don't have to get the king'spermission to go into the woods
and mine these rocks that Ithink are interesting rocks that

(01:33:44):
I could turn into somethingelse and make a profit out of,
or not even turn into somethingelse and make a profit out of,
but turn into something elsethat people need that I can then
sell them and, you know, beable to live my life Right.
That is accurate.
That's not what happens anymore, though.
What happens now is that and tokind of go back to the
pharmaceutical company exampleis that a company will, rather

(01:34:04):
than really develop a newmedication, we'll just use
interesting chemistry, synthesistricks to extend their patent.
You know I mean like you know,and just make more money that
way.
Or or you know, I mean like,like considering how much, uh,
considering how much, uh like,just like general, like commons,
public, public resources haveto get used in the development

(01:34:26):
and testing of a lot of thesedrugs.
It is wild to me that thereisn't that, that, yeah, that we
don't have like medicaid for allyou know.
I I mean, but no, that's that's, that's, that's not a thing
Like companies like, oh well,you know, we gotta, we gotta
recoup our investment from, likeyou know, making this equipment
and, like you know, doing allthis testing and all that it's
like.
But but how much of thatinvestment do you really need to

(01:34:47):
recoup when you're going to beselling this drug for the rest
of time?
Basically, you know what I mean.
It's like, yo, how much moneyhas Bayer made off aspirin?
How much money did Bayer makeoff heroin before they were like
, ah, maybe not, maybe not.
You know what I mean, butthat's what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (01:35:06):
Without money do you think so?
Say you eliminate capitalism.
Do you think there's just asmuch of a drive to invent and
create?
Oh yeah, say you eliminatecapitalism.
Do you think there's just asmuch of a drive?

Speaker 3 (01:35:15):
to invent and create and, oh yeah, dude, what do you?
What do you most?
Can I say that most of thestuff that I've created I I went
to learn.
I learned music, music, guitar,stuff like that that wasn't for
profit.
I learned, uh, modding, writing, game mods and stuff that
wasn't for profit.
All these other things.

(01:35:35):
None of it was driven by profit.

Speaker 1 (01:35:39):
I am committed to the idea that people get the best
results for things when it's notactually for profit, when
you're actually inspired to doit, because you are inspired to
do it inherently.
That, to me, is the best.
Like I, that's not to say thatpeople don't do a good job when
they're getting paid.
Trust me, somebody is paying meto do something.

(01:35:59):
I'm going to do my best.

Speaker 2 (01:36:01):
I mean, obviously, in this day and age, if you're
getting paid for something, ifyou get paid to create something
, that would be a driver tocreate that said thing.

Speaker 1 (01:36:14):
But I, but to you, to , to your, to, to your, uh, to
your question regarding likewould people still innovate?
I mean, like people invented,like there was all of the
history of humanity before.

Speaker 2 (01:36:21):
No, no, no, I'm not saying there would be no, we'd
all be like fuck it.

Speaker 1 (01:36:23):
We're going out to down to the local bar because
because there would still beproblems that need to be solved,
but the goal of solving those,but the solution to those
problems wouldn't have to centeraround whether or not you can
make money in the solution.

Speaker 2 (01:36:35):
Oh it sucks ass, Like I'm not saying it doesn't suck
ass.

Speaker 1 (01:36:39):
I'm with you on that, but I will entirely concede
it's not happening in mylifetime.
I've given up.
I don't think we will.
We will, hopefully with thisadministration in the US at
least we will be a little bitmore humbled and maybe we will
figure it the fuck out if wesurvive this.
But capitalism is going to behere until probably well after

(01:37:04):
I'm dead, 30 years of my life.
There is a broader global shifttowards a less capitalist
framework of social organization.
I don't know what it's going tobe, called.
I don't want to throw out anywords that might trigger
somebody.

Speaker 2 (01:37:23):
It sounds nice.
I like the idea.
I love the idea.

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
I just want us to start moving away.
I just want us to stopcommodifying so many things I
want us to.

Speaker 3 (01:37:33):
We have, um, a bill for universal basic income.
That's been floating around fora year or two now and it hasn't
been shot down, but it alsohasn't, as I said, I am hoping
that you know, within mylifetime that will pass, because
that gives people who want tolook into art, look into uh,

(01:37:55):
just doing their passionsuniversal basic income is a
really interesting one, likeI've looked into it before,
where they've tried it in someplaces and had maybe some
success, some less success likethat.

Speaker 2 (01:38:05):
So it's a very interesting idea and I don't
think anyone truly knows how itwould go on a broad scale.

Speaker 1 (01:38:11):
Yeah, it's very, I feel like it, I feel like it is,
I feel like it is very sociallyand societally dependent and
that was the same word is verysocietally dependent, right,
like you know, in some placesyou can probably do something
like that and it'll work out.
Some places, like, I don't knowhow well that will work in the U
?
S, I know it would.
No, let me let me pull thatback.
I know for a fact that in theUS it would ameliorate the

(01:38:31):
situations of a lot of people ina meaningful way.
However, on average, itprobably wouldn't do that much,
just because in the US at least,companies are allowed to just
charge whatever the fuck theywant for shit, including basic

(01:38:51):
needs, including basic goodsthat everybody needs, because
price controls are communism orwhatever, even though it's not
true.
But whatever, the US governmenthas absolutely put price
controls on goods in the pastfor a good reason, and it was
more or less fine.
But to be perfectly honest andI got to be careful, when I say
things like this, I lose myanti-capitalist card.
When I say things like this,there are aspects of a

(01:39:12):
capitalist exchange model thatare not terrible.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
Right.
That's basically where I'm at.

Speaker 1 (01:39:17):
The problem is when you commodify the basic needs
for existence.
Yeah, if housing were notcommodified, if medicine were
not commodified, if food andwater were not commodified and
maybe some clothing stuffweren't commodified, I don't
think I think I would.
I know, I know for a fact, Iwould have significantly fewer

(01:39:37):
issues with the concept ofcapitalism.
Commodify yacht trips, that'sfine.
Commodify space flight?
No, actually no, don'tcommodify space flight don't
commodify that one?

Speaker 2 (01:39:47):
no, no don't do that like some luxuries.

Speaker 1 (01:39:50):
I mean like yeah, you can have some luxury commodity
situations, you know I mean.
But like housing, nah,everybody gets a house roughly
the same size, you know I mean.
Or whatever, or you get a housethat you need, you know I mean.
You get a house that's roughlythe size you need for the family
you got.
I don't know what the ruleswould be.

Speaker 2 (01:40:03):
We can figure it out if we really wanted to figure it
out, but I do guarantee youthat is not happening in your
life.

Speaker 3 (01:40:06):
Oh, hell no I feel, confident.

Speaker 2 (01:40:10):
No matter how much AI takes off, it will enrich the
rich.

Speaker 1 (01:40:16):
And this I would love to, if either of you know how
true this is, because I feellike I looked into this years
ago and I don't remember now.
I just kind of remember theheadlines.
So you know, just full contextfor that, full context for that.
But my understanding has beenfor a while that there are
enough vacant properties and atleast most major cities to house

(01:40:37):
those who are homeless in thosecities, or at least like
average.
Yeah, I don't know how truethat is, or that like the cost
to feed, the cost to house everyhomeless person in the U?
S at at a basic level, is lessthan the cost of imprisoning all
the people that we haveimprisoned in the US, or

(01:40:58):
something like that.
I feel like I've heard thatthat's true.
But part of the reason whyyou'll never see that is because
people are inculcated into thishyper-individualistic idea that
is the heart of capitalism,this idea that it's about me,
anybody else is out to get meand I got to make sure I get
mine and fuck anybody else.
You know what I mean and likethat, the only way you move away

(01:41:18):
from that.
I think Lennon was the one whosaid you need a generation,
really two, two would be better.
But you need a generation ofchildren who are all raised to
not believe that, to not thinkthat way actually, and then
having that reinforcedthroughout their early childhood
, you know.
I mean, or at least when it'snot reinforced, having it made
very clear and plain that thisis bad and we don't like to do

(01:41:41):
this and we don't, we don't wantto do this, but we don't do
that.
We don't do that we have ads.

Speaker 2 (01:41:47):
You put the focus on the individual right, like the
whole pull yourself up by yourbootstraps, even though that's a
created from a thing that'simpossible literally impossible.

Speaker 3 (01:41:56):
It was literally how it started.

Speaker 2 (01:41:58):
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps was something
people said when you couldn't dosomething, because it's
literally impossible.

Speaker 1 (01:42:02):
Now they say it as a real thing, which is kind of
shitty, but like, hey, it's theworld we live in you know, I
mean it's, you know it's wherewe got to us, how you know, you
know it's and we got here, howwe got here, and that's you know
.
This is where we're at, youknow.
But, yeah, you know, like I, Iam very like I said, you know
I'm, I'm right there with, I'mright there with you, Liam, and
also Rob, like I, I do thinkthat there's a whole lot of
really amazing things to uh takeadvantage of, like the nuanced

(01:42:25):
controls and things that you cando with it.
But I'm not excited, for mostlyI get it and I'm just, and I'm
just not excited for the waythat this, that this sort of
thing, tends to play out in oursociety as it is.
What's the famous quote?

Speaker 2 (01:42:46):
uh, the future is here.
It's just not evenlydistributed.
I've heard that one, I forgetwho said that I've not heard
that, but I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:52):
That's like, that's pretty good.

Speaker 2 (01:42:53):
Yeah, I gotta look up who said that that's a great
one, because like yeah, get thattattooed on the other arm I'm
gonna be covered in quotes bythe end of I already got two,
like I got two tattoos and bothof them have quotes like so it's
, I've been.

Speaker 1 (01:43:06):
I've been wanting to get a tattoo like here on this
part of my arm that just says,uh, is your ego?
Sorry, I've been wanting to geta tattoo with this part of it.
This is like the inside of myarm that just says is your ego
at stake?
I remember I was helping afriend move in college once with
his pops and me and my friendkind of got into.
We were trying to figure outhow we were going to get this

(01:43:27):
couch into the apartment and sohe wanted to do it one way and I
was like, nah, I really thinkwe need to do it this way, and
both ways ultimately would haveworked.
But his pop like we were kindof like going back and forth
over it for like a good like two, three minutes, and his pops
was like, hey, is your ego atstake here?
And I was like, no, it's not,let's just do it your way.
Dog is fine, but like I like Iappreciate that phrase so much

(01:43:51):
it has wafted into my head ormore than one occasion when I've
been like discussing thingswith people in a relatively
heated manner, I'm like, yeah,it's fine, I might not be right
here, that's okay.
You know, what does it matter?
Does my, is my, is my ego atstake here?
Like, am I going to stop beinga person if I don't get my?
You know it's like, hmm, yeah,I kind of want to get that one

(01:44:13):
tattooed.

Speaker 2 (01:44:14):
Yeah, well, the first article I found was here's why
you should stop using WilliamGibson's the Future is here.
It's just not evenlydistributed, so maybe I'm using
it wrong?

Speaker 3 (01:44:23):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:44:25):
But I still like it.

Speaker 1 (01:44:28):
I mean, I guess you could get it and then like put
like you could get it, but likewith a strikethrough.
Do you know what I mean?
Oh shit.

Speaker 2 (01:44:33):
I messed up.
Maybe I'm not using that right,I don't know, but anyway, well,
I, I got my my, I gotta takecare of my daughter.

Speaker 1 (01:44:40):
I was going to say, like I feel like we've been,
we've been here about spicy youshould probably tell people who
you are and why.

Speaker 3 (01:44:46):
Oh yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:44:46):
I never did that this entire time where you have been
listening to hello kitty andwhere to find you and that sort
of stuff.
Just throw it at the end.
We'll throw it maybe at thebeginning, who knows, whatever
word.

Speaker 1 (01:44:55):
I appreciate, at some point I gotta get good at doing
this.
But yeah, what up y'all?
It's your boy, dr kim thug,newly minted phd.
Synthetic organic chemistry.
You know I mean, I'm out herewith your boys, rob and liam,
solving the world's problems inarmchairs as you do.
You know I mean.
But uh, if you're interested insome actual chemistry and like
science content, you know,including things between, like
the history of sulfuric acid andhow atoms make molecules, or

(01:45:19):
even just like whether or notyou want to buy one of them
hydrogen water bottles, check meout YouTube, tiktok, instagram
at Kim Thug.
Kim C-H-E-M dot T-H-U-G.
Yes, thug, like that, like Thug, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:45:33):
Yeah, and we didn't even get to alpha water.
Damn Fuck, we were going tobring that back.

Speaker 1 (01:45:37):
Oh man, I forgot about that Next time, next time.
Although I'm going to leave youwith this, though.
I'm going to leave you withthis, though, specifically the
one about the MP effect, thatidea that, like, hot water
freezes faster than cold water.
Oh okay, tldr, it may notnecessarily be true.

(01:45:58):
Watch the video, but one of thethings that was interesting is
that, like the host mentionedsome research that shows that if
you take water and you put itin like a Silicon based nanotube
, the water will, in fact, itwill confine the water to the
point where the water actuallyhas to orient itself in specific
ways in order to be able toefficiently occupy the space,

(01:46:21):
and this has consequences forthat water's ability to then
conduct heat and things likethat.
I have not read the paper, thiswas just a thing that she
mentioned, but she showed thepaper and I'm going to go find
it, but I thought that wasfascinating.
I thought that was really cooland, yeah, I just kind of wanted
to share that because I thoughtthat was cool.

Speaker 2 (01:46:39):
Yeah, everybody, go ask ChatGPT about it and prepare
to be lied to.
We'll lie to you, I promise.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Science Behind Everything: From Phlogiston to AI with Chem Thug

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

The Science Behind Everything: From Phlogiston to AI with Chem Thug

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club