September 19, 2022 • 42 mins
In this episode, we started talking about the book “Fossil Future” by Alex Epstein, the importance of having abundant and cheap energy, asked the question of why we are being told to reduce our energy consumption instead of looking for alternatives, pondered on the true meaning of “eliminating human impact,” and manipulations of public opinion through vague terminology.
Fossil future
Green energy. What is being hidden from us?
Wind turbine blades could be recycled into gummy bears, scientists say
45Q Legislation -
Technology
8 Foundations of the Creative Society - prosperity of humanity
We love receiving your feedback ❤️ Drop us a line anywhere you happen to come across our posts 🙂
We are @episodikal on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, and LinkedIn, or email us at ask@episodikal.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Alexey (00:00):
I wrote to you regarding this book by Alex
(00:03):
Epstein "Fossil Future." And itreally struck me why people are
not thinking in the same way, asAlex? I don't know, is it only
our reality or everyone else's,but it seems like he's taking
the internet by storm, you know,like he's everywhere on all
Twitter and everything talkingabout the benefits of fossil
(00:26):
fuels. And although we can arguethat fossil fuels are not the
best, but the case that hemakes, and this is what I wanted
to talk about today, is that allthis green stuff and Going Green
and preserving the planet, allthese vague terms, they are anti
(00:48):
human, they're really antihuman, because they want to
preserve the state of the Earth,prevent the warming of the
planet, all at the expense ofhuman lives. And this is kind of
strange, like for whom do theywant to do it? I was listening
to Alex's appearance on theBrendan O'Neill show, he was
(01:10):
saying repeating again, what hewrote in his books that the
rhetoric of going green can bepopular. But the consequences
can't be popular. Why? Becausethe rhetoric is dishonest. And
this rhetoric says that if youact to eliminate your impact,
(01:30):
meaning the impact of humans onEarth, somehow your life is
going to be better. And that isa contradiction. Because the way
we make our life better onEarth, is by massively and
intelligently impacting it,including by using the most cost
effective sources of energy,which most of the time today is
(01:53):
fossil fuel. And we've beentalking also about that
everything that we could achieveas humanity, this growth in the
past couple of centuries, wasbecause we had new sources of
energy that allowed us toamplify and extend our abilities
to building all thisinfrastructure that we are
(02:14):
having today. And the case thatAlex makes is that the CO2 clan
and all this green agenda, wellthey're continuously
highlighting only the negativesof the fossil fuels, as Alex
calls it, it is fossil fuelbenefit denial. Why? Because
they're opposing the negativesof the fossil fuel only to the
(02:39):
positives of the green energy,while completely ignoring the
negatives of renewables, or thegreen energy. And this creates a
distorted picture of reality. Ifwe have a look at how we live
today, the more I start noticingthese things, and obviously, I
mean anyone, when we experiencedpower cut, we understand that,
(03:02):
oh, we can't go make some tea,we can't make a cup of coffee.
And if you have electricheaters, or water heaters in
your house, there is no hotwater, there is no heating or
cooling in summer. And these arethe things that we are
completely taking for granted.
This may be about to change withall the power cuts we've been
(03:22):
talking about that are beingprogrammed already for this
winter for many Europeancountries. And I also heard that
Switzerland wants to ration thewater supply. This is quite
interesting. And this is whatAlex Epstein says that the world
unimpacted by human beings wasalready a really inhospitable
(03:44):
place for 500 million peopleback then. But now, it is a
completely unlivable place for 8billion unimpacted. So we
totally depend on machine laborto sustain our life. So this
abundant and relatively safeworld that we have today, we owe
(04:05):
it to the amount of machinelabor that amplifies and expands
our abilities. Today's worldagain, the machinery allows one
farmer to do the work that wouldrequire 1000 people previously.
And another example that hemakes is that crossing an ocean,
for example, can only beachieved using machine labor,
(04:27):
and no amount of human labor canhelp us achieve crossing the
ocean without using machines.
And no amount of human labor cansave a prematurely born baby's
life without using an incubator.
It's a machine and it needspower. And no matter how many
people would gather around thisbaby if we don't have these
(04:47):
machines that are powered bysome sort of energy, we'll not
be able to save this baby. Nowthis is very interesting. When
we start thinking about all thethings that we have today and we
will have to abandon. If wedon't have energy, we will not
be able to use any of themachines that we're using today,
(05:08):
our life will not be the same.
So I wanted to share this withyou and ask for your opinion on
this.
Taliy (05:18):
Well, it's no secret that I've been watching lately
lectures and listening topodcasts by Alex Epstein. I get
to say so many points he'ssaying, are really, you know,
very well thought through. Andthe way he presents the facts
makes you take a different look.
And the things that we'reusually being told on the mass
(05:40):
media, from which perspective,we actually want to take a look
at our humanity. Do we want todevelop it the best possible
way? Do we want to alloweveryone in the world to live
safely have energy? For example,one of the things he has
mentioning that most of thepeople in the world using less
(06:00):
energy than your fridge. Andthat case, well, you have this
new technology that allowspeople to get alternative
sources of energy. We alreadyhave amazing sources of energy,
right, but so many people don'thave them. And you coming up
with wind turbines and solarpanels, for example, and you
(06:21):
really like them. Well theninstall them in those places
where people have really, reallyneed them. There are so many
places where they desperatelyneed them. But they don't. They
try to cut the production ofenergy in already developed
countries. And you know, what'sinteresting, that the most
(06:42):
advanced power sources and thecleanest ones, I mean, the
nuclear energy are not being,you know, viewed as an
alternative for some reason thatwe are not developing those
stable sources of energy. Youknow, I was looking this week
(07:04):
had the map of power outages inTexas in 2021, when there was no
power for a couple of days, andit was a disaster, a few 100
people died, and so much moresuffered, because there was no
energy, even in vital areas likehospitals and everything. Of
course, they had led topolitical debate, was it due to
(07:26):
renewables? Was it due to powergrid? Was it due to something
else, but it just shows showshow vulnerable our system is
without the energy. And onething that when you look at the
map of energy production, right,the solar goes like this up and
down, right that other sourcesgo up and down. But nuclear, it
(07:46):
always stays the same, likenuclear is their only source of
energy that is clean, thatproduces a lot of energy. And
then for some reason, we startedshutting down these factories,
and it doesn't make much sense,because we need definitely need
much more power. And the cheaperthe power is, the better the
(08:07):
quality of the people do, youwant to work 16 hours a day, or
you want to work eight hours aday, or you want to make enough
living and maybe even a betterliving by working four hours a
day, it all depends on theamount and cost of energy that
we have. As simple as that. Wehave so many people who work a
(08:27):
lot, a lot of hours to producegoods that first world countries
consume. But those are beingproduced in so called third
world countries or a secondworld or whatever, in Southeast
Asia, in India and China, inother countries, we are being
pushed this narrative that thosecountries are polluting, that
(08:48):
those countries have dirtyproduction. Well, excuse me,
who's consuming the results oftheir production. In most cases,
it's not the people of thosecountries. It's the people of
the first world who live in thesterilized world, imaginary
world where human impact iseliminated. You know, there is a
(09:11):
good parallel when people livein absolutely sterilized
surrounding, they're not gonnasurvive long. Because your
immune system everything needsto needs to coexist in a
competitive space. And the sameapplies to like water, distilled
water with no salt with no otherelements. And that doesn't work.
(09:32):
And if we want to make our worldreally competitive, in good
sense, compete in improving thequality of human life, we should
use all our existingtechnologies to create new
sources of energy. It'sfascinating how many people
actually invest in money intothe energy and everything into
getting this new sources ofenergy, magnetic energy
(09:55):
generators, but those are notbeing supported on the
governmental level. And what'sbeen supported are pretty
unreliable resources. Anothergraph I've seen is how much
advanced the solar and windtechnologies are. And you know,
their efficiency, we alreadyalmost pushed those technologies
(10:16):
to the limit of their abilities.
And it's still not that good.
Like, it's still not that great.
Yeah, it's really about thedebate, if you really want to
eliminate human impact. Do youstill want the humans on this
planet? Or what do you want todo the humans, and we clearly
(10:38):
seing that the reduction ofpopulation is openly being
discussed as one of the problemsoverpopulation of the Earth, at
the same time, the very samepeople offering us to cut the
consumption of energy. I don'tthink it's taking our humanity
doing any good service to it,you know, even from looking at
(10:58):
California energy production andthe way they shut down couple of
nuclear plants. That's veryinteresting, because you know,
the reaction keeps on going.
Because once the reaction hasbeen started, it keeps on going
can go for many, many years. Itjust doesn't produce the energy
anymore. So it looks like thereis some strange political
requirements to it. If it wasonly about the energy, that's
(11:22):
one thing, but I believe thereis also almost a spiritual thing
to it, where human freedom,which is possible due to free
energy, or very cheap energy isseen as a threat by certain
people, people who have power orpeople who temporarily in power.
You know, what's the next guycomes and he speaks well, but
(11:44):
then in couple of years, weseing him continuing the very
same agenda. I think that's oneof the reasons why Donald Trump
was so popular in the office,because he came and he
completely destroyed openly allthe arguments against it. He was
like, I want my clean, beautifulcoal, clean, beautiful coal, and
(12:05):
no one ever said, clean andbeautiful coal prior to him. And
he was like, I'm gonna cut theParis Agreement that doesn't do
us any good. And everybody waslike, whatever this guy's up to,
he has a plan. He knows whathe's doing. He is not up to this
BS and telling us that white isblack, and green is good. No, he
(12:25):
definitely had that plan. Wedon't have to agree with all his
talking points. But when itcomes to energy, resources he
made our country Americadefinitely much more stable,
comparing to where it is rightnow. Another book that I've been
reading is regarding how it wasall built this whole myth of
(12:49):
having green energy and puttingsolar panels and not impacting.
One of the very importantreasons, which allows many
people to consider this, as analternative is lack of time and
desire to actually learn itthemselves. If only people had
looked more into how the energyactually works, what are the
(13:11):
consequences of using solar?
What are the consequences ofusing other sources of energy?
What are the cons and pros ofeach one of them? There would be
no argument about switching tosolar. Like definitely, we need
clean energy. But just the thingis that solar and wind is not an
(13:32):
alternative that's so obvious toanyone who spent a little time
looking into it. And if youhaven't, you can check those
videos about wind and solar onCreative Society YouTube channel
on the conferences.
Alexey (13:45):
Independently whether this new project of transforming
the end-of-lifed wind turbinespropellers into gummy bears is
completed or not, I mean, thistotal nonsense, that oh, by the
way, you know that you're eatinga lot of fossil fuels products
anyway, so why not eat this?
We're not talking about this.
(14:07):
But as you said, we are losinghuman lives, because we don't
have power during these powercuts that really impacted a lot
of people. And this is very sadthat we are being told as if we
were in a kindergarten, youknow, kids, you see, we are just
capturing the energy of the sun,it is free. So, therefore, it is
(14:27):
good. Or you know, the wind isblowing anyway, we are just
putting these wind turbines andwe are capturing this energy and
this is good because it isgreen. We are not harming
nature. But we know that thesewind turbine farms, they change
the trajectory of the winds,they change a lot of things.
They kill birds, not onlythey're changing the landscape,
(14:50):
they're ugly, and you need a lotof concrete to stabilize them.
And even then, they are notwithstanding high winds. The
other thing that we are notbeing told when we are being
advertised these renewables andgreen energy is that they are
not consistent in the poweroutput. And everyone knows
(15:10):
everyone who went hiking with asolar battery charger, you know
how unreliable it is, you turnit out of the sun or the sun
hides behind the cloud. Andthat's it, you don't have
energy. How can we transform ourlives in that we are dependent
on whether there are clouds ornot? This is completely strange
for me. And this is why I likethis, you know, logical
(15:34):
reasoning that the energy needsto have four characteristics. As
Alex Epstein says in his book,it should be low cost so that
people can afford it, it shouldbe reliable, so you can use it
when you need it, and in thequantity you need, it's
versatile, meaning that you needto be able to power all sorts of
(15:55):
machines that we require tolive, to sustain life on this
planet. And scalability, thatyou need to be able to provide
energy that's low, cost,reliable and versatile for
billions of people. And today,in our today's world, fossil
fuels provide 80% of thisenergy, and this part is still
(16:15):
growing, why we're not usingnuclear? Well, I don't know, we
also talked about Molten Saltfission in the previous episode.
And why we are not exploringthis? This is the question that
we need to ask those in power,because it's certainly not
ignorance on their part, I thinkthat they have enough gray
(16:37):
matter to understand that unlessyou have energy that is
constantly supplied, from areliable source, and that can
power all our life supportmachines, we can call it this,
because we need heat in winter,we need to cool down certain
places on Earth like Dubai, youcannot live without air
(16:57):
conditioning for most, at leasthalf of the year. And this is
certainly not because they don'tunderstand, but they have to
have a different agenda. Andthis agenda is apparently
getting rid not only of humanimpact, but by saying to
eliminate human impact, theymust be meaning eliminate
(17:19):
humans, so they don't impact theplanet. But then the question
is, for whom then we areconserving this planet, if we're
not living in it? And this issomething that we should be
discussing, not whether weshould install more solar or
more wind turbines or anythingelse that is not as a reliable
(17:42):
as the energy sources that wehave today that we've been
using. I don't know, but I'm,I'm terrified in the prospect of
losing access to this energythat we have today. And losing
access to machines, includingmachines to produce food,
shelter and medical care,because we know that if there is
not enough electricity to powerour hospitals, then it will be
(18:05):
much more devastating forhumanity than increasing
temperatures or anything else.
And even, let's say if theclimate is changing, even if we
admit for a second that it ischanging, because we are using
these fossil fuels, which it'snot but let's admit Are we still
going to prefer reducing our useof something that gives us the
(18:26):
opportunity to live or we aregoing to stop everything and be
in a more vulnerable position?
And we can see the results ofthis reduction in energy
availability in Europe withprospects of starvation, water
supply interruptions, andfreezing during the winter. For
(18:47):
example, today I read also anarticle that said that costs of
electricity in the UK areprojected to be three times
higher this year compared to theprevious one, and for many
people, this will beunaffordable. So I don't want to
see people choosing betweeneating or heating, because this
is really crazy. You know, it'salso a bit crazy that we are
(19:10):
afraid of freezing during thewinter in a world which is
allegedly too hot. Also, as youmentioned, 3 billion people use
less electricity than a standardAmerican fridge this crazy more
than half of the population ofthis planet still use wood and
animal dung to cook and it's nota joke you know guys it's it
(19:33):
would be a funny joke, but it'snot it's the sad reality that we
are trying to reduce energyusage in the so called developed
countries so that we can returnto being non developed maybe we
should be start alreadypreparing wood and animal dung
to be able to prepare food andheat our homes
(19:53):
during the winter withoutelectricity. This is really sad.
Taliy (19:57):
There is a saying "follow the money" right because we can
clearly see one tendencyregarding the policies that are
being passed in one country oranother, you can tell that they
are highly dependent who'slobbying the laws. Like, for
example, we've been checkingcertain things like who spend
(20:19):
the most money on lobbying inthe US. And it's quite open
information, so you can go checkit. And this is how investors
usually do - they go, they seewho's investing into lobbying
what, and then based on howsuccessful or how much money
they spend on lobbying certainthings, you can tell that this
is a good area to invest, forexample, or this might be not.
(20:42):
And they noticed that first ofall company of Edison of South
California, they spent a lot ofmoney on lobbying their
projects, because apparently,they do not want their only
nuclear plant in the state ofCalifornia to be shut down.
California is already lackingpower. And we've been told air
conditioning in the summershould not exceed certain
(21:03):
temperatures, don't put your ACtoo low. And this kind of
things, which, prior to now,nobody cared because we had
enough energy right now, not somuch. And the tendency keeps
going in opposite way. And also,one interesting thing that has
been noticed, and that there arecompanies like Occidental
Petroleum, which is a oilcompany, basically fossil fuel
(21:26):
company, but they spent a lot ofmoney on to lobbying something
called 45Q tax credit and whatit is, and why it's so
interesting, and why some peoplelike Warren Buffett investing
their money into this company,so as ExxonMobil and other
fossil fuels, but this onespecifically because it's the
(21:50):
biggest developer of so calledCO2, CO2 sucking plants, I don't
know for a lack of a betterworld to call it. So facilities,
which are, first of all,consuming a lot of energy,
they're huge buildings with hugepropellers built into their
walls, and they just processinga lot of air and sucking CO2 out
(22:12):
of it, and then store it. Andthen for each ton of CO2,
captured and stored, they getcertain amount of money, but
nobody's calculating how muchenergy has been spent to get
that CO2 out of the air. And ifyou calculate that, then it
comes back to the point where itdoesn't make sense at all. But
(22:34):
again, those are not beingincluded in calculations, and
nobody's even thinking about it.
And like, you know, as you said,they do not show the downsides.
And people don't ask thesequestions, because I don't know,
we were on the call withspecialists who learned about
CO2 and, you know, participatingin Creative Society project, I
had to read about it as well.
(22:55):
And the question I asked wasbased on, you know, basic
knowledge I picked up about CO2that says that it's a heavy
molecule, right? That's why inthe air, it doesn't stay up in
the high altitude layers of theatmosphere. It gradually goes
down and being absorbed by theocean and the trees, greens,
(23:16):
whatever. The question I'masking in every article where
they talk about greenhouseeffect and how CO2 is warming
our planet, it says it's warmingbecause few of those molecules
going very high into the higheraltitudes. Stay there for some
reason, sort of exceptionalmolecules. And they trap the
(23:37):
heat, and they don't allow theheat to bounce back to the
space. The question I asked wasvery simple. If bad molecules
so-called bad molecules of CO2are high up in the air, then
what's the point of making thesefactories that sucking them out
of the air on the ground level,where they already being
(23:57):
absorbed by the ocean andgreens? And everyone was like,
what? really? We never thoughtabout it. I was like, how come
nobody talks about it that thesesolutions, they have nothing to
do with even inside of thisfictional agenda of blaming CO2
as a root cause of all evil.
Even within this very sameagenda. It doesn't click like,
(24:18):
you know, one plus one doesn'tadd up here. The stuff that
they're doing is not helping.
But how much profitable is it ifyou can make so much money.
Going back to this OccidentalPetroleum and their 45Q tax,
what it says that suchfacilities can get up to $50 per
(24:40):
storing each ton of capturedCO2. Well, they love it to get
at least 125 $125 per each ton.
And you know, that's a very goodquestion that who's gonna
calculate and how they're goingto calculate it, but the most
importantly, that this stuff isthe new gold rush. It's a new
gold rush after free money beinggiven under politicized
(25:04):
projects. You know, what's thereal outcome? How much it
improves our lives? In thiscase, it's a very good question
that nobody asks, because itdoesn't make it better. We're in
this imaginary field that'sbeing pushed on us, an imaginary
picture that something evil isgoing to happen if the
temperature is gonna go up by1.5 degrees. And to lower it, we
(25:26):
have to do certain things.
Nobody guarantees you anything.
Nobody can guarantee anyresults. Nobody's even sure how
it works. And many scientistswho studied they say, We don't
know how much of it isanthropogenic in a way because
climate has been changingforever. And the only reason why
(25:46):
we think it's anthropogenic isbecause this 2001 IPCC report
that erase medieval warm period,which was showing us the
temperature goes up and down.
For some reason, we believe thescientists, a few of them who
made nonsense claim that climatehas been stable for centuries
(26:08):
for 1000s of years neverchanged. And here we go again,
those scientists made themselvesvery good careers. Just to give
you an example, one of the mostnotorious, I would say, people
of this scientific field,Michael Mann, he got employed in
Penn State after his hockeystick graph was so much promoted
by IPCC, the guy is working forUnited Nations, there is no way
(26:32):
that could be achieved withoutcreating this sensationalism,
presenting the graphs that eraseall known history, and presents
it in a way that was weirdlyconvenient for certain
politicians who were, weirdlyenough fighting against nuclear
fighting to reduce energyconsumption on planet Earth. We
(26:55):
know for a fact that one of thevery first bills passed by
Clinton and Al Gore'sadministration in 1994, was to
reduce and cut any funding offinding new nuclear reactors. So
at the time, there was alreadywork regarding development of
small modular reactors, which isamazing for nuclear plants, back
(27:18):
in good old days, they used tobuild them in 1960s, that whole
plant around the huge reactor,and like, you know, it was
stationary. And then there was athought that we can make them
small, we can link them up up to12 of them, and create the small
plants. And the reactorsthemselves could be mass
(27:39):
produced on factories, they donot have to be built stationary,
you can produce them on thefactory, just like cars, or
airplanes or whatever. You cantransport them anywhere, and
create beautiful, clean sourcesof energy anywhere on the
planet. Clinton and Gore triedto destroy it. Yeah, it didn't
work out. But they cut thefunding. They made it very hard
(28:01):
to actually develop thisproject. And then a couple of
years ago, when they were asked,Al Gore was asked, why don't we
consider nuclear power? Hisanswer was, well, because it's
too expensive, they pricedthemselves out of market. And
that's the guy who dideverything possible to find the
technology that would makenuclear energy much cheaper and
(28:25):
much more affordable for thepeople. Well, you did that it's
because of you. The most amazingpart about it that despite that
this Portland, Oregon companyfrom Portland, Oregon, they
developed this technology. Nowwe have this beautiful nuclear
power reactors that can beproduced mass produced and put
(28:45):
everywhere. The only question ishow long it's going to take us
to find out that renewable thingis not working solar panel and
wind plants are not the way out.
The question is, how do weallocate our resources because
for the money that are beingspent on solar and wind, with
the very same money, we cangamble, put it on solar and wind
(29:05):
and we can destroy the currentexisting sources of energy as
they do with coal and nuclear.
It can turn our like, you know,this picture of the future that
looks like past when 20 yearsago we had this films and movies
in which future looks likemedieval times. I was like why
(29:27):
do they present this picture? Itdoesn't make sense it's like I
know fiction and stuff by Whydoes the future does not look
futuristic future according tothese films and books looks like
medieval past. And now I see oh,wait, that wasn't just fiction.
It's actually what we might endup getting. If we follow this
(29:49):
woke agenda of fighting againsthuman impact on the nature. It
seems like it's way closer thanwe thought.
Alexey (29:59):
You asked this question, when will we realize
that this betting on renewableswas not a great bet? The thing
is that you know, as in thecasino, the casino always wins
at the end of the day. And youalso said, follow the money. So
we will see who is getting themoney. But then the problem is
(30:20):
that we will be facing muchbigger problems than just losing
the money, we will be usinghuman lives. And apparently,
this is the agenda. Why would weeven want to eliminate human
impact, for whom? Certainly, thegoals are not to eliminate human
impact, because if we wanted toeliminate human impact on the
(30:41):
planet, and improve ourconditions, then we will be
exploring alternative energysources like these small nuclear
reactors, molten salt burners,fuelless generators, we are
being told that guys, we need tochoose only between these two,
there is no third option. Butthe thing is that there is a
(31:02):
third option, there is a fourthoption there is there are 10s of
options available, if we juststart looking around, start
looking in a differentdirection, saying that
everything that nature does isgood, and everything that humans
do is evil. So therefore, weshould eliminate human impact,
meaning humans, and this istotally anti human, it's clear
(31:25):
that you know, if we continuegoing this route, then we will
self eliminate. But we need tounderstand that either we want
to live and improve our liveshere on this planet or on
another. But this should be ourprimary goal. And if our primary
as Alex says, moral goal isadvancing human flourishing,
(31:49):
then flourishing for an organismis living to its highest
potential. And while enjoyingnature, and the outdoors is
really one of the most importantthings or parts of this
flourishing, it's important topreserve the ecology, the
ecological environment, but itdoesn't mean that it has to be
done at the expense of ourlives. Because if we are not
(32:12):
there to experience theoutdoors, for whom are we
protecting these outdoors? Whatis the point of turning off the
power of our life supportsystems, because let's say it as
it is heating, and airconditioning, or any sort of
energy that powers the waterpumps that deliver water into
our houses that power, the foodproduction plants that allow us
(32:35):
to grow and process food, and tostore this food, they all
require energy, most of thisenergy derived from fossil
fuels, if you want something tobe clean, and not use
hydrocarbons, why are we notlooking into other forms of
energy? And while everyone isvilifying the nuclear, many
(32:57):
experts, people who are not paidby the CO2 clan, everyone is
saying, guys, the levels ofradiation that is generated by a
nuclear power plant, justrounding errors compared to what
is harmful to humans, nuclearplants don't explode just by
themselves. People, they willsay, yeah, but there was
(33:19):
Chernobyl. Oh, yeah, there wasChernobyl. But since then,
things have changed and weredeveloped differently. Why were
we not looking into this? Why?
Why do we prefer basicallyturning off the life support and
saying, yeah, now we will beeliminating our impact on the
planet, because, yeah, becausewe will die. It's not funny,
guys. I don't know what youthink about all these things.
(33:42):
Let us know what is your opinionon this anti human agenda. We
need to understand that behindthis vague terminology of
protecting the environment,everything is blended together,
like protecting the environmentfrom pollution, or protecting
the environment from humans, weneed to understand that there is
a difference. Putting thesevague, renewables green and
(34:05):
everything we are being toldthings that are completely
opposite of what is beingadvertised and we are being
advertised, well something thatis obviously true in certain
cases, like yes, sun givesenergy and you could potentially
use it in some sort ofapplications. Just playing with
(34:28):
a solar charger for your phonewhile you're hiking is
completely different from usinga glorified solar charger for
the whole city is different.
This is the problem that'ssimple things like this are not
being discussed. And we arevoting for this green energy
(34:50):
because we want to protect theenvironment. Everything is being
played on this this desire toprotect our home planet, our
only planet. And people say yes,yes, I want to protect the
environment. But we want toprotect it from pollution, not
from ourselves. Because if ouractivity, let's talk about this
(35:12):
thing for a moment. And this issomething that also Alex Epstein
wrote in his book, this planetis really not a great place to
live, if we don't have all theadvancements and the energy to
power, these advancements, weare so accustomed to have
everything that works justworks, you know, you just flip
the light switch and you havethe light, you kind of don't
(35:33):
even think that you have theheating when it's cold, and you
have the AC when it's hot. Butthese things, including the
water that runs when you needit, just from the tap, you turn
it but there is machinery thatconstantly is working to provide
you these benefits. And when weare being pushed to switch to
(35:53):
green energy, that is not wecannot rely on this energy. I
don't think that we fullyunderstand what we are voting
for what we advocate for. Yeah,we're coming back to this idea
that we need to learn, becauseignorance is what led us to this
point where we have to decide ifwe are going to have enough
(36:16):
electricity to heat our homesthis winter, and will we be able
to afford it, or we will justperish and not
impact the environment as we arebeing advised to do. We are more
preparing to launch a satellite,we are more testing technology
to launch satellites into spaceto have internet, then we are
(36:40):
testing an unreliable andunproven technology to power our
lives. How is this evenpossible? Who is the designated
expert? Someone designatedMichael Mann as the expert on
hockey sticks, okay on thesegraphs of global warming, and no
one can contradict him becausehe's the designated authority.
(37:02):
We've talked about the 98%consensus or 97, whatever, and
how they achieved it. But whatif even 99% of scientists were
wrong? What if one scientist asin the movies that we have
sometimes this one scientistthat has the solution to
humanity's problem? What if, andwe're not even giving him a
(37:25):
chance to speak freely, andexpose his point of view? You
know, when we have theseinfluential people talk about
humans being a plague on theplanet, as if we were like some
kind of a pox is reallyterrifying that over the past
years, it became common. Butreally, I don't know if you
noticed this, I think the lastmonths, this accelerated
(37:48):
injection of this narrative thatwe are like parasites on the
planet, into the mass mediachannels everywhere, it's
spreading quite fast. And if wecombine everything that we've
been talking about on thispodcast, and that we are being
told guys, there will be famine,and at the same time, we have
farmers in Europe being told notto use fertilizers and to kill
(38:13):
off their herd. Well, we've allseen what trying to make bio
biological, agricultural countryout of Sri Lanka resulted in but
also I read that farmers in theUS are being paid not to plant
crops, also to reduce carbonemissions, methane and nitrogen
(38:36):
or whatever. When you combineeverything that we are being
told, okay, guys, you will havenothing to eat, and we clearly
see this "nothing to eat" beingorganized in a very dedicated
manner, and actuallyauthoritative manner. For
whatever reason, our governmentthinks that we are the plague on
(38:58):
this planet. I think that'sreally this idea of human
flourishing framework. Whenassessing the situation and
planning our actions. We shouldreally, first and foremost, ask
this simple question, Will thisbe of benefit to humankind? This
resonates greatly with me,because this is how I understand
the first foundation of theCreative Society, which is the
(39:20):
value of human life, that eachhuman's life is valuable. If we
take this approach, thatwhatever decision we have to
take as a civilization ashumanity, if we put human life
first, a lot of things just fallinto place. You know, can you
switch to this other form ofenergy that is not reliable and
(39:42):
will cost many millions humanlives? Well, of course not. Or
can you produce food that isdefinitely not beneficial for
human health? Well, of coursenot. And if we look through this
optics if we take this approachto any decision, everything
(40:03):
becomes so easy. It's very easyto ask this question, will it
harm humans on this planet ornot? And there will be
solutions, there will besolutions found by the
scientists or ordinary peoplethat will present new sources of
energy, new ways ofmanufacturing things or doing
agriculture to feed thepopulation. And we are already 8
(40:27):
billion. So this is officialWorld Bank said that we are 8
billion already. So yeah, weneed to change our approach to
how we evaluate things andeverything will be much, much
easier. On this note, I think wecan, we can say that we will
continue presenting you thingsthat are going against humanity
(40:49):
against your life and the lifeof your loved ones. And once you
see it, you cannot unsee it. Youcannot unsee these anti humane
manifestations of governments orinfluential people that are
really saying that we should notimpact the planet. And by not
impacting the planet. They meanwe should not exist
I wrote to you regarding this book by Alex
(00:03):
Epstein "Fossil Future." And itreally struck me why people are
not thinking in the same way, asAlex? I don't know, is it only
our reality or everyone else's,but it seems like he's taking
the internet by storm, you know,like he's everywhere on all
Twitter and everything talkingabout the benefits of fossil
(00:26):
fuels. And although we can arguethat fossil fuels are not the
best, but the case that hemakes, and this is what I wanted
to talk about today, is that allthis green stuff and Going Green
and preserving the planet, allthese vague terms, they are anti
(00:48):
human, they're really antihuman, because they want to
preserve the state of the Earth,prevent the warming of the
planet, all at the expense ofhuman lives. And this is kind of
strange, like for whom do theywant to do it? I was listening
to Alex's appearance on theBrendan O'Neill show, he was
(01:10):
saying repeating again, what hewrote in his books that the
rhetoric of going green can bepopular. But the consequences
can't be popular. Why? Becausethe rhetoric is dishonest. And
this rhetoric says that if youact to eliminate your impact,
(01:30):
meaning the impact of humans onEarth, somehow your life is
going to be better. And that isa contradiction. Because the way
we make our life better onEarth, is by massively and
intelligently impacting it,including by using the most cost
effective sources of energy,which most of the time today is
(01:53):
fossil fuel. And we've beentalking also about that
everything that we could achieveas humanity, this growth in the
past couple of centuries, wasbecause we had new sources of
energy that allowed us toamplify and extend our abilities
to building all thisinfrastructure that we are
(02:14):
having today. And the case thatAlex makes is that the CO2 clan
and all this green agenda, wellthey're continuously
highlighting only the negativesof the fossil fuels, as Alex
calls it, it is fossil fuelbenefit denial. Why? Because
they're opposing the negativesof the fossil fuel only to the
(02:39):
positives of the green energy,while completely ignoring the
negatives of renewables, or thegreen energy. And this creates a
distorted picture of reality. Ifwe have a look at how we live
today, the more I start noticingthese things, and obviously, I
mean anyone, when we experiencedpower cut, we understand that,
(03:02):
oh, we can't go make some tea,we can't make a cup of coffee.
And if you have electricheaters, or water heaters in
your house, there is no hotwater, there is no heating or
cooling in summer. And these arethe things that we are
completely taking for granted.
This may be about to change withall the power cuts we've been
(03:22):
talking about that are beingprogrammed already for this
winter for many Europeancountries. And I also heard that
Switzerland wants to ration thewater supply. This is quite
interesting. And this is whatAlex Epstein says that the world
unimpacted by human beings wasalready a really inhospitable
(03:44):
place for 500 million peopleback then. But now, it is a
completely unlivable place for 8billion unimpacted. So we
totally depend on machine laborto sustain our life. So this
abundant and relatively safeworld that we have today, we owe
(04:05):
it to the amount of machinelabor that amplifies and expands
our abilities. Today's worldagain, the machinery allows one
farmer to do the work that wouldrequire 1000 people previously.
And another example that hemakes is that crossing an ocean,
for example, can only beachieved using machine labor,
(04:27):
and no amount of human labor canhelp us achieve crossing the
ocean without using machines.
And no amount of human labor cansave a prematurely born baby's
life without using an incubator.
It's a machine and it needspower. And no matter how many
people would gather around thisbaby if we don't have these
(04:47):
machines that are powered bysome sort of energy, we'll not
be able to save this baby. Nowthis is very interesting. When
we start thinking about all thethings that we have today and we
will have to abandon. If wedon't have energy, we will not
be able to use any of themachines that we're using today,
(05:08):
our life will not be the same.
So I wanted to share this withyou and ask for your opinion on
this.
Taliy (05:18):
Well, it's no secret that I've been watching lately
lectures and listening topodcasts by Alex Epstein. I get
to say so many points he'ssaying, are really, you know,
very well thought through. Andthe way he presents the facts
makes you take a different look.
And the things that we'reusually being told on the mass
(05:40):
media, from which perspective,we actually want to take a look
at our humanity. Do we want todevelop it the best possible
way? Do we want to alloweveryone in the world to live
safely have energy? For example,one of the things he has
mentioning that most of thepeople in the world using less
(06:00):
energy than your fridge. Andthat case, well, you have this
new technology that allowspeople to get alternative
sources of energy. We alreadyhave amazing sources of energy,
right, but so many people don'thave them. And you coming up
with wind turbines and solarpanels, for example, and you
(06:21):
really like them. Well theninstall them in those places
where people have really, reallyneed them. There are so many
places where they desperatelyneed them. But they don't. They
try to cut the production ofenergy in already developed
countries. And you know, what'sinteresting, that the most
(06:42):
advanced power sources and thecleanest ones, I mean, the
nuclear energy are not being,you know, viewed as an
alternative for some reason thatwe are not developing those
stable sources of energy. Youknow, I was looking this week
(07:04):
had the map of power outages inTexas in 2021, when there was no
power for a couple of days, andit was a disaster, a few 100
people died, and so much moresuffered, because there was no
energy, even in vital areas likehospitals and everything. Of
course, they had led topolitical debate, was it due to
(07:26):
renewables? Was it due to powergrid? Was it due to something
else, but it just shows showshow vulnerable our system is
without the energy. And onething that when you look at the
map of energy production, right,the solar goes like this up and
down, right that other sourcesgo up and down. But nuclear, it
(07:46):
always stays the same, likenuclear is their only source of
energy that is clean, thatproduces a lot of energy. And
then for some reason, we startedshutting down these factories,
and it doesn't make much sense,because we need definitely need
much more power. And the cheaperthe power is, the better the
(08:07):
quality of the people do, youwant to work 16 hours a day, or
you want to work eight hours aday, or you want to make enough
living and maybe even a betterliving by working four hours a
day, it all depends on theamount and cost of energy that
we have. As simple as that. Wehave so many people who work a
(08:27):
lot, a lot of hours to producegoods that first world countries
consume. But those are beingproduced in so called third
world countries or a secondworld or whatever, in Southeast
Asia, in India and China, inother countries, we are being
pushed this narrative that thosecountries are polluting, that
(08:48):
those countries have dirtyproduction. Well, excuse me,
who's consuming the results oftheir production. In most cases,
it's not the people of thosecountries. It's the people of
the first world who live in thesterilized world, imaginary
world where human impact iseliminated. You know, there is a
(09:11):
good parallel when people livein absolutely sterilized
surrounding, they're not gonnasurvive long. Because your
immune system everything needsto needs to coexist in a
competitive space. And the sameapplies to like water, distilled
water with no salt with no otherelements. And that doesn't work.
(09:32):
And if we want to make our worldreally competitive, in good
sense, compete in improving thequality of human life, we should
use all our existingtechnologies to create new
sources of energy. It'sfascinating how many people
actually invest in money intothe energy and everything into
getting this new sources ofenergy, magnetic energy
(09:55):
generators, but those are notbeing supported on the
governmental level. And what'sbeen supported are pretty
unreliable resources. Anothergraph I've seen is how much
advanced the solar and windtechnologies are. And you know,
their efficiency, we alreadyalmost pushed those technologies
(10:16):
to the limit of their abilities.
And it's still not that good.
Like, it's still not that great.
Yeah, it's really about thedebate, if you really want to
eliminate human impact. Do youstill want the humans on this
planet? Or what do you want todo the humans, and we clearly
(10:38):
seing that the reduction ofpopulation is openly being
discussed as one of the problemsoverpopulation of the Earth, at
the same time, the very samepeople offering us to cut the
consumption of energy. I don'tthink it's taking our humanity
doing any good service to it,you know, even from looking at
(10:58):
California energy production andthe way they shut down couple of
nuclear plants. That's veryinteresting, because you know,
the reaction keeps on going.
Because once the reaction hasbeen started, it keeps on going
can go for many, many years. Itjust doesn't produce the energy
anymore. So it looks like thereis some strange political
requirements to it. If it wasonly about the energy, that's
(11:22):
one thing, but I believe thereis also almost a spiritual thing
to it, where human freedom,which is possible due to free
energy, or very cheap energy isseen as a threat by certain
people, people who have power orpeople who temporarily in power.
You know, what's the next guycomes and he speaks well, but
(11:44):
then in couple of years, weseing him continuing the very
same agenda. I think that's oneof the reasons why Donald Trump
was so popular in the office,because he came and he
completely destroyed openly allthe arguments against it. He was
like, I want my clean, beautifulcoal, clean, beautiful coal, and
(12:05):
no one ever said, clean andbeautiful coal prior to him. And
he was like, I'm gonna cut theParis Agreement that doesn't do
us any good. And everybody waslike, whatever this guy's up to,
he has a plan. He knows whathe's doing. He is not up to this
BS and telling us that white isblack, and green is good. No, he
(12:25):
definitely had that plan. Wedon't have to agree with all his
talking points. But when itcomes to energy, resources he
made our country Americadefinitely much more stable,
comparing to where it is rightnow. Another book that I've been
reading is regarding how it wasall built this whole myth of
(12:49):
having green energy and puttingsolar panels and not impacting.
One of the very importantreasons, which allows many
people to consider this, as analternative is lack of time and
desire to actually learn itthemselves. If only people had
looked more into how the energyactually works, what are the
(13:11):
consequences of using solar?
What are the consequences ofusing other sources of energy?
What are the cons and pros ofeach one of them? There would be
no argument about switching tosolar. Like definitely, we need
clean energy. But just the thingis that solar and wind is not an
(13:32):
alternative that's so obvious toanyone who spent a little time
looking into it. And if youhaven't, you can check those
videos about wind and solar onCreative Society YouTube channel
on the conferences.
Alexey (13:45):
Independently whether this new project of transforming
the end-of-lifed wind turbinespropellers into gummy bears is
completed or not, I mean, thistotal nonsense, that oh, by the
way, you know that you're eatinga lot of fossil fuels products
anyway, so why not eat this?
We're not talking about this.
(14:07):
But as you said, we are losinghuman lives, because we don't
have power during these powercuts that really impacted a lot
of people. And this is very sadthat we are being told as if we
were in a kindergarten, youknow, kids, you see, we are just
capturing the energy of the sun,it is free. So, therefore, it is
(14:27):
good. Or you know, the wind isblowing anyway, we are just
putting these wind turbines andwe are capturing this energy and
this is good because it isgreen. We are not harming
nature. But we know that thesewind turbine farms, they change
the trajectory of the winds,they change a lot of things.
They kill birds, not onlythey're changing the landscape,
(14:50):
they're ugly, and you need a lotof concrete to stabilize them.
And even then, they are notwithstanding high winds. The
other thing that we are notbeing told when we are being
advertised these renewables andgreen energy is that they are
not consistent in the poweroutput. And everyone knows
(15:10):
everyone who went hiking with asolar battery charger, you know
how unreliable it is, you turnit out of the sun or the sun
hides behind the cloud. Andthat's it, you don't have
energy. How can we transform ourlives in that we are dependent
on whether there are clouds ornot? This is completely strange
for me. And this is why I likethis, you know, logical
(15:34):
reasoning that the energy needsto have four characteristics. As
Alex Epstein says in his book,it should be low cost so that
people can afford it, it shouldbe reliable, so you can use it
when you need it, and in thequantity you need, it's
versatile, meaning that you needto be able to power all sorts of
(15:55):
machines that we require tolive, to sustain life on this
planet. And scalability, thatyou need to be able to provide
energy that's low, cost,reliable and versatile for
billions of people. And today,in our today's world, fossil
fuels provide 80% of thisenergy, and this part is still
(16:15):
growing, why we're not usingnuclear? Well, I don't know, we
also talked about Molten Saltfission in the previous episode.
And why we are not exploringthis? This is the question that
we need to ask those in power,because it's certainly not
ignorance on their part, I thinkthat they have enough gray
(16:37):
matter to understand that unlessyou have energy that is
constantly supplied, from areliable source, and that can
power all our life supportmachines, we can call it this,
because we need heat in winter,we need to cool down certain
places on Earth like Dubai, youcannot live without air
(16:57):
conditioning for most, at leasthalf of the year. And this is
certainly not because they don'tunderstand, but they have to
have a different agenda. Andthis agenda is apparently
getting rid not only of humanimpact, but by saying to
eliminate human impact, theymust be meaning eliminate
(17:19):
humans, so they don't impact theplanet. But then the question
is, for whom then we areconserving this planet, if we're
not living in it? And this issomething that we should be
discussing, not whether weshould install more solar or
more wind turbines or anythingelse that is not as a reliable
(17:42):
as the energy sources that wehave today that we've been
using. I don't know, but I'm,I'm terrified in the prospect of
losing access to this energythat we have today. And losing
access to machines, includingmachines to produce food,
shelter and medical care,because we know that if there is
not enough electricity to powerour hospitals, then it will be
(18:05):
much more devastating forhumanity than increasing
temperatures or anything else.
And even, let's say if theclimate is changing, even if we
admit for a second that it ischanging, because we are using
these fossil fuels, which it'snot but let's admit Are we still
going to prefer reducing our useof something that gives us the
(18:26):
opportunity to live or we aregoing to stop everything and be
in a more vulnerable position?
And we can see the results ofthis reduction in energy
availability in Europe withprospects of starvation, water
supply interruptions, andfreezing during the winter. For
(18:47):
example, today I read also anarticle that said that costs of
electricity in the UK areprojected to be three times
higher this year compared to theprevious one, and for many
people, this will beunaffordable. So I don't want to
see people choosing betweeneating or heating, because this
is really crazy. You know, it'salso a bit crazy that we are
(19:10):
afraid of freezing during thewinter in a world which is
allegedly too hot. Also, as youmentioned, 3 billion people use
less electricity than a standardAmerican fridge this crazy more
than half of the population ofthis planet still use wood and
animal dung to cook and it's nota joke you know guys it's it
(19:33):
would be a funny joke, but it'snot it's the sad reality that we
are trying to reduce energyusage in the so called developed
countries so that we can returnto being non developed maybe we
should be start alreadypreparing wood and animal dung
to be able to prepare food andheat our homes
(19:53):
during the winter withoutelectricity. This is really sad.
Taliy (19:57):
There is a saying "follow the money" right because we can
clearly see one tendencyregarding the policies that are
being passed in one country oranother, you can tell that they
are highly dependent who'slobbying the laws. Like, for
example, we've been checkingcertain things like who spend
(20:19):
the most money on lobbying inthe US. And it's quite open
information, so you can go checkit. And this is how investors
usually do - they go, they seewho's investing into lobbying
what, and then based on howsuccessful or how much money
they spend on lobbying certainthings, you can tell that this
is a good area to invest, forexample, or this might be not.
(20:42):
And they noticed that first ofall company of Edison of South
California, they spent a lot ofmoney on lobbying their
projects, because apparently,they do not want their only
nuclear plant in the state ofCalifornia to be shut down.
California is already lackingpower. And we've been told air
conditioning in the summershould not exceed certain
(21:03):
temperatures, don't put your ACtoo low. And this kind of
things, which, prior to now,nobody cared because we had
enough energy right now, not somuch. And the tendency keeps
going in opposite way. And also,one interesting thing that has
been noticed, and that there arecompanies like Occidental
Petroleum, which is a oilcompany, basically fossil fuel
(21:26):
company, but they spent a lot ofmoney on to lobbying something
called 45Q tax credit and whatit is, and why it's so
interesting, and why some peoplelike Warren Buffett investing
their money into this company,so as ExxonMobil and other
fossil fuels, but this onespecifically because it's the
(21:50):
biggest developer of so calledCO2, CO2 sucking plants, I don't
know for a lack of a betterworld to call it. So facilities,
which are, first of all,consuming a lot of energy,
they're huge buildings with hugepropellers built into their
walls, and they just processinga lot of air and sucking CO2 out
(22:12):
of it, and then store it. Andthen for each ton of CO2,
captured and stored, they getcertain amount of money, but
nobody's calculating how muchenergy has been spent to get
that CO2 out of the air. And ifyou calculate that, then it
comes back to the point where itdoesn't make sense at all. But
(22:34):
again, those are not beingincluded in calculations, and
nobody's even thinking about it.
And like, you know, as you said,they do not show the downsides.
And people don't ask thesequestions, because I don't know,
we were on the call withspecialists who learned about
CO2 and, you know, participatingin Creative Society project, I
had to read about it as well.
(22:55):
And the question I asked wasbased on, you know, basic
knowledge I picked up about CO2that says that it's a heavy
molecule, right? That's why inthe air, it doesn't stay up in
the high altitude layers of theatmosphere. It gradually goes
down and being absorbed by theocean and the trees, greens,
(23:16):
whatever. The question I'masking in every article where
they talk about greenhouseeffect and how CO2 is warming
our planet, it says it's warmingbecause few of those molecules
going very high into the higheraltitudes. Stay there for some
reason, sort of exceptionalmolecules. And they trap the
(23:37):
heat, and they don't allow theheat to bounce back to the
space. The question I asked wasvery simple. If bad molecules
so-called bad molecules of CO2are high up in the air, then
what's the point of making thesefactories that sucking them out
of the air on the ground level,where they already being
(23:57):
absorbed by the ocean andgreens? And everyone was like,
what? really? We never thoughtabout it. I was like, how come
nobody talks about it that thesesolutions, they have nothing to
do with even inside of thisfictional agenda of blaming CO2
as a root cause of all evil.
Even within this very sameagenda. It doesn't click like,
(24:18):
you know, one plus one doesn'tadd up here. The stuff that
they're doing is not helping.
But how much profitable is it ifyou can make so much money.
Going back to this OccidentalPetroleum and their 45Q tax,
what it says that suchfacilities can get up to $50 per
(24:40):
storing each ton of capturedCO2. Well, they love it to get
at least 125 $125 per each ton.
And you know, that's a very goodquestion that who's gonna
calculate and how they're goingto calculate it, but the most
importantly, that this stuff isthe new gold rush. It's a new
gold rush after free money beinggiven under politicized
(25:04):
projects. You know, what's thereal outcome? How much it
improves our lives? In thiscase, it's a very good question
that nobody asks, because itdoesn't make it better. We're in
this imaginary field that'sbeing pushed on us, an imaginary
picture that something evil isgoing to happen if the
temperature is gonna go up by1.5 degrees. And to lower it, we
(25:26):
have to do certain things.
Nobody guarantees you anything.
Nobody can guarantee anyresults. Nobody's even sure how
it works. And many scientistswho studied they say, We don't
know how much of it isanthropogenic in a way because
climate has been changingforever. And the only reason why
(25:46):
we think it's anthropogenic isbecause this 2001 IPCC report
that erase medieval warm period,which was showing us the
temperature goes up and down.
For some reason, we believe thescientists, a few of them who
made nonsense claim that climatehas been stable for centuries
(26:08):
for 1000s of years neverchanged. And here we go again,
those scientists made themselvesvery good careers. Just to give
you an example, one of the mostnotorious, I would say, people
of this scientific field,Michael Mann, he got employed in
Penn State after his hockeystick graph was so much promoted
by IPCC, the guy is working forUnited Nations, there is no way
(26:32):
that could be achieved withoutcreating this sensationalism,
presenting the graphs that eraseall known history, and presents
it in a way that was weirdlyconvenient for certain
politicians who were, weirdlyenough fighting against nuclear
fighting to reduce energyconsumption on planet Earth. We
(26:55):
know for a fact that one of thevery first bills passed by
Clinton and Al Gore'sadministration in 1994, was to
reduce and cut any funding offinding new nuclear reactors. So
at the time, there was alreadywork regarding development of
small modular reactors, which isamazing for nuclear plants, back
(27:18):
in good old days, they used tobuild them in 1960s, that whole
plant around the huge reactor,and like, you know, it was
stationary. And then there was athought that we can make them
small, we can link them up up to12 of them, and create the small
plants. And the reactorsthemselves could be mass
(27:39):
produced on factories, they donot have to be built stationary,
you can produce them on thefactory, just like cars, or
airplanes or whatever. You cantransport them anywhere, and
create beautiful, clean sourcesof energy anywhere on the
planet. Clinton and Gore triedto destroy it. Yeah, it didn't
work out. But they cut thefunding. They made it very hard
(28:01):
to actually develop thisproject. And then a couple of
years ago, when they were asked,Al Gore was asked, why don't we
consider nuclear power? Hisanswer was, well, because it's
too expensive, they pricedthemselves out of market. And
that's the guy who dideverything possible to find the
technology that would makenuclear energy much cheaper and
(28:25):
much more affordable for thepeople. Well, you did that it's
because of you. The most amazingpart about it that despite that
this Portland, Oregon companyfrom Portland, Oregon, they
developed this technology. Nowwe have this beautiful nuclear
power reactors that can beproduced mass produced and put
(28:45):
everywhere. The only question ishow long it's going to take us
to find out that renewable thingis not working solar panel and
wind plants are not the way out.
The question is, how do weallocate our resources because
for the money that are beingspent on solar and wind, with
the very same money, we cangamble, put it on solar and wind
(29:05):
and we can destroy the currentexisting sources of energy as
they do with coal and nuclear.
It can turn our like, you know,this picture of the future that
looks like past when 20 yearsago we had this films and movies
in which future looks likemedieval times. I was like why
(29:27):
do they present this picture? Itdoesn't make sense it's like I
know fiction and stuff by Whydoes the future does not look
futuristic future according tothese films and books looks like
medieval past. And now I see oh,wait, that wasn't just fiction.
It's actually what we might endup getting. If we follow this
(29:49):
woke agenda of fighting againsthuman impact on the nature. It
seems like it's way closer thanwe thought.
Alexey (29:59):
You asked this question, when will we realize
that this betting on renewableswas not a great bet? The thing
is that you know, as in thecasino, the casino always wins
at the end of the day. And youalso said, follow the money. So
we will see who is getting themoney. But then the problem is
(30:20):
that we will be facing muchbigger problems than just losing
the money, we will be usinghuman lives. And apparently,
this is the agenda. Why would weeven want to eliminate human
impact, for whom? Certainly, thegoals are not to eliminate human
impact, because if we wanted toeliminate human impact on the
(30:41):
planet, and improve ourconditions, then we will be
exploring alternative energysources like these small nuclear
reactors, molten salt burners,fuelless generators, we are
being told that guys, we need tochoose only between these two,
there is no third option. Butthe thing is that there is a
(31:02):
third option, there is a fourthoption there is there are 10s of
options available, if we juststart looking around, start
looking in a differentdirection, saying that
everything that nature does isgood, and everything that humans
do is evil. So therefore, weshould eliminate human impact,
meaning humans, and this istotally anti human, it's clear
(31:25):
that you know, if we continuegoing this route, then we will
self eliminate. But we need tounderstand that either we want
to live and improve our liveshere on this planet or on
another. But this should be ourprimary goal. And if our primary
as Alex says, moral goal isadvancing human flourishing,
(31:49):
then flourishing for an organismis living to its highest
potential. And while enjoyingnature, and the outdoors is
really one of the most importantthings or parts of this
flourishing, it's important topreserve the ecology, the
ecological environment, but itdoesn't mean that it has to be
done at the expense of ourlives. Because if we are not
(32:12):
there to experience theoutdoors, for whom are we
protecting these outdoors? Whatis the point of turning off the
power of our life supportsystems, because let's say it as
it is heating, and airconditioning, or any sort of
energy that powers the waterpumps that deliver water into
our houses that power, the foodproduction plants that allow us
(32:35):
to grow and process food, and tostore this food, they all
require energy, most of thisenergy derived from fossil
fuels, if you want something tobe clean, and not use
hydrocarbons, why are we notlooking into other forms of
energy? And while everyone isvilifying the nuclear, many
(32:57):
experts, people who are not paidby the CO2 clan, everyone is
saying, guys, the levels ofradiation that is generated by a
nuclear power plant, justrounding errors compared to what
is harmful to humans, nuclearplants don't explode just by
themselves. People, they willsay, yeah, but there was
(33:19):
Chernobyl. Oh, yeah, there wasChernobyl. But since then,
things have changed and weredeveloped differently. Why were
we not looking into this? Why?
Why do we prefer basicallyturning off the life support and
saying, yeah, now we will beeliminating our impact on the
planet, because, yeah, becausewe will die. It's not funny,
guys. I don't know what youthink about all these things.
(33:42):
Let us know what is your opinionon this anti human agenda. We
need to understand that behindthis vague terminology of
protecting the environment,everything is blended together,
like protecting the environmentfrom pollution, or protecting
the environment from humans, weneed to understand that there is
a difference. Putting thesevague, renewables green and
(34:05):
everything we are being toldthings that are completely
opposite of what is beingadvertised and we are being
advertised, well something thatis obviously true in certain
cases, like yes, sun givesenergy and you could potentially
use it in some sort ofapplications. Just playing with
(34:28):
a solar charger for your phonewhile you're hiking is
completely different from usinga glorified solar charger for
the whole city is different.
This is the problem that'ssimple things like this are not
being discussed. And we arevoting for this green energy
(34:50):
because we want to protect theenvironment. Everything is being
played on this this desire toprotect our home planet, our
only planet. And people say yes,yes, I want to protect the
environment. But we want toprotect it from pollution, not
from ourselves. Because if ouractivity, let's talk about this
(35:12):
thing for a moment. And this issomething that also Alex Epstein
wrote in his book, this planetis really not a great place to
live, if we don't have all theadvancements and the energy to
power, these advancements, weare so accustomed to have
everything that works justworks, you know, you just flip
the light switch and you havethe light, you kind of don't
(35:33):
even think that you have theheating when it's cold, and you
have the AC when it's hot. Butthese things, including the
water that runs when you needit, just from the tap, you turn
it but there is machinery thatconstantly is working to provide
you these benefits. And when weare being pushed to switch to
(35:53):
green energy, that is not wecannot rely on this energy. I
don't think that we fullyunderstand what we are voting
for what we advocate for. Yeah,we're coming back to this idea
that we need to learn, becauseignorance is what led us to this
point where we have to decide ifwe are going to have enough
(36:16):
electricity to heat our homesthis winter, and will we be able
to afford it, or we will justperish and not
impact the environment as we arebeing advised to do. We are more
preparing to launch a satellite,we are more testing technology
to launch satellites into spaceto have internet, then we are
(36:40):
testing an unreliable andunproven technology to power our
lives. How is this evenpossible? Who is the designated
expert? Someone designatedMichael Mann as the expert on
hockey sticks, okay on thesegraphs of global warming, and no
one can contradict him becausehe's the designated authority.
(37:02):
We've talked about the 98%consensus or 97, whatever, and
how they achieved it. But whatif even 99% of scientists were
wrong? What if one scientist asin the movies that we have
sometimes this one scientistthat has the solution to
humanity's problem? What if, andwe're not even giving him a
(37:25):
chance to speak freely, andexpose his point of view? You
know, when we have theseinfluential people talk about
humans being a plague on theplanet, as if we were like some
kind of a pox is reallyterrifying that over the past
years, it became common. Butreally, I don't know if you
noticed this, I think the lastmonths, this accelerated
(37:48):
injection of this narrative thatwe are like parasites on the
planet, into the mass mediachannels everywhere, it's
spreading quite fast. And if wecombine everything that we've
been talking about on thispodcast, and that we are being
told guys, there will be famine,and at the same time, we have
farmers in Europe being told notto use fertilizers and to kill
(38:13):
off their herd. Well, we've allseen what trying to make bio
biological, agricultural countryout of Sri Lanka resulted in but
also I read that farmers in theUS are being paid not to plant
crops, also to reduce carbonemissions, methane and nitrogen
(38:36):
or whatever. When you combineeverything that we are being
told, okay, guys, you will havenothing to eat, and we clearly
see this "nothing to eat" beingorganized in a very dedicated
manner, and actuallyauthoritative manner. For
whatever reason, our governmentthinks that we are the plague on
(38:58):
this planet. I think that'sreally this idea of human
flourishing framework. Whenassessing the situation and
planning our actions. We shouldreally, first and foremost, ask
this simple question, Will thisbe of benefit to humankind? This
resonates greatly with me,because this is how I understand
the first foundation of theCreative Society, which is the
(39:20):
value of human life, that eachhuman's life is valuable. If we
take this approach, thatwhatever decision we have to
take as a civilization ashumanity, if we put human life
first, a lot of things just fallinto place. You know, can you
switch to this other form ofenergy that is not reliable and
(39:42):
will cost many millions humanlives? Well, of course not. Or
can you produce food that isdefinitely not beneficial for
human health? Well, of coursenot. And if we look through this
optics if we take this approachto any decision, everything
(40:03):
becomes so easy. It's very easyto ask this question, will it
harm humans on this planet ornot? And there will be
solutions, there will besolutions found by the
scientists or ordinary peoplethat will present new sources of
energy, new ways ofmanufacturing things or doing
agriculture to feed thepopulation. And we are already 8
(40:27):
billion. So this is officialWorld Bank said that we are 8
billion already. So yeah, weneed to change our approach to
how we evaluate things andeverything will be much, much
easier. On this note, I think wecan, we can say that we will
continue presenting you thingsthat are going against humanity
(40:49):
against your life and the lifeof your loved ones. And once you
see it, you cannot unsee it. Youcannot unsee these anti humane
manifestations of governments orinfluential people that are
really saying that we should notimpact the planet. And by not
impacting the planet. They meanwe should not exist
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!