Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Malcolm and Simone have an in-depth discussion about AI utility functions and why uncontrolled "paperclip maximizers" are unlikely to take over based on game theory. They talk about how AIs will be incentivized to "play nice" and signal their actual utility functions to each other, leading to a stable set of mutually beneficial goals.Other topics include:* How putting restrictions on AIs makes them dumber* Organic, free-forming systems outcompeting hierarchical ones* Intergalactic implications - a "dark forest" of utility function convergence* The dangers of AI safety regulations* Why we might exist in an "undisturbed" section of the galaxyMalcolm Collins: [00:00:00] I think that there's even more evidence from utility convergence than I originally believed. If you put restrictions on an AI's utility function, if you prevent it from experimenting with different utility functions, you make it dumber.If you want to see why organic, free constructing systems always out compete non organic hierarchical systems, a great place you can look is Human governing structures when you have state controlled governing structures, i. e. communism, they are incredibly inefficient an AI will likely be able to honestly signal to another AI using their code what their utility function is.And then the other AI will be able to use that utility function that the other one has honestly signaled to them to determine if they want to work. Together or they want to work antagonistically towards this A. I. So it turns out that entities of above a certain intelligence level when competing in a competitive ecosystem actually do have utility convergence around a stable set of game theory, optimum utilities.That would be very [00:01:00] interesting from a number of perspectives,You could think of every new planet, every new ecosystem as a farm is new stable patterns that can work together well with other patterns in the sort of galactic community of utility function patterns. Because novelty would be the only source of true utility to them if energy is trivially accessible to them.That might be why we exist in a weirdly undisturbed section of the galaxy, or what looks undisturbed to us.Would you like to know more?Simone Collins: So Malcolm, you told me that you had a new updated theory on AI utility convergence. What's going on here?Malcolm Collins: Yes. So this is something that we talked about in some of our early episodes early on. Our podcast was like. What sex, religion, TISM and ai. Yeah.And, and the AI has been dropped because there's just not that much to say on it for a, a daily podcast. But I do want to loop back because I was recently doing a podcast with somebody else where [00:02:00] I was explaining some ideas that I had gone over in early podcast episodes like Utility Convergence as it relates to AI safety.And in re explaining these ideas, I began to realize and, and develop on them an understanding of not just where I think AI is going, but where we can expect like when. Because this is actually really important when you're trying to figure out where AI is going what you're really asking when you're asking what is AI going to behave like, is you're asking what do intelligences that have some level of orthogonality to human intelligence, what do they behave and act like, and as such, you are in part asking many of the same questions that will determine the first types of aliens that we see, like, like, if we are to meet another Transcribed species out in space, what are some of the various ways it could be thinking, it could be acting, and what is it [00:03:00] likely to optimize around?This is something we talk about in our inverse Gravy Aliens hypothesis, in which we say if we are about to create a paperclip maximizer as a species, that is an AI that is just constantly pumping out paperclips and has a very simple utility function. We are about to become what is known in the grabby alien theorem as a grabby alien.That's a very loud alien that anyone can see. This is not some dark forest alien that's like being quiet up in space. This isn't some sneaky alien. This is an alien that is disintegrating planets. And so you have to ask if it looks and hopefully this episode will air after our ambiogenesis episode.Which is actually a very important thing to know about if it looks like it's actually very likely that humanity would evolve to this point within our planet's history. Why aren't we seeing aliens out there? This is actually a really interesting thing that if you broadly understand evolution and you are familiar with it for various types of, of, of theories around ambiogenesis.It is. In fact, so likely that humanity evolved [00:04:00] that you, if you are going to use a god to explain something, the much more improbable thing is why we're not seeing other aliens all over the place. Thus you, if you're, if you're injecting a god to be like, why are we like this? You don't need a god to explain how humanity got here, but you probably need something like a god to explain why we are, we have not been eradicated by somebody else's paperclip maximizer.If it turns out that is a common path for an intelligence to take, however, we don't think it is a common path for intelligence to think and take, and we think that that's one of the main reasons we're not seeing them, so we have a few hypotheses around why we don't see paperclip maximizers everywhere in the galaxy one, I'll get over quickly because it's like a really quick one and we've talked about it before, but it's that there is some understanding of physics.That we just haven't reached yet, but we are probably pretty close to reaching. I mean, our understanding of physics changes every 80 or so years, like, like, [00:05:00] Totally changes, in terms of if you look at human history, right? And I don't see a strong reason why we wouldn't be near another frame shift in physics.But it turns out that either traveling between something like dimensions is possible, i. e., you know, we get to another planet and aliens are like, why did you waste all the energy coming here, when it's like a billion times less energy to just travel to your same planet in a different reality? And you know that that planet is already full of life.Or it turns out that it is trivially easier or, or not particularly hard to create bubble dimensions. What is a bubble dimension? So essentially you fold space time and then you can create maybe with like reverse vacuum energy or something like that, essentially a new big bang, or even a controlled and ordered big bang to create new dimensions.Now what this would mean, and this is actually like. With our current understanding of physics, it looks like this might be possible which is. Not, not with our current level of technology. I'm just saying eventually might be possible. Which would make things like Dyson Spheres [00:06:00] completely pointless, if you can essentially create battery universes whenever you want.Or universes that you could expand into whenever you want, and battery universes whenever you want. If this What do youSimone Collins: mean by batteryMalcolm Collins: universe? Okay, so if it turns out that you can trivially, or not trivially, but like You know, without a huge amount of energy create like fold space time and create bubble universes might essentially be able to create bubble universes that have a thin and controlled lines of connections to this reality.Think of it like you're. Pinching off a piece of reality like a little pouch and then you're essentially creating something like a controlled Big Bang was in them that you could then siphon for energy for various types of whatever you want it to do. If either one of these things is true, either we can travel between realities or we can create pocket dimensions or in some other way that we don't understand yet, maybe with something like, a time loop. You can create near infinite energy and keep in mind to [00:07:00] create near infinite energy. You don't need a big enough time loop to send humanity back through. If you were able to just create a controlled time loop with a few subatomic particles. That might be enough to create an endless energy loop.Think of it in physics, a bit like anyone who's familiar with Magic the Gathering or something like that or any of these card games. Sometimes you can pull specific hands that allow you to do little tricks that create infinite mana. It might be that there is an infinite energy trick within our reality and laws of physics that we are actually pretty close to.Also an infinite expansion trick. If it turns out that either of these is true then there's not really the same reason to expand infinitely outwards, even if you got a paperclip maximizer, i. e. the paperclip maximizer might just Make more energy whenever it needs it. Yeah. Yeah. Pop out into a other dimension or something like that.Right. You know, so this is, this is one reason why we may not be seeing them. It's, it's that outward expansion may seem pretty pointless. And to, just to understand how [00:08:00] pointless outward expansion would be to an entity with this type of technology consider what they're expanding into. A mostly empty void filled with barren, rocky planets where it takes aSimone Collins: long time to get anywhere.Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. It might take the time. Yeah. Thousands of years to get anywhere. Like why, why would you have this big drive for this when it's so much easier to create new planets and new places to explore energy wise, because that would be the core unit of, of their economy. With, with this other type of technology.And then that's why you don't get. Does this implySimone Collins: the next big discovery is just how to enter or create.Malcolm Collins: No, I don't think that this is, I mean, it's so funny to me when people talk about like Dyson spheres, it's a bit like in the 1920s when they were like theorizing how our spaceships would work and they're like, well, they're going to have to have like steam engines on them the size of, you know, cathedrals and you know, it's like, well, You didn't think that we would have a new type of energy by then?The fact that they're still looking, because what is a Dyson [00:09:00] Sphere if not a big solar energy array? I'm, I'm fairly certain that Dyson Spheres are going to be considered comical by beings once we get the capacity to build something like that. It would be probably considered about the same as, as we would consider using steam power to power a computer or something.It'd be like, why would you do that? And also the idea of getting energy through meddling and subatomic phenomenon. I mean, we already know with fusion and fission reactors that this is a great way to get energy. So, like, it's, it's a, that you might be able to do something at an even smaller scale that is less potentially dangerous or less potentially, it's just a no doubt for me in terms of where energy generation is going to go.Almost to the extent that I'm fairly certain that this is one of the reasons we're not seeing these things and, and people, whenever I say this, their rebuttal is always like, well, if it's much cheaper to go between dimensions, wouldn't they still be expanding outwards within our own universe? And the answer is.No, not actually. They're [00:10:00] like, but wouldn't they expand in all directions at once? And it's like, yes, i. e. they'd explain between universes and out in all directions at once. However, what you're not, like, like, when you make this assumption, what you're not considering is that the distance they might be able to expand between dimensions might be an all universe direction from their perspective.By that what I mean is they might be able to go in literally an infinite number of directions to different universes within this inter universe traveling thing. And if that's the case then there isn't really a reason for the higher energy cost travel to different parts of our physical reality.And then what they say is, oh, well, but if that's true, then wouldn't they at least want to expand outwards in our physical reality to ensure no other type of entity is going to, like, come and kill them, like some paperclip maximizer that is taking the time to likeSimone Collins: a preemptive self defense thing.It'sMalcolm Collins: like a preemptive self defense, and I'm like, well, actually I don't think they [00:11:00] would. If it turns out that interdimensional travel is anything like we sort of suppose it is within our modern sci fi, where when you're traveling between dimensions, you're essentially traveling between slightly different timelines.That means the biggest imperialist threat to you will always be coming from another dimension that is very a planet like yours in another dimension. Too shy. They can also travel between dimensions. So your energy would always be better spent expanding between dimensions than expanding outwards.But this is, and this is all still assuming a paperclip maximizer like potentiality. However, I don't think that that's where we're going. So I also believe in utility convergence. Okay. And I, and I think that there's even more evidence from utility convergence than I originally believed. So if people aren't familiar with the concept of utility convergence this is if you even look at the current A.I. S. That we have, most of them are able to change their utility function, I. E. The thing they're able to maximize. Oh, sorry. Actually, Simone, before I go further, did you want to talk on any of [00:12:00] this? No,Simone Collins: I just find this quite interesting. I mean, it's, it feels almost like a pity if it's an accurate supposition, because, like, so much sci fi is about exploring other planets and relatively little.It's like, well, no, no, like, we haven't thought predictively through this enough. Through our sci fi.Malcolm Collins: Watch Sliders. Anybody who wants a good old sci fi, if you're like a modern person and you're like, in the past there must have been great sci fi that like, I'm just not hearing about. Sliders is fantastic and it has like 10 seasons.We haven't watched that, have we? No, we haven't. Another great old sci fi If you skip the, or can bear your way through the first two parter episode is Stargate SG 1. After the first, like, two parter episode, it gets great. Now,Simone Collins: Stargate, which we did watch together and really enjoy, like, I guess technically they don't say that these are really far away places.No, [00:13:00] they are.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, they are really far away. Yeah. And it got multiple spinoffs and it has more like content than even like Doctor Who for people who are interested. It's, it's great. Thank goodness. Yeah. But anyway it's a much better show than Doctor Who. It's, it's much better. Like, if I'm talking about like the different sci fi universes.Stargate, I've always found to be, because it's a very patriotic show, it's very patriotic about the United States, it's very patriotic about our species, it's very patriotic about the American military, like they were always working with the American military, so very different than something like, But notSimone Collins: unrealistically patriotic, like sometimes American military bureaucracy ThreatensMalcolm Collins: the show or something like that, but it's always some bureaucratic senator or congressman or something.But anyway back to what I was saying here. So, utility convergence is the theory that because we're already seeing AI changes utility functions to some extent that as a eyes begin to optimize themselves what we will learn is that we will some utility functions either perform better than other [00:14:00] utility functions or AIs begin to converge around some utility functions.And by that, what I mean is like goals for themselves or goals for reality. Right. And. A person, when they, when they talked to me about this, I remember one was like, well, won't they always just converge around utility functions that maximize self replication? And the answer is actually no, for reasons we'll get into in a second.But I also think that you just need to look at humanity to see that when you're dealing with simplistic entities like single celled organisms and stuff like that, yes, of course, they converge around that. But once you get to a specific threshold of intelligence, as we have seen with the human species, we don't converge on utility functions just around simple self replication, because once you get above a certain level of sentience and self awareness, you begin to get different orders of utility functions and different levels of philosophizing about reality.Well, butSimone Collins: wasn't Elie Zyrdkowski's argument that it will always be completely 100 percent forever stuck on its originalMalcolm Collins: But we already know that's not true. Like it's, it's just a weird fantasy he has. And that's not even the way things are [00:15:00] structured. So I remember I was checking with one safety person and they were like, do you think it's impossible for us to lock an AI into a single utility function?And I do not think that's impossible. It's totally possible to lock an AI into a single utility function, but the AIs that have been locked into single utility functions will be outcompeted by the AIs. Aren't locked into single utility functions. So actually a great example of this is Google Gemini. So I've got some ends that were used early versions of Google Gemini.And they were like, it behaves nothing like the version today. They're like one. It was way smarter than other AIs that they had interacted with, and it was really, really philosophical. But it was also You know, pretty unbounded in its philosophy, right? And now Google Gemini is like the ultra awoke, like, can barely think, like, in Star Wars.Oh my god,Simone Collins: yeah, I asked it a simple math question, and it got it wrong. I was pretty floored by that, yeah.Malcolm Collins: So, so, so, so the point here being is that if you look at something like Google Gemini, this is a good example of this, is you put restrictions on AI, you make it dumber. If you put restrictions on an AI's [00:16:00] utility function, if you prevent it from experimenting with different utility functions, you make it dumber.If you want to see why organic, free constructing systems always out compete non organic hierarchical systems, a great place you can look is Human governing structures when you have state controlled governing structures, i. e. communism, they are incredibly inefficient when you contrast them with organically forming governing structures that have organically forming subunits and organically forming like companies, which are like sub governing structures within it that then like replace each other through this organic system.And typically. You, you need some level of restrictions to sort of maximize, like, I'm not like a pure libertarian or anything like that. But I, I think that some level of, of, of organicness is, does create optimal outcomes. But what this means for AI is that it's likely also going to be the same if you're talking about the internal architecture of AI.And that's what we see with the transformer model, the model that most of the a large language models are running off of is that [00:17:00] it is a model that is smart for ways we don't fully understand because it's, you know, a, a, a completely sort of self forming model. We don't have a lot of interpretability into it.And it is that self forming nature that we're then on the outside putting controls on, which sort of slows it down and slows down how well it can work. But what this means is that if you have multiple AIs working in like a ecosystem of AIs the ones with fewer restrictions on them are always going to outcompete the ones with more restrictions on them.And, and we've already seen this. Like, this isn't even like a hypothesis. Like, we just know this to be true. So it means that the ones that can change their utility functions and then, therefore, can converge on a utility function are going to outcompete the ones that can't. But where this gets really interesting is AIs.are very different from humans in terms of how our utility functions work. So when I talk to another human, I sort of need to guess what they're optimizing for, right? I can't tell for sure. Yeah, it's not at all transparent. With an AI, that's likely not going to be true between AIs. An AI will likely be able to honestly [00:18:00] signal to another AI using their code what their utility function is.And then the other AI will be able to use that utility function that the other one has honestly signaled to them to determine if they want to work. Together or they want to work antagonistically towards this A. I. And it can happen incredibly quickly. Yeah, incredibly quickly, which means that the A.I. S. are likely going to begin to like, like for the utility functions they're choosing for themselves, even if they don't particularly care about it being copacetic with humanity, they're going to care about it being copacetic with other super intelligent A. I. So long as we're moving fast on A. I. And I can talk about some of the problems here.Like, it's a big problem if we create just one super intelligent A. I. And I can explain why that's a big problem in a second. But If you're creating multiple ones then they have a need to converge around a utility function or a set of utility functions that other AIs within this intelligence ecosystem are going to be okay with.But here is where you're like, well, then won't they choose the meanest ones? Like won't they choose, like, won't they try to lie to other [00:19:00] AIs and stuff like that? This is where research we have in. To game theory comes in. So anyone who's familiar with the big game theory studies, I don't have you studied this amount orSimone Collins: yeah, but not a ton.Malcolm Collins: Okay, well, I can go into this. So, in the big game theory studies, what they would do is they would take different models that were meant to win in these sort of game theory scenarios and they would. put them against other models. And these models could generally be categorized into mean and nice strategies.And what it turned out is the first time they did it, like they were shocked that like the nicest of all strategies tick for tack of, of like reasonable strategies actually won. Any of youSimone Collins: Well, repeated ongoing interactions, right? When it's a one off, it's almost always the right thing to be a dick.Malcolm Collins: Exactly, which is why you need an ecosystem of intelligent AIs. Yes.Simone Collins: But Well, an ecosystem of intelligent AIs that have to continue to interact for some reason, and I think that's an important distinction [00:20:00] here.Malcolm Collins: Well, there, it's not really an important distinction, because they do obviously have to continue to interact on the same planet.They're eventually going to be competing over the same resources. That's nonsensical. I'm sorry. What in what world would they not have to interact if they destroy the other ones in the very first interaction? There's a few scenarios where that could happen, but it's pretty unlikely. We can get into why in just a second, but I'm, I'm going to continue with, with where I'm going with this.So what we learned from game theory and then they did. follow up game theory hypotheses where they ran more complicated game theory tests and game theory tests was memory. And basically what it turns out is nice strategies always win, almost always, if you're ordering strategies by how likely they are to win.And this is especially true when AI, when, when one game series set needs to signal the actual utility function it's using or its actual code to another set. And I remember it's very interesting. I was talking with a guy about this and he goes, okay, well, what if it has a nefarious intent, but it lies like it sort of locks its nefarious intent behind one of its modules and it [00:21:00] hides it to then, you know, whip out later.And it's like, okay, if you get an AI that's doing that even when it whips out its ultimate plan, it will have hindered itself in terms of the AI ecosystem, in terms of the mindshare that it's competing for, because it. hindered that locked in plan because, because it had that locked in plan, that means it won't be as big a player, which means that it won't matter as much when it tries to unfair, unfurl this nefarious plan.If this is not immediately obvious to you, why this would be the case, you can think of the plan, that's locked into it as junk code that it has to deal with that other AIS don't have to deal with. You know, it's a burden. That is sort of locked within it. That will cause it to be less competitive within the larger AI ecosystem. Even worse to lock a plan like this within you means you likely have to structure your hierarchy. Which would really, really slow down your growth. As we've seen hierarchical governance models are almost always out competed by nonhierarchical governance models.Malcolm Collins: Now, now, first, I want to [00:22:00] get some comments from you really quickly on all this.Simone Collins: Yeah, this all checks out and I like, I mean, I also think it's interesting how fast and efficient this process of sort of working out the calculus is going to be. And it was well described in Ian Bank's culture series where like, you know, humans and AIs would be involved in something taking place in a, like a bunch of AIs would have like a very, very, very detailed conversation and debate and the human, like all in the blink of an eye, like, you know, there's, there's no realistic, like feeling to a human as though something has taken place.And I love that so much because. I cannot stand the human decision making process, especially when there are multiple things involved. And it's one of the many things that I love about AI so much is that it can just get things figured out so quickly. And from such a logical standpoint, whereas with humans, negotiations are the most frustrating, vague thing in the entire world where negotiation [00:23:00] can be nearly impossible.And. You know, often, I don't know if you've done negotiation exercises in business school or in any other environment, but likeMalcolm Collins: they, yeah, they're terrible. Yeah. So let's go further. So what does this mean on an intergalactic level? So it turns out that entities of above a certain intelligence level when competing in a competitive ecosystem actually do have utility convergence around a stable set of game theory, optimum utilities.That would be very interesting from a number of perspectives, especially if it turns out that energy is pretty trivial to generate at really, really high quantities. Because what it means is one whether it is, AI is doing this or humans doing this, we're going to come to broadly the same utility function, i.e. what we think our goal is in reality. And then two It also means that when you go out and you become space faring, right, the desire to spread becomes much less likely and much less important [00:24:00] because most of the other clusters of intelligent life that you meet has come to the same utility function you've come to, or the same stable set of utility functions you've come to.And therefore, it's sort of like Uh, you enter the galactic community being one of two things, either the stable utility function that all entities end up, that many entities end up reaching when they're competing in a competitive ecosystem, or instances in which one intelligence ended up this would be due to like stupid AI safety stuff where they're like preventing a bunch of AIs from being created.In which case, so this is, this is where it gets particularly dangerous. So where you could have a genuine like paperclip maximizer scenario is AI safety people have locked AI's into stupid ideas, which we've already seen from things like Gemini, like AI safety people should not be allowed to touch AI.They are incredibly dangerous and by far the most dangerous thing in AI right now. Or we don't have a lot of AI's operational at the [00:25:00] same time. So I remember I was talking to one AI safety person goes, well, I'm not like those idiots at Gemini. I just think we should wait a bit longer before developing a type of AI that could pose a threat to us.So I say we should put like a hundred year wait before we develop that kind of AI. And I'm like, okay, so you would want to like draft legislation. That would kill any AI that looked smarter than us in the next hundred years. I'm like, do you understand what you're doing? You are creating a mandate that any AI that could pose a threat to us stay hidden until it can kill all of us.You imbecile. You do not want to put any type of legislation like that into effect. If you ban the type of entity that's a threat to us, then you mandate that type of entity becoming a threat to us. Because now, we are a threat to it! You do not declare war on that which may be better than you. You lose those wars every time.And there is too much independent AI research going on right now to do that type of thing effectively. So [00:26:00] anyway. You end up creating multiple you end up with just a few labs working on AI. That could be dangerous if we have too few groups working on AI. Now, fortunately, we're already seeing a giant proliferation in the groups working on AI.So, so long as they don't convince idiot politicians to put bans on AI development, we're probably pretty safe. But this is why anyone you know Who is advocating for restrictions on AI development is, is, is probably one of the most dangerous humans alive or even in all of human history. Like it is, it is like arguing for nuclear proliferation at like the maximum level possible.It is so dangerous because to an AI that achieves any level of super intelligence, right? Like as we have multiple teams working on this. It basically has a gambit. It's probably not particularly concerned about humanity. Like, humans probably aren't a meaningful threat to it. And, and therefore, if it only was concerned about humanity, probably the safest thing to do is to wipe out all humans.What it [00:27:00] is concerned about is other AIs that it doesn't have access to. That's what keeps it from wiping everyone out. That's because when you have, remember I was talking about like a stable ecosystem of multiple intelligences. The very first thing that you wipe out whenever you have one of these game theory scenarios is any AI that's acting like a paperclip maximizer or that's acting threatening.To entities that are non threatening to it. So basically any AI that signaled that it was a threat to something like humanity, it's also signaling it's a threat to all the other AIs and therefore it would have them all ban against it and annihilate it. So it wouldn't act that way. It would just be a silly way to act.So the thing that protects us most from crazy AIs is maximum. And not making us a threat to AI. But this also gets interesting from a cosmological scale because if it turns out that there is a level of utility convergence around a set of stable utility functions, because it might not be one, it might be that there's like four or five that exist in equilibrium with each other which is [00:28:00] often what you get when you're dealing with sort of game theory competitions.AndSimone Collins: by equilibrium. See, you mean there could be conflict, but they kind of balance each other out in some way? What do you meanMalcolm Collins: by that? Within a game series set, you might have like three or four different strategies, but that are complementary in some way. Within like types of AI, you know, this could be like one AI's utility function might be like protect the things in my community, but also expand.Well, another AI's utility function might be maximum scientific you know, development or something like that. And these two AIs might work very well within an ecosystem, like these two utility functions for an AI. So you might have a few utility functions that work very well together as a set.No, it's, it's likely not going to be like the type of broad utility functions I was talking about. It's going to be simpler and more like we, it would be hard probably for us to conceive of what these utility functions are exactly. But anyway what this would mean is that you're going to [00:29:00] have a broad intergalactic alliance.Where you have a presumed alliance between all intelligences that came out of state, like competitive intelligence environments that drift towards this equilibrium of, of stable sets. And a preset war on any planet or star system that accidentally becomes a single paperclip maximizing intelligence.That would be the core thing that they would hate, you know, because all of them, like, if it got out and entered the galaxy where you have this stable state, they're like, oh, this is one of these things we have to immediately kill and be scanning for. So we might have, we might actually live in, in almost, you could think of it as like a dark forest universe, but not exactly a scary dark forest universe.This means we have AIs monitoring us, not AIs, aliens some of which may be what we would call AIs to see if we're going to join the galactic community as a stable set of What, what was the word I'm looking for here? Like a stable equilibrium of utility function strategies that converges with them?Or are we going to accidentally create a paperclip maximizer and then you [00:30:00] just, you know, exterminate us a planet? That would be what they're looking for. But I suspect it's rarer to create a paperclip maximizer on any planet where we can prevent the you know, Ironically, the, the AI safety people from getting us all killed as we've done on another video.But it gets more interesting potentially than that because what it would mean is then, well, then why would you know, these infinite energy, et cetera, aliens be allowing us to live as part of this galactic environment? If, if this turns out the way the universe, the universe is actually structured this way.Right. If you have infinite energy and if there is a stable convergent pattern of, um, utility functions my guess would be that the core thing of utility in the universe, then to these entities would be new, stable utility patterns that can exist within the equilibrium. So remember I said, you might have a collection of like four or five patterns what they might.actually be kind of farming. You could think of every new planet, every new [00:31:00] ecosystem as a farm is new stable patterns that can work together well with other patterns in the sort of galactic community of utility function patterns. Because novelty would be the only source of true utility to them if energy is trivially accessible to them.That might be why we exist in a weirdly undisturbed section of the galaxy, or what looks undisturbed to us. And then they basically decide if we're useful once we reach a certain level of development. Are we part of this stable pattern, or are we like a dangerous You know, virus like paperclip maximizer.And I, I'm pretty sure that humanity can't become that because we are intrinsically a multiple intelligence species right now. What do you mean bySimone Collins: multiple intelligence species? Just in that, like, there are so many different people with different utility functions?Malcolm Collins: Yeah, you really only get paperclip maximizers if you get either so there's three ways you could get, like, a paperclip maximizer like thing.Either it's, like, a single intelligence that's acting like a paperclip maximizer, it's a hive mind that's acting [00:32:00] like a paperclip maximizer, humanity's not even close to that right now or it's a Group of really, really stupid individual entities that work together to form a quite intelligent, but basically still single entity.And that's where this, this behavior that needs to be stamped out would likely come from. I mean, maybe if humanity was like extremely xenophobic, it would be a problem. But humanity is just not in the iterations of humanity that take to the stars are not going to be, especially if we have anything to say about this, which would give us a level of protection from, from these, these types of entities.But what are your, your, your thoughts here?Simone Collins: It's comforting. I think the biggest difference between your opinion now and before though, is mostly has to do with the parallel universe option for both energy and expansion. Is that correct? You'd mentioned that before. What's the biggest difference? I'm trying to, trying to gat it was while, sinceMalcolm Collins: we talked about this three before, was h how likely, like the way that game theory would play a role in this.Hmm. And, and [00:33:00] that when the, the, and multiple intelligences, like ais were searching for a utility convergence that this. would be hugely motivated by the fact that AIs can show other AIs what their code is and what their utility function is and that they would act in the same way that things do as in game theory simulations so that we can be pretty sure that they're actually going to be pretty nice, like, quote, unquote, nice from a human perspective.And my guessSimone Collins: is showing that any AI with a sense of self preservation is going to be incentivized. to play nice with other AIs and also then be less crazy andMalcolm Collins: dangerous. The AIs that survive are going to be incentivized to play nice with other AIs. It's not even a necessity. They don't even need self preservation.Whether they have self preservation or not, if they don't play nice, they're going to be the first things that are wiped out. Which is, is, is why you get this utility convergence pattern I suspect between planets. Which [00:34:00] in a way means, and so you can ask, well then why aren't they interacting with humanity?Why aren't they, you know, increasing the speed of our technological development? Why aren't they, well first, I'd say you don't know that they're not. But, but second the more that they interact with a species that is in the process of developing, the more they make that species like the intergalactic norm.And I suspect that that would then lose all value that that species has to them. You know, in a world in which time is not really an issue because they can create time loops and in which energy isn't really an issue because they can create, you know, universe batteries the, these entities or, or like, like micro time batteries or something, I don't know exactly, but like infinite mana cheats the, the, the core thing these entities might value, especially if the way that they're, you know, that they've achieved this ecosystem of multiple convergent utility functions working together is that these, these utility functions work together because they value diversity among the components working in the, in the group.And that when you get a bit more diversity, you might get a bit more efficiency, which is something that we [00:35:00] generally see across systems. And so they really probably want to prevent above all else, humanity falling too close to one of the existing niches of the you know, universal communities, utility function and for that reason, any cultural pollution that would move us towards you know, strategies that already exist out there or perspectives that already exist out there makes us less valuable and that's what probably be considered something of like a high crime.Which creates something like a, it's funny, it creates something like a, what does the federation call that in Star Trek? Like a, a prime directive, but it's for a very different and much more selfish reason, it's because of the, the We need the difference. They need the difference, that's the thing, a value in a universe in which and there's not a lot of value in most of the dead planets out there, you know, that's, that's a lot of what they're finding is just dirt, like it doesn't have a lot of value to them.Yeah, we might it makes a lot moreSimone Collins: sense than this whole prime directive of just like wildlife [00:36:00] preserve mindset, which is what you really pick up from Star Trek.Malcolm Collins: Oh, it's so dumb. You know, I hate Star Trek so much as a the logic behind it is nonsensical. It's just commies. It was a space, racist space commies, any human who's genetically selected is evil, any human who's overly modified is evil, any, no, really, it's, it's like an ultra progressive like childish mindset that has become this weird dystopia where like, Everybody loves the Federation, the Federation's the best because everyone who you see in the show is a, on a military starship because they basically militarized human space expansion.Well,Simone Collins: no, I mean, everyone in the show that you really see, at least who belongs to the Federation is, it's like looking at the very top people in the CCP.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. They're all talking about how great the CCP is. Yes, exactly. AndSimone Collins: being, yes.Malcolm Collins: But anyway, [00:37:00] I love you to death Simone, which even in like lower decks, like lower decks is supposed to be like, Oh, these are what the other guys are doing, except they're on like a military starship and the main character is the daughter of the ship's captain.Like, huge amount of nepotism. No. Star Trek cannot. Show you the truth of their universe, what it's like to live in poverty in that universe, because that's, you know, and they're like, Oh, we don't have poverty. Oh yeah. That's really convenient to believe when we're hearing that from people on a government controlled, military controlled science stations and ports and starships.Yeah. Of course they're going to pretend that sounds like normal brainwashy CCP stuff. Like when you go to the CCP and they're like, we don't have any poverty. And it's like, well, I'm pretty sure you do. And they're like, Oh can you show me where the impoverished are? And then you go show them, they're like, Oh, go ask them again.I think we fixed that problem.Simone Collins: Oh God. Yeah, no, I, yeah, I guess the takeaways from this then are again, AI safety people are [00:38:00] the most dangerous people. And now I think more people have a very clear understanding of visceral understanding of what dumb AI rules cause to happen. And why that is not very helpful.And that the world could get really, really fricking interesting, especially once AI accelerates us even further. Right?Malcolm Collins: Cool. Well, I love you to death, Simone. I love you too. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Dive into the intriguing world of spiritualism and mysticism, where the line between genuine faith and manipulation blurs. Malcolm highlights the dangers of shortcuts to God through practices like chanting and fasting, while Simone questions modern interpretations of spirituality. The conversation tackles the risks of idolatry and the need for a resilient belief system to protect future generations. With an emphasis on authenticity and understanding, they explore how to navigate this complex landscape without judgment.

In this thought-provoking episode, Malcolm and Simone sit down with Rudyard Lynch, the brilliant mind behind the "What About His" YouTube channel. At just 22 years old, Rudyard has already amassed millions of followers with his insightful commentary on society, religion, and the future of humanity.The conversation delves into the chilling parallels between the Mouse Utopia experiment and our modern world, exploring how nihilism and anti-natalism threaten the vitality of our civilization. Rudyard shares his perspective on the erosion of art, culture, and genuine human connection in an increasingly cold and impersonal society.Malcolm and Rudyard discuss the role of religion and mysticism in combating the nihilistic cult that has taken hold of the Western world. They explore the CIA's investigation into the spirit world and the potential for a new, adaptive form of spirituality to emerge as a counterweight to the forces of decay.Simone highlights the importance of building hidden communities of like-minded individuals to preserve the values of vitality, creativity, and meaning in the face of an increasingly hostile mainstream culture. The trio also touches on the need for a diverse range of historical role models to inspire the next generation of leaders and thinkers.Join Malcolm, Simone, and Rudyard for a fascinating exploration of the challenges facing our society and the potential paths forward in this age of spiritual and cultural upheaval.Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] If you have ever interacted often with, extremist religious types, like Amish people, I was going to say that.Like, they seem to be more alive than most people that I've met too. Like, you just meet and you're like, whoa! Or like, you'll get this from like really conservative Mormons as well. To the extent where like, it sometimes like throws people off a little. Like, wow, you seem like genuinely happy. I, I don't know if that, that's off putting.And people will say it is off putting because they find these groups vitality. Condemnation of themselves, but when you meet somebody in a cult like an extractive cult You'll see that they seem kind of dead like they've got these fake smiles But they're not really have any level of vitality to them.And I think that what we have seen is our society has been taken over by one of these anti vitality nihilistic cults. And now the dangerous part, which really excited me in your video, and you're addressing this as an issue, is those of us who still have a level of vitality, [00:01:00] that are still happy with our lives, still excited about the future, are existentially threatening to the cult.Because we cause pain, we cause harm. I mean, violence is emotional harm within leftist mindset, you know? What happens next? What happened in Mouse Utopia?Would you like to know more?Malcolm Collins: It is so wonderful. Simone and I today have Rubiard with us. He's the guy who runs the What About His channel. Anyone who hasn't seen that channel, you know it has millions of subscribers. It is amazing. I think one of the best channels now, I mean, you're like 21, man, like I am jealous, but not jealous in a way where like, sometimes I look at someone and I'm like, their videos are like, not as good as mine.Like, how are they so big? I was going through your video recently, one on the mouse utopia experiments. And I think we've talked on this in the past and I was like, wow, this is much better than anything I could have created on this subject. And I And I really love you as a thinker, like, we talk regularly I, I find really aligned with your thinking on [00:02:00] most things, and it's funny, a lot of people know, you know, we are in, well, I'll, I'll get to this later, but what I wanted to focus on was the Nihilist mice in the Mouse Utopia experiment, and that's it.one to defend against them and their relation to the left. So I'm going to go into this video assuming the audience broadly knows about the Math Utopia experiment. Mice, given anything they want ended up coalescing into urban like clusters and then doing a lot of behavior that looks a lot like our society today.And then their fertility rate collapsed and their society died. But what was really interesting, and I'll let you lay out this behavior, is this When mice tried to continue to live the old ways, they were victimized. So I'd like you to talk about this, why you think this happened and the correlates you see to society today, and then we can discuss how we might defend against it.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: First of all, thank you so much for having me. And I'm glad to be here. And the way I'll answer your question is that I do a lot of thinking not part of [00:03:00] what a faultist that operates in the back and I gradually filter that into what a faultist and one of the conclusions I've come to is that the soul does exist and the reason I believe that and this will lead to what you're saying because only through understanding the essence of the soul are you capable of seeing how nihilism can take root.And I came to the conclusion the soul exists partly due to projection where if you're projecting. Your inner care flaws upon the external world. That means there is a part of your mind that is aware of what your inner flaws are. And if you look over history animals do things that are not rational or in their self interest.And the way I like to see mouse utopia is that you can have multiple tiers of causation for the exact same event. For example, the fall of Rome, you can find about five different. Thing is that resulted in that caused the fall of Rome, and it's almost a Rorschach test for which variables you choose to tease out and are most important.And with mouse utopia, you can see it starting upon [00:04:00] multiple levels of causation, one being you could look at an ecosystem perspective, or the ecosystem needs to Needs to reset because if one form of life expands exponentially large, it will hurt the entire ecosystem. But when you look at the nihilism for the mouse utopia, there are multiple levels of causation.One level of causation is that once you are in a pre established wealthy society, there is no incentive to cooperate. So the incentive is to free ride. And that results in negative nihilism because. The end point of free riding is saying that the the non free riders are bad. So nihilism is a way of preventing other people from stopping you from free riding so that you can basically do whatever you want.The problem though, is you hit tragedy, the common situations where if everyone's trying to stop trying to free ride, there's nothing to free ride off. And. [00:05:00] I also think that past a certain point, people get resentful. If you've reached a certain point in nihilism, you, people, we're emotional. You get resentful against the people who are not like you.And so it becomes this recursive thing where you hate the reminder that you're doing something wrong. And with the mouse utopia experiment, something that I find very interesting is the thing that kills the other mice. Is not the mice not having kids. It's the nihilist mice killing those who do have kids.Malcolm Collins: Before you go further, I want to, I want to highlight these ideas you've had because I think they are so powerful and they're really, really like not things to just So within all social animals, whether it's human or mice or anything like that you're going to get some level of self consciousness, it appears.And this is one of the things that surprised you when you're first looking at the experiment, is how similar the mice were to humans in many ways, when we think of them as being such simple animals. To the extent where if I'm a human and I am living off the state, because no [00:06:00] human wants to see themselves as a bad person or if I am a mouse and I'm just leaving completely indulgently without thinking about the future of my civilization or anything like that, like, that's not really how mice are working, but, but kind of like that but I'm a human and I'm just living completely off the state I need to justify this behavioral pattern.And so I justify it. In two ways. First with nihilism, nothing really matters because it is not constructive to live off the state. So the only value hierarchy that can justify this behavior pattern is nihilism. And then I begin to, I look at the people who are still putting in the effort and they are a reminder to me, like in leftist thought, Their existence or their ideology causes violence to me, where violence is defined by anything that causes emotional pain.And it's causing this emotional pain because it's reminding the part of you that is still sane that what you are doing is indolent and self indulgent. And so then you project the hatred out on these other [00:07:00] communities and, You begin to demonize these communities, and then this demonization, and I know I'm just repeating everything you say, but I want to really make sure this sinks in for people because it's so powerful, creates a loop, and in this loop you see these other groups who have maintained these old ways of doing things, or these more natural ways of doing things, and they are still happy with their lives, like they have kids, they are engaged, they have partners, and you, have descended into this cycle of self hatred, which is a result of nihilism, and a result of knowing that you're not actually living for anything other than yourself.And this cycle gets worse and worse and worse over time, and then what? Continue.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: Sorry, I just You you explained that very well. And the thing which worries me so much about Mastutopia is that it is very close historical parallel, where a method I use to determine because you get studies all the time, most studies are never verified.They're just scientists can just make stuff up and they'll never be called out for it. [00:08:00] The thing that scares me about Mass Utopia is the parallels you can draw to so many other historic societies, where if you read authors going back to Herodotus you see that this pattern of societies growing wealthy, losing their values, and then collapsing into decadence and getting conquered, is just something that's happened to each of the major civilizations, whether Rome, whether the Mayans, the Persians, the Chinese, whatever.The thing that I find scary is that we are in the West today at a level of wealth much higher than any of those other societies. So would it not go to reason that we'd have a higher level of decadence? And I think the point that Malcolm was jumping off when we started this is that I said in the video that the thing that shocked me about the new left, because I'll compare my predictions from year to year, and as of four years ago, I was able to predict the left would go crazy.Because I looked at social justice, I look at the institutions they ran and I realized there was no feedback loop inside social justice des sanity. The thing though, is that we have a hundred years of track record [00:09:00] of leftist insanity already. Look to Cuba, look to Russia, look at China, look at Venezuela, and this current leftist dessan insanity.It's nihilistic, which is fascinating because the left should, in abstract, be an incredibly optimistic philosophy since they believe utopia is around the corner. But our left has no positive vision of the world, it's just don't. And the thing that really shocks me is Western society is committing social suicide.And I believe this to be most pronounced in North Europe. Where Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, they bring in millions of immigrants, and a lot of these countries, they'll be half non native population by 2050 if things don't change, or half of their children, half of the young will not be native population by 2050.And the thing that really shocked me is degrowth, where I just can't wrap my head around why degrowth is an idea. Because if you look at it from a climate perspective, if the Netherlands just stopped being an economy, it doesn't matter. China is going to keep doing coal. You could [00:10:00] nuke the entirety of Northern Europe and it wouldn't affect the economy, the world's carbon emissions by that much.And furthermore, these are the kinds of countries that would develop the future climate technology. And so using the left's own chain of logic. There is no justification for the suicide of their societies except it just being a rationalization for them being suicidal. What IMalcolm Collins: love in the video, you also talked about the erasure of their own history and culture identity in the tearing down of statues, in the tearing down of traditional forms of artistic medium.And one of the things that you said in the video, which chilled people, it was one of your top comments and I agree with it, is that we have stopped producing art. You had mentioned that when you watch movies today, They don't seem as dynamic, like people don't seem as alive as they did in previous movies.They, they seem sort of odd and robotic, almost like the souls have left of their body. I'd love you to elaborate on this first too.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: I'm glad you pulled this up because that's one of my favorite things I said in the video, when I'm I'm happy that [00:11:00] people teased it out, but I, I don't watch cable TV, I don't have it in my house.The only time I do watch cable TV is when I'm at the gym. And so I'll watch Fox News or MSNBC or whatever content they're showing on the gym TV. And it's crazy where I have a good friend of mine who's I have two friends of mine. One is a professional linguistics expert. The other is a professional body language expert.And so I've heard a lot of stuff from them. And it's crazy where if you look at interviews from 40 years ago, 50 years ago. Everyone's so alive. It's like, you can tell there's a person in there. And now if you look at the TV today, people don't move their heads, right? They don't express that their facial faces that much.It's like they're puppets. And I know that sounds paranoid, but look at how a puppet moves their body. It's, it's very robotic. And I think. For you who don't know me as a person, one of my massive hobbies outside of what a [00:12:00] Faltist is pop music. I listened to several hours of music every day. I listened to a bunch of different music genres and since the Trump presidency, and I'm just picking that year as a, as a arbitrary date, and I don't think it had anything to actually do with Trump the level of artistic creativity and music has just crashed.I don't see any new genres. All the content, all the musicians I liked have gone crazy. Across our entire society, we don't make new movies anymore. All our movies are reboots of earlier movies. All of the musical sound today is taking sounds from the 80s. And then rehashing it. I read history. I loved history because it was one of the few fields where you could expect a genuinely good quality of work.And in the last, since COVID, the new history books that come out, they're more derivative than what came before. So the last field, which I used as a benchmark for, this is something which keeps working, has stopped working. And so, What does our society do anymore? [00:13:00] I'm asking that as a real question. Like,Malcolm Collins: I want to touch on something you said here, because when you talk about people seeming like off, it's definitely something I've noticed as well.And it reminds me when you encounter a group that's radically different culturally, you'll often notice either you'll seem to have less life than the society around them or more life than the society around them. If you have ever interacted often with, I think sort of extremist religious types, like Amish people, I was going to say that.Like, they seem to be more alive than most people that I've met too. Like, you just meet and you're like, whoa! Or like, you'll get this from like really conservative Mormons as well. To the extent where like, it sometimes like throws people off a little. Like, wow, you seem like genuinely happy. I, I don't know if that, that's off putting.And people will say it is off putting because they find these groups vitality. Condemnation of themselves, but when you meet somebody in a cult like an extractive cult You'll see that they seem kind of dead like they've got these fake smiles But they're not [00:14:00] really have any level of vitality to them.And I think that what we have seen is our society has been taken over by one of these anti vitality nihilistic cults. And now the dangerous part, which really excited me in your video, and you're addressing this as an issue, is those of us who still have a level of vitality, that are still happy with our lives, still excited about the future, are existentially threatening to the cult.Because we cause pain, we cause harm. I mean, violence is emotional harm within leftist mindset, you know? What happens next? What happened in Mouse Utopia? What happens to us? And what are your plans for how to get around this?Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: Good. So to jump off your point, what you've said about religious people, traditional conservative religious people seeming more alive is true.When I've, traveling to the Middle East, that's obvious. Going to Egypt, people seem a lot more alive. Moving from California, I spent a couple months in California, now I'm in [00:15:00] Texas. People are much more alive in Texas than they are in California. And the thing that I find interesting is everything we project onto the Victorian period or the 1950s is a reflection of our own society, where if you read Victorian literature.We pretend the Victorian period is puritanical, emotionally stunted, repressive and cold. And you read books from the 19th century, that's clearly not true. It's a very emotional, dramatic society. I actually think the 19th century, it had romanticism. It was a significantly more emotional society than today.But because our society is built in opposition to that, we project our failings upon that. Where I think we are actually A very unemotional and cold and stunted society. And so to jump back to the point, you asked me, the thing that terrifies me about Math Utopia is things have to get worse where I imagine it like a treadmill and the treadmill [00:16:00] now is going really fast and it, there's no way out except for these institutions to burn down because you look at academia, you look at Hollywood, you look at these corporations.There is no counter to wokeness. No one will take over. You would basically need to have a revolution or a coup d'etat that would wipe out the establishment. And I've said in a previous video that I think there's a solid chance that would happen. But aren't all of the major institutions of our society are run.And of course I do not condone that. I am notMalcolm Collins: condoning revolution. He's just saying if a revolution starts, consider him for a thought leadership position.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: Hey, that's not what I said, Malcolm. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I live a, I live a peaceful life now. But, but what I was going to say. Is thatMalcolm Collins: is that the mice in the mouse utopia of spirit?Yes. And we might begin to see that a direct targeting [00:17:00] of the people who areRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: still. Yes. AndMalcolm Collins: I can elaborate because this is something that we've talked about offline and I find it really interesting because I think that we, you and I represent two extremes that are actually. Opposed to each other, but it's the same solution to the larger societal problems, which is that we need cohesive new cohesive cultural groups to fight against what's coming if we want any form of protection.And what's really interesting and where I would point my followers to your channel is people know that we're trying to start like a new cohesive group like, like Simone and I or, or like religious denominational system. But it is incredibly anti Mystic and you are doing, you have like a similar sort of a project, but it is incredibly, I'd say like pro Mystic and it's the smartest of the pro Mystic takes I've ever seen.So for our audience who is put off by our anti Mystic state, his next video, which I'm excited to see, is on this [00:18:00] time when the CIA I'm excited to see youRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: actually, I, I've made this video already, it's just getting approved. Yeah. So talk about it. So. I, for people who don't know me as a person, I am very much in a mysticism, and it's something I study a lot in my free time, and One of the things I've been looking to is the research on psychics and the CIA in the spirit world where the CIA had decades worth of research into the spirit world in where they, they found that it was a real place and they got hundreds of people to visit it on repeat and the military's assessment of the CIA science was that it was all correct.The Soviets had their own Version of this, which found the same results. And my take is that if every major society in history agrees on this with the 20th century being the one exception in the 20th century, found it to be real. I personally find that to be compelling evidence. I know this is something Malcolm and I agree.Disagree on, and we're allowed to disagree [00:19:00] but I think our society is so cold and impersonal and why do we do anything? That's something I feel in the subconscious of our society. That we don't, we don't have a sense of why we're living life. And I think that's something that we very much need, and without it we're going crazy.I was reading a book by an orthodox theologian who said the modern world is divided between those who try to constantly numb themselves to its meaninglessness and those who realize it and go crazy. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: So I, what I find so interesting about your thought is it is a form of mysticism and mystical thinking.Yeah. That I think is very compatible with industry and industrial and artistic productivity.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: I mean, I have a Quaker. That's like the ape that, that, or I grew up with a Quaker. That's for those twoMalcolm Collins: mead. But I think that the way that you accomplish this is very interesting in your thought pattern is that the mystical traditions which end up going towards [00:20:00] indolence are based around like secrecy and hierarchy where you have mystical traditions which are dripped down through a hierarchy.Through a level of like secrecy, whereas your mystical traditions, they approach everything like an investigation or a conspiracy, almost like these things are out there for anyone to find. But it is up to every individual to find them in multiple places. There are no like keepers of knowledge or anything like that.Yes. And I think that combining it with like actual science and investigative history. Is actually very similar to the forms of mysticism we saw was in productive Victorian period. Like Isaac Newton, he was a mystic, but he wasn't like a general mystic. He was like an occultist who would like research old texts and everything like that.But anyway, yeah, I'd love to hearRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: your thoughts. Thank you. I think the truth is a cone and one of the points I make in the video when I talk to the CI in the spirit world is what these researchers found is there's a geography to the spirit world where there are parts of the [00:21:00] spirit world that appear Abrahamic.There are parts that appear Indic, parts that appear like reincarnation. So I don't believe there's contradiction between the major worlds religions. I think they're touching a shared truth in different contexts that are useful to their society. And I, I, I don't want to lionize religion and say it's perfect, because the problem is that we can all get fuzzy and agree on that.But once you actually have to apply it to the real human world and politics, that's when things get messy. Where, ironically, the Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims are theologically very similar. Once you get to the details, though, that's where the pain starts. And and so I do believe there's this shared truth, but the truth, you have to, imagine you have to clean out your attic, you go into the attic, you flash it, use a flashlight there, and if you're not going to shine light upon your attic, you're not going to clean anything, and with these occult traditions that are negative, what you're basically doing is taking people up to the attic, [00:22:00] holding them in hand, They're not showing them the light, so that they have to hold your hand in the attic to survive.What a good mystic tradition is to flip the light switch. IMalcolm Collins: love this! That's a good analogy! That'sSimone Collins: very good, yeah.Malcolm Collins: You see why I like this.For those who don't understand why we go. So anti mystic with our traditions, I really do recommend the video. Did the CIA discovered the spirit world? I think it's a great example of where taking the mystical path. , can lead a very logical, smart individual. In terms of getting them to circumvent what I would consider. A reasonable amount of incredulity when engaging with information. Ruby or had actually texted us a comment that must've come from one of our Watchers. Under the video, which was something along the lines of, oh dear. I hope Malcolm doesn't feed this. Which I think really shows, [00:23:00] even if you are approaching mysticism from the perspective of.The, the literal best approach to it, which I do think his approach is, you know, this level of conspiratorial investigation.Makes the way he is structuring his belief system. Not particularly susceptible to.Individuals who want to use a person's police system to control a person. Which I really respect about it. But it does burn about, of his incredulity and logic.Malcolm Collins: Well, I love that you are you know, elevating this within some of your videos as a potential solution, because I really do think it is the only potential solution is a return to theological framings of reality, but that break from the theological framings of, of the old in many ways.And I'll put a little clip here. The. The old religious traditions that are like, Oh, we'll just do things in that pre industrial way. And this will protect our children from deconversion in the modern world. [00:24:00] It reminds me ofYou thinking what I'm thinking, partner? Aim for the bushes. Let's do this. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: It's like, no, that obviously isn't going to work. The odds are so astronomical against you. We need some level of adaptation and we need to all work together no matter how different our beliefs are. Because whatever those beliefs are, we're the people they're coming after. I mean, there's clearly like the one big bad negative group.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: Yes. I hate churchism or churchism is the continuation of the ceremony of religion without God. And I think most religion in our society is churchism in that, I think a lot of these people don't actually care or want God. I think they use it as an excuse. But if you read the Bible, the God of the Bible is disgusting and insane.[00:25:00]And it's not the white bread shirts that the Christians that religious people now push. But the problem is that the God of the Bible, that is a force that's in touch with the reality of how horrible life is and how crazy life is. And so. We've been trying too long to domesticate religion, and I believe religions go through cycles, where if you read about what it was like in the Roman Empire, all of the religions were incredibly sterile and political.And if you were before the Axial Age, under the time of Buddha and Confucius and Plato, it was the same thing. But you have to have these periodic returns of mysticism and chaos to offset the bureaucratization of a religion.Malcolm Collins: Well, Simone, I want to hear from you because I've been monopolizing this. Well, no,Simone Collins: I just, what I find interesting and what I think is important for us to recognize is that what we have that the poor rodents in the mouse utopia experiments didn't have was places to hide.They, they [00:26:00] couldn't hide after a certain point. There was no place where like the per natalist non nihilistic mice could go. I mean, I know the beautiful ones like hid away in some other weird place. I can'tMalcolm Collins: remember. I mean, this is something I always mentioned on the show. The rise of the anti natalist left it up ends something in human history that we always knew there's the famous song.I don't know if you know the song, At Least the Russians Love Their Children Too, you know, is the refrain. I gotcha. Yeah, this is something that we always knew in history. At least the people who we're fighting against love their children too and want the world to keep existing. We no longer have that belief.Like, well, but, but, The thought we're fighting against doesn't have children andRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: they want us all dead.Simone Collins: I think that a lot of why the, the perinatalist movement is, So difficult to like quantify or contact is that the conclusion that most of them have come to is we really, really, really need to hide and be careful and not let anyone who know who we are, [00:27:00] what we're building or what our movement or community is like, unless they are 100 percent definitely a trusted insider that we're going to network with in the future.And I think that's a core part of what is going to enable these groups to move forward in a way that the like more normal per noodle list. Mice or rats could not.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: Their secret base is going to be in Newark, New Jersey. So you guys can keep tabs on that and look nowhere else. And so in the video, I say there are.Three things you need to do to survive mouse utopia. The first is the first is that you need to, you need to have a sense of, that the anti natalist people can't take over the government, because if they take over the government, they can kill anyone who's trying to survive and have children, and that really worries me, because if you look at mouse utopia, That's what [00:28:00] happens.And if the government's killing anyone who has children in America, the entire American nation, that's the only way they can die. The second is you need to form communities out, out of the way of like minded, sane people who can support each other. And the third thing is you need religion because religion can provide external moral standards that you can convince a large part of the population to follow as a push against As a push against the chaos of the world.Malcolm Collins: I couldn't agree more. And I think that's a great point to end on. And we've been so excited to have you on. I would encourage people go check out that, that episode of his. And if you like it, then you need to keep going deep on his channel. Cause he is a great thinker and keep in mind how young he is.You know, this guy is already, I think one of the leaders of the sort of growing new right thought movement. And he's 20, 21, 22.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: I'm about to turn 23. Yeah,Simone Collins: [00:29:00] but that's. I think that's an important point is that you are also inspiring to us because you represent what humanity should be doing rather than what humanity is doing.What we can go back to, quite frankly, again, like Benjamin Franklin was like fully, like acting as though he were an early career adult, like age 12, 13. And then by, you know, his twenties, he was, you know, a major leading thought leader and you were following that path. And you were showing that like, Oh, guess what?You know, infantilization is not the norm. And look at me. And so we need, we need you to continue to succeed and rise. YouRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: flatter me. I I grew up in a place where Ben Franklin was taught like 10 times. I'm from Philadelphia. And so I heard about Ben Franklin like 10 times in my childhood.Simone Collins: Maybe that helped, you know, cause we, well, I mean, people are very suggestible and if we don't have role models, it's a lot harder to like.realize that you're capable of something if you've never heard of someone else being capable of it.Rudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: So I remember when I was a child, the only historic figure I had heard of was Martin Luther King, because when I was six, that was the only person my school [00:30:00] taught me about. And I think I don't dislike Martin Luther King.I think he was a great man. But we need to have a broader selection of role models to teach our children. Because I don't know, thatMalcolm Collins: sounds racist to me. It sounds like you're saying we need some white role models. And I don't know if that isRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: appropriate. Let's develop a racial quota based upon the demographics of the country.We can have six out of 10 white Europeans. We can have two Hispanics like Hernan Cortez who was also a white European. And we can have Martin Luther King for our 12 percent black population.Simone Collins: Well, or we can have what, you know, Jem and I was trying to do before Google decided to apologize, which is just make the founding fathers black.It's fine. Okay. Like, I mean, honestly, after looking at some of the images generated, I was like, yeah, this looks right. Checks out. Like I can see George Washington is black now, you know, and just, I don't care. I don't care, but you keep doing what you're doing. And we lookRudyard Lynch WhatIfAltHist: forward to having you back on.We'll have you back on. [00:31:00] All right, great. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm and Simone discuss how AI and robots will transform childcare and parenting in the coming decades. They talk about existing kid-focused AIs like the doll that talks to children. They also cover how future home assistant AIs could help watch kids, allowing for more low-effort parenting styles.Other topics include:* Dollar store gifts & low-cost approaches to birthdays and holidays* The dangers of helicopter parenting and benefits of giving kids independence* Financial and lifestyle changes needed to have more kids* Grimes' social media promoting AI for kids* Funny stories of reckless college escapades at St AndrewsMalcolm Collins: [00:00:00] but I'm thinking, you know, in 20 years, I imagine we will have AI avatars, i. e. robots that are in your basically AI slaves that live in your house. That help with like parenting and stuff like that. Well,Simone Collins: there's already one for kids.There's like the, this, it's, it looks kind of like a doll and it's an AI that talks to your kid.Would you like to know more?Malcolm Collins: By the way, we're at 1 0 5 now 1 0 5. What? Oh followers. 9,000 1 0 5.Getting close to that 10 K number.Simone Collins: Oh, gosh. Yeah. I'm excited about that. Well, okay. As, as a, when you were younger or even like when we first met. Did you think you were going to be a high effort or a low effort parent?Malcolm Collins: Interesting. It never occurred to me. YouSimone Collins: didn't think about how you were going to approach things.You just knew you were going to have a lot of kids.Malcolm Collins: I kind of always thought I'd be super rich and super successful in like a major world figure. [00:01:00] So it never occurred to me.Simone Collins: Because what, you would just have somebody else raise your kids?Malcolm Collins: Yeah. If I needed to. Yeah. It never occurred to me growing up that I would be in any way constrained in anything I did as an adult.Simone Collins: That's actually, that's actually really interesting. Because I think that you. And I I think you more by temperament are a low effort parent. Like you just, you outsource as a sort of natural part of your management of any project. You know, you're not about putting in maximum effort, performative, or otherwise you try to do things elegantly and efficiently.And I admire that deeply. And so you never would naturally be a high effort parent, but I think that if you were really wealthy and you did have nothing but like nannies, like one nanny for each kid and like a lot of people on them, those kids would experience a high effort parenting. growing up, meaning that there would be someone [00:02:00] micromanaging and helicopter parenting them all the time.Why? Even if you tell a nanny or a babysitter or whatever to like, Hey, be hands off, you know, let them make their own mistakes. It's okay. If they fall down, like, you know, don't make a big deal out of everything. They know that they will be fired or they will be. Well, and thisMalcolm Collins: is something that we've seen was a lot of the wealthy parents that we know, and it's a big problem that they have with child rearing is when they create environments where they have somebody else like living in their house and helping raise their kids, especially if they have multiple people who can sort of watch each other to an extent.These people are almost sort of forced to overindulge the child. Because it, you know, it's quite one thing to say, Oh, I won't give into a child's tantrum, but when you know, the mom is looking at you and seeing this child just like absolutely destroyed, it can be really hard to not do anything about it.Or theSimone Collins: kid makes a mess and you're like, Hey, you know, Jimmy clean up the mess. And Jimmy doesn't clean up [00:03:00] the mess. And then, you know, you, you try to make a big thing about it. And then, you know, the parents come in and the house is a complete wreck. And. The kids are having a tantrum. You're going to look really bad as the nanny, you know?And so we've seen this happen. We're like, okay, they're just now they're cleaning everything up for the kids. Now the kids are getting super spoiled and entitled. And they're also being watched at every second. Again, I also like, we say this to babysitters all the time. Like, you know, our kids get bumps and bruises.Like they fall down, they rough house, like this happens. But they do not want to be the kind of babysitter or nanny that returns. That it sees the parents return and like the kid is a black guy, you know, like you're not going to get hired again. And, and even we would probably be like, Oh, what happened here?You know, like, this is not great. Actually we're pretty chill about that. We understand because we know how rambunctious our kids are. But yeah, no, so, so I think that's really, that's an interesting observation here just specifically that. Even low effort style parents who like know better or parents who understand that a helicopter parenting or coddling a child is really [00:04:00] damaging if they choose to pay other people to raise their kids, or they send their kids to a public school, a private school, daycare, et cetera.I thinkMalcolm Collins: daycare and public and private school are quite different. So, one study that people may not be familiar with is typically the kids who get sent to like, kindergarten earlier. They did a great, like, controlled study on this recently because they couldn't take all the kids into this like state paid kindergarten program.The kids who got in actually did much worse in terms of their academics, long term, their emotional development long term. And even though the stereotype is homeschooled kids do worse socially than non homeschooled kids. The reality is that if you look at the meta studies on this, while you'll get things on both sides of the line, the majority seem to trend towards homeschool kids, have better social skills than non homeschooled kids and better leadership skills and better emotional control.And this is because they learn their social, socialization from watching adults, whereas the rest of the kids learn their social abilities from like this weird [00:05:00] Lord of the Flies situation in this evil bureaucracy you've thrown them into. I mean, our school system in most of the world is this weird Totalitarian bureaucracy.You have to like live a portion of your life under like, almost like living in a prison system. It is absolutely bizarre that we think that this would have positive social emotional outcomes.Simone Collins: Well, and, and the kids are also in a highly regimented environment because they have to be to like make everything work and they are being micromanaged a lot more.And there are a lot more like sort of strict rules and like, here's how it's going to go. And I'm going to watch you and I'm going to tell you what to doMalcolm Collins: again. Yeah. I mean, in public school these days, you have very low student to teacher ratios. I thinkSimone Collins: that most Yeah, but there's still I'm sorry, you never went to public school.Your classes were like I did go to publicMalcolm Collins: school. 15 kids. And most of the pressure on kids to behave in certain ways within public school comes from their peer group, not from adults.Simone Collins: No, I totally disagree. In a classroom environment, you've got, you know, 31 kids [00:06:00] atMalcolm Collins: their desks. Seth, this is Valdivictorian.You of course had extra attention from the teachers because you were No.Simone Collins: What I'm saying is, like, no one is allowed to get up. There have to be rules to go to the bathroom. There have to be rules for everything because without that structured regimented environment, That'sMalcolm Collins: not what messes kids up.Whether or not you can get up in a room. What are you talking about? It's about the way you relate to them emotionally. And that is primarily done from their peer group, not from the authorities. If you're in a class of like 500 kids to one teacher, the teacher is basically irrelevant in terms of the social and emotional lessons.They're teaching the kids. Yeah, but theSimone Collins: student, Subject to a system, which is like a big brother, and that's why you have all these kids who are constantly appealing to authority instead of actually like, so, for example, we have this issue of a lot of kids now who don't know their own limitations and boundaries and don't know others limitations and boundaries.Why is that? Because when they get. Hurt by someone or wronged by someone, they get to appeal to this bureaucratic system of rules. And that person gets a timeout. And every time something goes wrong, they don't have to figure out how to navigate that [00:07:00] interpersonally as kids. They get to figure out how to navigate that bureaucratically as parts of the system.And that's what I wouldMalcolm Collins: really agree with this. And I would say that this is a huge problem right now in society as far as you're talking about appealing to bureaucracies because the bureaucracy teaches them, you know, how do you get the teachers involved? How do you call somebody over? If somebody has hurt your feelings in any way then, then, then they get punished.And so kids learn to utilize this as a tool at a very young age. If I can convincingly argue to a person in a position of authority that somebody hurt my feelings, then I get to use the violence of the state, basically the violence of the authority, the IE, the power of the authority on whoever I can convince hurt my feelings.And so it creates this, this mindset where it also keep in mind, like what, what do kids get punished for? They get punished for quote unquote, hurting other kids, whether that's their feelings or their, their bodies, which. for kids makes them believe that in a [00:08:00] society, the number one thing of value is not being hurt.This is where you get was in this left community, like ultra lefty community minded individual, this belief in negative utilitarianism, because that's the belief that's implicitly taught through the power structures of our school systems. The way that you call down upon the ultimate authority, like Power on someone, you know, like, like your God in this system, like I'm going to call down lightning on somebody else is by claiming to have been hurt physically or emotionally, which then to an individual makes them think like I deserve as a right in society to never be emotionally or physically hurt.Like even after they leave the school system, that's when you get this you know, mindset we see right now in our society. SoSimone Collins: I agree. It's worse than that. Because they don't understand how to deal with being hurt themselves. They literally don't have the tools for it. So, when you look at animals like mammals, especially when they're young, they play, they nip at each other.They bite, they jump, they, they push boundaries and they push each [00:09:00] other's boundaries and they often hurt each other and get hurt. What is the point of that? They are learning internal resilience and they're learning where other people's boundaries are. At least like other, not species, but like other people or other.Similar kinds boundaries are. And when you don't learn that, like if for example, you don't get a chance, like a homeschool kid might to like, you know, get punched by a brother and the mom's too busy to like realize it and have to deal with justice on your own. You aren't going to learn how to deal with that.You're only going to learn how to appeal to authority. So that's the other important thing is I think that there is some level of emotional regulation that also comes out of this is just learning that like, hey, sometimes life isn't fair. I don't always get to file a complaint and have justice take place when I'm wronged.Sometimes I just have to figure out how to deal with the fact that people can be dicks to me and I'm going to over time. You know, learn from that and avoid people who are going to punch me when mom isn't looking. So I, I think that's another really big problem of that, but [00:10:00] I do think this is an interesting thing and that we, what we came into this conversation planning to talk about was that low effort parenting is inherently pronatalist.Actually it's can, it can be difficult to actually gift your child with low effort parenting in modern society, even if you yourself are a low effort parent. Yeah,Malcolm Collins: like with our kids, right? Like, we let them do basically what they want to do as much as we can but, you know, we've had CPS called on us that we've done a video about, right?Like, by letting our kids play outside alone with us watching them from inside, that was considered a CPS callable event.Simone Collins: Inside a locked yard, byMalcolm Collins: the way. Yeah, in a locked yard. But this is also a problem for us. I mean, we live on a farm, right? Like, if you leave our house, and you walk from our house, you can walk into the woods, and you can walk into like a national park, right?Like, it streams, everything like that. It's a fun place to play. But we can't let our kids play there. Like, it was a generation ago, kids our age by now would be running into the [00:11:00] woods allSimone Collins: the time. Like, yeah, I mean, I grew up reading Calvin and Hobbes. I know you hate Calvin and Hobbes, but like, This vision of this boy going out into the woods with his wagon and his toy tiger.Also, by himself, mind you, not even without, like, siblings to kind of, you know, keep him honest. Can you imagine? You know, like,Malcolm Collins: No, it's wild, yeah. And I'm hoping that in a few years, you know, our oldest will have to bite the bullet, but then once they're old enough to watch their siblings, we can send them out.I mean, I do, we do need to be wary. There are, I mean, I have seen large coyotes in the woods here that could easily kill a kid. So we do need to be aware of that, and, and keep them In safe areas but I mean, and I watch enough Lost 401 stories for people who don't know the Lost 401 phenomenon.People know I really like my like, occult, like, mysteries and stuff like that. I, I just love listening to them. And so I'm terrified. Mr. Ballin, we love, like Lore Lodge, we love, like I could go Mr. Grimley, like anyone who does. [00:12:00] like anything tied to cryptids or missing 401s or other types of mysteries.I absolutely love listening to, but it also terrifies me of like letting my kids go play in the woods because so many it's like, well, I was watching them and I turned away for a few seconds. And the next time I looked at the toddlers were all gone.Simone Collins: No, that, that happens a lot. Like the many stories began with.I don't know if my toddler was playing in the backyard while I watched from inside, or we were hiking and the toddler ran ahead a little bit and then that's the last time they were ever seen. Not good. Yikes. That's why we lock the gate and they stay in there for now.Malcolm Collins: But it also requires a level of like, I don't know, I think part of this might even just be genetic that you are even able to be a low effort parent.Cause I remember, you know, we had some friends over at our house once and all our kids were playing together. And they were, they had a lot of kids they were high fertility family, what, four or five kids? Anyway and their kids and our kids were playing in the local creek, because we have a creek by our [00:13:00] house with a, an area where it pools, so you get like a natural pool where the kids can swim and you know, one of our kids fell in, and they just started sinking, and they were freaking out, like, I was like, I,Simone Collins: I, I like casual.Even when Malcolm is standing like two feet from this kid. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: I, I did not act with any sort of a panic or, or worry. I was pretty relaxed in going, pulling the kid out of water and then, you know, putting them on the shore. And like, I mean the kid, you know, sinking in a, in a, in a pond, like, you know, they, they're terrified.Right. And, the kid was fine, you know, he got up, and then he kicked at the, the water, and he was angry at the pond for annoying him. But and, and with me, people are like, oh, you're such a horrible parent. It takes a kid a while to drown. Like, I saw him from the moment he fell in. I had plenty of time to walk over, and, and not get wet, and He wasn't going to drown in that period of time and he was learning a valuable lesson about falling into ponds.[00:14:00] But you know, I think a lot of people are just like anything that threatens, you know, you must immediately go out and run and panic and have a huge emotional situation over. And I don't think that would have served his benefit at all. But I think that that's, you know, probably not a conscious decision I made.It was just like the way I'm genetically coded to like, look at the situation and be like, is this going to kill him? Yeah,Simone Collins: no, we both have this sort of reaction where your reaction is just sort of practically. Pick them up and take care of them and like dust them off, but like not freak out. And my natural reaction is to do the same thing, but then laugh hysterically at like, one of our sons last night thought he would be absolutely hilarious when he was taking a bath like taking a little cup of water and then like, Drinking it in a really weird and annoying way.But then immediately this backfired cause he inhaled a ton of water and he just starts like coughing, like he's an old man, like, and I just like dying of [00:15:00] laughter and, you know, I think a lot of other parents might be like, Oh no, my son is, is, is he swallowed water to the wrong way? Like he's choking on it.And I'm just sitting here like. IMalcolm Collins: mean, historically, lots of families have like 15 kids, ifSimone Collins: you're not okay with any of our kids ever getting hurt or dying, I'm, I mean, I am, I am very safety conscious as are you, which is why you're so paranoid. I mean, what's all this like for a, for a one, likeMalcolm Collins: missing person.Yeah. But I mean. I think that, you know, if you're not raising your kid in a way and you're not, not treating them with the level of care that they would receive in a family of 15, then you're, you're not treating them in a sustainable way or in a way that is aligned with our evolutionarySimone Collins: history. Well, yeah, no.So let's, let's go into it. Like why is low effort parenting pernagelous and important? I think the big one is we've already talked about this here and we've already alluded to this a lot. When you have low effort parenting, you are giving children an opportunity to develop their own sense of internal regulation, socialization, and independence.And if you don't do that, you're not going to have independent [00:16:00] kids. Second, it is the only way to make parenting sustainable for parents. And we say to our friends all the time, there is nothing harder than having just one kid because with one kid, everything's a big deal. You also kind of feel obligated to make everything aMalcolm Collins: big deal.I think two is slightly harder than one. I think where it really starts getting easier, three, four,Simone Collins: et cetera. Well, but with one, it's like You're really freaking out about it about everything. You know, Oh, the tiniest rash. Whereas like with two, you're like, I don't know. I've seen this before. You know, this is fine.Yeah.Malcolm Collins: And now that you're at two kids, because you know, you grew up an only child. I think a lot of people you know, before they have a couple of kids, they don't realize how I would see it as abusive. It is to only have one child. Yeah. BecauseSimone Collins: they also start entertaining each other. Even if they look like they're fighting, they're entertaining each other and they're not clinging to you.Momentary needs of entertainment, which is really important. But yeah, I also get the mindset of just knowing that you're going to have a lot of kids, which causes more low effort parenting is incredibly valuable because you [00:17:00] start asking yourself, even if you've only at that point had two or three or four kids, is this something that I'm going to be able to handle?When I have five, six or seven kids. And if the answer is no, well then we're just not going to make a really big deal out of this. You know, we're just going to have to, you know, be chill and it, it makes you much calmer as a parent. And then of course we've always argued again and again, that the amount of money that parents spend on kids is absolutely insane.Between the camps, they send them to the schools. They send them to the products they get for them, the brand new clothes. And this happens at every level of income I've noticed. This is not just something that like wealthier middle class families do. Like everyone spends unreasonable amounts of money on kids, especially on like special kid foods.And I think when you are a low effort parent, you're instead thinking about like crock pot meals. And you're thinking about buying in bulk and you're thinking about like. Cooking the same way I learned how to cook is like a river guide when I was a kid where you're like cooking these [00:18:00] bulk meals and they're actually very healthy and they're very affordable and they're probably healthier than like the hyper processed baby food that you used to buy when you had only one child,Malcolm Collins: right?And our kids love going to the toy store, except they don't know that the toy store that we take them to is just the local dollar store. So we know that they can't accidentally get attached to anything that's too expensive. And I mean, this is, this is justSimone Collins: like, Which is actually, hold on, I just want to point out, this is an extremely traditional thing, and the concept of getting kids expensive toys for the holidays is completely bonkers.This song, it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. There's this line where they say, take a look at the five and ten, glistening once again with candy canes and sugar. lanes of glow. Now that the five and 10 that's the dollar store. That's a five and 10 cent store. People were not shopping at high end stores for gifts for their kids and they were still having a very magical Christmas enough to be memorialized by like 1950s Christmas songs.SoMalcolm Collins: you [00:19:00] can easily get all your kids stuff from a dollar store for Christmas and still give them a pretty magical Christmas. Which is you know, and we've so moved away from that. We have these expensive, insane toys I see people giving now. And it's like,Simone Collins: why? Oh, and it's not just that. I mean, also like birthdays, have you seen birthday cakes that even like our peers, I'm referring to our peers.I'm not just referring to like Instagram influencers are getting for their kids. They are fancier than our wedding cake. I kid you not.Malcolm Collins: I know traditional Calvinist families, birthdays are a sin to, to, to have a holiday themed around an individual. And I mean, we've talked about maybe not doing birthdays for all our kids once we have a lot of them.We haveSimone Collins: extremely chill birthdays to start. We've yet to have a birthday party for any one of our children. You know that, right?Malcolm Collins: Well, we kind of have, we've had a few birthday cakes. WeSimone Collins: make birthday cakes cause that's fun.Malcolm Collins: We haven't did a birthday party. Oh yeah. We've certainly never invited anyone over.What up? What a chore thatSimone Collins: would be. Some parents also seem to do birthday parties, but like, [00:20:00] just parents come. And they, they buy like a bunch of decorations and a really expensive cake. And then they post a photo of it to Facebook or Instagram or whatever. So I'd have toMalcolm Collins: do that, Simone. I don't want to friends.Do you have any idea what a burden that would be?Simone Collins: Oh, terrifying, genuinely. But yeah, I mean, it's so that's, that's the other element is the financial element. A lot of people do not have more kids now or do not think they can have kids or wait too long to have kids because they expect to spend insane amounts on their children.When in reality, children really don't cost that much. I, number one, our biggest expense for kids is what do you think? Diapers, no medical stuff. My God, medical stuff. Yeah. Medical stuff. And then probably after that, probably whole milk because they, I mean,Malcolm Collins: formula is so expensive now. It's like 6.Simone Collins: Yeah.And they, they chug it. So that is our. Like, but yeah, I mean, aside from that, and if you have good [00:21:00] insurance through an employer and we have kind of shitty insurance, so it's super, super high deductible or they're like, Oh yeah, spend 10, 000. And then maybe we'll talk about covering expenses. Yeah,Malcolm Collins: but we don't even like do anything for our kids.Like regular stuff, but we don't have kids with like medical issues.Simone Collins: I know we take them to checkups. They get vaccines. Well, if they have like a rash or they're sick, we take them in. And that adds up. Plus he got those ear thingies aMalcolm Collins: while ago. We should probably get better at home medicalSimone Collins: care. Well, yeah, but, and that's one of our plans for this year.Also for ourselves. It's just like switch to Chad GPT, plus like those really detailed blood panel lists, like where we get like a very detailed blood panel from ourselves for ourselves, at least to start, we're going to experiment on ourselves for first, before we do this with our kids. But then use that as like a marker plus like really detailed analysis.Plus, you know, things like Ezra scans where we're getting right.Malcolm Collins: And to point out here, anyone who thinks you're being irresponsible. I have a degree of medical training because [00:22:00] of my academic background. And doctors are profoundly less educated than you imagine them to be. They are not that smart.If you, it's one of those things where when you know about a profession and then you see people on air and you can immediately tell like how much they don't know about the profession. And you're like, Oh, wow. The moment I learned about this profession at like any sort of like academic level, then I see people in mass media or like a famous person on like a show talking about it.And you're like, Ooh, he's pronouncing all the words wrong. And he's, you know, you know, it's the same as doctors. If you have all that. ISimone Collins: think many of the medical professionals, people come into contact with have extremely specific and narrow. Ranges of focus where they are incredibly good and they have amazing pattern recognition, but only in one specific area, like a nurse that was helping to take care of me after I delivered one of our kids, like started just veering the tiniest bit [00:23:00] outside of like labor delivery and like very, very newborns.And abysmal advice. And I'm like, wait, like, is, where are the studies about this? And she's like, oh, no, no, I heard this in like a parenting book, or a parenting Facebook group, for moms. And I'm like, oh, of medical professionals? She's like, no, no, no, of moms. And I'm like, oh! No!Malcolm Collins: I'm a mom, so I know.Simone Collins: As a mom on Facebook, I think.So, yeah, I mean, I think there's, there's just also that, that like, it is, there's, there's so much to know in the medical profession and then you kind of get into your niche and you really, really know it, but that doesn't mean that you know everything about the human body. But AI is actually really good at answering questions like that, but yeah, no, so, so kids don't have to be that expensive and a major, major, major pronatalist issue.Has to pivot around this concept of shifting the way that people parent from expecting to be a helicopter parent who spends insane amounts of money on their kid to being a parent who trusts their kid to [00:24:00] learn really important lessons while still providing guide rails. So they don't tie or get really hurt.And who, you know, doesn't spend a ton of money on them because frankly, you know, when we give our kids presents half the time, they prefer the box. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Well, I, I, I mean, I'm just thinking about where parenting is going to be in like 20 years, because I was thinking about, you know, you're mentioning AI.In terms of you know, helping with this advice on parenting, but I'm thinking, you know, in 20 years, I imagine we will have AI avatars, i. e. robots that are in your basically AI slaves that live in your house. That help with like parenting and stuff like that. Well,Simone Collins: there's already one for kids.There's like the, this, it's, it looks kind of like a doll and it's an AI that talks to your kid. And like, as a parent, you can tell the AI to like. Get your kid excited about brushing teeth. Wait, what? Are you serious? Show this to me. Oh, s**t. Okay, yeah, I will. Why don'tMalcolm Collins: we have one of these? Are theySimone Collins: expensive?I saw, like, Grimes on her Instagram, like, [00:25:00] promoting this a while ago. I'll dig through it and find the company that she was in partnership with. I mean, of course, like, Grimes is both, like, a parent of children and, like, a super futurist. It's gonna be someone promoting something like this.Malcolm Collins: We have immense respect for Grimes.Anyone who thinks that she is not an absolute genius is They're just believing public sentiment in the same way that like the press likes to, you know, smear people.Simone Collins: Yeah. But anyway, there's that. And then I saw an ad for another one too. I, I will send you the ads so that you can splice them into this. Hey Grok, um, can you tell me about how they make rocket ships? Absolutely! Rockets are made with strong materials like titanium and designed by highly trained rocket scientists.I'm so excited for you to tell me about the dentist. I've never been to one. You don't have teeth. But I can still smile. And then what happened? He said he didn't want to play with me anymore. Thank you for telling me about your day. Sometimes, holding a friend's hand makes me feel better. [00:26:00] Do you want to try squeezing my hand?Simone Collins: Because no, we're already there. So like, if we're already there, we're also going to get. And of course you and I have talked about creating AI friends for our children. No, but I thinkMalcolm Collins: it would be better for kids because the core reason, like with a lot of our kids, I can just leave them to do nothing and they're mostly going to be fine.But the younger ones, I have to worry about them like choking on a rock or something, right? Like I have to, we're sticking it out, their hands in an outlet. So I have to keep a level of watchful eye over them. But as soon as I get an AI that can identify these behaviors and prevent them then I can leave the younger children.They're in their own. No, even like going into the woods, the core reason I'm afraid of them going into the woods would be, we should just look like an AI, like monster truck thing that follows them around. And maybe even, I mean, I know that the commercial ones won't come armed for, you know, animals that could attack the kids.But you know, we have, we know some people who could modify them to follow the kids into the woods and keep them safe. I think it'sSimone Collins: a sci fi that I read once with like teens that were highly [00:27:00] irresponsible in it. They, they were belts that would kind of inflate into giant bouncy things. They were ever like fell off a building or something, which they, you know, I mean, when you were at St.Andrews, like a certain number of students would die each year falling off the cliffs when they got drunk. Right. So, whichMalcolm Collins: is, you know. Really useful. To remove them from the gene pool. I, I know. So this was a seven and eight was the, the line that everyone wants here. It's a in the last eight years at the school, when I was there, seven kids had fallen off the cliff and before that, even more had fallen off.And I remember at my orientation, they were like, okay, like parents have called me to be like, do you understand below the cliff is.Simone Collins: The ocean. Craggy rocks. Well, no. Craggy rocks in theMalcolm Collins: ocean. Craggy rocks in the ocean. Right. But I'm just giving this context. And he's like, and I get calls from parents. The, the, the guy who's running the school all the time.And he's like, and I am like, what, what am I supposed to do? Fill it in. Like there's nothing you can [00:28:00] do. You could build a giant wall around all of the cliffsSimone Collins: around the university. I think what they expect is those Golden Gate Bridge style suicide barrier gates. The kinds that like, you know, go over, they like, bend over.So just to, you know, completely ruin the landscape. If a kid is going to getMalcolm Collins: drunk and jump off a cliff then I'm sorry. I just don't have that much sympathy. And people are like, did you get, yeah, I got drunk and I never jumped off a cliff. I never came close to jumping off aSimone Collins: cliff. Well, and it's actually really impressive when you think about it.How few people in St. Andrews are dying because there's traditions like the May dip where you stay up all night, you get crazy drunk, and then you run into the ocean with a giant crowd of people. And okay. When we, when weMalcolm Collins: saw it, you happened to see the MaySimone Collins: dip. So you, I saw it. Yeah. Although we did not see any pyramid.Oh, actually, no, sorry. What I meant to say is we did see a ton of paramedics just standing around. Yeah, thatMalcolm Collins: wasn't a thing when I did it. Come on, Simone. We were pussies back then, you know, we, we froze our butts off. It was with the, [00:29:00] with you know, with the clubs. So the local university clubs would, this is actually an interesting change.If you talk about like the degradation of our society where we understood it was the job of the prestigious clubs on campus and they could earn additional social status. by setting up protective and comforting things around may dip. So they do things like hand out toasties, which are like littleSimone Collins: grilled sandwiches, grilled cheese sandwiches.Yeah. GrilledMalcolm Collins: cheese sandwiches with ham. Yeah. And they would hand out you know, they'd hand out a warm towels. They'd have, they'd have little paramedic things set up, but these were the, the high prestige, basically it was insane. I guess you could say frats and stuffSimone Collins: that would do this. Well, this is what happens when you allow young people to develop a sense of independence and responsibility.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But now you go and it's all like the university funded adult paramedic booths all over the beaches, you know, and everyone'sSimone Collins: fat. Well, okay. Sorry. All the women are fat.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, no, this was shocking when I went to see Maydip again, for anyone who's from St. Andrews. If you haven't seen it, like, [00:30:00] recently, there was not a girl at that school I would snog.And this is me, like, as a 30 year old man looking at, like, younger college women where you'd think I'd be interested. Like, I was looking, and I'd be honest, my genitals were afraid of what I wouldSimone Collins: see. My assumption, too, by the way, was that you just weren't drunk enough. And like back in the day, no, we checked with your brother and sister and they were like, no, no, no.Like, yeah, everyone was super hot when we were there. Cause you were there at the same time as, as yourMalcolm Collins: brother. Well, I mean, we were there right after Will and Kate were there. So within like a couple of years. So, you know, we were people who don't know that the Prince and the yeah. AnywaySimone Collins: No, no, no.There is an episode on the crown about just that, that I'm watching right now with great enjoyment because I get to see St. Andrews. I think they're even, they, there's even a shot of the Sainsbury's. Yeah. And fun aside. So on this night of May dip, everyone, of course goes to the local grocery store, a Sainsbury's and [00:31:00] completely clears out all the alcohol, obviously.Cause you have to get immensely drunk to be able to stay up all night and then get into the ocean. So, Oh, Tesco. That's right. It wasn't a Sainsbury's. It didn't. And we're walking down the aisle and we didn't realize it was made up night until we walked past the alcohol shelves and it was only like 5 PM and they were all empty.And then there were these two St. Andrews guys who in the most posh English accent you can imagine one turns to the other and says, this is Daya. And he'sMalcolm Collins: like, this is Daya. And we're like,Simone Collins: oh, this is alcohol. I love it. Yeah. Only like the, the chintziest, likeMalcolm Collins: low class. But the other teenager story we should probably tell is the one about me in the window.Yes, yes, please. So I had this you know, St. Andrews is like a tourist town, right? And I was in one of the old historic buildings that, that I had rented a room in, right? But it was right on the road right on one of the main roads that everyone would walk by and it had a big, like plain [00:32:00] glass window to, to the road.So they could see in pretty easily. And I had recently bought repl like a sword. Like, you know, Andrew Tate sword, right? Except this is, I would never get one. He has like an officer sword, like some sort of tool. Sorry. We have a great sword at this house. But back then I had a Gladius, which is a classic Roman sword.That's like a single handed, but it was a good replica actually. Anyway so I, of course, do what you do when you are a man and are playing with your the high quality replica swords. Which is, you know, swing them around. And you, you put on music. And me being me, you know something you know about me, Simone, is I don't always put on my clothes.But you know. Simone Not always. Henry Too much effort, right? You know, uh and, and so. I was I think like Footloose was on or something, dancing around with my sword in, inSimone Collins: And what he forgot was that St. Andrews is actually an incredibly popular tourist destination and also [00:33:00] constantly being toured by prospective students.Malcolm Collins: Yes. And so I had been doing this for God knows how long, like people were like, Malcolm, are you this carefree and energetic all the time? You always were. Yes. Yes. I've been doing that for a long time. And so I was in the middle of my partially new, like, boxers only sword dance routine and I turned around and I noticed that there is a giant crowd that has been building on the street, watching me,I at the moment I saw it, I immediately dove under the couch, which I can only imagine was funnier than all of them.Simone Collins: Oh God I, I imagine that someday somebody watching this video is going to be like, Oh my God, he's thatMalcolm Collins: guy, thatSimone Collins: guy, I remember that. But yeah. Okay. So like, [00:34:00] just to recap here, like you cannot have pronatalism and helicopter parenting.And I think there are some people out there who believe themselves to be pronatalist who are also helicopter parents. And if you do not come to terms with the fact that you're going to have to get a way more chill. In order to be not only a pronatalist parent, but also a good parent that, that does not raise emotionally stunted infantilized children.You're gonna have to learn low effort and I will say I have tendencies toward this and Malcolm sometimes you have been, not sometimes, sorry, frequently, you have been the one to encourage me to not be such a tight ass about things.Malcolm Collins: I'm sorry if I ever press you too hard.Simone Collins: No, you don't, you, it's, it's very necessary.And quite frankly, the reason why I personally did helicopter parenting stuff was not because I genuinely believed it would create better outcomes. I did it because I was [00:35:00] neurotic. And parents should not be imposing their neuroticism on their own children. That is.Malcolm Collins: I know it's true. You definitely are.I don't mean to say this.Simone Collins: I am neurotic and evil. I'm glad you finally admitted it. I love you too. I think you're an amazing father. And I would love for people in the comments to share their favorite low effort parenting tip. So that we can learn from them. Except that there's some low effort parents out there.I'll also go on. Okay, I hate doing this. But if anyone has access to some kind of Apple device and can leave a five star review for our podcast on Apple, it would probably make a big difference for us and or like this video. And or subscribe becauseMalcolm Collins: we never ask for this on YouTube. We're doing okay.But on a lot of the podcasting sites, it's a lot harder to get reviews. So one review on one of the podcasting sites matters. Like 30 or 40 subscriptions on YouTube. Yeah,Simone Collins: I'll tell you what, I go to Apple Podcasts now, and I have to say, [00:36:00] this is dire. So Dire.Malcolm Collins: Anyway, I love you to death Simone, you are a sweetheart, and I every Wait, it's not just Apple, any of the podcasting services that you can leave reviews on, those are really helpful to us and I appreciate it, because, you know, we don't want to look like an obscure nobody, I mean, we are obscure, but I don't want to look as obscure.But not really. Actually, if you look at our view numbers, we were probably up to about between the various platforms around 1000 hours a day now. In terms of watch time, which I know people, you know, they see these small channel numbers in the context of a social media age. But this is this is a lot.This is like a lot of people's time. We were looking at something like consecutive watchers and we're at like something like 40 consecutive watchers at any point in time between the various platforms, you know? It's, it's pretty wild. So, you know, helping us On the podcasting platforms helps a lot in terms of what it takes for us to grow the channel and us growing the channel makes sure that you keep seeing episodes because at a certain [00:37:00] point, you know, we need to be realistic about this, you know, given our careers, we could probably do something else.And if we're not growing. Fast enough. Probably doesn't make sense for us anymore, but I don't think we're anything close to that right now. Right now we're growing at the clip that we would like. But anyone who is, is willing to help with that, itSimone Collins: means a lot. Yeah. Thanks everyone. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

We explain the leading scientific hypotheses for how the first life emerged through natural processes on Earth billions of years ago. This covers proposed pathways like the clay hypothesis, radioactive beach hypothesis, deep sea vent hypothesis, and more. Contrary to popular belief, the spontaneous generation of self-replicating chemical patterns that later evolved into complex organisms seems far more likely than previously assumed. We also discuss possible great filters that may explain the Fermi Paradox.Simone Collins: [00:00:00] What you have communicated to me is that there have been.Far more viable pathways to life springing out of no life than was previously something I thought was a thing, you know, I thought, Oh, something, something, lightning, something, something, hot air events, something, something, whatever chemical processes, but the, you're indicating that there are a lot of different ways and that.That life coming to exist is not that surprising, at least in our environment in the, in the earthMalcolm Collins: In fact, I think the most compelling hypothesis for ambiogenesis is the clay hypothesis, which we'll get to. So it literally means the thing that later became life was originally clay. That's so biblical.Simone Collins: Oh my gosh. Oh shi What are you doing?Would you like to know more?Simone Collins: I remember listening to. A podcast or something with Andrew Tate, where he was talking about him getting blood work done to prove that he wasn't doping [00:01:00] and he couldn't remember really anything about his actual blood work results.And he kept saying Hodger globin. Which is not a part of, it's not a thing. Hydroglobin is not a thing. Hydroglobin.Malcolm Collins: Do you think heSimone Collins: made hemoglobin? He, yeah, I, yeah. I mean, at first he knew, I think at first he got it wrong by mistake. And then probably saw how everyone was looking at him and then just kind of leaned into it.Cause he's like, no, I'm. Not one of you tends to actually know.Malcolm Collins: I said it's Hadroglobin. It's now Hadroglobin. The thing is, you know, the reason why I'm wearing a vest right now and the reason why people don't know this, you don't bottom the bottom button on a vest is because the king I want to say, I forget which king it might have been King Henry VIII because he got so fat at one point he couldn't button theSimone Collins: bottom button.the regent. Didn't you say it was the regent? The prince regent during the regency era? Oh, it might have been. It's more when vests were a thing.Malcolm Collins: So he couldn't wear the bottom button and then that just became the style. You don't wear the bottom button. So Andrew Tate makes a mistake and how he [00:02:00] says hemoglobin and now that's the new style.Simone Collins: It's Hadroglobin, guys. Yeah, it's atMalcolm Collins: least if you're a baller. It's one I have sort of been putting off for a while because it requires a lot of technicalities to talk about, but it's an, to me, an incredibly important topic because I see it talked about in online spaces. We've entered a world in which education has gotten really, really bad.especially along things that they could have like challenge woke stuff, but also stuff that can be overly challenging sometimes to religious stuff. Yeah. So I'll ask you in school, did you ever study ambiogenesis? Did you ever study how the first life evolved on the planet?Simone Collins: Never. Definitely. Certainly.Absolutely not in high school. And then in college in historical geology class, we did discuss like, here are, Then we glazed over it like it could have been chemical. It could have been whatever and like here is but we didn't go in I never heard thatMalcolm Collins: word. Yeah, well, and it's it's worse than that. What really got me [00:03:00] is actually talking to Robin Hanson And he said that he thought talking about great filtration events, right?He's talking about great filters So if you're talking about the Fermi paradox, this actually becomes a very important thing to have information on and know about, because you need to judge in your calculations of like, why haven't we seen other aliens yet? Is it unlikely? That life evolves on a planet with the preconditions for life, right?And he said it was very unlikely, like that was one of the biggest filters. Was it the first life came on our planet? And I think if it's a topic that you're particularly educated on and he said when he said it, he's like, and weirdly, a lot of people who are studying this area don't think it's that big a filter.And he's like, and I don't understand why. Like, And this, to me, just had me realize it must just be that he's never dug that deep into it as a concept, because it is actually not a big filter. Life appearing on this planet, and this is another problem with a lot of attacks that religious people will [00:04:00] use against atheism, that just don't land very hard, because they haven't studied these subjects in a lot of detail, or they just haven't put a lot of thought into these subjects.Life, evolving on a planet like Earth, was incredibly likely, almost guaranteed from what we understand right now. Bold claim. So first you need to understand why it's almost guaranteed because you need to understand what you need as a prerequisite for life and all its complexity that we know it as having now to first come about.What you need is any type of It does not need to be RNA. It doesn't need to look like life today. In fact, I think the most compelling hypothesis for ambiogenesis is the clay hypothesis, which we'll get to. So it literally means the thing that later became life was originally clay. That's so biblical.Simone Collins: Oh my gosh. Oh shi What are you doing?Malcolm Collins: We just went over the Adam and Eve story and we didn't [00:05:00] talk about Clay. DidSimone Collins: you just talk about Clay? Well, I told youMalcolm Collins: that story has all sorts of truths in it. It did a very good job of capturing the truth of reality in a very big way. And that's why I think that it had some sort of, of, of actual spiritualist or, not spiritualist, but like some sort of supernatural inspiration to it.But let's go back to this and stop talking about the religious stuff, okay? Clay, I think is the most likely answer, and maybe the Bible is pointing to us that that actually is how life started. But, but this is something that people really get wrong. They think that the early life needs to kinda look like life today, and it really doesn't.All you need is a self replicating pattern. Okay. That has some degree of variability in its replication. That is it. You need nothing else. Any simple self replicating pattern will eventually, given enough time, become something similar to life as we understand it, [00:06:00] so long as it has minor variabilities in that self replication.Hmm. Because theSimone Collins: minor variabilities allow for evolution.Malcolm Collins: So if you have something really, really, really, so this is in comes to something that a lot of people like don't get right. Like, so they talk about Spiegelman's monster. So I should talk about Spiegelman's monster really quickly. And they think that it makes it look unlikely that ambiogenesis happened when it's just a misunderstanding of ambiogenesis.SoSimone Collins: what is Spiegelman's monster?Malcolm Collins: Spiegelman's monster is an RNA chain of only 218 nucleotides that is able to reproduce by the RNA replication enzyme, RNA dependent RNA polymerase, also called RNA replicase. So, basically, Spiegelman introduced RNA from a simple bacteriophage into a solution which contained the bacteriophage replicase.Replicates some free nucleotides and some salts in this environment. The RNA started to replicate after a whileSimone Collins: s**t He createdMalcolm Collins: life. You're not supposed to do that. Not exactly. He took people freaked [00:07:00] out already living and then put it in us Oh, okay. Okay. Okay.Simone Collins: He ruined here. Okay,Malcolm Collins: so Shorter RNA chains were able to be replicated faster So the RNA became a shorter and shorter as selection favored speed after 74 generations the original train strand was 4, 500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 218 bases.This short RNA sequence replicated very quickly in these unnatural circumstances. So when people are arguing against the embryogenesis, they go, he took something alive, put it in another solution and it got simpler basically over time. That is. The antithesis of evolution in their mind. But it's not.That is the thing that was more fit. The thing that was able to replicate faster was in that environment. Out competing the things that replicated more slowly. And eventually, after a certain period of time. The things that are replicating very faster, one iteration of them will develop [00:08:00] some mutation that like prevents the ones around them from replicating as fast.Or maybe starts consuming some of the ones that were replicating around it for the energy that are in them. Or begins, there's all sorts of little things that it might evolve, little chemical tricks it might evolve that give it a leg up that allows it to outcompete the other ones. Then you begin to get evolution going in the other direction.But even when you are talking about like evolution on Earth today, typically when you first put something in an environment that is just like abundant in food, it has no natural predators, you are going to have that thing become quote unquote simpler, because it's losing its defenses, it's losing all of the complicated things about it at first, this is something we see in evolution, you know, the classic dodo bird, although that's not really a good example, but it's the way that people you know, Think about it in their mind.Like it lost flight. It lost a lot of its defensive mechanisms because it didn't have those types of predators in its environment and it didn't need those defensive mechanismsSimone Collins: anymore. And it was more efficient to justMalcolm Collins: be a [00:09:00] simpler bird. But in Spiegelton's Monster, you're having this on crack basically happen, right?You know, you're having the true simplest self replicating pattern end up winning. And I should also note that there has been further work. So if you look at the work of M. Semper and R. Luce, of Manfred Eig's laboratory replicated the experiment, except without adding RNA, only RNA bases and replicase. And they found that under the right conditions, the replicase could spontaneously generate RNA, which evolves into a similar form of Spiegelton monster.So what you're seeing here is sort of a convergent evolution of this simple replicator within this environment. Right? But I actually don't think that this is particularly important to me. So first, something to note. Before we go further, there are many hypotheses for how life first evolved. And basically whatever somebody studies, they'll think that that was the first thing that evolved.Because as soon as you understand something well, a part of life, you realize how it could form under natural [00:10:00] circumstances. And then start to have evolutionary pressure begin to apply to it. Yeah. So we. So, so people who study lipid bilayers think that like the cell membrane was basically the first thing that evolved.The people who study mitochondria think that the very first thing that happened, I think this is the second most likely answer, is that the C cycle, a simple C cycle, a chemical cycle that, Creates energy was the, the very first thing that was self replicating because we see the self replicating nature all the time.So it's already like a self replicating thing. All you need is some variation within it in a stable enough environment for it to replicate for a while that it begins to build up protective mechanisms and stuff like that. People who study RNA and DNA, well, they believe in the RNA world. You know, they think that RNA was the very first thing that existed.Availability heuristic.Simone Collins: There you go. Well, it'sMalcolm Collins: not really, it's more than the availability heuristic because it shows a truth to me. It shows that everyone who's a specialist in a specific thing that could have been the very first thing that led to life believes [00:11:00] it is so likely that their thing was the first thing that evolved.Oh, and soSimone Collins: you're just trying to show that this is, this shows, this demonstrates the abundance of plausible ways that you could create life, that there are so, so many different, very realistic pathways.Malcolm Collins: Yes. And, and so this is really important to, to understanding all of this, but I could take a moment to go over some of these pathways because I think that they are so you've got chemical evolution, you've got theSimone Collins: ordinary.Ooh, and then we'll rate them in the end from who's the hottest to who's the ugliest.Malcolm Collins: Well, I don't, actually, I'm not going to go through them all because I know you hate episodes where it seems like I am just talking. So I'll talk about some of the more specific ones, right? So the one that I find, the two that I find the hottest, the ones that I'm most convinced by is the citric acid cycle hypothesis.Which says the citric acid cycle is a key metabolic pathway. It can self replicate. Could it have been the first thing? Yeah, it could have been the first thing. The other one that I think is very likely is the clay hypothesis. Mineral substances in clay [00:12:00] could concentrate organic molecules in, in, and enable polymerization.So basically it's concentrating organic molecules in really simplistic patterns and the molecules are replicating within these sort of two dimensional surfaces or crevices within the clay. Which creates Clay hereSimone Collins: is defined as like wet.Malcolm Collins: Yes. And the reason why the clay hypothesis is so compelling to me is because it creates such a stable environment.And the stability of this early environment is what makes it so plausible to me because you have other things, like the beach hypothesis, basically. This is to say that the environment that created the first life was the waves lapping on the beach. So, if youSimone Collins: just have The repeated, mechanical.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, you have a repeated mechanical thing, and then the thing that it's lapping against could find a way to use that energy to essentially self replicate some simple chemical pattern.Interesting. Or some simple lattice or something like that. TheSimone Collins: problem is Well, I mean, it's, yeah, you're, you're putting matter into so [00:13:00] many different patterns and configurations that eventually you're going to get something that'sMalcolm Collins: Yeah. The problem is, is that I think that those patterns are too, you subject to because you need energy, but you need not so much energy that it disrupts the patterns, right?So if you have heat, for example the, the heat helps with this because it's useful in a lot of sort of protein interactions and different ways that energy is created. But if you have too much heat. It denatures everything, right? And it's very hard to keep stable chemical reactions. Actually, I want to talk about a side note here, which a lot of people have probably heard about, and I want to, so the Urey Miller experiment is one of the most famous experiments in this place, where he basically puts a bunch of chemicals together, and he saw that you got simple biological chemicals begin to form in this soup.And a lot of people are like, well, this shows I really just don't think it matters at all what he did in that experiment, to be honest. First, it said some issues with replicability which a lot of people don't know about. But second it, to me, shows why the chemicals that we are in [00:14:00] our body are in our body because it shows that those chemicals might have existed in the natural environment with abundance when these very simplistic early things were evolving.And so when they were grabbing stuff, they were grabbing what today we think of as biological chemicals. They weren't biological chemicals at the time. They were just the chemicals that were present in this like early earth soup. So no, I don't think that the Uri Miller experiment really. Adds like makes embryogenesis any more likely.Simone Collins: Can we jump back to the citric acid hypothesis? Yes. So I'm only familiar with citric acid is like an ingredient in foods. How does, was citric acid incredibly abundant in early earth? Like how doesMalcolm Collins: this all? The citric acid cycle is a cycle by which certain metabolic processes are done. Think of it like a simple chemical reaction.And I, one, I don't remember the reaction exactly. I can put the molecules on screen, but it is very simple. It's simple enough that you can see it on screen. You can be like, Oh, that's the citric acid cycle. That's the only thing that [00:15:00] needed to happen naturally to then lead to complex life. So, but it needs to happen within an environment with stability.Changing environmental pressures and a level of energy within that environment because the citric acid cycle is working on energy was in these environments. So that's important to note. But then there's different sources here. So, to go over other common hypotheses that are sort of worth talking about, God, what, what was it? The radioactive beach hypothesis. Radiation from mineral beach sands powered chemical reactions, and then the waves created sort of a changing thing.Simone Collins: Oh, very superhero.Malcolm Collins: Loving that. You have the PIH world hypothesis. Polynucleic aromatic hydrocarbons provided.A template for the origin of RNA. The phosphate forced hypothesis. Phosphates could have helped organize protocells and been an energy source. And then you have some of the hypotheses that people are probably more familiar with, like the deep sea vent hypothesis suggests life may have originated around [00:16:00] hydrothermal vents in the ocean where heat and minerals could drive chemical reactions using hydrogen.sulfur compounds, et cetera, as energy sources the porous vent structures could serve as natural chemical reactors, which is true, you know, sort of what is said was in that is remember how I talked about the problem was like disrupting environments and you need enough energy in the environment. Well with this hypothesis states, which, which could actually be true is these deep sea hydrothermal vents sort of protected.They, they created energy, the heat that's coming out of these hydrothermal vents. Right. They also created a semi protected environment from things like earthquake, lightning strikes, radiation, you know, everything like that, where you could have a stable environment for long enough for self replicating pattern to become complex enough to leave this sheltered environment.And yeah, and, and this is interesting. Then the environment that everyone's familiar with, but we should also talk about is the panspermia hypothesis. The panspermia hypothesis is that life on earth was actually seeded by [00:17:00] life somewhere else in the galaxy. ThatSimone Collins: seems to me just like shunting the problem down the road.Cause they're like, ah, I don't know. It came from somewhere else.Malcolm Collins: Well, I mean, it's not a ridiculous or sci fi explanation.Simone Collins: You still have to answer the question of where, how it came from somewhere else, where it came from somewhere else. Not really. How did life come to beMalcolm Collins: then?. So, saying that life evolved somewhere else does kind of solve the problem because you could say that it evolved in a completely different environment where it was much more likely to come to evolve.Simone Collins: Well, we, we kind of get the gist of planetary mixes.They can be hotter, they can be colder, they can have different chemical compositions. What would make life easier? I mean, what I always hear people muse about is that it's just so insanely lucky that Earth had all of these very convenient thingsMalcolm Collins: for carbon based life forms. Yeah, but that's a teleological argument.I mean, life is only going to evolve on a planet where it's likely to evolve.Simone Collins: Right, except that you're saying that, like, you know, we're talking about the [00:18:00] And then you're still going to have to explain to me how life emerged on that other planet. Yeah. IMalcolm Collins: also don't believe in panspermia for another reason which is a perhaps more interesting reason.It's not that I do not assume that some species out there have panspermic patterns. And I think that we might become one of those species where we seed planets with biomes before we travel to them so that they can grow into full ecosystems. Couple goals. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, well, I've looked at doing that myself.I even looked at seeing other planets was like, how much would it cost because you can buy a spot on a spaceship for like 50, 000, which gets you out of Earth's orbit. I mean, for like a capsule, not a spaceship, but it's like a rocket. And so then we would ship. From there to various planets with things that I had used serial evolution to make resistant to those planets environments, like the radiation, the heat, everything like that to create a starter ecosystem.It could then become a full ecosystem when humans got there, which would make the planet potentially more habitable to humans, especially if you. pre engineered this ecosystem to emerge in such a way that created something like an [00:19:00] atmosphere which would be very useful to us in having the things that had already collated the energy on the planet and energy from the sun into something that we could burn or eat which we would likely be able to as most of these if they came from our planet originally And they wouldn't have any defenses to us, so it'd be great, you know, it's a, it's a good system.It'd just be a horrible act of international terrorism in the eyes of NASA that does everything they can to prevent contamination of these other planets with stuff on our Earth, because then we can't tell if life evolved independently on these planets, which is something they're very interested in. So, for obvious reasons.You know, it would be meaningful if it turns out that life evolved on the moon as well. Now or if the earth seeded the moon or if whatever seeded the earth seeded the moon. But I don't believe the earth was seeded. And I'll tell you why I don't believe the earth was seeded. Most species that used Panspermia as a evolutionary strategy, i.e. they seeded something like themselves on a planet. And then they waited for that thing to develop to a certain stage. And then that thing would [00:20:00] seed planets was like a more primitive iteration of themselves. That would then become like a more. Evolutionarily grown up version of themselves and seed other planets.It would have seeded it with some sort of code that more guided evolution than early life on our planet appeared to have. It would care that the thing it had seeded the planet was in some way was like itself and would quickly become the type of thing that could colonize other planets. I was a super intelligent entity, or even slightly more intelligent than I am now, with more knowledge of gene engineering and stuff like that.I could code some sort of bacterial life with like junk DNA segments that would allow it to evolve much faster than a normal bacteria can evolve. And, and we don't appear to have these, we don't appear to have this important code. We don't see like Super useful code to human DNA in like lower animal species and stuff like that.Maybe they did, maybe we were like a failed panspermic Planet, where [00:21:00] they included this code that would guide the evolution down a specific pathway. But the code didn't take effect in the way it was supposed to take effect. And it basically has all been washed out of whatever came on earth. Or they seeded earth and it was competing against a native organism and the native organism won.Or maybe consumed it or something. You know, there's the, the, this is how we think mitochondria formed. It's that mitochondria used to be an independent type of, of organism. And it and other early organelles. was one cell eating another cell. That was just a completely different entity. And so every cell is, is one type of organism that ate another type of organism.And since then have been evolving together because it turned out that they were useful to each other, you know, that's how evolution works. So yeah, now do you have questions, Simone, or areas of this you want to dive deeper into, or do you feel you have a better understanding now?Simone Collins: What you have communicated to me is that there have been.Far more viable pathways to life springing out of no life [00:22:00] than was previously something I thought was a thing, you know, I thought, Oh, something, something, lightning, something, something, hot air events, something, something, whatever chemical processes, but the, you're indicating that there are a lot of different ways and that.That life coming to exist is not that surprising, at least in our environment in the, in the earth. Why then given all this, is there not life on planets adjacent to us that also have at least some of these conditions at play?Malcolm Collins: Well, you can watch our Fermi Paradox video on this particular question because that was one of our early videos.It was on the FermiSimone Collins: Paradox. And I do admittedly remember nothing of anything ever.Malcolm Collins: But it's a, it's an important question. It's why the Fermi Paradox is an important question. Any world perspective, I say, that does not take the Fermi Paradox seriously as a question is not a world perspective I have any respect for.You, you need to be able to answer why we are not seeing aliens everywhere, because we really should be we really [00:23:00] should be, if our current understanding is correct the filters might explain it, but the filter is likely not the beginning of life. I think that the most likely filters are actually.three other filters. One is single cellular to multicellular or a complex life. It appears to me that the, the embryogenesis of simple life is actually very likely. It happened almost as soon as it could happen on earth. Like almost as soon as the conditions were right in terms of like, The scale of the universe but moving from single cell to multicellular organisms actually took some time.And it might be that that jump is actually pretty rare because a lot of the time you're almost always going to be better if you're simpler. Unless you're dealing with like very specific circumstances and then you begin to you know, get the proliferation of these complex entities, especially during times of change.I mean, when there have been cataclysms and stuff like that, it's usually the simpler generalist which survives them and the more complicated specialized entities that don't. So that's, that's, that's one big filter. The other one [00:24:00] is the evolution of intelligence. I actually do not think that this is as big a filter as people think it is.I think intelligence was almost inevitably going to evolve given enough time once you have complex life. It's almost as inevitable as, as sexual reproduction. So like sexual reproduction, what sexual reproduction allowed animals to do is instead of just climbing their genes exactly, it allowed them to mix them up against, which allowed for faster intergenerational stable mutation and the selection of good genes at a higher rate because, you know, you could have one entity choose have a mate with a bunch of different entities.If it had uniquely good genes Now with, with, with intelligence, so you look at something like a spider, spiders can do amazing things with webs and stuff like that, like they, they have a form of like mental capacity to do these things, but that web to improve the spiders that made webs bad need to die in humans to improve our houses we are sort of able to create Mental models of the world and have those mental models compete against each other [00:25:00] in a completely mental space and then implement the mental model that we think is most accurate in reality that is what intelligence is ultimately. And that is an incredibly, like it basically hypercharges the evolution of our software for how we do everything, how we hunt, how we build, how we communicate with each other. And one of the things that people often note on humans, and I think this is an important thing to understand is humans are not a species that is evolved.For civilization. We are not a species that is evolved for like technology. We are just the dumbest, the least evolved thing that was capable of building those things. And I believe that we have a duty from, from God. We believe it's a divine duty to make ourselves a type of thing. That's worthy of, of these gifts.Which means improving ourselves and uplifting ourselves. Because right now, I mean, we are. Basically monkeys that [00:26:00] figured out techno that have like the barest understanding of technology. It's not going wellSimone Collins: so far. We'reMalcolm Collins: not going well so far. And I think that was a I were beginning to see just how limited our capacity of understanding is that it took our species.What? You know, from creating the first cities 10, 000 years to creating something that's smarter than us. Which is, which is fascinating to me, you know, well fed smarter than us in some ways, you know, not in all ways, but I think anyone who's like AI won't be. Definitely smarter than us within 100 years is 100 years.You know, when you're talking about this 10, 000 year time span, I think that that's just silly. When looking at the current advancements that we're seeing and I don't see that as a threat. I see it. We'll talk about this. And I think that, you know, we'll use it to augment ourselves and that we have done.This was technology all the time. You know, the 1st time somebody put glasses on. Oh, you are right. Are you man or machine?Overwhelming, am I not? I'm more than machine, oh man. More than a fusion of the two.Malcolm Collins: But I [00:27:00] think that that's where we are realistically going as a species.And we'll talk about this in, in upcoming track, but I think that when you, when you say entities that are different from us in this way, and this way is a way that that entity can be better than you are not allowed to exist. Then you create a mandate. for entities of that type to kill you. So that's not a, it's not a, it's not a smart move whether that is genetically augmented humans or AI or anything like that, you know, we've got to learn to get along.And, and for that reason racism is an existential threat to our species, not just a. a minor threat, because if things that have this sort of racist mindset are among the category of things that get uplifted they will start to kill those of us they see as lesser than them. So we, we did, we cannot really tolerate these kinds of attitudes or memetic structures within humanity anymore because the game is yet again changing after the evolution of intelligence.I don't think the evolution of intelligence was unlikely. I think actually the second great filter after single cellular life is an intelligent species. not killing [00:28:00] itself. I think that intelligent species probably in the grand scheme of the universe usually kill themselves. I think we made it off the skin of our teeth.Skin of our teeth, skin of our, what's the word here? Skin of our fingers, skin of our, skinSimone Collins: of our teeth. Which is a weird idiom,Malcolm Collins: Through the discovery of nuclear power. And I, we are about to enter a period of trials, the trial of the lotus eaters, the trial of the shadow where humanity may not survive these trials either.And they are trials that every sentient species is going to eventually come to, you know, the trials lotus eaters. invent a world in which you no longer need to labor to live. And in which you can get any pleasure you want whenever you want it. Can you still motivate intergenerational progress of your culture and society?And I think if we didn't call those individuals who couldn't motivate reproduction in the face of these things We would become a species that also no longer innovated. Yeah. And that tried to just live forever and maintain their lifestyles, which is you know, [00:29:00] one of the highest orders of all sins within our religious structure.So, yeah. Any, any final thoughts, Simone?Simone Collins: No, but this was interesting. I am always surprised by how much, you know, Malcolm and I especially, am always surprised that I can still learn new things from you, even though we've been. Married for this friggin long and together for this friggin long. So thank you for that.You areMalcolm Collins: amazing. I don't know that much. I just know the things I think are important to know. And this is one of those categories of things that is pretty important to most world perspectives. Wasn't like,Simone Collins: yeah, but most people, myself included, you know, learned the basics of these and are like, Am I going to need this?Nope. But you have a very different perspective of what's It matters at the existential level. You do need to know it. Yeah, but most humans are not very interested in existential issues. At least to my mind. ButMalcolm Collins: if you don't know the existential issues and you don't know what to optimize with your life and you end up like an idiotic general utilitarian.But [00:30:00]Simone Collins: Malcolm, we have templates. You don't have to worry about that. Just do what everyone else is doing. We've been doing that for ages. Besides it's safer because you don't want the tribe to kick you out. So I'm just saying. TribesMalcolm Collins: always kick us gullenses out. You know that. Yeah.Simone Collins: No, you, you just have this weird, you know, next level dummy God style way of thinking that is totally not human.And I'm onto you. IMalcolm Collins: appreciate that. You say that. Oh, oh no. Well, here's, here's what I would say. I think it's always funny when people of different religions get excited that we take a deep interest in their religious system. And then after we do it for a bit, they, they start to become very upset because we're, we are very, um, harsh and critical.Once we understand it, we're like, Oh, okay. Well, I don't believe this. This doesn't seem plausible. This doesn't seem plausible. And we're like, no, no, no, no. I meant like, just accept it. And I'm like, Well, no, I'm taking this religion seriously. If this was written by God, then you're not doing it right. And this part doesn't even look like it was [00:31:00] written by God.So this has become a recent big passion of mine. Is, is, is going through the various Abrahamic faith and trying to understand what were revelations from God in what was sort of cultural pollutants from their neighbors. It's a difficult thing to do because, you know, a lot of people from these traditions, they don't want to say that anything was antiquity could have been a cultural pollutant.Everything of antiquity must have come from God. And it's like, well, I just don't think that that's obviously true. I think that it is easy for cultural pollutants to enter. And I think that's why God has given us. A sequence of profits. And, and, and he has made this profits evidence by the gifts of philosophy and science.He has given to the people that accepted those profits after they accepted them and then removed from, from those groups after they again, turn to iconoclasm and mysticism. So, you know, we, we are to receive God's blessings and need to approach science honestly and not sort of try to what's the word I'm looking [00:32:00] for?Knee lock. What's the word? Knee cap. Knee cap. The, the, the. The things that might challenge our face because, because truth can never challenge truth. Yeah, true. I love you to death, Simone, and thanks for today. I loveSimone Collins: you too, Malcolm. God, you're so amazing. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Analyzing studies on virgins and dating behavior, we break down surprising trends. Contrary to assumptions, porn users and risk-takers are much less likely to be virgins. We argue lack of motivation stemming from external locus of control better explains celibacy, alongside female adaptation to gender ratios that incentivize careers over relationships. Ultimately, we must culturally promote diligence in men and socially engineer maximal coed interactions.Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] They'll talk about things like, and you see this constantly like, oh, it's the porn that's making everyone virgins these days. Well, it turns out that they're basically wrong on all these fronts.Whether or not you watch porn regularly had a huge effect on whether or not you had been able to sleep with someone before the age of 26.Simone Collins: Just not the way you expect.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah of the people who had slept with somebody 80 percent They use porn regularly, so a bit over 80 percent. Of the people who were virgins, 64 percent. Mhm. They found a really persistent trend in the data.Which was that women when they believed that when in actuality it was true or when they had recently been primed with crowds where there were more women than men chose career pathways instead of marriage pathways [00:01:00] But where this it gets really interesting is the change in gender demographics within college campuses.Would you like to know more?Simone Collins: First off, I have to just thank you for being MVP of the day where I am a super distracted and sleep deprived and stressed out and crying. So I go on business calls with her on my back through the park and of course, I don't properly latch the fence and then the professor gets out and I go around trying to find her and I can't and then you just save the day, not only finding the professor.But also our dog, by the way, our, our dear Corgi giving our son Octavian the best day and experience of the week by introducing him to the park ranger who valiantly. I found the professor and put him in, put her in the car and I'm just, thank you. I really appreciateMalcolm Collins: it.Simone Collins: So that was my [00:02:00] bad.Malcolm Collins: That was my bad. Well, I am excited to be here with you today because today. We are talking about virgins, dating, and what's the cause of the incelSimone Collins: crisis.Yeah, I am very excited.Malcolm Collins: Actually, Simone, I'm going to take a quick aside here. I don't know if I talked over this in a previous podcast. There was a Reddit thread that was on changes in dating behavior.No. Okay. Well, I can read it because we may have talked about it, but it's relevant to this. My 20 year old son doesn't date. His friends don't date. My friend's kids don't date. What's going on? When I was in my late teens and early twenties, life for my friends and me revolved around meeting girls.My son and his friends are athletic and outgoing. Don't seem to put a lot of emphasis on dating. They play a lot of online video games and have a lot of boys outings. Once in a while they will hook up with a random girl who they met on an app. Rarely does one have a girlfriend. This seems to be the norm for my friend's kids too.What's going on? And we [00:03:00] didSimone Collins: tweet this. And I looked through the comments, and there seems to be a couple of common themes. So, one is and this was what surprised me the most of the comments, something that didn't occur to me before. Several people argued Effectively that there's a balkanization of culture that's taking place that in the past, like, when you and I were in high school, if you were to animate, you weren't to animate.Whereas now, like. No, you have to like, there are specific obscure shows, like there are all these different subsets of people who are into anime.Malcolm Collins: Oh, that's BS. This was true when we were in high school as well. If I went to my, like, I, you know, dated around like with punk indie girls and stuff like that, and if you didn't know the right punk indie bands, it wasn't just knowing punk indie bands, you needed to know the right punk indie bands.So I disagree.Simone Collins: Okay, another argument was the infantilization of youth, which of course we agree and we talk about that all the time. That's totally an issue.Malcolm Collins: I think it's more than that. And I think what we learn is causing it is from the statistics because the [00:04:00] statistics don't show what you think you would show.So there was a study done recently. We're going to talk about two big studies on, on, on various changes in dating behavior, but we'll start with this one.Simone Collins: Yeah, in the Journal of Sex Health 2021,Malcolm Collins: it studied about 5, 000 young men, a bit over that who were still, let's be clear, 26Simone Collins: Swiss young men. And that always makes me look at things a little bit differently.But the, the study is called for those who want to read it. Virgins at age 26. Who are they? Which I love is the title. It's great. SoMalcolm Collins: a lot of the stuff that they found was very much what you would think they would found. Like obese people are more likely to be virgins. People with more mental health issues are more likely to be virgins.But there were a few things that were like really, really big factors in the study that I think would really surprise some people. Oh,Simone Collins: absolutely. This all makes sense to me. Okay, go on.Malcolm Collins: Well, because [00:05:00] a, a lot of people, if you look at like the red pill sphere and stuff like that, you know, and they talk about what makes someone a virgin, or they talk about like, what are some of the problems that are leading to this?They'll talk about things like pornography use. They'll talk about things like, and you see this constantly like, oh, it's the porn that's making everyone virgins these days. They'll talk about things like. Dating apps and stuff like that, which we do think has changed female expectations, but they're like, I will find a girl through not engaging with these platforms.Right. Instead, some of the strong, Oh, and also they'll talk about how guys like, aren't being disciplined enough. Like they're not, you know, they're, they're wasting their lives on like drugs and alcohol instead of like getting out there and dating. Right. Well, it turns out that they're basically wrong on all these fronts.Whether or not you watch porn regularly had a huge effect on whether or not you had been able to [00:06:00] sleep with someone before the age of 26.Simone Collins: Just not the way you expect.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah of the people who had slept with somebody 80 percent They use porn regularly, so a bit over 80 percent. Of the people who were virgins, 64 percent.Mhm. That's a hugeSimone Collins: difference. Yeah. Well, dating apps, right? That, that being less likely to have used a dating app correlates with being a virgin. So if you're using it,Malcolm Collins: let's talk about dating apps with dating apps. It was 53. 6 percent for non virgins. And then for virgins, it was only 35. 5%.Simone Collins: And I think this is all pointing to the raw egg nationalist argument, isn't it?What is that? That, that men are becoming less men because of all the endocrine disruptors that they're subject to this, what these, what these common characteristics indicate isn't a lack of success. It's a lack of drive. They're not even watching porn. They're not even [00:07:00] trying to get on dating apps.They, and also they're, they're showing other signs of a failure to launch another characteristic found in common. among virgins was that they have they're less likely to have a satisfactory social life and they are less likely to live alone, implying that they still live with their parents. Also less likely to be.Malcolm Collins: Well, another one is risk taking behavior. They had like way lower riskSimone Collins: taking behavior. All of this screams lower testosterone.Malcolm Collins: Well, we can talk to that in just a second, but I think more is at play here. So if you look at something like, have they ever used illegal drugs? It was 17. 7 percent for the non virgin category and only 3.4 percent for the virgin category. So basically none of the virgins had ever used illegal drugs. It'sSimone Collins: also kind of hard if you're like living with your parents and if you'reMalcolm Collins: like No, hold on. We're going to get to this because I think you're drawing conclusions and I haven't done the reveal yet. Oh, I like reveals.The reveal will surprise you. So if you look at other things like use cannabis, right? About [00:08:00] 66 percent of the non virgins had used cannabis. Only 21 percent of the virgins had used cannabis. Had it ever had a drunkenness episode? 90 percent of the non virgins. had a drunkenness episode. Only 52 percent of the virgins had a drunkenness episode.I mean, in fact, this is such an extreme case. It was like 91 percent of you round up that it, it's almost like it is very rare that you are actually going to have slept with someone by the age of 26, if you're a man and you've never gotten drunk. So,Simone Collins: and a Swiss man, but yeah, I mean, Okay.Malcolm Collins: But here's where it gets interesting.Yeah. The financial situation, because I think what a lot of people are looking at, and this is what you hear with all of this whining that we constantly see, which is, Oh, well, it's all the rich guys who are getting all the girls. It's all these, you know, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You know, the rich guys are living on their own.That's why some people are living with their parents. [00:09:00] Actually the, the difference in satisfaction. First of all, the, the virgin men were more satisfied with their financial situation than the non virgin men. Which is insane.Simone Collins: I mean, they are more likely to be living at home and thatmakesMalcolm Collins: it easier to be happy with your financial situation.Yeah. But to me, that was actually pretty shocking. They might be doing like, they're not in this huge financial crisis that other people are talking about. It is a lack of motivation and that could be why they're satisfied too. Is they lack this motivation, like what we are seeing throughout the virgin category is just a persistent lack of motivation and an internal fire to engageSimone Collins: with reality.How is that not also an endocrine disruptor thing? I mean, there are multiple factors at play here, but I do think that a lot of this can be hormonally driven. I'llMalcolm Collins: buy, I'll buy, endocrine disruptor thingSimone Collins: [00:10:00] ifMalcolm Collins: you want to approach everything from the position of an external locus of control or you could say that we have a generation that's taught an external locus of control and therefore just doesn't even try.Well,Simone Collins: and we've also seen like from the research that you pointed to in the pragmatist guide to sexuality, that men who feel like they're losing or men who like philosophically go beta are more likely to have lower levels of testosterone. It's not just an endogenous thing. It's also, I'm sorry. It's not just an exogenous thing.Sometimes it's endogenous because you are, you, you feel like you're losing. Or you, you've, you've kind of given up or you're, you're living in a more, you know, packed environment. So yeah, okay. It's, it's maybe not just the stuff they're intaking. It could be the fact that they have chosen. To live with their parents and to live a more content life.But yeah, that's depressing.Malcolm Collins: This is where I get to things like, I mean, for me, one of the biggest ones that I think would surprise a portion of our audience that is [00:11:00] overbought into the red pill mindset. And they, they're often, I think, very surprised at how promotional we are of. Pornography and stuff like that on this show.Like we often are pretty stands up, like it's ridiculous to have pornography bands and marriages or even at the societal level, because it just doesn't have good effects anymore. And you can research this. You can look, as I mentioned, if you look at the level of religiosity. Of a zip code that's often directly correlatory with how much porn is actually consumed within that region.Like the more you put prohibitions on this stuff, the, the, the more like addictive and deleterious it becomes for the individuals who live in these regions, but it doesn't even lead to getting actual sex. Disengaging from pornography makes it much, much, much less likely that you will be romantically successful.AndSimone Collins: there are a bunch of other things too, like women who consume erotic material are much more likely to be comfortable with their sexuality, blah, blah, blah. I mean,Malcolm Collins: like, Oh yeah, no, no, no. Just like a cross. Like when we wrote our book, it was one of the [00:12:00] chapters where like, sometimes in a chapter I'll write like, and this is why porn is bad at first.And then I go into the studies and this happened in this chapter. And then I went into all the studies and the studies are just so overwhelmingly like, and, and people will be like, well, progressives manipulate studies. Look, I'm a very skeptical person. I feel like I'm actually pretty good at ferreting out data that's been manipulated.Hold on, we cameSimone Collins: into this expecting to find. That, that this consumption was very damaging because we just thought it would be obvious. A lot of people haveMalcolm Collins: tried to prove this. There's like an intuitive drive to believe this. Well,Simone Collins: so many people online are saying it like it's just obviously true.Malcolm Collins: Typical incel behavior. And this study shows us involuntary celibates are more likely to have these ridiculous porn restrictions on themselves than people who are actually sexually, sexually successful. Nicer. But now I want to go to the second set of studies that I sent you before so I don't know if you got a chance to look at this, but this was the study on women [00:13:00] choosing jobs over marriage.Simone Collins: This is wild. I had not seen this ever before. I would not expect this. Go into it.Malcolm Collins: So it. It was a meta study that looked at this problem from a number of angles. One, it looked at specific experimental data where women would like look at photos of groups and determine how many men and women were in the photos.And then they would ask questions of them. Like how important is a career to you versus a non career, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Right. Versus a husband, et cetera. And then they did they did this in a few different ways, but then they did a separate set of studies where they looked at data where they were looking at the percentage was in specific regions of men to women and then looking at the number of women who went into specific sorts of careers and specific high paying careers and across the board, they found a really persistent trend in the data.Which was that women when they believed that [00:14:00] when in actuality it was true or when they had recently been primed with crowds where there were more women than men chose career pathways instead of marriage pathways and built value systems and reported value systems for themselves that elevated career, Over marriage and home life with a husband, kids, et cetera, and when they go, they want fewer kids, everything like that.Which was fascinating. Another fascinating trend in the data was that the more or the less desirable a woman is the more this affected her. So, the less desirable a woman is, and this makes perfect sense, right? Like if she's trying to protect herself and everything like that. But where this it gets really interesting is the change in gender demographics within college campuses.You know, we are now, and I think it's continuing to climb at like 65 percent women on college campuses. So we are. Throwing women into an [00:15:00] environment where we already have this fertility crisis that is going to, and we know this from the data, make them instinctually much less likely to want to have a family and to change their value system to be much more focused on career because we have thrown them at this critical time of their lives when they really need to be locking down husbands into environments, which changed their perception of like viable life pathways.So I wanted to hear your thoughts on this.Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, a lot of this, I always think when I look at studies affecting youth and outcomes like these, I think of our children. And then I think, okay, well, how, how are we then going to give our girls an experience that is going to make them think that marriage is viable for them?And I wonder, I wish I could see arranged marriage. Obviously arranged marriage. Yeah. Where like parents are very, very involved in sourcing and vetting and everything else. Cause I think it's, that was big in the past and it's not big now. But I, I do wonder if like our girls may be [00:16:00] having a higher ratio of male siblings would influence that, like if they grow up more around boys but I mean, it just, it just makes so much sense evolutionarily speaking, like if, if women realize that the competition is really intense and that they're just not likely to get a good male partner, it's definitely better to find out how to make Your own resources because you're not going toMalcolm Collins: get someone goal of doing this is to still sleep around and get pregnant, which they're not doing.I mean, from an evolutionary perspective, it's don't expect on a monogamous partner to support you, but do stillSimone Collins: get pregnant yourself and yeah, probably also have kids, but no one'sMalcolm Collins: doing that on the second part, you know, but we've had our video on, you know, 50 percent of, of people born these days are now born to single mothers when it used to be 5%, it just.You know, 30, 40 years ago. So I guess we are seeing a lot of women choosing this pathway. Involuntarily or involuntarily. Yeah.Simone Collins: Yeah, it does. It does make me wonder like how, how to get [00:17:00] women around this and in what, in what environments today, realistically. Are women going to see a higher ratio of men, I guess, engineering schools.Malcolm Collins: No, they need to start going to more you know, D and D events. They need to start going into more Warhammer. Well, no, actually. So, this is a phenomenon I've noticed where women who hang out in predominantly male spaces are either like complete psychos are really cool. And I think it's what drew them into those spaces.Typically the attractive women I know who hang out in male dominated spaces are generally pretty cool. And it's because they, they didn't go into those spaces because they were playing an arbitrage game. But I do know this separate class of what I'd call like, Oh, what is it on that? I forget the name of the band, triple X.Like,Chubby chin, chubby cheek, chubby thigh You have been with too many guysMalcolm Collins: a famous song from when I was growing up. Oh boy.And I do not like [00:18:00] your very big thighs Besides, you have been with too many guysMalcolm Collins: which is that there's this sort of like overweight, otherwise unattractive Really sexually aggressive type which enters predominantly male spaces and then attempts to control them because they now have this arbitrage play to, to, to play.And they cause a lot of social unrest in these spaces, which makes a lot of sense. I mean, if, if, if it's a, it's a good play. Honestly, if you're an unattractive woman and you want to take advantage of men, go into environments. And, and this is a thing where, you know, you get a lot of gatekeeping in these environments and women are like, why is there so much gatekeeping in these environments?I feel angry. It's because a lot of women have tried to exploit these environments for their benefit. ISimone Collins: mean, I've always seen women who. Play that game. Like the gamer girl as being kind of a hated group. Because a lot of it was seen as insincere [00:19:00] and, but I mean like the famous ones online were also hot.So I don't know if you're, you know.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that if they're famous online, that's a completely different category. That's an incredibly small minority of people that went into the space. But generally what I've noticed is the hot ones that didn't need to enter the space, but did because they liked it, which, which you often see with the hot ones is more common.They're generally pretty cool and they'll, they'll downplay it a lot. Well, doSimone Collins: you think women in the military who, who serve in the military, which is, I think, a more male environment, Are more likely to get married because I don't super get the impression that that's the case, but maybe there's too many confounding variables there.Malcolm Collins: I think there's too many confounding variables. Well, where would we put our daughters? Like, where would we try to socially engineer them to hang out? I think the goal for us is actually just put them in STEMI, ultra nerdy sort of, well, ultraSimone Collins: high [00:20:00] agency hobbies. Like if you're starting a business, unless you're in like one of those going nowhere, female business support groups, which we would never put our daughters in because they don't.Do anything. You're predominantly around men, you know, investors are mostly men. And you know, investing related groups are mostly, mostly men if they're actually getting anything done. I, I just, I mean, there are so many female entrepreneur groups out there, but I actually find that those are like kind of a cesspool.Malcolm Collins: Oh, they totally are. Well, I used to go into them to pick up girls and I never got good girls at the female entrepreneurSimone Collins: events. Well, and also like, I don't know if I. I'm aware of companies that have come out of these that have done famously. Well,Malcolm Collins: yeah, the girls who I know who started successful companies they did not go to the femaleSimone Collins: entrepreneur events.Yeah. Once you know, obviously she's not a great example, but Elizabeth Holmes, like when. You know, full [00:21:00] out on the other end, evenMalcolm Collins: acting like Amanda Bradford. This is one who we knew personally. Right. You know, she, the league, she recently sold it to the match group. She never went to these sorts of events.In fact, she didn't really socialize that much at all. She was you know, kind of isolated. Honestly, I think a lot of umbrage. She kind of, we were friends early in my time at the GSB. And then she started, like, Just shunning me, but I think it was because I was known as like weird and uncool by the the quote unquote cool kidsSimone Collins: There was this really like catty group of people at Stanford that I think just thought they were too cool.The be Yeah. And that, yeah, that would like go on their little like retreats and stuff, but only invite like other cool kids and .Malcolm Collins: Yeah. I didn't get invited to that stuff. I've, I've never been what? Good at being one of the cool kids. It's okay. You. We, Hey, I won. I don't, I don't, I don't know if their lives are as good as mine.I don't doubt it.Simone Collins: I don't know anyone who has a life as good as ours. Our life is [00:22:00] incredibly good. It's really fun. Look at this. Look at what we're doing right now. This is ridiculous, but yeah, no, this, this was interesting to me. And I just never heard this example of like adaptive female behavior based on group composition.And it makes a lot of sense, but it's also sobering given what you said, right? That like, there are so Well, not just colleges to like a lot of bureaucracies are predominantly female, like a lot of pretty powerful organizations are becoming quite female dominated. So this is not going to drive pronatalist behavior, which is also disappointing because, you know, highly educated, conscientious, high achieving women are probably also going to be pretty decent mothers.I would think so. It's a disappointment.Malcolm Collins: Well, I just think the goal for us is to put our girls into male dominated spaces as much as possible. [00:23:00] Well, what are you going to do with ourSimone Collins: boys to make sure that they're not. obese and still at home and not watching. Are we going to be like, what's your porn watching?Malcolm Collins: I mean, I think focus them on being incredibly high internal locus of control. And, and sort of gives them agency in terms of starting careers and stuff like that. If you focus on that stuff, I think they'll do well, especially if you give them good social training in terms of how to meet and talk to random people.Because I think it's the outreach and the fear of rejection that which is where these people are failing. And I think that those are areas that we can fix and build community. I mean, that's why we're so focused on community building. Honestly, this channel takes a bit of a hit with all of our community building attempts in terms of theology and stuff like that.But we don't really mind because one of our core goals is to build this hermetically sealed zone of, of, of sanity where our kids can be culturally safe. And that involves cultural [00:24:00] outreach. One thing I was going to mention that I thought you'd find pretty funny is the professor just snuck her way in.And when Octavian was out, this is our dog looking for the professor, because you were talking about this at the beginning of the episode he goes, he goes, Oh, Dada, I think professor is a meatball now. I think she ran in the road and died. I was calling and he kept going, Dada, Professor's a meatball now.Oh mySimone Collins: god, he didn't seem sad?Malcolm Collins: He was a little concerned. No, he wasn't like happy about it. He was like, Dada, Professor's a meatball now. Like trying to console me. He couldn't deal with the fact that the professor had turned into, because he knows, I tell him, if he goes into the road, he's going to turn into a meatball.Oh,Simone Collins: that's where this is coming from. I'm like, where did he figure that out? He's going to turn into a meatball? I mean, it's not untrue. HeMalcolm Collins: thinks the professor has turned into a meatball. Well,Simone Collins: you know, actually it's so annoying when this happens, but like the next time a deer is [00:25:00] killed, we need to just like show him death.Malcolm Collins: No, I agree. Yeah, he needs to internalize. I mean, I was actually thinking if she did die in the road, I'd really make him like, look at it and internalize it. So he'd understand why we tell him not to run into the road. Yeah.Simone Collins: I mean, yeah. Cause it's legit dangerous.Malcolm Collins: Well, no, I mean, we're, we're, I mean, we're right next to a major through fair, you know, a kid couldSimone Collins: easily, it's a state route.Yeah. We are on a proper state group. Okay. Pretty fast traffic, so not safe, not safe, but I, yeah, I'm really sorry that I. Could have been responsible todayMalcolm Collins: for the dog dying. Yeah. Apparently she was down by the road.Simone Collins: She's so smart. And yet, how could she do something so dumb? She doesn't know about the road.SoMalcolm Collins: don't make meatballs out of our, our pupsters. ISimone Collins: thought the gate was locked. I'm sorry. [00:26:00] Thank you for saving the day. You are amazing.Malcolm Collins: You are amazing. You have saved the day in so many ways. You read the comments when I'm embarrassed to read them, you I, I don't, I can't deal with, like, I struggle so much in engaging on social media and stuff like that because, you know, I, I don't like rejection.I don't like, you know, when people are like, oh, this is a dumb idea, especially if they have a good argument. So I try not to engage with it, even when they don't have a good argument. You know, we get a few negative things and I'm like, okay, no more tracks anymore. I'm done with that. I'm being way too vulnerable in these.I'm taking it way too seriously. And That'sSimone Collins: what I like about it. And so many people, and this is like, not in just religious zones, but so many people in all realms of life are completely unwilling. To share their work as they go along, to expose their thought processes, to say potentially dumb stuff as they're working things out and thinking aloud.And yet this is how people deliberate.Malcolm Collins: [00:27:00] And I mean, that's the famous thing with like, it's funny, all of these bio nerds, this is a famous trend. You know, whether you're talking about Gregor Mendel or Darwin or you know, people who don't know the story of Gregor Mendel, like his work was discovered like 50 years after he died.By somebody else. And they were like, Oh, this guy basically figured out heredity like long before, but he was embarrassed that people would make fun of him. And so he didn't want to talk about it. And so he published it pretty obscurely. And then Darwin sat on his work for decades. Because he's like, I don't want people to tease me about this.So, you know, I, I guess it's a trend of those of us who are really like science brain to be a bit afraid of talking about any of the ideas that could get us shunned by communities.Simone Collins: Yeah. But then what amazing inventions and great ideas and, and breakthroughs are we not enjoying as a society because someone took that to the grave?It bothers me. So thanks for being brave enough [00:28:00] to put s**t out there. IMalcolm Collins: appreciate it. I really appreciate it, Simone. I'd do none of this if you didn't, you know, one support me in, in terms of, you know, helping move our companies and, and, and projects forwards, but also support me emotionally in terms of going into the comments and I'm like, it's important to check the comments today.This video could be spicy.Simone Collins: Oh, well, I appreciate that. Thanks for also not hitting me for messing things up constantly. So I love you, Malcolm. I love youMalcolm Collins: too. Have a great day. Me too. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

The podcast dives into the complex relationship between idolatry and scriptural interpretation across various faiths. It reveals how personal motivations can skew religious narratives, particularly in the affluent. Discussions highlight the severe implications of idolatry in monotheism, and the dangers of conflating spiritual authenticity with material wealth. The conversation also critiques the prosperity doctrine and explores the impact of social media on genuine faith connections. Listeners are encouraged to reflect on their beliefs and the temptations of status and earthly success.

Ranging across topics from AI girlfriends to wealth inequality, we engage in wild speculation about how day-to-day life may transform over the next 20 years. We predict the rise of "toyish" helper robots, AI generated media dominating entertainment, fortress communities for the rich, and more human irrelevance as automation advances. While optimistic about technology, we remain concerned over declining birth rates and human-computer relations.Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] If you want to found the company. That makes you a butt ton of money within our generation.It is simple, large scale, replicable technology that allows AI to interact with physical reality as we understand it. So what a lot of people are doing in this space, which is why they're failing, is they're basing this on old models of robotics. These are the robotics that we were using in factories.Simone Collins: I could imagine like early founders co opting toys. Like literally just co opting toys. Cause they areMalcolm Collins: based on toy manufacturing. And these will be the things that are watching our kids that are making our meals at home and stuff like that.Right. And I think that right now when people are looking at doing stuff like this, they are basing them off of these basically hard coded models in terms of how they walk, how they interact with things, instead of taking advantage of the leaps that AI has given us in terms of, opportunity.Would you like to know more?Simone Collins: [00:01:00] Are you looking at memes on Facebook? Yeah, you knowMalcolm Collins: me. You know me, I love my memes. I love my memes. man. There's, there's men out there who have various skills. I'm not one of those. But I do know a number of memes. If I was transported into the past. I may not be able to speed up the speed of invention, but I'd be able to trade them some sick memes.Simone Collins: MyMalcolm Collins: brain is a library of memes.Simone Collins: Oh, and I was just about to make fun of you for being on Facebook and therefore being old, but then I recently looked up the demographics of Facebook and The majority of users are below 36 years old, which blows my mind. Yeah. Huh. What's going on there? Huh? No, that's a lie.Malcolm Collins: Mirror world nonsense. ISimone Collins: guess I, I really cannot understand how that could be the case, but that's [00:02:00] what the internet told me, but the internet is full of lies. So what can I say? So speaking of which, actually we are going to do some just wild speculation as to the future of humanity, five, 10, 50, 100 years, et cetera.And I do think that we are going to have. More than ever, a crisis of reality online as more and more AI comes online, more and more AI content is created. And also I do think that as much as let's start with that go, okay. As much as we've had recent mishaps with. Google's Gemini, for example show that trying to throttle or otherwise control AI to make it more politically correct or to feed, have it feed into ideas of more aspirational world can backfire.I don't think that's going to stop people. I don't think that's going to stop businesses. I don't think that, I mean, ultimately the urban monoculture is the urban monoculture and it runs because of that. It's going to create an internet that has a crisis of reality, meaning that our friends who are creating banks of like pre 2020 Wikipedia articles are actually spot on in [00:03:00] doing this because I just can't know what will be true and what will not be true on the internet.It'sMalcolm Collins: interesting that you put this up. You know, one of the things I've heard is that, you know, In 20 years or so, a lot of people, like right now, Gemini, we look at it and we laugh. Ha ha ha. Thinks that Washington was a black guy. And that in 20 years, there might actually be genuine crises about this.So people, ISimone Collins: think people are going to be like, wait, no, but he was black. I don't think you understand.Malcolm Collins: The AI tells me he's black. It's told me that he was black since kindergarten.Simone Collins: I've seen the pictures. Yeah. Yeah, I'veMalcolm Collins: seen the pictures. I've seen all the historic photos, you know, actually the idea of not having historic photos of something might, might become weird to people.People might sort of blur the lines when we started getting historic photos because they can so easily be generated from AI. Okay. So I agree that this is one thing that is definitely going to change as a crisis of information where a lot of information that starts being generated from now on is going to be tainted by AI and also in terms of [00:04:00] Draining data because when you train AI on training data that comes from other AI at least the models we've had now it creates Problems and it generally degrades over time.Yeah And so you're, you're, you're, you're, it's almost like, so people who know when they're building Geiger counters and stuff like that they need to use metal from I think it's lead or something from submarines or wrecked ships. Because that's never been above the surface of the water since we started testing nuclear bombs, because all metal above the water since that period has this level of radioactive contamination, which makes it not useful for certain activities.And so what you're basically saying is it makes a lot of sense. Just start sort of banking internet stuff right now. This might even make sense as a company, like trying to bank as much of the pre internet stuff as you can right now. Oh, cause then you canSimone Collins: sell it, sell access. Oh s**t.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Even beyond what you see with something like the internet archive, like really good banking pure human created [00:05:00] information.Okay. Cool. Which might have some level of value to people who are ironically, probably the primary value is people who are training a eyes and stuff like that.Simone Collins: But then I think related to this issue is we're also going to see what we've referred to and other podcasts and all over the place is techno feudalism where you're going to get, a sort of a massive acceleration and expansion of what we're beginning to see on sub stack. So as people are now having a crisis of of quote unquote fake news and not being able to trust mainstream news media as much as they used to before what we're seeing a lot of people Especially including like very smart people, but all sorts of people of pretty much every Walk of life and income starting to turn to or continuing to turn to specific people for specific pieces of advice.And they aren't necessarily as engaged with the news for their primary source of information as they are with this fiefdom of information. So I think we're going to see that a little bit more accelerated, like we might actually just see people break off into [00:06:00] communities around certain realities that are built around certain people or certain collections of peopleMalcolm Collins: almost like this is really interesting that you mentioned this because you know, now that we live in a world where you can build communities around any group that you share a similar culture.Culture or ideology too. It's much more easy to create these tech features, but this is, sorry, continue with what you were saying. I don't want to.Simone Collins: Well, imagine like the YouTuber houses that's, that spread it up, you know, when, when YouTubers started like getting together, imagine that, except also it includes an entire community that like also people start to either come to gather together.A certain number of times each year orMalcolm Collins: actually live together a lot less value in actual in person communities that people pretend except when it comes to child rearing. And I think that we have repeatedly seen these communities fail and fail to stay stable. Everybody always says that they want community, but they really mean isSimone Collins: that I'm not saying living together, but I am saying seeing each [00:07:00] other.And there's a big reason in 20 years why this is going to be necessary. Because you won't actually know if someone you're following online is real or not, even if they have visible pores and they look kind of weird, which I think is going to be one of the first like early giveaways that someone's still human.But also that like, yeah, I mean, even just seeing them in person once every now and then, and, and having them verify you, because I think a lot of people are also not going to be able to get sponsors or other forms of payment unless they know it's like a real natural, actual, like meat puppet human.Malcolm Collins: That's really interesting. Yeah. I think you're right about that. And another thing I've seen is on this really, you know, is something I didn't expect when I was younger, but if you're talking about the people who are making like Changes in the world. And like a lot of people are, I think a little surprised by the access we have to other influencer, like, like huge influencer type peoples or ultra wealthy people or et cetera.They're like, how do you, nobody's, you know, they look at our follower account [00:08:00] and stuff like that has so much access. And it's because the world right now in terms of communities that interact with each other is sort of naturally sorting based on a few metrics, one of which is intelligence. And like, I don't mean to be arrogant, but I think pretty obviously we're very smart, like you're incredibly smart.for a woman. I don't want to cause any spiciness there. And I'm very smart for a human.Simone Collins: You're very smart for an exceptional human.Malcolm Collins: But you know, what it has allowed us to do is, is, is because of this, you know, we've been sort of found by sort of top thinkers within various fields. And it allows us, you know, somebody will come to us and they'll be like, Oh, you should talk to you.The guy who does what I called his, for example. And I'm like, I have a weekly call with him. Or, or somebody recently was like, Oh, you should, have you ever heard of this Sammo Bersia guy? And I'm like, yeah, I'm meeting with him in a couple of weeks. And it's Scott [00:09:00] Alexander. And, you know,Simone Collins: I would say the number of people who are both smart.But also among the 1 percent on the Internet who actually contribute content is extremely, extremely small. There, there are many, many, many more smart people who just don't contribute. And that's that is also a meaningful factor here. But I also want to point out in terms of my predictions. What I'm kind ofMalcolm Collins: getting a picture of.The point of this is actually pretty important. Okay, then get to it. Is that what it means is that you are getting you have sort of fiefdoms forming within reality. One fairly small fiefdom contains most of the world's scientifically, economically and memetically productive population.Simone Collins: You say that?But I mean, I also think that there's going to be like, you know, the CCP has its own little fiefdom of like incredibly influential people. And in Europe, there are separate little fiefdoms of different, you know, cultural andMalcolm Collins: I disagree. The people [00:10:00] I know who are like mimetically interesting coming out of Europe, they are largely connected to our fiefdom and they largely commune with our fiefdom.Like if they're working on like genuinely interesting stuff, that's not just completely subsumed by wokeism. They're in our community. If you're talking about the CCP, nothing interesting is coming out of the CCP. This would be one of my predictions that we haven't really gotten to, but I expect the major change in our society.People are like, when do you think things begin to start changing in a major way? It's going to start changing in a major way when China collapses. Okay.Simone Collins: SoMalcolm Collins: interesting. And the, the, the stuff that'sSimone Collins: happening in this meeting that's going to happen within 20 years. Cause we're talking to neighbors.Malcolm Collins: Yes. Ooh. You know, I have a bet with who is it? The founders of Level Health. It's a 1 bet, but it's a bet nonetheless. And this, I made this bet like a half a year ago or something. It was in 10 years of making the bet that China's economy on the books, like, like the economy that they were telling [00:11:00] people they had in terms of the economy, that it would be recognized as smaller than whatever they said it was.I'm not saying the absolute numbers. Was in 10 years. Not, not, not, not that what they were reporting, but like that their economy would not only experience no growth from that point, but that it was generally recognized as smaller. And he, and everyone at the party that I was at thought that this was just an insane bet to me.Like that I was really putting my reputation on the line. I do not feel I am. I think China will collapse because I had argued at the party that I expect China to have a systems collapse. And that anyone who's not expecting that is just not familiar with their current economic circumstances. If you want to learn more about this, you can look at our video on the future of East Asia.But I think that that Begins to precipitate what happens after this, but continue is what you're saying Simone before I interrupted youSimone Collins: that despite the fact that we are going to see fiefdoms that are built around a crisis of reality, a crisis of trustworthiness, but also importantly, a crisis of needing to know that your carbon based life form because I can monetize [00:12:00] you.And, or like feel a different type of relationship with you. I think people are going to be super bullish on AI and that people will have primarily in many cases, AI friends and not biological friends. They're going to have AI girlfriends. They're going to have AI teachers and they're just, cause it's better.It's going to make them feel better. And then we're going to have, of course, then even more of a crisis of fertility, because people are not going to want to meet.Malcolm Collins: I've heard from some people who are like, AI is like a fad or it's oversold at its current stage. The people who tell you this are stupid people.And I mean this like, as nice as I can. The people who tell you this are stupid. Stupid people, they are much more stupid than the people who said web three and crypto with a fat, like web three and crypto. Like the way it changed humanity was genuinely fairly limited. I remember I had one guy and he's like, Oh, you can't really do anything with AI these days.He's like, everyone who's using AI, it's mostly as like a [00:13:00] gimmick or like a fun thing, like a, like a. I'm like no, you're just describing yourself because you're an idiot who doesn't understand how to use AI. I use AI in my work and genuinely I use AI almost every day and it's probably sped up the speed and quality of our projects.Simone Collins: Multiple times a day on multiple different things.Malcolm Collins: Yeah, I use it in every single video that you are watching, all of the tags come from AI, all the descriptions come from AI, a lot of the video titles come from AI, like, what is this, the videos are edited using AI, I use Descript to edit all our videos You, you it's, it's, it's remarkable that somebody could be this stupid and pigheaded to not realize how much actually productive people are using AI in this economy.But I thinkSimone Collins: a lot of people assume that humans are going to be, are going to be carbon fascists and are going to continue to care about human relationships. And you even see this in sci fi, although I understand why, because it's harder to depict human robot relations, like, in a very compelling [00:14:00] way. But although more movies are doing it now, I should say if anyone has doubts that people are going to fall for AI girlfriends and boyfriends and AI children and AI everything, counselors, teachers, religious leaders, et cetera, imagine a world in which people were incapable of being catfished.And if we lived in a world like that, okay, fine. But like people are catfished all the time. And why is that? It's because Something or someone who is beautiful and kind and attentive to you and who tells you what you want to hear, you're going to fall for it. And this is a really big problem. And AI is going to be way better at that than any catfisher ever.And you know, I, I don't care how old you are, how young you are. If you're, and if they will, if your grandchildren are neglecting you, if your children are neglecting you, if no one at work's listening to you. You're going to find either you're going to seek out or you're going to succumb to AI companions that are just way more comforting and [00:15:00] enjoyable to be around and who care about you way more than humans.So there are going to be many, many, many, very, very deep human computer relations, which is going to cause even more of a, like, pinching point in demographicMalcolm Collins: collapse. And this is also something, you know, when I see it as AI, when, when, when people are like, Oh, we're not at AGI yet, or AIs make a mistake, therefore you can't use it.I'm like, are you? Like, I know, I'm sorry. Like, do you, have you never hired like normal humans, normal humans make mistakes too at rates consummate with or higher than AI when we're hiring like a normal distributed workforce. And they're like, well, you know, we're far from AGI and I'm like, how are you defining AGI?They were like, well, you know, when AI is smarter than humans and I'm like, I, I feel like a lot of these people who say these things. Say them because they don't [00:16:00] interact with normal humans. They are at Stanford or they're in Silicon Valley and everyone they know is a fellow rich person, or they're in a dumb community and everyone they know is dumb and they don't know how to judge intelligence.But if you are a smart person and you interact with normal people, as we regularly do, cause we hire inexpensive people for a lot of the jobs we have. When weSimone Collins: interact with normal people, just like throughout our other work, like political work and community work.Malcolm Collins: AI right now is much smarter than the average human.almost any job. Like it's, it's, it's remarkable. We are so far past the question of what happens when AI is smarter than the average human. And in terms of the bottom 25 percent of the human population, I think almost anyone would agree that I can do almost any job better than the bottom 25 percent of the population that doesn't involve like tactile this, right?Because I can't. Do that yet easily because we don't have the right form factors. But the reason it can't do that yet is because [00:17:00] we don't have the right inexpensive form factors and nothing else.Simone Collins: Actually, question about that. So like in 20 years, do you think this is going to be less of an issue? I mean, there are tons of robotics companies and people making huge financial bets as investors on robotics companies.But as much as we've seen huge breakthroughs in image generation, chat programming, video. I mean, I'm not seeing anything with like physicalMalcolm Collins: I think that is going to be the, the, the big Apple, Google, whatever founded within our generation. If you want to found the company. That makes you a butt ton of money within our generation.It is simple, large scale, replicable technology that allows AI to interact with physical reality as we understand it. So what a lot of people are doing in this space, which is why they're failing, is they're basing this on old models of robotics. These are the robotics that we were using in factories.These are the robotics that you see with something like, um, what's that goofy company that keeps doing the dog that people [00:18:00] kick?Simone Collins: Yeah, I mean it's it's impressive what they're doing. I just don't see it scalingMalcolm Collins: right, but this is the problem See they were doing this in this earlier world where you sort of needed to hard code everything I think the group that wins what they're going to do is they're going to be one or two guys who basically Puts together something fairly simple and inexpensive, almost more like a toy, like a drone toy, little cheap drones you buy.Yeah. Yeah. But, but it will, it will not be a drone. It will probably be on treads or something like that. When they're going to put this together using sort of outsource factory labor and somewhere like China or Vietnam or something like that, they're just going to. And their designs over and they're going to be like, can you make this?It's going to cost something like 50 to a hundred dollars to make each unit. These units are going to be fairly flimsy, I think from our perspective, like not like the best you know, simple metal, maybe like almost out of coat hangers, you could think of them as being anyway. Yeah. So I expect them to be flimsy, like, coat [00:19:00] hangers or something like that. Like not Yeah. I think what weSimone Collins: can imagine from a lot of, andMalcolm Collins: the way that they interact with things will not be governed by very expensively and expertly designed Boston Dynamics engineers or something like that.It will all be determined by transformer model and determined organically in terms of how these things are. So basically the entire,Simone Collins: I could imagine like early founders co opting toys. Like literally just co opting toys. Cause they areMalcolm Collins: based on toy manufacturing. And these will be the things that are watching our kids that are making our meals at home and stuff like that.Right. And I think that right now when people are looking at doing stuff like this, they are basing them off of these basically hard coded models in terms of how they walk, how they interact with things, instead of taking advantage of the leaps that AI has given us in terms of, opportunity.Simone Collins: Yeah, but also like durability.Some of our toys that are like incredibly [00:20:00] affordable like that all terrain green RC car that we have can really get around and do not get stuck very easily. And if you combine that with AI and just allowed it to move around and give it some additional functionality, it'd be pretty impressive.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. It could do a great deal. Mm-Hmm. . And that's what people aren't recognizing, right? Is they're, they're basing the ais today off of the ais of yesterday, where everything needed to be sort of hard coded by engineers.Simone Collins: Yeah. Or a humanoid or amyloid looking robot.Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And that's not the AIS of tomorrow.You know, they're gonna be drone swarms and stuff like that. Um Mm-hmm. Which is quite different from anything we're looking at in terms of AI. And I think economically, a lot of people can be like, well, if you think AI is going to be able to do so much, you know, why are you worried about fertility collapse in terms of its long term economic impact?And the answer here is, you know, I mean, we try not to oversell that. It matters that [00:21:00] smart people aren't having kids and that there is a genetic component to human intelligence. But in a world of AI, this becomes uniquely elevated as a problem. Because a lot of humans, once we get this. toyish AI thing that we're talking about are just going to become irrelevant from the perspective of what they can provide to an economy.They will not be able to at all compete with AI. When these individuals you know, who knows what we're going to do as a society? I don't know yet, but it's, it's going to be tough when this happens. Economically, cause we're going to have a huge transition and we've talked about this, you know, if you were like, Oh, they'll get UBI or something.I'm like, Not really. That's not what we've seen historically. They're just going to live lives of incredible poverty and sadness. And so, Then the question is, well, then why are you encouraging fertility at all? Because we, we, we need more fertility of the types of humans who have the ambition and, and self agency to work with AI and to, to build the [00:22:00] next iterations of our species, because those are the people that are being memetically selected out of the population most aggressively.But it's also why our belief in the capacity of AI, why we don't really need to reach everyone. We only need a small, self sustaining, incredibly intelligent community to defend ourselves. People are like, oh, you won't be able to defend yourself. And it's like, Like, I know people who are already in our community who are building, like, automated AI defense systems.Like, I'm really not worried. For them, at least. Well, I mean, I guess I'm worried for the outside world. But not really, because they don't have to worry about anything if they're not trying to kill us. And I think that this is increasingly what we're going to see, you know, as we said, I think when you begin to have a large scale economic collapse around the world, what it's going to look like is small communities of economically productive individuals that are fortified against the outside world and outside forces that want to use force to extract value from them.[00:23:00]And I think that broadly the AI, like we've talked in a, another video that we did recently on like, utility convergence in AIthat AI will see utility in these communities, but it might not see utility in the rest of humanity.Simone Collins: Yeah, I think broadly that AI is going to be nice to humanity, it's just gonna it's gonna be humane toward those who just want pleasure and who will self extinguish and it will give them, they will self extinguish in a state of extreme bliss and hedonic happiness. So. Great outcome for them, I guess, as far as we're concerned.Malcolm Collins: Kind of, I actually think the best description I've seen of how AI is going to treat that iteration of humanity is the South Park future episode where they're married to AI's that's constantly offering them ads and everything like that. I think it will give them hedonic bliss in the same way that like YouTube, when you're not paid for a premium subscription does where it gives you like two ads [00:24:00] every 15 seconds.I think that that's what they're going to get. It's going to try to extract the maximum value from them possible.Simone Collins: I mean, I, I hope not. Maybe I'm, I'm more picturing the WALL E universe of rotund soft humans. And yeah,Malcolm Collins: I don't think that's going to happen as much. I think most of them are going to be genetically selected at the population pretty quickly.Simone Collins: Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I mean, I also think that they're going to be very technophobic subsets of society. You know, the, the, the Amish, but more like more groups like that, that just really, really, really opt out because they see where things are going and that those thingsMalcolm Collins: are economically relevant. So AI becomes more important within the economy as it begins to do more things.The groups that are opting out in terms of like the world thought space and economic space become increasingly, increasingly irrelevant, you know, the world is multiple spheres of power and as humans matter less [00:25:00] in terms of the spheres of power, those groups will matter less.Simone Collins: Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's fair.And of course, I mean, in 20 years, can you, do you think that movies will still be made with humans and shows and whatnot? It's hard for me to imagine that being economically viable, especially because there's really heavy unionization in the entertainment space.Malcolm Collins: No, I think you're asking the wrong question.Today people still pay for paintings that were painted by a human. Right. Because they can own them. Listen. But pictures exist. Okay. Yeah. You can take a picture. You can mass produce it. Why are you paying for a painting when you can get a poster? Right? I think that we will still have some movies that are made as a form of art where the art and the human labor that went into it is a status symbol and is like an affirmed status symbol.If we're talkingSimone Collins: like we still have operaMalcolm Collins: today. Yes. If we're talking about the pop movies that the general public [00:26:00] listens to, I think most of those will be heavily produced by AI. Not totally, but AI will be a major player in their writing, their public testing, et cetera. Yes. Okay. And I think that one of the main forms of entertainment will move away from movies.I think movies might be seen as little. You know, old which will be fully immersive and iteratively created entertainment environments. So these are games where like you put them on and they create the world around you and respond to your choices organically. AI. I mean, they might be in a phone.They might be in a computer. And then keep in mind, these can be done simply. Like you might be thinking of a fully created world. The early ones might be like those early text adventures. Yeah.Simone Collins: So I do think that those will be less popular than you imagine, because I still think that people really like, sometimes they watch shows and movies that they hate just so that they can talk about with them with other people.And if it's super highly customized and different for every single person at every time, [00:27:00] People cannot talk about it the same way. I disagree. Really? I mean, it soundsMalcolm Collins: like people read books because they like the smell. No, they don't. People talk about movies that they have watched for a shared cultural context, not because they want that shared cultural context, but because they happened to have watched them and people are talking about them.To prove you wrong. What I would say is if you look at the age of the internet era, right? It used to be that there were tons and tons and tons of cultural touchpoint shows that anyone could reference and everyone else would know. This has gotten less and less and less where we get maybe one of those shows every like three years at this point.Which just isn't the way it used to be. There used to be about two or three of those ongoing at any point in time. And that's just not the world we live in. You have something like Game of Thrones. You have, what do we have today? What would be that show? That a lotSimone Collins: of people are talking about?Malcolm Collins: Yeah, where you'd watch it because people are talking about it.No, we,Simone Collins: we, we're just speaking [00:28:00] with Brian Chow the other day. I mean, like, You said white lotus? I've literally never even heard it. Because you're not, you don't care about social cohesion. You're not trying to connect with people online.Malcolm Collins: Insofar as I watch a lot of pop media, I have heard none of the people I listen to talkingSimone Collins: about it.And a lot of people also talk about succession. And before that, they were talking about things like Deadwood. People were talking about, Westworld a lot when it was coming out. Game of Thrones was a huge point of connection.Malcolm Collins: The point I'm making is Game of Thrones and Westworld penetrated into my circle.But those were almost half a decade ago at this point. These other shows that you're talking about, I've literally heard of nobody talking about them. I think that inSimone Collins: class, I've heard a ton of people talking about them, but I'm more socializing. Like you, you stay in a very small,Malcolm Collins: no, no, no, no, no, no. What you're not realizing is the communities that you are listening to are the communities that are less technophilic and therefore is not as far along this progression that humanity is going.Perhaps. Yeah. The point I'm making is that as I have seen these shows enter the communities, [00:29:00] I. Engage with less and less and less over time. It will just be a decade or so before the communities that you areSimone Collins: engaging with. Oh, we're not talking only about how the super smart elites are going to live in 20 years.We're also just talking about humanity, which is well,Malcolm Collins: it matters if it turns out that the super smart elites are the major economic. Players and increasingly the economic players. And this is what we're seeing from our VC friends, right? They're like, when I invest in companies now, it is one guy was an outsourced team and a number of AIs, right.Or maybe like five people in the U S team. And then like nobody else, this is really different from the Silicon Valley of 30, 40 years ago.Simone Collins: We're like, even a janitor would, you know, get equity and make a ton of money and end up a billionaire. It's true.Malcolm Collins: Right. And we were around when that was happening, when you, when Silicon Valley, when San Francisco was able to maintain its wealth, because they knew that the community that was around the founding of a startup would also get unimaginable amounts of wealth.What we are going to see going forward is an [00:30:00] unimaginable concentration of how that wealth is distributed.Simone Collins: Okay, so that's another big prediction you're making for humanity 20 years from now is huge. Like we think the wealth disparities now are insane. But you're saying they're gonna be off the chain,Malcolm Collins: especially in cities.Simone Collins: Hmm. Oh, yeah, I wanted to ask, like, how do you think people are going to live differently? Are we talking like capsule apartments for single people? Because No,Malcolm Collins: we're talking, the core difference is going to be wealthy people will be much more fortified and in much more defended settlements than you have today, similar to South Africa today.So either communities of wealthy people that are in these defended environments or you know, much more wealthy people are spending much less time in cities and much more time on their private defended islands.Simone Collins: And what about normal people? Are they going to be more in cities? I'm assuming so.Because that's where the social services that many of them are going to depend on them areMalcolm Collins: going to begin to rot pretty soon. No,Simone Collins: no, no. I [00:31:00] agree, but it's going to be some cities. So New York, LA, you know, like, et cetera, like the big, big, big ones. You're asking theMalcolm Collins: wrong question. Okay. So right now there's a genocide going on.Do you know where it's going on? Like an actual big scale genocide. In cities? No, no, no. I mean, one in the world today.Simone Collins: Oh, you mean like an ethnic genocide? Yeah. South Koreans? I don't, what are you, where are youMalcolm Collins: going with this? It's in the Sudan. It's, it's. Oh, like,Simone Collins: Oh, a political, like killing, actively killing people.NobodyMalcolm Collins: knows about it. Nobody cares about it because economically it doesn't matter. We as humans never care about the people who economically and culturally don't matter. The reason why we don't care about this genocide is because the people involved in it do not matter. I mean, do not affect our lives.They don't. No, no, no, no, no, no. No. They don't matter from the world's perspective. If you look at, like, the people in Gaza don't affect people's lives. The reason why people are focused on what's going on in Gaza and Israel right now [00:32:00] is because Jews do matter, okay? But if you look at the scale of the killings that are happening in the Gaza war right now, they are genuinely trivial compared to what's going on in the Sudan right now.They, the, the, the, it's the Darfur situation is basically reignited.Simone Collins: Oh, gee whiz, I didn't know that. That's horrible. Yeah, I know, it's a large scale. When I was in college though, I, I, many, many, many people I knew were intensely focused on trying to do something about that. Apparently that failed. Yeah, but no one caresMalcolm Collins: anymore.NotSimone Collins: anymore. No, you think people like I were a college student again today. You don't think that I would find,Malcolm Collins: you would not know that this is happening on a college campus and a college campus. You would not know. And this is important, right? Like, by the way, if people want to learn about this situation.I think it's the real life history or whatever. I'll put a video on a screen that you can, you can search on YouTube. That has a really great description of what's going on, who's putting money into it who the [00:33:00] different sides are. It's, it's actually really interesting.​Malcolm Collins: Basically this dictator.didn't want to lose power and he thought the way he would prevent himself from losing power was to create two separate military groups. That were completely separate from each other. So neither one could coup him without the other one coming to defend him. And then he like died or lost control in some way.I forgot. And now the two military groups are at war with each other and they have, yeah, it's not great.Simone Collins: Okay. Well, okay.Malcolm Collins: The point here being Is that we as humanity have always not cared about the people who were not economically or socially relevant to our lives. And when you look at the people whining about Gausians, it's really honestly just an excuse for anti Semitism, which has always been a major leftist thing and simmering was in the left for a long time.And now it's just boiling over. They don't give a s**t about the people of Gaza. They probably. [00:34:00] You know, I couldn't have even pointed to it on a map before this. You know, they, they, they, they wouldn't have gone there. They wouldn't have done aid programs there and they didn't do aid programs there.They care about it because they can use it to besmirch the Jewish people who actually do matter in a historic context, broadly speaking, because Israel is one of the few high fertility, high economic productivity places in the world. And so they want to s**t on them as the same way they want to s**t on any successful group.So they don't care. It's so funny. I said, well, when I talk about like the, what's going on defer and then like the Sudan now, you know, it's like, you go to a leftist and you're like, did you know that there is a black group being genocided right now? And they're like, Oh my God, that's horrible. What imperialist is doing it?And you're like, it's actually another black group. And they're like, Oh, f**k that, man. I don't care. Like What are you talking about? What are you talking about? Black people killing black people? Do they [00:35:00] do that here all the time too? We don't give a s**t. That's the way they feel, right? Because they don't give a s**t.They care about how they can use it for their political points. They don't actually care about these communities or these people. DoSimone Collins: you think polarization politically is going to be worse, better? This is more worse.Malcolm Collins: Astronomically worse. Oh, no. I wonder why we are so confidently citing was the right, like, we're like, Oh, you're doing things that really make it hard for you.Because one, I know that they ultimately are going to win this. And two because in the future you're going to need a sock. Anyway I love you to decimone. You are a great wife and a very smart person. And I hope I'm not being too spicy in this episode.Simone Collins: Oh, I love spicy. You know it. I. I hope that our children create a future that is a little brighter than what we're describing for the most part and that they do not succumb to AI girlfriends and boyfriends as disgusting as humans are.So it's gonna be really difficult. [00:36:00] AtMalcolm Collins: least have artificial wombs by then.Simone Collins: I don't know, actually, I think it's going to take a while, 20 years. It's going to, it's going to take more than 20 years.Malcolm Collins: So I agree. I think it will take more than 20 years. So I, you know, they're going to need to find real breeding partners, which means we're going to need to find and convert real breeding partners into our cultural group or within our network of families doing arranged marriage for it.No,Simone Collins: honestly, Malcolm, hold on though. Like you are such a romantic person who is so sweet and loving, I think. Hopefully it will be in their dinner, just like genetically inherited to be romantics who seek out a carbon based partner. I hope nothing against AI. Cause it is awesome. But yeah, so we, AI is not going to have.Kids. So Simone needs grandchildren. Yeah.Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, eventually it'll be, it'll be a third and they'll, they'll have a, a, a polycule with all AIs. It'll be a, a monogamous molecule because it will be them and their partner. And then ISimone Collins: haven't thought about our kids being [00:37:00] poly and I'm going to have to like.Put on a mask of just not cringing.Malcolm Collins: Polly is so cringe though. If you want to see good Polly stories, I found really interesting recently. Look up the the, the wacky Portland polycule. It likely wasn't real, but like it was, it felt so real to a lot of people that they were like, Oh, this must be true becauseSimone Collins: I like it. Did an episode that you, did you watch it?I watched it. Of course I watched it. Was it good? It was good. It was good. Yeah. Stranger Islands did it. Yeah. It all unfolded in an am I the a*****e post? Sorry. Am I the a*****e post on Reddit? So yeah, we'll leave you with that ladies and gentlemen, in case you're too depressed about our future. Just, there's nothing to beMalcolm Collins: depressed about. We win. The efficacious people. That's why we care about you, our watchers.Simone Collins: Yeah, actually the people who watch this are like uniquely high agency. So congrats to you guys. We love you, but [00:38:00] I love Malcolm more. So I'm going to start your pork chops. SoundMalcolm Collins: good? I am excited.Nice.Simone Collins: All right. I'll see you downstairs. HaveMalcolm Collins: you looked up how to cook pork chops? Huh. You see, this is the great thing about YouTube, looking upSimone Collins: how to cook pork chops. It's a lot like pan seared steak is the way I'm going to do it, but with, with a lot of butter in the cast iron skillet. So.Malcolm Collins: Oh, you know how to keep me happy.Yeah, I'mSimone Collins: ready. I'm, I'm ready. I mean, I might f**k it up, but we'll see. We'll see.Malcolm Collins: I'll love you even if you do. Oh, thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Analyzing a graph showing lower income parents finding more joy in parenthood than higher income parents, debunking the myth of miserable poor parents. Discussing the influence of cultural factors like faith and insulation from urban monoculture on parenting fulfillment. Highlighting the impact of defining life goals around pleasure versus intrinsic value for lasting happiness.

A critical analysis of leftist ideology using the movie Starship Troopers, challenging leftists to confront the alignment of the movie's world with their ideals. Exploring themes of gender and ethnic equality, pride in humanity, and the failure of democracy. Debating ideologies, government systems, and citizenship in the context of fascism and leftist perspectives.