Skip to content
Lex Fridman PodcastLex Fridman Podcast

Jordan Peterson: Life, Death, Power, Fame, and Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #313

Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, lecturer, podcast host, and author. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Notion: https://notion.com/startups to get up to $1000 off team plan - InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off - Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex and use code LEX to get special savings - Blinkist: https://blinkist.com/lex to get 25% off premium EPISODE LINKS: Jordan's Twitter: https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson Jordan's Website: https://jordanbpeterson.com Jordan's Books: Beyond Order: https://amzn.to/3T4LRBw 12 Rules for Life: https://amzn.to/3c4sqYF Maps of Meaning: https://amzn.to/3A1Ods2 Websites mentioned: Essay App: https://essay.app Self Authoring: https://selfauthoring.com Peterson Academy: https://petersonacademy.com PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4 Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41 OUTLINE: 0:00 - Introduction 0:47 - Dostoevsky 11:48 - God 19:58 - Science 32:21 - Death 35:15 - Elon Musk 39:13 - Global Crisis 51:26 - Dangerous ideologies 1:02:40 - Justin Trudeau 1:16:46 - War in Ukraine 1:34:14 - Day in the life 2:10:18 - How to think 2:25:26 - Depression 2:33:33 - Advice for young people 2:47:22 - Russian literature 2:59:10 - Meaning of life SOCIAL: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman - Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

Lex FridmanhostJordan Petersonguest
Aug 19, 20223h 3mWatch on YouTube ↗

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

  1. 0:000:47

    Introduction

    1. LF

      Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster.

    2. JP

      Yeah.

    3. LF

      And if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

    4. JP

      Right. But I would say, bring it on. If you gaze into the abyss long enough, you see the light, not the darkness.

    5. LF

      Are you sure about that?

    6. JP

      I'm betting my life on it.

    7. LF

      The following is a conversation with Jordan Peterson, an influential psychologist, lecturer, podcast host, and author of Maps of Meaning, 12 Rules for Life, and Beyond Order. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description and now, dear friends, here's Jordan Peterson.

  2. 0:4711:48

    Dostoevsky

    1. LF

      Dostoevsky wrote in The Idiot, spoken through the character of Prince Myshkin, that beauty will save the world. Solzhenitsyn actually mentioned this in his, uh, Nobel Prize-

    2. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    3. LF

      ... acceptance speech. What do you think, uh, Dostoevsky meant by that? Was he right?

    4. JP

      Well, I guess it's the divine that saves the world, let's say. You could say that by definition, and then you might say, well, are there pointers to that which will save the world or that which eternally saves the world? And the answer to that, in all likelihood is yes, and that's maybe truth and love and justice and the classical virtues. Beauty, perhaps in some sense, foremost among them. It's a, that's a difficult case to make, but definitely a pointer.

    5. LF

      Which direction is the arrow pointing?

    6. JP

      Well, the arrow's pointing up, and no, I think that that which it points to is what beauty points to. It transcends beauty. It's more than beauty.

    7. LF

      And that speaks to the divine?

    8. JP

      It points to the divine. Yeah, and I would say, again, by definition, 'cause we could define the divine in some real sense. So one way of defining the divine is what is divine to you is your most fundamental axiom? And you might say, "Well, I don't have a fundamental axiom." Then I would say, "That's fine, but then you're just confused 'cause you have a bunch of contradictory axioms." And you might say, "Well, I have no axioms at all." And then I'd say, "Well, you're just epistemologically ignorant beyond comprehension if you think that 'cause that's just not true at all."

    9. LF

      So you don't think a human being can exist within contradictions?

    10. JP

      Well, yeah. We have to exist within contradiction, but when the contradictions make themselves manifest, say, in confusion with regard to direction, then the consequence of that technically is anxiety and frustration and disappointment and all sorts of other negative emotions. But the cardinal negative emotion signifying multiple pathways forward is anxiety. It's an entropy signal.

    11. LF

      But you don't think that kind of, uh, entropy signal can be channeled into, into beauty, into love? Why does beauty and love have to be clear, ordered, simple?

    12. JP

      Well, I would say it probably doesn't have to be... It can't be reduced to clarity and simplicity, because when it's optimally structured, it's a balance between order and chaos, not order itself. If it's too ordered, if music is too ordered, it's not, it's not acceptable. It sounds like a drum machine. It's too repetitive. It's too predictable. It, it has to have, well, it has to have some fire in it-

    13. LF

      Yes.

    14. JP

      ... along with the structure. I was in Miami doing a seminar on Exodus with a number of scholars, and this is a beauty discussion. When Moses first encounters the burning bush, it's not a conflagration that demands attention. It's something that catches his attention. Um, it's a phenomena, and that means to shine forth. And Moses has to stop and attend to it, and he does. And he sees this fire that doesn't consume the tree, and the tree, the tree is a structure, right? It's a tree-like structure. It's a branching structure. It's a hierarchical structure. It's a self-similar structure. It's a fractal structure, and it's the tree of life, and it's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And the fire in it is the transformation that's always occurring within every structure, and the fact that the fire doesn't consume the bush in that representation is a, an indication of the balance of transformation with structure. And that balance is presented as God, and what attracts Moses to it, in some sense, is the beauty. Now, it's the novelty and all that, but, like, a painting is like a burning bush. That's a good way of thinking about it, a great painting. It's too much for people often. You know, I, my house was and will soon be again completely covered with paintings inside, and it was hard on people to come in there because, well, my mother, for example, say, "Well, why would you want to live in a museum?" And I'd think, "Well, I would rather live in a museum than anywhere else in some real sense." But beauty is daunting. It scares people. They're terrified of buying art, for example, because their taste is on display, and they should be terrified because generally people have terrible taste. Now, that doesn't mean they shouldn't foster it and develop it, but... And, you know, when you put your taste on display, it's a real, really exposes you.

    15. LF

      Even to yourself as you walk past it-

    16. JP

      Oh, definitely.

    17. LF

      ... every day.

    18. JP

      T- absolutely.

    19. LF

      This is who I am.

    20. JP

      Yeah. Well, and, and look how mundane that is and look how trite it is and look at how cliched it is and look at how sterile or too ordered it is or too chaotic.

    21. LF

      Or how quickly you start to take it for granted because you've seen it so many times.

    22. JP

      Well, if it's a real piece of art, that doesn't happen.

    23. LF

      You notice the little details.

    24. JP

      The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I mean, there are images, religious images in particular, so we could call them deep images, that people have been unpacking-... for 4,000 years and still haven't... I'll give you an example. This is a terrible example. So I did a lecture series on Genesis, and I got a lot of it unpacked, but by no means all of it. When God kicks Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, he puts cherubim with flaming swords at the gate to stop human beings from reentering paradise. I thought, "What the hell does that mean, cherubim, and why do they have flaming swords? I don't get that. What is that exactly?" And then I found out from Matthew Pagio, who wrote a great book on symbolism in Genesis, that cherubim are the supporting monsters of God, it's a very complicated idea, and that they are partly a representation of that which is difficult to fit into conceptual systems. They've also got an angelic or demonic aspect. Take your pick. Why do they have flaming swords? Well, a sword is a symbol of judgment and, and, and the separation of the wheat from the chaff. Uh, you use a sword to cut away, to cut away and to carve. And a flaming sword is not only that which carves, it's that which burns. And what does it carve away and burn? Well, you want to get into paradise? It carves away everything about you that isn't perfect. And so what does that mean? Okay, well, here's part of what it means. This is a terrible thing. So you could say that the entire Christian narrative is embedded in that image. Why? Well, let's say that flaming swords are a symbol of death. That seems pretty obvious. Let's say further that they're a symbol of apocalypse and hell. That doesn't seem completely unreasonable. So here's an idea. Not only do you have to face death, you have to face death and hell before you can get to paradise. Hellish judgment. And all that's embedded in that image. And then, and a piece of art with an image like that has all that information in it, and it shines forth in some fundamental sense. It, it reaches into the back tendrils of your mind at levels you can't even comprehend and grips you. I mean, that's why people go to museums and gaze at paintings they don't understand, and that's why they'll pay. What's the most expensive objects in the world? If it's not carbon fiber racing yachts, it's definitely classic paintings. Right? It's high level technological implements, or it's classic art. Well, why are those things so expensive? Why do we build temples to house the images? Even secular people go to museums. "I'm secular." "Well, are you in a museum?" "Yes." "Are you looking at art?" "Yes." "Well, what makes you think you're secular then?"

    25. LF

      It's arguable that the thing many, many centuries from now that will remain of all of human civilization will be our art.

    26. JP

      Well-

    27. LF

      Not, not even the words.

    28. JP

      Well, you know, the, a book has remained a very long time, right? The Biblical writings-

    29. LF

      Not that long.

    30. JP

      No.

  3. 11:4819:58

    God

    1. JP

    2. LF

      Well, let me ask you one short-lived biological meat bag to another, who is God then? Let's try to sneak up to this question if it's at all possible. Is it possible to even talk about this?

    3. JP

      Well, it better be because otherwise there's no communicating about it. Right? It ha- it has to be something that can be brought down to Earth.

    4. LF

      Well, we might be too dumb to bring you down.

    5. JP

      It's not just ignorant, it's also sinful, right? So because there's not knowing and then there's n- non- wanting to know or refusing to know.

    6. LF

      Yeah.

    7. JP

      And so you might say, "Well, could you extract God from a description of the objective world?" Right? "Is, is God just the ultimate unity of, of, of, of the natural reality?" And I would say, "Well, in a sense there's some truth in that, but, but not exactly because God, in the highest sense, is the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive." How's that for a biological definition? Spirit is a pattern, the spirit that you must emulate in order to thrive.

    8. LF

      So it's the... It's a kind of, uh, in one sense when we say the human spirit-

    9. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    10. LF

      ... it's that.

    11. JP

      It's an animating principle. Yeah. It's a meta... It's a pattern.

    12. LF

      Okay.

    13. JP

      And you might say, "Well, what's the pattern?" Okay. Well, I can tell you that to some degree. Imagine that like your grip by beauty, you're gripped by admiration. So... And you can just notice this. This isn't propositional. You have to notice it. It's like, "Oh, turns out I admire that person. Hmm." So what does that mean? Well, it means I would like to be like him or her. That's what admiration means. It means there's something about the way they are that compels imitation, another instinct, or inspires respect or awe even. Okay. What is that that grips you? Well, I don't know. Well, let's say, okay, fine, but it grips you and you wanna be like that. Kids hero worship, for example, so do adults for that matter unless they become-

    14. LF

      (laughs)

    15. JP

      ... entirely cynical.

    16. LF

      I worship quite a... uh, quite a few heroes-

    17. JP

      Yeah. Well, there you go.

    18. LF

      ... proudly.

    19. JP

      Yes.

    20. LF

      Yeah.

    21. JP

      Well, there you go. And there's no... That worship, that celebration and, and proclivity to imitate is worship. That's what worship means most fundamentally. Now imagine you took the set of all admirable people and you extracted out AI learning, you extracted out the central features of what constitutes admirable, and then you did that repeatedly until you purified it to what was most admirable. That's as good as you're gonna get in, in terms of a representation of God. And you might say, "Well, I don't believe in that." It's like, "Well, what do you mean?"

    22. LF

      Yeah.

    23. JP

      It's not a set of propositional facts. It's not a scientific theory about the structure of the objective world. And then I could say something about that too 'cause I've been thinking about this a lot, especially since talking to Richard Dawkins. It's like, okay, the post-modernist types going back way before Derrida and Foucault, maybe back to Nietzsche, who I admire greatly by the way, says, "God is dead." It's like, okay, but Nietzsche said, "God is dead and we have killed him and we will not find enough water to wash away all the blood." So that was Nietzsche. He's no fool.

    24. LF

      He's got a way with words, doesn't he?

    25. JP

      He certainly does. And so then you think, "Okay, well, we killed the transcendent." Well, what does that mean for science? Well, it frees it up because all that nonsense about a deity is just the idiot superstition that stops the scientific, um, well, process from moving forward. That's basically the new atheist claim, something like that. It's like, wait a second. Do you believe in the transcendent if you're a scientist? And the answer is, well, not only do you believe in it, you believe in it more than anything else because if you're a scientist, you believe in what objects to your theory more than you believe in your theory. Now, we gotta think that through very carefully. So your theory describes the world, and as far as you're concerned, your description of the world is the world, but because you're a scientist, you think, "Well, even though that's my description of the world and that's what I believe, there's something beyond what I believe and that's the object and so I'm gonna throw my theory against the object to see where it'll break and then I'm going to use the evidence of the break as a source of new information to revitalize my theory." So as a scientist, you have to posit the existence of the ontological transcendent before you can move forward at all. But more, you have to posit that contact with the ontological transcendent, annoying though it is because it upsets your apple cart, is exactly what will in fact set you free. So then you accept the proposition that there is a transcendent reality and that the, that contact with that transcendent reality is redemptive in the most fundamental sense because if it wasn't, well, why would you bother making contact with it? Are you gonna make everything worse or better?

    26. LF

      Why does the, uh, contact with the transcendent set you free as a scientist?

    27. JP

      'Cause you assume that... You assume, I mean, freedom in the most fundamental sense, it's like, well, freedom from want, freedom from disease, freedom from ignorance, right, that it informs you.

    28. LF

      So it's the why-

    29. JP

      The logos in it.

    30. LF

      ... of science.

  4. 19:5832:21

    Science

    1. LF

      that... So-

    2. JP

      You bet.

    3. LF

      ... in, in some sense without God in this complicated big definition we're talking about, the, there's no humility. Or it's less-

    4. JP

      There's not enough.

    5. LF

      There's less likely to be... Or rather science can err in taking a trajectory away from humility-

    6. JP

      Well-

    7. LF

      ... without something much more powerful than an individual human.

    8. JP

      Yeah, well then, and we know, you know, the Frankenstein story comes out of that instantly. (laughs) And that's a good story for the current times. It's like you, you're playing around with making new life? You bloody well better sh- make sure you have your arrows pointed up.

    9. LF

      And it's interesting because you said science has, um, an ethic to it.

    10. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    11. LF

      I think-

    12. JP

      It's embedded in an ethic.

    13. LF

      Well, there's a, you know... Science is a big word.

    14. JP

      Yeah.

    15. LF

      And it includes a lot of disciplines that have different traditions, so biology, chemistry, uh, genetics, physics. Uh, those are very different communities, and I think biology, especially when you get closer and closer to medicine and to the human body, does have a very serious... First of all, it has a history with Nazi Germany of being abused and all those kinds of things, but it has a history of taking this stuff seriously.

    16. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    17. LF

      What doesn't have a history of taking this stuff seriously is robotics and artificial intelligence, which is really interesting, because you don't... Uh, you know, you called me a scientist, but-

    18. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    19. LF

      ... uh, and I would like to wear that label proudly, but o- often people don't think of computer science as a science. But nevertheless, it will be, I think, the science of, one of the major scientific fields of the 21st century, and you should take that very seriously. Oftentimes when people build robots or AI systems, they think of them as, uh, toys to tinker with. "Oh, isn't this cool?"

    20. JP

      Mm-hmm. Well, that-

    21. LF

      And I feel this too. Isn't this cool?

    22. JP

      Mm-hmm. It is cool.

    23. LF

      But, you know, uh, at a certain moment, you might, "Isn't this nuclear, uh, explosion cool?"

    24. JP

      Ye- yeah.

    25. LF

      Because it is.

    26. JP

      Or birth control pill cool? It's like... Or, or transistor cool? Yeah. Well, the other thing too, and, and this is a weird problem in some sense, the robotics engineer types, they're thing people, right? I mean, the big classes of interest are interest in things versus interest in people.

    27. LF

      S- some of my best friends are thing people.

    28. JP

      Yeah, right. And, uh, thing people are very, very clear logical thinkers, and they're very outcome oriented and practical. Now... And that's all good. (laughs) That makes the machinery and keeps it functioning. But there's a human side of the equation, and, and you get the extreme thing people, and you think, "Yeah, well, what about the human here?" And when we're talking about... We've been talking about the necessity of having a technological enterprise embedded in an ethic, and you can ignore that like most of the time, right? You can ignore the overall ethic in some sense when you're toying around with your toys, but when you're building an artificial intelligence, it's like, well, that's not a toy. That might be...

    29. LF

      A toy becomes the monster very quickly.

    30. JP

      Yeah, yeah, yes, yes. And, and this is a whole new kind of monster. And maybe it's already here. Yes, and you notice how many of those things you can no longer turn off. Hey, what is it with you engineers and your inability to put off switches on things now? It's like, "I have to hold this for five seconds for it to shut off," or, "I can't figure... I just want to shut it off, click off."

  5. 32:2135:15

    Death

    1. LF

      your own? How often do you remember, remind yourself that this ride ends?

    2. JP

      Per- personally?

    3. LF

      Personally.

    4. JP

      All the time.

    5. LF

      'Cause you, as a, as a deep thinker and philosopher, it's easy to start philosophizing and, and forgetting that you're... You might die today.

    6. JP

      The angel of death sits on every word. How's that?

    7. LF

      I... How often do you actually consciously-

    8. JP

      All the time.

    9. LF

      ... uh, notice the angel?

    10. JP

      All the time. I think it's one of the things that made me peculiar. When I was in graduate school, you know, I, I thought about... I was... I had the thought of death in my mind all the time, and I noticed that many of the people that I was with, these were people I admired fine. They, they, they... That wasn't part of their character, but it was definitely part of mine. I'd wake up every morning, this happened for years, think, "Time's short, get at it. Time's short. Get at it. There's things to do." And so that was always... It's still there, and it's still there with, I would say, and it's unbearable in some sense.

    11. LF

      Are you afraid of it? Like, what-

    12. JP

      Afraid of death?

    13. LF

      ... what's your relationship... Yeah.

    14. JP

      You know, I was ready to die a year ago. And not casually. I had people I loved, you know? So, no, I'm not very worried about me, but I am very worried about making a mistake.

    15. LF

      Yeah.

    16. JP

      Heard Elon Musk talk about that a couple of months ago. It was really a striking moment. Someone asked him about death, and he said, just offhand, eh, and then went on with the conversation. He said, "Ah, it'd be a relief." And then he went on with the conversation. And I thought, "Well, you know, he's got a lot of weight on his shoulders." I'm sure that part of him thinks, "I'd be easier just n- if this wasn't here at all." Now, he said it offhand, but it was a telling moment, in my estimation.

    17. LF

      So, for him, that's a why live question.

    18. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    19. LF

      The exhaustion of life.

    20. JP

      Yeah, yeah.

    21. LF

      Uh, if you call it life is suffering, but-

    22. JP

      Yeah.

    23. LF

      ... the hardship.

    24. JP

      I'm more afraid of Hell than death.

    25. LF

      You're, uh, you're afraid of the thing that follows?

    26. JP

      I don't know if it follows or if it's always here. I think we're gonna find out.

    27. LF

      What's the connection between death and Hell?

    28. JP

      I don't know. N- uh, I don't know. I don't know.

    29. LF

      Is there something that needs to be done before you arrive?

    30. JP

      You're more likely to die terribly if you live in a manner that brings you to Hell. That's one connection.

  6. 35:1539:13

    Elon Musk

    1. JP

    2. LF

      What do you make of Elon Musk? You've spoken about him a bit. You met him.

    3. JP

      I'm struck with admiration. That's what I make of him-

    4. LF

      Now we go back to this idea of admiration.

    5. JP

      ... and I always think, I always think of that as a primary... Well, it's al- it's like, "Do you find this comedian funny?" It's like, "Well, I laugh at him." You know what I mean? It's not propositional again. And so I would... There are things I would like to ask Mr. Musk about the Mars venture. I don't know what he's up to there. It strikes me as absurd in the most fundamental sense, 'cause I think, "Well, it'd be easier just to build an outpost in the Antarctica or in the desert."

    6. LF

      Well, how much of the human endeavor is absurd?

    7. JP

      Well, th- that's... What did Nietzsche say? "Great men are seldom credited with their stupidity."

    8. LF

      (laughs)

    9. JP

      Who the hell knows what Musk is up to? I mean, obviously he's building rockets. Now, he's motivated because he wants to build a, a, a platform for life on Mars. Is that a good idea? Who am I to say?

    10. LF

      Do you think-

    11. JP

      He's, he's building the rockets, man. But I'd like to ask him about it.

    12. LF

      I, I, I would like to see that conversation. I do think that, having talked to him quite a bit offline, I think these... Several of his ideas like Mars, like humans becoming a multi-planetary species could be one of the things that human civilization looks back at as, "Duh, I can't believe he's one of the few people that was really pushing this idea 'cause it's the obvious thing for, for society t- for life to survive."

    13. JP

      Yeah, well, it isn't obvious to me that I'm in any position to evaluate Elon Musk. Like, I would like to talk to him and find out what he's up to and why, but, I mean, he's an impossible person. What he's done is impossible. All of it.It's like, he built an electric car that works. Now, does it work completely and will it replace gas cars or should it? I don't know, but if we're gonna build electric cars, he seems to be the best at that by a lot, and he more or less did that, uh, people carp about him, but he more or less did that by himself. I know he's very good at distributing responsibility and all of that, but he's the spearhead, and then that was pretty hard. And then he built a rocket at like 1/10 the price of NASA rockets, and then he shot his car out into space. That's pretty hard. And then he's building this Boring company-

    14. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    15. JP

      ... more or less as a, uh, what would you call it? It's sort of, it's this whimsical joke in some sense, but it's not a joke. He's amazing.

    16. LF

      And Neuralink, delving into the, uh, the depths of the mind.

    17. JP

      Yeah. And Starlink, it's like, go Elon, as far as I'm concerned. And then, you know, he puts his finger on things so oddly. The pop- the problem is under population. It's like, I think so too. I think it's a terrible problem that we're, the West, for example, is no longer at replacement with regard to birth rate. It means we've abandoned the virgin and the child in a most fundamental sense. It's a bloody catastrophe. And Musk, he s- he sees it clear as can be. He's like, well... And where everyone else is running around going, "Oh, there's too many people!" It's like, nope, got that. Not only... See, I've learned that there are falsehoods and lies and there are anti-truths. And an anti-truth is something that's so preposterous that you couldn't, you couldn't make a claim that's more opposite to the truth, and the claim that there are too many people on the planet is an anti-truth. So, you know, when people say, "Well, you have to accept limits to growth." And et cetera, it's like y- I have to accept the limits that you're going to impose on me 'cause you're frightened of the future. That's your theory, is it? Okay.

    18. LF

      Well, it's an idea. It could be a right idea, it could be a wrong idea. I don't know, I think anti-truth...

    19. JP

      Well, here, I'll tell you why it's the wrong idea.

    20. LF

      Mm-hmm.

  7. 39:1351:26

    Global Crisis

    1. LF

    2. JP

      I think. So imagine that there's an emergency, dragon, there's a dragon, and someone comes and says, "There's a dragon. I'm the guy to deal with it." That's what the environmentalists say, the radical types who push limits to growth. Then I look at them and I think, okay, is that dragon real or not? That's one question. Well, is the-

    3. LF

      I ask that question on myself every time-

    4. JP

      Is the-

    5. LF

      ... when I spend time alone.

    6. JP

      Is the apocalypse looming on the environmental front? Yes or no? I'll just leave that aside for the time being. I think you can make a case both ways for a bunch of different reasons, and it's not a trivial concern, and we've overfished the oceans terribly, and there are environmental issues that are looming large. Whether climate change is the cardinal one or not is a whole different question, but we won't get into that. That's not the issue. You're clamoring about a dragon. Okay. Why should I listen to you? Well, let's see how you're reacting to the dragon. First of all, you're scared stiff and in a state of panic. That might indicate you're not the man for the job. Second, you're willing to use compulsion to harness other people to fight the dragon for you, so now not only are you terrified, you're a terrified tyrant. So then I would say, "Well, then you're not the Moses that we need to lead us out of this particular exodus." And maybe that's a neurological explanation. It's like if you're so afraid of what you're facing that you're terrified into paralysis and nihilism and that you're willing to use tyrannical compulsion to get your way, you are not the right leader for the time. So then I like someone like Bjorn Lomberg or Matt Ridley or Marian Tupy, and they say, "Well, look, we've got our environmental problems, and uh, maybe there's a S- there... You could make a case that there's a Malthusian element in some situations, but fundamentally, the track record of the human race is that we learn very fast and faster all the time to do more with less, and we've got this." And I think, yes to that idea, and I- I think about it in a, in a fundamental way. It's like I trust Lomberg, I trust Tupy, I trust Matt Ridley. They've thought about these things deeply. They're not just saying, "Oh, the environment doesn't matter," whatever the environment is. You know, the environment. I don't even know what that is. That's everything. The environment. "I'm concerned about the environment." It's like... Which is... How is that different than saying, "I'm worried about everything"? H- how are those statements different semantically?

    7. LF

      Well, yeah, the environment, it could be, "I'm worried about human society." A lot of these complex systems are difficult to talk about because there's so much involved, for sure. (laughs)

    8. JP

      Yeah, everything.

    9. LF

      Yeah.

    10. JP

      And then these models, 'cause people have gone after me 'cause I don't buy the climate models. Well, I think about the climate models as extended into the economic models because the climate model is, well, there's gonna be a certain degree of heating, let's say, by 2100. It's like, okay, some of that might be human generated, some of it's a consequence of warming after the Ice Age. This has happened before, but fair enough. Let's take your presumption, although there are multiple presumptions and any error in your model multiplies as time extends, but have it your way. Okay, now we're gonna extend the climate model, so to speak, into the economic model, so I just did an analysis of a paper by Deloitte, third-biggest company in the US, 300,000 employees, major league consultants. They just produced a report in May. I wrote an article for it in The Telegraph, which I'm gonna release this week on my YouTube channel. It said, well...... if we get the climate problem under control, economically, 'cause that's where the models are now being generated, on the economic front, so now we have to model the environment, that's climate, and we have to model the economy, and then we have to model their joint interaction, and then we have to predict 100 years into the future, and then we have to put a dollar value on that, and then we have to claim that we can do that, which we can't, and then this is our conclusion. We're going to go through a difficult period of privation, because if we don't accept limits to growth, there's gonna be a catastrophe 50 years in the future or thereabouts, and so to avert that catastrophe, we are going to make p- people poorer now. How much poorer? Well, not a lot compared to how much richer they're going to be, but definitely, and they say this in their own models, definitely poorer, definitely poorer than they would be if we just left them the hell alone. And so then I think, okay. Poorer, eh? Who? Well, let's look at it biologically. You got a hierarchy, right? Of stability and security. That's a hierarchy, or one type. You stress a hierarchy like that, a social hierarchy, so there's birds in a environment. And an avian flu comes in, and then you look at the birds in the social hierarchy and the, the, the low-ranking birds have the worst nests, so they're most exposed to wind and rain and sun and farthest from food supplies and most exposed to predators. And so those birds are stressed, which is what happens to you at the bottom of a hierarchy. You're more stressed 'cause your life is more uncertain. You're more stressed. Your immunological function is compromised because of that. You're sacrificing the future for the present. An avian flu comes in and the birds die from the bottom up. That happens in every epidemic. You die from the bottom up. Okay. So they say when the aristocracy catches a cold, the working class dies of pneumonia. All right, so now we're gonna make people poorer. Okay. Who? Well, we know who we make poorer when we make people poorer. We make those who are barely hanging on poorer. And what does that mean? It means they die. And so what the Deloitte consultants are basically saying is, "Well, you know, it's kind of unfortunate, but according to our models, a lot of poor people are gonna have to die so that a lot more poor people don't die in the future." It's like, okay, hold on a sec. Which of those two things am I supposed to regard with certainty? The hypothetical poor people that you're gonna hypothetically save 100 years from now or the actual poor people that you are actually going to kill in the next 10 years? Well, I'm gonna cast my lot with the actual poor people that you're actually going to kill. And so, and then I think further. It's like, well, okay, the Deloitte consultants, have you actually modeled the world or is this a big advertising shtick designed to attract your corporate clients with demonstration that you're so intelligent that you can actually model the entire ecosystem of the world, including the economic system, and predict it 100 years forward? And isn't there a bit of a moral hazard in making a claim like that? Just like just a trifle? Especially when... So I talked to Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Yon last week. I accepted the UN, uh, estimates of starvation this coming year. 150 million people will suffer food insecurity. Food insecurity. Yeah. Food insecurity. That's the bloody buzzword. Famine. Well, Michael Yon thought 1.2 billion and then that it'll spiral, because he said what happens in a famine is that the governments go nuts, crazy. The governments destabilize, and then they appropriate the food from the farmers. Then the farmers don't have any money. Then they can't grow crops. And I think, yeah, that's exactly what they do. That's exactly what would happen. And so Yon told me 1.2 billion, and then Bjorn Lomborg said the same thing. I didn't even ask him. He just made it as an offhand comment. So-

    11. LF

      Let me ask you about the famine of the '30s.

    12. JP

      Yeah.

    13. LF

      Do you think-

    14. JP

      In the Ukraine?

    15. LF

      In the Ukraine.

    16. JP

      Oh, yeah. Fun, fun, fun.

    17. LF

      Similar... Uh, a lot of the things you mentioned in the last few sentences kind of echo through that part of human history. D-

    18. JP

      The hole in the door-

    19. LF

      Do you s-

    20. JP

      ... which no one knows about.

    21. LF

      (laughs) Well, now I've just spent four weeks in Ukraine.

    22. JP

      Oh, yeah.

    23. LF

      There's different parts of the world that still, uh, even if they don't know, they know. (laughs)

    24. JP

      Yeah. Right.

    25. LF

      They feel. History is, runs in the blood.

    26. JP

      The Dutch knew, in some sense. They had a famine at the end of World War II, and part of the reason that Dutch farmers are so unbelievably efficient and productive is that the Dutch swore at the end of World War II that that was not going to happen again. And then they had to scrape land out of the ocean, 'cause Holland, that's quite a country. It shouldn't even exist. The fact that it's the world's number two exporter. You know that it's the world's number two exporter of agricultural products? Holland. It's like, I don't think it's as big as Massachusetts. It's this little tiny place. It shouldn't even exist, and they want to put, "Here's the s- here's the plan. Let's put 30% of the farmers out of business." Well, the broader ecosystem of agricultural production in Holland is 6% of their GDP. Now, these centralizing politicians think, uh, tell me if I'm stupid about this. Take an industry. You knock it back by fiat by 30%. Now, it runs on like a 3% profit margin. Now you're gonna kill 30% of it.... how are you not gonna bring the whole thing down? The whole farming ecosystem down? How are you not gonna impoverish the transport systems? How are you not gonna demolish the grocery stores? You can't take something like that and pare it back by fear, by 30% and not kill it. I, I can't see how you can do that. I mean, look what we did with the COVID lockdowns. We broke the supply chains. Tried buying something lately? You ca- and wait, and aren't the Chinese threatening Taiwan at the moment? What are we gonna do without chips? So, I don't know what these people are thinking. And then I think, "Okay, what are they thinking?" Well, the Deloitte people are thinking, "Aren't we smart? And shouldn't we be hired by our corporate employers?" It's like, okay, too bad about the poor, um, what are the, uh, environmentalists thinking? "We love the planet!" It's like, do you? "We love the poor!" Do you? Okay, let's pit the planet against the poor. Who wins? The planet. Okay, you don't love the poor that much. Do you love the planet or do you hate capitalism? Let's pit those two things against each other. Oh, well it turns out we actually hate capitalism. How can we tell? Because you're willing to break it. And do you know what's gonna happen? So what's gonna happen in Sri Lanka with these 20 million people who now have nothing to eat? Are they gonna eat all the animals? Are they gonna burn all the firewood? They're stockpiling firewood in Germany. It's like, so is your environmental globalist utopia gonna kill the poor and destroy the planet? And that's okay 'cause we'll wipe out capitalism. It's like, okay.

    27. LF

      Yeah, the, the dragon and the fear of the dragon drives ideologies, some of which can build a better world, some of which can destroy that world.

    28. JP

      Yeah, what do you think of that theory about, about trustworthiness? If the dragon that you're facing turns you into a terrified tyrant, you're not the man for the job.

    29. LF

      Well-

    30. JP

      Is that a good theory?

  8. 51:261:02:40

    Dangerous ideologies

    1. LF

      (sighs) You are terrified, afraid, concerned about the dragon of something we can call communism, Marxism.

    2. JP

      Am I terrified of it?

    3. LF

      Well, okay, okay.

    4. JP

      I'm terrified enough to be a tyrant.

    5. LF

      Your theories had two components.

    6. JP

      Yeah.

    7. LF

      Let's say-

    8. JP

      I'm not paralyzed.

    9. LF

      You had a dragon, you had a dragon, okay?

    10. JP

      Yeah, I'm not paralyzed and I don't wanna be a tyrant.

    11. LF

      The, the tyrant part, I think, is missing with you. Uh-

    12. JP

      Yes, so the-

    13. LF

      But you are very concerned. The intensity of your feeling, uh, does not-

    14. JP

      Right.

    15. LF

      ... give much space, actually at least in your public persona, for sitting quietly with a dragon and sipping in a couple of beers and thinking about this thing.

    16. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    17. LF

      Um, the intensity of your anger-

    18. JP

      Mm-hmm.

    19. LF

      ... concern about certain things you're seeing in society, is that going to drive you off the path that ultimately takes us to a better world?

    20. JP

      That's a good question. I mean, I don't, I'm trying to get that right. So, we've kinda come to a cultural conclusion about the Nazis. Do you get to be angry about the Nazis? Seems the answer to that is yes.

    21. LF

      Well, actually let me push back here, um, I also don't trust people who are angry about the Nazis becau- (laughs)

    22. JP

      I mean the actual Nazis.

    23. LF

      Well, (sighs) I, I, there's a lot, as you know, there's a lot of people in the world, um, that, uh, s- use actual Nazis to mean a lot of things.

    24. JP

      I know, I know.

    25. LF

      One of them is v- is very important to me.

    26. JP

      Me, for example.

    27. LF

      Well, you, yes.

    28. JP

      They use, they- (laughs)

    29. LF

      Well, I think-

    30. JP

      He's a Nazi, or magical super Nazi as it turns out.

  9. 1:02:401:16:46

    Justin Trudeau

    1. LF

      So let me challenge you.

    2. JP

      Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

    3. LF

      Let me challenge you.

    4. JP

      Go right ahead, man.

    5. LF

      Let me challenge you. Can you steel man the case that, uh, the prime minister of this country, Trudeau, wants the best for this country and actually might do good things for this country-

    6. JP

      Okay.

    7. LF

      ... as an intellectual challenge?

    8. JP

      Sure. Um, he seems to get along well with his wife. He has some kids. There's no sexual scandals. And he's in a position where that could easily be the case. He seems to have done some good things on the oceanic management front. He's put a fair bit of Canada's oceans into marine protected areas, and that might be his most fundamental legacy, if it's real. I've been trying to get information about the actual reality of the protection, and I haven't been able to do that, but that's a good thing.

    9. LF

      So sorry, the family thing is-

    10. JP

      Yeah.

    11. LF

      ... there's some aspect of-

    12. JP

      It speaks to his character.

    13. LF

      ... his character. There is some aspect to him who's, uh, that makes him a good man-

    14. JP

      Well-

    15. LF

      ... in that sense.

    16. JP

      ... I mean, there's the evidence there, you know? I mean, he's not a Jeffrey Epstein profligate on the sexual front, so that's something, and-

    17. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    18. JP

      ... his wife, they seem to have a real marriage, and he has kids, so, you know, good for him. Uh-

    19. LF

      That's a good start, by the way, for a leader.

    20. JP

      Yeah. Right. Right.

    21. LF

      To be a good man.

    22. JP

      Well, then I also thought, okay, well, after the Liberals had brought in a Harvard intellectual, who was a Canadian, to be their last leader, he didn't work out, and then they're flailing about for a leader, and the Liberals in Canada are pretty good at maintaining power and leadership and have been the dominant governing party in Canada for a long time. And so they went to Justin and said, "Well, you know, it's you or a Conservative." And you can imagine that's not a positive, um, specter for someone who's on the left or even a Liberal, espe- And Trudeau's quite a bit on the left. And, uh, they said, "We need you to run." And then I thought, okay, well, the answer to that should've been no, because the, Trudeau, Justin has no training for this and no experience. He's not... He's a part-time drama teacher fundamentally. He hadn't run a business. He just didn't know enough to be prime minister. But then I'm trying to put myself in his position, eh? So it's like, okay, I don't know enough, but I'm young, and we don't want the Conservatives, and they had had a run, a ten-year run, so maybe it was time for a new government. I could, maybe I could grow into this man. Maybe I could surround myself with good people and I could learn humbly and I could become the person I'm now pretending to be, which we all have to do as we move forward, right? And so, and so then I thought, okay, I think you made a mistake there 'cause you ran only on your father's name and you didn't have the background, but let's give the devil his due and say that's no problem.

    23. LF

      Mm-hmm.

    24. JP

      Okay, so now what do you do? Well, you get elected and your first act is to make the f- cabinet 50% women, despite the fact that only 25% of the elected members are female. It's like, okay, you just halved your talent pool. That was a really bad move for your first move.

    25. LF

      Can, can I ask you about that?

    26. JP

      Yeah.

    27. LF

      Uh, do you think... Where does that move come from? Deep somewhere in the heart, or is this-

    28. JP

      No.

    29. LF

      ... is it trying to listen to the social forces that, of the moment and try to ride those waves towards-

    30. JP

      You don't make a decision like that by the-

  10. 1:16:461:34:14

    War in Ukraine

    1. JP

    2. LF

      It seems like the story of war too is a time when the poor people suffer from the decision made by the powerful, the rich, the, uh-

    3. JP

      Yeah, 'cause they can just leave.

    4. LF

      ... political elite. Yeah. Let me ask you about the war in Ukraine.

    5. JP

      Oh, yeah. I got into plenty of trouble about that too.

    6. LF

      You're, (laughs) you're just a man in a suit talking on microphones and writing brilliant articles. There's also people dying, fighting. It's their land, it's their country, it's their history.

    7. JP

      Yeah.

    8. LF

      This is true for both Russia and Ukraine.

    9. JP

      Yeah.

    10. LF

      It's people trying to ask... They have many dragons and they're asking themselves-

    11. JP

      That's for sure.

    12. LF

      ... the question, "Who are we?"

    13. JP

      Yeah.

    14. LF

      "What is this?"

    15. JP

      Yeah.

    16. LF

      "What is the future of this nation? We thought we are a great nation." And I think both countries say this and they, they say, "Well, how do we become the great nation we thought we are?"

    17. JP

      Yeah.

    18. LF

      And so what... Uh, first of all, you got in, in trouble. What, what's the, the dynamics of the trouble and, uh, is it something you regret saying?

    19. JP

      Well, it wasn't that much... No. No, no. I thought about it a lot. I laid out four reasons for the war and then I was criticized in The Atlantic for... The argument was reduced to one reason which was a caricature of the reason. I gave a l- variety of reasons why the war happened; mismanagement on the part of the West in relationship to Russia and foreign policy over the last... Since the Wall fell. Which is understandable 'cause it's extremely complex. Hyper reliance on Russia as a cardinal source of energy provision for Europe in the wake of idiot environmental globalist utopianism, um, the expansionist tendencies of Russia that are analogous in some sense to the Soviet Union empire building, and then the last one, which is the one I got in trouble for, which is Putin's belief or willingness to manipulate his people into believing that Russia is a salvific force in the face of idiot Western wokeism. And that's the one I got in trouble for. It's like, "Well, you're justifying Putin." It's like... It's not only-

    20. LF

      Well-

    21. JP

      It's not only the Russians that think the West has lost its mind. The Eastern Europeans think so too. And do I know that? It's like, well, I went to 15 Eastern European countries this, this spring and I talked to 300 political and cultural leaders and you might say, "Well, they were all conservatives." It's like, actually no they weren't. Most of them were conservatives 'cause it turns out that they're more willing to talk to me, but a good chunk of them were liberals by, by any stretch of the-... imagination, and a fair number of them were canceled progressives. So-

    22. LF

      Well, because you're very concerned about, um, the culture wars that perhaps are a signal of um, a possible bad future for this country and for this part of the world, that reason stands out, and do you, sort of looking back at s- four reasons, think it deserves to have a place in one of the four?

    23. JP

      Oh, absolutely.

    24. LF

      Because it, because it is, you know, uh, it's a com-

    25. JP

      Well the four was bifurcated, eh, because I said, "Look, Putin might believe this." And I actually think he does 'cause I read a bunch of Putin's speeches, and I have been reading them for 15 years. And my sense of people generally, and this was true of Hitler, it's like, well what did Hitler believe? Well, did you read what he wrote? He just did what he said he was going to do, and you might think, well some people are so tricky, they have a whole body of elaborated speech that's completely separate from their personality, and their personality is pursuing a different agenda, and this whole body of speech is nothing but a front.

    26. LF

      Yeah.

    27. JP

      It's like, good luck finding someone that sophisticated. First of all, if you say things long enough, you're gonna believe them.

    28. LF

      That's a really interesting and fascinating and important point. Even if you start out as a, as a lie, as a propaganda, I think Hitler's a, is a, is an example of somebody that I think really quickly you start to believe the propaganda.

    29. JP

      Well, you-

    30. LF

      It's really interesting.

Episode duration: 3:03:32

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Transcript of episode sY8aFSY2zv4

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome