Episode 1307 Scott Adams: For Some Reason I Can't Put the Title in Here That I Want

Hey, everybody, come on in. Come on in. Yeah, it's time. The best time. Every single time. And it's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And I think you're here for that. But if you'd like to enjoy it to its maximum potential, and I know you do, you need a copper and mug glass, a tanker jealous of a canteen, jug of flask, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Watch what happens when you enjoy it. You'll feel connected with people all over the world doing the same thing at the same time. Go. Hold on, hold on. I feel that there was somebody out there who didn't participate. Boy, you're gonna regret that. All right, so there's been no Biden press conference for 47 days. I'm gonna make a prediction. He will not have a solo press conference until he leaves office in one year. Here's why I predict one year. First of all, it seems obvious that even his own team needs to manage that situation, if you know what I mean. And by that situation, I'm talking about the head area of the president, you know, the interior skull part, where there's a brain like thing. You know, they're just as worried as you are, right? Indeed. I'm going to bet that his advisors are maybe a little more worried than you are. Now, here's the thing. Suppose he left office in one month. What would everybody say about Democrats? They would say, you, you devious people, you knew he was failing. You limped him across the finish line, will never trust you again. But what if Biden goes a full year and the history books can record one full year. Feels different, doesn't it? There's something about these big even numbers that influence our minds. If something is nine months, you're like, that's less than a year. But if something is 12 months, well, he lasted a year. At least it was a year. It feels completely different, doesn't it? So I think for psychological reasons, they're going to have to try to get him to go at least a year. Now, I saw online, somebody claimed that if Harris took over and served more than two years of Biden's term, that she would not be eligible to run. Is that true? Could somebody give me a fact check on that? Because that would be a factor. You know, if they absolutely had to get them to go two years so that Kamala Harris could serve Those two plus maybe another four. So I'm going to look at the comments. I'm seeing people saying, true, I had never 10 year max. Somebody said, oh, okay. So it looks like a thing. So I'm going to stay with my one year prediction based on the fact that they're not going to be able to get him to go two years. Like he just won't have enough left. But if it goes a year and a half, it's definitely going too. If they can get him to a year and a half, they're going to wait that extra six months. All right. Have you wondered why it is that 100% of the public would like a more reliable voting system, but it doesn't seem like it's happening? There's not some big national conversation involving the politicians in which the news and everybody's talking about what's the best way to do it. There's a state that's trying one way and we're all trying to improve things and nothing like that's happening. There definitely have been bills that have been proposed that have been turned down for a variety of reasons, even by Republicans. So what's going on? What's going on? Well, let me tell you what I think is going on and you're going to laugh at how obvious it is when I tell you everybody who was elected got elected with this system. Do you see it yet? 100% of the people who are elected officials got elected with the current system. They're the last people you should trust to change it. Literally, if you looked at all 300, what million people in the United States and you said to yourself, we need to choose somebody to help fix our election system. Is there anybody we should rule out? Yeah, everybody who got elected by that system. Because there are all the people who don't want to change it. Wouldn't you think? Why would you change the thing that's working for you and not working for your enemies? Makes no sense. So until we can get to the point where we can at least admit that the people who are in charge of fixing it are the only ones who don't want it fixed, until we can come to terms with that, nothing's going to happen, right? We're pretty fucking stupid to put the only people who don't want it to change in charge of changing it or in charge of its integrity. What could be dumber than that? Putting the criminals in charge of guarding the loot? Literally. There's nothing you could think of that would be dumber than putting the only people who don't want to fix it, in charge of fixing it. That's our current system. And in particular, I kept reading people's opinions about this or that wouldn't work or would work. And I feel like the conversation doesn't go anywhere because it's never going to matter as long as the politicians are in charge of the systems. All right, we'll talk more about that in a minute. I did hear from somebody who claimed to be an expert or seem to be speaking authoritatively that using blockchain technology wouldn't give you the fix that you need. In other words, somebody made the claim was a professor at Stanford. So somebody who's got some credentials claimed that anybody who's serious about crypto stuff knows that an election system using blockchain is a bad idea. Well, I didn't know that. Can somebody tell me why that's a bad idea? I'm certainly not saying that that's the idea that has to work. It seems like you could do it without blockchain, but I've never heard that blockchain would make it worse. Somebody says it's not private. Let's talk about that. We do have a standard that says you should have a private vote. Then nobody knows who you voted for. But let me ask you this. Let's check that assumption. Okay? When was the last time you didn't know who somebody voted for? Can you think of a time when you didn't know who all your friends voted for? It's kind of obvious. Anybody who has social media, you know who they voted for, right? When was the last time you were surprised? Now, every now and then there'll be some Republican who, you know, does it write in because they don't like the candidate or something? Does that matter? Suppose somebody found out that although you're a Republican, that one time you didn't vote for Trump. Are you in trouble? I don't know. I don't know. So I really. I really don't understand why we really care if anybody knows who you voted for. So I would. I would simply test that assumption that anybody really cares about it. Somebody said I could get fired. You think they wouldn't? You think that you're. Do you think they check? Let's say, let's say that everybody's vote became public just for a mental exercise. And let's say your employer finds out you voted for the wrong person, do you think they'd fire you? See, here's the problem. First of all, if somebody did fire you for that, they're a Very bad company. And. And they're probably going to go out of business anyway. So it's better you left. But if you knew everybody's vote, everybody would be in trouble. Would 75 million people lose their jobs? I don't think so. Now, it could be that companies end up getting rid of the ones they don't like and hiring more of the people that they do, but I don't see it happening in some massive way. And it seems like if. If a company were to do that, it would be bad for them competitively, because if there was no problem until they found out who you voted for, there wasn't a problem, they would be fixing a thing that wasn't a problem. So, yeah, it could happen. People could get fired if you found out who they voted for. But I can't see it being a big problem. I can see it being a small problem, but not a big one. Anyway, I won't talk you out of your privacy. If you can keep it, that'd be great. All right, so I hate that this is the biggest story in the country. You know what I'm going to talk about, right? I have so far tried to avoid talking about Harry and Meghan. Oh, my God. Is there anything I don't want to talk about more than that? But I think we have to, because today's the day we realize that every story is being viewed through a racial filter. Everything. Everything's through a racial filter. Now. Now, when I talk about a filter, I talk about sort of a preferred way of looking at reality. Right? It doesn't mean the correct one or the honest one. When we choose our filters, we're making practical decisions like, hey, does this filter work better than this other filter? And the problem is, once your filter gets really, really overused, none of the other filters matter anymore. All you can see is race. Now, should we be concerned about racial disparities in our society? Sure, of course. Yes. Yes, we should be concerned. But does it therefore follow logically that that should be our almost exclusionary single filter on life? Well, if it were our biggest problem, maybe. So if racial problems were the biggest problem, then, yeah, we should be going at it like it's our biggest problem. But what happens if going at it makes the problem worse instead of better? I've said this before. If you've got slavery, you need to go at that hard. If you've got, let's say, the civil rights problems of the 60s, you got to go at that pretty hard. But what if it's stuff like you think somebody said something or they're thinking something, or maybe it's in their mind, but you can't really tell by their actions. But maybe they're thinking it. When you get to that point, and certainly a lot of our conversation is at that point, some of it's still the old fashioned stuff which we need to address. But a lot of it is just this, who's thinking wrong? When you get to that point, maybe you should change your filter and maybe just ignoring it for a while. The smaller ones, you don't ignore the big stuff. Right. But the smaller stuff, like this Megan and Harry stuff, I'm going to put this in the smaller stuff category. All right, let me give you an idea of what. So we had everything in this. So Oprah talked to Harry and Meghan and everything from. There's, you know, she was wearing blood diamonds the other day. And their. There's hypocrisy because Megan says she doesn't like grandeur, but she participates in it. But then the biggest thing, the biggest news that came out of that, oh, here's the set. Here's the second biggest thing. So apparently there's some question about whether Harry and Meghan's kid can become a prince. Now, I guess the rules of the royal family don't allow that because of the direction of the bloodline. So until something changes or their father becomes the king, I guess the kid can't get a title. But that's just the established rules. But of course, Meghan has sold that to the public as if it's because the kid is 12% black. All right, maybe that's why. But here's the title that he could have had. Little Archie. He could have been the Earl of Dumbarton. So instead of getting a title as a prince, the other option was the Earl of Dumbarton. Now, if archie were not 12% black, do you think that they would have offered him such an insulting title that has dumb right in the name of it? The Earl of Dumbarton. But he also could have been Lord Archie Mountain Mountbatten Windsor. So he could have been a lord, but I guess they're gonna wait. Wait for the prince thing, maybe. All right, but then she. Then Meghan throws the royal family under the bus by saying that there was some kind of conversation, but we don't know who was in it. This is the fun part. We don't know who said this, but somebody in the royal family was a little bit worried about little Archie coming in a little bit too brown. And what would they do? What Would the royal family do if one of the royals was just a little bit too brown? So, of course, racism is all over this. But the funniest part is that they won't say who said it, which makes the entire Royal Family look like a bunch of racists. Now, I'm not saying they're not. I don't know them at all. But here's what I say then. I think Michael Knowles in a tweet, summed it up the best. So Michael Knowles said, a Hollywood actress is complaining to a billionaire talk show host about how much she regrets becoming a princess. And according to our insane culture, she actually is a victim. That is the best summary of this whole situation I've ever heard. The fact that any of these people are considering themselves victims. I guess you never met a real victim. Here's what I think the country needs. I think we need to be smarter about what filter we put on everything. You're going to see that the rest of the news is all about racism, racism. And I'm not saying racism isn't important. Saying if it's your only filter, you're not going to get what you want, which is, you know, better life, happiness, and all that stuff. So I think the other filters which are better are economics. Looking at everything through a money filter is fairly revealing, right? Looking at things through a success versus failure filter. What works and what doesn't. Looking at it as systems versus goals. Systems versus goals. Take the George Floyd trial, which starts today. Black Lives Matter protesters have already surrounded it and they're calling for a certain outcome. Now, if you're calling for an outcome, are you respecting the system or you do just want a certain outcome? And it's pretty clear to me that these are people who see the world through a racial filter. And so they want an outcome which agrees with their racial view of the world. Whereas other people are saying, shouldn't we be more concerned about the judicial system working properly? And then whatever comes out of it is what comes out. But shouldn't the system be where you're sort of putting your energy? So I would say let's put the systems filter on that. And also a game strategy. You should be looking at life as to what gives you the advantage. Don't look at it just as racial equality. What gives you more than equality? If you're black, why would you settle for being equal? Why would you settle for that? Because as an individual, you can do better than that. You don't have to be average. You don't have to meet the average of what white people do, why wouldn't you be shooting well above that? So even having a goal of equality is the wrong filter, you know? Do you know what filter my parents gave me? Inequality. Inequality. My mother said to me directly and often, life isn't fair. Make sure you get on the right side of that. She used different words, but she would say it all the time. Life isn't fair. Make sure you're fighting to get your peace, because it's not going to be given to you because it's fair. You got to go out and get it. So when I see black people arguing for equity, equality, fairness, I say to myself, you're kind of selling yourself short there. What is it that you're thinking that would keep you from doing better than average? Or at least, you know, that should be a, an ambition. Certainly mine was. I never started life thinking I'm going to be average. If I can only. If I can only get up to the average of what white people do, man, I've made it. No, no, don't fight for equal. If you're fighting for equal, you're just fighting for the wrong stuff. Fight for better. All right, Trump says he's going to work to unseat Alaska's Murkowski. Senator Murkowski calling her disloyal. Now, what do you think of that? What do you think of Trump targeting somebody who sometimes votes the other way? It's a really, really good strategy. Let me tell you why. I've told you this before, but every time you see Trump do it, it's worth calling it out. If you want to be influential, it really helps to compliment people who are on your team. Oh, that's Senator Lindsey Graham. He's a great guy. I love Senator Graham. He's on my team. But that's only half of it. You have to actually destroy the people who are on the other side against you. It's not good enough that you just say, ah, they're wrong, blah, blah, blah. You want to make the biggest difference between being on your side and being against you. If you're on his side, you get all these praise and all that access, etc. And if you're against him, he's going to put you out of business. He's not just going to ignore you, he's going to put you out of frickin business. That's the biggest difference between making him happy and making him unhappy. What other politician does that? None. None. Nobody else does that. And what do we say about Trump now? The data supports the fact that he's the most persuasive politician. That's one of the techniques I saw. My co worker who became the model for the Alice character in the Dilbert comic, she used that technique. If you did something for her at work, she would buy flowers for you at work, give them to you, and then tell your boss that I just gave flowers to your employee. Such a great employee, man. You should think about promoting that employee who just helped me out or maybe giving a raise. Do you think that employee would help her the next time? Yeah, yeah. She got a promotion out of it, and it wasn't even her boss. She still got a promotion out of it, or almost. But if anybody went against her, she would go to their boss and tell them they should be fired. Literally. Yeah. You should just get rid of this person. They're just slowing everything down. I can't get anything done. You just fire this person. And that was the Trump strategy. The biggest difference between happy and unhappy. All right, let's talk about the George Floyd trial. I don't see any other way this can go. I think there will not be any murder conviction of any degree of murder. And here's my take on it. We know that he had fentanyl in his system, and that should be enough. Enough cause for doubt. Now, what about the knee that was on George Floyd's neck? Well, I'd like to do a demonstration for you because a lot of people said they saw that on video and it was obvious to them, because you just look at the video, that his neck was being compressed at the same time he was complaining about not being able to breathe. And so I don't want you to be scared, but I'm going to do a little demonstration for you. Right, Right. Live in, which I'm going to. Okay, now don't be afraid. I have my hand tightly around my neck squeezing pretty hard, but I'm not really that close to dying. It looks like it, doesn't it? Because I am actually squeezing really hard, but I don't feel like I can't breathe. I've got a little asthma and Pretty good. How about if I did it a different way? Ah. I'm pressing as hard as I can. I'm actually literally pressing as hard as I can on my neck with both hands and I seem to be able to breathe just fine. Now, do you think that the purpose of the knee hold when a cop uses it? Because apparently the procedures do describe this as an allowed police procedure in some places, maybe not everywhere. Do you think that the procedure is to Put your neck, your knee on a neck so hard that the person can't breathe. Do you believe that that's the purpose of the hold, to reduce the breathing? Because it doesn't look like it. I'm no expert, but it looks to me like putting a control around something that's hard for a person to get out of. You're just sort of controlling it so they can't get up. Am I wrong? Somebody says he was cutting off his carotid artery? Well, didn't look like it to me. To me, it looked like his knee was simply creating a cage, if you will, for his head, which I'm sure would be the actual purpose of the technique. I don't believe the purpose of the technique is to cut off his air supply. So if he did it wrong, well, maybe there's something to talk about. But I didn't see anything that looked wrong. It looked like a standard making sure he can't get up kind of thing. Yeah, the knee was acting as a barrier as opposed to trying to reduce his air. And of course, Floyd was talking, so the fact that he could talk sort of suggests there was some air coming through. Now, did the fentanyl kill him? Well, we don't know, but we know that fentanyl kills exactly that way, exactly that way, and that he added in his system. Now, I'm going to throw in another wrinkle here that you hadn't thought of. I talk about filters biasing you to see something through the filter. But you can also be biased by an analogy. In other words, there could be something else happening in society that sort of primes your mind for a completely unrelated situation. And that's happening right now. And it looks like this. We are declaring that people are dying of coronavirus, or Covid, if they have a comorbidity. So we're saying, yeah, sure, you also had, you know, some diabetes and stuff, but what killed you was the COVID that's the cause. Cause of death. So you take that analogy, which has nothing to do with George Floyd. Right. Let's agree they're completely separate. Right. You should not be using anything about one to make a decision on the other. But our brains don't work that way. Our brains can't make a clean difference between things happening. They all just sort of conflate. We can't help it. They just sort of conflate. And so I wonder if a juror who's watched half a million people be labeled as death by coronavirus, knowing that almost every one of them had at least one other thing that could have killed them. Weight, diabetes, whatever. I think that. I think that will influence people. And I think that there would be more likely to see the fentanyl as a cause than they would have been if they had not been primed by half a million American deaths that were attributed to the virus, as opposed to the other things going on. Right. Doesn't make sense. There's no logic to it. But our brains are not logic machines. We see patterns and we overuse the patterns. That's why racism exists, because we see patterns, but we're not that good at it. Right. So we got that going on. I would contend that although I have never been to law school, I could get. I could get that cop off kind of easily. I don't even think this is a hard case to you. Now, there could be an issue that the jury just. They're influenced by the filters of racism, and they don't really care if he's guilty or not. They just want a certain result. That's possible, but can you get 12 people like that? I don't think you can get 12 people to convict this guy now. And even the manslaughter sort of assumes that he was acting recklessly. But I don't know. I watched the video, and I feel as though George Floyd probably would have died then no matter what they did. Because if he didn't die because of the pressure on him, if he died because of the fentanyl, he only had a few minutes anyway, Right? Unfortunately. Now, if anybody's new to this broadcast, my stepson died of an overdose, which included fentanyl, of course, in 2018. So, unfortunately, I know a little bit too much about this topic. And all you'd have to do is describe to the jury how much Fentanyl kills people. 50 to 70,000 people a year dying exactly this way. And then this is sort of a sideshow. But apparently Floyd actually had coronavirus too. So he actually had COVID 19. Now, nobody thinks that that killed him because he was young and healthy. Now, the other thing that you would have to prove, I think, is that there was some reason that the cops would kill this guy as opposed to anybody else. They stopped. And the reason, of course, would be racism. Right. So the. The presumed motive of either killing him, or if you prefer, not killing him, but rather being reckless, whichever it was, you assume that the reason that the jury will be presented with is that there was some racial motive. But let's use a little common sense here, isn't it size that was the problem, wasn't it the fact that the cops were all smallish? None of the cops were big guys. But George Floyd was a really big guy and muscular, too. Like, he looks like. I saw something that compared him to looking like LeBron James. Like, he's a big, substantial guy. Now, if he were a big, substantial guy of any other race and the cops were three small guys and he was not cooperating physically, isn't size the problem? Isn't it? And I've often wondered that. See, nobody's willing to say this because it sounds racist, so you have to word it as carefully as you possibly can. But do you think that. Do you think there's any difference in the physical, let's say, physical capability of different groups who get stopped by the police? I think so. I think if you. You stop some people, they look stronger and bigger, so they're scarier. And you would use different process to control them. So somebody said to me, hey, you know, he was complaining that he couldn't breathe for eight minutes. So therefore it's obviously murder. If he's complaining that he's dying and they don't do anything about it, it's obviously murder. To which I say, what were they supposed to do? What were they supposed to do? What was the other thing they could have done? Remember, he was resisting arrest. He's really big. And the next people that whoever is the next person who gets apprehended will complain about not being able to breathe. How many people are stopped and, let's say, controlled by police, like physically controlled? How many of them complain that the police are hurting them or killing them or they can't breathe? How many would say they can't breathe? If all you had to do is say that and the police had to light you up? There's not like a second way to do this, is there? Could they have just handcuffed, or maybe they could have handcuffed him. I suppose they could have handcuffed him and maybe put him up. But you have to ask the question, what happens if we assume police can. Somebody who's got some police experience tell me this? Don't people who get apprehended by police complain about not being able to breathe sort of routinely? Somebody says he was cuffed. If he was cuffed, how hard do you think that they were leaning on him to stay down if he was cuffed? I mean, it couldn't have been that dangerous. So a lot of. A lot of good questions here, but I can't imagine that we'll get a Murder conviction. So. And then we're going to have riots and people will die. Because you know that's coming, right? You know, there will be George Floyd riots and people will die. Who do we blame for that racism? The cops or the fake news? Because the fake news isn't going to say anything that I just said. And there's a lot of nuance and context here that's important. I would say that the fake news is quite clearly going to murder a number of citizens right in front of us. Because the fake news could make this stop just by adding the right context and saying, saying basically what I said. So you, you just see it with a little more fullness. But they won't because I, I think they like their riots. Good for business. Did you see the social media tweets where there are some grocery stores that are labeling some of the products as black owned businesses? So some food will say, this is made by a black owned business. And I saw a complaint from an African American gentleman saying that. Why is anybody complaining about this? Because we already label Mexican and Chinese food. So how is this any different to which I say that's labeling the food. If you label the food, you're just telling the person what they're buying. That's different than labeling the owner. Labeling the owner isn't even a little bit similar to labeling the food. What exactly is, you know, the, the black part of the food that they were labeling black? I think it was just generic food. I don't think it was any like special cultural black kind of food. And I. And then the rejoinder was that a lot of black businesses were shut out of getting ppa, PPP stuff and, and other benefits and that this would at least help them compensate for that. Now, I don't know if that happened. That's bad, right? So I don't know the details, but if in fact black businesses were somehow shut out of things that other people got, that would be very bad. I wouldn't want to see that. But I don't know if I could support racism as the solution to that because it feels, not feels it's blatantly racist. To call out the ethnicity of somebody as the owner as a reason you should buy something is as racist as anything could be. Like, it's the definition of racism. So you could be, you could be very pro black, as I am super pro black and still see this as a bad idea. All right, so let me ask you this. There's a story in the news that makes me really wonder about something. It goes like this, that there's this bacteria called cyanobacteria, or maybe it's cyana bacteria. C, Y A N. How would you pronounce that? Kyanobacteria, maybe. And it converts carbon dioxide to oxygen. And this bacteria could live in the harshest environments, including. Including maybe Mars. So there's some thinking that you could dump a bunch of this bacteria on Mars and let it create an oxygen atmosphere. But what would happen if that was done? Wouldn't it just keep going and get rid of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? And then somebody said, if that works, why aren't we using that here on Earth? If we can convert carbon dioxide to oxygen with a bacteria that we already have, What's the mean temperature on Mars? I don't know. It's cooler than Earth. Right. But apparently there's some indication that this bacteria could live in the harsh conditions on Mars so that we, we understand that that's actually feasible. Would we be creating Martian global warming? No, the opposite. Because it would be removing the CO2 from the air. Trees do that already. Well, if. Trees do that already, but a tree wouldn't grow on Mars. So maybe that's the whole answer. Maybe the fact that the tree does it more efficiently than the bacteria is all you need to know. Could be. Yeah. So obviously the problem with trees is you don't have enough of them to get it done. But if the bacteria is more efficient per square inch, could you put just a ton of bacteria in a box, put it on your porch, and have it changing the air while you're sitting there? It's just questions. I've got questions. But here's the interesting part. In our lifetime, we already have the technology to terraform a planet. If you don't think that humanity is evolving into God, we're talking about completely feasibly terraforming Mars. Like that's actually a conversation. And it doesn't seem like there's anything that would stop us from doing it because it would take a while. I mean, you'd have to put that bacteria there, and maybe you have to wait 10,000 years. But it looks like we know how to do it. All right. Yeah. If any of this is true, who knows how much of this is true? But we'll be terraforming like crazy. Then humanity, somebody says humanity is far from God. Well, so far. So far, humanity is far from God, but heading in the right direction. Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere, so. Good question. So the stability of Earth depends on our magnetic stuff. If Mars has A different situation. Does that make it less stable? Good question. I don't know. And what happens to the Earth when our magnetic North Pole moves? Because it is. I don't know. So he says, we didn't actually make any of that. So we're not God. Well, didn't we? Because in physics, we know that something has to be observed to exist. Didn't we make it all? Because everything that exists was observed. Right. So if existing. If observing makes it exist, I feel like maybe we did make it. Or at least the subjective part of it. Somebody says, when I watch this on YouTube, there's no place for comments. I'm watching the comments on YouTube right now. So I've got two screens up, and one of them is showing the comments as they're coming in from YouTube. Putting a magneto generator at a distance to Shield Mars would be comparatively easy. It would. That doesn't sound easy. All right, I'm just gonna look at some of your comments, because it does seem that when Trump is not in the news, the news just sort of gets kind of boring for a while. Observing something does not make it exist. You are misunderstanding the experiment. Well, observing something does collapse the waveform, so it. It collapses the possibilities. I would say that's the same thing. And there's some thought that maybe we're nothing but consciousness. Maybe we are. Somebody says we're made in the image of God. We are not God. Well, let me ask you this. To God, do you think that time means the same thing that it does to us? Do you think that time means the same thing to God as it does to a human? Probably not. Would there be anything that would stop God from moving either forward or backward in time? Right. By definition, no God would control space and time. And so God could move anywhere in space and time. So how do you know that God is in the past? How do you know that God is not your future and that the creation of God is what you're watching right now? How do you know that the sum of humanity, which started at the Big Bang as a bunch of nothing and is now consolidating in various places, and the individual human minds are now connected by a vast Internet, so that what was a human species of one person at a time is now a meta species where we act as one, with the Coronavirus being a good example. Once you act as one and your power increases to the point where you can terraform a planet and create life. You know we're going to create life, Right? We will be manipulating the gene structure and creating new species. Now fast forward that a thousand years. Everything I describe is what we can do right now. We can begin to terraform planets and begin to make new species and of combinations of old ones. What will we be able to do in a thousand years? It's going to be comparable to God. Does anybody think that's not true? What humans collectively will be able to do will be comparable to everything that we observe that is attributed to God. We'll be able to do all of it on a planetary level. I suppose you could argue that the universe is another thing. Now, what would. If you say God is real, why can't I say God is real? But God is not limited by time the way you are. So God is real in the future and God is real now in its formative stage. Because many of you believe that a fetus is a life, even though a fetus can't do much. If you believe that we are evolving into a godlike form, then we're already God. We're just not good at it yet. Like a fetus is not good at being a person. We're kind of a God fetus, not God. So I'll just put that out there, that if God is timeless and not affected by time, you're God. So there you go. Your theory is God is not tethered to linear time. That is correct. And in physics, we do know that the equations work forward and backwards. Right. So in physics, the forward motion of time I don't think is even necessarily considered preferred. Right. I think I've got a phone binging here somewhere. All right, that's all I've got for you today. Go off and have a good day. I know. I'm going to. And we'll talk to you tomorrow. All right, YouTubers, wow. Got a lot of comments. When I said that, I was just watching the comments. They just went zoop. Maybe I should just talk about that in the future. What was the title you wanted to use? I don't know that question. Anyway, my book, God's Debris, which is available free online, you could just Google it, or you could buy it from Amazon, has a fiction version of this. All right, that's all I got for now, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.