All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2023 - Dennis Prager Show
54:35
Fossil Future
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
Subscribe at prager-topia.com.
Hello, my friends.
I'm Dennis Prager.
Never say there's no good news.
I have good news.
College enrollment dropping.
See that?
You never know.
You never know where your help will come from when you need the help of some good news.
College enrollment drops even as the pandemics affect Ebb.
By the way, everybody does it, including conservatives.
It's a horribly, horribly misleading way of speaking.
It's not the pandemic's effects.
It's the lockdown's effects.
And everybody says the pandemic.
Schools were closed because of the pandemic.
Schools were closed because they decided to close them.
Let's put it this way, more accurately.
Kids were hurt, not because of the pandemic, but because of the lockdown.
That is the way to put it.
Kids were hurt because of the lockdown.
A generation of students may be weighing the value of college versus its cost, questioning whether college is still the ticket to the middle class.
Did you see what Delta announced?
Mind-blowing.
I can't believe I didn't announce it on the air.
I sort of did a dance in my house when I read it.
Delta announced they're not going to require a college degree to be a pilot.
For good reason.
What the hell does one have to do with the other?
Yeah.
Now, here, we're different.
We require everybody who works at the Prager Show to have a PhD.
But we're even rethinking that, you know?
Because I don't have one, you don't have one, and Sean doesn't have one.
So we are rethinking it.
I'm what they call a grad school dropout.
I was at Columbia University.
Getting my Master's in International Affairs, and I weighed whether to write my thesis.
I gave my thesis orally, and I weighed whether to write it or write a book.
And I thought, hmm, another thesis on some aspect of Lenin, I don't think that's going to make any difference.
It's going to be the proverbial tree that fell, and nobody heard it.
On the other hand, I did write...
An introduction to Judaism, which became the best-selling English-language introduction to Judaism, and it's still in print.
And that's what I did instead of writing a master's thesis.
So I waited, too, in my way.
The ongoing enrollment crisis at U.S. colleges and universities deepened in spring 22. Raising concerns that a fundamental shift is taking place in attitudes toward the value of a college degree.
I think that it is.
I do think it is.
And what would really make it clear is if more...
Look up the Delta.
I want to make sure it's not united.
I think it's Delta.
I always like to get, obviously, things accurately.
But I think more companies just need to say that.
Now, clearly, if you're a mathematician, then a degree in math is probably necessary.
Although, even there, I think they should test you for knowledge, not for a degree.
What if you had a tutor on your own and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars?
The old way of learning is with a tutor.
It's probably the best possible way of learning.
After all, didn't the teachers' unions tell us all of my life, small classes, small classes can't get smaller than a tutor?
That would work.
Just earlier this year, Delta Airlines joined other big carriers.
Wow, Delta joined other big carriers in dropping a four-year degree requirement.
Yeah.
*laughs* I love it.
Yes, that's right.
I think that to fly an airplane, a degree in sociology, I don't see it as connected.
Now to the bad news.
I didn't talk about it yesterday.
Because I couldn't believe, you know, early reports of any of these horrors are so often incorrect.
So I often wait a day or two.
And yet, now it seems, here's the Daily Mail headline, harrowing footage emerges of desperate parents being restrained by cops while a school shooter was inside.
It was inside a locked classroom with their kids for up to one hour while SWAT team searched for a key.
Police don't know how to enter a school classroom or a school room or a school without a key.
If I were one of the parents, my anger would be doubled. - What?
This really needs to be investigated.
I mean, as you well know, I'm a big backer of the police, but if the police don't police, then there's nothing to back.
It's like firemen showing up and, well, we couldn't get in the house, so we didn't rescue anybody.
Do you know, on a totally personal note, I'm not sure even why I'm saying it on the air, but as I have said all of my life, I'm not a talk show host.
I'm a human with a talk show.
Do you know I can't look at the pictures of the kids?
I scroll down without pausing.
It's too painful.
That age, having been a parent, I'm a parent of two boys, That age, the loss of a child at any age is beyond belief.
That is the nightmare of every parent.
But when they're young like that, I think the pain is sort of increased.
At any age, it's horrific.
They're so lovable and so attached to you and so dependent upon you, and all you see is promise.
I don't want to dwell on that, and I don't want to dwell either on the ripple effect.
Kids in that classroom watching their classmates die?
None of us, not one of you, unless you went through it, which is very doubtful, can imagine what that is like at any age.
If I saw people I was seated next to in a classroom killed at my age, the word traumatic disorder is appropriate.
I hope these people can find the will, the strength, the friendships, God, to see them through.
I know so many parents who've lost children.
And people differ, obviously, in their marching on in life.
But there is a route to marching on.
I have seen this in couples for whom my admiration is extremely deep.
Wall Street Journal has an editorial.
If you compare the New York Times editorial, or the Los Angeles Times, I won't even...
The convoluted thinking, the immaturity of LA Times editorials is stupefying.
But if you compared the Wall Street Journal editorial to that of virtually any other newspaper, major paper, you would see the difference between left and right.
It is so thoughtful.
It is so measured.
And it hits upon...
One of my favorite words in the English language.
The name of the editorial, the title is Young Men, Guns, and Guardrails.
Guardrails is one of my favorite words.
We resume momentarily.
I'm Dennis Prager.
The Dennis Prager Show.
Dennis Prager here, and the real estate market is hot right now.
People are taking advantage of low interest rates and economic uncertainty by investing in real assets.
Whether you're a first-time buyer or just looking to make a change, the key to getting the property you want is being pre-qualified with cash in hand.
That's why you should contact Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian at andrewandtodd.com.
They are with Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
Andrew and Todd are mortgage bankers, not brokers, so their team takes care of you personally from start to finish.
In fact, you'll probably speak with either Andrew or Todd directly.
Go online and fill out a few simple questions, and they can usually assess your situation right over the phone.
Andrew and Todd are with you every step of the way.
Go to andrewandtodd.com or call 888-888-1172.
Andrewandtodd.com or 888-888-1172.
8888-1172.
All right, everybody.
Telling you about the difference between the Wall Street Journal editorial and those of the others.
Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, doesn't matter.
Theirs is all about guns.
By the way, I am receptive to the idea that guns...
It would be available only when you're 21 years of age, or at least some restrictions, but there is a problem.
It is a constitutional problem.
The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, if people want to pass an amendment saying that in that case it's 21, the danger with that, however, is that there is no instance in the history of the left.
That they stop.
Then it's like civil rights.
It all began with the completely morally correct law of not discriminating on the basis of race.
The idea that a human being, because of his or her skin color, cannot stay at a hotel is obscene.
Simple as that.
Most Americans knew it.
So civil rights legislation was passed.
It is metastasized now to the point where, in various states, it is now understood that to discriminate against a trans woman, in other words, to say that a biological male cannot participate in women's sports, that's now violating civil rights laws.
That is what happens.
The moment the left passes a law, they want to pass another law.
You thought that LGBTQ would end with same-sex marriage?
It's completely understandable that you would think that.
What would you like now?
And now you know what they would like now.
To teach five-year-olds about gender fluidity.
So if indeed an amendment were passed, that you have to be 21 to acquire, Guns or certain types of guns, it will not end there.
That is the danger, because the left is completely untrustworthy.
What you consider moral, and I consider moral, is only the beginning of the overturning of precedence in life.
By precedence, I mean the understood norms.
That is the object.
And in the case of guns, the object is that essentially no one have any.
So that's what they editorialize about.
Listen to this from the editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
A man I don't dislike as much as I do Joe Biden, but...
Man is, I will put it as calmly as I can, a mischief maker named Barack Obama.
As he often does, this is the editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama summed up the single-minded response of the progressive side of American politics.
Nearly ten years after Sandy Hook, And ten days after Buffalo, our country is paralyzed, he wrote on Twitter, not by fear, but by a gun lobby and a political party that have shown no willingness to act in any way that might help prevent these tragedies.
Well, there it is.
And as the Wall Street Journal then puts it, leave it to the former president to demonize his political opponents in the wake of an act of madness.
It's long past time for action, any kind of action, he ended his tweet.
Note his default to action, any kind of action.
It's a very intelligent point made by the Wall Street Journal.
Anything, apparently, will do, as long as it offers the self-satisfaction that we are doing something, even if it turns out to be futile or counterproductive.
Do something.
Do something.
I would like to do many things, actually, in this regard, as I spoke yesterday at length, under the heading of, do we need more gun laws or more fathers?
And by the way, it turns out that his father was essentially estranged from his life.
Did you read about that?
Mother had her own issues.
Obviously.
I have another bombshell for you, however, in a moment.
We continue with the Wall Street Journal editorial.
Would background checks beyond those that already exist help?
That's the question.
Unlikely, since these young men rarely have a criminal record.
A six-day waiting period to receive a gun after it's purchased?
Not for someone who was determined to kill.
A ban on purchasing a rifle until the age of 21?
As Governor Greg Abbott pointed out Wednesday, 18-year-olds have been able to buy long guns in Texas for more than 60 years.
Yet for decades, mass shootings were rare.
This is something that I have asked.
Why, as you go back in the past...
Were there more gun availability and fewer mass shootings?
Why?
Maybe gun availability is not the reason.
That's the key.
Do you think that these are happening because of gun availability or because of massive social breakdown in the society called the United States?
The recent proliferation of mass shootings suggests a deeper malady than gun laws can fix.
This is exactly making the point in their excellent language that I have been making.
Firearm laws were few and weak before the 1970s.
Yet only in recent decades have young men entered schools and supermarkets for the purpose of killing the innocent.
We return.
Towels just don't seem to dry you anymore.
They feel soft and lotion-y in the store, but you get them home, and they don't absorb.
Well, Mike Lindell at MyPillow found that out around 2006, and towels changed forever.
He found the best towel company right here in the USA. They have proprietary technology to create towels that feel soft, but actually work.
And that happens to be true.
I use them.
They are all made with USA Cotton, and they come with the MyPillow 60-day money-back guarantee.
Six-piece set, two baths, two hand towels, two washcloths.
Regularly $109.99, now $39.99.
Just go to MyPillow.com and click on the new radio listener specials and get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the towels, by entering the promo code PRAGER or call 800-761-6302 for these great radio specials.
MyPillow.com, promo code PRAGER. Hi everybody, I'm Dennis Prager and I welcome you to or back to the show.
Those of us who observe society, specifically American society, although I think this is a crisis in the West generally, are only too aware of the crisis of the male.
Yes, I do believe in a binary sexual distinction.
There are men and women, period.
But there are men who think they are women, and women who think they are men, I do not dispute.
But there are only men and women.
And the crisis among men, there's a terrible crisis among women, which I've talked about on many occasions, and certainly about men.
Well, yesterday an important book on precisely this subject came out by one of my favorite thinkers.
In fact, he's done a PragerU video, which is titled, How Dark Were the Dark Ages?
He's a historian, a philosopher, a theologian.
And I love the wide grasp of his interests.
No apologies, why civilization depends on the strength of men.
And he is Anthony Esalen, E-S-O-L-E-N. He is writer-in-residence at a college in New Hampshire, Magdalene College.
He used to be at Providence.
And they didn't like the fact that he thought Western civilization was worth preserving.
That is the state of our colleges and universities today.
Anthony Esselin, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show.
Hello, Dennis.
It's great to be back here with you.
It's mutual.
By the way, I'm just curious.
There's a state I can't make out.
I have a sense of...
A bit tall 50 states.
Just in Alaska again last week.
I think I know my country pretty well.
I have no sense of New Hampshire.
Can you just summarize the state you live in for me?
Well, yeah.
Some farmland, mainly full of rocks and flint in the south.
And less farmland and more flint and rocks and mountains in the north.
A beautiful state with a lot of rushing streams and, well, very cold weather in the winter.
Right, but what is it philosophically?
Well, now, it was the last of the New England states to retain some sense of conservatism.
But I think that that's fading fast.
We've been a sort of bedroom state for the Boston area and the tech ring around Boston, the belt around Boston for a while.
And that has skewed the politics to the left.
Right.
So Boston or Massachusetts has done to New Hampshire...
What California did to Arizona, what New York did to Florida until DeSantis.
Right.
Yeah.
And in fact, I... I've been told, I don't have any way of verifying this, but that sometimes voters from Massachusetts come on over to New Hampshire because our elections still tend to be hotly contested.
And all they need to do, according to the person I talked to, all they need to do is express a future desire to live in New Hampshire.
So their preferred pronoun is New Hampshire?
Yes.
That's how it works.
You're really from Massachusetts, but you feel you are from New Hampshire, and apparently that suffices.
You've felt that way since you were four years old.
Right.
You started to play with apple pickers and things like that.
I mean, it's just New Hampshire.
Do you like living there?
Yeah, actually, I do.
It's people in the rural areas.
Right.
I mean, again, it's an urban-rural divide.
Right.
It's true everywhere.
People in the rural areas tend to be a bit more sane.
That's right.
Because they have to live closer to the earth.
They can't go off into fantasy land so easily.
That's a very interesting question.
We won't dwell on it now.
I've done a lot of work on this in my Bible commentary because the Bible has a negative view of cities.
Always forget that the Tower of Babel was not the only thing they built.
They built a city.
And the first builder of a city mentioned in Bible.
That's right.
And it's a problem.
It's a problem.
So let's talk about men here.
And the subtitle of your book, No Apologies, Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men.
What does strength of men mean?
Several things.
The most basic thing, but it's still something that we really can't get around, is in fact, I mean, this is not the most important thing, but it is a fundamental thing.
In fact, men are stronger physically than women are.
And this is, it's not by a little bit either.
If we can imagine a society in which basically everyone is doing physical labor, everyone is outdoors, everyone is doing physical labor, then there essentially is not going to be any overlap at all.
The strongest woman is going maybe to be about the equal of the weakest man.
But in general, there's complete separation.
And it's necessary for us to consider this, because this is how the human race grew up, right?
This has been built into our DNA, so to speak.
And everything that is of physical value, economical value...
It must stem somehow, even to this day, from something that is taken from the earth and transformed, or something taken from the water and transformed.
I mean, everything, basically.
Stone, oil, metal, whatever, right?
ultimately it's all got to be based on that and none of that work gets done if the male else of the species we're breaking we're breaking up a little bit there Sean And we've frozen.
And we froze, yeah.
Okay.
He's on Skype, and that's because we tried a video.
It's now clean?
Okay, let's try it again.
Sorry, Anthony.
No, no.
Yeah, okay, good.
So I think, if I may, I presume that the answer of the cultural left would be that was true for all of human history, but physical strength is no longer nearly as important.
Machines do that work.
So it's now really only an issue of mental acuity, and there, women and men, are equivalent.
That's what they would say.
That's what they would say, and of course they would be wrong on two counts.
Or perhaps three counts.
First, it is simply not true that the physical strength is no longer needed.
It's no longer needed by a large portion of the populace.
But still, we absolutely do depend, ultimately, on those bodies that get the stone and the oil and whatnot out of the earth.
Even handling the machines requires a good deal of physical strength.
Everywhere you look, if you look at a road, that road has got to be paved by men.
You will still see men out there with shovels.
That stuff is still going to be necessary.
It's always going to be necessary.
And the second answer to it is that We still are the kinds of beings that we are, even if we're not doing that kind of labor, right?
And a sane society would acknowledge this fact and allow boys especially to be able to express in healthy ways this greater physical strength, to take advantage of it, right?
I mean, it's there, it should be developed, and it should be used to good purpose.
The third thing is...
Though I think the intelligence of men and women is equal, the quality is different, and there's a certain aggressiveness about the male that comes into play here, and that is also, I think, crucial for the development of civilization.
It's what I call in the book, what I call the arrow.
The arrow seeks to...
To change something.
To dismantle it, perhaps.
To penetrate it.
Blow it apart.
Do something.
Do something radical.
And not just rest calmly with things as they are.
So to create.
Yeah.
Which also means very often to destroy.
Well, that's right.
Which is a problem.
That's the problematic part, I would assume.
The book is No Apologies, Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men.
Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here.
Devoted a vast amount of time to the murders in Texas.
Obviously, that will be an ongoing subject.
But there are other items in the news and in our life.
Energy is a big one.
I think the biggest reason for our inflation, well, there are two that are tied.
One is we print money the way people print anything with their printer.
It's just the government prints money and devalues the money.
By doing so, devalued money is inflation.
The other is that we're spending so much more for energy because this administration decided to make America dependent on others for energy rather than independent, as was done the four years previous to this administration.
I think the best thinker on the fossil fuel issue is Alex Epstein.
Is it Epstein or Epstein?
I always ask you that.
It's Epstein.
That's why I knew when I said it that I might be wrong, and I was wrong.
By the way, you're right, because it comes from German, and it would be Stein there.
A lot of people say Epstein, so I really never cared, except, you know, Jeffrey Epstein came along, and I feel like, oh, let me get a little bit of differentiation now.
Oh, God.
Well, thank God your name isn't Jeffrey.
Let's put it, you should be grateful for big favors.
Yeah, you might have to change it in that case.
Yeah, exactly, that's right.
Alex Epstein, I do, I think he is the most important thinker on this subject.
That's a big statement on my part.
His latest book out this week is Fossil Future, Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas, Not Less.
Where was the report?
Maybe my producer knows, maybe you know, maybe neither of you knows, but I just read a report in a left-wing source that it's going to be so long before we can actually transition to what is called a green energy world.
Are you familiar with this latest report of saying that?
Well, you're seeing different people.
So, you know, there was a big UN person recently who had said something to that effect.
But what's basically happened is there's been this mythology.
There's sort of two...
Two ideas behind we should rapidly eliminate fossil fuels.
One is they're causing this climate catastrophe that will become an apocalypse.
Number two is that they're rapidly replaceable by so-called renewables, mainly solar and wind.
And what we've seen is all these countries have invested huge amounts in these renewables.
They've given them huge favoritism, and they've restricted fossil fuel investment, production, and transportation on the lie that these unreliable renewables would replace them, and it's failed.
And so now we're short of fossil fuel.
And we have a global energy crisis.
And so the idea that, oh, now it's going to work to rapidly replace them, is even delusional people are not as deluded anymore.
Really?
That's happy to hear.
When GM announced...
Some of them.
Some of them are not as deluded.
John Kerry, Joe Biden, okay.
That's unrealistic.
Correct.
Thank you for modifying it.
GM announced that by 2030 it will not be producing anything except electric cars.
A. Do you believe that's true?
B. Why are they doing it?
I doubt it's true.
I mean, of course, Tesla only produces battery cars, so it's possible to be such a manufacturer.
I mean, I think the basic thing that people don't get is that there's no scalable way to replace gasoline cars with EVs, and so you can have some minority of people doing it, but if everyone tries to do it, you're going to run into massive shortages of all the raw materials.
We're already having skyrocketing lithium prices at a tiny scale of EVs.
So why are they doing this?
I think a combination of status, trying to anticipate future government mandates.
And I think they probably haven't thought through the scalability issues.
I doubt Mary Barra has fully, I think that's who runs GM, has fully thought through these issues.
What does a scalability issue mean?
So a scalability issue means how do you produce something at a given price or a lower price on a much larger scale?
And one thing that all of these green things have in common is they involve many multiples times more basic elements than we're using today.
So lithium is an example where people are talking about we need a hundred, a thousand times more lithium.
We never have that kind of scaling and keeping the cost low.
And we're already seeing with a modest amount of scaling that the cost is going sky high.
So whenever you impose a very artificial crash timetable on the market, you get these drastic price increases, which these people are not factoring in.
So I'm going to ask you another question related to the electric car, and it might be just a very simplistic, not just simple question, but I don't care.
I don't know the answer, so I'm asking you.
Since we're already experiencing, you and I both live in California, we're already experiencing brownouts almost every summer.
Where simply the electricity dies for a certain number of hours in one of the most advanced democracies in the history of the world, and one of the richest, and this is happening as well in Germany.
So where is all the electricity going to come from to power all these cars?
It's unfortunately not a dumb question or a naive question.
It's a question that people haven't really thought through.
And one of my big points in Fossil Future is this idea that we're going to rapidly replace fossil fuels is not a really thought-through idea by people with a real plan.
Otherwise, they would just compete on the market and perform.
It's by people with a deep hostility toward energy, not just fossil fuels but also nuclear and hydro, who are just looking for a rationalization.
So they say, yeah, okay, we'll build solar and wind.
Don't worry about us getting rid of fossil fuels.
Don't worry about shutting down the...
Don't worry about banning leasing on federal lands because we have this magical solution.
And then you look at the details and it's like, you haven't thought this through at all because you're already making electricity more expensive, more scarce, less reliable, and then you're massively going to increase the demand based on EVs.
So there's no real thinking going on here.
It's just rationalizing an agenda of eliminating our mainstream energy use, which is really, I argue, about eliminating human impact on Earth.
Why do you argue that?
I know that's a big theme of yours, so elaborate.
So the easy thing to think is that the anti-fossil fuel movement is just really focused on CO2 emissions, and they're just so concerned that our rising CO2 levels that we've caused by our CO2 emissions from fossil fuels...
That's making the world a bad place.
But we see, wait a second, they also oppose nuclear, which is the most promising and proven alternative to fossil fuels.
They oppose hydro, which is the next one after that.
And then with solar, wind and batteries, they oppose mining, which needs to be scaled up massively.
And they oppose massive amounts of development, which are needed for transmission lines and for building the things.
And so what you see is the common denominator in this anti-fossil fuel movement is not a concern about fossil fuels.
It's a hostility toward all forms of energy because all forms of energy involve impacting nature.
And the core thing I say about this in fossil futures, the goal that's animating the green movement and in diluted form much of the population is not advancing human flourishing on Earth, but eliminating human impact on Earth.
Bravo.
Just bravo.
That is the core element.
And I don't know where it emanates from, because I suspect it is new in history.
Sort of.
Oh, go ahead.
So where did it take place before?
So the way I think of it is, you know, I think of our modern environmental movement as a primitive and anti-human religion.
And I think it can only be understood.
That way, and so it has two core beliefs.
One is that human impact on nature is evil, so you can think about that as a commandment, thou shalt not impact nature.
And then the other view is that human impact on nature is inevitably self-destructive.
So if we anger the god of nature, by impacting it, it's going to punish us.
And global warming is a kind of secular hellscape that we're going to experience.
And so the second view is this view that Earth is what I call a delicate nurturer.
It exists in a delicate nurturing balance that's stable, safe, and sufficient.
So it's all good until we ruin it by our evil impact because we're just these parasite polluters who ruin it.
Now for primitive people, this is the primitive part, that kind of made sense before you have science and understand cause and effect.
You know, it doesn't rain as much as you want.
You're mad.
You think it's your fault, right?
It rains too much.
You're upset.
You think it's your fault.
But when we have science, it's crazy to think of Earth as a delicate nurturer, since it's clearly what I call wild potential.
It's dynamic.
It's deficient.
It's dangerous.
We need to massively and productively impact it in a way that the benefits far outweigh the negative side effects to benefit human life.
So the thing that's more modern about it is the anti-human part of it, because the primitive people weren't really anti-human.
They were just sort of scared of these different nature gods and forces they didn't understand.
But the deep hostility toward human life, this is something you see emerging.
Yeah, I mean, you see it with Rousseau.
So you see it with a lot of the people who have resentment over the successes of industrialization.
I think there's a lot of envy there.
And a lot of people like the idea that human impact is bad because even though it makes them bad, it makes us worse.
The book is Fossil Future up at my website.
We'll be right back.
Speaking with Alex Epstein, there's no better thinker on the issue.
I mean, just the last comments.
That Alex made were so important.
What drives the environmentalist movement is ultimately a preference for nature over humans.
I know you're not religious, Alex, but I still think you'll appreciate there is a deep hostility to the Judeo-Christian value system on the left.
And part of that system is the biblical command that we subdue nature.
And they hate that.
Is that fair to say?
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, I would regard Judeo-Christian tradition on this issue as much more rational in terms of the proper relationship between man and the rest of nature.
I think there are basically two alternatives.
You want to eliminate human impact on earth or advance human flourishing on earth.
I think a lot of people, religious and non-religious, stand with me on we want to advance human flourishing on Earth and we don't believe that our impact is evil.
I call that human racism because it's the belief that anything the human race does is bad and everything the rest of nature does is good.
My God, is that correct?
But obviously you still have to answer because they'll say, oh, what are you talking about?
We're the ones who want to protect humanity from the apocalypse, the word you used earlier, of global warming.
So what's your answer to that?
Well, the thing I mentioned before is relevant, that their policies are totally inconsistent with that stated goal, because there's also a hostility toward nuclear, hostility toward hydro, hostility toward mining.
So it shows that the movement is wrong, but doesn't show that that issue is wrong.
And so I think the first thing that everyone has to acknowledge, and almost no one does acknowledge, is that fossil fuels have made us unbelievably safe from climate so far.
So we can talk about the future.
But the present is we're actually not in a climate crisis, we're in a climate renaissance, because the rate of climate-related disaster death, which we can quantify, is down 98% over the last century.
That means you and I are 150th as likely to die from a climate-related cause, and yet the UN doesn't talk about this in its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not just in its...
Public relations, even in its multi-thousand page reports, it omits the fact that we're safer from climate than ever and that clearly fossil fuels are a major cause because what heats us when it's cold, right?
What cools us when it's hot?
What provides us irrigation?
What allows drought relief ships to save millions of lives?
It's fossil-fueled machines.
And so my argument is all of these people talking about this issue.
They are ignoring the massive benefits of fossil fuels, including their climate mastery benefits, and they are catastrophizing their side effects, which means they're overstating the amount of warming and other impacts that occurs.
And crucially, they're totally denying our ability to overcome those things through mastery.
So I regard it as there's an epidemic of climate mastery denial, and that's what's driving this apocalyptic thinking.
That's right.
That's excellent.
We have been able to deal with climate, and specifically the threat, they say, of the inundation of coastal areas by rising sea levels.
So I always have one question is, why do so many of them buy houses on seashores?
Whether the West Coast or the East Coast or the West Coast of Florida, the Gulf, the Atlantic, the Pacific, why wouldn't they only buy inland houses?
But they seem not to care.
Is that a fair question?
I think it's a very fair question.
I mean, I live in Laguna Beach, and I would really like to buy a home next to the beach.
Maybe if I sell enough books, then it'll happen this time.
But unfortunately, the prices are not going down.
Despite, I want to live right next to the ocean and those places are going up in price.
And what I think it points to is that there's a very deep insincerity in this discussion of a climate crisis.
Climate crisis was something people experienced 100 years ago when they actually had to deal with the constant ravages of the naturally dynamic and dangerous climate.
Today, it's a theoretical thing that for especially for thought leaders and for high status people, it's just a thing that you say you really care about in order to get status.
I mean, you look at the Davos thing that has just been occurring this week.
I mean, these are, you know, billionaires flying jets to get here.
You think they're really afraid in their bones that the climate is going to have some vengeance against us and ruin their lives?
Or do they just love the idea that there's an evil that they are saving the world from?
Exactly right.
Have you ever debated any of the environmentalists?
Oh yeah.
Yeah, for sure.
I've debated, I think, more than anyone has.
It's harder and harder to get them.
It's so hard.
That's why I'm asking.
The lengths I go to.
But there have been some.
Like, I don't know what's your first name.
McGibbon, have you debated him?
Yeah, so we debated in 2012. So I didn't know nearly as much back then, but people can watch that.
That's actually how I got the book contract for the moral case for fossil fuels.
An agent saw that and said, hey, I thought you did really well.
You should write a book.
And believe it or not, Penguin Random House picked it up and then they picked up Fossil Future as well.
And I most recently debated a guy named Andrew Dessler, who was featured on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.
And so he just spread misinformation and distortion to 11 million people.
So it was a good thing that I got to debate him.
And people can find that on YouTube if you just search my name, Andrew Dessler.
When did you debate him?
This was just a few months ago in Colorado.
Well, I'm delighted.
Would McGibbon debate you again?
He really shouldn't.
I shouldn't say that.
Yeah, go ahead.
Come debate me.
I mean, I don't know.
If someone wants to set it up, look, I will debate anybody if someone wants to set it up.
Exactly.
I would love to set it up.
I offer regularly large sums of money to any New York Times columnist who's on the left, which is 99% of them, who would debate me.
And, of course, they never do.
They don't debate, and they're right to.
So can I tell them we can have a forum on your show if they'll debate me?
Oh, my God, would we?
I would have it videoed professionally.
You have no idea how I would welcome that.
Absolutely.
Absolutely we would do that.
I would give you a big chunk of the show to do that.
Okay.
I'll tell people.
Yes, please.
Absolutely.
The book is Fossil Future.
Alex Epstein knows a tremendous amount, but he understands a tremendous amount.
The animating impulse.
You've really explained it well.
The opposite of human flourishing.
It's like between the contest of nature and humans, they're rooting for nature.
How's that, everybody?
Yeah, they've singled us out as the worst part.
As the villains.
All right, hold on there, hold on.
Again, Fossil Future, it's up at my website, and we continue.
The Dennis Prager Show.
Hi everybody, I'm Dennis Prager. - Bye.
Oh good, I have a disagree.
Good, this is a good one.
I'm glad.
If you don't agree with Alex Epstein, please call in.
Alex Epstein is the author.
A book that came out this week, Fossil Future, Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas, Not Less.
And now you have, by the way, it's very interesting.
You're the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, but your project is the Human Flourishing Project, correct?
I'm not hearing him, Sean.
It's a podcast of mine.
Oh, it's a podcast.
Can you not hear me?
Yes.
No, I do.
I hear you fine.
Okay, yeah.
And what is the name of the podcast?
It's called The Human Flourishing Project.
And the basic idea is human flourishing is the theme of my work on energy, but I like studying it in other areas, so I have a podcast where I discuss it in other areas.
Give me an example of another area.
Well, a big area that I focus on is actually our creative and productive life.
I'm a big fan of what I call relaxed productivity, which is the idea that we should produce tremendous amounts of value, but really enjoy the process instead of just being stressed by it all the time.
And it's something I plan to write a book on at some point in the not-too-distant future.
And so that's kind of, I think, one key aspect of flourishing that's misunderstood is that productive work can really make you happy, but it has to be approached a certain...
And I think, you know, you study a lot of these kinds of things on the Happiness Hour, which is, you know, my favorite part of your show.
And I'm very interested in these kinds of issues, and I integrate them all under Human Flourishing.
I love it.
I love the name of the podcast.
Is that how people find you?
They just type in Human Flourishing Project?
Yeah, if you just type it in on Apple.
I've been a little bit delinquent in new episodes, but I think there are 98 episodes, so you've got plenty to catch up on.
So you could binge watch for a while.
Yes, exactly.
Let me take the Sacramento, California mark.
Hi, you're on with Alex Epstein and me.
Hi.
Hi, guys.
How are you doing?
Alex, congratulations on the book.
I've been waiting for a new book because I've been waiting for the opportunity.
For you to debate me.
I'm Mark Roush.
I'm the author of The Ethanol Papers.
We've emailed before about this.
You have run away.
Dennis Prager's show is the perfect place for the two of us to debate.
I disagree completely with the premise that fossil fuels are beneficial, and I disagree completely that there is a moral case.
Excuse me.
Case to be made.
All right, forgive me.
I know you're addressing this to Alex, but I just don't understand your first point because it doesn't sound quite right.
You don't think that fossil fuels have made modern civilization possible?
No.
The inventions have made civilization possible.
Modern civilization.
Not the fuel.
Well, where would we get the energy to make the inventions?
Is he gone?
Hello?
Now, I happen to agree with Alex on climate change.
I agree with you, Alex, on climate change, you know, that it's a fraud and all that stuff.
So that's not the issue.
I'm not debating from that.
I'm debating from the perspective that fossil fuels are terrible.
Wait, if you're not worried about the climate change apocalypse, As a result of carbon emissions from fossil fuels, why are they terrible?
Because still they cause pollution, and they cause disease, and ultimately they cause wars.
Okay.
All right.
So you guys can arrange a debate between the two of you.
If you'd like to comment, Alex, please do.
Yeah, I mean, this is a big subject.
Mark kind of has an interesting kind of challenge because he's focused on the more conventional negative side effects of fossil fuels, which I actually think are more important than the climate side effects.
I think the hard point for him to make is he basically argues, as far as I remember, that ethanol, so plant-based fuels, can outcompete fossil fuels on a global scale and provide energy for billions of people, and I simply think there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
So that's what I'll say for now, and people can check out Chapter 6 of Fossil Future for some more details.
Thank you for calling.
The book is Fossil Future, Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, etc.
Unfortunately, China agrees with you.
That's the irony.
And so while we and Germany and other countries start impoverishing ourselves, And pushing ourselves into terrible inflation over energy, they're increasing their use of coal, for example.
Is that correct?
Yeah, for sure.
This is one of the big motivations for me to write the book, is we're not going to pursue global net zero.
That's not a realistic possibility.
What is a realistic possibility is what I call unilateral disempowerment.
All right, explain that in a moment.
I want to tell everybody again, the book is Fossil Future.
It's up at DennisPrager.com.
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
▲
Export Selection