All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:54
Episode 476 Scott Adams: President Trump can Save the Planet With a Tweet, #FentanylChina, Beyonce
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, I'm a couple minutes late.
I had to take a few minutes to change the world, as usual.
Has anybody noticed that the world is weirdly going my way?
Does anybody notice that?
Is it just me?
Because I'm starting to think this whole simulation theory is not only true, but it's weirdly corresponding to how I want it to unfold.
Let me give you an example.
Think about the things that I've talked about the most.
One is fentanyl.
Today the news says that China decided to move ahead and on May 1st they will classify all the forms of fentanyl in China as, I guess, whatever class allows them to execute somebody who's selling it illegally.
Now, I'm not sure that's enough.
Feels like a step in the right direction.
But I guess the precursors are still not completely illegal, and we don't know how much they're going to enforce it.
So I would say it's a positive sign.
However, until you hear that China is literally executing fentanyl dealers, you should assume that it's not happening.
All right. But in the meantime...
Can we drink to this?
Maybe a good sign on fentanyl.
Would you? Join me please.
Raise your cup, your glass, your chalice, your stein, your tangard, your thermos.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, somebody in the comments says it's a trade war chip.
So certainly it has to be viewed in that context.
Now, if you remember, yesterday, I started to talk about how the Russian conspiracy or collusion hoax all started.
And if you remember, I had this awkward situation because I thought I knew how it all started, and then I looked at a source, and then the source was once again ambiguous, and I had to stop in the middle and say, oh, okay.
Turns out, the biggest story in the country for the past two years, and for some reason, I didn't know how it started.
Like, how did the investigation start?
And I thought, how in the world could I, as much as I watch the news, how could I not know that?
So I took my lumps and just admitted in front of the public, okay, I guess I'm the only person in the world who doesn't know how this thing started.
And then the president tweets yesterday.
And the President's tweet was, nobody can figure out how it started.
So it turns out that the President of the United States also doesn't know how it started.
I tweeted out a Dan Bongino article in which he's got a much better command of the facts than any of us do.
And he lays down a strong argument that it was the dossier.
Others have said it's something about Papadopoulos, but I guess they didn't even talk to Papadopoulos until after the dossier had kicked off the investigation.
I think that's Dan's version of events.
This sounds credible to me, and I imagine it's what Bongino has been saying for a long time.
It's probably in his book, so if you want to find out more, I would read Dan Bongino's book.
So, here's another thing that seems to be going my way.
You know, the Charlottesville hoax that I've been working on trying to highlight, and if anybody's brand new, I know most of you have heard this before, but the hoax is that President Trump called the Nazis in Charlottesville fine people.
When in fact, his actual quote, when you see it in context, he calls them out specifically and says, no, not the neo-Nazis and the white supremacists.
They should be condemned totally.
So this morning, I wake up to a desperate article in something called Raw Story, in which somebody has written a very long article Trying to tear apart what they call the gaslighting of the Charlottesville situation.
Now their version is that people like Steve Cortez, people like me, people like Joel Pollack, although we were not named, Steve Cortez was.
But the idea is that we're trying to revise the history and turn it into a hoax when he's sure it's a real thing.
Now here's a little Just a mental filter for determining truth from untruth.
Now, I tweeted around the article in which he's claiming he's being gaslighted.
Here are some clues that the article that says it's all a big hoaxy sort of thing is illegitimate.
Number one, it accuses someone of gaslighting.
I promise you, you've never seen gaslighting.
I know lots of you say you have.
I know somebody who did it.
This other person must be doing it.
I'm positive it's real.
No. You have not seen it.
You think you have. Most people think they have.
But gaslighting is when you're trying to make somebody literally believe they're crazy so that you can get away with stuff.
Nobody's trying to do that.
People are just trying to explain the facts as they understand them.
That's all. There's no secret plot.
And by the way, I can speak to this quite...
This is one of those national stories that usually you have to read minds.
You have to make some assumptions about what other people are thinking.
In this particular case, I'm pretty sure I'm the guy who started this.
I mean, personally. I'm actually the person who had the thought, hey, this news is wrong.
Why don't I see if I can correct it?
It's sort of a good time to do it.
So I'm telling you, you don't have to read anybody's mind if you're the person.
Most of you just read the news and you're looking at the news and you're saying, I wonder what that person in the news did.
I wonder what that person in the news was thinking.
But on this particular news, even though Steve Cortez was called out by name in the article, I am the one who started it.
Let's be perfectly clear.
This was me sitting there saying, well, this news is totally bad and it's bad for the country.
It's a fake news that's bad for the whole country.
Let's see if I can fix this.
And so I embarked on a mission to see if I can fix it.
Now, Steve Cortez has helped tremendously on that with articles and mentioning it on TV. Joel Pollack has had several tweets and articles that really clearly lay it out.
And so When you watch the news, you're wondering how something started or wondering what people are thinking.
I'm not wondering that because I am the news.
I am literally patient one.
I personally looked at this situation and said, this is fake news.
I think I'll go fix it.
So those of you who are watching this, there's no way you can know that I'm not lying, right?
I mean, you can trust me, or maybe you can say, I've seen you for a while, and I believe it.
Maybe you've looked at the facts, and you know I got the facts correct.
But still, you're still deducing, right?
You still have to use a little bit of judgment that I'm telling the truth or not.
But I don't. I don't have to employ any judgment whatsoever.
I'm literally the news.
I'm the guy who sat there and said, huh, this news is fake.
It's bad for the country, really bad for the country, like super bad for the country.
If I can fix this fake news, this will be really good for the country.
That's it. I was not trying to gaslight anybody.
Nor have I ever.
I have never gaslighted anybody.
It would not be ethical, and I don't even know if it would work.
I don't even know if I could do it.
I mean, but I wouldn't even try, so I'll never find out.
Anyway, that's happening.
Oh, here's the other way to tell if something's fake.
Here's my version of Charlottesville, and then read the page after page after page of the guy who's trying to call it a gaslighting situation.
Look at the length of how much description he has to go through, and now here's my description.
Obviously the president wasn't talking about the racists, because he said so in direct language.
That's it. That's my story.
My story is you don't have to wonder if he were referring to the racists.
He said in clear language, no, I'm not talking about those people.
The worst thing you could say after seeing that clear fact that's unambiguous, he did say it, it's recorded, it's in text, in a transcript.
The worst thing you could say about the president is he may have been under-informed about who was there.
Totally reasonable. But that doesn't make you racist.
Being under-informed about a topic would just be every day.
Now, on top of that, the New York Times reported, you know, they actually interviewed somebody who was there for non-racist reasons.
And I've since read up on it.
And there were a number of militias who were there.
And the militias, at least their public statement of who they are, Again, you can't read minds.
But their public statement of who they are is that they're not racist and they were not there for any racist purposes.
Apparently these militia groups go to events wherever free speech is risk or where there might be violence and maybe they need a little security.
So some of them were there actually trying to break up fights.
If you're breaking up a fight, You're not a terrible person.
Alright, let's talk about something else.
Did you see Beyonce's kiss?
So the news is chattering because Omar or somebody, some actor, went up to Beyonce at the BET Awards, I guess, and I don't know how well he knew her or if he was just meeting her for the first time.
But he gives her a big hug and a kiss on the cheek, and then after saying something in her ear, it looked like, tried to give her a closing second kiss that was sort of like on the corner of her mouth, and everybody was like, oh, that looks awkward.
We haven't heard from Beyonce, so we don't know how she felt about it.
But simply the fact that it's in the news brings attention to Joe Biden.
You can't even look at the, it's impossible to look at the Beyonce story and not think of Joe Biden.
So now the African American community has seen the Beyonce thing, which I would say most people, probably, probably a majority, I don't know that, but it feels like probably a majority would say, oh, that looks a little inappropriate.
And now they're hearing it connected to Joe Biden.
So whatever creepiness they felt about the Beyonce kiss situation is being, you know, conflated with and starting to become the Biden story, even though it isn't.
They just happen to have one similarity and they're in the news at the same time.
Now, there's one famous picture of Joe Biden sort of holding the shoulders of Ash Carter's wife when he's giving a speech, being sworn in, I guess.
And that was one of the famous pictures that goes around and people say, well, there's another picture of Joe inappropriately touching.
So the woman in the picture has made a statement today to say, now you're reading this all wrong.
We've been longtime friends, and I was nervous to be in public, and he was just calming me down by, you know, having his hands on my shoulders.
To which I say, if you ever want to calm me down, don't put your hands on my shoulders.
If you were nervous about something, if you were nervous to be on stage, would you feel less nervous if the Vice President of the United States stood on stage with you with his hands on your shoulder?
I don't think I would.
So that's a separate question.
So the separate question is, does it make you less nervous to have the Vice President's hands on your shoulders?
I don't think it would make me less nervous.
That's just me. I can't read her mind.
Anyway, she has, in her opinion, she has cleared the vice president of any creepiness or wrongdoing and says that there's no there there.
There's no story there. But it's not the only picture.
So there are going to be a lot of pictures flying around on that topic.
All right. But keep in mind that the real story here is how many times Biden has to explain this away.
And I think Democrats are fast-forwarding in their mind what it would look like to have Joe Biden as their standard bearer.
And they're going to turn on the news every day and find out that, once again, their standard bearer, the person that they're trying to put in there to compensate for the horrible monster that is Trump, Every day, he has to explain a new allegation of being a little too touchy.
Now, even if it turns out, there's absolutely nothing to this, except he's not good with boundaries, and I think that's entirely possible that there's nothing else to it.
It's not a good look, and I don't think there's any chance that he's going to make it to the nomination.
All right. There's a weird...
I don't want to talk about that.
There's a poll from CNBC that says 58% of Democrats, so a strong majority of Democrats, feel more confident about saving for retirement than they did three years ago.
Do you know what was happening about three years ago?
We had an election somewhere around that period.
So 58% of Democrats are feeling more confident about their economic situation under Trump.
Now, I'm not saying Trump did all of that.
I'm very much in the camp that says Obama got us to a place where growth was easier.
Things were improving the whole time that Obama was elected.
But from a political perspective, Just from a political perspective, I don't know how anybody wins against an economy this strong.
How do you beat that?
That's just a tough, tough thing to beat.
But it turns out that the president has a couple of weaknesses, at least according to the people who would vote against him.
One weakness is health care.
And the other big weakness is climate change.
Now, if you're a Republican, you probably say to yourself some version of, those aren't problems at all.
But remember, if you say those were not problems at all, except that maybe Obamacare is a problem and it could go away, if that's what you think, and I'm not saying you shouldn't think that, I'm just saying if you do think that, you are going to vote for Trump anyway.
So you're already a safe vote.
But if he wants to influence other people, get any independence, if he wants to get any independence, he's going to have to deal with climate change and he's going to have to deal with health care.
Now, the president has cheekily said that the Republicans will come up with a great health care plan and it'll be the best one.
I don't know if that's true.
I don't know if that's true.
I'm gonna say maybe.
It's possible. You know, certainly if the president came up with a package of things that they're doing that unambiguously would lower prices, then I think they might have something to sell.
And I think that there's a good chance they'll come up with some kind of a plan.
So I would say the verdict is still out on healthcare.
The president is very exposed on that.
So if he doesn't hit at least a...
I'd say the president has to hit at least a double on health care.
Maybe he doesn't need to hit a home run.
He's got to hit a double.
He's got to come up with a story that an independent could look at and say, yeah, compared to this other plan, it looks like it's just as good or better.
Maybe he could do that.
I'm skeptical myself.
I have been a big supporter of the President in terms of his technique and his capabilities, but on healthcare in particular, we have not seen the goods.
So I can't support what he's doing there because he hasn't done enough.
But the things they have done actually are quite good.
The changes with the generic.
They did a fast track for the generic drugs, which almost certainly will lower prices with more competition.
But let's talk about how the president could save the planet with one tweet.
So that was the title of my provocative periscope here.
I'm going to make the case That the president could save the planet with one tweet.
And as you know, the president's ability to make everybody focus wherever he tweets is legendary.
So if he tweets a topic, the press on both sides are going to say, all right, we've got to talk about this topic.
So the one thing that nobody doubts is that the president can make you look at a topic.
And so here's how he could tweet out A solution to climate change.
And here's the beauty.
Even if climate change is not the problem that the scientists believe, even if it's not, This path is the same, because it's such a good idea just on its own, for economic reasons, because of pollution, for national security, on every other level, it's good.
But here's what you could do, just hypothetically.
I want you to just feel how easy this would be.
Let's say that the president tweeted about Lamar Alexander's proposal For a Manhattan Project, a Green Manhattan Project.
If you don't know who Lamar Alexander is, he's a soon-to-retire senator, Republican, who I believe is famous for being reasonable.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lamar Alexander is in this small category of politicians who are known to be reasonable.
In other words, they can compromise, etc.
So he's got an idea for a Green Manhattan Project, meaning that the United States would get really serious about supporting the rapid development and testing of safe nuclear power.
Now, here's the great thing.
If climate change is a problem, the smartest people in the world say nuclear is the only way to deal with it.
And I'm not talking about the old, unsafe nuclear power plants of the past, the kind that are mostly the ones in the United States.
I'm talking about Generation 4, new kinds of plants that eat nuclear waste for fuel, How great is that?
And they're designed so that there's essentially zero meltdown risk because even if everything goes wrong, it just sort of just stops working.
That's what's new.
But they still need to develop it a lot because having it on paper is different from going into production.
So they need to iterate it a lot to get the technology working.
So this proposed Green Manhattan Project would be the way to do that.
Get the government behind a rapid iteration of this technology.
So here's what it would look like for the president to save the whole planet with one tweet.
Here's how we do it. He would just have to do a tweet talking about the Green Manhattan Project because the president, and I think maybe the president could...
Could brand that a little bit better.
You know, the best branding person in politics of all time, which is Trump, he might be able to brand that a little bit better, but Manhattan Project's pretty good.
So let's just go with that for now.
And if you mentioned Generation 4 plants, so that anybody who saw that would say to themselves two things.
What is this Green Manhattan Project?
So first you want people to ask, what the heck is that?
And then you also want them to say, what is a Generation 4 nuclear plant?
So if you were to tweet that, the press, Would have to write about it, because they can't ignore a presidential tweet of that substance.
So the press would write about it, and if the press were smart, they would use my company's app, the Interface by OneHub app that's free, and they would look for an expert on nuclear power.
They might find it, and they would find one.
So let me talk about that in a little bit.
So Mark Schneider, for example, is on the app, and he's an expert on the new Generation 4 nuclear stuff.
So he could talk to the press.
So the press could just pick up their phone.
And they could say, I don't know anything about this Generation 4 nuclear stuff.
Is this for real? Who do I talk to?
And they find an expert and they have a personal conversation right on the app.
And they say, okay, they've learned about it and they know that it's safe and it doesn't melt down and all that.
So then the press educates the public.
If the public is not educated, then the government doesn't do anything.
So the public has to make Congress act.
Now here's the interesting thing about this.
There are very few topics where the far left and the far right would completely agree.
The only reason, and this is a strong statement, right?
The only reason that anybody would object to nuclear is if they were not educated on the new technology.
I have not yet seen a single person who, once they heard about Generation 4 nuclear, said it was a bad idea, nor have I heard any smart person who understands it Say that it isn't the obvious best approach to climate risk.
Now, you don't even have to say that climate change is man-made or anything else, but you can acknowledge there's risk.
And whether or not that risk exists, no matter what size that risk is, nuclear is still the answer.
It's the answer if there's zero risk, and it's an answer if there's 100% risk.
It would be exactly the same path.
And here's the thing.
There are no other paths.
You know, if you talk to the experts...
Well, let's say if you talk to the public, the public will say stuff like, hey, let's have some wind power.
You know, let's improve our solar.
It's getting better every year.
It's so much better than it used to be.
If it just keeps getting better at the rate it's getting, well, we'll have all the solar and, you know, batteries to store it and all that stuff.
But if you talk to the people who are actually the scientists, the engineers, the people close to these questions, they will tell you that there is no path to that.
You just can't get there as quickly as you would need to, using just wind and solar.
You can't get to the finish line before we're all dead from climate change, if climate change is the risk that the scientists say.
So there is only one path.
It's nuclear. In fact, if you were to ask Al Gore, somebody said, Al Gore?
I don't know the answer to that, but I would bet you a large amount of money, That if you talked to Al Gore and said, what about Generation 4 nuclear, that he would have a positive response.
Actually, I'll ask that question.
If there's anybody who can connect me with Al Gore to just talk about that question, I'd love to have him on my Periscope.
I've actually met Al Gore, and we've chatted, so he knows who I am.
So if he wants to come on, I would love to, because I've always been a fan of Al Gore, even if you're not.
I know some of you are not, but I'm just telling you, I've always liked him as a politician.
Anyway... If Congress acts on this green Manhattan Project or some version of it, private industry will be able to more quickly iterate, and then you've got Generation 4 nuclear plants, and you've solved the world.
Now, which part of this is not feasible?
Is it feasible for the president to send a tweet?
Yeah, that's feasible.
How hard is that? Is it feasible for the press to investigate Generation 4 nuclear and find out that it really is the answer?
Yes, of course it's feasible.
It's easy. In fact, they could do it in about 10 minutes.
They just Google a couple of articles, use the interface by WenHub app, talk to an expert, bam.
Nobody is going to come to a different conclusion.
Well, you should never say nobody.
I doubt anybody's going to come to a different conclusion.
Can the press get the public to buy in to Generation 4 nuclear?
Yes. The press can get the public to buy into anything.
The only time that the press can't do that is when there are two sides of an issue and they're both persuading their own side to hate the other side.
In the rare situation where the left and the right press are on the same team, and they should be in this, in that rare situation, yes, they can convince the public of anything.
Where do you think the public gets their opinions?
The public doesn't come up with their own opinions.
That's not a thing.
The public gets their opinions from the press.
So, can the press convince the public?
Yeah. Easily.
Easily. That's trivial.
Once the public buys in, can the public get Congress to act?
Yes, if they're all on the same side.
The only time you can't get Congress to act is when there's a deep division.
But with Generation 4 nuclear, there would not be, once people have been educated on it.
So yeah, totally, Congress can make a law.
And it wouldn't be hard to make a law that simply makes it easier for private industry to iterate, to get licenses, to have maybe facilities they can go to to share information, whatever it is, whatever's in there.
Yeah, this is all doable stuff.
And then once industry gets involved in iterating, would they be able to engineer their way to Some easily reproducible and safe nuclear power.
Somebody mentioned Bill Gates.
I'm pretty sure that what I just described here is 100% compatible with what Bill Gates sees as the way forward.
I can't speak for him, so that's my opinion of his opinion.
Take that for what it's worth.
But I believe he would be completely on board with this, as would.
Here's the trick. Watch how there's no pushback on this.
Just hold in your head for a moment the enormity of what I'm suggesting here, like how big a change this would be for the world, how important it would be, how much of an economic impact it would have, what it would do for bringing people together.
Just think about the enormity of it, and then ask yourself, who are the people speaking out against it And wait for it, who also know what Generation 4 nuclear is.
I propose that you might never see anybody speak out against this, as in nobody.
You might actually not see any pushback, once they understand what it is.
You'll see lots of pushback, but it will be entirely from people who are thinking of the old nuclear technologies.
All right. Yeah, there would be a tremendous strategic benefit to it, because we would need the Middle East less, potentially.
Talk to Bill Gates?
Yeah, I would love to, if I could find a way to get to him.
That would be amazing.
Antifa? Would Antifa be against it?
I don't know. Now, I noticed that Mark Schneider has just joined, and I'm going to see if I can get him on this call.
Hold on, I'm going to change my microphone.
Bear with me.
New microphone coming.
It's a cheap operation we got going here.
All right. Let's see.
I think Mark has joined.
Yeah. All right. We're going to invite Mark in.
I want to see if I've explained this right.
Mark, are you there? Mark?
Yes, Scott, I'm here. Oh, hi.
Did you see my little presentation on the whiteboard?
I don't know if you caught all of that.
I did. I had some Wi-Fi issues, so I had to do some switch-ups.
I popped off and I came right back on.
Okay. Your voice is kind of faint to me.
I'm not sure it's possible that the audience hears it better, but if you could speak up a little bit, it would be great.
So would you agree that what I drew out on the whiteboard is all feasible?
I would agree that it's all feasible.
And where do you see would be the biggest problem in any of this, if there is a big problem?
I don't even know if there is.
I would say the big problem is the media itself and their anti-nuclear rhetoric.
So if the media could be convinced, but it seems to me that the media would be easy in this specific case because the media likes a story about a different way to do stuff.
The media does not like stories.
Here's a little media tip for all of you.
The media does not like stories of things that are just a good job I think the press would find that it's very clickable.
Which is really all they care about.
So if you can make it clickable through the president's, let's say if the president puts some attention on Lamar Alexander's plan, they only have to make it clickable.
The president does. He doesn't have to change their minds.
He only has to make the topic more clickable than other topics.
And then the public will see what they need to see to be convinced.
Mark, is there anything else you want to add on that?
We had a side conversation that I want the audience to hear, in which there was talk about how we couldn't create enough of the materials we need to create batteries.
So even if everybody had, if you can imagine everybody had an electric car instead of 2% of the people having electric cars, We wouldn't be able to do it because there just isn't enough way to strip mine the land to get all these materials.
But you had a thought on how Generation 4 had an influence on that.
Could you tell the audience that?
Yeah, specifically you spoke about the lack of cobalt and lithium.
Those are actually two materials that throughout my nuclear career we produce often as just a byproduct of the nuclear process.
All right, so since your audio is faint, I'm going to repeat that in case anybody is having trouble hearing it.
So cobalt and lithium are the two materials that might be in short supply, and what Mark's saying is that the nuclear process actually creates those.
Is it as a byproduct?
Is it a natural byproduct, or do they have to intentionally make it?
It's both, actually.
It's both intentional and a byproduct.
Yes. And is that way of making these materials through the nuclear process, would we be able to make enough of it to solve the shortage?
If we went to a large nuclear capacity in the world, I think we could, but currently, no.
So currently, no, but we could take a bite out of it.
Yes. Okay.
Over the long term.
All right. So that is good to know as well.
Mark, what do you know about Lamar Alexander's Green Manhattan Project idea?
Because I don't know any of the details.
Is there anything in there that's especially good or bad, or is it just sort of conceptual at this point?
It's conceptual at this point, but I think it's a good concept.
Creating that competition between a couple locations to figure out how to iterate nuclear would be great.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are there not now three separate government initiatives on nuclear power?
There's Rick Perry's thing in the Energy Department where they're going to be rapidly testing nuclear fuels.
That's one of them.
I got that right. Am I right?
That's correct. And then there's the Lamar Alexander Green Manhattan Project.
But there was another one that I'm forgetting right now.
What was the other one that happened recently?
That's NILA that Senator Murkowski just endorsed.
Oh, and so that is a plan to build test sites for nuclear?
How do you describe that?
You know, I have to dig into that more, but I do believe it's about free.
Basically, it's the iteration aspect.
Right. So if any of you remember when I had Naval Ravikant on here?
Now, Naval is famous for being Probably the smartest person in the world in the area of startups and entrepreneurship.
He's sort of like the guy you'd go to for that.
He started AngelList, which is the biggest site for startups.
He knows what he's talking about.
One of the things he said when I talked to him on Periscope is that the problem with nuclear is that there's no way to iterate the technology.
In other words, try this, test this, try this, test this.
Until you got it right because of the dangers and because of the public and government pushback.
So now we've seen three government efforts directly aimed at that specific problem.
So all three of the things we just mentioned, should they get up and running and should the Lamar Alexander plan become tangible, they would all be directly addressing this question of whether you could iterate your technology.
And that's That is such a Republican approach to a problem.
I've said this before that the Republican, let's say conservative approach tends to be how can we make a system that we don't know exactly how it's going to work out, but if we keep using the system, we know it's going to be better than if we don't.
Whereas the Green New Deal people, the people on the left, Tend to operate from a goal perspective.
They say, alright, our goal is to have equality.
Our goal is to have green energy.
Our goal is to solve climate change.
And then you say, how?
And they say, well, we'll figure that out someday.
But we got a goal.
Whereas the Republicans say, I'm not going to make it a goal to fix climate change per se, because I got some questions.
And I'm not going to make it a goal to have, you know, some kind of equal outcomes, because I wouldn't have to do that.
But I do know how to create a system that if you use the system, in this case, iterating technology, it's a known system, it always works, you know, it's worked in every area that's ever been tried, but you don't know exactly where it ends up.
And that's a A feature of systems is that you know it improves your odds of really good stuff, but you don't know exactly which of those really good things are going to happen.
You just know good things are going to happen.
So we've got that going on.
I would say, Mark, have you ever seen this much energy around nuclear?
Not in my lifetime, no.
And when would you say that this started getting hot, in terms of at least what we're hearing about?
It must have been a lot of stuff behind the scenes.
But if you could identify when everybody started talking about this, was there an obvious uptick?
Yeah, I'm going to give myself credit here.
The obvious uptick was when I created the Green Nuclear Deal hashtag.
Yeah, that's what I think.
So Mark created the hashtag Green Nuclear Deal.
I've used it a lot.
Other people have used it a lot now.
And it just raised to people's consciousness that there was a path and that it just coincidentally, it's the luckiest thing in the world, that the path forward is It just happens to be the only path you could ever imagine where both the far left and the far right would say, yeah, that sounds good to me.
Potentially, once everybody's educated on the pluses and minuses.
All right. Mark, thank you for that.
Is there anything else you want to add that people don't understand?
I'm going to add a quick plug for North Korea here, in that North Korea borders probably the three most prolific nuclear power users, China, Russia, and South Korea, and they could be a great place to iterate nuclear power with their lack of regulations.
Yeah. So, again, if the sound isn't good for some of you, Mark was saying that North Korea Could have a path.
I'm going to add this part. There might be an easy way to transition from their military nuclear resources, which they wouldn't want to give up entirely, to a peaceful nuclear situation.
What would you say, Mark, is the crossover knowledge?
Like if you were a nuclear engineer for weapons, how much of what you already know is transferable to peaceful generation for nuclear technology?
I would say it's 70% transferable, and you just have to go 30% into operation and reactor design.
Right, and that's the part that we could help with.
So we could actually be bringing to North Korea, and other countries could, their design ideas, North Korea being a place of low regulation, and probably presumably enough land area that they can find safe places to do things just in case, that maybe North Korea's solution forward Is to transfer their technology and save the world.
Kim Jong-un can actually save the world.
Now, if you said to Kim Jong-un, I'll give you two options here.
You can either do what you've been doing and be the dictator you've been, etc., Or you could be part of, a big part of, saving the whole world because you're in a unique place.
You have all this expertise.
You have the ability to manage your country in a way others don't.
Come join us and save the world.
And you can be a safe leader if you do that.
There might be a way out.
The problem with dictators is they don't have an off-ramp.
It's hard to go from a dictator...
To, you know, the retirement home, you know, usually you end up dead.
So we would have to create a path that is unambiguously good for the Kim dynasty, shall we say, and that would be a heck of a path.
I mean, that's save the world stuff and make some money in the meantime.
All right, so thank you for that, Mark, and I will talk to you soon, okay?
Thanks, Scott. All right, bye, Mark.
So, Mark Schneider on the interface by WenHub app.
If anybody wants to go ask him additional questions about the potential for nuclear, that would be the place to go.
And if you're the press, if you remember the press, you definitely want to talk to him as your starting point to try to understand the nuclear option.
All right. The entire model of dealing with foreign powers could change.
Yeah, we're talking about something that would fundamentally change how countries interact.
That's true. That would make a change.
Somebody says, give me 45 seconds to talk to you.
Let's see if you're on here.
Well, I don't see you on here, so...
All right.
▲
Export Selection