All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 16, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
36:22
1151 Innate Ethics?

A review of the modern secular concept that ethics are innate to humanity.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. Hope you're doing well.
It's Steph.
It is, boy, back in the car time.
Man, I wish I had this iRiver when I was doing my original podcast.
A little easier than wrangling with the old computer.
But I wanted to do...
Old Greggel Von G brought up something good in the chatroom today, which was this question of innate ethics.
And it's something that is a pretty popular...
Position or theory to talk about.
It's where our good old friend Richard Dawkins is floating around, and a lot of the biologists are floating around this kind of arena, which is basically where they talk about that human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong, an innate sense of ethics.
All societies ban incest and rape and theft and murder and so on.
And therefore, since our drive towards morality is built in, there must be something to do with morality that is innate to us and therefore morality is valid and we should examine and explore morality and find out what is common in this area.
Across the different cultures and recognize that we have innate biological drives towards morality and so on.
And it's a very interesting argument.
I think it fails at just about every level that you could think of, but that's just my thoughts about it.
I'll mutter my thoughts and you can see if they make any sense to you.
And let's take a swing through this.
So there are two areas where I think this argument fails.
One is empirical and the other is theoretical.
Other than that, it's peachy.
So let's look at this issue that morality is common.
Throughout various societies, that certain ethical prohibitions are common throughout societies.
And anthropologists will often bring up, you know, incest is banned in societies.
And empirically, this is just not the case.
It's not even close to being true.
In fact, incest is encouraged and practiced widely among a variety of societies.
And this isn't just like cousin incest.
This is father-daughter. This is mother-son.
Incest is widely practiced.
If you have doubts or questions about that, just peruse the fabulous, though terrifying, material at psychohistory.com.
It is all well-documented, well-researched, and easily available.
But what about murder?
You know, say, well, murder is banned in societies.
Well, I mean, once you get out of words and into the world, which, of course, scientists are supposed to do, but when they venture into philosophy and so on, it gets confusing, right?
But, I mean, societies don't even remotely claim to have prohibitions on murder that are even close to universal.
And if we look at what are, you know, often considered the pinnacle of moral development to date is the sort of modern Western societies.
Prohibitions on murder, really, I mean...
First World War, what, 20 million killed?
Another 20 million in the influenza epidemic that the soldiers brought home.
Second World War, 40 or 50 million killed.
A Korean War, Vietnam, what, 5 million, 3 to 5 million killed in Vietnam?
I don't know what it was in Korea. But, you know, suffice to say that even among and between modern Western nations, which are considered to be more moral than, say, your average...
Pygmy tribe in Borneo, the prohibitions on murder...
I mean, it wasn't even that these murders were committed, these war murders weren't committed against moral commandments, but in support of these moral commandments.
It was considered virtuous to kill for your country.
They got medals, they got pensions, these soldiers.
People cheered them on the streets and women gave out white feathers to signify cowardice in the First World War if a young man of military age was seen strolling the streets at the Strand rather than festering and dying in a rat's hole trench on the front.
So, prohibitions against murder?
I mean, even if we look at the most modern societies, It's hard to imagine how you could conceivably think that.
People were avidly and actively pursue murder in the course of war.
Policemen threaten everyone with murder in order to get them to obey the state's dictates.
Everything from the EPA to public schools is enforced through the threat of violence and murder.
Society is founded on violence and the threat of murder.
So it's kind of hard for me to sort of figure out what he's talking about when he says...
Other than, you know, there's a thou shalt not kill and people say they're against murder.
But it's very, very clearly defined what is meant by murder.
Right? If a cop comes to arrest you for non-payment of taxes and he kills you, that's law enforcement.
Right? And he's praised for that.
In fact, he'll receive counseling and, you know, a bonus for that.
Not a bonus for killing you, but he'll receive counseling for sure to deal with the trauma of having to enforce the law in such a brutal manner.
So that's called...
Enforcing the law that is a virtuous and just action for a man in a blue costume to shoot you down for not giving money to his political masters, right?
The shakedown called taxation is virtuously enforced through the threat of murder.
So how on earth, if more than 50% of society's resources are transferred from legally disarmed victims through the threat of murder, how is it that society is supposed to be somehow universally against murder?
Of course, if you shoot the cop who's coming to take your tax money, Or to take your money in the form of taxes.
Well, you're a cop killer. That's murder, right?
See, self-defense against the cop is murder, but taking your money through the initiation of force is law enforcement and is not wrong.
It's right. It's defended.
Virtuous. Well, of course...
A lot of the people who get into this kind of stuff, the biologists, social scientists, and so on, they're all state-funded, right?
So they don't want to look under that particular rock and see the vermin of their own paychecks.
I mean, that's just dealing with modern Western societies.
I mean, how could it be said that, say, Islamic societies are against murder when to change your fucking religion...
Puts out a fatwa on you.
You can get killed. In fact, you are commanded to be killed for the theological crime of apostasy changing from Islam to something else, right?
Or attempting to convert a Muslim is also a crime punishable by murder, right?
So it's right there, right?
So I don't think that...
I don't get what people mean when they say societies are against murder, is it?
Societies are societies because of murder.
I mean, human society is defined and delineated by murder.
I mean, what's the difference between Canada and the US? You cross that 49th parallel.
What changes? Well, obviously nothing real.
But what does change, I mean, fundamentally what is recognized to change, what changes in reality?
Is that different people will kill you for non-compliance.
Like a different gang will kill you for non-compliance.
Like a mafia turf. You know, our turf reaches to here and no further.
On the other hand, it's all the Gambinis, right?
And on the other side of the 49th parallel from the US is the Canadian gang who...
Now Canadians will be murdered by that gang if they don't obey.
South of the 49th, it's the Bush gang, or the Republican gang, or, you know, the government gang, whatever you want to call it.
But the only thing that changes, the only thing that changes between societies is who will kill you for disobeying.
Who will threaten you with violence for disobeying?
That is the definition of a society.
Murder is the definition of society.
In a place where the same gang will kill you, it's called the same society, right?
I mean, in a place where a different gang will kill you, Or a gang with a different name that's called another country, another culture.
So, the idea that human society...
I don't know. I think you get the point.
Theft? Well, I mean, of course not, right?
Oh, sorry. So, murder, right?
When society say, we don't like you to kill, what they mean is, we don't like you to kill the representatives of the political powers that be, right?
The kings or the presidents or whatever, right?
Murdering, like the original, thou shalt not kill, was, thou shalt not kill other Jews, right?
It's bad for the tribe, right?
But thou shalt not kill in Western societies, in all societies, really.
It's like, no, it's morally wrong to kill the king's men.
They can kill you with impunity, right?
You don't pay the taxes. They can come and shoot you down if you resist, right?
Not only can they kill you, they must, should.
It's morally good for them to kill you with impunity, but you can't take up arms against the king's men.
That's... That's what don't kill means.
Also, it means don't kill each other because that cuts into our profits, right?
Like, I mean, if a mafia guy, if a mafia gang is shaking down some Italian restaurant, then if someone goes and kills the Italian restaurant owner, that's a negative impact on the mafia's economics, right? Because they don't get the payments anymore from that guy, and they've got to go shake down a new guy, which is expensive, right?
They want a constant flow of income.
So there are prohibitions against killing citizens in the same way that there are prohibitions against poaching cattle or killing cattle, right?
You go shoot a farmer's cattle, he's going to prosecute you, and that's why you're not supposed to kill each other, right?
Because it's not profitable for the rulers, right?
Have this warfare.
So yeah, they'll fuck you up for killing each other.
And they'll fuck you up for daring to lift your weapon against the king's men, right?
Because otherwise it's not very efficient farming, right?
You have to have overwhelming force in order for this to work.
So anyway, we could go in more.
That's sort of the idea behind the murder thing.
Societies aren't against murder.
Murder is society.
Society is a gang of murderers.
Well, theft, of course, is don't steal from each other.
It's not don't steal from each other as citizens.
It's never a universal.
It's not even close to a universal. In fact, the reason that it's not...
Well, of course, the reason it's not a universal is that it doesn't serve the powers that be, right?
But then the question is, well, okay, so we understand that the powers that be don't want us stealing from them, but why do they care if we steal from each other?
Well... First of all, it's hard...
If the mafia is selling protection again to this hapless, poor rat bastard of a restaurant owner, if the mafia is selling, quote, protection to this fellow, and then you go and rob the store, he's unhappy, he's angry.
It threatens the mafia's hold over him, because he's like, what, you people can't even protect me, blah, blah, blah.
And again, it interferes.
It's more expensive to...
To get protection money from him if he calls up and he says, hey, somebody just robbed me.
I'm supposed to be paying protection, right?
It pisses him off and it cuts into their profits, right?
Because they've got to expend labor to deal with this situation, even if it's just to take the guy's call or whatever, right?
So they don't want people stealing from the people.
They don't want the restaurant owners stealing from each other, right?
Because... That's their job, right?
This is competition and increased costs.
You can view all of this just as livestock costs, right?
Total cost of ownership for having taxed slaves, right?
I mean, that's why the no-theft prohibition is there.
Don't steal from the king, and don't steal from each other, because that's expensive for the king, right?
Now, we did incest, but murder, theft, rape.
Well, rape. Rape is...
I mean, obviously a hideous moral crime.
Rape is a foundational method of human control.
It isn't even incidental.
It isn't even like, and there's rape.
Rape is a core and fundamental mechanism of human control and has been throughout history.
The rape of children was endemic throughout history.
It's endemic throughout history.
What is it? A third of men, even in the modern West, a third of men and two-thirds of women have experienced significant childhood sexual abuse.
Not just someone flashed me or whatever, right?
Significant, ugly.
It's all ugly, right? But rape is foundational, right?
I mean, if you look at the British upper classes, right?
They went to these boarding schools where rape was an institution.
Rape was a core part of social control.
Rape in the Catholic Church, the rape of children, is a core part of social control.
It is not accidental.
It's not incidental. It is a core, core aspect.
Of social control.
And you say, well, what about modern democracies?
They don't use rape as a form of social control, but they do.
It's widespread. It's endemic.
Millions of Americans are subjected to it every year.
If you can get the livestock, as I talked about in RTR, if you can get the livestock to attack each other, then you lower the cost of ownership.
To get the cows to build their own fences, that much more profitable.
To own a cow, right?
So... Rape is a core part of social control.
It is a core threat that governments inflict or threaten their citizens with, right?
So, if you get arrested for something, God help you don't, right?
But if you do, then you get charged with something.
Then you will be offered, you know, five years in a maximum security jail or, you know, two years of probation if you plea bargain it down, right?
Well, I mean, five years in maximum security jail, what does that mean?
That means brutal gang rape.
That's what it means, right?
Everybody knows that. That's well understood, well accepted.
Prevalence of rape in prisons is staggering.
And of course, right? I mean, there's no DRO system would ever do it like that.
I mean, To take people who have already been condemned as sociopaths and lock them into a room with a whole bunch of other sociopaths, of course!
Of course, fighting fish put into a tight enclosure will attack each other.
These people are used to terrify people into confessions, right?
These rape victims. We're going to put you in conditions with sexual deviants, violent people, predators of all stripes and colors.
We're going to put you in that situation.
We're going to lock you in a room with these people.
And... Then we're not going to protect you.
Oh, and we're not going to punish them if they rape you, right?
So, basically, you know, the old kings in the Mediterranean used to threaten subjects would, you know, throw you into a shark tank.
Say, wow, that's not violent because it's the shark that's doing the violence, right?
Well, of course we understand that that is violent because it's the king who's created the environment, the shark tank, right?
I'm going to throw you in there.
In the same way, it is the government, of course, that has created these rape tanks, these rape rooms of prisons.
They have created this environment, and they throw people into these shark tanks, knowing that the threat of rape is the primary terror, and you could say of violence too, but I mean, rape is the key thing.
Rape is a foundational aspect of social control, even in I wouldn't say especially.
But even in modern democracies, right?
That in America, you get busted.
They're going to threaten you with heavy jail time.
Or even, you know, a year.
I mean, God, how many times can you get raped in a year when you're in a cell with four sociopaths?
Well, a hell of a lot, right?
It's going to leave you with lifelong injuries.
It's going to leave you with a torn bowel.
It's going to leave you... I'm just talking about the guy thing, right?
Chronic hemorrhoids. It's going to just lead you with...
And, you know, permanently traumatized, unable to function in a sexual way, right?
So, this rape is a core aspect of social control.
And it's how the state offloads torture, right?
I mean, obviously rape is torture, right?
I mean, There's no doubt about that, right?
I mean, if they rape prisoners, then it's torture, right?
So any environment where rape is prevalent is an environment of torture, right?
So when you are threatened with jail, you are threatened with rape.
I mean, it's foundationally what the issue is, right?
That's what the punishment is.
They're rape rooms, torture rooms.
And this, of course, is how the government gets you to confess to various things, right?
Because they say, well, we're going to throw you in these rape rooms, we're going to throw you in this shark tank, or, you know, you just have to call in and be home by sundown, right?
And that, of course, is how they get you to confess, right?
And that, of course, is a whole lot easier than doing difficult and unpleasant things like, you know, Oh, I don't know, actually prosecuting a case, right?
So, rape is foundational to social control, and the prison system in a modern democracy is entirely founded upon the horizontal threat of rape, that they have created these environments where rape is essential and inevitable and foundational, and where there is simply no possibility that you will be able to avoid it.
in one form or another, or, you know, rape or stabbings or fistfights or, you know, this kind of horrible and violent environment.
So, I mean, is society against rape?
Good heavens, no. See, there's this There's this belief, right?
We've all... I had these thoughts when I was younger, right?
These beliefs that, ah, these criminals are animals, they deserve what they get, and blah, blah, blah, right?
And, you know, this creation of what is, you know, in poem or modern psychological circles called the other, right?
The other to whom these rules do not apply, right?
So if you're a non-Muslim, well, you're a dog, you're a heathen, you're a whatever, right?
If you're an atheist...
So, this creation of these others, or these people who are just subhuman animals, and blah blah blah, right?
So, they deserve what they get, right?
Well, I mean, there's a real paradox in that, which I think is worth spending a minute or two on.
And the paradox of this is this, of course, that the more virulent and abusive the punishments that criminals are threatened with, The more non-guilty people end up in jail, right?
So, the more you threaten people with torture, the less reliable is the verdict of guilty.
I mean, we all know this. Say you'll pound a nail through some guy's testicles if he doesn't tell you X, Y, and Z. Well, of course, the more you threaten that, the more dire the punishment, then the less reliable the information, right?
So, I mean, of course, the whole war on drugs works this way, right?
You pick up people at the bottom and you threaten them with, you know, these ridiculous rape room torture and brutality punishments that will be inflicted on them in jail.
And, you know, God, I certainly would not be at all shocked if the prevalence of rape, even from the prison guards, was enormous, right?
Because these are people that are just considered scum and, you know, evil and villainy and blah blah blah.
What a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
So... The more you torture someone, the less reliable is their information.
And the more you threaten people with these, you know, subhuman, brutal rape and slaughterhouse punishments, the more people will just confess, you know, and it all becomes hearsay, and of course cops lie in...
In courts all the time.
I mean, this is a well-known phenomenon.
You can Google it if you don't believe me.
Cops lie all the time, right?
So you get cops, and you get hearsay.
Yeah, I saw him there, an eyewitness, blah, blah, blah.
And maybe some trumped-up scientific evidence, and scientific evidence is proving unreliable in a variety of ways, and also, of course, can be falsified, right?
So the more dire the threats are that you're holding over people's heads, the less likely...
It is that they're going to do anything other than give up whoever you want them to in order to avoid going to prison themselves, right?
So, this sort of, like, we say, oh, well, these, you know, these people deserve these punishments or, you know, this, that, and the other, right?
Because, oh, my God, they, you know, they're just so evil and so on.
But you don't know, right?
You don't know that they're evil at all, right?
Because... The punishments that are threatened to everyone else are so great that people are just throwing each other over into the shark tank to avoid going in themselves, right?
It doesn't mean that anyone is guilty, right?
So, anyway, I just sort of wanted to mention that, right?
So, it seems to me that rather than making up all this nonsense that people do make up, About, you know, the universal prohibitions on rape, you know, and theft and murder and so on.
It's just like, well, no. Society is founded on these things.
What we call society, a status society, is absolutely founded on these things.
On the threats of murder and the threats of rape and the resulting theft that arises from those things.
So... I mean, obviously throughout history, cannibalism, human sacrifice, infanticide is just staggering.
I mean, the average mother prior to the 17th or 18th century, really 18th century, would kill usually one to two of her children, strangle, and you could not walk down a street in the Middle Ages without seeing dead or dying babies in the outhouses and in the gutter.
I mean, this is a... A staggeringly genocidal culture that we come from.
And this is where we can be, I think, you know, justly proud of the advances, right?
We always look and see the problems. Ooh, the Fed, ooh, fiat currency.
It's like, yes, but at least most of us, if not just about everybody, does not live to see their mother strangling a sibling who is unwanted, right?
I mean, so the psychotic culture that we came from that is sort of the stuff of Of primitive lives.
We've blunted some of that, but it's important to look at how society really works.
Just not listen to the pious platitudes which it uses to describe itself, right?
Otherwise, we would be the ones saying, yes, the government is here to serve and protect by God.
It's right there on the side of the car, right?
How could it be otherwise? Couldn't be propaganda.
The same way we know that, well, Coke is it.
So... So that's the sort of factual side of things that societies are founded on, threats of murder, threats of rape, and outright blatant confiscation and threat of violence and theft, right?
So the idea that this is somehow universally prohibited is to me, I mean, again, call me crazy, I think you've got to work pretty hard to avoid knowing this, right?
I mean, Richard Dawkins must be aware that there is rape in prison, right?
And the threat of that is terrible and terrifying, right, for people.
They say, well, that's not a mechanism of social control.
Catholic Church, rape of children.
Anyway, so let's move on to not just how it's factually incorrect, but how it's even theoretically incorrect.
Well, let's say that...
That this thesis is true.
I mean, let's give it the benefit of the doubt, which obviously it doesn't deserve.
But let's say, let's be generous, charitable.
When you write, you can be generous.
Let's say that it's true that societies are universally against these things.
So what? So what?
What does that tell us about anything?
It doesn't indicate anything is real.
It doesn't indicate anything is true.
It doesn't indicate anything is valid.
It doesn't indicate anything is factual.
All it says is that people believe a bunch of stuff, right?
And clearly, there are people around the world, and even the people who believe that ethics are universal or innate or whatever, there are people around the world who obviously do not believe these things.
There are thieves who don't believe that there's anything wrong with theft.
In fact, the whole reason you have prohibitions against things is because people...
Well, damn well want to do them, right?
So, we don't inoculate against diseases that we could never get, right?
I mean, sort of pointless, right? So, the whole reason that human beings have an ethical standard, even if we accept that it was true and valid and universal, is because there are enough people who oppose this standard that...
We need it, right? It's the problem of ethics, right?
Say, well, there's a universal system of ethics, or a universal instinct towards ethics.
It's like, well, if there were a universal instinct towards ethics, then surely, by golly, by God, we wouldn't need ethics, because everybody would be so pro-ethical, right?
But, of course, there are significant portions of the population, even if we take the statist argument, That says that people are not so much with the ethics, right?
So I don't understand what it means when you say this discipline is universal when the only reason it exists at all is because it is exactly not universal but in fact violated by so many people that we need to inculcate children in systems of ethics for many, many years to get them to not do these things, right?
And of course we would generally say that You know, children need moral instruction.
These people would say, we're born more to a state of nature, we need moral instruction, so if it's so goddamn innate...
Now, puberty is innate, right?
Puberty is an innate biological characteristics, and therefore you don't need to teach children to grow yon naughty bits, right?
I mean, that is innate, right?
The sexual drive is innate, right?
And therefore you don't need to train people for decades to be sexually interested in, you know, whatever fleshy parts their medulla says is the bonus bits.
So, I don't understand what it means to say ethics are universal.
If they really were universal...
They wouldn't exist because we wouldn't need to defend ourselves or indoctrinate children about virtuous behavior and teach them to do the right things and share and not grab and, you know, whatever, right, not hit and so on.
So, again, just logically, it doesn't even remotely work.
You know, it's like saying we need to develop a vaccine against, you know, Klingon flu, which doesn't exist, right?
It's like, well, if it doesn't exist, then we don't need to develop a vaccine.
And if we develop a vaccine, it means it does exist, right?
And, of course, ethics is a kind of inoculation against immorality, right?
So, if ethics is universal, then there's no such thing called immorality.
We don't need a vaccine. And if it's not, or if it's significant enough that we need a potent vaccine that we administer in the form of moral instruction for many, many years to children, then...
It's bloody well not innate. I mean, this stuff is so...
Oh, I don't know.
How do you even point it out without...
I don't know.
Let's be nice. Anyway, so...
Sorry, just cleaning the...
I have become full-time maiden chauffeur now, just in case anyone's wondering what fatherhood-to-be is like.
It really is like manual labour.
So, but with the joy of talking to you gorgeous and brilliant people.
So, let's look at the other way, right?
Let's accept even that, and say, okay, well, what are the consequences, right?
Again, we can be as generous as we like, because the thesis is fundamentally not even remotely correct, so it doesn't matter where we stop the train, if it's going in the wrong direction, every part of it is going in the wrong direction, right?
So, if we look at this and we say, okay, well, it is valid, it is universal, and so on, well, Basically then, what secularists and atheists, which is usually the people who argue along these lines, what secularists and atheists are saying is that when something that is widely believed has validity,
right? Well, there must be something to ethics because we all have this universal sense of ethics, innate and universal and common set of prohibitions against certain types of behavior, right?
Of course it has to be valid.
There must be something to ethics.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. There must have some value or reality just because, well, don't you know?
A lot of people believe in these ethics, right?
We're born with them. Well, herein, I'm sure you get the problem, so I'll just touch on it briefly, but of course the problem with that is how is that true for ethics?
But... Not religion.
If you're going to say that ethics is somehow innate to human nature and therefore we should study it as something that is valid and universal and has value and accept it as a sort of axiom, well, what about the fact that virtually everyone believes in a god?
Does that not mean that religion Is innate to human nature and therefore must have some value and some validity and truth and all these kinds of juicy hawana-wana-wannabes?
How does it not apply to, even if you don't want to go with religion, how does it not apply to something like superstition?
Human beings are almost universally superstitious across cultures, across time, even in the modern West.
Almost universally superstitious.
The majority believe in God, or at least her deists, or believe in ghosts, or UFOs, or some damn stupid ideas floating around in just about everybody's head.
So, how is it the case that we can study ethics as innate and universal, because just woo, so many people believe in it, but we can say that religion, which is even more of a universal phenomenon than That that is not valid, invalid, and true. It doesn't matter how many people believe it.
So, again, I want to ramble on too much, but you could take this incorrect argument from, you know, I would suggest just about every conceivable angle, and it just falls apart.
Now, I say this, you know, with, you know, I, you know, you know, you know, sorry.
I say this with what I hope is some reasonable sympathy, that This is the best that state-paid people can do, right?
I mean, this is the best, right?
Remember, Darwin, not a government employee.
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, more so with the government.
Not to pick on Richard Dawkins.
There's nothing particular to him, right?
It's just all of these state-sucking windbags, right?
I mean, this is the best that...
State employees can do, right?
This is the post office.
This is the government-run post office of science, right?
All of this stuff, right? This is the best they can do, right?
And it's not because they're dumb.
God, brilliant, right?
But it's that they simply can't go any further or deeper than their own personal ethical lives allow them to go, right?
So, If they start to understand that the state is theft, then they start to look at their paychecks with horror, right?
I mean, they start to examine their own lives, their own commitment to virtue, and, you know, all this, that, the other, and above, right?
So it's not that the government makes people stupid.
It just compromises them to the point where they get these unconscious avoidance mechanisms for basic truths, right?
And I had them as well, right?
I mean, when I was in the business world, to immerse to the small degree that I was in the occasional government contract...
Well, it's hard, right?
I mean, you kind of just shy away from stuff, right?
That's being really hard to answer and feel like a good person, right?
So I just kind of wanted to go over this innate ethics theory.
It's, you know, it's cute, you know?
It's a cute, you know, like if the government produced an operating system.
I mean, you know, it's kind of cute.
It's kind of quirky. It's kind of interesting.
It's crap, right?
Yeah. Sadly, it's crap.
But it's interesting nonetheless.
And sometimes we can learn some, well, I guess not great things about our culture by looking at what is accepted as intellectual discourse and how you can just make stuff up in a vacuum and call it a theory without doing the empirical research too.
Scientists do this, right?
Because when it comes to government money, everyone...
It's superstitious. Everyone becomes a mystic.
So anyway, I hope that that helps.
I appreciate your thoughts and your listening, as always.
▲
Export Selection