Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - The Ethics of KILLING! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:39:22

The Ethics of KILLING! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, good morning, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	It is the 11th of July, 2025.
	And apparently, it's just my low-res opinion, man.
	That's just like your opinion.
	So it's funny, you know, because these landmines that have occurred in the past, you know, some of them aren't here on X anymore and some of them are.
	And one of the ones that I had forgotten about completely, there was a martial arts one.
	Of course, there was a free will determinism one.
	There's the dating ancestor one, which is a bit newer.
	And the one that I'd completely forgotten about because I don't have any people who do drugs around me.
	And I haven't had anyone who does drugs around me since I probably, I don't know, late teens.
	And I never really knew any heavy drug users, just some people who used marijuana and things like that.
	So I just don't move in those circles and I don't know those people.
	And so, yeah, the drug thing.
	Now, it's not, you know, there's this old meme about if somebody's a smoker or an alcoholic and somebody says, you should quit smoking and you should quit drinking.
	And they're like, yeah, yeah, I know, man, I'm on it, right?
	But if you say to a weed addict that he should quit weed, you get this, you know, hey, man, it's all natural.
	And, you know, like arsenic is not natural.
	And it's enlightenment and it keeps me in touch with myself.
	And it's fun.
	It's social.
	It's, you know, whatever, right?
	Just just endless justifications.
	And listen, I'll be straight up.
	I mean, I really sympathize with the trauma.
	I mean, people don't do drugs because they are not traumatized.
	They don't do drugs because they're happy.
	They do drugs because they're unhappy.
	And the general gist of it seems to be something like this, that if you have a really bad childhood, then you're stressed, you're tense, you're unhappy, you're anxious, or whatever it is.
	Normal people, let's just use a sort of silly, silly numerical scale here.
	So normal people, let's say you've got a happiness in general of about 100.
	Let's say it's your 100, right?
	But people who are, no, you know what?
	Let's do a plus and minus scale.
	I'm going to revise that, right?
	So people who are, you know, they're raised relatively well and they're reasonably happy.
	They have a happiness level of, let's say, plus five on average, right?
	And, you know, sometimes it goes way up, sometimes it goes down, but, you know, you kind of settle around a sort of plus five.
	But people who've had, you know, really bad childhoods, a lot of stress, a lot of tension, maybe violence and assault and so on, bad adverse childhood experiences, scores, well, what happens is that they kind of cook at like minus one or minus two.
	They're unhappy.
	And look, I mean, I hugely sympathize with that.
	It's not their fault that they were treated so badly as children.
	I really, really sympathize with that.
	And then what happens is, well, let's say they get a hold of alcohol or nicotine or weed or mushrooms or something, you know, whatever it is.
	They get a hold of something.
	And then, having cooked around for most of their life at a minus two happiness, they then get to plus five.
	They don't feel happy.
	They don't feel high.
	They just feel normal.
	It's like a painkiller, right?
	I mean, if you have a bad headache and you take an aspirin or something like that, you're not taking an aspirin to get high.
	You're taking an aspirin.
	So you're not in pain, right?
	You either toothache.
	You don't take the Novocaine and get your tooth fixed so that you can feel high.
	You do it so you don't experience the toothache.
	So then what happens is they take the drugs.
	And this is all just, of course, my amateur, obviously generally foolish and non-informed viewpoint.
	So for more on this, you should read Gabra Mattei's book, In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts.
	But yeah, they feel normal.
	And then they crash down instead of minus two, they're minus three, minus four.
	So then they take the drugs, they go to plus four, and it just goes from there, right?
	We've sort of talked about this before.
	So I have huge sympathy, huge sympathy for the suffering that drives people to want to use drugs.
	However, the problem, well, there's a couple of problems, right?
	One of the main problems from a moral standpoint is I've never, ever, ever, and I've talked to a lot of people about drugs over the years.
	I've done this call-in show for, you know, 20 years.
	I mean, hey, I'm doing one now.
	We'll talk in a few minutes.
	So I've done this call-in show.
	I've talked to a lot of people about drugs.
	And people get these, you know, insights.
	It gives insights on drugs, right?
	You know, one guy was posting this morning on X that, you know, he, he took some mushrooms and he had an insight that, hey, man, the burgers on TV look better than the burgers in real life.
	And it's like, that's really not much of an insight.
	Or somebody said, you know, I realized I have a party self that's not truly authentic.
	And it's like, yeah, you have a false self.
	And, right.
	In your 20s, you should kind of know that by now, right?
	So you don't get these insights.
	And what I've never heard of, and this is sort of my concern, what I've never heard of is people taking drugs and saying, oh my gosh, I realized my parent did some corrupt and evil things and really harmed me as a child.
	And the drugs helped me confront them with their immorality.
	Not heard that one.
	I have not heard that one.
	So my concern is That tyrannies drug dissidents.
	I mean, in the old Soviet Union, well, according to the communist regime, communism was perfect.
	And so, if you were unhappy under communism, if you criticized communism, clearly you were mentally ill and had to be institutionalized, where they would leave you sitting in a corner dribbling on yourself in a straitjacket with horse tranquilizers galloping through your veins and disassembling your personality.
	I mean, dissidents get drugged.
	The system does not reform itself based upon criticism.
	It views the critics as a problem and drugs them.
	I mean, this happens with the increasingly girl-focused and girl-centric government schools.
	The boys who are bored and annoyed and frustrated and irritated and just don't particularly enjoy sitting at their desk and doing group work quietly when their genes are telling them to go and learn how to hunt buffalo.
	Well, they're dissidents, right?
	And what happens to dissidents in a corrupt system?
	They're drugged.
	The increasing unhappiness that people have with modernity, which again, I sympathize with and I understand, I think, fairly well.
	Oh, well, handfuls of drugs.
	Just give them drugs.
	So one of the concerns that I have is that people who take drugs are self-medicating stress, anxiety, unhappiness, which arises, I would say, most often, from being abused as children.
	And by masking the symptoms, they do not confront the wrongdoers who harmed them as children.
	Instead, they drug the symptoms rather than get to the cause.
	Because, you know, people are posting on X that they took mushrooms or something like that.
	And, you know, they felt better.
	It's like, well, yeah, okay, I get it.
	If you've got a toothache, you can take some kind of painkiller and you'll feel better.
	But it is actually kind of important to deal with the toothache, with the infection, is it not?
	Is it not?
	So since I was a teenager, you know, people would say to me, oh, yeah, drugs give you all those insights.
	I'm like, oh, give me one.
	Right?
	Just give me an insight.
	I mean, it doesn't have to be E equals M C squared or the inverse square law or the second law of thermodynamics.
	I get all of that.
	It doesn't have to be some massive blinding insight moving forward.
	But just tell me what you learned that is truly wise.
	And it's always the most banal stuff.
	Well, I realized that I had a different face in social situations than I did at home.
	It's like, yes.
	Yes.
	Do you think that I speak exactly the same way to myself or my wife as I do on the show?
	Of course not.
	FM voice in the bedroom, sexy as hell.
	Of course not, right?
	I mean, I try to be honest and authentic and I'm not faking anything, but it's not the same.
	Of course it's not the same.
	Yeah, so we have different selves, so to speak, for different situations.
	Sure, you're different at work, you're different at home, you're different with your friends, but it's not fake.
	It's just that we have adaptations that work and are effective.
	And again, we always want to be honest and authentic, but anyway.
	So you never get these big insights.
	And it's all about comfort and feeling better, which I understand, of course, we all want to be comfortable and feel better, but it's never moral.
	It's never moral.
	It's never moral.
	Now, if people, from a moral standpoint, for me, and I'll take your questions in a sec, I appreciate your indulgence here.
	But if you want to take drugs, let's say you're just some young person, you're a young guy, you want to take some drugs, it's a bad idea because you're saying you're not enough as you are.
	And even if you do get some insights, if you need the drugs to get the insights, that's like needing steroids to build muscle.
	They're not your muscles.
	They're steroids muscles.
	It's like having somebody whisper in your ear Syrino de Bergerac style, telling you what to say.
	It's not your words.
	It's not your girl.
	So.
	If you want to take drugs on your own, it's not a violation of the non-aggression principle to scramble your own brain.
	It is not against the non-aggression principle to harm yourself.
	You own yourself.
	You can't destroy something of mine because it's my property, but you can destroy your own property if you want to take a mug and you want to hurl it against the wall on your own because you're frustrated.
	You've broken your own cup.
	You'll sweep it up.
	But it's not.
	It's not evil.
	It's not immoral.
	You can harm your own property and your brain is your own property.
	I think it's a terrible thing to harm your brain.
	And when you take drugs to get insights, you're telling your brain, you can't do it on your own.
	You can't do it on your own.
	We can't do it on our own.
	You need outside and outside help.
	And of course, it just gives you a feeling of oneness.
	Like One guy this morning was telling me that, hey, man, I took some drugs and I went out and communed with my garden and the creatures within.
	It's like, bro, low-rent mind-melding with flowers and slugs and snails.
	It's not my idea of enlightenment.
	And so if you want to take drugs on your own, you have your own property.
	You are your own property.
	You're harming your own property.
	It's not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	Now, of course, if you lie to people about it, well, that's not good because lying is bad.
	and you're set to get into moral areas.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	If you have people who depend upon you and you become disabled through addiction, that's bad.
	If your wife quit her job so that she could stay home and raise your kids and then you fry your brain or get fired or underperform at work and your career is in jeopardy or fails or something like that.
	Well.
	Or if you parent while high or drive while high or make important decisions or really any decisions at work while high because you're being paid for clarity of mind.
	So if you're high and there are other people in your life and you're interacting with them while high without telling them, that's a form of fraud because they want to be with you, not you plus drug.
	So the simple act of taking drugs, it's not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	I think I could put it in the aesthetically negative category.
	So it's negative, but it's not immoral.
	But what I consider fairly foul is, and this is sort of what came up last night, is that there was somebody who was like, oh, here's the person that can give you microdoses of this.
	It's very productive.
	Like, don't, no, my God, no, no, no, no.
	It's the praising of it.
	It's the praising of it as enlightenment, as a deep experience, as a connection with the universal, as the oceanic feeling that Freud described that is similar to being mind-merged with your mother when you're a baby against her breast.
	It's not, if you say, look, I had a really bad childhood and the only thing that makes me feel better is taking some drugs.
	Okay, at least it's honest, right?
	I have a pain in my soul from the talons of early trauma and I have this chronic pain and the only thing that can make it better is the drugs, okay?
	I mean, just like being on opiates, right?
	And if you have some chronic pain that the doctors can't fix and opiates help, okay, look, I sympathize.
	I understand that.
	I mean, I've taken an Advil or two over the course of my life.
	If you have a headache, sleep funny, something like that, yeah, I sympathize.
	I'm not going to say no, right?
	So if you've got a pain you can't fix, you take the drug.
	But if you take a drug based on spiritual pain, and I'm not talking about some low dose whatever in a Johns Hopkins setting for a PTSD, I'm not talking about that.
	Like if you're an opiate addict, that's a real tragedy.
	But opiates can have, I assume, some utility.
	Yeah, actually, I was given some fairly strong painkillers after cancer surgery, and they were pretty nice.
	I got to tell you, they were pretty nice.
	I got this feeling of floating.
	I got this feeling of dissociation.
	I got this feeling of happy ball of joy in the belly and all of that.
	And I took them once or twice.
	And I was like, okay, no, I'm not getting used to this.
	I'm going to earn my happiness the old-fashioned way through virtue and integrity.
	So, yeah, it was pretty.
	Those painkillers are pretty nice.
	I don't even remember what they were, but they were pretty nice.
	And it's the spreading of it, though.
	It's the normalizing of it.
	It's the praising of it.
	That's my concern.
	Because when people talk about, oh, drugs are cool, they open up the doors of perception, they enlighten you, and you get all these insights.
	Well, then you're kind of like a dealer, not obviously of the drugs themselves, but of the mindset.
	You're spreading it.
	You're spreading it.
	And I think that evil people should be held to account, and people who traumatize children should be confronted.
	People who harm and abuse children should be confronted.
	And if drugs mask the symptoms, then you don't get any meaningful reforms within families.
	So to put it another way, I think that people who are traumatized as children take drugs as a result of parental commandments.
	It's the parents deep down who are telling them, don't confront us.
	Don't discover the evil of your childhood.
	Just get drug.
	In the same way that totalitarian leaders in old Soviet, in the old Soviet system were saying to all the dissidents, well, we're perfect, so you've got to be crazy, so we're going to drug you.
	And I think there's a certain amount of just the avoidance of confrontation with immorality or corruption or downright evil in more extreme cases.
	I think people take drugs so that they don't confront those who did them wrong.
	And I sympathize with that, too.
	I'm just not going to praise it.
	I'm just not going to praise it.
	It's like the people who are really scared of talking to girls or, you know, risks in life.
	I sympathize.
	I really do.
	Look, we all have things in life we're nervous about and I get all of that.
	But I'm not going to praise it.
	I'm not going to say it is anything either.
	It's the old saying, the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.
	I'm not going to call it something it's not.
	I'm not going to call the avoidance of legitimate Suffering and the cover-up of crimes, I'm not going to call that enlightenment.
	I'm going to call it what it is.
	And that doesn't mean I don't have sympathy.
	I have genuine sympathy for the suffering that causes people to be tempted by or to use drugs.
	Genuine sympathy for that.
	However, there is a tipping point when you start to praise it, when you start to sell it, when you start to promote it to others.
	No, no, no.
	Get that shit off my timeline.
	All right.
	So I hope that at least helps with some of my perspective.
	And of course, you know, if you're someone who's out there and you want to talk about these things one-on-one, I do a call-in show and so on.
	It doesn't have sort of the chaos and hurly-burly of the live spaces that we do on X, but you can go to freedomain.com slash call and we can jawbone.
	We can talk.
	Fairly good at this sort of stuff, I think.
	And we can have the call, and it's totally free.
	It's totally free.
	All right.
	Caroline, sorry to jump in like you've just been sitting there waiting to unmute, but if you could unmute, that would be great.
	What's on your mind?
	Hello there.
	Hey, how's it going?
	Yeah, not so bad.
	I hope you're doing well.
	I'd kind of like to know, I've heard you talk about, and I think you make some good points, but I'd like to know what your experience is.
	Do you have any personal experience with any kind of psychedelic or hallucinogen?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I mean, I hallucinate every night.
	I have the wildest dreams that give me some very interesting and fascinating, you know, I've dreamt about novels, I've dreamt about scenarios.
	And so, yeah, as far as hallucinogenics go, I have nightly dreaming, which is an incredible experience.
	I absolutely love it.
	Well, for the most part, every now and then it's a little alarming, but for the most part, it's great.
	Yeah, interesting.
	I think they can be a shortcut, not a, I don't like the term shortcut because it's kind of a loaded term, but what are you talking about?
	Nightly dreams, you're talking about drugs.
	Yeah, sure.
	Psychedelic.
	I suppose that I don't tend to see them as separate issues.
	I suppose they're kind of related, but it's just that psychedelics seem to enhance what's already there.
	That's it in my limited experience and from what I've read.
	I don't know if you've seen the film Limitless, but Bradley Cooper's character takes this drug, which essentially unlocks his innate or dormant potential, and he becomes a genius, and he has a four-digit IQ and masters the piano.
	Okay, but you're not.
	You're not quoting some Hollywood fiction movie as data, are you?
	Oh, not at all.
	I was simply the point seems to be that psychedelics, from what I can determine, enhance what's already there.
	And so if you have a sort of a closed mind, or maybe you aren't that bright, or you're not trained to think in a deep manner, then you might not find them very useful.
	But if you're open-minded and you've studied some of the classics and this is the shit that bugs me, man, I got to tell you.
	Can you sell drugs without insults?
	Well, if you're closed-minded and if you're kind of dumb, then maybe drugs aren't helpful for you.
	But if you have hypertension, like, that's just kind of demonic.
	And I'm not calling you demonic, but the whole argument of, like, On the other side of taking drugs is this limitless self.
	And you'll be like Bradley Cooper in a movie and you'll have four-digit IQ or whatever you were saying, right?
	Like, can you sell drugs without the bribery of flattery and the stick of insults?
	Because this is kind of what happens, right?
	Well, if you're kind of dumb, maybe drugs don't help you that much.
	But man, if you've got a lot of potential, like that's not, I mean, that's not a very nice way, obviously, to do it, right?
	So you say that the drugs make you more than you are.
	But what does that mean?
	I mean, in practical terms?
	That's not exactly how I worded it.
	I think it seems to be something like an enhancer for attainment of innate capabilities.
	But that's more than you are.
	I mean, I'm just boiling it down.
	So it enhances your innate capabilities, right?
	Well, it might.
	It depends on the drug.
	I feel like using the term drugs is also a bit of a problem because Ibogaine and cocaine are essentially not the same at all.
	I'm sorry, what was their first one?
	Ibogaine.
	Are you familiar with the Ibogaine Initiative in Texas?
	No, but enlighten me, please.
	Well, I haven't done Ibogaine myself.
	I've done psilocybin, but not Ibogaine.
	But I don't know if you're familiar with Sean Ryan, a gentleman who's a former Navy SEAL and now runs a podcast.
	I've heard of him, yeah.
	I don't know much about him, but I've heard of him, yeah.
	Well, he outlined that he's done Ibogaine twice in a controlled clinical setting.
	And he was an alcoholic.
	After leaving the special forces, he sort of took a rough turn in life and found himself in a bad way.
	And part of that was becoming an alcoholic.
	And he said that he did Ibogaine once in a controlled clinical environment, and he found it extremely useful.
	It essentially put him into what he described as, it was imagined like being in a room where you have, say, 100 TVs, and each TV monitor is playing a part of your life.
	A certain scene, a romantic scene, a scene at work, whatever it might be.
	And he could sort of zoom into these, analyze what happened, and then zoom back out.
	And it helped him process certain things.
	He did Ibogaine again.
	So he's had two controlled trips, and Ibogaine trips are very long.
	I think it's 10 to 12 hours.
	Extremely intensive, extremely introspective.
	And he said, Oh, did we lose him?
	I lost you.
	I lost you.
	Okay, so I'm not sure if you'll be able to come back feel free to start talking if you can so okay so this guy uh sean was a special forces guy a military guy he quit special forces and he became an alcoholic and then he took these drugs in a controlled setting and i think you were i think you were gonna say that he was no longer an alcoholic neither did he Want this drug.
	Okay.
	My question, of course, is what suffering did he experience as a child that had him become an alcoholic?
	Right?
	And so that's my big question: is I don't know this Sean fellow, but I would assume that some bad stuff went down to some degree or another in his childhood, that he ended up with sort of bad habits of mental health, such as turning to drink rather than dealing with his problems or his issues.
	Yeah, can you hear me now?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, sorry, my wife, I was pining up.
	I mean, it could well be.
	I don't know.
	I can't speak with authority on that.
	I suppose to some degree, I feel like that's kind of sidestepping the point because his point was that, and he made it rather implicitly, and he's made it multiple times, is that that helped him when he was out of a bad spot.
	And I'm sure if he'd had a better childhood, perhaps he wouldn't have ended up in the bad spot in the first place.
	But he did end up in that place, and he found that ibergain was extremely useful.
	And there's a good deal of clinical evidence that ibergain is quite useful in these settings.
	The problem with it is that it has to be administered in a very controlled setting.
	Merely doing the drug on its own doesn't necessarily, it can, but doesn't necessarily lead to improved clinical results.
	It seems to be administered.
	Hang on.
	So did Sean explain how he became an alcoholic?
	Because, you know, becoming an alcoholic is not just a bad decision.
	It's a whole series of bad decisions.
	Right?
	So did he explain how he ended up making this truly massive series of bad decisions?
	Because, you know, becoming an alcoholic, you don't just, like the first time you take a drink, then you start drinking three bottles of wine a night or whatever.
	It's a whole series of bad decisions, which, again, I sympathize with.
	I'm sure he had a rough childhood.
	I don't think you end up being in special forces and an alcoholic because you were raised with love, peace, and reason.
	So did he ever explain why he became an alcoholic?
	Why did he have an addictive streak that he pursued voluntarily?
	It wasn't like he was dumped in Thailand, shot up with heroin, and then had withdrawal.
	I mean, he made a whole series of decisions to drink more, to drink more, to drink more, and to keep drinking more.
	So did he end up understanding why he made those bad decisions, or did he just basically take drugs, mask whatever bad decisions were being made, or come up with some sort of disconnection or release from that?
	Did he gain any insight as to why he became an alcoholic?
	It looks like I think we lost him again.
	But anyway, so yeah, so that's my sort of question or concern.
	Is it possible that people can gain some kind of significant relief from drugs or, you know, so I guess not drugs and drugs, but can they gain some kind of significant relief from all of these things?
	Sure.
	Yeah, they can.
	Yeah, they absolutely can.
	But do they understand at a deep level, right?
	Do they understand why these things are occurring?
	Oh, sorry.
	Kogito, Kogito, you're back.
	I'm not sure what happened.
	We had a hiccup there.
	Can you still hear me?
	Yeah.
	I mean, let me ask you this.
	Has Sean ever talked about his childhood or anything negative that I'm not a regular listener of POSCAT.
	I've listened to a few of them, but that one in particular stood out to me where he mentioned it.
	I couldn't really say.
	Obviously, all of his stuff is sort of available online.
	He has quite a few interesting guests.
	I suppose my larger point is that it's not just him that's reporting positive effects.
	No, no, listen.
	Sorry, to be clear, I'm not saying he's lying.
	I'm not saying there aren't these positive effects for some people.
	For sure.
	So I'm not going to say that drugs have no positive effects at all.
	And I'm not going to say recreational drugs.
	Of course, they have positive effects.
	I mean, the sort of traditional thing of lying in the beanbag with Cheetos on your chest, listening to Dark Side of the Moon and watching The Wizard of Oz backwards, apparently is quite a trippy experience.
	And you get to see the music.
	And I get all of that.
	So I'm not saying that drugs don't have any, I mean, nobody would do them if they didn't have any positive effects.
	I'm saying that drugs, and can they have a positive psychological effect?
	I mean, there's these studies about some drugs with PTSD and so on.
	Sure.
	But then they're being used medicinally.
	But that's not what I'm talking about.
	I mean, it's the opiate example, right?
	If somebody's taking opiates because they had a miserable childhood and they don't want to deal with it and they just want to master symptoms, that's bad.
	If somebody's recovering from back surgery and takes opiates so they can get out of bed, that's not bad, right?
	I mean, I had a friend I worked with once many years ago.
	He didn't take Novocaine if he had to have a tooth drilled because he just didn't like the after effects.
	And so just out of curiosity, I had to get a tooth, a cavity filled sort of, I don't know, decades ago.
	And I was like, yeah, try it without.
	And then after about a couple of minutes, I'm like, I think I'll try it with, because, you know, I would jerk and that would be dangerous.
	So he had a high pain tolerance, so he could do it.
	I mean, I guess my pain tolerance is normal.
	So I took the Novocaine and that's fine.
	So I'm not trying to say drugs never have any positive benefits.
	I'm not trying to say they can't help people with psychological issues.
	But my concern is that by masking the symptoms, you don't get to the roots.
	What is wrong with your Environment, your history, the people around you.
	Like, how do you become an alcoholic?
	Don't people notice?
	Don't they intervene?
	Don't they have the formal intervention even, or something like that, right?
	There's something in his childhood.
	I mean, I would ask him this directly if I was in a show.
	Like, what was it in your childhood that was negative that gave you this much pain to manage?
	And is it productively managed by taking drugs?
	And now I know he's just saying he just did it twice and all of that.
	And again, we're talking about him.
	He's not here, but that would be my first question.
	Your friend sounds hardcore, by the way.
	Well, I don't know.
	I mean, he just has a high pain tolerance.
	So very high.
	Yeah, he could take being drilled without novicing.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But, well, I think people can have personality issues because of their childhood.
	I think that's a given.
	I don't think they necessarily all result from childhood.
	I mean, it could well have been his experiences in the SEALs.
	There are all sorts of horrible things that the spec ops guys have seen that can scar them for life.
	And certain psychedelics and not just psychedelics, but ketamine, as you alluded to earlier, can have quite significant therapeutic results.
	Well, but I would argue that the very fact that he went into special ops and was willing to be a, I don't know, a paid violent guy, knowing that he was going to see all kinds of trauma, to have the personality to do that in the first place usually results from some kind of trauma as well.
	I suspect that's propositional.
	I think some people are just wired up to be warriors, and that's the most meaningful thing that they can do.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, so, I mean, this comes down to there are warrior genes in the DNA and all of that that give people more of a predisposition to be comfortable with violence and so on.
	And of course, evolutionarily speaking, we would understand that.
	But I remember a study that I read about some years ago, which was boys with a particular gene for violence, if they were physically abused as children, all of them became criminals.
	And if they weren't, they didn't.
	So I think there is genetic potential for a predisposition for violence.
	And by violence, I don't necessarily mean being a criminal.
	I mean, it could be defensive violence.
	It could be someone who's keeping the streets safe or whatever it is.
	So I think there are genetic potentials for these things, but they generally tend to get activated by child abuse.
	And we would expect that evolutionarily speaking, that if you are in a violent society, then you're going to be treated violently as a child.
	So you're going to grow up with a propensity for violence.
	If you're in a peaceful society and you have the potential for violence, but you're raised peacefully, you might be a little bit more assertive or aggressive, but you won't be out there tearing people's heads off because that's going to get you killed or thrown in jail, killed, hung, or whatever, right?
	So I think there's a predisposition to it, but usually it takes trauma to activate.
	Oh, absolutely.
	I'm fully in agreement that we're partly genetic, partly environmental.
	No dispute there.
	Okay, I appreciate that.
	And, you know, I'm not obviously going to give anybody any kind of medical advice.
	So when it comes to medical treatments, trust your doctor.
	Don't trust some yapper on the internet.
	So yeah, trust your doctor.
	But I don't even dislike in particular people who take drugs.
	I just really dislike those who glorify it and those who say it's cool, it's natural, it gives you insights.
	And then as you kind of came with a little bit earlier, there's just the implied insults.
	This is a low resolution take.
	Well, you're just, your mind is limited, man.
	You've got too much of an ego to like, you know, this kind of stuff, right?
	Or the people who say, well, you can't have a negative opinion about something you've never experienced.
	It's like, that's bullshit.
	It's complete bullshit.
	I have a negative opinion of murder.
	That doesn't mean I, well, man, you haven't tried it.
	No, I'm pretty sure I can have a negative opinion of murder and rape and assault without trying it.
	I don't know.
	It's just, it's just all cope.
	It's just all cope.
	And if you can get insights in a perpetual way, that's better than getting insights once or twice.
	Now, if he had Sean, sorry, I'm not trying to be informal with the guy, Baker, was his name, Baker.
	So if Sean had some Ryan, Sean Ryan, sorry.
	So if Sean had some loop in his brain that these drugs undid and he was able to get out of his alcoholism, great.
	You know, I think that's fine.
	However, by not doing drugs, I've now had, you know, there's supposed to be a time of sort of creative inspiration for artists that lasts 10 to 15 years.
	And we can see this all the time, right?
	You can think of bands and so on that they usually what they do is they chug around in relative obscurity.
	They release a couple of albums and then they release some monster album, right?
	Like the Brothers in Arms for Dynastraites or Born in the USA for Springsteen.
	It's only a monster album.
	And then, you know, it kind of just kind of trickles out after that.
	And they keep doing their thing, but they don't have the same level of inspiration.
	It's what Bob Dylan was saying.
	You know, he is not busy living, he's busy dying.
	And he's like, oh, if I could do that now, I would.
	I can't, right?
	I don't know how to do it again.
	And by not doing drugs, I mean, whether it's related or not, I'll probably never know until they dissect my brain, at which point I might not care too much.
	But I have been able to keep a high level of inspiration going in my life now for close to half a century.
	And I know this is, I'm just telling you, this isn't proof of anything.
	I'm fully aware of that.
	This is sort of my experience.
	But, you know, I first started writing novels when I was 12.
	I wrote a novel by the light of an alien sun.
	It's a science fiction thing.
	So I'm currently working on a novel now that I think is some of the best stuff I've ever written.
	So I and I'm still coming up with useful things in the realm of philosophy and having great insights and conversations I have with people.
	So, I guess my issue is that when you take the drugs, you get a feeling of insight, you get a feeling of connection, you get a feeling of all of these good things.
	And then, if you stop the drugs, it seems to dry up.
	I don't know.
	I mean, this is sort of the Beatles thing, right?
	They did some pretty, obviously, some of the most stunning and amazing songwriting and highly imaginative.
	Everyone thinks that the Beatles have like the diddies and so on, but some of the stuff they did.
	Or, I mean, Paul McCartney did a whole classical music piece called Liverpool Oratorio, which is, you know, amazing, right?
	But it does seem to dry up.
	It does seem to dry up.
	And I guess my concern is that drugs steal from the future a little bit by giving you a lot of activity in the here and now, but it does seem to come at a significant cost later on.
	Just as drugs give you comfort now at the expense of discomfort now, I think drugs can give you some creativity now by relaxing self-criticism and ego boundaries, but it does seem to come at the expense because when you stop doing the drugs, what happens, right?
	So that would be sort of at a practical level, that would be my concern.
	All right, listen, I appreciate your comments.
	And Brent, what's on your mind, my friend?
	Hey, Steph.
	First of all, just wanted to say, I've got to get my key dogs out of here.
	Really happy to have you back on X Brother.
	I've been listening to you for a couple of decades now.
	Huge admirer.
	You got me into philosophy in the first place.
	Currently have a podcast now because of it.
	Huge thanks.
	that said, really also happy to hear you moderate a little bit throughout this discussion and back off a little bit because I think there are tons of benefits for some people and I was certainly helped by psychedelics, but also I was through you I'm not disagreeing with you.
	I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
	Okay, fair enough.
	From the start, when you started tweeting today and also through this conversation, I feel like you have honed in more on the folks who are glorifying the psychedelics, right?
	The druggy mentality.
	I'm certainly against that, right?
	And said, like, okay, for example, the Sean Ryan Ibogaine experience, like, you know, there are people that can be helped through it.
	And so I think having that differentiation is important.
	And so happy to see that little bit of moderation there and then some nuance.
	Well, I mean, but who would ever say that drugs never have a positive effect?
	Otherwise, people wouldn't do them.
	My question is, in general, is it better?
	Like, let's say, let's just sort of take an example.
	And I'm happy to hear your feedback on this.
	I'll keep this brief.
	So let's take an example, which is somebody who had insomnia, right?
	I had insomnia, oh, in my, I think it was about 30 or something like that.
	I had insomnia.
	And the reason I had insomnia, and I didn't take any sleeping pills or anything like that, I did go to therapy.
	And it turned out that the reason that I had insomnia was because I was not living my values.
	I was talking about them a lot.
	I was preaching about them a lot, which was fine, but I was not living my values in that I had people around me who were resolutely opposed to reason and virtue.
	And it was bad.
	So if I had taken sleeping pills, I may have become addicted to sleeping pills.
	And in a sense, I would never have woken up to my own hypocrisy or at least lack of consistent integrity, which was of huge benefit to me.
	So if I had masked the symptoms of insomnia by taking drugs, then I would not have achieved what I did achieve, which was escaping some fairly high levels of corruption in some areas of my life and making my way to the great marriage and great relationships that I have now.
	So again, this is just sort of a personal example, and that's not proof of anything.
	Obviously, I know it's just a personal example.
	But isn't it better to get to the root of issues rather than take drugs to master symptoms?
	So if somebody's unhappy to the point where they want to take drugs, shouldn't they get to the root of that unhappiness?
	And don't, doesn't taking drugs master that journey?
	Yeah, 100%.
	And I completely agree.
	And by the way, just from my own personal story, I had a horrible childhood, a terribly abusive childhood, and had suffered tons of problems from it.
	And once you have, I just want to, I don't want to let that blow pass.
	Like, I'm really, really sorry.
	You really have massive sympathy for me.
	The harshness that I have with people is just to shock them out of the loop to some degree, right?
	Because they're just on this loop of like, drugs are cool, drugs are cool.
	So I just wanted to obviously give you the massive sympathy, but please continue.
	Yes, thank you so much for that.
	I really appreciate that.
	And you've helped a ton, by the way.
	I've done psychotherapy, intensive therapy.
	I've gone through a bunch of stuff.
	And actually, this is my therapist who's sort of low-key said, hey, you should potentially look at what Johns Hopkins is researching, right?
	And so I had already gone through that.
	I've resolved things.
	I've cut my mother out of my life, who was a horribly abusive person.
	You know, I've done all the things, right?
	And this was an adjunct.
	This was something, and I looked at the research on this.
	And what I think is interesting is two pieces I think you would be interested in.
	Number one, the way psilocybin acts on the brain.
	I think, as you know, the more patterns you repeat, the more you burn in neural pathways, right, that reinforce behaviors.
	And psilocybin appears to, especially at high doses, shake the extra sketch clean a little bit.
	That's a super important thing.
	So to your point, you can shake the echo sketch clean, but then you have to follow through with better patterns.
	And there's work involved.
	It's not like a panacea.
	It's not a fix-all.
	It's a help.
	Well, and just to reinforce your point very briefly, we are in sort of the modern world, we are subject to levels of stress that are somewhat unprecedented.
	I'm thinking in particular in wartime.
	So think of the First World War, where people were in fear of being blown up for four years straight.
	That is like wars in the past.
	Like you grab a stick and the other guy grabs a stick and one of you walks away and it's over in about 10 minutes, right?
	So we're subject to sustained levels of stress in the modern world that we're not really designed for.
	And it certainly can wear out the neurons.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, certainly.
	And I completely agree with that.
	The second component, I heard you mention the Johns Hopkins research around psilocybin, and you called out low dose for PTSD.
	And what's interesting here is that it's not low dose.
	So, the Hopkins research, one of the key findings that Dr. Roland Griffiths found was that the mystical experience actually appears to be what caused the changes, right?
	So, they found smoking cessation, they found end-of-life, you know, anxiety about death with terminal cancer patients, with a whole bunch of research around this.
	PCSD, a bunch of mental health issues, it appears that the mystical experience at high dose is actually what causes most of the effect, not the actual drug itself, which I think is super interesting.
	I know Jordan Peterson has talked to quite a bit.
	Sorry, I didn't quite follow that.
	Dose is high doses rather than the drug itself.
	I'm sorry if I missed something, but it's yeah, apologies.
	So, so there's something in the literature called the mystical experience, right?
	Some people call it ego death.
	This is essentially the default mode network of the brain being tamped down, right?
	And sort of this experience that you have.
	And this is what people claim they encounter God.
	And I've had this type of experience, and I'm an atheist, but I do understand the ontological squishiness around that experience.
	And it's very profound.
	And it appears that that experience itself is what causes the long-term transformation.
	I don't know what that means.
	So I'm not sure exactly why.
	The mystical experience.
	Yeah.
	And the only way to get that experience is on a very high dose.
	We're talking five to seven grams, depending on body weight, but it's the Terrence McKenna heroic dose.
	That is the type of thing that occasions the transformation that follows, whether that's smoking cessation or ceasing alcohol or positive mental health effects.
	It appears to be directly linked.
	Sorry to interrupt, but I mean, so philosophically speaking, that's a challenge.
	Doesn't mean it's wrong.
	I'm just telling you, philosophically speaking.
	So philosophically speaking, reason equals virtue equals happiness, right?
	If you're rational, then you can have integrity, you can be moral.
	And as a result of integrity, you get, I mean, happiness.
	Obviously, so that's a general, general sequence.
	Now, the mystical experience is false.
	It's not true.
	It's not a real metaphysical experience.
	It is a feeling of oneness with the universe.
	It is a feeling of comfort in the nestled bosom arms of the motherly atoms and so on.
	But it is not a real thing.
	You're not contacting anything real.
	There's not a universal consciousness out there.
	You are not at one with the universe.
	I mean, you're made of universal matter, of course, right?
	But you're not at one with the universe psychologically.
	We are isolated from all other matter in the triumph and tragedy of consciousness because there's nothing else that does it.
	So it's not true.
	It feels true.
	And of course, as you know, there have been particular, you can induce religious visions in people by stimulating particular parts of the brain, like down to cherubs and angels.
	Right.
	But it's not true.
	It's not, you're not like any more than I had a dream about flying on the back of a giant condor last night.
	That doesn't mean that I flew on the back of a giant condor.
	It means I had a dream about it.
	It feels true in the moment you wake up and you go, wow, that was wild, right?
	So to be clear, I'm not making a lot of fun.
	Hang on, sorry, let me just finish my thought.
	I pause, so that's not your issue.
	So my question is, can good things come out of a lie?
	And drugs make a lie feel true.
	Oneness with the universe, mystical experiences, and so on.
	And can good things come out of, I mean, Plato would call it a noble lie or like, well, just believe this false thing and you get good effects.
	Philosophically, no, can't do it.
	Won't do it.
	Won't do it.
	I do not believe that sustained happiness comes out of believing lies.
	I believe that a lie can get you some temporary relief.
	Right.
	I mean, if you're a criminal and you get caught and you plead innocence and they believe you and they let you go, then you've lied.
	I didn't commit this crime.
	You've lied.
	And you get a temporary relief.
	But that doesn't mean that you end up with long-term happiness.
	So the problem is that the mystical experience is a lie.
	It's false.
	And you're drugging yourself to believe that what is false is true.
	And then that's the foundation of your future happiness.
	That's not philosophically acceptable.
	But sorry, go ahead.
	Fair point.
	I don't agree though, right?
	Because I don't think it's a lie, right?
	So what you have is a mystical experience, which is completely subjective.
	It's in your head.
	Whether somebody who's not philosophically trained, right, doesn't understand epistemology and doesn't have any sort of grounding could misinterpret that experience and believe something false about the experience they had is not necessarily a lie, right?
	So I don't like that characterization.
	But I don't follow what you're saying.
	My apologies.
	So it's in your head.
	It's not true.
	It's not real.
	It's not objective.
	And you believe that it is true, real, and objective.
	Well, that's a lie.
	I'm not saying that the person is lying because they genuinely feels that it's true, but it's not.
	Right.
	Well, I get your point, but it's not necessarily a lie, right?
	Because it's actually happening, right?
	So this substance does occasion this type of experience subjectively in your experience.
	And it's very much like the color purple.
	No, no, no, no.
	No, no, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	So I'm not saying nothing happens in your brain, but it doesn't happen.
	It's not real in the universe.
	It's not like, again, I dreamt of flying on the back of Giant Condor last night, but I wasn't actually doing it.
	So it was real in my brain.
	It was real in my dream.
	I didn't doubt it while I was having it, but then I woke up and I'm like, wow, that was something, right?
	So, of course, they're having a subjective experience.
	I'm not disagreeing with them.
	Obviously, drugs have an effect or nobody would take them.
	But it's not, and the fact that they're having a subjective experience, if somebody said, oh, I took this drug and I felt this oceanic oneness with the universe, I would say, sure, I believe you.
	You're not lying.
	You're not lying.
	That's fine.
	But if they say, I understood that I objectively have oneness with the universe, that's different.
	That's the lie.
	And I'm not saying they're lying.
	I'm just saying it's not true.
	It's not true that I was flying on the back of a giant condor, although it felt real at the time.
	And it's not true that if you take a drug and feel this oneness with the universe, that you actually have a oneness with the universe in any objective sense.
	It's just a subjective experience.
	It's not the subjective experience that's a lie.
	It's the claim that it has some sort of metaphysical reality.
	Got it.
	Got it.
	Okay.
	No argument there then.
	You know, I view this very similar.
	I know I've been listening to you a long time.
	I know you understand dreams, right?
	And you do dream interpretation type of stuff.
	And I look at it that way, right?
	Like the dream didn't actually happen, but there's some value that can come from, you know, what comes from the dream, right?
	Like you can analyze it.
	You can try to figure out the root of it.
	I think psychedelics are the same way to induce a state similar to dreaming, I guess, that has some potential value.
	And I also definitely believe, I know this for a fact for myself personally, that that has helped me immensely.
	But like I said, I did the work, right?
	Like I didn't start there.
	I was never a drug guy.
	I didn't do any, I don't smoke cannabis.
	I don't drink alcohol.
	Like I avoided all of that stuff.
	This was not like an attempt to hold on.
	Would you recommend that other people do drugs?
	I would not.
	Okay, so it worked for you and it was helpful and healing for you, then why would you withhold that helpful and healing aspect from other people?
	Out of feeling of responsibility, understanding the grave consequences that could come from taking this course of action, right?
	Like I would never say this is for everybody.
	And I bristle.
	No, no, no, no.
	I didn't say for everybody.
	I didn't say for everybody.
	But when you talk about the positive experiences you had doing drugs, that is an endorsement.
	Oh, sure.
	And I will say my personal experience, and I think it was incredibly helpful for me.
	And I do know that it was helpful for a bunch of other people.
	The research is out there.
	The data is out there.
	I'm an empiricist.
	I got a bout of reason and evidence.
	It's out there.
	But I would not personally say like, hey, Steph, I want you to take psychedelics tomorrow.
	Like, I think that is insane.
	No, but you're saying that you're saying that psychedelics produce a good effect that is not achievable in a natural way.
	Because if you had the choice to receive that good effect, you would prefer it to be natural rather than drug-induced, right?
	Correct.
	Yes.
	So is it your contention?
	And this doesn't, I mean, I'm not trying to be confrontational.
	I'm really trying to understand your mindset.
	So is it your contention, my friend, that the drugs you took had positive effects on your life that were not achievable in any other way, in any natural way?
	You couldn't achieve it without the drugs?
	It's hard to say.
	I know it certainly fast-tracked a lot of things for sure.
	But I'm not trying to say like I'm trying to do shortcuts.
	The issue, Steph, is when I found you, I was deep into the mindset of, you know, you spank your kids or you don't love them.
	Like I had all that trauma very late into life.
	And I started in my 40s, essentially, healing.
	Right.
	And, you know, things get burned in over time.
	And I did, like I said, all the foundational work.
	This was something that helped me tie up some things that were really difficult to get over.
	And so maybe it accelerated some stuff, but I'm not claiming that I could not have gotten to where I'm at today without them at all.
	I would never make that claim.
	I think you can.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Of course, compared to what, right?
	We don't know.
	And the other thing, too, is if you can do it, let's take a sort of extreme steelman case.
	If you can do it in 10 minutes with drugs or it's going to take you 10 years of psychotherapy, and especially if you're older and don't have all the time in the world, I can certainly understand the appeal.
	Let's put it again.
	We don't know for sure.
	But listen, again, massive sympathies for your childhood.
	I'm certainly glad that you're in a much better place.
	I'm glad that philosophy helped.
	And I'm still going to hold on to, though.
	I think most people gain value from drugs by believing that it's a true experience.
	I think if they accept that it's just some chemically induced half-psychosis of the brain, then they don't feel that sense of oneness with the universe.
	But I would say that most people believe that it's true, that they get some connection with something larger than themselves and so on.
	So, but I certainly listen, I massively appreciate the call and I'm thrilled that you're doing so much better.
	And again, massive sympathies for your childhood.
	Thank you so much.
	And then thank you for everything you've done for me, man.
	Like, I'm really happy that you're back here.
	Super pleased to talk to you for the first time.
	It's a great honor.
	A great pleasure for me as well.
	Thanks, man.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Count the something, something.
	Hey, Seven.
	How's it going?
	Good.
	How you doing?
	I'm good.
	Appreciate this conversation you're having and just wanted to.
	Okay, you're sounding like a tiny beach radio in the far distance.
	Can you get it closer to your mic or something like that?
	Yeah, I have my.
	Hold on one second.
	I'm going to take my earpods out.
	Okay, is this any better?
	Much better.
	Thank you.
	Go ahead.
	Better.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	So just, yeah, just wanted to say I appreciate the conversation here and kind of just wanted to weigh in as someone who has experience with specifically psychedelics on a broad range.
	I'm sorry, which psychedelics?
	Because that's a broad range of terminology there.
	Well, most of them, psilocybin, LSD, DMT, a couple of others that would be considered research chemicals.
	And this is all from a past period in my life.
	I no longer have anything to do with substances or anything mind-altering.
	And sorry, for how long did you take the drugs?
	How many years, if it was years, and roughly how many doses would you say you took?
	Over the course of two years, probably, I don't know, 50, probably 50.
	And what age were you?
	Late 20s.
	Okay.
	So sorry, I just need some facts, but go ahead.
	I'm happy to hear.
	Yeah, no.
	And yeah, I was part of a community, an online community that was into psychedelics specifically recreationally.
	And it really had nothing to do with any kind of therapeutic benefits or trauma.
	It was all completely recreational and knew many, many people in that scene.
	And sorry, what was the purpose of the drugs?
	Why did you take them?
	Well, I initially got into them, I guess, as an escape mechanism, a more intense form of escapism than I had previously experienced.
	Sorry, escape from what?
	Escape from my failing body and just wanting to kind of get away from not the consequences of my body, but just the reality of.
	sorry, it's very abstract.
	And I'm, you know, obviously don't talk about anything you're not comfortable talking about.
	How was your body failing in your late 20s?
	Well, I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of seven and have subsequently developed other autoimmune issues.
	And my eyes are starting to fail, partly because of the diabetes, partly because of genetics.
	My dad's partly blind.
	Gosh, I'm so sorry.
	How old are you now?
	I'm 30, almost 32.
	I'm really sorry, man.
	Health issues, especially chronic and deteriorating health issues, are a bear and a half.
	And I just really want to extend massive sympathies.
	But sorry, go on.
	Yeah, I appreciate that.
	And on one level, they really are kind of soul-crushing.
	But on another level, I see the value that they've brought to my life in terms of learning to deal with adversity and that kind of thing.
	So it's not without silver lining.
	I am not trying to compare my health to yours, right?
	But I certainly notice that I'm a slightly more gentle and nice person when I'm sick.
	But anyway.
	Right.
	But no, so I got into it purely for the recreational side of things.
	And at least that's what I thought when I got into it.
	I know that I was just into it for the, you know, the trippiness and the fun, the fun experience.
	Well, no, no.
	I wouldn't say the, I'm sorry.
	I don't mean to tell you your own experience, of course.
	I wouldn't say it was just a fun experience.
	I mean, you were dealing with some seriously horrible stuff in life.
	Oh, but I didn't know that until, I didn't, I didn't understand why I was chasing them until later.
	Okay, I was more in more instinctively reaching for more intense experiences of escapism without really consciously embracing the fact that I was trying to escape from my body.
	Well, and this is what I was talking about earlier, which is in a way, you didn't take drugs to feel great.
	You took drugs to not feel bad.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	Precisely.
	I mean, it was, I was specifically seeking out an altered mind experience to sort of shut off the bad signals that I was receiving from within my own mind and from my body so that I could experience something different, some sort of uninterrupted bliss, for lack of a better term.
	And sorry, do you have siblings?
	Yes.
	And do they also suffer from similar ailments or did they dodge that bullet?
	No, my oldest sister also has type 1 diabetes and there are a number of other autoimmune issues in my family.
	A lot of it is genetic.
	Gosh, that's a rough deal.
	And that's a really rough deal.
	And I sympathize.
	But sorry.
	So go ahead with your story.
	You said these two years and 50 doses and so on, right?
	Yeah.
	So, you know, it was a really interesting experience because I interacted with a lot of people who got into it for other reasons, who clearly had some sort of either unrealized or realized trauma behind them, but they were seeking the drugs, whether or not they knew it, to deal with some of that trauma.
	And something that I witnessed was that people who were experienced with these substances or sought them out primarily for recreational purposes and had come to grips that the reason they were seeking them out were for recreational purposes tended to handle the effects of the drugs long term much better than the people who were seeking some sort of enlightenment,
	seeking some sort of connection with the universe or oneness.
	And almost to a person, of the people who I witnessed these drugs kind of ruin with or ruin or mess with their real lives, they were all people who believed what they saw in the drugs or what their experiences were.
	And it's just interesting.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	It can be really destructive.
	I mean, imagine how chaotic your life would be if you acted on every impulse you had in a dream, if you objectively believed everything that happened in your dreams to be some sort of deep spiritual, metaphysical reality.
	Or in some cases, like some people go further and they believe that these things are like not just metaphysical, but that they have some sort of concrete, tangible manifestation in the world or will or can, and you just have to get there kind of thing.
	And it can be really dangerous for people with trauma and with underlying psychological issues.
	And so I think the interesting thing to me is that people, the proponents for using psychedelics, they talk about the therapeutic benefits, the John Hopkins studies, all of that stuff that basically target people with trauma, people with PTSD, people with issues.
	But the flip side is that those are the people I think who are the most vulnerable to the effects of the drugs being genuinely detrimental.
	And I don't deny that there are people out there who have and who could see positive benefits from those drugs, just as you've said.
	People wouldn't do them if they didn't have something to gain from it.
	But it's just, it's scary to me because like doctors prescribe opioids for pain, and that's a legitimate use in many cases.
	But how many of those people end up being hooked on these things because the legitimate use turned into some form of escapism or dealing with trauma or just being chemically hooked to the drug after repeated use?
	And so that's where I have a concern is that the recommendation is for people with trauma and with issues to try it, even in a controlled setting.
	But those people are going to be the ones most susceptible to abusing those and relying on them for any kind of improvement or long-term change.
	And that's just, I think that, I think the responsibility, people don't understand how, you know, recommending those things is just, is, I think, it can be very irresponsible.
	I just think it objectively is very, very irresponsible.
	Yeah.
	And I really appreciate your distinction between those who know that they're doing it for self-medication and those who believe that they're exploring the outer frontal lobes of the universe in some existential manner.
	Those are two.
	Like if I, oh, if I have a headache, I'll take an aspirin.
	Oh, my headache's better.
	But then if I think, oh, man, aspirin opens up my creativity and allows me to contact the bone marrow of the planet, then I'm obviously going to be a lot more hooked on aspirin rather than.
	Yeah, for real.
	And so the other analogy for me is like if somebody really twist their ankle in the woods and they've got some aspirin on them, then they take the aspirin and they do that so they can get back to civilization, get to a doctor, have their ankle looked at, as opposed to somebody shoots up heroin in the woods and they just lie there blissfully as their ankle gets worse and worse.
	And then eventually they can't even walk.
	And I think that's the concern.
	And of course, the number of people, I mean, every time you bring up drugs, and I'm not saying this is on you, it's just on X or anywhere.
	Anytime you bring up drugs, people are like, Johns Hopkins, you know, Johns Hopkins.
	And it's like, you're not in the Johns Hopkins program, man.
	Yeah.
	Don't give me that.
	You're in your basement.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Yeah, you're smoking a bowl in the morning and playing Fortnite all day.
	You're not in the Johns Hopkins study.
	And that's just coke.
	And again, I have sympathy, except for when people promote it as if it's the only way.
	And also, and this was a little bit with the first guy, you know, well, you're just, you're just too narrow-minded and you can't handle the ego death.
	And like, you know, this, this vague appeal to I'm superior because I've screwed up my brain chemistry, like that, just to be as, you know, it's like, well, I mean, it's like, it's like somebody who cuts themselves, somebody who cuts themselves to get the high or the dissociation.
	They cut themselves and then they say, well, you know, you just don't have the stamina and the strength to cut yourself.
	I'm like, I don't want that.
	Yeah, I mean, you don't want that.
	And if there's a natural way to do it, that's better.
	Yeah, narrow-mindedness is often used as some sort of insult or some sort of implication of superiority.
	But we have to be narrow-minded in that we can't allow ourselves to bombard our brain with things that we know to be false in a situation where we could begin to believe them to be objectively true.
	I mean, that's just, that's perilous.
	That's just propaganda.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's people who take drugs, get that feeling of oneness with the universe.
	Well, things that we believe to be true that are false are either lies or propaganda.
	Right.
	And sorry, as a philosopher, I cannot promote lies and propaganda.
	That's just not the deal.
	That's not the gig, right?
	That's not the job.
	And the job is to say, is it true or not?
	And so people are like, oh, I got this oneness with the universe.
	Like, they might as well say, I had a vision that Joseph Stalin is the safety of the proletariat and I'm going to go and join the Red Guard.
	And it's like, that's just propaganda.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah.
	And what you alluded to right there is the questioning, is this true or is this not, was the one, I think the one lifeline for me going through way too many doses of psychedelics over the course of two years.
	It was the one thing I think that kept me from losing it, like many people that I knew whose lives just dissolved because they bought into it, was even when I was super, you know, tripping to the point of mega ego death on LSD or one of these research chemicals to the point where I didn't have any understanding of my own body and mind,
	there was one thread that I would pull continually on as I was in these trips.
	And it was the knowledge.
	It wasn't the belief.
	It was the knowledge that none of this is real.
	None of it's true.
	I'm like living inside a sci-fi movie.
	I'm watching the most realistic, epic feeling, epic looking sci-fi movie from inside my brain.
	But I knew on a very, very fundamental level that I couldn't trust anything that I saw or felt during those trips.
	And I just wish that some of the people that I knew and befriended before they jumped off the deep end had been able to maintain that same level of certainty when using these for what they thought was recreational purposes and ended up turning into a complete inversion of their prior beliefs and lifestyles and philosophy.
	I appreciate that.
	And what is it that they mean?
	Because people use this term and I'm not really, I mean, I have an idea what it means to me.
	I don't know what it means to the people who use it.
	And I'm not saying you know all the people in the drug community, but what do people mean with ego death?
	What are they talking about?
	It's very fascinating.
	It's a very fascinating experience.
	And I'm sure it does mean different things to different people, but there is a point when, you know, if you take the drugs up to a certain threshold, you still maintain some sort of sense of identity, some sort of connectedness to your body, a degree of sobriety, I guess, for lack of a better term.
	But once you get past a certain threshold, some of those connections start to either fade or just disappear entirely.
	And for some people, it feels like death, like you can't feel your heart beating anymore.
	You can't feel your body breathing.
	You can't even really recognize like where your body starts and ends.
	and then for a lot of people, it also just involves sort of it's really hard to explain, but like loss of this concept of self.
	I mean, it's it's impossible to explain because it takes large doses of mind-altering drugs to be able to be able to experience.
	Yeah, because of course people use ego to mean sense of identity, sense of judgment, sense of self, but they also use it to mean like egoist, right?
	Like your dominant vanity and your sense of self-importance that's not grounded in anything real and to sort of win-lose negotiations where you have to come out on top.
	And so people use this ego in very different ways.
	And ego death, I mean, ego is identity.
	Ego death, ego is judgment.
	And I just, I would love to, I would love to hear somebody coming out of a drug trip with an ability to reason better.
	And I've never seen that.
	Oh, no.
	I mean, it's intoxicating.
	It completely inhibits your ability to reason better until you're out of the trip.
	And I would say even, I mean, there's this, for a lot of psychedelics, especially for like LSD, you feel the after effects of that.
	You may not be intoxicated after that 12 or 14 hour trip, but I would say about two weeks is when the effects actually start to kind of fully fade and you're kind of back to a baseline.
	And no, I would talk with people who, you know, when I was coming out of one of my trips or when they were coming out of one of their trips and you go back into the conversation log and it's just like, man, I either don't remember saying that or like, I really thought that this was true and it wasn't or for some reason I said this and obviously I didn't mean it.
	I never would have said that in my right mind.
	Oh, yeah.
	All the people who are like, I had this great insight under LSD and they wrote it down and they read it back like the umbrella's wetness comes from the sky god's fantasy.
	I'm like, okay, yeah, that's that's real real deep, man.
	I mean, I, yeah, I have, I have created art and I've recorded like guitar solos while tripping because, you know, I feel like this, this sense of grandeur and profound skill and meaningfulness to these creations while I'm in the experience.
	And then I go back to them a week later and I'm just like, like, it looks like a child drew this.
	And I listen to that.
	I listen to that music I made and I'm like, this felt so meaningful, so profound in the moment.
	And I listened back to it.
	And objectively speaking, it's just trash, you know?
	Right, right.
	And the other thing, too, I have an issue with mysticism in many ways is kind of narcissistic in that it's all about, it is actually all about the self.
	So for instance, there are some people who go through a religious conversion, they're born again and so on, and they come out with an incredible mission in the world to feed the hungry, to provide succor to the homeless, to whatever it's going to be, right?
	They come out with a mission that is not just about themselves.
	And one of the concerns I have with this sort of stuff is I've never heard of anyone, and this doesn't mean that it's obviously scientific, but I've talked to a lot of people about this stuff, who said, I realized that I was kind of selfish and I, after taking drugs, I decided to go out and battle evil in the world and promote virtue and so on.
	But it's all just about the self and what feels good in the moment for the self and the sense of oneness with the universe.
	It's for the self.
	At least people who become religious have rules that they have to follow, right?
	Like, okay, I can't bear false witness.
	I have to forgive people who earn it.
	Like, they come out with rules and responsibilities.
	But the mysticism of the druggies has no external responsibilities or rules.
	It is really self-indulgent and kind of selfish, I think.
	Absolutely.
	And it's not something that can ever be, you can't draw a connection back to anything concrete.
	And so it's impossible to argue with somebody who has this position.
	And I'm talking more, the farther you go into the fringe and the extreme people who buy into the mysticism and all this, but there's no way to work on their level because they're basing their entire reality and their entire philosophy around something that only they've experienced.
	There's no objective way for anybody else but them to have experienced because everybody's tricks are different.
	I love the Freudian slip of like, because, you know, the idea that the druggies are snacky.
	And they're like, you go to the back of the fridge.
	And this is the thing, too.
	So it's a basic principle that if you think your subjective experience is objective, it alienates you from people because you're now part of a reality that no one else can share.
	You have this giant moat of delusion around you.
	Other people cannot join you.
	You know, we can only meet in reality.
	We can only connect with others, with social animals, right?
	We can only connect with each other in reality, which is why the meaning of words matter and sense data matters because we meet in sense data reality.
	You and I are having a conversation based on sound, right?
	So we have to trust sound.
	We have to trust the medium that is allowing us to communicate and so on.
	So when you have a subjective experience that you think is objective that nobody else can share, you're now in a universe of one that no one can join you in.
	Like if I thought that I genuinely was flying on the back of a condor last night in my dreams that was real, nobody else can join me in that dream.
	It's fundamentally, terrifyingly isolating.
	And that's why I think it tends to escalate for people who are already isolated.
	And it's completely destructive.
	I mean, a person I became good friends with before he got into psychedelics, he only really used cannabis before these, but he had a phenomenal career, made a lot of money, had a loving wife and multiple children.
	He had everything going for him.
	And he started getting into psychedelics.
	And it did exactly what you described.
	It isolated him from his family because he started to have these thoughts.
	Anytime his wife did something that annoyed him or disagreed with him, it started to turn into, well, she doesn't understand.
	She's not enlightened, and she can't possibly understand.
	And she's got all of these blocks to what's true.
	And so he doesn't have his family.
	He doesn't have his job.
	I don't know that he's homeless, but he doesn't have any of the social connections that he had before.
	And he relies on government welfare to pay his bills.
	And it has completely destroyed the wonderful life that he had before.
	And he's completely at peace with that because he thinks that he's working off of some sort of objective reality that he sees in these drugs.
	And it's just tragic.
	Well, at least in the realm of religion, even if we were to say, oh, religion is not true, someone would be an atheist or whatever.
	But at least the religious people have things that are not true that are relatively objective.
	Like they have beliefs in Jesus or Muhammad, and they have shared rules, excuse me, the Ten Commandments.
	They have shared rules and so on.
	They have shared obligations.
	They have shared morals.
	And so at least, but with the subjective being the objective being isolating, they don't even have anything that they share with everyone else.
	And it's really tragic.
	All right.
	We've got a bunch of people.
	Listen, great conversation and massive sympathies for your health issues.
	Obviously, you know, fingers crossed for the universe that something positive happens.
	And I just, you know, I sort of hate to give you the consolation prize, but you have a fine, fine mind and a great set of communication skills.
	So I hope that you're doing something great in the world with all of those.
	That's a great gift to have.
	And I really appreciate the conversation.
	All right.
	Thank you, Seven.
	You're welcome.
	Alice.
	Alice.
	Hello.
	Hi, thanks.
	You're welcome.
	What you were saying was, it just made me think of the writer, the French writer Montesquieu, he wrote that he theorized that warmer climates gendered religions that tended toward that because in warmer climates the muscles relax, that then the religion and enlightenment is kind of trying to recreate that experience of just relaxing.
	And that's their idea of enlightenment.
	And whereas I dislike drugs, I think that it's much more preferable to exercise the brain.
	And that when you gain wisdom and you gain understanding that it's a bulwark against the terrors of the world and the uncertainty of being alive.
	So that creates us relaxation through strength, which is the preferable mode of achieving enlightenment.
	Anyways, that was my.
	No, I think that's a very interesting thought.
	I mean, I've got, there's a whole RK selection theory that I talked about in my presentation.
	You can find this at fdrpodcasts.com called Gene Wars as a four-part presentation and about sort of warm versus cold climates, R versus K selection.
	So, and that this is why we have liberals and conservatives.
	This is why we have the left and the right wing.
	So you should go and check that out.
	But I will say that, you know, relaxation is both a positive and a negative in life.
	I mean, you wouldn't want to take a hyper-relaxing drug when being chased by a bear in the woods, right?
	So sometimes you are in danger.
	And turning off your body's danger signals is comfortable in the moment, like turning off pain, turning off anxiety or fear or things like that.
	It's good in the moment, but excuse me, I'm so sorry, a little bit of a frog in my throat.
	So I remember when I was a kid complaining about pain, right?
	And I can't remember somebody was telling me, oh, but pain is your body's way of changing something.
	You should do something different, right?
	So I think the example was like if you're climbing a tree and you disturb a wasp's nest and the wasps are all stinging you in your back and you don't feel that, then eventually your body will just become overwhelmed by poison and you'll fall and die.
	So pain is your body's way of saying you need to change something, right?
	If you, I remember when I was a kid, we had this gas burner stove and the burner was on.
	I needed a knife to butter some toast.
	I grabbed the knife.
	The knife happened to have been by the burner and was superheated.
	So I grabbed it.
	I didn't even feel the pain before I dropped it because the body works that way.
	Like you get the pain receptors.
	They go to your spine.
	They tell you to drop it before you can register the pain.
	And that really hurt.
	That really hurt.
	And so that's my body's way of saying, hey, you might want to check if stuff's on the stove, whether it's hot or not.
	And you do that, you touch it really quick, a little slower, a little slower.
	And then, you know, maybe it's okay.
	You pick it up, right?
	And so your body, pain is stress, anxiety, fear, it's your body's way of telling you to change something.
	Like my insomnia was my body's way of saying, change something.
	And I guess my concern is that if people sort of drug the symptoms, they don't figure out what needs to change in their life.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	I appreciate that.
	Is there more that you wanted to add to?
	No, no, no.
	I just wanted just enjoying hearing your insights.
	That's all.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you so much for calling in.
	All right.
	Every man, no man.
	No time at all.
	No time this time.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Don't forget to unmute.
	Oh, is it me?
	Oh, there we go.
	I have a philosophical question that I've been thinking about for a few years.
	I think I'm too biased to answer it myself because, you know, for obvious reasons once you hear it.
	So, I have some very specific...
	I Yeah, it's totally fine.
	Okay.
	I have some very specific and rare phenotypes.
	I have brown hair and a red beard and freckles and blue eyes and I'm really tall.
	And my dad had these phenotypes and his dad had these phenotypes.
	And I tend to have, I tend to experience a dramatic difference in enthusiasm from partners who don't share these phenotypes.
	And just in the last few years, I've realized that I want kids really.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I don't know your life, so just bear with me while I try to unpack what you're saying.
	So when you say you have a massive enthusiasm from partners, I assume you don't mean tennis partners.
	You mean that women want to have sex with you?
	Okay, just want to make sure that we're not talking about business partners or squash partners.
	And so women, you're tall, you've got great phenotypes.
	It's unusual.
	You've got a striking look.
	And so women want to bang you like a gong, right?
	Yes.
	Every woman I meet wants to have my kids.
	Okay, got it.
	Got it.
	So you are a chick magnet.
	And how old are you?
	34.
	34.
	Okay.
	Go ahead.
	But the square that I'm trying to circle is that women who also share these phenotypes show me what I would consider average enthusiasm, whereas women who don't have these phenotypes show me extraordinary enthusiasm.
	And as a rule of thumb, I've always just dated the women who treat me the best.
	But now that I'm going into this phase of my life where I want to have kids, if I follow that logic, it basically guarantees that my sons will not have red beards.
	They won't have blue eyes.
	They won't be six foot four.
	Okay, so you've got a genetic subsidy that you didn't earn in the dating market, and you want to exploit that subsidy by having sex with women whose admiration you don't have to earn because they're just admiring the genetics.
	Yeah, well, that's what's currently happening.
	No, no, it's not what's happening.
	It's not what's happening.
	It's what you've chosen.
	It doesn't happen like the weather.
	You're making choices.
	And I'm not bagging on those choices, but I don't like it when people speak about their lives as if stuff just happens.
	These are all choices, right?
	So you have women who are as attractive as you are, who aren't that impressed by your attractiveness, whose respect you might have to earn through other means, quality of character, integrity, or something like that, hopefully.
	And then you have women who are just like, wow, he's hot and he's tall and he's got whatever, these striking features.
	So you'd rather have sex with the women who admire you for things you didn't earn rather than try to earn the love of a woman through something other than your genetics.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree with that part, but that's not my question.
	No, no, I know we haven't gotten to your question.
	I know, but I just want to sort of understand the lay of the land.
	Get it?
	Lay of the land.
	Okay, never mind.
	Go ahead.
	What I'm trying to get to, and this is what I mean when I'm saying, like, I'm too biased to come to this answer myself, I think.
	I mean, I feel like I'm objectively, I don't know, right is probably not the right word because I feel like that sounds like it's moral or something like that.
	Okay, if you could do me a favor, I just, all of the hedging is making my head spin, right?
	So just give me a bald statement and don't worry about the judgment.
	Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not sure how to communicate what I'm trying to say.
	Sorry, I'm not a great communicator.
	I want my sons to have red beards and blue eyes and whatnot.
	Okay, so then you need to choose a dependent.
	So then you need to choose a woman who's not impressed by your genetics.
	Okay, so.
	You need to win the love of a woman, not through things you didn't earn, but things you do earn, like maybe income, quality of character, morals, that kind of stuff.
	I'm not saying you're immoral, obviously, but if a woman is...
	You've been having the guard cheat.
	Yes, by virtue of genetics.
	No, not by virtue of genetics.
	By virtue of genetics and your choices, you've chosen to go for the easy sex rather than a more challenging woman.
	I wouldn't put it that way.
	I think you did put it exactly that way because you said that the women who share your phenotypes aren't that impressed with you.
	So instead, you've had sex with women who are impressed by your genetics.
	No, they both want to have sex with me, but one treats me like the way I like to describe it is one group looks at me and they go, oh, I kind of like that guy.
	The other group looks at me and they go, I love that guy.
	Right.
	But it's not love.
	It's just lust, right?
	I mean, I have incredible relationships with good women who do truly love me.
	Okay, then why are you 34 and single?
	Because I was deluded to think that I didn't want a family until my late 20s.
	Okay, so you married, sorry, you dated.
	What's the longest?
	How many relationships and what's the longest one you've had?
	The longest one was two and a half years.
	And I've had a couple of one to two year relationships, like maybe three or four at this point.
	And these are women who don't want to have kids.
	Is that right?
	No, they all wanted kids.
	Sorry, but you didn't.
	Well, I was very honest with them about that.
	Okay, so they wanted kids.
	You didn't want kids.
	Therefore, they dated you for reasons of lust.
	I would argue that they thought they could change my mind.
	Right.
	But why did they pick a guy whose mind they have to change rather than a guy who already wants kids?
	Because lust.
	Oh, yes, of course, because they were very attracted to people.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Now, did you know that the women wanted to change you?
	I mean, I suspected.
	That's been the pattern my whole life.
	Okay.
	So the women wanted to change you because the women wanted to have children.
	Yes.
	And Certainly, at the time in your 20s, you weren't going to change, right?
	No.
	So, did you tell them explicitly, I will never change, you're never getting kids out of me?
	Yes.
	And why did they continue to date you?
	Because they were in love.
	No, no, no.
	Because love is pair bonding so that we can raise children well.
	And if they want to have kids and you don't want to have kids, there's a huge mismatch in values, right?
	Yes.
	And if they thought they could change you, it means that they were dissatisfied with you as you were, right?
	Yes, or dissatisfied with the outcome.
	Well, can you imagine that you have a like a woman, right?
	Imagine a woman.
	She's got the perfect kitchen.
	She shops around, looks at different houses, and she finally, oh, this is the perfect kitchen.
	And then she gets in and she says, man, I got to renovate this.
	No, she only renovates a kitchen she's dissatisfied with.
	So if you want someone to change, it's because you're dissatisfied or unhappy with who they are.
	I mean, yeah, to a degree.
	Like, to a degree, everything's to a degree.
	Come on, you got to up your game in this conversation.
	Everything is to a degree, right?
	It's hot outside.
	I'm not looking at Venus.
	It's like, yeah, I get it.
	Right.
	So, of course, everything's to a degree.
	But you do understand that if you want somebody to fundamentally change, right?
	This isn't like, oh, I really wish you'd stop picking your nose or whatever.
	Right.
	This is fundamentally, I want you to reverse your entire stance on having children.
	That's a huge, that's a huge change and a huge dissatisfaction with who you are, right?
	Agreed.
	Yeah.
	So you can't love somebody and fundamentally want them to change something essential about themselves.
	I don't know about that.
	Well, it's okay.
	You can take your time.
	I mean, yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, I'm calling you because it's hard for me to think through these things myself.
	Okay, so, but you understand?
	And look, I'm not saying that you were a bad guy, but what I'm saying is that you can't love your SUV if you really want it to become a sports car or something, right?
	Or a boat, right?
	Okay, I like that analogy.
	So let me ask you, what if in this era of your life, you're not driving on roads, you're exclusively off-road.
	So you're in the SUV and you're like, this SUV is great, although in the future, I would like it to be a sports car when I am eventually driving on a road.
	Well, so now you want to change, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	So in that analogy, I was the SUV and now I've become a sports car.
	I was dating women who were happy with the SUV, but they wanted me to become a sports car in the future.
	Right.
	Which to both of your knowledge wasn't going to happen.
	Yes.
	I'm not saying that they didn't have affection for you and I'm not saying there weren't aspects of love, but you cannot love someone and want them to fundamentally change.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Okay.
	So what caused the end of the two and a half year relationship?
	Oh, just me not wanting kids.
	This was always like a day one conversation.
	And then the pattern that I've noticed is that no matter how convincingly I told the women, they would say, okay, no problem.
	And then they would eventually come to the realization that I wasn't, that I was not going to change.
	And then we would separate.
	Okay.
	So why didn't you date women who didn't want kids?
	Because it's kind of cruel to date women who do want kids if you know you don't.
	Now, I know you told them, but you have such an advantage when it comes to your look that you can't expect those in the throes of lust to behave rationally.
	Lust is a kind of madness, right?
	So why wouldn't you just date women who didn't want kids?
	Well, some of them didn't.
	The girl I'm dating right now was absolutely against kids until we met.
	And then women fall in love with me and it completely changes the way that they look at.
	Okay, they fall in love.
	You keep saying love.
	It's lust, primarily.
	Okay.
	Yeah, infatuation.
	No, it's lust.
	I mean, you tell me you're tall with amazing phenotypes, very good-looking guy.
	So it's lust.
	And listen, I have no problem with lust.
	Lust is fine.
	Lust is a beautiful, wonderful, pair-bonding thing.
	I lust for my wife.
	It's great, right?
	I always assumed that infatuation, the majority of that was lust.
	Okay, so I don't know why you have trouble with the word lust.
	We can use infatuation as long as we know that it's somewhat of a synonym.
	Okay, so why did you date women who wanted kids?
	I mean, it just wasn't a conscious choice.
	I didn't filter for wanting versus not wanting kids.
	Nope.
	No, no, bruh.
	Thur, brother.
	Don't contradict yourself within three minutes.
	You said it was a first date conversation.
	Oh, I get, no, what I was trying to say is that it wasn't a filter of mine.
	It was a first date conversation, you said, right?
	I don't want to have kids.
	Yes.
	And what did the women say?
	They either agreed or disagreed.
	Like, so on a first date, when knowing how sexy you are, right, knowing how attractive you are, and that you're catnipped to women, on the first date, if a woman says, oh, I do want to have kids, why wouldn't you say, okay, well, we shouldn't date then because you're not going to get what you want.
	I suppose it was just toxic.
	Is that the...
	I mean, I'm asking you, don't guess at your own motivations.
	Only you know them.
	I don't.
	Well, that's the thing.
	On the first date, you never know that you're going to actually long-term date the person.
	No, but why wouldn't you just say, no, we can't date because you want to have kids and I don't want to have kids.
	It's unfair.
	I don't have a good answer for that.
	Sure, you do.
	It's just not a nice answer.
	The good answer is they were sexy and you wanted to have sex and you enjoyed being in a relationship.
	Oh, well, yeah, I didn't consider that a good answer.
	Like, that's obvious.
	Yeah.
	No, I get it.
	So you had two people making bad decisions based on lust.
	Yes, exactly.
	Okay, so I assume that these women themselves were attractive, but not with your unusual phenotypes, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, do you think that say, what was your age when you were dating the woman for two and a half years?
	Mid-20s, early 20s?
	Mid-20s.
	Okay.
	So women have like a 20-year window, right?
	It takes about half the time to get over a relationship as being in the relationship.
	So we're talking, you know, maybe four years.
	You took her out of the dating market, which is 20% of her entire reproductive window.
	You have a much longer reproductive window.
	So you at 34 can say, I think I'm going to have kids.
	And you can start to plan for that because you've still got another 40 years to have kids.
	But a woman doesn't, right?
	So do you think that the women you dated who wanted kids and broke up with you eventually because you just wouldn't have kids, do you think that they benefited as a whole or had something negative as a whole from dating you?
	When we're just looking at a time horizon, definitely negative.
	Like I've never beat around the bush there.
	And I say that to the women.
	I'm like, if you want kids and I don't want kids, I'm wasting your time to them.
	Okay, so then why would you date women if you say you want kids and I don't want kids, you're wasting your time.
	Again, I'm sort of back to like, if they're not smart enough to make good decisions, shouldn't you make good decisions for them?
	I mean, I suppose hypothetically in a perfect world, but that's.
	No, no, it's not hypothetically.
	In a perfect world, you're a very intelligent person.
	You're a very intelligent.
	I put all my listeners.
	Hang on.
	I put all my listeners, top 1% of intelligence, right?
	Just where I categorize them, right?
	So if you have a friend who's drunk and wants to drive, do you take away his keys?
	Yes, of course.
	Right.
	So if somebody is not making good decisions, you have to make good decisions for them, right?
	Yes, to a degree.
	Yeah.
	Again, everything is to a degree.
	That doesn't add anything to the conversation.
	Everything is to a degree.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, it's not applicable when you talk about a friend versus a stranger.
	You're talking about somebody who might drive drunk and kill themselves versus two horny 23-year-olds who just want to fuck.
	So if somebody is in the grip of lust, and okay, for how long have you known that you're unusually attractive?
	I would say my whole life.
	Okay.
	So for your whole life.
	Yeah.
	So for your whole life, you've known that you're unusually attractive and that you provoke lust in women.
	And that lust is kind of like being drunk.
	It has you make bad decisions, right?
	Sure.
	And so, listen, I'm not trying to back on you or make you feel bad.
	It's just that I think if you want to have a good relationship going forward, or you say you're dating someone now, which is great.
	So you have a good relationship going forward.
	You did use your looks a little bit to exploit women in the past.
	And, you know, maybe they were exploiting you too, just to have you, you know, look at this big, tall Viking guy on my arm.
	Doesn't that make me look good?
	And, you know, women in particular with regards to boyfriend status, especially with social media, right?
	They post a picture of you on their arm and, oh, what a great piece of man candy and what a himbo.
	And, you know, I'm not saying you're dumb, right?
	But, you know, they get great status out of your big manly Viking presence.
	And so you got benefits out of something you didn't earn, which just happens to be your looks, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	And, you know, I mean, I know it's a little shocking to people, but I was scouted for modeling when I was younger.
	I was a very good-looking guy.
	And I was not the best boyfriend.
	In my teens and 20s, women dated me.
	And it was mostly lust.
	I was on the swim team.
	I was on the cross-country water polo team, tennis team.
	I was a lean and blue-eyed, square-jawed guy.
	And I didn't earn my looks.
	And I, you know, it wasn't good in general.
	And to benefit from the unearned and to exploit people's lust.
	And again, you maybe were being exploited by them too.
	But if you want something different going forward, you have to, with a clear-eyed view, look at where you were coming from.
	And it was not honorable, in my view, it was not honorable to waste women's fertility years because they were in lust with you.
	Sure.
	I mean, I wouldn't claim that it was.
	Okay, good.
	So the relationship you have now, how long has it been for?
	About two months.
	Okay.
	And how old is she?
	27.
	27.
	Okay.
	And what is your goal with this relationship?
	Well, like, you know, that was the whole core reason I called.
	And again, I'm just trying to communicate this the best way I can.
	Please let me know if this doesn't make sense.
	But part of me feels like it's petty to want my sons to have red beards and blue eyes and freckles and these things.
	And part of me thinks, well, it's awesome having these things.
	So I want my son to have them.
	And so I don't know.
	And the alternative where like, what do I dump this girl and then go hunting for some ginger?
	That's, that also seems absurd.
	And what are the, what is the, what does a 27-year-old look like?
	She's Caribbean.
	Caribbean.
	Oh, is she like black Caribbean or?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	Got it.
	All right.
	So it would be a biracial relationship, obviously.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, getting ginger and Caribbean.
	Look at me being a geneticist and all that.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So you would then be choosing biracialism for your children, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay.
	Have you looked up how biracial children experience the world?
	Yeah, that's rough.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, I would just, you know, fundamentally, when we choose the mother of our children, we are choosing, obviously, the genetics of our children and so on.
	And so just keep that in mind, that it can be pretty rough, socially, identity, medically, and so on, identity issues and so on, right?
	So I had tons of mixed friends growing up.
	It was rough for all of them, regardless of what the mix was.
	So if you want to keep your red hair going, obviously the Caribbean young lady is not the way to go.
	And if she's a moral, virtuous woman and all of that, then obviously that matters more than genes.
	But I would say that it might be better for you to find something in between what you've been with and where you are so that you can have kids who are going to maybe struggle a little bit less with some of the identity issues.
	And again, it's not like you guys are like deeply in love.
	It's like been two months, right?
	So I would say date with your future children in mind.
	Oh, and by the way, what was it that changed your mind in your late 20s about having kids?
	I was sort of, that's why you use the word deluded because thinking back now, I sort of have like a comically anti-natalist perspective.
	And then I was living in China and I managed to escape just before COVID hit.
	Oh, so was the woman you were dating in your 20s, was she Asian?
	Some of them were.
	Some of them were.
	Okay.
	About China, I assume that most of them were, right?
	It's a pretty mono-ethnic culture.
	Yes, yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So during that period, yeah, most of them were.
	Okay, got it.
	I got back and a combination of sort of the, there was like a shattering of the anti-natalist agenda that had been pushed on me and China with the one-child policy and how dystopian it is just made me realize like nothing matters other than having a family.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And a big family, especially the one-child policy over there.
	All my students were single kids.
	They didn't have any siblings and it was incredibly depressing.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, and the funny thing is, of course, as you know, China has eliminated the one-child policy, but they just can't get the birth rate back up.
	Of course.
	Oh, the Chinese women fucking loathe the Chinese men.
	One of the jokes was always that like the Chinese would say, oh, well, the Chinese women fetishize foreigners.
	And all us foreigners were like, they fucking hate you.
	They would sleep with anybody who's not a Chinese man.
	Well, but you fetishize foreigners a little bit too, given your dating history, right?
	Well, that's the irony that my friends always say, like it's the chicken and egg.
	Because at this point, I certainly do.
	But was it the case that I gave them a certain energy and then they responded with it?
	Or they gave me a certain energy and then responded with it.
	And that's, I don't know what any of that means, but I don't know, this energy exchange thing.
	I don't know, the gravitational wells or something like that.
	Yeah, I know.
	So yeah, I mean, you just want to choose, you want to choose your dating partners, especially if you want kids.
	And it's kind of funny, right?
	That women want children and you weren't just like, I don't want children, but you are a raging anti-natalist, as you sort of put it, right?
	Comically anti-natalist.
	So that's a real, that definitely is some sort of fetish or lust thing then, right?
	I guess in China, you would be very much, I mean, about as exotic as you could possibly be, right?
	So I think you kind of stripmind your genetics for the sake of relatively easy sex, I think.
	But yeah, when it comes to choosing your partner, you want to choose what's best for your children, not what's best for your dick, right?
	Don't get dicknapped, right?
	Don't fall prey to lust.
	Or if you're going to fall prey to lust, at least have lust for a virtuous woman.
	And of course, maybe this Caribbean woman is virtuous and so on, but I would say choose what is best for your future children and not what is best for your loins in the moment.
	And if you just sort of draw that out and say, okay, what's the very best that I can choose for my future children?
	I think the answer will become pretty clear.
	All right.
	Thanks.
	I appreciate the conversation.
	Thanks, everyone, for their questions.
	We can go a little longer.
	Sorry, I don't know if I'm still on.
	No, but I'm going to move on to someone else.
	Oh, okay.
	Thank you.
	Owl.
	We talked before, I think.
	What's on your mind?
	Owl.
	Yes, hello.
	Hey, I didn't hear you for a sec because I freaking, I tripped on this thing out here.
	Dang it.
	Yeah, I think just to piggyback off the idea that Chinese women loathe China men, you know, some of it could very well be the fact that they didn't have a lot of offspring for a while.
	And just genetically speaking, like a draw to different genetic partners.
	Because we have a draw to certain genetic partners.
	Well, yeah, that even at the realm of scent.
	They've actually shown that people who have complementarily healthy genetics smell better to each other.
	Like it's at that level.
	It's just wild.
	And of course, with the women, who were the primary enforcers of the one-child policy?
	Well, often it was men.
	And who were the primary enforcers of communism?
	To a large degree, it's men.
	They don't have the same sort Of, let's get women into all of the policing and so on, quite as much as the West, to some degree.
	So, I think because the enforcers of policies relatively negative to women were often men, I think that kind of translates into negativity.
	It's like a spirit trauma.
	You know, those offspring, the mothers carry that resentment or that frustration down to their offspring as well.
	Like, you know, they have this oppression that they carry down into future generations.
	Yeah, I mean, they were, they were, I mean, the one China policy was brutal.
	It wasn't about prevention.
	I mean, they would literally chase women down sobbing and inject them with drugs to cause abortions, to cause stillbirths.
	I mean, it was absolutely horrific what happened in China.
	The one-child policy, you know, people think it was somewhat gentle, like, oh, well, people just beyond birth control.
	It's like, no, you got pregnant, man.
	They would enforce that in brutal, brutal ways.
	And that's really tough for women that those stories get told.
	And, you know, this is what men are capable of.
	And again, it wasn't only men, but largely men.
	And yeah, I mean, it's something I think about from time to time, like North Korea, right?
	Like, how long is it going to take for people in North Korea to overcome the trauma of the communist dictatorship that they've been living under?
	100 years, 200 years?
	I mean, it's easy to break things.
	It's very hard to fix them.
	I think that just genetically and stuff, like three to five generations seems to be the pattern that we see.
	And so, you know, if we think about three to five generations, that's a couple hundred years these days.
	Yeah, it's very, it's very sad.
	It's very sad.
	And, you know, who knows when it turns around.
	And yeah, it's, I mean, I mean, North Korean parents, even if they were liberated tomorrow, I mean, grandparents, even more so, they wouldn't be able to undo the damage.
	It is just brutal.
	All right.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?
	It's a great topic.
	Yeah, no, I'm just saying good morning and popping in and saying hi to everyone.
	I didn't know I'd be called right away and just be like, how's it going?
	I don't know if there's anyone else that's trying to speak.
	Yeah, we got a bunch of requests, so I'll drop you like a delightful hot potato and Sway me.
	That's actually a very good.
	I'm sorry, Swayme.
	You have a good name for a philosophy show.
	What's on your mind?
	Maybe everyone fell asleep.
	With the intense, overwhelming, intense philosophy.
	Yes, sir.
	Go ahead.
	All right, great.
	I want to ask you a few questions on the non-aggression principle.
	When is the use of force justified?
	Sorry, when is the use of force justified?
	Yes.
	Well, I mean, that's common law, grievous self-defense.
	So if you have reasonable anticipation of grievous injury or death, then you can use force to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the threat.
	All right, like, let's suppose like someone, like if someone doesn't pay back a debt, does that count as like fraud?
	Well, no, it depends.
	It depends if it is formally contracted for or just would be canonized if, right?
	Like you lend your, oh, your friend forgot his wallet and you pay for his lunch and he says, oh man, I'll give you the 20 bucks back or whatever, right?
	And then he doesn't.
	That's not a formal contract.
	I don't mean like that.
	Like, let's suppose, like, all right, I asked my brother to hodl 59 Solana.
	Sorry, to what?
	Hoddle what?
	59 Solana in exchange for some cash some time ago.
	Okay.
	All right.
	He doesn't hoddle it.
	And rather than doing that, he sells.
	Okay.
	Do you have a contract?
	A verbal one over text.
	Oh, so you kind of so you so he so that's a contract, right?
	Verbal contracts, if they're recorded.
	It's just it has to be objective because otherwise it's never like pays me back.
	Am I justified in just so everyone knows, right?
	So it has to be recorded in some manner.
	Otherwise, it just becomes he said, she said kind of thing, right?
	So, okay, you have a formal contract.
	He says, I'll hodl your Solana and I'll give it back to you on such and such a date.
	He agrees to that.
	It's in text, which is fine.
	Okay, so you have a formal agreement and then what?
	Well, the thing is, it's like, so my agreement was, all right, he would hodl Solana for me.
	All right.
	In exchange for cash now, if he doesn't sell until the day I tell him to sell, but when he does, he can keep the cash worth of the Solana that I gave him to hodl.
	Okay.
	And for every $10 it goes up, hand me an additional $200 and he can keep the remainder.
	Rather than doing that, he sells and I try to negotiate.
	All right, can you pay off some debt for me?
	Can you buy some other things and just borrow it over time?
	So rather than doing that, he defaults.
	And then I'm like, and eventually I'm like, bitch, where's my money?
	Right.
	And I end up with like legal issues.
	Am I in the wrong there or no?
	Like, I mean, for my own common sense, I would say, but I don't think morally I'm in the wrong.
	Well, if he broke the contract, then he defrauded you.
	I mean, that's what happened, right?
	Yeah.
	In other words, in other words, if he had said ahead of time, I'm not going to respect this contract, you wouldn't have entered into the contract, right?
	So he pretended that he was going to respect a contract, which he didn't end up respecting.
	So that's fraud, right?
	It's the obtaining of a value through deception, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So you're in the right.
	Now, is your question under the current system or under a just justice system?
	Like just the non-aggression principle.
	Okay.
	So in the non-aggression principle, so in a free society, you have a contract.
	Now, we don't want people waving guns and enforcing their own contracts because that's, you know, pretty volatile situation.
	So, the way that it would work is you would have something, I call it a DRO, a dispute resolution organization.
	So, this would be an organization that negotiates on your behalf.
	And so, you'd say, okay, you'd lodge this contract with your dispute resolution organization.
	And for more on this, you can check out my book called The Future at freedom.com slash book.
	So, I'll just touch on it briefly here.
	So, give me a ballpark how much money you lost when your brother didn't keep his contract with you.
	How much?
	So he only paid like Just give me $500, $1,000, $2,000.
	How much do you think you lost based on your brother not keeping his contract?
	Over $1,500.
	Okay, so I'm just going to, again, I know it's detailed to you, but I just want to keep it relatively simple for the audience.
	So $1,500, right?
	So you would lodge a contract with the dispute resolution organization, and he'd have one too, or maybe you share the same one, but it's like cell phone companies and email companies.
	They all transfer data to each other and so on, right?
	So if you have a contract, you lodge it with your DRO, he lodges it with his DRO or the same one if you share one, and you say, okay, my brother's not keeping his contract.
	So then they would go and they would review the situation.
	They would talk to your brother and assuming that your brother now owes you $1,500 or $2,000, whatever it is, right?
	$1,500.
	Then they would say, you have to pay your brother $1,500.
	Now, either he would pay the money or he wouldn't.
	Now, if he wouldn't, they would say, okay, you're now in breach of your contract, which means we are going to, well, a couple of levels and layers.
	First of all, they would have the right to go into his bank and take the money out because that's how you would sign that, saying, look, if I'm found to be in default, you can go into my bank account and take the money out.
	Because if there was no enforcement mechanism, nobody would sign up with that DRO, right?
	It would just be like, well, we'd really like to release some butterflies and have you do the right thing.
	So let's say he shut down his bank account, he withdrew all of his money and he just fought like crazy over this $1,500.
	Then at some point they say, okay, if you're going to break contract and you're going to resist any reasonable enforcement, in other words, you're not just breaking contract with your brother, you're now breaking contract with the DRO, then they start to inflict economic ostracism, which means, oh, no, now you can't have a bank account.
	Oh, now you can't pay your bills.
	Oh, now you can't be part of the economy until you pay this money back.
	And economic ostracism is a very powerful thing.
	Trust me.
	It's how I was enforced upon after advocating for it for 15 years.
	I then was hit with significant levels of economic ostracism when I was deplatformed.
	So I know it works because I've actually been the advocate in theory and the recipient in practice.
	So there would be various levels of escalation.
	Now, you'd want to do all of this stuff peacefully, right?
	You don't want people showing up with weapons to your brother's house.
	Now, if people came to, like, let's say if he showed up violently, right?
	Somebody took the money out of his bank account and gave it to you because that's what he'd agreed to ahead of time, that if I'm found to be in violation of contract, then I owe the money that is agreed upon.
	But if he, I don't know, showed up violently to protest this or something, then yeah, if he pulled a gun on them, they'd be able to shoot him.
	Of course, it wouldn't come to that, right?
	Because there's six million different things you can do to resolve conflicts, particularly financial ones that have nothing to do with pulling guns.
	But yeah, you would want a situation where things would be resolved through getting the money.
	Well, either he pays it voluntarily or they take it from his bank account.
	And if he continues to resist in some manner, then they just start cutting him off economically until the pain point is so high that it's just more efficient for him to pay off the money and rejoin society's, the economy in society.
	So all of these things would be handled that way.
	But yeah, I mean, if he didn't fulfill his contract, now, what can you do now?
	I don't know, maybe take him to small claims court or something like that, which is usually a cap, like $2,500 or something like that.
	So maybe you can do it that way and you can get a judgment that way.
	But yeah, if he broke contract and it costs you money, you don't have the right to go and use force with him because there's so many other options to do it peacefully.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	Also, I have a second question about the non-aggression principle.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	All right.
	About like the whole peaceful parenting thing.
	Yeah, let's suppose if a five-year-old violates the NAP, can you abort them?
	I mean, do you realize that's kind of a shocking question?
	You're just tossing this off like it's no thing?
	I mean, that's a shocking question, right?
	Are you talking about killing a five-year-old?
	No, I'm just like...
	No, no, hang on, hang on.
	Slow your roll, bro.
	do realize you're talking about murdering a child, right?
	Do you get that?
	I'm just curious.
	I mean, do you get that?
	I don't have any kids, but I'm just saying.
	Yes or no?
	Just answer the questions.
	Kind of.
	What do you mean, kind of?
	You're talking about aborting a five-year-old that's killing a child.
	Let's suppose the kid violates the nap first.
	No, hang on.
	Do you?
	Hang on, bro.
	I just need to understand your level of empathy and compassion, not just for the child who's theoretical, but for me and the audience.
	You're suddenly dropping a bomb in a philosophy show about killing a child.
	Now, listen, we can entertain all kinds of theoreticals here, but the way you said it is like with no preparation, just dropping this bomb about, I mean, you understand that's kind of upsetting.
	I'm just like at an emotional level, right?
	Yes.
	Do you understand that it's upsetting?
	So did you say, okay, look, I got this really weird theoretical and I know it's a little sensitive subject and, you know, especially because you care so much about children, because you already referenced the peaceful parenting stuff.
	So I am talking about, you know, killing a child.
	And like, so, I mean, where's the prep?
	You just drop this.
	Oh, can you abort?
	Like, I'm just trying to, like, if you don't have any sensitivity to the people around you, I'm not sure where the moral arguments really would be coming from.
	In terms of like property rights, let's suppose like a five-year-old were to okay, you're not, no, no, you're just repeating.
	Yeah, you're just are you listening to anything that I'm saying?
	you're just going on like I didn't say anything.
	So, yes, I do have empathy and would say, like, personally, I do forgive people for small trespasses and things like that.
	Okay, so if you have empathy, then why do you coldly ask a question about killing a child?
	Why?
	It's just a funny thought experiment.
	Okay, how is it funny to even have a thought experiment about killing a child?
	How is that funny?
	I don't have any kids.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	It's like...
	Here's a different.
	No, no, no, no.
	I want to stay on this.
	And listen, I'll answer the question.
	I will absolutely answer the question.
	But I want to help you in your communication with people.
	Because it's cold as hell, man.
	And you don't listen very well.
	And I sympathize with that, right?
	You sound like a young man, and I'm sure you had a difficult upbringing.
	So I'm not trying to nag you or make you feel bad or anything like that.
	But holy shitballs, man, this is some cold, cold stuff.
	And listen, I don't mind tough, challenging questions.
	I don't mind even cold questions, but I just, I find it strange that you would just kind of drop this bomb on the conversation like you were reading off a laundry list.
	I mean, what was your childhood like as a whole?
	What was it like as a whole?
	Now, what was your childhood like as a whole?
	How to say it?
	I don't know.
	I'd rather not speak about that entirely.
	Well, there's no such thing as entirely, but just roughly.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	How were you disciplined, if you were, by your parents if you did things they didn't like?
	Honestly, at most, they'd like yell, had typhus involved in them.
	So like, that was pretty shitty.
	I'm sorry, you said they would yell, and then I didn't quite catch the second part.
	Honestly, I'd say that they probably didn't.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	You said they would yell, and then I thought you said they had typhus in them, but I'm sure that's incorrect.
	No, so it's like, I mean, honestly, my parents didn't really parent much.
	Okay, so they would yell, and what else would they do?
	That's about it.
	I mean, at most, like, my dad would yell.
	Okay, and what would the yelling be about?
	And how loud would it be?
	Would you like, would they call you names?
	No, honestly, it's like this.
	Like, if I dropped a bowl of noodles, like my, or if there was, like, a mess or something, like, my dad would be, like, furious.
	But it's like, what's suppose if I did something very bad?
	Like, you know, I'm not going to like say the worst stuff I've did as a kid, but it's like, he probably wouldn't care.
	Sorry, so he'd be furious if you dropped a bowl, but if you did something really bad, he wouldn't care.
	Yes.
	Can you give me the category of things that you did that you would call really bad as a kid?
	Violence, theft, assaults?
	Stuff like around that.
	mean yeah stuff that's like pretty bad like throwing stuff out that's like a Well, sorry, throwing stuff out?
	I don't know what that means.
	Yeah, stuff that's like that.
	I don't know.
	What do you mean by throwing stuff out?
	Oh, never mind.
	Like some of my mom's stuff, like if I got mad about something.
	Oh, you'd throw some of her stuff out, right?
	Okay.
	When you had issues with your parents about the way they were treating you or the fact that it sounds like they were ignoring you a lot because you said they didn't really parent, were you able to talk to your parents about the problems you had with them?
	No.
	And what would happen?
	I mean, usually we have the impulse, right?
	So what would happen if you had the impulse or what do you think would happen if you did try to talk to your parents and say, listen, there's some stuff that you're doing that is not great for me and can we talk about it?
	Honestly, some of the parenting, it's more like, I don't know, like your other siblings just jump you.
	So your siblings were violent with you?
	Yeah.
	And I'm so sorry about that.
	That's terrible.
	And, you know, by the by, even by current standards, 50% of sibling relationships are abusive.
	And I've written about this in my book almost, which again, freedom.com slash books.
	So what level of violence are we talking about when your siblings would jump you?
	Oh, shit.
	Like, I don't want to get too much into detail.
	So.
	Okay.
	Are we talking bruises?
	Are we talking cuts?
	Are we talking hospitalization?
	Are we talking concussions?
	What?
	Just roughly what level of violence?
	You don't have to give me details.
	I mean, besides bloody fights, I'm not going to say the worst stuff, but what am I going to say?
	I mean, I'm not going to say the worst stuff, but what am I going to say?
	I mean, I'm not going to say the worst stuff, but I'm not going to say the worst stuff, Never mind.
	Okay, that's totally, again, don't ever talk about things you're not comfortable with.
	I get it to public forms.
	So let me ask you this.
	What level of compassion and empathy would you say you experienced from your family growing up?
	Thank you.
	There's a degree of empathy from like, I'd say, like, if I got into like, let's suppose, I don't know, your siblings get into fights with bastards in like the park.
	It's like, sure, you have their back, but it's like, you don't always have like, you know, it's kind of interesting because it's like, as I got older, there's less Empathy, I would say, for like my oldest sibling, like from like everyone, whereas it's like whereas like for my other siblings, there's still a degree of empathy.
	Okay, so from your parents in particular, did they care about how you felt and work reasonably hard to help you feel good?
	Um, but That sounds like a pretty broad statement.
	Okay, did they recognize your feelings?
	So if you came home, let's say you had a bad day at school for whatever reason, you come home, you're kind of down, did they say, oh, you seem kind of down, what's going on?
	Honestly, I would say in school, I was more of the problem rather than I was more of a bully than I would say I got bullied.
	Okay, so that's fine.
	So did your parents, were they aware that you were bullying other children?
	I mean, I think they knew I got kicked out of like a few elementary schools.
	So they knew that you were bullying other children?
	And did they ever sit you down and say, oh, you know, help us understand why you're so angry.
	Help us understand why you have these urges.
	Like, we really want to figure this out?
	No.
	Okay.
	Can you think of a time when they recognized your emotional state and asked you about it or talked to you calmly and reasonably about your emotional state or that you were happy or sad or angry or that doesn't happen?
	I'm sorry?
	No, that doesn't happen.
	Right.
	So that's why you dropped the child death bomb without understanding its effects on others.
	And this is not a criticism at all, right?
	But it doesn't sound like you grew up with people empathizing with you very much.
	You're correct.
	Right.
	And that's not your fault.
	Obviously, I completely sympathize with that.
	So it wasn't totally theoretical because you feel bad, I assume, you feel, and I'm not saying whether you should or shouldn't, but it sounds like you do feel bad about some of the things you did as a child that were maybe bullying or predatory on other kids or other things.
	I'll agree with that, yes.
	And for how long in your childhood, weeks, months, years, for how long did you, well, how long did you spend bullying other kids?
	I'd say it's complicated as like a six-year-old I know is a piece of shit.
	Hang on, no, no, I don't want that language.
	I don't care about the word shit, but no six-year-old is a piece of shit.
	They're victims of circumstances.
	Like, you're not making fundamental moral decisions at the age of six.
	Right?
	So I just want to be clear about that.
	So, but you were bullying other kids when you were six.
	Is that right?
	I don't exactly remember, but like, I wasn't a good kid.
	Well, but if you have a negative judgment of yourself at the age of six, it must be that you remember something.
	Yes.
	And what were you doing at the age of six that you have this negative judgment?
	I mean, I don't want to get too much into detail.
	I don't want to get too much into detail.
	Again, broad categories is fine if that's.
	Again, don't talk about anything you're not comfortable with, at least relatively, but I think this might be a once-in-a-lifetime conversation for you, so it might be worth milking it for everything you can.
	All right.
	All right.
	I'm not sure if you're considering what to say or not saying.
	Honestly, I kind of just don't want to talk about it.
	saw.
	Well, I agree with you that you don't want to talk about it, but you did bring hands.
	So when you say, I don't want to talk about it, I'm not sure that's entirely true.
	Again, I'm not trying to mind read you or anything, but have you listened to my show much at all?
	A decent enough.
	So you know that if you're going to drop something like that, I'm going to talk about your childhood.
	So I do think that you do want to talk about it.
	I think you're ambivalent about it.
	But I think that when you drop something like killing children to a moral philosopher who's really focused on protecting children, that I'm going to ask you about your childhood.
	So I think that you kind of do in a way.
	Again, you don't have to get into specifics and all of that.
	So I understand that.
	So at least tell me, were you a bully for weeks, or months, or years?
	Years.
	And how many years, would you guess?
	I'd say it really depends what counts.
	Well, give your definition.
	I don't, you know, we have a general definition I'm sure we'd agree on, right?
	Which is unprovoked aggression towards other children, controlling, you know, violence or threats.
	I don't know if it was ever unprovoked.
	Well, if it's self-defense, it's not bullying, is it?
	Thank you.
	I would say it stopped being unprovoked, unprovoked at around nine.
	I mean, in terms of like just towards my peers as a kid.
	And why do you think you bullied?
	What's your theory?
	I mean, before then, like, I'd say it's like just anger issues.
	And did the bullying, so you would go to school angry and the bullying would make you feel better?
	Is that right?
	No.
	Well, it had to be something positive or you wouldn't have done it, right?
	Or maybe the release, the diminishing of a negative.
	Like, why do we do things?
	Either there's a benefit or at least it diminishes the negative, right?
	Um...
	Thank you.
	Honestly, like, how I acted in school wasn't as bad as like you don't have to answer the question, but I won't be ignored, if that makes sense, right?
	So you can tell me, Steph, and you've said this a bunch of times.
	I don't want to talk about it, I'm totally fine with that.
	But to just pretend I didn't say anything, that's not good, right?
	In general, I try not to get into ad hominins when I'm talking about philosophies.
	I don't know what that means, but what I am asking, hang on, I am asking, why do you think you bullied?
	So you were angry and I said, well, did the anger, did it feel better after you bullied?
	And you said, no.
	So then I need, just, I'm just trying to understand your mindset.
	That's probably like taught as like a habit from like my older siblings.
	So your older siblings bullied you and then you bullied other kids at school, right?
	No, it's more like, all right, they get into like fights at the park and that's why.
	So it's like, all right, you kind of like have to like, I mean, I'd say like they kind of encourage you to get into fights and stuff.
	So getting into fights because your brothers are picking fights or having fights picked upon them, that's not, I don't think that's what I would classify as bullying.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	I mean, bullying is when you pick on usually smaller and weaker kids to feel dominant or feel like you're in control or feel strong because they're frightened or something like that.
	was, Do you have a different so is the definition of bullying my brothers would get into fights and I'd help them?
	No, that's not what I would call bullying, but it's like.
	Okay, so what were you saying?
	As a habit.
	No, but what were you doing that was bullying, if it wasn't getting into fights with your brother's enemies at a park?
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	I don't know.
	It's like in school, I honestly just don't remember.
	But then how if you don't remember, if you don't remember, how can you have a negative judgment?
	I mean, before like nine and seven, like when I did, like, I don't exactly remember.
	Okay.
	What does exactly remember?
	You said you were a piece of shit at six.
	That must be because you have some negative judgment about what you did, right?
	Yeah, sure.
	Like, one of the things I remember I did do was like I kicked my younger brother off of a table just because like I felt annoyed when I was like six and he was like he's like four, I think.
	Yeah.
	And I assume he was hurt and cried.
	Yeah.
	And how did you feel when he fell and got hurt and cried?
	Like shit.
	And what did you do then?
	Said nothing.
	Did you give him a hug or comfort him or say sorry?
	I don't know.
	Well, you said nothing, so you didn't do that, right?
	And Thank you.
	Try to act like nothing happened.
	Right.
	I think.
	Right.
	And do you remember any acts of kindness?
	I'm not saying there weren't any, of course, right?
	Let me ask it a different way.
	what acts of kindness do you remember performing towards others as a child?
	Right.
	Thank you.
	I'm not sure if we're still connected or if you're still thinking.
	I'm just trying to remember.
	Okay, no problem.
	Take your time.
	Take your time.
	Take your time.
	Okay, I mean, I kind of have too much dead air in the show.
	So it sounds to me like you were treated very coldly as a child, for which it's not your fault, obviously, and I'm incredibly sorry for that.
	I mean, we should all grow up with parents who care about what we feel and help us to understand our feelings and to manage our feelings and to act in some productive way regarding our feelings and to use our words, not our fists, and all of that kind of stuff.
	And it sounds like your parents, I shouldn't overcharacterize this, but it sounds almost like your parents presided over a semi-criminal gang of thugs, you know, who were like roaming through the neighborhood and getting in fights and a fair amount of violence within the household and so on.
	And that's not good.
	And I say that with all due sympathy to you and your siblings.
	I think it sounds brothers.
	It doesn't sound like they were sisters.
	And that's really tragic.
	That's really sad.
	And I think it is important to recognize the deficiencies that we had in how we were raised.
	Because if we don't recognize those deficiencies, we tend to copy paste them.
	We tend to replicate them in our lives as a whole.
	And that's why I was startled.
	And I will answer the question, the theoretical about children and the non-aggression principle.
	But because you weren't treated, I think, with sensitivity and compassion, which is really, really important.
	And it takes a very strong person to have sensitivity and compassion sometimes in the world.
	I know it can be pathological altruism.
	That's not what I'm talking about.
	That's kind of narcissistic and selfish in my view.
	But it sounds like you weren't treated with any particular sensitivity and compassion.
	And this could be why you have trouble.
	Sensitivity and compassion is kind of like a language, right?
	If somebody airdrops me in Japan, I don't know anything other than a couple of words to a stick song.
	So I really don't speak that language.
	But you can learn.
	You can learn the language.
	So I think that it's important to recognize the deficiencies in how you were raised so that you can learn those skills.
	You know, some people are raised in super musical families, right?
	Everybody plays piano or cello or ukulele or they sing or whatever it is, right?
	And so you just learn a whole bunch of instruments growing up, right?
	Now, that wasn't my family.
	And so, if I want to play an instrument, I have to learn it as an adult.
	And so, I grew up speaking English, so I don't need to learn English.
	I didn't grow up speaking German.
	Well, actually, no, I spoke German when I was a little kid, but I don't really remember it very much.
	But I didn't grow up speaking Swahili, so if I want to speak Swahili, I have to go and learn it.
	And if you didn't grow up with a language of sort of compassion and sensitivity and, you know, basic love and caring and connection and so on, then, you know, when my daughter was very little, if she'd something upset her or whatever, she literally had to say, she'd go and go to her sad corner and I'd say, oh, what's upsetting?
	Or she'd talk to me and, you know, we'd work to try and resolve it in some way.
	So she always knows that I care about how she feels.
	And I'll take reasonable efforts to have her feel better.
	I mean, if she's like really upset because she can't eat candy all day, that's a different matter.
	But she never really had that anyway.
	In fact, she kept her Halloween candy till we basically had to throw it out.
	She's a northern European-based life form, which means keep food in the cupboard because you never know when winter's coming.
	But yeah, so if you grew up without people looking out for your inner state and trying to connect with you and understand how you feel and talk with you about what was going on for you, then that may be, it may be a language that you're not super fluent in and it may be worth exploring how to become more fluent in that.
	I'm a big fan of talk therapy with a great therapist can be wonderful that way.
	So, sorry, before I get to a long roundabout way to answer your question, but before I get to answering your question, because you've had some time to listen, is there anything that you wanted to add before I do that part of the convo?
	Not really.
	Okay, I'm going to take, I'm not sure if not really is yes or no.
	It's more of a no.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I mean, just be aware that, I mean, it may be years, if ever, that you come across someone who's going to want to talk to you about these kinds of things, especially for free.
	So just, I'm glad that you availed yourself of some opportunities in the conversation.
	I just don't want to leave you with regret, like later on when this was sort of this portal opened, this window opened to somebody who'd be willing to talk to you in a positive and friendly manner about these kinds of things.
	I just don't want to kick yourself later, but if it's a no now, I just want to confirm that and then I'll go answer the question.
	No.
	Okay.
	So the answer to the question is, children cannot violate the non-aggression principle.
	The non-aggression principle must be understood before it can be violated.
	And a five-year-old is not capable of fully understanding and processing the non-aggression principle.
	So this is why a five-year-old cannot sign a contract, cannot get a credit card, right?
	Because they'll just go buy a bunch of candy and not think about the consequences because they're five, right?
	They're still 15 to 20 years away from brain maturity, which is why they still have parents.
	So children cannot violate the non-aggression principle.
	So if a child, let's say, just walks up and punches another child, then we would not put the five-year-old child, like a five-year-old punches another child.
	We wouldn't put the five-year-old in jail.
	In a free society, well, the DROs that I mentioned earlier would have a word with the parents.
	They'd probably put the kid in for a brain scan and see what was going on with brain development, if there was some sort of tumor or lesion or problem or dark spots where the empathy should be.
	And this would be done from very early on.
	I've talked about how in a free society, there would be brain scans of babies and children to make sure that they were developing empathy and it would show up pretty quickly and say, oh, the radiation is like, yeah, yeah, okay, I get that.
	But, you know, they'd find safer ways to do it and so on.
	And that way, you would prevent problems, or at least you'd be able to minimize or divert problems before they really manifested into violent or abusive or later on, of course, criminal behavior.
	So the five-year-old would not be put in jail.
	It would be the parents who would have to get some parental training and would have to have significant interventions in what they were doing, that they were raising a child who was going around belting other kids.
	But we would not hold the child morally responsible because he's not old enough or she's not old enough to process a social contract and understand universal morals and ethics.
	So, no, you would not be able to.
	Now, it could be the case, of course, that, you know, if there was some kid who was really aggressive with my daughter, well, I'd keep my daughter away from that kid, right?
	Obviously, right?
	I mean, in the same way that if somebody had a dog who kept biting you, you wouldn't go to that person's house and play with their dog, right?
	It just wouldn't happen, right?
	So there could be ostracism as a result of people keeping their children safe from a violent child, but the child himself would not be immoral because he's too young to process abstract ethics and social contracts.
	So no, you would not have any right to use violent.
	Now, in terms of would a child, let's say we've got Bob and we've got Sally, right?
	Now, they're both five, and Bob is about to hit Sally.
	Can Sally push him away?
	Sure.
	Sure she can.
	Because she has the right of self-defense.
	You don't just get there, sit there and get pummeled as a kid, right?
	So she has the right to use violence if Bob is about to use violence on her and so on, right?
	Or take a silly example, Bob's standing on a carpet and he's about to hit her.
	Can she pull the carpet causing Bob to fall down?
	Sure, she can do all of that.
	She could run away.
	She can fight back and all of that because we have that right of self-defense.
	I mean, even animals have that, quote, right.
	But no, so we might put sanctions in terms of ostracism against Bob.
	We wouldn't want our kids to play with him and he wouldn't be welcome at our house and the school might expel him and so on.
	But there would not be any right.
	Nobody would have any right to lock him in Jail or put him on trial or anything like that.
	The moral fault would lie in the parents and how they were raising him, if that makes sense.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to mention at the end of the confo?
	Besides that, in terms of the use of force, like let's suppose, like, so like when people talk about the non-aggression principle, they also talk about the use of force.
	So it's like how much force is generally justified?
	Like, let's say I'll give you an example.
	Like, let's suppose someone like walks through your lawn.
	Like, are you allowed to shoot them?
	Or do they have to like try to break into your house first?
	See, now, I mean, this is an interesting question.
	And this is the difference between morality and law.
	And it's a very fascinating question.
	So in general, we would, of course, say that you would not be justified in shooting someone for walking across your lawn because walking across your lawn does not harm you directly.
	And therefore, a disproportionate response would be to shoot someone who's not, that's why in common law, it's imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death.
	Right?
	So if somebody flicks your earlobe, you don't get to shoot them because that's not grievous bodily harm or death.
	You might push them back.
	You might, you know, move, remove yourself from the situation.
	So there's a moral principle, which is the non-aggression principle, the right of self-defense, and so on, and the general sense of proportionality.
	Now, what people do, and I'm not saying this is the case with you, but what a lot of people will do is they will try to invent edge cases, right?
	Well, what if somebody's pulling something out, it turns out it's a toy gun?
	Or what if somebody is walking across your lawn, but you think you see them put a landmine in your lawn?
	Like, you know, they'll come up with stuff like that and say, well, where does the principle apply?
	Now, the difference between morality and law is a trial.
	So the principle is grievous bodily harm or death.
	That's a common law principle, and that would be the standard, I'm sure.
	Now, say, but what is the objective definition of grievous bodily harm?
	Could you not be mistaken?
	You know, what if they are doing this, but not that?
	So, but that is adjudicated in a court of law.
	So the principle is self-defense has to be proportional to the threat.
	Now, we can all come up with endless scenarios wherein it's an edge case.
	Now, the moral principle doesn't deal with the edge case.
	The edge case is dealt with in a court of law.
	So there are times where you think someone is going to harm you.
	It turns out they weren't going to harm you.
	Is that okay to harm them if you think they're going to harm you?
	Well, we can't just say, I thought he was going to harm me because then you could shoot someone who looks at you funny, right?
	Or, you know, raises a hand to scratch their head.
	Oh, I thought he was going to hit me.
	So the principle is you're allowed to use self-defense, proportional levels of self-defense when you're facing grievous bodily injury or death.
	And that's the principle.
	Now, how that principle plays out in every specific situation is a matter for a court of law, not for moral philosophy.
	Does that make sense?
	I hear what you're saying.
	But in terms of philosophy, shouldn't we not rely on the system in that sense?
	Because we don't even believe in a state.
	No, no, but when I'm talking about a court of law, I'm not talking about the current system.
	I'm talking about a free market system, a free market system of law, which is common law evolved out of the free market of human relationships.
	In fact, there was quite a bit of common law that was in Ireland and other places where you had no government, a truly stateless society.
	So it's sort of like if you have a principle of physics that is different from an implementation of engineering, a principle of physics is universal, but engineering has cost-benefit analysis.
	Like you don't want to over-engineer a bridge to the point where it can take a thousand elephants because there's never going to be a thousand elephants on that bridge, right?
	So there's principles of efficiency, there's principles of compromise, there's principles of good enough.
	But so physics has sort of absolute universal principles.
	Engineering is the practical implementation of those in the same way that morality will provide you universal rules.
	Each practical implementation of those, I mean, there's stuff which clearly is not good.
	There's stuff that clearly is good.
	And then there's the stuff in the middle.
	But the principles don't handle that.
	That's going to be handled by a court of law because a principle can't deal with every specific incident, if that makes sense.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Because it's like, all right, well, we don't really have like a sort of ANCAP law, but like, even if we did, it's like, I'm still pretty sure like a lot of moral cases wouldn't just be taken up or like to like a court of law or like some sort of like a system itself to like the Brihan or sorry to like what uh Brihan's law that's what you meant well I mean yeah some general system of common law that's evolved to to
	to deal with edge cases, right?
	Because there are times, I mean, I remember, I won't say who it was, but I remember somebody being involved in a riot and somebody was about to hit them and they, you know, punched them in the gut and the cop looked at them and just nodded.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	Right.
	So that's, you don't need to go to court, right?
	So if, if someone, if there's a video of a guy walking down a hotel hallway and some guy jumps out and with a gun drawn, right.
	And then
	then he gets killed by the guy he's drawing the gun on nobody's going to sit there and say well that's an edge case right i mean he jumped out of a hallway and pulled a gun on you and if you happen to shoot first everyone's going to be like oh that's that's fine right uh if if somebody uh breaks into your house i mean this is a i think this is florida thing um i'm obviously no legal expert so don't take anything i'm saying as any kind of legal advice or accuracy but you know in terms of this the duty to retreat versus stand your ground, right?
	So in some places, if somebody breaks into your house and you can run out through the back door, you're not justified in using force.
	In other places, you are justified in using force if somebody breaks into your house, because you have to reasonably assume the worst, right?
	You don't abandon your property and let them do what they want with your house, right?
	So let's say that you're in a place where you can use force against somebody who breaks into your house.
	Well, if somebody breaks into your house, then that's not an edge case.
	That probably wouldn't even go to, like, nobody would bring charges.
	That's not like somebody breaks into your house and you shoot them and they die or whatever, then that wouldn't be an edge case if that was the law.
	So the edge cases are for when it's hard to prove.
	And the principle is self-defense.
	Each individual instance of self-defense could be an edge case, and that's natural.
	And the principal can't decide the edge case because it's hard to prove.
	So rape is obviously a heinous moral crime.
	If both parties, like if a woman says later on, I was raped, and the guy says, no, it was consensual, and she has no injuries, and she texts him later and says, I had a wonderful light at night.
	Let's do it again, and so on.
	Well, so the fact that that is tough to adjudicate doesn't mean that whether rape is good or bad is under question or review.
	It's just hard to prove.
	It's hard to know beyond, you know, whereas if somebody is jumped by some guy, like some woman is jumped by a guy in an alley, he beats the crap out of her, you know, she's injured.
	And like, well, then clearly that's rape, right?
	That's not an edge case, right?
	So the fact that there are fuzzy edges and edge cases and so on in no way changes the principle because what you're trying to do is you're trying to establish whether the incident conforms to the principle or not.
	So it is, is it rape or not, not is rape good or bad?
	And the fact that there are edge cases doesn't change the general rules, if that makes sense.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Well, thank you, everyone, for a wonderful morning's conversation.
	A real pleasure to chat with you.
	And I hope that these conversations are of value to you.
	And I appreciate everyone's feedback on X. And don't forget freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
	And if you subscribe, man, the amount of goodies, you get a whole bunch of AIs.
	You get my 12-hour presentation on the French Revolution.
	You get the History of Philosophers series, a 22-part series on the History of Philosophers.
	Really, really great stuff.
	Hundreds of podcasts and private live streams, all kinds of great stuff.
	Just for a couple of bucks a month, you can go to fdrurl.com slash locals, fdrurl.com slash locals to sign up there.
	You can also go to subscribestar.com slash free domain.
	And thank you guys so much.
	Have yourself a wonderful day.
	I will be talking to you tonight at 7 p.m. for a live stream.
	And thanks again, everyone, so much for a wonderful chat today.

▲