Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it presented by Disruption Now, I'm James Keys and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss what we see in the move by the British to outlaw petroleum, petroleum cars and you know, gas and diesel cars by 2030, which you know is right around the corner 10 years. We'll also look at recent developments in the production of man made diamonds and the debate on whether science will ever render religion obsolete or if it actually may happen the other way around.
Joining me today is a man who, if you move to the side a little bit, you can more clearly picture him rolling Hinde Ogunlana Tune day. Are you still flossing a bins on rims that aren't stolen?
[00:01:01] Speaker B: Of course. Although I'm looking at that hybrid, sorry, the fully electric Camry that's going to come out in 2023. We might replace the Benz.
[00:01:09] Speaker A: Oh, nice, nice.
By 2030, man, Benz is going to have to step it up if you don't pick one.
[00:01:15] Speaker B: Don't worry, they are, they got a hybrid already. We'll see what they are. Oh, they are so cool. Yeah, they working on it.
[00:01:20] Speaker A: All right now we're recording this on November 24, 2020 and we'd like to get right into the first topic. We saw recently that the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that gasoline and diesel car sales in the UK would be outlawed by 2030.
Now that's 10 years earlier than the previous target they had set. And automakers and the oil industry obviously were upset about this and some people applauded parts of it in other parts. But in any event, I mean Tunde, the outlawing the sale of gas and diesel cars within 10 years seems very ambitious considering just the way our economy, economies around the world work here in the United States, in Great Britain and all around the world and how reliant we are on gas powered vehicles.
So do you think that this type of target is too much, too fast?
Something that our societies and our economies just can't handle?
[00:02:18] Speaker B: We can handle anything if we put our minds to it. Right. So I think, and you made it alluded to this in one of our prior shows about the race to the moon, you know, Kennedy announces it in 61, 1961 with that technology and by 1969 Neil Armstrong has taken that step on the moon. So I think with a vision, focus, you know, any society, especially advanced society, can get a lot done in a decade.
And I think we already have kind of the technology and infrastructure already there. I Mean, Tesla's showing the way and now we have other companies, you know, Toyota, Chevrolet, I think gm, sorry, does the parent company of Chevy that they've already either built already or have on the way in the next couple of years, fully electric vehicles, they're going to distribute.
So I don't think it's too ambitious. I think it leads us back to some of the cultural nuances that we've seen over the last couple decades as relates to the arguments that have become, I think more politicized around things like the energy industry uses of energy, how energy is used and what the different ways that energy is used and consumed and like what ways does that affect the environment.
And I think because of the politicization, if I can say that properly of things like the environment and having a lot of people feeling like they're picking a side, if they're pro environment, that means they're picking one political view. And if they're, I guess if they don't believe that the environment is at risk the way that others do, then they might be on another political side of an argument.
So I think that's what's gotten in our way a bit more than the actual ability to do something. And I think, you know, we've alluded to this in prior conversations.
We can look at things through a lens of abundance or a lens of scarcity. And I think that specifically this climate argument, at least here in the United States has been looked or from a political side.
The argument has always been the winning argument, I should say has been through the lens of scarcity that if you touch the golden cow of fossil fuels in, in our economy, somehow the economy will collapse and we'll lose jobs. And I think one thing that was refreshing about this story about the UK is they leaned into it from the lens of abundance. I would say they're looking at this in a positive way, that this shift to technology can create an additional quarter million jobs in that country.
And I think we need to appreciate too, I think that Great Britain as a nation isn't, they don't have their own fossil fuel resources in big amounts. I mean, they got peat and some coal out there, but they don't have big oil wells and things like that. So I can appreciate that in certain parts of the United States where oil is a big industry, clearly the long term change from fossil fuels to other sources of energy would change the landscapes of jobs in certain parts of this country. But I think again, doing this over 20, 30 years, if you do it over a long period of Time those jobs will get absorbed somewhere else in the economy.
[00:05:45] Speaker A: So with that said, I think this is it. Definitely. Like you see the direct through line here in the United States, and I think you point out a good reason why is that we have certain regions or certain areas where people are, their livelihoods are directly affected by the use of the continued use of fossil fuels. Not just the owner of the oil companies, but there are people who actually go to work and work in the coal industry or the oil industry. When fracking became a big thing, you know, the oil industry was rejuvenated in the United States. And so, you know, we do have that economic concern, so to speak, from a direct standpoint, which may not be as prevalent in the, in the uk, But I look at that, like you pointed out, the real issue here is that, you know, by making this about politics, we've, we've taken the argument out of one of scientific capability and making it one of political identity. And so with that, basically we all lose, like I think from a, as you point out, from a technological standpoint, we can do this. It's just a matter of do we have the political will to do so and to change the economy.
Now what will happen basically is the people who have jobs, you can set it up so that they can move into jobs in newer industries. But what will happen if you move away from fossil fuels, the direct effect will be that the current winners of the energy sector will be replaced with other winners. And so what we have is through the way money influences politics in America is that the current winners are willing to spend as much as they need to politically to prevent the change, which will knock them out of being the winners in the energy sector and will replace them. You know, like it's. So it's self preservation in that sense. It's harder for them to automatically by default set themselves up as the winners in the next segment. They're better off trying to preserve the existing status quo because they right now they're on top of the hill. And so because money can influence politics so much and not necessarily science or what's good for the country or overall what's good for not, as you said, not just climate change, but also just pollution, just not having dirty water or dirty air, that won't necessarily be what governs our decision making here. And we can directly see that, you know, we can see through the lobbying, we can see through the money that goes into politics, the objective being to make it a political issue. So ultimately you end up with people who have no stake in the game, like there are people with stakes in the game. The people who are, like I said, the current winners and in the energy sector have skin in the game on whether we keep using fossil fuels. But the vast majority of people who argue against climate change or don't want electric cars don't have a stake in the game in terms of whether their car burns gas or uses electricity.
It doesn't affect their life one way or the other, but they may be passionate about one way or the other specific, or let's say against moving towards electric vehicles because they view that as their political identity. And so it really takes this. So, yeah, I don't think it's moving too fast at all. We need ambitious goals and that's going to come most of the time from political movement. You need politicians with, as Kennedy said, it wasn't going to be people who, it wasn't going to be car companies that set out and said, hey, let's go to the moon. That wasn't going to happen. It needed to come from political leadership to say, hey, let's set a goal for our society, let's go get it. And we did. And so like that. I view that. I think that's a good analogy. You did as far as with the moon analogy in 61, because I still. That's more far fetched in 1961 than what they're saying, than Boris Johnson now saying, oh yeah, yeah. Well, see these electric vehicles that are right here, we're just going to make those the standard. Like he's talking about something that already exists.
[00:09:49] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's fascinating. You say, because as you say, 1961, I'm thinking, I mean it's barely 50 years earlier, you know, the Wright brothers are flying that Kitty Hawk, you know, the plane for 30 seconds and that was the first, you know, flight. And you know, 50 years later here we are talking about going to the moon type of thing.
So you're right. I think the idea of fossil fuels starting to go away is a nation over the next decade or two because I read that they said that by 2035 they'll phase out hybrid cars. So they're trying to do this in a little bit of a measured and I guess have different steps. But I think you're right. The technology here that we have today is much more advanced and robust and can get us there. I think the vision is a lot clearer than it would have been in 61. If you're telling me you're going to the moon, who would have ever thought that and so it's fascinating, actually, and not only the fact to get to the moon, but to keep a human being alive.
[00:10:48] Speaker A: Get him back.
[00:10:49] Speaker B: Get them back. You know, understanding how to have a pressurized suit, you know, the whole thing, it's just amazing. And all the calculations and that's, you know, maybe we do ourselves a disservice as humanity because now I think all those stories come out about the armies of women, let's say, behind the scenes that were doing all the mathematics and you know, what I mean by we do ourselves a disservice is we don't promote that part of it as much as a society, Right? We only, we all grown up only knowing about, you know, guys like John Glenn and Neil Armstrong and the guys that, you know, the stars that got this shine. But we don't, we don't learn about the other thousand people behind the scenes that made it all happen.
[00:11:28] Speaker A: And, well, to your point, we also don't learn about the struggle that went on. Like, all those people behind the scenes toiling, you know, a roadblock comes up, they figure out a way around it, how they adapted to, you know, whatever they needed to do, do, learn from mistakes. Like all we, all we learn about is the ultimate triumph. And so it actually conditions us in a way that we fear failure because we don't see all of the failures that they had in that eight years that they overcame through continued effort and ingenuity. So, you know, we sell ourselves. No 100%, you're right. We sell ourselves short.
[00:12:05] Speaker B: I think it's even deeper than just a fear of failure. I think especially here in the US One thing I noticed, especially just this last few years, like, everything, like we push each other around in this country just through fear. And I think it's part of our, if you look even our historical, just the history of our politics, everything is about fear. Like fear of change, correct? Like, yeah, like if you don't elect me, then those, that group over there or these people over here, whether it's internally or another country, whatever the kind of moment has been in our country's history, you know, that, that they're going to come and get you or they're going to take over. They're going to do this and that. So I think part of the fear game that's happened, you know, it's like you mentioned about the fossil fuel industry and lobbying and the kind of, I don't know if it's unique, but the, but, but, but the special relationship that, that large corporations in the United States and Then things like lobbyist groups, right, trade associations and all that, they apply pressure from industry on politicians.
And the way that the politicians respond to that is by talking to the electorate in a certain way.
And so if I'm being supported by those in the fossil fuel industry and I'm a politician, then I'm going to be talking to my constituents or voters or electorate, however you want to call it, in a way that is going to demonize anything that's perceived to be against the fossil fuel industry. So that's when, and what I mean by the fear is that if, let's say the Green New Deal or something, one of these things and forget about the Green New Deal itself because I'm actually not that well read on it and understand what it is really. But this idea that if we go from oil, gas to wind, solar, somehow the fear is now that it's going to collapse the economy or it's going to. There's always some fear, right, of why instead of just looking at it again like we talked about through the lens of abundance, which is, you know, at some point the Earth is going to force us to make this change. And I'm not talking about climate change, I'm just talking oil.
Oil takes millions of years to produce because it is basically compressed organic matter over time, just like diamonds are compressed and takes a lot of the earth's force, heat, weight, all that kind of stuff over time just producing this stuff. So we're extracting it out of the earth at a rate that's much faster than the earth will replenish it. And I don't know if anyone knows. I'm sure that somebody's got the data of under current usage how much more of global supply of oil is left. I gotta assume it's less than 100 years.
[00:14:48] Speaker A: Well, but that's played out in several ways because before the fracking advent and the ability to extract oil from shale that we were much further along into the reserves and so fracking actually opened up a bunch more oil that could be accessed. I don't know that running out is ultimately the concern. I mean we need forward looking leadership.
[00:15:12] Speaker B: I'm not saying it's a concern, I just mean it's a fact that it's a fact the earth is going to stop us because at some point we're going to drain the earth of this resource like you're saying. I get it, that there may be.
[00:15:24] Speaker A: Yeah, the concept, that was, the concept of peak oil that was big like in the 70s and it remains. But ultimately I Don't know that. And I didn't know. I know you were going to get to this, but I do want to move to the next piece. But ultimately we shouldn't wait for the Earth to make the decision for.
Yeah, I know that's where you were.
[00:15:40] Speaker B: And just to finish off, and I know we'll jump is because I had a couple of thoughts here, just to share. It made me realize as you were talking, a couple of things. One is, of course, like you said, leadership's important. I think that's the role of leadership, is to get the society to move to the next level. And I think that's when we talk about the John Kennedy example of going to the moon.
Then the other thing is it made me realize as a sitting here thinking that the sad part to me too is that because you're right, going back to your original comments about the fossil fuel industry, they're winning, they're on top. And it's another example of just humans, right? No one likes competition, really.
And so the idea is that they're on the gravy train, everything is good, why change? And of course they're going to stifle any threat to their own revenue stream. The sad part to me is that they could be part of the solution in a greater way. And I've seen some of the Exxon, BP commercials about BP beyond petroleum, all this stuff, but the reality is that they're not. And I know that a study came out, or sorry, not a study, but one of these things was leaked where Exxon, I guess, has already, like they've acknowledged in their own internal documents and memos that over the next five years they're going to be emitting like 77% more carbon into the air. And I just feel like, you know, we've got people like Elon Musk with his hard work at Tesla. We've got all these other examples, GE with their wind farms, all these other examples that, you know, if the effort is made, one can get ahead of this and be a leader. And I feel like Exxon and Chevron on these companies, you know, they kind of remind me of like the Kodaks or Blackberries. And that's the beauty of when you look at kind of ingenuity and when our capitalist system works properly, like let's say through an Elon Musk example, when it all works out right, Elon Musk can raise money through the capital markets. He can invest and create a Tesla. And then the consumer sees it and says, we like this. We want to keep Buying. Now he's proven that you can have a properly functioning electric vehicle, so on and so forth. And I believe that his battery is powering some utilities like in Australia, some small cities are like battery powered now. Like they're light grids and stuff like that. So long story short is what I'm saying is that, you know, the reality is unfortunately, because of this, the way and the nature and let's talk about here in the US Because I don't know how other countries are set up politically, but in terms of the, the underlying relationship with corporations in their countries. But you know, our, our, our government, you know, the Senate and Congress especially have given a lot of goodies. You want to talk about unfair competition. The fossil fuel industry, when you talk about their ability to drill on federal lands, you know, with land leases to avoid taxation on certain things, you know, it's, it's been the, the fossil fuel industry in our country has been extremely or has benefited extremely from federal subsidies. And no one talks about that as corporate welfare or those kind of handouts. Right.
[00:18:47] Speaker A: And so not just that, they also then through lobbying and so forth, they also use the federal government to create hurdles or to make it so that, to prevent them from competition, from entering the market in those things.
[00:18:59] Speaker B: And so, and that's what I'm saying is that if not for that type of assistance, and very well said, the ability to stifle competition from other sources of energy, you know, they would be BlackBerry and Kodak right now if they didn't have such, you know, they weren't on welfare. I mean, let's be calling what it is. And so that's kind of the sad part to me is that, you know, companies like that could be much more part of the solution, but because they're not incentivized to be, and they actually don't have to really compete. They are a true monopoly or oligopoly, you know.
[00:19:36] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. But that goes into where, that's the failure of our system, which goes to
[00:19:42] Speaker B: protect, but it goes back to we're not a free market. You know, there's this facade that's, you know, and I guess let me not get on a high horse and go
[00:19:48] Speaker A: on a whole nother path. I don't want to go down that path. Yeah, I don't want to go down that path. But the bottom line is that you've talked about oftentimes how a lot of things in our system are set up to protect us from our own nature. And so that's a failure of our system. Right now is that the natural human nature to try to protect your advantage even in a market system which you're not really supposed to, which you're going to go down that path, you're not really supposed to be able to protect your advantage in the market system. You have to keep winning.
If you want to stay on top, you have to keep winning. You can't go win and then rig the rules so that you can't lose. And that's what we see a lot of times. But it's interesting that you brought up how with just the concept of peak oil and how hey, this stuff takes millions of years and all this pressure under the earth because, and you mentioned diamonds in particular because you know, it maybe that's not true because actually with diamonds now it's been known for about 70 years or so that we could do manmade diamonds, but the process has historically involved, you know, in the last 70 years, lots of heat and lots of pressure. Diamonds normally take billions of years to make and you know, a deep under the earth surface pressure, heat, you know, things like that. And then you get this, you know, this pure carbon, you know, like with the atoms aligned a certain way to make it brilliant and hot, hard and everything like that. You know, in a similar way that that oil is, takes, takes you know, millions of years and you know, compression and, or you know, pressure and heat and so forth. But now with diamonds, so okay, so we have man made diamonds, they take a lot of pressure and heat. In this, this past few weeks though, now we're seeing, we have reports that a company down in Australia working with actually some people here in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, they have learned how to make diamonds at room temperature very quickly.
And you know, this raises a lot of questions with me. I wanted to talk with you about this because one part of the reason diamonds are so valuable, meaning why they cost so much, is because they generally take billions of years to make and have to be made under, you know, with an extreme pressure and heat on the earth. Or at least you have to recreate that in a lab and which is very expensive to do also. But it seems like now we're entering a phase where diamonds may not be that difficult to make and not that expensive to make. And so I wonder what that does from a value standpoint. Now there's, you know, a lot of people that would applaud that, you know, people, they're pointing out the issues with blood diamonds and so, and so forth and the harm that that visits on societies around the world. But so you have that piece and then you just have the scientific advancement, which I think dovetails nicely. What we just spoke about as far as, like, we really undersell ourselves, our ability to come up with, to advance technology in ways that suit our interests, you know, and so either one of those, you know, like, what was your. What was your take, you know, seeing that they're making diamonds in a matter of minutes at room temperature now.
[00:22:35] Speaker B: Yeah, it's fascinating, man. That's why I think we're just.
[00:22:37] Speaker A: It's.
[00:22:39] Speaker B: We're at this fascinating time. If you extrapolate it out, I think in the human experience, where certain things, not everything, but certain things that have become cultural norms around the globe are starting to recede because they're just less relevant today. And so gold comes to mind, and we talked about that on a recent show that, you know, gold, you know, now that we have paper money and all that for, you know, let's call it the last few decades, but definitely, probably the last couple hundred years around the world where, you know, you didn't really need gold coins anymore. Right. You.
[00:23:16] Speaker A: There became more precious metal like gold or silver or. Yeah, yeah.
[00:23:20] Speaker B: There was other coins and things that represented value. And. And so now if you look at gold today, I mean, even, you know, not to change topics, but it was during the pandemic in March and, And. And April of 2020, when everything was shut down. Like, as a guy that understands the stock market and financial markets, I would have expected gold to go through the roof as seen as a store and a safe haven because it was so scary.
And this gold didn't perform at all like that. And it just kind of told me, like, man, it's just interesting. Gold is not what it used to be. And I think the same thing with diamonds. It's fascinating, James, because I think all this can do is probably bring down the value of diamonds and the. And the exotic nature of them over time. If you can really make them in a matter of minutes. And then. Yeah, you're right. So that's one thing. Let's see how that plays out with diamonds in general. Like, meaning. Yeah. Is. Is buying, you know, your wife a diamond ring for your wedding, is that going to be a big deal 30 years from now? If they are, it could be for
[00:24:18] Speaker A: cultural reasons, but it won't have the same significance. Like. Like, if the diamond is as easy to make as a pancake, then, you know, you could. You could buy somebody diamond ring or you could take them out for breakfast.
[00:24:28] Speaker B: What I'm saying is, is like, like I could see like maybe like your birthstone or something down the road. You know, you if 50 years from now that becomes just as much of a sign of your love for someone giving them that or, or another nice stone versus a diamonds is because like you're saying diamonds are more common so that people start wanting to assign other
[00:24:45] Speaker A: value to, you know, but there's still something there. There's still something of a traditionalist bent I would say like, because even I think that you, you mentioned as far as like gold and precious metals, as far as being exchanged for value and how that kind of went, has gone away over the past 100 years, 200 years or whatever. But I think you missed the big change that we're having now, which is now with electronic transfers of value. You know, even the paper money is of limited relevance now. It hasn't gone away completely and people are, you know, ring alarm bells about that. But things always change. I mean that's, that's, you know, the only consistency has changed. And so the real question is, is there sentimental value in diamonds that will sustain now? They won't like to where they won't be worth. Like you can't go buy a bag of diamonds at Home Depot like you can a bag of rocks right now. Like is there going to be sentimental value that will sustain some premium in cost? Like clearly what I think would happen almost no matter what is if it becomes readily, it's something that can be readily made in various sizes and various qualities and so forth. What it would do would conceivably lower the, it would reduce the market forces on what's happening with the blood diamonds and the diamond, the conflict diamonds and so forth, where that stuff won't be worth it financially anymore. Like the only reason that that type of market exists is because diamonds are so hard to get and so valuable. If they're not hard to get anymore, then they may maintain some level, maybe not the level the premium that they are now, they still may maintain some level of premium value, but it may not be enough to get people to fight wars. It may not be enough to get people to enslave people in various parts of the world in order to maintain a supply of these things. And so that could actually be a real good thing for the earth and that we can create something like this. But you raise a good point as well.
If that's the case, then do we have to find something else that's rare in order to. Or something if not rare than something that's specific to a person in order to try to convey that, hey, I'm giving you something of value as a symbol of my love. Like if, yeah, if you can get, like I said, if you can get a bag of, bag of diamonds at Home Depot, then giving somebody that on a ring may not mean anything, you know, or it could though. I mean, we still have things that as, as humans, human beings, where we assign value to something beyond what its core value from a scarcity standpoint is, you know, and so like, like holy water, you know, is water, you know, it's plentiful, but, you know, that's something that people will assign a certain amount of value to, you know, for them. You know, like that is value to them, but it may not have value to somebody else. And so we can still do that.
And as long as enough of us do that in a market or in some type of system, then something can have a premium value beyond merely its scarcity, you know, or beyond merely being determined by its scarcity. But either way, I think that it's good to highlight things like this because I mean, the ingenuity and the ability to create things. Like I'm a patent attorney, so I see this type of stuff and it always amazes me and it fascinates me to see people just come up with stuff that wasn't there before or in this case, do things that people couldn't do before. And so what's next? You know, who's, you know, what's next? For all we know, in 20 years, they may be able to do stuff with, with or they may be able to make their own petroleum and then make it so that the emissions are zero automatically, or emits, you know, something that isn't harmful, you know, like, so for all we know, like it could emit water, you know, for all we like. So part of it though, like, for that to happen, there has to be that will to improve.
And so, you know, looking at these stories together, like, we have to still, as humans want to try to do better, we can't be afraid of change or of losing our status or anything like that and be basically give up on trying to move the ball forward on technology. So. Because we'll surprise ourselves if we just keep pushing forward. And so that's why I think you commend Boris Johnson, you know, as far as what he's doing and his green industrial revolution that he's talking about. I think you look at these, these people making diamonds, you know, again, which are like some of the world's rare things in the, in the world. In the earth. And you know, you, you commend them, you say, hey, that, that's what I'm talking about. That's the, that's what people can do when they put their mind to it. Now diamonds also have commercial use, you know, in terms of being. Because they're so hard. And so I'm part of what, what they, they created here was, was the diamonds that look nice, but also the diamonds that are super hard, they were able to create those as well. And so that just, you know, for background, that's why it's not like they're just sitting around trying to come up with something to make reading rings. Like they are coming up with things that have commercial applicability, industrial, I should say, and applicability and that can make people's lives better or, or open up different avenues to, to extract other things from the earth or do other things. So. But again, it's just fascinating to see and we should never lose sight of.
You keep aiming high, you keep trying to do better. You can't be paralyzed by the fear of change as a society. And so as people need to embrace that. And then also we need leaders that have vision, vision, seeing things that aren't there yet. That's what Kennedy did in 61. He saw something that wasn't there yet. And you spoke it into existence. He spoke it into existence. Boris Johnson honestly is doing that right now. You know, like if people are saying it's too fast, that's good because that's how you get people, that's how you start, you know, get people moving, get people aiming for something beyond what they already have. Did you have anything on this?
[00:30:18] Speaker B: Yeah, just, just to recognize that, you know, the importance of the scientific and technology ecosystem around things like this, because it's fun. We're talking about diamonds, I think, and you made a great point about the industrial use for diamonds. You know, I hadn't actually thought about that. But how, you know, obviously the DIAM tip is the strongest thing in the world.
And so the idea that, you know, you're right, blood diamonds, conflict diamonds, you know, those are also used for actual positive things like industrial uses. So at least if this can, you know, by inventing these in a lab can reduce the potential for those type of activities, you know, hurting people in third world countries, you know, that's a good thing. But, you know, one of the things that the article alluded to was that the amount of pressure that was used to create these diamonds in the lab was equivalent to 640 African elephants dancing On a ballet shoe.
A single ballet. Yeah, like all the pressure. Yeah, like. So my point is, is that it's just fascinating because it makes me realize the amount of technology that must, that's also used to do this. You know, you can imagine the computer technology, you know, you got electron microscopes so they can check and make sure that the atoms are lined up the way like you said, that they kind of mirror the natural world's ability to make these things.
And you know, how do you get 640 elephants worth of pressure into something the size of a ballet shoe to be able to create this? So that's what I'm saying is that it takes this whole ecosystem of technology and science that again allows then society to continue this expansion of growth in these areas of tech.
[00:32:06] Speaker A: No, that's real man, that's real.
And you know, and as science progresses, there's always been the question of whether science would replace religion. And we saw something, you know, this past week as well, discussing that. And you know, and again all these, these articles that we're discussing, we put in the show notes so you'll be able to review those at your convenience if you would like. But the, the premise basically of this, of this story was that it was why religion is not going away and science won't destroy it. And it did track back, you know, a few hundred years as far as how the, the declaration of oftentimes progressive minded people saying that hey, you know, as science progresses we won't, we as a society as people won't need religion anymore. And assuming that the more prevalent science got, the more it became just part of what we were doing and all about us, that people would rely less and less on religion and I guess religious explanations for things.
And what's been observed though is that while that does happen to some degree primarily in Western, Western European countries, it's not universal. And in fact there is always and has always been pushback and blowback from the religious community.
And the way with these things set up oftentimes as opposing forces, it actually will push back on science and almost try to destroy science from that standpoint. And so it's just an interesting discussion. One thing that stands out to me about this is the thought or the question of whether we're using science for the wrong thing or using religion for the wrong thing. And we've talked about it before in terms of how religion has historically been used to explain things that people just didn't know what was going on. Why does it rain? Why does, what's an Earthquake or why does a volcano go like all these things that we had no idea in ancient times, had no idea what they were about.
Religion filled in the blanks on that because people like to feel like they understand what's going on. And so there was an assumption that once science could answer some of those questions that the need for religion would go away. But religion also does other things.
So nobody seemed to account for that in terms of giving people a feeling of connectivity, giving people a feeling of purpose. Like science doesn't give you a feeling of purpose. No matter what you tell me about, you know, hydrogen and oxygen, you know, to H2O being water, that doesn't give my life purpose, you know, but you can tell me a religious story about water and, you know, me going in and being baptized and to make me feel like I have purpose. And so Tunde, what was your take on this discussion of hey, religion's not going away because of science. And it's an age old discussion, but you know, just brought back up more recently.
[00:35:05] Speaker B: Yeah, you're right, it's age old and it's just another fascinating thing.
I tend to believe that religion is so intertwined with the human experience and our own wiring from an emotional and intelligent standpoint that religion is never going to go away.
And I'm not religious. I mean, I just say it just because I believe that religion is part of who we are as, as, as humanity. And I'm talking like literally as Homo sapiens. I think that that's part of what separates us from animals, honestly. Right. Is, is there's a couple of things. It's the ability to make art and the belief, the ability to be self aware.
And part of that self awareness is asking questions like why are we here?
[00:35:54] Speaker A: And naturally, both of those up together. It's, it's a level of abstraction.
[00:35:59] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:35:59] Speaker A: You know, like with the art and with what you're talking about.
[00:36:02] Speaker B: Yeah. And think about it with my comment there. I realize if you look at the old cave paintings to, you know, beautiful, you know, glass stained windows on the side of, you know, cathedrals built in the Middle Ages. Right. It's in Europe. It's.
Art has always had, you know, been intertwined with religion since human, you know, you had, you know, like I'm sure that those cave paintings that we see from 50,000 years ago or whatever, a lot of that, you know, they find that they were doing rituals and things like that and whatever the religion and beliefs were back then. So, you know, that's why this is a very good topic. For me to discuss, because something has been on my mind a lot because I'm also a very scientific person.
Like, and that's probably why I'm less religious, because I believe, you know, the way my mind is wired is more evidence based. I got to see some and have proof. And religion is much more faith based. But that I, you know, I want to be very clear, me saying that is not an anti religious statement from me. I mean, I think religion is extremely important for the reasons you cited and more, you know, I mean, I think religion, it's almost like sex in a way that it's very personal to each individual.
So just like something like sex and
[00:37:13] Speaker A: like sex in a way where it also can be engaged in with groups.
[00:37:18] Speaker B: I'll let you go down that road.
I'm not biting on that one.
Well, I have a whole different show. Hey, you set it up that way, man.
[00:37:25] Speaker A: You set it up that way.
[00:37:26] Speaker B: A whole different show. That'll be, that'll be the evening show when I got to put my Barry White voice on. But, but, but, no. So the thing is, is that with, with, with, with, with. What I'm saying is like what I felt for some time, and one of my friends said this to me and I never thought of it. It was fascinating because we were talking about some quantum physics crap we were seeing on some YouTube documentary, and he says, you know, it's funny. Religion and science both are looking for the same thing.
And I go, what do you mean? He goes, they're both looking for a constant.
He said, in religion, it's God.
God is the constant. The God's the answer. God is that. He goes, science is just trying to find an equation.
So you could say the Higgs boson particle was getting closer to that. That's why they call it the God particle. Yeah, go look that up. That's too long of an explanation. And then I know that Stephen Hawking, even though he passed away, obviously already one of his main searches was for the theory of everything.
He was actually looking for that. Like he, he was trying to figure out an equation that could solve everything. And when my friend said it, if you really look at it from a philosophical angle, it actually, he's right that both religion and science at their core are looking for an answer. And that's what I kind of realized
[00:38:45] Speaker A: is, well, the way you put it as a constant is even better. I was prepared to argue with you, but then when you put, when you said constant, I'm like, oh, yeah, well,
[00:38:53] Speaker B: because I realized as I started thinking about what he said, that's when I added my own little thought to it, which was, if you really look at it, both science and religions, again, they're manifestations of human observation. And so it all is coming from being a homo sapien of both of them. Now, we could say that, yes, I do believe that gravity would be here if humans weren't here. You know, that the physical laws are here.
But I don't know if an ant or my Labrador retriever understands or even is aware of what gravity. Even a concept of the fact that they're not floating away, that they stay on the ground. So the fact that we can observe that is part of the extension of our humanity. And then the fact that we can have faith in something without needing to observe it is also an extension of our humanity. So I think what I've kind of come to realize is that I think the way that a person's brain chemistry is might tip them over to one side or another, which what becomes dominant in their emotional space. So if you're. Because realistically, to be religious means that you have to have faith to a certain greater extent than someone who maybe says, I don't believe as much in religion because I have to have the evidence from one plus one equaling two. And if. And if you can't prove to me that Jesus died on the cross and was dead for three days, then became resurrected. I'm not saying I don't believe necessarily in a God. I just don't know if I can go all in on that story because I need evidence.
[00:40:22] Speaker A: That's your interpretation. Those are just interpretations.
[00:40:26] Speaker B: Some people believe that, but that's the way that again, their humanity said, okay, I need to see it where other people can say, no, no, like you said, it's a great way you put it at the start of this part of the conversation, which is, I feel that Jesus did die on the cross. I believe it. It makes me more whole as a person. And what I think the sad part is for where we are as the world and how not today, because like you said, a lot of this was brought about, at least in European society, which is the history that the world kind of defaults from now was the Enlightenment in the Renaissance period. Right. And so. And what was that? That was really kind of a rejection of the dominance of the Catholic Church over the prior thousand years in Europe. And then with the advancement of scientific discoveries. Like a great example is Galileo looking at the stars and being the first kind of known European, even though others historically had realized that The Earth rotated around the sun and not the whole universe rotating around the Earth. Galileo was the first European who challenged the church doctrine and that's where he was put to jail and all that. And then there was people in Europe at the time that were following that and realized, hey, there's something else here other than just what the Catholic Church is telling us. And I think that's where it's sad that it gets into this like competition where it's either you're either for one side or another.
And I think that the real place, I think humanity, I hope that we can get to as a large group society globally would be that both religion and science can coexist without being enemies of each other.
[00:42:05] Speaker A: Well, you know, let me jump in right there because that's actually what I think the problem is. I think that religion and science have separate domains, but each of them wants to invade the other's domain. And you really laid it out very well when you talked about faith versus evidence based understanding. And the key distinction I always made, and this is what I learned, I'm not an overly religious person. I'm much more spiritual than I am religious doctrine. But the biggest distinction to me is the matter of faith. But by definition to me, faith means belief without proof. And where I push back on religion a lot of times is when they assert matters of faith as proof. And to me that's, I question someone's faith. And I'm saying, well, hold on, if you're, if you need to prove what you believe on faith, that means your faith isn't very strong because faith by definition means you're believing it without proof. And then on science on the other hand, that's all about belief only when there's proof and not about believing things in the absence of proof. And so science oversteps its bounds, which when it's asking people to believe things even though it can't prove it and religion oversteps its bounds when it's saying this is what we believe and we're going to prove it because that's just not how they operate.
Now part of that is going to be the duality of human beings. We as human beings have, and I think you put it well, as far as a spectrum, we are, if on one end of the spectrum is only believe what has evidence and on the other end of the spectrum is don't only believe based on faith, all of us fall somewhere on that spectrum as far as what where we are more inclined to fall in line like we are 60% more towards evidence based, but we're 40% more towards faith based. So we kind of do both.
We choose which ones, we apply for both.
And so if all of us have that duality in us, then it makes sense that there's conflict over the application of that duality in our society and in how we interact with each other. Where I'm somewhat, I'm somewhat more evidence based, but I can understand and appreciate faith based. So I want to take some of my faith based things and present them as evidence based or vice versa. And I think that's where the conflict comes from. It's really just a matter of these things bleeding into each other. Because I don't think science should replace religion.
I think that there are questions that won't be able to be answered by science that for many people make their life add more meaning to their life than something that science can tell them would. And in that instance, what are we all here for? The meaning of life and so forth. Like science isn't going to give you an answer to that.
Whether it's true or not. That is something that is acceptable and makes someone feel a certain way. And if that's the case, and religion for some people isn't going to give people an answer that is sufficiently, that is okay for them. And so you need both, both of them need to be there. The conflict comes when they bleed into each other's domain. But ultimately I agree with the premise here that religion is not going away because of science. I don't think that science is going away either. But I think when we see the conflict of the two, and one of the things pointed out in this and this piece that we were looking at was that for like when they have conflict, particularly with political consequences, like science has staked out this claim where hey, evolution is how we teach the history of species and so forth. And religion has pushed back on that. But when there are polar opposites and politically you're forced to take a side. We've seen recently in Turkey, for example, where they've banned the teaching of evolution because the now it started with the science people trying to say, hey, this is the only thing we're going to teach is evolution. And then the religious people took offense to that and eventually, and I'm oversimplifying it obviously, but you know, took offense to that and said, okay, no, when we get in power. And then when they got in power they said, well no, now we're not teaching any evolution whatsoever. And so, you know, like, you see that conflict, which can have real effect on people's lives.
But ultimately the conflict is the conflict, man. Human beings.
[00:46:33] Speaker B: That's also the sad part to me because.
[00:46:35] Speaker A: Oh, no. Time to take a drink.
[00:46:37] Speaker B: Yeah. Oh, sorry.
[00:46:38] Speaker A: Tune day is sad.
[00:46:40] Speaker B: Yeah. No, damn. And I didn't even intend that one. That's cool.
That was a natural sadness. That was no.
[00:46:49] Speaker A: Poor son.
[00:46:50] Speaker B: So there you go.
It's too early in the day, man. Well, actually it's 12:03 now. So now it's. Now we've tipped out of the morning, now I can get a drink. So we're good.
But no, just because what you say is.
That's what I mean by it's sad that we put this kind of competition between both. Right. And I feel like you're right. There's some people that their mind wants to just say science is the only way and religion has no room. And there's others that say the opposite, right. That religion is the only way and science, you should be suspicious of science. So I think one thing that I've always told my friends that are more on the religious side of it, that look at science with a little more suspicion is, you know, those who properly understand it still refer to it as the theory of evolution.
[00:47:39] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:47:39] Speaker B: And that's the one thing that I appreciate about scientists. You know, let's put it this way. Scientists that are true to being a scientist, right. They don't, they don't practice in doctrine and they have a certain level of humility. Look, this is a theory.
And that's why, I mean, and that's why I think religion and both religion and science are never going to go away. I guess going back to my first comments on this topic is because they're both manifestations of the human mind.
[00:48:04] Speaker A: There's a symmetry in what you said as far as when you say that the humility that you see when people do science. Right. I think that that same humility you see when people do religion right. As well, you know, because when people do religion right, there is a acceptance that their belief system is based on faith, which is matters that aren't to be proven, that can't be proven, that is that, you know, in that sense. And so now that's not how it's done many a times or a lot of. A lot of people with religion, it becomes, you know, believe what I believe or I'll kill you, you know, and that's. But that's not the way is supposed to be practiced in that sense.
[00:48:46] Speaker B: As a person that's not religious myself, I'll also, I can Appreciate how the religious crowd sometimes feels that way from the scientific crowd. And I think that's where we get into some of our modern political discourse and issues where the religious crowd feels that the kind of quote unquote secular crowd. And a lot of times in America it's blamed on the left, right, that they're anti religious because they have a doctrine that says, you know, well, we don't want to say, you know, do a pledge of allegiance and say one nation under God because we don't want to offend anyone that might not believe in God. And I think the reality is everyone has a right to believe what they want, both the religious and non religious crowd. And I think it's just when people feel like they're getting put upon in a way like the opposite side is putting a little like telling them to behave in a way that they're not comfortable with, that's when you got the problem. So when the scientific crowd feels like the religious crowd is telling them, like you're saying, hey, we gotta ban evolution theory taught in school, then it's like, hold on, that's a little aggressive because, you know, you show me something else based on evidence that can help us answer this. Because if we just let religion play it out, then there's a lot of different religions because what if a bunch of Hindus move into your community and start wanting to teach, you know, how humanity started in a different way than what you believe from the book of Genesis.
So I think that's one reason that the secular way in a large population has been embraced in the last few hundred years. Because it's just a way to say, look, then we have less conflict from an emotional kind of tribal thing because people aren't going to bunch into their religious groups. Correct.
[00:50:27] Speaker A: Because you can only then, now if it's done right again, you can only then put forth publicly things that are evidence based. But I think as you.
[00:50:36] Speaker B: But that's why, like you said about correctly, meaning there's a way to do that without also poking it in the eye of the religious crowd and calling them a bunch of kooks and crazies, right?
[00:50:46] Speaker A: And that's, you got to respect both
[00:50:47] Speaker B: and, and one thing I'll say, because I know we got a wrap.
[00:50:50] Speaker A: Yeah, we got.
[00:50:50] Speaker B: I wanted to because it was cute to me.
So I watched the documentary Religious a few years ago and you know, it's interesting because Bill Maher is probably, at least in my knowledge of atheists, probably the most famous atheist that I know of, right? A guy that yells it from the mountaintop that he's actually not just non religious, but he's actually an atheist.
He doesn't believe in God at all. And it's interesting too because I thought that a lot of people think you need to have religion to have morality.
And just knowing a bit about Bill Maher and watching his show, you know, he's a human being that has his own moral compass, but he's an atheist. So I think that it's a good example where you don't have to believe in God to still believe in doing the right thing generally with who you are as a person.
[00:51:44] Speaker A: But that may not be true because there are 8 billion people in the world on the earth. And so the thing is, what all that proves is that Bill Maher.
[00:51:52] Speaker B: Well, maybe I should say, let me,
[00:51:54] Speaker A: let me say, let me say, let me say the actual point. I know, you know what I'm saying, going to say, but Bill Maher may not need religion in order to have a moral compass. But that doesn't, that's not to say that some people may not need religion or may need, some people may need religion in order to have a moral compass.
[00:52:08] Speaker B: That's very true. That's why I think everybody needs like, everybody needs to chill out and let people leave people alone in a sense, right. Like, if that's why I think religion, even though I'm not religious, I think it's very important that people who are religious and who find that kind of value, like you're saying that they are able to find a way to make themselves better as people, better family members, better people in our community, if that's the way that they, I embrace, you know, they should be going to church and to synagogue or mosque or whatever it is, because that's great, you know, and that's, you know, makes society better, makes them better as people. So. But the reason I bring up the Bill Maher thing in that documentary was, you know, he goes to the Vatican and he starts, you know, he gets in there. He ended up getting kicked out of the Vatican. But before he got kicked out, he got around in there a bit and one of the, he found the Vatican astronomer, which of all people, I didn't realize the Vatican has a whole astronomy thing and observation tower thing or observatory is the word I'm looking for. And so it's funny because the guy is actually in his whole priest uniform with his collar.
And it's cool because the guy is a Catholic priest who happens to be an astronomer. Right? So he's a scientist and A priest. And Bill Maher is actually asking him about it. Well, how is it that, you know, you believe in like space and stuff, but you're Catholic priest? And the guy actually does a great job explaining how he can hold both views. And it was cute because he goes, well, what happens if you actually discover aliens? What are you going to do then? Isn't that going to mess up your whole theory that, you know, the God, you know, started with the earth? And the guy looks at him, he goes, bill, I'm a Catholic. If I find aliens, I'm going to convert them.
Larry, it was so cute, with a straight face. Then they both started cracking up. It was just funny.
[00:53:53] Speaker A: Good stuff.
[00:53:53] Speaker B: Well, no, I mean.
[00:53:54] Speaker A: And I think we can wrap from that. I think you make a good point though. Like, in our society, it's a lot of people, you know, and people can believe what they want to believe. I think the challenge, which is illustrated with this story as far as religion versus science and what's going. Something's going to destroy something.
But the challenge is not necessarily that we all can't believe what we want to believe, but it's just how we can interact with each other and how we can create a society together that allows us to believe what we want to believe and not be at each other's throats all the time. And so that challenge is ongoing. And so we continue to see that. And it's something that we're just going to have to, as we move forward, as we continue along our path as societies around the world figure out a way to stay alive and not be at each other's throats. Because we don't all believe the same thing. We're not all wired the same way. Again, it works for one person, doesn't mean it's going to work for everyone. And so people need to find out what works for them. And then people also need to figure out together what works for society in terms of norms, in terms of rules and so forth. So, you know, like, either way, it's an interesting thing to look at and, and just kind of see the evolution over time and, and you know, try to project out to how things are going to move in the forward in the future. So we appreciate everybody for joining us as we go along that journey. And until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:55:20] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Walana. All right.
[00:55:22] Speaker A: Subscribe Rate Review and everyone have a great Thanksgiving and we'll talk to you next time.
[00:55:33] Speaker B: I.
