Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello. Welcome to the call it like I see it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and in this episode of call it like I see it, we're gonna discuss some pretty shocking things that have been happening over the past week or so in the environment.
One example being like, ocean waters that are as hot as hot tubs. And we'll consider whether we're running out of time to keep the earth from becoming a greenhouse gas monster like Venus. Despite all the progress that we've been seeing as far as populations being able to change the way that we produce and use energy with more sustainable sources.
And later on, we're going to take a look at some recent research which suggests that having some level of psychopathic characteristics could be a good thing as far as achieving success in this world.
Joining me today is a man who knows how to give you the goods through your speaker box. Tunde Ogun. Lana tunde. Are you ready to get your bowtie out and get people some of those sharp takes today?
[00:01:18] Speaker B: Yes, sir. Last time I wore a bow tie, actually, I did. I was going to say at my wedding, but I didn't. I wore a regular, regular.
[00:01:25] Speaker A: Last time I wore a bow tie, I didn't.
[00:01:27] Speaker B: Yeah, it was that someone else's wedding, I guess the last time I wore a bow tie, actually. So, yeah.
All right, well, that didn't, didn't come out that smooth, but yeah.
[00:01:37] Speaker A: All right, now we're recording this on August 14, 2023. And the last few weeks, we've seen just, it's really shocking things happening in the environment. And two in particular stand out. You know, there's always stuff going on, but two in particular just stood out. We're just like, as I mentioned earlier, the unprecedented ocean temperatures we're seeing in some areas around Florida in particular. And also these devastating fires that are going on in or that were happening last week. And they're pretty much under control now, but were happening in Hawaii. These fires had literally had people trying to escape them jumping into the ocean.
So to get us started, Tunday between the fires and, you know, in Hawaii and the hot tub, like, ocean temperatures, you know, that we're seeing in around Florida. Which one of these, like, kind of caught your eye the most?
[00:02:23] Speaker B: I think the water temperature caught my eye the more just because that is, first of all, we live in south Florida and I'm a boater, so you're going the Atlantic Ocean here. And it does strike me how nice and warm it is. It does feel like a hot tub. So to see that the actual temperature did break a record. It was 101 degrees on one of the thermometers that they have out in the ocean and outside of Miami was a pretty big deal to me, understanding that warmer ocean water can cause a risk of making hurricanes and also torrential rain much more profound and much stronger storms. Yeah. And so that got me worried because we're in the path of hurricanes here. Obviously, the images of the fire in Hawaii were devastating and was like an inferno on earth. So that clearly is alarming. I don't want to take away at all from that.
[00:03:19] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I mean, well, and I had a kind of a similar take, but I said kind of differently. The fire was more jarring to me. Just seeing that and seeing, like, just the devastation of that going through. Like, the fire is more of an instantaneous thing. Like, it happens and then it's going. And they're trying to get under control, I guess, except the fires in Canada, which have been going on, you know, for. For a long time, and that from time to time, send a bunch of smoke down into the United States. But they're, you know, like, those are big, but those are in very remote areas. But the Hawaii being an island or, you know, this is Maui, Hawaii being several islands, and Maui being one island where there's these fires going on and the fires are spreading very fast. I mean, it's devastating. These areas is something, when you see that, you stop and look. It's just like, oh, my goodness, what's happening there? And so, and that's something that will get your attention, I think, on a more instantaneous level because it's something that happens quickly and it's moving quickly and so forth. The ocean thing, I think once I thought about it for a little bit, it was like, well, hold up. That seems to be. That's horrible. You know, ocean temperatures are supposed to be more stable than. I mean, that's actually why areas on the coast are more. Have less change in temperature than areas inland typically, is because ocean, the water does, keeps the temperatures closer to some state stasis. And so for the ocean temperatures to be going up to 100 degree, over 100 degrees, which is more than, like, we don't know if it. In terms of when people say record and stuff like that, they've only been measuring this stuff for so long, and people have only been around for so long. So I'm sure oceans have been warmer at various points or whatever.
[00:04:56] Speaker B: I get the feeling, yeah, 4 billion years ago when the earth was getting pounded by meteors and. Yeah, yeah, look like the planet mustafar in Star wars. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was hot.
[00:05:06] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. But people weren't living then and weren't trying to continue to live then. But I think that over the, because water temperature again, doesn't change. It doesn't swing wildly and very, very, so wildly. And so when they're saying, yeah, the previous record they had measured, you know, in humans was in the Persian Gulf. And now they're saying we're, it's more than that. And this is the ocean. This isn't like a lake or something like that, or, you know, an enclosed body of water that can heat up. So the ocean, which does absorb a lot of the heat from the sun. And, you know, that helps us actually from our climates. Now, it historically has helped us. That to me, like, from, that seems to be something that can create more long term problems than a fire. Fire. Wildfires happen. And again, you don't want to see any death. You're like, it's terrible to see. It's heartbreaking to see. And so, but that's, if you put out the fire, you rebuild. You know, like when wildfires burn, you know, the plants that come back, come back stronger and things like that. But the ocean temperature thing seems like something that you can't just undo or kind of rebuild it or anything like that. Like that seems like we're on a direction to disaster in terms of how that affects, that kills marine life, kills coral, things like that. It seems like we're heading for a really bad place there.
[00:06:14] Speaker B: No, and you make a great point when you say that, you know, fires are temporary because fires, you know, need to consume something to burn. And so at some point they burn everything down. And then what comes after that is green shoots. Right. And new life hopefully in the ocean. You're right. If it just stays that hot, there's no switch.
[00:06:35] Speaker A: Like you can't, you can put out a fire. There's no switch for the ocean line.
[00:06:39] Speaker B: That's a good point. Is that, is that, and that's where I think the real concern can be. I mean, not to be alarmist here. Right. And I think because I know people that will say that have told me they believe, they don't believe that climate change in the way that we are seeing it change has anything to do with human activity. They just think that the earth climate changes and has changed throughout history.
[00:07:04] Speaker A: And I think so it's just a big coincidence.
[00:07:08] Speaker B: My point is to me, that's a little bit of either being cute or taking some sort of emotional off ramp. So you don't have to look at the facts because these people are smart people who accept trial and error and scientific facts in other areas of their life. So the fact that, like you said, if we've been keeping temperatures of records worldwide, or records of temperatures, sorry, worldwide, since the, let's say, the mid to late 18 hundreds, depending on the specific measurement, then humans can measure certain things and can measure them against the backdrop of increased uses in fossil fuels and other things. And that just, you know, so if this, the stats and the numbers are there, they're there. And then the second thing is, of course, no one is denying that the earth on its own has temperatures that have changed. I mean, most of us acknowledge and believe the historical science and data that shows that there was an ice age at some point in the last 50,000 years and that humans survived it. So those fossil records and everything else prove that. And I think people like you and I believe that that happened.
But it's not unbelievable to believe the data that says that our own activity has promoted the earth heating up in a way, and this is going back to your point, and I hand it back, that the earth is heating at a speed for which our evolutionary biology may not be able to keep up.
[00:08:27] Speaker A: But you can stop, though, at the speed piece because there is no, when you talk about the historic records in terms of ice age and stuff, the key piece of evidence that talks about that this is at least driven by human activity is the speed in which these changes are happening normally. Like I said, when we talk about time periods on the earth, we're talking about tens of thousands of years or thousands of years at the minimum, or, you know, a lot of times it's hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years. And so this is happening over 50 years, you know, like 30 years, something like these, this kind of timeframe. And so, you know, yeah, you're right. Like, and I think you raised a good point as far as, like, people, like, these people use microwaves, these people use cars and airplanes. Like, they believe in science to some degree.
[00:09:12] Speaker B: Yeah. You know, take medical advice and take pills and go have surgery. Exactly.
[00:09:16] Speaker A: They, it is, it is disingenuous to be, like you said, like, probably an emotional type of thing where it just feels better to not acknowledge it. But I don't even want to get to that part yet. I mean, one of the things that I think it's important to say here, and really the connection I think we have to draw or to make here, is that to say that the, the fires aren't as, you know, aren't as concerning, but they're more jarring than you to see than the ocean temperatures is not to say that the fires shouldn't get attention or anything like that. In fact, the fire should get the attention they've warranted, the attention that they've been getting.
You have death there, human death. And so, but really, what the point is is that that's a, like a kinetic thing for us to see. Like, stuff is happening here that is, that we need to pay attention to. But there's also things that aren't, that don't stand out like that. Like that are kind of, you know, guy with the pocket protector measuring stuff, and they're telling us we need to pay attention to that stuff, too, is really what the point is, is that, you know, okay, when you see, you got, you know, like a guy measuring the ocean temperature on one screen and you got a fire on the other screen that's burning down all this stuff, you probably would look at the fire screen. But both of them are things that we need to pay attention to. And that's really the point I wanted to make sure we got across.
[00:10:36] Speaker B: Yeah. You know, what I'll say is it's funny because you usually are the one that do this, and I'm going to, I'm going to pick it up and be miter because you usually do a good job of pointing out what gets people's attention.
That may not be as serious, but like you said, it's kinetic and it captured it versus what is actually probably pretty serious and could affect things in a much deeper way. But it's not as exciting and sexy to talk about. You know what I thought of?
[00:11:02] Speaker A: What's that?
[00:11:02] Speaker B: I thought of comparing either Donald Trump's social media posts or Joe Biden falling off of a bike, which are kinetic, and both of them are kinetic and entertaining versus honestly, what we learned in the last few months about someone like Clarence Thomas or the other justices taking bribes, basically. Like, to me, it's like, which one is more damaging for the system long term. I'm so surprised that the bribes to Supreme Court justices don't seem to really make their hit the radar screen. But the former president's social media post and the current president's falling off a plane or a bike, you know, falling downstairs or a bike, those everyone talks about. And so it's kind of the similar thing that it's, again, it's in our makeup to talk about this stuff like the train wrecks and the rubber neck when, when we see a car accident. But then you're like, you're saying it's, you know, the guy with the pocket protector telling us that the temperature just went up another degree over the last 30 years. He's not that sexy. And that's the sad, but it's kind of the sad part, right. Because our, our society and our democracy gets hurt by things that actually aren't that sexy. And people don't pay attention to similar to our health, similar to our climate and other things. So it's about the ability to focus on things that aren't that entertaining.
[00:12:20] Speaker A: Well, it's to be able to look at both, you know, and to be able to act on both. Because the biggest thing is, is that with the climate, we are like, people have been saying this for a while, but we remain in it. It's like we're at a point where, and actually it seems to be, we're at an encouraging point. And I wanted to talk to you about this as well. Wherever, like our ability to potentially shift and pivot in the way that we do things. We seem to be getting to a point where, yes, we can generate electricity from the sun or from wind in a much more efficient way than we could 20 years ago or 30 years ago. And I want to get into this right now because it's like what we're seeing now in the development of sustainable, being able to use and sustainable sources of energy or retrofitting things in our economy is the cost for things. Our ability to do things is going, our ability to go do things is going up great. Listening significantly and the cost for these things is going down significantly. So it seems like we are getting to a point where we may actually be able to innovate our way out of this. Whereas that 30 years ago that seemed like a pipe dream and it was just like, oh, well, whatever's happening, going to happen because we're so dependent on all, on the way we do things right now. And so, you know, like, so I want to talk about the progress, but in light of all the progress and we can, we can touch on it, you know, on that sustainability front, what, what would you say has been encouraging to you in that as far as what we've seen, you know, with the progress and then also, you know, we'll get to second is just, do you think we're moving fast enough?
[00:13:51] Speaker B: This is a good question. I was going to answer the first, sorry, the second one first.
[00:13:55] Speaker A: Okay, go ahead.
[00:13:55] Speaker B: I don't know if we're moving fast enough or not. I mean, I would assume that in the eyes of some of the true, you know, quote unquote tree huggers or people where climate is their main thing, we're not moving fast enough and the world's going to end next week. Right. And I think for other people, the change going the wrong way. Yeah. And for other people.
Yeah. The change is too fast and they're getting ginned up about being told that they're not going to be able to have gas stoves and all that anymore. So I do think the speed of it is something that I'm not, I can't kind of comment on because I don't know, you know, meaning when I look at it from that angle, some people is too fast. I'm sure for some people it's too slow.
[00:14:31] Speaker A: And because let me, let me say something on that because what I think that actually illustrates, and this is something that is going to guide my look on view on this is just that I think it's important to be able to categorize both of those, though, as the outliers, like the person who objects to not using a gas stove is just as unreasonable as the person who's like, we have to stop using all fossil fuels tomorrow. And that's a good point. Both of them should, we should just kind of hear them in one ear and out the other, like, okay, you're not being constructive here in terms of how we're trying to solve this problem, you know, so, but putting them next to each other, I think helps make that point. But go ahead.
[00:15:05] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and it's interesting because you're right. The, I'm sure, like other topics, the media makes all of us feel like both of those kind of fringes on either side are much bigger than they are and that we got to be.
[00:15:17] Speaker A: On one side of the other.
[00:15:18] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:15:18] Speaker A: Like everybody else is, you know, the normal and those are the outliers.
[00:15:24] Speaker B: You don't really talk, hear me talk about other people with using the term we should round them up. But I do think we should round them up and maybe put them on their own little island, let them figure out their problem while the rest of us just be okay being somewhere in the middle.
[00:15:37] Speaker A: Let them have their own argument.
[00:15:39] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:15:39] Speaker A: Get to work on solving problems.
[00:15:41] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. So, but no, the thing is, I do think there's more progress being made in this area than I had realized in preparing for today, which I felt good to see. And I also will say this. I feel good to say that it's not only the United States, you know, I was, I felt good seeing that even though China is the largest polluter in the world, they actually are the largest investor in clean energy as well. So, you know, a lot of times you hear a lot of people in our country that one of the reasons that we shouldn't do something is because the other big population centers of the world, primarily China and India, are burning fossil fuels. So if they're doing it, then why should we.
[00:16:28] Speaker A: Yeah, why should we be a leader?
[00:16:29] Speaker B: Yeah. And so exactly. Why should we be a leader? And so, but so it was nice to see kind of that. Yeah, it is true that they are a large polluter, but it's also true that they are making huge investments, much bigger than we are actually in changing that. So that's usually the second half of the conversation that doesn't get told when you're listening to those type of commentators, they don't follow up and say, yeah, even though China is the biggest polluter, they have been actively taking steps to reduce their greenhouse emissions. And so, and I think that's what I want to get into too, is this isn't about being a bleeding heart tree hugger and doing it for all these altruistic reasons. I really think that there are some economic self interest reasons as to why a lot of this makes sense, which we'll get into. So I want to pass it back to you to kind of keep going on that. But I have some stats that I'll share as we get through.
[00:17:20] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And we're going to, we'll have in the show notes a piece from the New York Times that actually had a lot of statistics that was, it was, it was very encouraging in terms of, and what I pulled out of that, actually. And I know you wanted to cite a couple of these in particular, so I won't go that way. But what I pulled is the trajectory, and you're talking growth. It's not two x growth, it's exponential growth that you're seeing in terms of the prices for things coming down and the capabilities going up. And so that kind of trajectory, I think actually that we probably are going fast enough, so to speak. If the amount of growth that we've seen in the last ten years, if that continues at that pace, that's not saying staying static, but actually continues going up in that at that same pace then and now you're still banking on newer technologies continuing to come out, carbon capture and all this other, like other things that we're, we're gonna have to do that we're all working on.
[00:18:18] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:18:19] Speaker A: That it seems like actually that, I mean, I compare this to ten or 15 years ago, it seems like there is a path to success here which didn't seem like that ten years ago. It seemed like, oh, we're screwed. Like we're all just looking at this stuff and we're like, oh, this here's the abyss and we're heading off and we're going to try to put some solar panels on the roof and see if that works. But there are a lot of things that are going on right now, like you said, with the investment in it and the economic case is compelling. You know, that's one of the things, I mean, even just looking at, like we've talked about it in the past, just mentioned, like with energy independence or the fact that our economy right now, the US economy, is less dependent on fluctuations in the price of energy goods than it has been historically in the past. And that type of thing is something that, like, as prices were fluctuating over the past couple of years, it didn't send us into a recession, which it very easily could have, but because of what we, the growth we've had in our economy and how it's less, from a percentage standpoint, dependent on fossil fuels, that's made us better overall. And like you said, that that's not even from an environmental standpoint. That's from an economic standpoint. So to me, yeah, I was going to kick it back.
[00:19:27] Speaker B: Let me jump in.
You're about to run away, and I got too much to come in on here. This is good stuff because one of the things you said made me realize, it's amazing how culture changes, but how important culture is. There used to be a culture here in America on the conservative side. Remember when we first started in the Middle East 20 years ago, that a lot of Americans were saying we need to get off oil because it's causing too much conflict. Like there's all these wars for oil in the Middle east and all this kind of, like you said about OPEC being able to hold us hostage since the oil embargo of the seventies by playing around with the price of oil and that it could send us into recessions and things like that. And so that's an argument that I haven't heard in the last generation or so because the culture of some Americans, that that belief has shifted. But it's an interesting comment you bring up because I haven't heard that in a while.
But the other, I just wanted to follow up before we got too far out. I mean, just to cite some of the stuff you were saying. So, since 2009, for example, the cost of solar has plunged by 83%, while the cost of producing wind power has fallen more than half. And then check this out. The price of a lithium ion. The price, sorry, of lithium iron. Lithium ion, not iron battery cells, has fallen 97% in the last 30 years. I mean, that's like you're saying. So for every hundred dollars it costs to make a lithium lithium ion battery in 1993, it costs $3. Now, that's a huge difference. I mean, so little things like that. And then it says, today, solar and wind power are the least expensive new sources of electricity in many markets. I didn't know this. Generating 12% of global electricity in arising.
And it says, for this year, for 2023, for the first time, global investors are expected to pour more money into solar power, about 380 billion, than into drilling for oil. So, like you said, like, that's way further than I thought. And think about this, all of these, at least what you and I would consider positive stats on the backdrop of a lot of cultural and political pushback against renewable energies, or not using as much or burning as much fossil fuels.
I'll hand it back. But there's a couple other things that I thought were kind of interesting. From the cultural side.
[00:22:01] Speaker A: Yeah, well, no, that's the direction it is in terms of we're creating. And a lot of this was with the Chips act and the Inflation Reduction act, with the government attempt to spur more investment and put stuff in. Like we're creating or at minimum, exploding industries that, you know, whether it be battery production, whether it be, you know, solar, wind production, things like that, we're creating these industries where there weren't industries before. And if you're talking about a net positive for an economy that's as good as you can get, like, you're creating things where there wasn't any for anything before. And we're doing it in a way that is taking us in the direction, you know, again, on a trajectory particularly that will help address the issue. And so now the problem that we have and that we, that remains is just that we're so far, pot committed right now to the way things have been. And so it's going, it's still a race against the clock. And I mean, and that's something that, nobody knows the answer to that. And I mentioned this before, but I want to explain it a little bit more when I say that to solve this problem. It was always known that we didn't have the technology at the time when Al Gore did inconvenient truth or whatever. It's like, all right, well, we can't just flip a switch with what we know now and then switch everything over or just say, hey, over the next ten years, we're going to switch everything over. We didn't have the technological capability to do so in a way that was feasible. We're not there yet either, though. We're on the process of getting there. What's striking here is how fast we're moving in that, in that direction. But what we're going to still have to come up with, like, there are still. We're going to still have to undo a lot of what, like the thing, the runaway that we have now. We're going to have to do something about that anyway. Now, it's not necessarily meaning that we're going to turn the world back into what it was from a pollution or from a greenhouse gas standpoint in 1900 or 1800 or something like that. But all of this goes into, and this is the key piece again, we're not saving the planet, we're saving humans. We're saving other animals that evolved to live on a planet that has a climate in a certain way, you know, and so if we knock out our food chain, then that's going to knock us out. Or if we make it so that we can only live in 20% of the earth, you know, surface now, whereas we could, we could spread out more than that before. That's going to create issue. So we're saving, we're saving humanity, saving other animals, you know, land animals, sea animals, all that stuff that either are part of our food chain directly or indirectly, or if you want to, if you do want to be bleeding heart that are just other inhabitants of the earth. And that's the charge here that we have that we're trying to solve. And we're going to need to continue to innovate our way out. We're going to need to continue to invest our way out. But again, the amount of progress is just jargon. I don't think that gets brought up enough as far as progress it is.
[00:24:50] Speaker B: No, and you're right. And I think that, I mean, you make a great point. This is the important thing to say. I think life will survive no matter what us humans do. We already know if we had a nuclear fallout in the world, like, let's say literally 25 Hiroshima sized bombs went off strategically around the world, probably would kill humanity, all the radiation. But we know through Chernobyl, Chernobyl is a thriving wildlife preserve. Now. We know that cockroaches will survive. So, yeah, life will survive. I think you're right to point out we're worried about the survival of humans when we're talking about this stuff. But you know, one of the things when we talk about culture and we talk about even here domestically and how a lot of this stuff is looked at, you know what? I was also pleasantly surprised. I'll say, to see, and I kind of wish that this would get advertised more. I mean, I don't understand. I mean, I understand because of special interest groups but, and lobbying, but, but I, it saddens me, let me put it that way, that something like the environment and the climate has become a kind of wedge issue, a cultural, political issue and all that, because I think we all should want just a clean environment. And most people that hunt and fish and all that I think would agree, drink water. Most people, that oxygen stuff is pretty cool.
So I was pleasantly surprised to see that the public service company of Oklahoma, the main utility for that state, remember Oklahoma has always been, throughout our history, has been considered an oil state, now harvests more than 28% of its power from wind. I was again pleasantly surprised to see that clean energy entrepreneurs are flocking to Oklahoma as well as Texas. People forget Elon Musk moved his whole headquarters for Tesla and all that to Texas and he was welcomed with open arms by the state capitol and the governor and everything else. Houston, for example. We know of Houston as always being a large oil and gas producer in terms of a location and the big oil wells in Texas. Houston does have over 500 oil and gas companies, but now has more than 130 solar and wind related companies.
And they're some of the country's largest wind farms are on the Texas flatlands. And there's one being proposed off the coast of Galveston. In Arkansas, a us steel factory is undergoing a $3 billion investment on a renewable energy upgrade and making the actual steel. And again, like many things, one of the biggest industries in the world is not us as individuals but as industry. So apparently making steel is one of the most dirtiest and most polluting things that can be done by industry. So by doing this, they estimate they're going to emit 80% less in greenhouse gases with this investment. And so what I was happy to see is about two thirds of new investments in clean energy are right now being led in republican controlled states.
And it says in the article, it says with each passing month, the politics seems to matter less than the economics. And that's why I said I'm happy to see it that at least from a cultural standpoint, some of these state capitals aren't that rigid where they're like, oh, just because the tv told me that green energy is bad, I can't talk about it.
[00:28:16] Speaker A: Well, but some of that, though, what you have to separate out is the either national politics or even sometimes statewide politics from the local politics because the local politics, people getting jobs, people factories or opening, opening stuff. And that's like, well, hey, you know what? I can get paid. Like, we're going this and like, yeah, that. It's much easier to convince people, not in the abstract, but with concrete. Like, hey, here's, you know, a million dollars. Let's go open this up, you know, in your town. And so that, I think, is while this issue being in the abstract for so many people is what allows it a lot of times to become a boogeyman, like you said, it's the environment. You know, like, whoa. You know, it becomes an abstract issue. It just becomes another one of these issues. Should we raise taxes, yay or nay? Should we not pollute as much? Yay or nay? And it's like you're just making that decision in the same way that you're making the decision on whether you raise taxes or not. But it's not the same.
[00:29:10] Speaker B: That's what I was going to say. And then, and then I know we want to move. Just my last, my last comment on this section is just, that's why I find it interesting with the culture part of it. Because another thing like I just mentioned, Tesla made huge investments in Texas, the next big one. Tesla's building an electric truck factory in the state of Nevada, and they're investing $3.6 billion in that state. And like you said, that's going to be jobs. That's going to be a lot going on. And it's interesting because that's why I just feel like it's interesting all these cross currents with the culture, because from a cultural standpoint, in our politics, things like ESG are seen as such anathemas and threats to kind of society in some circles. But. Yeah, but then certain people that are in those circles, like Mister Musk, have grown their wealth and their net worth. They're kind of shown that ESG actually can be profitable because that's pretty much what I just said.
[00:30:02] Speaker A: A lot of the objection isn't to the profitability of it or the potential for profitability of it. As you talked about before, there's an emotional component, there's a us against them component. I want to ask you about that directly.
[00:30:12] Speaker B: Okay, so that's what I was gonna say. So what is the pushback.
[00:30:14] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:30:15] Speaker B: About it. Yeah.
[00:30:16] Speaker A: When you see all this hostility, though, I mean, that. That's. That's the big question, because ultimately, you don't need everybody on board, but we do need to bring more people on board with the idea of what's trying to be accomplished here in order to keep this momentum going. You know, like, the momentum that we're seeing is with the believers already, the people that are on board already, and with the people who have been touched directly, you know, but ultimately, you're going to have to be able to bring more people in who aren't directly touched and who aren't weren't already true believers, and we can see the efforts to poison the well with those people and all that. What's your reaction when you see this hostility? Like, is this something that you see is just inevitable part of the process, or do you think this is something that's a little more like self interested? Is it just. Is it oil companies, like, driving this from the secret or out in the open and in secret, or. What's your reaction to that?
[00:31:08] Speaker B: That's interesting question or comments as well, because I think just your last piece, the oil companies, whether overtly or covertly, trying to drive some of the narrative, I think, you know, we know, you.
[00:31:21] Speaker A: Know, just fossil fuel.
[00:31:23] Speaker B: Yeah, we know that. That's a fact. I mean, that's already been talked about. I mean, it's a very famous fact that ExxonMobil was first turned and told internally by its own geologists and scientists that climate change was real and that they were contributing to it. And that was in 1977.
[00:31:40] Speaker A: So they knew first.
[00:31:42] Speaker B: Yeah. So they spent 46 years trying to continue to cover it up. So we knew. We knew that. And that's a. But, look, I think you used a term that I will reiterate here. The term is self interest. So I can appreciate as a corporation, because the job of a corporation is to make profit, especially on behalf of the shareholders, that a company like Exxon would want to cover stuff up, like every company does, when they find out that something they're doing is not the best thing and they don't have to pay to either clean it up or had to change. Right. We could say the same thing with tobacco and a lot of other industries. I'm not going to blame every industry, but there's a lot. So the self interest of a large corporation is of no surprise to me, and that's par for the course. So then I say, okay, so who else has a self interest in this? And you're right. Maybe the automakers back in the day, now that electric vehicles are more real, they may have less of an interest to try and follow the same trajectory as the fossil fuel industry, so on and so forth. And that's where I think it's become in the last generation or so, the last, let's say, 1520 years has become more of a cultural nuance. And I think people being led to believe from a cultural standpoint, it's in their self interest. And I think it's more of, honestly, tribalism, us versus them. Well, if they want this or they want to go in this direction, then it must not be good, and we should want to go in the other direction. I think I started seeing that really from a political standpoint in the 2008 campaign, when one side's motto was drill, baby, drill, and that picked up a lot of steam and so and so, and I never seen that before where that became a political thing to drill oil or not. And I do think that as opposed.
[00:33:28] Speaker A: To, like, an economic thing, Exxon always said, drill, baby, drill, but not just some person in some state, like, oh, yeah, nothing out of this.
[00:33:37] Speaker B: That's where I think it does. Whoever has been tugging on the emotions of certain Americans has done a great job. Because I do think if. Because there's an argument to be made, let's say in the 1960s into the seventies, that something like integration would help the economy, because if you let more people into the workforce and they're paying taxes, right, blah, blah, blah. But from an emotional. Yeah, but from an emotional standpoint, right. It's not like everyone could shut off the emotions they had in the fifties. So it took time, it took generations for people to get comfortable about, you know, kind of where the world is. And we're here today in 2023, and we know that there's still a lot of people that aren't comfortable with the demographic changes. So I do think that this topic has become, or allowed to become one of these emotional topics where it may be harder to get some people that oppose clean energy off the. Off the fence until you're able to show them that it's in their self interest. Maybe some of the stats we cited today and in some of the states that this stuff is happening will allow people to see when they're seeing people working and getting jobs from this stuff that it's not as scary as they've been led to believe.
[00:34:46] Speaker A: Yeah, I don't. I don't think they'll see that it's in their self interest until it's them.
[00:34:50] Speaker B: Or like literally something built in their dent in their, in their backyard.
[00:34:55] Speaker A: Like, and so, and so I don't think, I mean, and that's not really persuasion, you know, that's just like, oh, this does work. Oh, if I go outside, I do get sun, okay, I get it. I won't melt. But I think there's a couple of things happening and you touched on it. But just in terms of a corporation, there's also another issue there because you could say, well, why doesn't Exxon just pivot? They're huge. Why don't they just pivot and be the biggest and baddest solar company? It's like, well, one of the things about solar and wind and just the renewables in general is that they're less, like, it's harder for one party to exercise a, to concentrate control over these things. Like if you own the land of the oil well, then you just own that oil there. And so you can, you have concentration of control there if you own the refinery or something like that. And so with this solar stuff, like, you see, it's, it's diffuse. It's like, oh, people put solar panels on their roof and then they get to sell power back to the power company at time, you know, various times, or just store it in a battery. So I think there's naturally going to be people who like concentration of control and power are going to naturally be more resistance to things that diffuse that kind of control and that power. And so I do think there's that. I think a lot of what's happened, what we see, though, is a mix between people not wanting to be wrong. Like, we're all within the last 20 years or so of people kind of staking out sides with this, you know, and where do they stand? And so if you don't want to be wrong, it's just confirmation bias. You're looking for the reasons, you're trying to just poke holes in this. You're not looking at, oh, here's all the ways that it's working. You're studying, trying to find or trying to manipulate some way that it's not working. So you're just invested on the other side. And so a lot of those people, it's, they're just not going to be reached. And it, so it becomes either has become just organically in their own mind or the people that they trust and listen to. It's become an emotional issue. It's not a rational issue. It's not an economic issue. It's like I have staked my happiness or my ability to look at the world as, you know, the way I like it as not using solar power. And to some degree, that's just that that sentiment's gonna just be there. And then eventually we'll look up in 30 years or something and it'll just be ubiquitous, hopefully, and they just won't talk about it anymore. But they still, that's just not, that's not something that's gonna be ultimately persuaded. Like, to me, the people who understand the big picture are just going to have to keep moving, rolling this ball forward, and it's not going to be easy. There's going to be resistance. The resistance isn't going to just vanish, though. The resistance is going to be there. They're going to make up stuff. They're going to jump on anything they can. And because it's just, they are pot committed to this. They stuck. They took this position back when it wasn't feasible. As it gets more and more feasible, they're not going to reevaluate because it's become an emotional thing for them.
[00:37:43] Speaker B: Yeah, well, it's kind of like thinking an election three years ago was stolen. And then when all the evidence is pointed in your face, you still got to stay. Now, now that you've made an emotional connection with it, you've got to stay on that vein. And so, but I'll say this, because to give an olive branch to the folks that are worried about clean energy and getting off fossil fuels and transitioning, you've always brought a great point of the importance of some sort of conservative alternative discussion to those who want to see change happen in a lightning speed. So it is true that, you know, we're acknowledging, I think, in this conversation, I want to be sure that, you know, nobody, neither of us believe that you can get off fossil fuels 100% by next week. This is going to be a transition that's probably another couple generations in the making. And then even if we can have all of our energy sources being coming from renewable sources, we're still going to have to pull oil out of the ground, because you need oil to make plastic and rubber and other materials that are important for us, our survival right now, at least in the condition that we live as humans today and the comforts that we have. So the idea of never extracting any type of petroleum out of the ground going forward is really not a realistic idea, is just how do we extract.
[00:39:06] Speaker A: Well, it's not realistic with our current state of technology.
[00:39:08] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:39:09] Speaker A: We're away from that.
[00:39:11] Speaker B: Yeah. In the foreseeable future. So it's just about energy right now. Can we transition at least to a non fossil fuel energy grid, which again, based on the stats we cited, is a lot more cost effective, will allow us to get off of maybe certain trading partners that we got to deal with and the things we keep hearing, like Iran and North Korea and these countries having oil and all that. And so, yeah, I mean, and I'll.
[00:39:36] Speaker A: Say this just to piggyback on what you're saying, we acknowledge that some of the things that need to happen are still a long way away. But the point, number one point is we should still be trying to do this stuff. We shouldn't just be poo pooing it. That being said, yeah, I do think that conservative viewpoints are very important to balance progressive viewpoints. And the reason being. But I like constructive progressive and constructive conservative. Not just pointing out all the holes and saying we should just not do it or not just trying to leap from one lily pad to the other to the other to the other without really looking and seeing where you're landing. To me, what the conservative mindset should be doing right now is pointing out all the issues. I'm not saying that there's no downsides to solar power as we know it right now. We want people to not just have rose colored glasses and say, hey, we got this problem, this problem, this problem, this problem. But not use that as a reason to say, all right, let's just give up, is to say, no, no, no. All right, so get the work on trying to solve this problem, this problem, this problem, this problem. Like, that's the point. That's how you have progress, is you need people to point out the problems. And a lot of times the people that point out the problems, or, excuse me, the people that are gung ho about it aren't the best ones to point out the problems. You know, you need the people who are kind of skeptical to point out the problems. But again, from a constructive standpoint, now go deal with this. Now go deal with that. Not saying we just want to shut it all down. So, but I do think we should move to the second topic at this point.
The second topic was something, it's one of those headlines that grabs your attention, and it's from the Smithsonian magazine. And the headline is, can psychopathic tendencies help you achieve success? Question mark.
That's something that a lot of times we think psychopaths and stuff like that. It's like oh, yeah. Hannibal Lecter. Or, you know, like, you're not thinking of, you know, psychopath and great success. A lot of times you're thinking about antisocial and concern and so forth and so. But some of that's being challenged, and so, you know, it's worthwhile to take a read and then, you know, discuss. So, what was your reaction to seeing this piece, you know, just as far as, like, the psychopathic characteristics and how they could, they may help someone, you know, find success in my world, obviously.
[00:41:46] Speaker B: The same reaction you had when I saw the headline, but it's. And that's what makes it intriguing, is we do tend to have a negative view in our culture of psychopaths. And I found some of the things that we'll get into interesting in the article, but it's also a topic that didn't surprise me because I've done enough reading on psychology in general. I mean, not to say I'm a genius, but I'm an armchair quarterback kind of reader of psychology and understanding that. Sociopathy, psychopathy, basically, I would say, just states of mind that are less empathetic. Maybe that's a way to put it.
Tend to be, let's say this, have the ability to become more successful and maybe quicker in our current kind of corporate and business setting, because people with a lot of empathy. I mean, to be a leader in a business setting, sometimes you got to do tough things. You got to fire people. You got to say things that aren't that nice to people sometimes and all that. And so people that have a lot of empathy, you know, it's a lot more difficult for them to behave that way, and people that don't can behave that way and keep moving without it affecting them emotionally and being baggage for them as much. So that's why, to me, the headline.
Intriguing, but. But I kind of already had some exposure to that. Yeah, this might be true. So, yeah.
[00:43:11] Speaker A: Yeah. Like, to me, there was a money kind of shot, money quotation. I'm not gonna read the whole quotation, but the premise here is something that's very insightful, and it's something that I think we're seeing on a lot of disciplines in terms of how we understand what's happening around us, whether that be in us or just in our environment, in our homes, in our interactions, relationships, and so forth. And that's just. It's talking about how recently psychiatry has embraced what they're calling a dimensional approach, which is more like spectrums, you know, not that you're either in one camp or in another. And that's, that's replacing the categorical saying, all right, you just have blank. And so, and that almost touches on. We spoke about a week or two ago when we were talking about, like, depression and anxiety and how diagnoses, like, it's not just, okay, you're just, you've taken a step and now you're in this diagnosis, you know, like, and that's, you're just there. And that you're there just as much as somebody who may be on an extreme end. But, and so if you look at, you know, psychopath characteristics from the standpoint of not just looking at. And one of the things was pointed out is that when they were studying psychopaths historically, a lot of times they were studying them in prisons. And so they're looking at people who had more extreme versions of the characteristics and they're defining the characteristics of a psychopath based on these extreme versions. And so in the article, one of the things they pointed to was, you know, talking about psychopaths looking at, you know, meanness and disinhibition and rethinking that in terms of, okay, maybe that's the, the far end of the spectrum. Once you get to the far end of the spectrum, it's, it's, you have those characteristics. But at the near end of the spectrum, we're close to, you know, just not being a full on, as we would think of, categorical psychopath. That might be boldness, you know, where just you are, like, you were talking about being able to make tough decisions and not get overwhelmed with some of the negative. You're making a tough decision based on a balance of positive and negative things and not being overwhelmed by the negative that does come with that because you're able to, because you're looking at the positive as well, and you're saying, on balance, this is what I think is necessary. And so to me, I think that that's. And you see that with a lot of disciplines now, we see that with health, you know, like where it's not just, is this food healthy or unhealthy, you see it in more of a spectrum and say, okay, well, has this going, you know, there's good stuff, there's bad stuff, and us being able to navigate that seems like an improvement in our ability to understand what's going on around us.
[00:45:38] Speaker B: Yeah, and it's interesting because with the. So you're right, and I think that's a great point where there's a spectrum because basically one of the parts of the article, I think one of the psychologists said that all of us have a little bit of psychopathy in us. And the thing is, is that I think. Cause one thing that the article does a good job of is balanced by boldness, is the headline of this section, the article, and it goes back to the actual headline, which is the type of psychopath psychopathy that can create success or make someone successful, at least in our modern environment. I don't know if they would have been successful as a hunter gatherer and versus. And that's where it's interesting, because the kind of initial definitions of psychopathy, in psychological terms, it says, were meanness and disinhibition. And so I'm thinking that that's probably what they saw a lot with the guys in the prisons, but they said that the new factor they've added is boldness.
And so it says, because the meanness is aggressive resource seeking without regard for others. So that pretty much makes sense, right? You just. You're just moving people out of the way without worrying about them and just worrying about your own stuff. Disinhibition shows itself as a lack of impulse control, which I think we could acknowledge. If someone's stabbing someone to death or someone's yelling and screaming like crazy over some little infraction, then they probably don't. They can't control their impulses. So it says people high in both traits feel little or no empathy and find it hard to control their actions with often violent consequences.
But as a part of the recent rethink, psychologists have introduced a new factor, which is boldness. And so, again, you made a great point just now in our conversation, which was the ability to act boldly in, let's say, a corporate setting or as a business person or even a politician, for example. Those usually, a lot of times, they tend to be rewarded.
And so because either a, they're doing something before others, which usually is the best way to win in either politics or business or certain other settings like that, or sales. A lot of times, if you think.
[00:47:49] Speaker A: The right, if you pick the right.
[00:47:51] Speaker B: It also can be a self inflicted.
[00:47:54] Speaker A: Wound, too, but because you're doing it before it's established knowledge.
[00:47:57] Speaker B: Correct. But we usually only remember the ones that were successful, either business or politics. And then the other is, like you said, in business especially, I don't know about politics, but in business, the ability to be like boldness could be something like firing people or making those kind of decisions on the spot, which, again, you know, time will tell to see if the person will be rewarded or if it'll be their fatal wound. But, you know, we remember the winners, right? So that's usually what. What it takes.
[00:48:26] Speaker A: And, I mean, the other thing I will mention, you know, just for completeness sake, is that it's not like this is something that everybody is on board with, you know, so. But this is the way science is supposed to work. Like, if this discipline is a scientific one, then we should expect an embrace that people are going to challenge it. Not just challenge it because they don't like it, but challenge it with actual research themselves and say, okay, no, I want to push back on this. And then there's going to be a debate, and then eventually there's going to be a consensus in terms of that. And so. But what's not happening is just, well, I don't like this. And so therefore, I'm going to say this is b's. Like the people that are pushing back, you know, they're pushing back and saying, okay, well, you need to measure this then. You know, like, if you saying it's a spectrum, you can't just say that. You got to come up and figure, okay, well, what is the spectrum then? You know, like when. I mean, I know when we were younger, you know, like when. When they were first talking about autism and so forth, it was a autistic or not, now it's. It's. People talk about it being on the spectrum. Well, it's the same kind of thing you have. If you're gonna say it's a spectrum, you gotta identify. Okay, well, here's, you know, light, here's medium, here's heavy, you know, and all that.
[00:49:28] Speaker B: Give us some time to research, man. Come on.
[00:49:30] Speaker A: But that's what's happening now. But, but the people, what this all starts with is people pointing out in good faith think things they think may be flaws with conventional way of thinking about things or doing things and then going back in and constructively trying to address that. And so that's what we're seeing here in psychiatry, and it's not confirmed that what they're saying is legit, but it's an interesting way to look at it. And it's something that, you know, like, we'll see what comes of this. But in any event, it was a very interesting read. And so, yeah, we wanted to discuss.
[00:50:00] Speaker B: Well, and one thing just to finish out my last thoughts are, it's interesting here because I could see this is where, again, science, like you said, they're doing the right thing by questioning themselves and doing what science is supposed to do. You know, prove itself. Keep trying to prove things wrong and then finding new. New outcomes from that. Yeah, but I can see all of us. I mean, let's not speak for you. Me having that cultural moment where there's some discomfort. Because it's interesting, the article does say that the idea that some psychopathic traits could be positive does not sit well with everyone. And I kind of, like, felt in line with that because I was like, yeah, I've grown up in a culture where the idea of a psychopath is just not something that sounds like there's anything good about it. Right?
[00:50:41] Speaker A: Yeah. Meanness and impulse can. Lack of impulse, you know, lack of impulse control.
[00:50:45] Speaker B: So it's one of those where I got to say, okay, well, maybe this is where I gotta. I gotta test myself and look in the mirror and say, hey, yeah, this is one of those ideas that, culturally, I'm not sure I'm cool with people trying to tell me that there's some positive to being a psychopath. But in wanting to be a fan of science, obviously, I'm gonna try and put that part of my emotional state to the side for a minute and just say, hey, you know, let's see what they continue to develop over the next few years as they research this. And then the last thing is, I just want to say is that just to protect bold people, a bold person is not necessarily a psychopath. Of course. I'm just quoting the article, but add boldness to high degrees of meanness and disinhibition. The scientist says. The researcher says, and you could have a psychopath who's more able to use their social confidence to mask the extremes of their behavior and so excel in leadership positions. I thought that was. I just wanted to say, because I could see someone saying, oh, just because I'm bold, I'm. I'm a psychopath. That's not what they're saying.
[00:51:42] Speaker A: They're saying that's the categorical approach that they're trying to reject.
[00:51:47] Speaker B: Correct. If you're a psychopath and you already have meanness and disinhibition, if you add boldness to that, that. That could be the mixture that actually makes someone successful in a leadership position, let's say, in our society and a.
[00:52:00] Speaker A: Leadership or vice versa. If you have less of the meanness and the disinhibition, but you have the boldness, then that might allow you to not operate really in a psychopathic way, as we consider it.
[00:52:12] Speaker B: Exactly. You might not be a great leader even though you're a nice guy.
[00:52:16] Speaker A: I'll say this, though, and then the thing that, you know, like, the thing that first came to my mind, though, when I looked at this, and I'll end with it is just that it seems like when you're. When you read something like this and it doesn't strike you right at first, you're like, well, hold up. So is this person who set us down this path, this must be a person who has some psychopathic tendencies and boldness being one of their key things. Like, you know what? Psychopath is good. That's a bold statement. You know? So I don't know if that's the case, but in any event, that's what. That's that initial reaction that, you know, I have worked with myself to tone down and say, well, let me see what they got to say. Let me see how much they can back this up. So. Yeah, but I think we wrap from there.
[00:52:54] Speaker B: Yeah. It's interesting. I think those of us that have been working long enough, especially in corporate settings, know that we've all been around there. The psychopath that's in the boardroom and.
[00:53:03] Speaker A: Not with it and the one that has the negative on the negative side of the spectrum.
[00:53:08] Speaker B: Yeah. Like, like, yeah. If you put a knife in their hand at this one moment. Yeah. They might have done something different and been in jail. Yeah. Based on their impulses.
[00:53:16] Speaker A: We appreciate, everybody, for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I said, see it, subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review us, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time. I'm James Keys.
[00:53:24] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Milana.
[00:53:26] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
