The fact that UA-cam has to put climate change propaganda notices under the video from the High Priests at the UN tells me that Alex is absolutely correct.
How refreshing, was super impressed by this pod cast and Alex provides a refreshing alternative view on energy and fossil fuels. The woke/green movement would hate this! Thank you Natalie for having Alex on your show. Loved, Loved, Loved this!
I remember the first time I heard Alex speak. It was so opposite everything we usually hear (and everything i believed at the time) that I honestly thought he was trolling the audience. But I could not find fault with his logic, try as I might. Being a free thinker is not intellectually easy. I guess that's why there's so few of them! I love nature in its pristine state but I am much more conscious now of the danger of being anti-human-flourishing.
Amazing interview. A tremendous amount of respect for Alex as he goes against the grain. His talks and book have given great insights into Fossil impact and the anti-human green narratives.
Alex is being a leader for most of us to get educated with understanding energy and fossil fuels. These climate change zealots know the wrong things well, the hurdle is getting them to know the right things poorly (ego) first, before they/we know the right things well.
I really resonated with Alex at the end. Dicide what is right and BE the hero. Be consistantly someone to be counted on with your values. Alex...GO FOSSIL 4 HUMANITY
1:23:00 I suspect that you can't just give people happy stories cos they know that this is false in some sense. People don't become happy from happy things they become happy from striving to achieve something. Instead of happy stories they probably need a story that helps motivate them or teach them how to progress in some aspect.
Love your work in the Bitcoin space, Natalie. I'm a bit torn over this video though. While I have a healthy bit of skepticism for the motives and execution of the green movement, I'm not totally buying what Alex is selling either. It's okay though. I'm grounded in my own philosophies and can still appreciate listening to others. One day I might get around to picking up a used copy of his book to dive more into his ideas, but until then I'll keep gobbling up Natalies Bitcoin info.
I don't understand when he says miners will use their equipment even though there is no wind or solar because the equipment is expensive. But the whole idea is to mine the most bitcoin with the cheapest energy. So miners will seek and find cheaper energy source /technology and this will advance the energy technology.
I was a philosophy major as well, but I can't help but think that this guy's arguments are formulated more like those of sophists...you know, those who were paid for arguments that seemed clever on the surface but were based on fallacious premises and intended to deceive.....the modern day equivalent of a lobbyist. While I understand fossil fuels have been essential to human civilization thriving, he only focuses on the positive outcomes of their continued use and frames the argument that human success and flourishment is separate from the planet's, while both couldn't be more intertwined. We all live and breathe here, and the cleaner our food, water, and air are, the better for all of us. And we do objectively know that increased CO2 in the air leads to the greenhouse effect and accelerates climate change. This isn't new...people have been studying this for almost 130 years since Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first wrote a paper on it in the 1890s. He states that human life expectancy has boomed along with the increase use of fossil fuels....sure it has because modern medicine continues to advance, but fossil fuel consumption is directly linked to preventable deaths in a number of ways, like cancer. I would argue that human life expectancy has increased in spite of increased fossil fuel consumption, not because of it. Also feels like he is confusing correlation and causation.... Ultimately, I appreciate a more level headed view and an honest assessment of the role fossil fuels have played and continue to play, but advocating for increasing their use moving forward as opposed to investing in better long term solutions is analogous to Doctor's arguing to increase opioid prescriptions because they help their patients not feel pain, and not feeling pain is vital to human success every day.... Clearly, only a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma could argue that with a straight face, and probably wouldn't want to discuss the negatives of continued prolonged use of opioids either. Or hell, why stop there? Let's take a pre-diabetic as another analogy. You know, sugar is delicious and makes that person feel good, but if you eat more of it all the time, you'll end up with diabetes. No problem, more sugar is the cure, because feeling good for that brief moment when you're eating it means you are flourishing! The more sugar the merrier! The only thing I agree with here is advocating for increased future use of nuclear fusion, which we recently did just control in a lab a few weeks ago, and the net energy outcome was greater than the energy put in. And while there are no doubt objective benefits that fossil fuels have brought to mankind, if we can achieve the same types of benefits with cleaner sources of energy, then why wouldn't we? It's naïve to think we can get off of fossil fuels overnight, but it's also naïve to think that investing in alternative sources of energy isn't worthwhile.
While I can understand your suspicion, given the intensity to which the mainstream narrative is being imposed upon us, Epstein does literally adress all your conjections in the interview. You may want to listen to it again! Just as one example, you say that modern medicine is the cause for the increased longevity in the last 100 years. Well, it is affordable energy which has made the research and availability of modern medicine possible in the first place. And more crucially, medicine is only one cause for higher life expectancy. For instance, heating, reliable shelter, enhanced farming capabilities, and faster transportation of essential goods, have all contributed greatly as well, and have likewise only become possible thanks to cheap and accessible energy. Also, both your analogies in your second-last paragraph are not really accurate, since they assume the premise of fossil fuels being harmful. This is exactly what Epstein objects to! And if we could achieve the same benefits that fossil fuels have given us with so-called renewables, as you write at the end, then sure, we should do it. The problem is, we can't. And it's not even close! I do agree with you on nuclear fusion (as does Epstein!).
@@TheYknuf Obviously fossil fuels have been vital to the advancement of human civilization, but my point is just because something has been the norm doesn't mean it should always be. Epstein is a schil for big oil, and only frames his arguments with flattering talking points with absolute disregard for the negative consequences. It's a disingenuous argument. For instance, once typewriters were a great way to type, and as things progressed, computers put them out of a job. At some point, rotary phones and landlines were made obselete because of wireless.....the end result is we can still type and still make phone calls, but have a better means of doing it today. Eventually, the same thing will happen to fossil fuels. Of course they continue to play a vital role, but saying we need more of of them moving forward is like telling someone who needs triple bypass surgery is that what they really need is more cheesecake!
@@trixdacat Of course life expectancy increased initially because fossil fuels provided the backbone for industry, shelter, distribution, and so on. But we objectively know now that continued usage of fossil fuels is a massive contributor to preventable deaths. A Harvard study in 2021 had evidence that showed fossil fuels are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. Epstein isn't providing any insight or illuminating information. He's just saying fossil fuels were integral to advancing human civilization, which obviously they were. Where he loses me is saying we need to increase our consumption of fossil fuels to continue advancing....if the current levels roughly lead to 1 in 5 deaths worldwide, imagine where we will be with increasing consumption in 10, 20, or 30 years from now. So at this point in time, we objectively know that fossil fuels are contributing to deaths worldwide, but in spite of that, we generally are achieving longer life expectancies....If we have cleaner ways of providing energy, and have the capacity to develop cleaner ways moving forward, we can satisfy the basic human needs that fossil fuels have done but with less severe consequences like being responsible for 20% of deaths. Also, Ayn Rand isn't really considered as a philosopher or taken seriously by an overwhelming majority of philosophers and critical thinkers, especially those in the profession that have dedicated their lives to this. Her ethical framework is inconsistent, she strives for incompatible ends, and her arguments more often than not fail to substantiate her conclusions in any meaningful or persuasive ways.... There is a funny quote I heard about Ayn Rand once....in short, it something along the lines of there are 2 novels that will change a 14 year old boy's life forever. Lord of the Rings and Atlas shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that will lock the kid into a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, in turn leading to an emotionally stunted and crippled individual, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves Orcs.
@@ryuradeonFossil fuels cause 1 in 5 deaths? wow that's crazy can you link me the source? Also, don't we currently rely on reliable energy for survival (7+ billion people)? Do you think Alex's critique on wind and solar being unreliable is false?
“The pressure from the heat turns a turbine to generate electricity.” What???? I listened to the part about how electricity is made - I don’t think he actually knows. Someone tell him about the boiling water.
The difference btw surface propaganda thinking vs critical thinking of actually knowing the issue. Maybe this podcast will help this viewer think of other ways he is getting fooled, and to think logically.
Time value of money is a core principle of finance. A sum of money today has greater value than the same sum to be paid in the future due to its earning potential in the interim. Check out resonate finance and their unique offer INSTANT YIELD.
The fact that UA-cam has to put climate change propaganda notices under the video from the High Priests at the UN tells me that Alex is absolutely correct.
I look at that as a badge of accomplishment ‼️ that is that you've accomplished something good when you earn the approbation of the powers that be....
I'm a follower of Alex, I came here from a clip posted on his channel.
This was one of the best interviews I've heard with him so far, great job!
How refreshing, was super impressed by this pod cast and Alex provides a refreshing alternative view on energy and fossil fuels. The woke/green movement would hate this! Thank you Natalie for having Alex on your show. Loved, Loved, Loved this!
I remember the first time I heard Alex speak. It was so opposite everything we usually hear (and everything i believed at the time) that I honestly thought he was trolling the audience. But I could not find fault with his logic, try as I might.
Being a free thinker is not intellectually easy. I guess that's why there's so few of them!
I love nature in its pristine state but I am much more conscious now of the danger of being anti-human-flourishing.
Congrats to Alex for being able to focus on the questions
One of the best interviews I've ever had the pleasure of listening to. Thank you Natalie and Alex!
Incredible detail and framing clarity - thanks for a brilliant chat guys
Wow, what a guest !
Amazing interview. A tremendous amount of respect for Alex as he goes against the grain. His talks and book have given great insights into Fossil impact and the anti-human green narratives.
This guest was way over my head. I hope he can be a great tool to our congress
"There are no solutions, only tradeoffs"
Alex is being a leader for most of us to get educated with understanding energy and fossil fuels. These climate change zealots know the wrong things well, the hurdle is getting them to know the right things poorly (ego) first, before they/we know the right things well.
Alex knows what's up
What a great presentation Get it out to world So many people don’t know what the truth is or have any knowledge about the benefits of fossil fuels
I feel so bad that my European institutions are trying so hard to make energy scarce.
@David Brooks Thank you David. I stand corrected.
The best part is that the same experts responsible for the drought will be the ones we will have to appease to receive our rationing tickets.
I really resonated with Alex at the end. Dicide what is right and BE the hero. Be consistantly someone to be counted on with your values. Alex...GO FOSSIL 4 HUMANITY
The truth sets you free. The greater the truth, the freer.
Good job friends👍
We need more of these productive discussions on subjects that are falsely divisive… after all it’s come one come all🍊💊🌍
On you Alex, I don’t have heroes but you are close to it.
1:23:00 I suspect that you can't just give people happy stories cos they know that this is false in some sense. People don't become happy from happy things they become happy from striving to achieve something. Instead of happy stories they probably need a story that helps motivate them or teach them how to progress in some aspect.
Amazing episode Natalie!
Natalie, please do an episode with Tony Seba. His knowledge about the disruption that's happening now in energy is very deep.
Fire also protected our ancestors from predators!
The NPR crowd hates this guy
Love your work in the Bitcoin space, Natalie. I'm a bit torn over this video though. While I have a healthy bit of skepticism for the motives and execution of the green movement, I'm not totally buying what Alex is selling either. It's okay though. I'm grounded in my own philosophies and can still appreciate listening to others. One day I might get around to picking up a used copy of his book to dive more into his ideas, but until then I'll keep gobbling up Natalies Bitcoin info.
Great video
Having recently experienced a medical emergency, I am certain that without consistent electricity (IE fossil fuels) I would probably be dead now.
The activates are so hypocritical, they need to understand the facts. Alex has the answer.
I don't understand when he says miners will use their equipment even though there is no wind or solar because the equipment is expensive. But the whole idea is to mine the most bitcoin with the cheapest energy. So miners will seek and find cheaper energy source /technology and this will advance the energy technology.
Shalom Amén thank you for wHAt you do
Uggh. I have to bail, with that Bitcoin intro. Alex should do better too.
I was a philosophy major as well, but I can't help but think that this guy's arguments are formulated more like those of sophists...you know, those who were paid for arguments that seemed clever on the surface but were based on fallacious premises and intended to deceive.....the modern day equivalent of a lobbyist.
While I understand fossil fuels have been essential to human civilization thriving, he only focuses on the positive outcomes of their continued use and frames the argument that human success and flourishment is separate from the planet's, while both couldn't be more intertwined. We all live and breathe here, and the cleaner our food, water, and air are, the better for all of us. And we do objectively know that increased CO2 in the air leads to the greenhouse effect and accelerates climate change. This isn't new...people have been studying this for almost 130 years since Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first wrote a paper on it in the 1890s.
He states that human life expectancy has boomed along with the increase use of fossil fuels....sure it has because modern medicine continues to advance, but fossil fuel consumption is directly linked to preventable deaths in a number of ways, like cancer. I would argue that human life expectancy has increased in spite of increased fossil fuel consumption, not because of it. Also feels like he is confusing correlation and causation....
Ultimately, I appreciate a more level headed view and an honest assessment of the role fossil fuels have played and continue to play, but advocating for increasing their use moving forward as opposed to investing in better long term solutions is analogous to Doctor's arguing to increase opioid prescriptions because they help their patients not feel pain, and not feeling pain is vital to human success every day.... Clearly, only a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma could argue that with a straight face, and probably wouldn't want to discuss the negatives of continued prolonged use of opioids either. Or hell, why stop there? Let's take a pre-diabetic as another analogy. You know, sugar is delicious and makes that person feel good, but if you eat more of it all the time, you'll end up with diabetes. No problem, more sugar is the cure, because feeling good for that brief moment when you're eating it means you are flourishing! The more sugar the merrier!
The only thing I agree with here is advocating for increased future use of nuclear fusion, which we recently did just control in a lab a few weeks ago, and the net energy outcome was greater than the energy put in. And while there are no doubt objective benefits that fossil fuels have brought to mankind, if we can achieve the same types of benefits with cleaner sources of energy, then why wouldn't we? It's naïve to think we can get off of fossil fuels overnight, but it's also naïve to think that investing in alternative sources of energy isn't worthwhile.
While I can understand your suspicion, given the intensity to which the mainstream narrative is being imposed upon us, Epstein does literally adress all your conjections in the interview. You may want to listen to it again!
Just as one example, you say that modern medicine is the cause for the increased longevity in the last 100 years. Well, it is affordable energy which has made the research and availability of modern medicine possible in the first place. And more crucially, medicine is only one cause for higher life expectancy. For instance, heating, reliable shelter, enhanced farming capabilities, and faster transportation of essential goods, have all contributed greatly as well, and have likewise only become possible thanks to cheap and accessible energy.
Also, both your analogies in your second-last paragraph are not really accurate, since they assume the premise of fossil fuels being harmful. This is exactly what Epstein objects to! And if we could achieve the same benefits that fossil fuels have given us with so-called renewables, as you write at the end, then sure, we should do it. The problem is, we can't. And it's not even close!
I do agree with you on nuclear fusion (as does Epstein!).
@@TheYknuf Obviously fossil fuels have been vital to the advancement of human civilization, but my point is just because something has been the norm doesn't mean it should always be.
Epstein is a schil for big oil, and only frames his arguments with flattering talking points with absolute disregard for the negative consequences. It's a disingenuous argument.
For instance, once typewriters were a great way to type, and as things progressed, computers put them out of a job. At some point, rotary phones and landlines were made obselete because of wireless.....the end result is we can still type and still make phone calls, but have a better means of doing it today. Eventually, the same thing will happen to fossil fuels. Of course they continue to play a vital role, but saying we need more of of them moving forward is like telling someone who needs triple bypass surgery is that what they really need is more cheesecake!
What's your argument for how life expectancy increased in spit of fossil fuels not because of it?
@@trixdacat Of course life expectancy increased initially because fossil fuels provided the backbone for industry, shelter, distribution, and so on. But we objectively know now that continued usage of fossil fuels is a massive contributor to preventable deaths. A Harvard study in 2021 had evidence that showed fossil fuels are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.
Epstein isn't providing any insight or illuminating information. He's just saying fossil fuels were integral to advancing human civilization, which obviously they were. Where he loses me is saying we need to increase our consumption of fossil fuels to continue advancing....if the current levels roughly lead to 1 in 5 deaths worldwide, imagine where we will be with increasing consumption in 10, 20, or 30 years from now. So at this point in time, we objectively know that fossil fuels are contributing to deaths worldwide, but in spite of that, we generally are achieving longer life expectancies....If we have cleaner ways of providing energy, and have the capacity to develop cleaner ways moving forward, we can satisfy the basic human needs that fossil fuels have done but with less severe consequences like being responsible for 20% of deaths.
Also, Ayn Rand isn't really considered as a philosopher or taken seriously by an overwhelming majority of philosophers and critical thinkers, especially those in the profession that have dedicated their lives to this. Her ethical framework is inconsistent, she strives for incompatible ends, and her arguments more often than not fail to substantiate her conclusions in any meaningful or persuasive ways....
There is a funny quote I heard about Ayn Rand once....in short, it something along the lines of there are 2 novels that will change a 14 year old boy's life forever. Lord of the Rings and Atlas shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that will lock the kid into a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, in turn leading to an emotionally stunted and crippled individual, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves Orcs.
@@ryuradeonFossil fuels cause 1 in 5 deaths? wow that's crazy can you link me the source? Also, don't we currently rely on reliable energy for survival (7+ billion people)? Do you think Alex's critique on wind and solar being unreliable is false?
Get a TDI Alex. There is no better vehicle platform.
Did someone fart at 1:03 ?
Every time he says Ayn Rand ... drink!
orange pill?
This guy is rich enough to have not driven himself anywhere in years, and promotes the advancement of fossil fuels. I wonder who pays him?
You obviously didn't hear what he said.
No crypto?
Interesting content. However, it was too lengthy, and I ran out of time.
HYPOCRiSY is the word Natalie
???
“The pressure from the heat turns a turbine to generate electricity.” What???? I listened to the part about how electricity is made - I don’t think he actually knows. Someone tell him about the boiling water.
He elided the process, but he didn't really make an error of thought.
He may need some help with the eyebrows to look a little less satanic.
I can’t stomach this guy
Too much reason for ya?
Isnt it just horrible when someone challenges the mainstream and makes you think?
The difference btw surface propaganda thinking vs critical thinking of actually knowing the issue.
Maybe this podcast will help this viewer think of other ways he is getting fooled, and to think logically.
Time value of money is a core principle of finance. A sum of money today has greater value than the same sum to be paid in the future due to its earning potential in the interim. Check out resonate finance and their unique offer INSTANT YIELD.