Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast. 0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions: - ROKA: roka.com/ and use code LEX to get 20% off your first order - Theragun: therabody.com/lex to get 30 day trial - ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free - NI: www.ni.com/perspectives - Grammarly: grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium 0:49 - Violence in humans vs violence in chimps 20:21 - Study of violence in chimps 39:16 - Human evolution and violence 1:35:45 - The Goodness Paradox and Catching Fire 1:48:02 - How cooking changed our evolution 2:02:48 - The beauty of the human mind emerges 2:06:54 - A map of how chimps, gorillas, and humans are all related 2:19:26 - Preserving nature 2:27:17 - The meaning of life
Catching Fire is an awesome book. Never heard of Richard but his book caught my attention in a used book store...now, here he is on my favorite podcast channel!!!
I got some problems with Wranghams ideas: 1. I totally agree with you Lex that I think progress comes from competitive reasoning. Even AI algorithms use the same competitiveness to figure out a real from a fake! And our brains work that way too! Thus I fear our brain will just get smaller and smaller if we keep doing what we are doing untill we basically regress into nothing. 2. The Y chromosome in homo sapien males have lost almost all of its genes in competition with the X chromosome. And I fear that is due to this same problem of suppressing male evolution genetically. So if we keep suppressing it, males will simply die out... And then also the human species will cease to exist. The growing LGBTQ movement might just be an unknowing attribute of this shift. 3. There is a high probability that this shift towards being less hostile has caused the explosion of technology we have seen in the past 200 years. But it is also an extremely high probability that if we don't stop this shift from going further, then we will be exemplifying the very question regarding the FERMI paradox - why there are no aliens. Basically, they were not able to stop this shift before their male Y chromosome died out. Leading to the extingtion of their species. 4. As an example, we know male brains evolve far better when rough and tumbled play is involved in their upbringing. Boys who does not experience this rough and tumbled play has a higher chance of developing ADHD, and get psychological disorders. Suicide rates go up etc etc. 5. Unless this is tackled soon. Very soon, it might pose an even more existential risk towards humans as a species than the atomic bomb or even Super AI. 6. What if the conflict between women and women has only been kept in check because there has always been men there to keep the women in check?
colonials are always the ones missing from nature and ‘helping it’, we created the word ‘wild’ and from there on let it become wild, only to make it even more wild by removing possibilities and introducing stress. Man has likely, in colonial terms, been to every corner of this round globe, understood its nature, and helped by living alongside to the benefits, so a domestic planet, not a wild planet, from respect, not measures of industrial naivety with barge poles and fear. PTSD is a measure of how far to go, it is the handbrake where we have a choice of language, good brains and harmony, economics is the most violent process known to the planet, why not?
this is pretty random, so forgive me... but for Halloween, you should dress up as Max Headroom. you're almost there with the suit, and it's a good tie-in with AI, digital consciousness, virtual immortality, etc
@@foelysgirl22 The chicken wouldn't evolve with out the egg,at the end of day I feel like the decay and transfer of fields have causalities that inflicted change. So if we can reduce "ideas" and "conversations" to neural networks of fields interacting with each other to enable "progress" than I'd say that infrastructure came after. There's a TV show called adventure Time that has an amazing quote "time is just an illusion that helps things make sense" our "meta" ideas are things that give us understandings with our narrative,not physical reality.
I wasn’t the first to say this but I’ll say it again here. Lex Fridman is the best thing I discovered from the Joe Rogan Podcast. The student has become the master.
Joe's still good for the variety of people he gets on his podcast, it's a fun lightweight kind of thing. Occasionally he'll have an intellectual on board. But if you really want something more cerebral Lex is your man. I switch between the two depending on what i'm in the mood for entertainment wise.
In conclusion “Death is the ultimate violence imposed to us by nature.” You are one of the brightest and most ethical people of this planet, dear Lex Freedman. Socratic Ethics. Your speech somewhat after 2. 29 is breathtaking. An ultimate scream of human soul. Outstanding.
The rite of passage for a youngling to Manhood status has always been killing another man ... Our kings have been our warriors. So, to a certain degree there has been a selection for violence and killing instinct.
@F.W. Really curious about how do you connect romanticism with feelings, in particular why do you think Lex is quasi-liberal, sort of a fraud if I'm not mistaken? I have always thought that Lex heavily relies on the Dostoevsky's idea how beauty will save the world. That's more of a christian idea than liberal.
@@UrosMaksic Christian. ^C. I don’t know if the man is religious but Lex seems to be a humanist. His “romanticism” seems to spring from faith and hope in his fellow men. Don’t know that this means he’s either quasi liberal or a fraud. That was an odd sharp turn there. He seems always to be reaching for hope. It’s nicer to live optimistically. Good on him!
@@thatbroad5848 People are guided by christian ideas all the time, even unconsciously. Humanism does not oppose christianity, these are simply terms that are not in contradiction with each other. They in fact overlap on many levels.
Robert Sapolsky has some weird opinions about the gender wars vs evolution. There’s video of him on UA-cam saying because he’s a neuro biologist he gives primacy to brains over bodies (sounds a bit dualistic) such that if a person says they’re a woman they’re a woman even if their body is male, and he even uses disorders of sexual development (intersex congenital conditions) to support his argument. It blew my mind an evolutionary biologist would be so dismissive of the sexual dimorphism of our species.
i was just thinking exactly the same :) would love to see Sapolsky on the Lex Show. This is not about comparing guests, this is just a great topic and we could have both guests and their views. it does make the world reacher If somebody prefers to limit themselves only to Richard, you are welcome to do so!
@@paulbryant8403 he is just humble. He is aware that the guest knows far more than he does so discussing with someone like that you have to be careful because his scientific ammunition is much greater in this particular subject.
Really really good, I do enjoy when two people can talk, disagree, question perspectives, discuss different opinions and come to a new understanding…as well as this conversation did :)
@@The_Scouts_Code yes that sentence "chew less, thrive more" is better fitting slogan for them, but that sentence was nowhere in this podcast conversation, so it would be a different comment. It would be like your comment xD
That's a bit harsh. They are different people entirely and offer their own perspectives. Why does one have to be "better" or worse than the other? Lex got exposure largely due to Rogan having him in as a guest. Jeez.....
Lex, you always do amazing work brother. I was reading the job applications and it opened my eyes to the amount of work that you put into your work. We appreciate all you do Lex. The podcast is invaluable, the impact on the future of science, technology, philosophy, and human connection excites and warms my heart. You are truly one of the most powerful conversationalists I have ever heard. The podcast inspires me to make an impact on human civilization and to make a contribution to the ever-growing scientific community.
If men were removed from society I strongly believe women would slowly fill their roll. Dominance hierarchies are found in virtually all species in nature. The idea that women would all sit around and sing "Kumbaya" and get along without violence is a more simplistic view then I expected from someone who has studied evolutionary biology. Eventually more industrious competitive women will start to climb the hierarchy, and nature will start to select for those willing to take more drastic measures to compete (ex: violence, extortion, bribery etc).
I bet given enough time, you would start to see women who were practically male, with higher levels of testosterone, infertile, using incubators to have their babies. You could make an argument that if you didn’t need both sexes for reproduction, it would be better to keep the men instead of the women because they are already a step ahead evolutionarily.
It's just another Utopia thought experiment. In this version, men would have to stop existing, and women would have to stop being human. Is eliminating violence worth going extinct as a species, essentially? It's something an evil movie AI would reason.
Totally agreed. It baffles me when you listen to a brilliant mind such as R. Wrangham and then all of a sudden he plunges into a ridiculous argument like removing males from the society. It make you question everything else he's been saying up until that point.
This guy is fascinating to listen to, personally love deep diving into evolutoin. Really appreciate your work lex the topics you cover on this podcast are exactly the sort of things I like to engage in. Keep it up!
Richard Wrangham is one of the most interesting guests Lex had on his show. Couldn't stop listening to them talking. Thank you so much for providing this high quality content. Sending loads of love from Lithuania ❤️
Wow. Another wonderful conversation. Since there’s such a celebration of space exploration on your podcast, L’ex, it’s so great to finally hear a guest say we should be spending billions on preserving our wild ancestral relatives. I’d say that needs to include fish and biodiversity in general. The attitude of reverence for all life on earth shown in this session is a relief. Please remember we are nature.
Fascinating. I postponed completing the viewing of this particular podcast for several days. I am glad I came back to it. Thank you so much, Lex. Great job.
This cast, I have HAD to take in installments. Great talk, and awakens/stimulates suspicions I've been self examining since 14. This is a VERY influential discussion. Thank you, Lex.
I would rather believe in the beauty of humanity and the capacity for our own achievement and ultimately be wrong, then hold the belief "we need to get rid of males" like this guy, with respect to the guest.
it's kinda logical if removing the alpha male allowed our evolution in the first place.. maybe we can't go any further with males in charge, perpetual war and all that..
This idea of go "further" doesn't make any sense even when we say "progress" makes no sense. Fighting and dying is the rule of life, living with no conflict for a 140 years is the exception. We would be naive to believe in this utopian idea of no violence, violence is apart of life. And so is suffering, running from these facts is a futility.
Pretending like there is such a simple answer to a complex issue, and then acting as if the mechanism to do so is straight forward shook my respect in this guy… seems like (as an anthropologist myself) he’s a typical anthropologist that thinks himself into oblivion inside of the ivory tower
Glad to have you "in action" Lex ! an excellent and thought provoking discussion. If nothing else-you are a fine curator of the thought processes of Human Consciousness !
I think Richard got it wrong when he gave his talk on "males" being bad in terms of community/society. I think he missed including the role of the female and male dynamic and how how much we balance each other. If you neglect that, well then anyone would draw those kind of conclusions. I feel like Lex missed a really good opportunity to push back with some really good counter examples. But that's a good thing, it just goes to show what a really nice, good person he is.
" I think he missed including the role of the female and male dynamic and how how much we balance each other" - I think the reason why he didn´t include this is because it´s a relatively new aspect of male and female relationship from an anthropological perspective. Think of the position of the females in our species from 300000 ago up until now, how they were treated, used, thought of and communicated with. Today is still more countries/cultures where woman are second grade to men. In these countries the term balancing each other as You stated doesn´t even exist. Shame on us for that.
Male hunters are what make us predators not the prey, and hence our bigger brain and the very essence of humanity. If human males aren’t as aggressive as they are, we’ll all still be living in the trees and competing w champs for fruit
@@challopea Not to mention to have the ability to push one's own creative ideas forward. Can't do that without drive and ego, and that hyper aggressive pursuance is what is often needed in good measure in order for us to innovate ourselves out of disasters, catastrophes, and the lack of proper tools for a given situation. There is that balance that even made any of this possible (both the "good" and the "bad")
I loved this one.... Normally I will listen to an hour then continue it.... sometimes I jump onto another one. But this one had me listening the whole way through.
@@godweenausten Wrangham's concerns are legitimate. How do we curb our tendencies for violence enough to avoid destroying ourselves? Very important question. His "solution" of getting rid of Males sounds like it comes straight from the "woke" hand-book.
@Michael Fredrick Additionally the podcast format allows us to get the full exposure of a person ideas and beliefs. You don't often get that in traditional media interviews. keeps things honest. The only thing worse than a bad idea is a bad idea kept hidden or obfuscated.
@K M W So true, he can sit there and blast his brain out about Stalin, Mao and Ghangis and how bad they were and they were evil spawns of satan, etc, killing millions of people, etc. And then proceeds to advocate for the genocide of 4,000,000,000 people... This guy is a psychopath, I'd love to see Jordan Peterson dissect this weirdo.
I'm enjoying it for sure but hes a bit of a cuhq regarding doing away with males-- it's this British polite society who act like they have had no hand in conquering others.
1st of all, Jordan has never said that there is no hierarchy. What Jordan had stated is that hierarchy is about competence not violence. Which coincides with the beta male theory. So right here he would have to pull the hand brake! He is twisting the science to his lunatic belief. I could twist it the other way and state that if there were no women....we would not have all these issues either.
@Michael Fredrick I agree. It's a shame because I'm really interested in this topic and wanted to hear more but I found it hard to trust him after hearing what an ideologue he appears to be.
I've noticed that some of his questions require the guest to elaborate on there previous statements. Very interesting application of information recently gained and it's crazy how he has a deep understanding of the subject and will still ask a question that was prepared before the conversation. There is some unseen discipline in these interviews
The one thing I will say about Mr. Friedman is that I enjoy his single track focus regarding staying on topic and diving deeper opposed to rogans inclination to trail off with his thought bubbles. Also I think since lex is more inquisitive and curious he is better equipped to stay on topic with continuously engaging follow up questions, that Joe can't produce as swiftly
This is my favourite episode by far. Even though Lex seems woefully out of his depth in this discussion, it was just pure brilliance from start to finish.
Mr Fridman, you are wise beyond your years insofar as you understand that the darkness and the light are both necessary. Much respect to you and I'm so glad you are doing what you are doing.
He argues to eliminate males from society at least 3 or 4 times. He could Start by donating his elite job to a female if so convinced. As Lex pointed out, Every human (man or woman) has the capacity for love and kindness.
@@dangleearring the last men can be read as being perhaps genderless. But we don’t want to be last men, we want to be something more than that. Supermen. Unfortunately the new Superman is gay in the comics and this is the symptoms of change.
Lex, been watching for a bit now, and I must say you really are good at this. I hope you stick with it. I love the questions you ask, very interesting to see the natural curiosity and interaction.
It is interesting that in the time of political correctness and offense taking, when a joke can take down your career, a well known researcher at Harvard can say with impunity "lets get rid of all the males", basically arguing for the eradication of an entire gender.
@@requited2568 LMAO it is not telling whatsoever. It's telling that it is your first conclusion. The Gorilla was meeting a stranger. It's absurd you think she did it just to make the male jealous.
For his argument about men and women, I would say that it is true that women haven’t had the same opportunities to hold power as men have, but if they had, we would likely see just as much violence and power grabbing than we have with men. The fact that we haven’t ´ seen ´ it does not exclude the possibility. Just my opinion…
I once heard (European) Queens started more wars (probably per year of leadership or something similar) than Kings. I don't know if this is true but it doesn't sound unbelievable to me.
Loved the conversation and insights. But the whole "getting rid of the males" subject was so shortsighted from Richard's part in my opinion. Males' will for power is ultimately a struggle for the best idea to win out, removing that from the picture seems like it would slow us down immensely.
So far, I think this is my #1 favorite podcast Lex has done. I am biased, though, because I like evolution, nature, and how it relates to psychology and sociology.
43:40 ".. gets taken down by coalition of beta-males." Absolutely exquisite choice of wording. Lex bursting into laughter has me rewinding this moment again and again 😂
Listening to Richard Wrangham is like a listening to David Attenborough and John Campbell at the same time. Afterwards it feels like everything makes sense again. So relaxing, that is😄🙏🏻
The point about human levels of proactive v reactive violence got me thinking. Is it possible that our use of humour (as a reaction to benign threat) is the reason we can get by without constant violent reactions? That way we can filter out benign and real threats in a way that affects our nervous systems in almost opposite ways. Wouldn't that give the surprising result that, as has been commonly said in the past, the thing that separates man and beast is laughter?
Women wanted alphas at the primitive stage of our evolution, not any longer. We are pretty safe now, there is no need in agressive Y chromosome. I think that's what Dr.Wrangham meant.
@@Ast151, then it's up to women not to mate with "alphas." People often underestimate the sheer biological force that is sexual selection. I'm all for absolute freedom of choice thoigh. If women continue to mate with "alphas," so be it. We've been "safe" since 1945. Homo sapiens have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. We'll see where we'll end up, I guess.
@@ferasataya5350 That's exactly what's going on now. Baby boomers females preferred alphas, but millennials and gen Z prefer betas. Do the math what's going to be in 5-10 generations
I loved the interview, Lex and I appreciate you pushing back on some of the more eggregious points of Mr Wringham. It's a fine balancing act trying to push back while keeping the conversation amicable. I am nowhere, and I mean nowhere, near the level of knowledge that he is but the proposition that getting rid of all males would solve all violence problems is just... wrong? Isn't it just an evolutionary coincidence that women are less violent because men are stronger and women therefore have to rely on more subtle ways to achieve their goals? How would getting rid of the physically stronger half of the population NOT result in similar behavior in women as can be seen in men today? Nor do I agree that violence is always bad with peace being the preferable alternative. While it is a nice sentiment, I can think of numerous cases where violence would be a preferable, if not the only, solution. How does a society of peaceful individuals react to another violence society in its vicinity? Does it wait until it gets attacked and subjugated or does it fight back, perhaps even preemptively, to preserve its peaceful style of life? Think of WW2 and where appeasement got us. And even if the whole species suddenly decided to forgo violence, there are other species, or at least there were, during our evolutionary history, which could prey on a peaceful species like the one he suggests. Or am I missing a deeper point, that perhaps wasn't explored more in depth in the conversation?
Violence is not what humans evolve into. It is what we evolve away from. Yes, violence wins battles, it has disrupted all of mankind so often, but it is not what we evolve into, IS IT. Not even close. Total reflection of worldview. Yes there is violence and it is one of the most significant evolution shaping things, but it is NOT what we are. It is a small part of what we are. Most human violence has been and still is directed at other creatures. You already know it. That's why you feel like you missed the revelation.
Well its a strange idea in the first place but you would have to make a distinction between evolving without men in society versus if they were just to stop being born right now. I dont think women would commit the levels of sexual or aggressive violence between each other if men stopped being born right now, cos that kind of violence is mostly only in extreme cases of men, even the average man does not do those things
Male aggression leads to progress. Man are willing to push boundaries of what is possible to get ahead of other males. Look at what humanity has made so far, it is male creative energy that fuels civilization. Focusing only on male aggression and deriving from that that males are a bug is really only ideological bran washing speaking.
@@RTGROY Violence will never be an ineffective way for societies to exert control over each other, I am extremely confident that no matter how advanced any intelligent society gets, violence or the threat of violence will never go away for darwinian reasons. I'd bet everything I have that any alien civilization we come across will have a military which they value as much as we value ours, and they fight wars with each other. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think violence or the threat of it will ever go away.
@@darkomartinovic6475 Not agression but the drive for status leads to progress. Drive for status is not the same as aggression. Though of course drive for status can often lead to aggression. Listen to the discussion with Sapolsky at the Huberman podcast.
Lex... Top man. Watching your development these past years has been awesome. Thank you for the vast array of guests, experts and knowledge. I'm an average person with a thirst for listening to knowledgeable people. Well done sir. Much appreciated. ✌️❤️🏠🌍
I wish there would’ve been more philosophical pushback to Richard’s ideas surrounding men and their removal from society. I think a sprinkle of Taoist thought could have helped explore a new depth in the rhetoric.
Martin Szabó well, I personally believe males and females are two halves of the same whole in the current harmony of reproductive and evolutionary process. I believe Richard would agree with that historically - missing the abstract meaning of it and only focusing on the practical, and continue to push that, with technological advancement, females could continue the reproductive process without males. My thought, though, is that this would cause some sort of great disharmony, being that there is no longer a concrete yin to the female yang. And, eventually, some other entity would have to come along to restore that balance. To further conjecture, I could see it being as simple as half of this hypothetical all-female population developing socio-cultural characteristics that we currently conceive as “male,” and creating the divide all over again. (I’m sure Lex would conjecture that some form of AI that’s responsible for fulfilling the reproductive role currently assigned to males would create that restorative balance, LOL.) Bottom line: I don’t see a difference between removing males from society and the countless attempts throughout history to remove lower and upper classes from society. There seems to be universal equations that must always equal out. What do you think?
I actually think most of the societal problems we can see emerging in 21st western countries have actually resulted from a pathological over-correction toward feminism, we might even describe the current zeitgeist as matriarchal. I think, if we eventually move toward asexual reproduction, the prototypical human would best manifest as a careful balance between masculine and feminine traits.. although, it's not obvious these characteristics could be sufficiently unified in a single organism. I think authoritarianism will remain humanities greatest challenge, regardless of the ideology being enforced; pathological hierarchies exist everywhere, male, female, or otherwise.. how can you maintain the necessary competitive motivations of an agent, while removing physical violence from its repertoire of solutions? How can you even define violence adequately.. this subject could fuel hours of debate
@@jwallace6913 Nice. Fully agreed! I further think a whole conversation was missed now that you’ve brought up what characteristics would manifest in an asexually reproductive society. With the prospect of this hypothetically happening in a primarily AI automated world, this would’ve been right in Lex’s wheelhouse.
I think that the scientist's conceit was that females are significantly better. I think a more generally misanthropic view of humans including men and women is probably more accurate.
If you guys haven’t yet, try turning on the UA-cam app on your cable or tv system and watch these interviews full screen. Just a really high level experience, as if they’re in the same room.
To be honest, I was shocked at Wrangham’s statements about men. If the ultimate goal of society is just the reduction of violence, there are some much quicker ways of achieving that end than getting rid of men. Lex’s restrained response shows his compassion and the depth of his open mindedness. I probably would have said, “If that’s really how you feel, than why don’t you start with yourself”!
Brilliant conversation , thank you. Eternally grateful for all the hard work you put into this podcast, so we can all have a better understanding of this amazing world we live in 💙
He's projecting. No doubt about it. Every single person who claims what he's claiming, and is as smart/knowledgeable as he is, has to be projecting, because he's just not only wrong, but backwards about almost all of it when it comes to today's society.
Another great podcast, Lex! I am greatly looking forward to the day when you’ll have the opportunity to interview two of my favourite thinkers, Robert Sapolsky and Slovaj Zizek. 😅
It is deeply inspiring to meet someone who is so passionate about what they do. And lex the messages here about us being part of nature are so important, - and personally, even more inspiring and wonderful and anything about space, we are already in space, we are here! - please continue to emphasise and expand upon this direction. What is technology without humanity.
I really love the moments of debate here, Lex's engineering perspective and Richard's evolutionary way of thinking really brought out some meaningful things to contemplate
When I was a kid I used to go with my mom to public hammam " baths" popular in north Africa, it was a women's world, full of conflicts unkindness, and a lot of fighting and cursing, so little tolerance, plus it was dirty with all products and procedures women need to apply. When I got a little older I started going with my dad, to a men's world, they were kinder to each other, conflicts were so rare, they were very kind to little kids such as myself. it always made me wonder if a world run by women would be better or less violent as it is very often said.
This hypothesis presupposes that violence is a merely arbitrary male behavior as opposed to something which is rooted in particular contexts. So to answer your question, I'm gonna say no, simply placing women in "control" would not result in a "better" or less violent world.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast.
0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions:
- ROKA: roka.com/ and use code LEX to get 20% off your first order
- Theragun: therabody.com/lex to get 30 day trial
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com/lexpod and use code LexPod to get 3 months free
- NI: www.ni.com/perspectives
- Grammarly: grammarly.com/lex to get 20% off premium
0:49 - Violence in humans vs violence in chimps
20:21 - Study of violence in chimps
39:16 - Human evolution and violence
1:35:45 - The Goodness Paradox and Catching Fire
1:48:02 - How cooking changed our evolution
2:02:48 - The beauty of the human mind emerges
2:06:54 - A map of how chimps, gorillas, and humans are all related
2:19:26 - Preserving nature
2:27:17 - The meaning of life
Catching Fire is an awesome book. Never heard of Richard but his book caught my attention in a used book store...now, here he is on my favorite podcast channel!!!
I got some problems with Wranghams ideas:
1. I totally agree with you Lex that I think progress comes from competitive reasoning. Even AI algorithms use the same competitiveness to figure out a real from a fake! And our brains work that way too! Thus I fear our brain will just get smaller and smaller if we keep doing what we are doing untill we basically regress into nothing.
2. The Y chromosome in homo sapien males have lost almost all of its genes in competition with the X chromosome. And I fear that is due to this same problem of suppressing male evolution genetically. So if we keep suppressing it, males will simply die out... And then also the human species will cease to exist. The growing LGBTQ movement might just be an unknowing attribute of this shift.
3. There is a high probability that this shift towards being less hostile has caused the explosion of technology we have seen in the past 200 years. But it is also an extremely high probability that if we don't stop this shift from going further, then we will be exemplifying the very question regarding the FERMI paradox - why there are no aliens. Basically, they were not able to stop this shift before their male Y chromosome died out. Leading to the extingtion of their species.
4. As an example, we know male brains evolve far better when rough and tumbled play is involved in their upbringing. Boys who does not experience this rough and tumbled play has a higher chance of developing ADHD, and get psychological disorders. Suicide rates go up etc etc.
5. Unless this is tackled soon. Very soon, it might pose an even more existential risk towards humans as a species than the atomic bomb or even Super AI.
6. What if the conflict between women and women has only been kept in check because there has always been men there to keep the women in check?
colonials are always the ones missing from nature and ‘helping it’, we created the word ‘wild’ and from there on let it become wild, only to make it even more wild by removing possibilities and introducing stress. Man has likely, in colonial terms, been to every corner of this round globe, understood its nature, and helped by living alongside to the benefits, so a domestic planet, not a wild planet, from respect, not measures of industrial naivety with barge poles and fear.
PTSD is a measure of how far to go, it is the handbrake where we have a choice of language, good brains and harmony, economics is the most violent process known to the planet, why not?
Love your work Lex keep it up mate. Much love and respect from Australia
this is pretty random, so forgive me... but for Halloween, you should dress up as Max Headroom. you're almost there with the suit, and it's a good tie-in with AI, digital consciousness, virtual immortality, etc
I’m just glad to be alive in a time when I get to listen to these brilliant minds everyday for free.
The access to conversations and ideas like these will do more for the world than any infrastructure ever will.
likewise :)
@@aaronsalem2009 without the infrastructure this wouldn't even be possible imo 😉😊🤘💯
@@foelysgirl22 The chicken wouldn't evolve with out the egg,at the end of day I feel like the decay and transfer of fields have causalities that inflicted change. So if we can reduce "ideas" and "conversations" to neural networks of fields interacting with each other to enable "progress" than I'd say that infrastructure came after.
There's a TV show called adventure Time that has an amazing quote "time is just an illusion that helps things make sense" our "meta" ideas are things that give us understandings with our narrative,not physical reality.
I’m glad as well to be able to listen these brilliant minds before they silence are ability to freely speak.
I wasn’t the first to say this but I’ll say it again here. Lex Fridman is the best thing I discovered from the Joe Rogan Podcast. The student has become the master.
agreed.
Joe's still good for the variety of people he gets on his podcast, it's a fun lightweight kind of thing. Occasionally he'll have an intellectual on board. But if you really want something more cerebral Lex is your man. I switch between the two depending on what i'm in the mood for entertainment wise.
100%
@@morningstar9233 likewise lucifer ;)
@@cahles6679 you didn't like the bert pod? The story about toms kids had me laughing so damn hard.
This podcast thrives when it's this space. Curious, informative and extremely evoking.
Thanks to you both
Hear! Hear!
In conclusion “Death is the ultimate violence imposed to us by nature.” You are one of the brightest and most ethical people of this planet, dear Lex Freedman. Socratic Ethics. Your speech somewhat after 2. 29 is breathtaking. An ultimate scream of human soul. Outstanding.
The rite of passage for a youngling to Manhood status has always been killing another man ... Our kings have been our warriors. So, to a certain degree there has been a selection for violence and killing instinct.
I love how entirely unromantic Richard is compared to Lex.
He is in a pessimistic way
Well said- thinks in absolutes way too much
@F.W. Really curious about how do you connect romanticism with feelings, in particular why do you think Lex is quasi-liberal, sort of a fraud if I'm not mistaken? I have always thought that Lex heavily relies on the Dostoevsky's idea how beauty will save the world. That's more of a christian idea than liberal.
@@UrosMaksic
Christian. ^C.
I don’t know if the man is religious but Lex seems to be a humanist. His “romanticism” seems to spring from faith and hope in his fellow men. Don’t know that this means he’s either quasi liberal or a fraud. That was an odd sharp turn there.
He seems always to be reaching for hope. It’s nicer to live optimistically. Good on him!
@@thatbroad5848 People are guided by christian ideas all the time, even unconsciously. Humanism does not oppose christianity, these are simply terms that are not in contradiction with each other. They in fact overlap on many levels.
After seeing this interview, I am even more confident we need Lex to do an interview with Robert Sapolsky
Robert Sapolsky has some weird opinions about the gender wars vs evolution. There’s video of him on UA-cam saying because he’s a neuro biologist he gives primacy to brains over bodies (sounds a bit dualistic) such that if a person says they’re a woman they’re a woman even if their body is male, and he even uses disorders of sexual development (intersex congenital conditions) to support his argument. It blew my mind an evolutionary biologist would be so dismissive of the sexual dimorphism of our species.
i was just thinking exactly the same :)
would love to see Sapolsky on the Lex Show.
This is not about comparing guests, this is just a great topic and we could have both guests and their views. it does make the world reacher
If somebody prefers to limit themselves only to Richard, you are welcome to do so!
Just read Primate Memoirs. Unbelievable book. Defo do you not give a shit about his views on trans ppl
@@drts6955 unbrlieavable as in very good I hope?
@@ifyoureadthisyoudi yes. Amazing book
I love how Lex's first questions are always so intense. It's like "strap in bitches, let's podcast the shit out of this Podcast " LOL.
Sure ..Ok
Yep....
@@paulbryant8403 he is just humble. He is aware that the guest knows far more than he does so discussing with someone like that you have to be careful because his scientific ammunition is much greater in this particular subject.
@@paulbryant8403 What do you mean? They went back and forth on the Stalin/Communism point.
He does a good job.
Lex has made me so loving and emphatic about everything, just by showing that it's possible to be such a human being.
Really really good, I do enjoy when two people can talk, disagree, question perspectives, discuss different opinions and come to a new understanding…as well as this conversation did :)
This conversation is so intriguing and amazing. Love this back and forth
"Less chewing, more hunting" best hunter-gatherer slogan ever.
a brilliant one mate!
@@ромаЕ-р5ч thank you. It just reminded me of an Elvis song "little less conversation, little more action"
that makes it seem like they're just less successful hunters lol. Maybe "Chew less, thrive more"?
@@The_Scouts_Code yes that sentence "chew less, thrive more" is better fitting slogan for them, but that sentence was nowhere in this podcast conversation, so it would be a different comment. It would be like your comment xD
Reminded me of tuco: don’t talk, shoot.
This is one of the most compelling conversations in your repertoire. And that’s saying a lot!
"The bravest sight in the world is to see a great man struggling against adversity." - Seneca
My man Seneca the younger
"The bravest sight in the world is to see a great man struggling against diversity" - some extremist right winger
Lex is the new, better and smarter Joe Rogan. I used to listen JRE but I have a new favourite podcast 🙏🏻 Big up from Finland
And better looking for sure! Great as always.
Yeah totally man 😑
Yes, but I’m still quite thankful to JR for introducing these people to us !🙏😌
Only Joe Rogan is more fun. Lex has better guests, but he's stuck up and boring talking.
That's a bit harsh. They are different people entirely and offer their own perspectives. Why does one have to be "better" or worse than the other?
Lex got exposure largely due to Rogan having him in as a guest.
Jeez.....
Thanks!
Lex, you always do amazing work brother. I was reading the job applications and it opened my eyes to the amount of work that you put into your work. We appreciate all you do Lex. The podcast is invaluable, the impact on the future of science, technology, philosophy, and human connection excites and warms my heart. You are truly one of the most powerful conversationalists I have ever heard. The podcast inspires me to make an impact on human civilization and to make a contribution to the ever-growing scientific community.
My new favorite episode, absolutely fascinating!
If men were removed from society I strongly believe women would slowly fill their roll. Dominance hierarchies are found in virtually all species in nature. The idea that women would all sit around and sing "Kumbaya" and get along without violence is a more simplistic view then I expected from someone who has studied evolutionary biology. Eventually more industrious competitive women will start to climb the hierarchy, and nature will start to select for those willing to take more drastic measures to compete (ex: violence, extortion, bribery etc).
Yeah, good call. Wrangham is clearly from the old school 'anti' sexual selection.
I bet given enough time, you would start to see women who were practically male, with higher levels of testosterone, infertile, using incubators to have their babies. You could make an argument that if you didn’t need both sexes for reproduction, it would be better to keep the men instead of the women because they are already a step ahead evolutionarily.
100%
It's just another Utopia thought experiment. In this version, men would have to stop existing, and women would have to stop being human. Is eliminating violence worth going extinct as a species, essentially? It's something an evil movie AI would reason.
Totally agreed. It baffles me when you listen to a brilliant mind such as R. Wrangham and then all of a sudden he plunges into a ridiculous argument like removing males from the society. It make you question everything else he's been saying up until that point.
This guy is fascinating to listen to, personally love deep diving into evolutoin. Really appreciate your work lex the topics you cover on this podcast are exactly the sort of things I like to engage in. Keep it up!
Richard Wrangham is one of the most interesting guests Lex had on his show. Couldn't stop listening to them talking. Thank you so much for providing this high quality content. Sending loads of love from Lithuania ❤️
Interesting doesn't mean any facts. dummy
Wow. Another wonderful conversation. Since there’s such a celebration of space exploration on your podcast, L’ex, it’s so great to finally hear a guest say we should be spending billions on preserving our wild ancestral relatives. I’d say that needs to include fish and biodiversity in general. The attitude of reverence for all life on earth shown in this session is a relief. Please remember we are nature.
Exactly camilla calhoun thank you! Totally agree! Definitely love this guest! 💚🌍❤
@@verito2019You like this guest because he advocates for the genocide of males. So much for valuing biodiversity.
Fascinating. I postponed completing the viewing of this particular podcast for several days. I am glad I came back to it. Thank you so much, Lex. Great job.
I like how you formed those sentences to be frank.
@@mrsugar2352 , Thank you.
This cast, I have HAD to take in installments. Great talk, and awakens/stimulates suspicions I've been self examining since 14. This is a VERY influential discussion. Thank you, Lex.
I would rather believe in the beauty of humanity and the capacity for our own achievement and ultimately be wrong, then hold the belief "we need to get rid of males" like this guy, with respect to the guest.
Yeah this guy is a wacko when it comes to that proposed "solution"
it's kinda logical if removing the alpha male allowed our evolution in the first place..
maybe we can't go any further with males in charge, perpetual war and all that..
This idea of go "further" doesn't make any sense even when we say "progress" makes no sense.
Fighting and dying is the rule of life, living with no conflict for a 140 years is the exception.
We would be naive to believe in this utopian idea of no violence, violence is apart of life. And so is suffering, running from these facts is a futility.
I would rather just accept reality and not advocate getting rid of anyone!
Pretending like there is such a simple answer to a complex issue, and then acting as if the mechanism to do so is straight forward shook my respect in this guy… seems like (as an anthropologist myself) he’s a typical anthropologist that thinks himself into oblivion inside of the ivory tower
Glad to have you "in action" Lex ! an excellent and thought provoking discussion. If nothing else-you are a fine curator of the thought processes of Human Consciousness !
Man, what a compliment between you two right at the end. I'm vicariously honoured to be able to listen to such a good conversation!
This was an incredible conversation to listen to. Thank you.
I think Richard got it wrong when he gave his talk on "males" being bad in terms of community/society. I think he missed including the role of the female and male dynamic and how how much we balance each other. If you neglect that, well then anyone would draw those kind of conclusions. I feel like Lex missed a really good opportunity to push back with some really good counter examples. But that's a good thing, it just goes to show what a really nice, good person he is.
I agree, and I suspect Lex was trying to be agreeable with a disagreeable guest
" I think he missed including the role of the female and male dynamic and how how much we balance each other" - I think the reason why he didn´t include this is because it´s a relatively new aspect of male and female relationship from an anthropological perspective. Think of the position of the females in our species from 300000 ago up until now, how they were treated, used, thought of and communicated with. Today is still more countries/cultures where woman are second grade to men. In these countries the term balancing each other as You stated doesn´t even exist.
Shame on us for that.
Male hunters are what make us predators not the prey, and hence our bigger brain and the very essence of humanity. If human males aren’t as aggressive as they are, we’ll all still be living in the trees and competing w champs for fruit
@@challopea Not to mention to have the ability to push one's own creative ideas forward. Can't do that without drive and ego, and that hyper aggressive pursuance is what is often needed in good measure in order for us to innovate ourselves out of disasters, catastrophes, and the lack of proper tools for a given situation.
There is that balance that even made any of this possible (both the "good" and the "bad")
At that moment I wish joe rogan was there to say something
Mr.Rogan just had a mindgasm listening to this.
I loved this one.... Normally I will listen to an hour then continue it.... sometimes I jump onto another one. But this one had me listening the whole way through.
32:17 (What is the nature of chimpanzees conception of violence toward death in comparison to our own?) Well done Lex, beautifully crafted question.
Bravo Lex. This is incredible. My next binge will be reading everything written by this professor. 😎
All your guests are great but this guy best distils my uncollected observations of life.
Hat's off to you Richard Wrangham.
I think this is my favorite so far. Amazing and entertaining podcast.
I feel blessed to hear these conversations
Lex is dominating with continuously brilliant podcast content
What an utterly captivating episode this was. Thanks.
1:57:57 Such a wholesome exchange. I love it when Lex laughs 😁
It was a pleasure to listen to Richard’s steady, articulate, slightly British use of language for over 2 hours.
Fantastic pushback by Lex on the ill begotten concept of Eugenic population control to curb violence.
@@godweenausten Wrangham's concerns are legitimate. How do we curb our tendencies for violence enough to avoid destroying ourselves? Very important question. His "solution" of getting rid of Males sounds like it comes straight from the "woke" hand-book.
@Michael Fredrick Additionally the podcast format allows us to get the full exposure of a person ideas and beliefs. You don't often get that in traditional media interviews. keeps things honest. The only thing worse than a bad idea is a bad idea kept hidden or obfuscated.
@K M W So true, he can sit there and blast his brain out about Stalin, Mao and Ghangis and how bad they were and they were evil spawns of satan, etc, killing millions of people, etc. And then proceeds to advocate for the genocide of 4,000,000,000 people... This guy is a psychopath, I'd love to see Jordan Peterson dissect this weirdo.
Yeah but isn't it a legitimate thought tho?
@@BorisBirkenbaumnot really
I have listened this podcast 2 times. Richard Wrangham is an amazing human.
I'm enjoying it for sure but hes a bit of a cuhq regarding doing away with males-- it's this British polite society who act like they have had no hand in conquering others.
This one and Jeff Hawkins thousand brains theory. That one three times at least.
Imagine watching this guy debate Jordan Peterson on gender face to face. Would get absolutely demolished.
I completely agree.
For real.. this guy wants to annihilate men?? What 🥵
1st of all, Jordan has never said that there is no hierarchy. What Jordan had stated is that hierarchy is about competence not violence. Which coincides with the beta male theory. So right here he would have to pull the hand brake! He is twisting the science to his lunatic belief. I could twist it the other way and state that if there were no women....we would not have all these issues either.
@Michael Fredrick I agree. It's a shame because I'm really interested in this topic and wanted to hear more but I found it hard to trust him after hearing what an ideologue he appears to be.
I've noticed that some of his questions require the guest to elaborate on there previous statements. Very interesting application of information recently gained and it's crazy how he has a deep understanding of the subject and will still ask a question that was prepared before the conversation. There is some unseen discipline in these interviews
The one thing I will say about Mr. Friedman is that I enjoy his single track focus regarding staying on topic and diving deeper opposed to rogans inclination to trail off with his thought bubbles. Also I think since lex is more inquisitive and curious he is better equipped to stay on topic with continuously engaging follow up questions, that Joe can't produce as swiftly
Fantastic discussion. Such a beautifully spoken articulate and erudite guest. Thank you
This is my favourite episode by far. Even though Lex seems woefully out of his depth in this discussion, it was just pure brilliance from start to finish.
This was great to listen to. Very thought provoking and interesting.
Catching fire was a very convincing and good read.
Mr Fridman, you are wise beyond your years insofar as you understand that the darkness and the light are both necessary. Much respect to you and I'm so glad you are doing what you are doing.
He argues to eliminate males from society at least 3 or 4 times. He could Start by donating his elite job to a female if so convinced. As Lex pointed out, Every human (man or woman) has the capacity for love and kindness.
Perhaps the future of humans is hermaphroditic, unisex.
@@dangleearring good luck with that
@@phpn99 "it's conceptual"
So was Mein Kampf.
@@dangleearring the last men can be read as being perhaps genderless. But we don’t want to be last men, we want to be something more than that. Supermen. Unfortunately the new Superman is gay in the comics and this is the symptoms of change.
@@phpn99, by what mechanism do we have that will stop the conceptual becoming literal?
Lex, been watching for a bit now, and I must say you really are good at this. I hope you stick with it. I love the questions you ask, very interesting to see the natural curiosity and interaction.
It is interesting that in the time of political correctness and offense taking, when a joke can take down your career, a well known researcher at Harvard can say with impunity "lets get rid of all the males", basically arguing for the eradication of an entire gender.
Taking Free shots at men is the woke way.
Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.
George Orwell
he didn't say that
@@requited2568 LMAO it is not telling whatsoever. It's telling that it is your first conclusion. The Gorilla was meeting a stranger. It's absurd you think she did it just to make the male jealous.
@@Ast151 He literally said that.
Lex is carrying the torch for podcasts!
For his argument about men and women, I would say that it is true that women haven’t had the same opportunities to hold power as men have, but if they had, we would likely see just as much violence and power grabbing than we have with men. The fact that we haven’t ´ seen ´ it does not exclude the possibility.
Just my opinion…
I once heard (European) Queens started more wars (probably per year of leadership or something similar) than Kings. I don't know if this is true but it doesn't sound unbelievable to me.
@@hansmeiser32 all european queens were represented by the parliament consisting 100% of men
@@Ast151 WTF are you talking about?
Women want power just as much as men, they just do it differently because they can't do it overtly.
@@Ast151 theory is also that they had more to prove.
Loved the conversation and insights. But the whole "getting rid of the males" subject was so shortsighted from Richard's part in my opinion.
Males' will for power is ultimately a struggle for the best idea to win out, removing that from the picture seems like it would slow us down immensely.
Let’s not eliminate anything, let’s ALL evolve…. Please! 🌀❤️🌀
Not to mention he came up with his idea using his male brain. Also my mom loved me the most, so she'd be pissed about this idea..lol
@@johnekopy Thats hilarious
So far, I think this is my #1 favorite podcast Lex has done. I am biased, though, because I like evolution, nature, and how it relates to psychology and sociology.
❤ 💜 ♥ Lex, you nailed this one!!!!
one of my favourite podcasts and subjects, richard is great
43:40 ".. gets taken down by coalition of beta-males." Absolutely exquisite choice of wording. Lex bursting into laughter has me rewinding this moment again and again 😂
Listen twice - thanks for fascinating interview
What a fantastic conversation! Thank you for sharing.
Best pod I’ve seen for a long time.
This was and is absolutely fascinating.
Such a brilliant guest and conversation. Thanks Lex.
Listening to Richard Wrangham is like a listening to David Attenborough and John Campbell at the same time. Afterwards it feels like everything makes sense again. So relaxing, that is😄🙏🏻
So relaxing hearing him speak about violence and gangrape 😌.
@@BorisBirkenbaum 🤣
Thanks for another conversation.
Brilliant podcast. Thank you Lex!
I loved listening to this
The point about human levels of proactive v reactive violence got me thinking. Is it possible that our use of humour (as a reaction to benign threat) is the reason we can get by without constant violent reactions? That way we can filter out benign and real threats in a way that affects our nervous systems in almost opposite ways. Wouldn't that give the surprising result that, as has been commonly said in the past, the thing that separates man and beast is laughter?
Great point. I think you're on to something
Chicken or the egg perhaps ?? I would think humour is an evolutionary response to negate reactive violence.
That is a solid point but i have seen a video of a chimp laughing before. It was in response to a human pulling a visual trick on the chimp.
@@akaku9🥕🐡 😉
Excellent interview! Amazing interviewee! Upended tons of erroneous preconceptions I previously had. Thank you both!
You guys forget that men want to obtain and attain what women want in a spouse. Women want powerful men.
That’s exactly what I was thinking, women are hard wired to reproduce the alpha male.
Women wanted alphas at the primitive stage of our evolution, not any longer. We are pretty safe now, there is no need in agressive Y chromosome. I think that's what Dr.Wrangham meant.
@@Ast151, then it's up to women not to mate with "alphas." People often underestimate the sheer biological force that is sexual selection.
I'm all for absolute freedom of choice thoigh. If women continue to mate with "alphas," so be it.
We've been "safe" since 1945. Homo sapiens have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. We'll see where we'll end up, I guess.
though***
@@ferasataya5350 That's exactly what's going on now. Baby boomers females preferred alphas, but millennials and gen Z prefer betas. Do the math what's going to be in 5-10 generations
This was amazing informative,brilliantly explained understandable pot cast.Thank you both for offering this brilliant humanitarian gift.❤️
I love to hear him talk about how hyenas hunt compared to wolves
Great interview! Thank you both. Cheers!
I loved the interview, Lex and I appreciate you pushing back on some of the more eggregious points of Mr Wringham. It's a fine balancing act trying to push back while keeping the conversation amicable.
I am nowhere, and I mean nowhere, near the level of knowledge that he is but the proposition that getting rid of all males would solve all violence problems is just... wrong? Isn't it just an evolutionary coincidence that women are less violent because men are stronger and women therefore have to rely on more subtle ways to achieve their goals? How would getting rid of the physically stronger half of the population NOT result in similar behavior in women as can be seen in men today?
Nor do I agree that violence is always bad with peace being the preferable alternative. While it is a nice sentiment, I can think of numerous cases where violence would be a preferable, if not the only, solution. How does a society of peaceful individuals react to another violence society in its vicinity? Does it wait until it gets attacked and subjugated or does it fight back, perhaps even preemptively, to preserve its peaceful style of life? Think of WW2 and where appeasement got us. And even if the whole species suddenly decided to forgo violence, there are other species, or at least there were, during our evolutionary history, which could prey on a peaceful species like the one he suggests.
Or am I missing a deeper point, that perhaps wasn't explored more in depth in the conversation?
Violence is not what humans evolve into. It is what we evolve away from. Yes, violence wins battles, it has disrupted all of mankind so often, but it is not what we evolve into, IS IT. Not even close. Total reflection of worldview. Yes there is violence and it is one of the most significant evolution shaping things, but it is NOT what we are. It is a small part of what we are. Most human violence has been and still is directed at other creatures. You already know it. That's why you feel like you missed the revelation.
Well its a strange idea in the first place but you would have to make a distinction between evolving without men in society versus if they were just to stop being born right now. I dont think women would commit the levels of sexual or aggressive violence between each other if men stopped being born right now, cos that kind of violence is mostly only in extreme cases of men, even the average man does not do those things
Male aggression leads to progress. Man are willing to push boundaries of what is possible to get ahead of other males. Look at what humanity has made so far, it is male creative energy that fuels civilization. Focusing only on male aggression and deriving from that that males are a bug is really only ideological bran washing speaking.
@@RTGROY Violence will never be an ineffective way for societies to exert control over each other, I am extremely confident that no matter how advanced any intelligent society gets, violence or the threat of violence will never go away for darwinian reasons. I'd bet everything I have that any alien civilization we come across will have a military which they value as much as we value ours, and they fight wars with each other. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think violence or the threat of it will ever go away.
@@darkomartinovic6475 Not agression but the drive for status leads to progress. Drive for status is not the same as aggression. Though of course drive for status can often lead to aggression. Listen to the discussion with Sapolsky at the Huberman podcast.
Lex... Top man.
Watching your development these past years has been awesome.
Thank you for the vast array of guests, experts and knowledge.
I'm an average person with a thirst for listening to knowledgeable people.
Well done sir. Much appreciated.
✌️❤️🏠🌍
Thank you Lex Fridman. Great guest. Excellent podcast. Keep up the good work. Love it 😊
As a person who had lots of pets can vouch that animals have such individual personalities, boundaries, preferences, abilities, interests….
I came to finish off a short clip and stayed for the whole thing. Great podcast.
I wish there would’ve been more philosophical pushback to Richard’s ideas surrounding men and their removal from society. I think a sprinkle of Taoist thought could have helped explore a new depth in the rhetoric.
Can you elaborate more?
Martin Szabó well, I personally believe males and females are two halves of the same whole in the current harmony of reproductive and evolutionary process. I believe Richard would agree with that historically - missing the abstract meaning of it and only focusing on the practical, and continue to push that, with technological advancement, females could continue the reproductive process without males. My thought, though, is that this would cause some sort of great disharmony, being that there is no longer a concrete yin to the female yang. And, eventually, some other entity would have to come along to restore that balance. To further conjecture, I could see it being as simple as half of this hypothetical all-female population developing socio-cultural characteristics that we currently conceive as “male,” and creating the divide all over again. (I’m sure Lex would conjecture that some form of AI that’s responsible for fulfilling the reproductive role currently assigned to males would create that restorative balance, LOL.) Bottom line: I don’t see a difference between removing males from society and the countless attempts throughout history to remove lower and upper classes from society. There seems to be universal equations that must always equal out.
What do you think?
I actually think most of the societal problems we can see emerging in 21st western countries have actually resulted from a pathological over-correction toward feminism, we might even describe the current zeitgeist as matriarchal. I think, if we eventually move toward asexual reproduction, the prototypical human would best manifest as a careful balance between masculine and feminine traits.. although, it's not obvious these characteristics could be sufficiently unified in a single organism. I think authoritarianism will remain humanities greatest challenge, regardless of the ideology being enforced; pathological hierarchies exist everywhere, male, female, or otherwise.. how can you maintain the necessary competitive motivations of an agent, while removing physical violence from its repertoire of solutions? How can you even define violence adequately.. this subject could fuel hours of debate
@@jwallace6913 Nice. Fully agreed! I further think a whole conversation was missed now that you’ve brought up what characteristics would manifest in an asexually reproductive society. With the prospect of this hypothetically happening in a primarily AI automated world, this would’ve been right in Lex’s wheelhouse.
I think that the scientist's conceit was that females are significantly better. I think a more generally misanthropic view of humans including men and women is probably more accurate.
I love Lex spreading the knowledge & love
Great pod Lex and Richard, really enjoyed it :)
If you guys haven’t yet, try turning on the UA-cam app on your cable or tv system and watch these interviews full screen. Just a really high level experience, as if they’re in the same room.
To be honest, I was shocked at Wrangham’s statements about men. If the ultimate goal of society is just the reduction of violence, there are some much quicker ways of achieving that end than getting rid of men. Lex’s restrained response shows his compassion and the depth of his open mindedness. I probably would have said, “If that’s really how you feel, than why don’t you start with yourself”!
Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.
George Orwell
what are those ways?
@@Ast151 Effective socialization? Less material scarcity? How do you think the declining rate of global violence occurred?
Brilliant conversation , thank you. Eternally grateful for all the hard work you put into this podcast, so we can all have a better understanding of this amazing world we live in 💙
Really appreciate the talk, but the gentleman seems to put a lot of emphasis on power and patriarchy.
That's his field of expertise but I get what you're saying
He's projecting. No doubt about it. Every single person who claims what he's claiming, and is as smart/knowledgeable as he is, has to be projecting, because he's just not only wrong, but backwards about almost all of it when it comes to today's society.
Another great podcast, Lex! I am greatly looking forward to the day when you’ll have the opportunity to interview two of my favourite thinkers, Robert Sapolsky and Slovaj Zizek. 😅
this is my favorite interview you've ever done
one of the best podcasts.
We need a fresh film on Jane Goodall. What an amazing life. Woman was straight OG.
That’s a fantastic idea she is amazing
Great video, thanks 👍
Super interesting talk, really enjoyed it. Btw, Dian Fossey pic @ 2:09:56 is really Sigourney Weaver.
looks more like lt. ellen ripley last survivor of the nostromo
It is deeply inspiring to meet someone who is so passionate about what they do. And lex the messages here about us being part of nature are so important, - and personally, even more inspiring and wonderful and anything about space, we are already in space, we are here! - please continue to emphasise and expand upon this direction. What is technology without humanity.
Thank you for another great episode:)
Nobody interviewes better than you, enjoyed every second!
What a fantastic interview. So very interesting. Thanks, gentlemen!
I really love the moments of debate here, Lex's engineering perspective and Richard's evolutionary way of thinking really brought out some meaningful things to contemplate
When I was a kid I used to go with my mom to public hammam " baths" popular in north Africa, it was a women's world, full of conflicts unkindness, and a lot of fighting and cursing, so little tolerance, plus it was dirty with all products and procedures women need to apply. When I got a little older I started going with my dad, to a men's world, they were kinder to each other, conflicts were so rare, they were very kind to little kids such as myself. it always made me wonder if a world run by women would be better or less violent as it is very often said.
This hypothesis presupposes that violence is a merely arbitrary male behavior as opposed to something which is rooted in particular contexts. So to answer your question, I'm gonna say no, simply placing women in "control" would not result in a "better" or less violent world.
what a brilliant debate this was
Lex, where is the judo video with Travis Stevens.
I’m waiting for it as well 👀 (spelling etc)
Please