SGU Episode 860

This transcript is not finished. Please help us finish it! Add a Transcribing template to the top of this transcript before you start so that we don't duplicate your efforts.

Template:Editing required (w/links) This is an outline for a typical Year-in-Review episode’s transcription. Not all of these segments feature in each Year-in-Review. There may also be additional/special segments not listed in this outline. You can use this outline to help structure the transcription. Click "Edit" above to begin.

SGU Episode 860
January 1st 2022
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 859                      SGU 861
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
C: Cara Santa Maria
J: Jay Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
Guest
IC: Ian Callanan
Quote of the Week
Quote
Author
Links
Download Podcast
Show Notes
Forum Discussion

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by Hearmepurr (talk) as of 2022-01-28. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

Introduction

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

S: Hello and welcome to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Today is Wednesday, December 22^nd, 2022, and this is your host, Steven Novella. Joining me this week are Bob Novella ...

B: Hey, everybody!

S: Cara Santa Maria...

C: Howdy.

S: Jay Novella ...

J: Hey guys.

S: Evan Bernstein ...

E: What with Christmas coming and all!

S: And, we have a special guest, a return to the podcast of Ian Callanan. Ian, welcome back buddy.

IC: What's up guys!

E: THE Ian. Oh my Gosh.

C: He speaks!

E: I've heard about you.

IC: Yeah, I did my Youtuber intro so I hope that works.

S: Yeah, there you go. Ian is our tech-guru. He is a, he's our right-hand man for everything in terms of making the show actually function. And...

IC: Left for Jay though.

(laughter)

S: Yeah.

IC: Cause he is left-handed, nevermind, sorry.

S: Jay's left hand. And you did the year end review with us last year.

IC: True.

S: So this is now the second year in a row so it's oficially a tradition.

IC: That's right. You even invited me on after the watermelon incident. Which is...

S: I did.

IC: ... Something.

(laughter)

B: Yeah we don't talk about that.

S: Had to give it some time. I love how like when we do our live streaming events now Ian is always this disembodied voice, right, who never shows his face.

B: Ever.

IC: Truth.

S: But...

E: Ever.

S: Ian's official emoji is the watermelon. That's Ian, is the watermelon.

C: Well, yeah.

J: Watermelon!

E: That's it. That's it. Gallagher and Ian.

S: If you don't know what we are talking about, during the 12-hour show, it was like comically perfect, we couldn't have made this happen if we tried to. (laughter) We were going to... we had on a guest who was in their forge and they have a press and they were crushing different things. And they were just about to crush a watermelon when Ian hit a button accidentally and we went to some other video and we missed it.

IC: No, it was the internet.

S: It was a one time live event.

C: Oh it was the internet, huh?

IC: I slipped and fell, sort of. You can go watch it, it's still available, so, we don't have to go through it too much anymore, thank you.

(laughter)

J: Spectacular.

S: It was spectacular, yeah.

E: It's not like we were building up all day to that moment...

IC: Yeah, really.

E: ...or anything like that.

S: But the thing is, it was like, it turned out to be funnier than if we just watched the watermelon get crushed. You know what I mean?

E: True.

S: It was epic. It was epic.

J: The thing about it was it was literally like Steve said, the timing couldn't have been more perfect. It was like you were about to see something, you know exactly what you were about to see and the second it was about to begin it got pulled away from all of us.

IC: Yeah.

J: So everybody was sitting there going 'huuuh!?'

C: Oh, and it's not like it just got pulled away, he came back right after it was over.

(laughter)

IC: The second after.

E: Oh my god, it's true.

IC: What can I say, I'm a comedic genius, I'm sorry, just can't help it, it's natural.

B: Yes, Ian you are and from my point of view you just gotta, just roll with this, because I've been living with simmilar accolade if you will. For many years after the first time I ever said hello on episode 1 way back.

J: Hellouu.

E: 2005.

S: Literal first word on the SGU. It's infamous.

B: First word, I still think Steve, I still think Steve edited it and it's not what was really said. You just gotta roll with it man.

IC: Ok, thank you.

E: Ian, it's not like things like this have legs, there a thing called the Heidi game, the Heidi incident in professional sports.

J: Heidi heigh.

E: The Jest are playing the Oakland Raiders on national television on a Sunday [inaudible] millions of people watching and it's a big exciting game right down to the last play and they switch it over to see Heidi.

C:(laughs)

S: Oh yeah.

E: Classic old Heidi movie.

S: Oh my god.

E: And the country went crazy over it and it's forever know as 'The Heidi Incident' so it's, you know, and that was 1972.

C: Yeah everybody totally forgot.

IC: Oh yeah, so it only lasted fifty somewhat years.

E: I just had to remind everyone, so yeah, you're good for about fifty years.

IC: Ok. Perfect.

C: Oh yeah, that fifty years by the way. Just as a nice reminder that 1972 was FIFTY freaking years ago.

E: Oh, some of us were there.

S: So, this is our Year End Review show, we're gonna look back at 2021. The good, the bad, science, pseudoscience, how the SGU did, our funniest moments. If this were a TV show this would be a flashback episode, you know. Do you guys watch those flashaback? Like, sometimes when I see 'Oh, this is a flashback episode' I just turn the chanel.

C: Me too, I skip it. (laughs)

(laughter)

IC: Or if the do 'todorolo, todorolo, todorolo'

(laughter)

E: Wayne's World.

IC: Excellent.

C: But the difference is, we, this is more like the director's cut. Because in those shows they're just repackaging old footage which is annoying. But what we're doing is we are talking about all the old stuff.

S: Yeah. That's right.

C: We're not just gonna play some old clips.

S: Here's a clip from March... yeah, we're now gonna do that.

E: Here's something you've already listened to.

B: Awesome.

Year in Science (05:03)

S: Why don’t we get started with some looking back on 2021 the Year in Science. A lot of stuff happened, lot of cool stuff, a lot of interesting things.

E: Oh yeah.

S: Let’s start with space news. What do you guys think the biggest space news of the year was?

C: The billionaire space race!

J: James Webb.

E: That was one of them. Perseverance on Mars?

S: I put Perseverance as my number one choice.

C: You don’t think? You think that was the, like, I guess how to you define biggest? Like, probably most important, ok, I don't know, time will tell...

S: Choose your criteria.

IC: Shatner in space.

C: But I think the most popular, what got the most coverage, definitely the billionaire space race and the penis rockets.

IC: Yeah.

E: Sure.

S: The penis rocket was big.

IC: Hey, average.

S: The space tourism in general, billionaires in space. But yeah, William Shatner in space was, was special. That was great PR for the whole space tourism thing.

J: What meant the most for science and to, the progress, right?

S: Oh I think that, you know, I think Perseverance, also, you know, this is the year when it really felt like we were turning the corner on yeah, we are going back to the moon. Like that's happening. The timeline got 'delayed', it actually, you know the original timeline was what 20...?

E: 2028.

S: 2028. And then it was arbitrarily moved up to 2024 for no reason and nobody thought they were gonna do it. And now they are like 'well, yeah, we're gonna push it back to 2025'. So even if it does happen in 2025 it's still 3 years ahead of the original schedule.

E: Yeah, the Artemis program.

S: Yea, they chose a lander, you know, they're gonna use SpaceX star ship as their lunar lander, they're making progress on the space suits, everything is coming together. Yeah, it really looks like it's gonna happen. So, that's exciting. Yes, this is gonna be the decade we get back to the Moon.

B: God damn man, it also sucks.

(laughter)

S: Why does it suck?

B: It's 2021 and we haven't been on the Moon for how many decades!? It's just like mind-boggling.

S: Five.

B: If you said, if you went back to the mid seventies and said we're not gonna go back to the f--ing Moon until the 2020s you would say: 'you're full of crap, stop lying, that's ridiculous' nobody would ever believe that. And here we are. It's just like mind-boggling, that it's been decades and we haven't been back to the Moon.

E: We have fifty years of better technology now than we had then, that we would have used in the late 70s to go back to the Moon.

B: It's better, it's better, but it's not like so much that we built on that technology. That technology is gone, it's done. You can't even recreate it. It's like almost impossible to recreate that technology. Do you think we can build Saturn V now? No. That's just like to even try that would be ridiculous. So in a way it's kinda like, you know, we are re-inventing the wheel in some ways. It's not a perfect analogy, because the technology sure it's better. It's definitely better and more sophisticated and everything. But it's, it's just frustrating, that there hasn't been continuous development just like, kinda just like restarting you know restarting the whole trip to the Moon. And who knows, hey, we got lucky in a lot of ways in the late 60s. And I hope we get lucky this time too, because it's not a no-brainier that's it's gonna be flawless, not at all. Cause you know, there's gonna be people involved, it's not just like... you know think of all the screwed up landings on Mars. I mean, that's a horrible percentage.

S: Yeah, but Bob, the tolerances for crewed craft are a lot tighter─

B: True.

S: ─than for robotic craft.

B: Yeah, right and when things go bad it goes really bad.

S: Of course.

B: I'm gonna keep my fingers crossed.

S: But you can't say, you can't extrapolate from our success rate with Lunar, with Mars landers to our success rate with crewed craft.

B: It's not a direct extrapolation, but it's damned difficult. It's damned difficult.

S: Of course it is.

B: And we all know how lucky we got in the late 60s and I think we're gonna need a little bit of luck to pull this off flawlessly. Everyone really I think expects it to be like a no-brainier this is gonna be great, there's not gonna be any problems.

E: Yeah.

B: You know, shit can go wrong. So I'm gonna be crossing my fingers.

E: Well, that's always true.

S: In the twenty years, how many crewed missions have we sent to the ISS to swap out crew? There haven't been any problems. We have pretty good success rate.

B: Going to an orbiting station and you are comparing it to landing on the Moon?

S: I'm just saying.

B: Staying safe.. and then staying safe from the radiation and then you know going...

S: It's rocket technology.

B: It's more than rocket technology.

E: (laughs)

S: Getting pretty good at it.

E: It's not brain surgery.

B: Steve it's a helluva lot more than just getting from A to B.

S: I know.

B: They're gonna be hanging out there and gonna be doing shit. I'm just saying, I'm just saying my fingers are gonna be crossed and it's about effing time that we're seriously getting back there.

S: I know and 2001 seemed plausible for us at the time.

(laughter)

B: I know, yeah, and it's classic cause you overestimate near-term and underestimate far-term and that's kinda the way things go.

S: But be optimistic Bob the whole point of this discussion─

B: Oh screw that.

S: ─is to be optimistic, now we're going back to the Moon, forget about how long it took. you can also think about the fact, that even though it took a long time, the technology we have today is much better. If we tried to do this back in the 80s or the 90s would have been a lot harder than it is today, so it's like waiting to buy a computer. the longer you wait, the longer you would have to go without a computer but when you do get one the better it is for the less money.

B: I want my Moon Base Alpha.

C: (laughs) So upset.

E: Well, Shatner had to go into space first and he did that so...

B: Cara, you know, you still in your 30s. I'm in my late 50s, you know, I don't have much time left, I wanna see some shit happen.

C: Well, I, you know me, I don't really think there should be like traipsing around the Moon.

B: Oh don't even go there.

C: (laughs)

E: She's not, she's not going there.

C: I'm cool with all these robot missions.

B: Yeah, me too, I love them too. Robots!

C: Robots!

E: Perseverance!

S: Of course the other huge category of news items was Covid. Some weeks it seems that the news is all: 'Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid, Covid'. You know, it's hard to find non-Covid news, it is sucking up all the oxygen out of the room. But some things happened. You think about where we were at the beginning of 2021.

B: Yeah, not good.

S: No vaccines basically, vaccines were just coming up and there really wasn't any significant distribution of them. But we also weren't contending with any new variants. On the good side, lot of people have been vaccinated and we have tons of vaccines available.

B: 8 billion doses we've made. 8 billion doses.

C: Well Steve, in our very first episode of 2021, so that was January 2^nd, 2021. The first news item was that there was a new SARS-Cov2 variant.

S: Yeah.

C: Right at the beginning.

S: We started the year of vaccines and the year of new variant. So the alpha variant, the beta variant. Those were kind of fizzles that didn't really do much, they were just yeah they were little bit worse but the vaccines still covering them and we kept talking about yeah but that you know any variant, the next one could be it. Then the delta hit and delta was a game-changer.

'C: Yeah, delta wiped us out.

B: Yeah.

S: That's when it was like over the summer we thought Covid was maybe turning the corner, we're getting back to normality and then boom, the delta variant hit. Delta variant is like six times more contagious than the original variant and now we have Omicron which is three times more contagious than Delta. It's even worse in terms of infectivity.

C: And our vaccines are not as nearly as good.

S: Yeah, and it's partially evasive to the vaccine, so although if you get boosted, you're still covered, but you know, each variant seems to be worse, drifting further and further [inaudible] ─

B: But Steve, you know, you shouldn't really be that pessimistic dude.

(laughter)

B: For me, for me─

E: Wow, yeah Bob.

B: ─my top science news for 2021 was mRNA vaccines, to me, that's the beast in the room right there, so I looked at it. Who's the first guy that did it or first person who did it, you know? I didn't know. Robert Malone at the SUL Institute. He was a grad student, he mixed some strands of messenger RNA with some droplets of fat. I personally think that he was high and looking for something weird to eat. So he realized that this concoction was absorbed by cells and mRNA then begin producing proteins. He realized, he was like damn, this is gonna be something, this is, could be important, he wrote notes and he signed and dated them. And he said something like 'this could allow us to treat RNA as a drug'. And just a little bit later in 1988 he was the first person to actually use them. Use this fatty droplets to insert mRNA into a living organism. And in this case it was a frog embryo. And it worked.

S: And he made dinosaurs?

(laughter)

B: And that was, that's the first time it happened, back in 1988─

E: [inaudible]

B: ─so I think this is an amazing, that's a milestone in scientific [inaudible] right there.

C: But to be fair, as amazing as his initial research was, two things. Number one: some incredible people built on this and made it possible.

E: Oh yes.

B: Of course.

C: Time magazine─

B: He just started it.

C: ─yeah, he just started it. Time magazine did a really good kind a feature on four of the most prominent vaccine scientists who brought this to life. And also, Robert Malone, not somebody who you wanna listen to now. Not sure if you are aware─

B: Really?

C: ─oh, he has run the gambit, he has gone on the Steve Bannon podcast, the Tucker Carlson podcast. He's claiming now, that the mRNA vaccines that are on the market might actually make your infection worse, it's very scary.

B: That is horrific.

S: Got of the reservation.

[talking over each other]

C: He's gone off the reservation, yeah, he is a misinformation peddler now, what a bummer.

B: Wow, that's really disappointing.

S: Yeah, it's kinda our whole modern society in one person. Invents amazing new technology that led to these vaccines and now is spreading misinformation. That's perfect.

E: It's not the first time it happened.

S: No no. Unfortunately.

E: But did you guys read about nature.com, they did a special article about the vaccinations themselves and this one was actually my, one of the heroes, actually, of the year is the entire community of scientists, doctors and everyone else contributing to the vaccine research. I'm just gonna read you this blur: 'Researchers are developing more than 300 Covid-19 vaccines in addition to he 23 already in use around the world. 84 are in early stage clinical trails and 40 are at much later stages of development'. And that's from practically zero to begin the year with, you know, with just a handful of these things. So the advancement in 2021 of vaccine understanding technology and research has been warp-speed, no doubt about it.

C: Oh yeah.

S: And this year we have two drugs now that are towards the end of the pipeline the Molnupiravir and the Paxlovid, which are antivirals effective against the Sars-Cov2 virus and they prevent 100% of deaths in the trials, you know.

E: The tools are coming, in which we will much, much better deal with this.

C: And the thing is, yes, the tools are coming but are also already here and that's something that I think is such an important part of the conversation that's maybe a little bit missing and I'm curious what you guys think about this. You know, I recently had a gathering with some friends, we were all negative, we all took antigen tests, everybody was negative and then a friend came down as positive within a couple of days. And I see a wide range of resulting conversations like chatter from very very intelligent and─

E: Informed.

C: ─informed people, yes. All the way from 'I'm not that worried because I'm boosted' to 'Guys, guys, it's, we're not out of the woods, it's really really bad, cancel all your plans, be very, very, you know we really shouldn't be out in public and bla bla bla'. And what I worry is that there's not a sort of nuanced in between point, and I think this might be, I'm curious what do you guys think about this, a sort of cognitive bias. Where we develop a baseline of concern early on in something like a global pandemic. So we remember back when we were like bleaching our groceries, right, like nobody knew what was going on. And we had a baseline of concern. And then, things start to get a little better, we let our guard down and then something happens like Delta and instead of iterating to a new baseline we go back to our previous baseline. And I think I'm seeing that a lot with people where they're like: 'it's not over so we need to be just as vigilant as we were at the beginning'. And I'm not saying we shouldn't be vigilant, but we do have vaccines now. We do have medication now that we didn't have previously. We have, we're able to get PPE, which we weren't able to do before.

S: We're definitely in a much better situation and we're not doing the level of caution that we were early on. You're right, there is an anchoring bias I think─

C: Right.

S: ─in terms of where you started off. Totally.

C: And, it worries me, because people aren't living their lives and I'm really afraid of the mental health consequences of this. Like they're not finding the doing the risk-benefit analysis and finding a medium that works for them.

S: Right, I think if you are vaccinated and boosted, like you're fully protected and you're not in a super high risk population, then, you can, you know, go back to mostly normal life. You may wanna wear a mask in certain situations, that's pretty much it.

C: Yeah, and here in California you have to. It's mandated anyway. You're wearing a mask when you're in public.

B: When you're in Florida, you're strongly urged not to.

C: (laughs)

B: I talked with somebody who lives down there, he was like 'yeah, nobody wears masks, nobody'.

C: That's so scary.

S: I gotta tell you, the a I work in a hospital, so that's my barometer for how bad the things are going. At least regionally. And it's been very accurate. When the hospital is like 'all right guys we're going into crisis protocol', with regard to Covid, that's always at the begging of a massive wave, you know, in the area. And we are just going into that, right now. So I was just, the last two weeks I was doing in patient consult service. Hospital is overwhelmed, Yale is overwhelmed. I mean, we're dealing with it, but it's full, the hospital is full. People in the emergency room could be waiting there for a day to get admitted to the hospital. Most of our patients we are treating in the emergency room, lot of unhappy patients. But, you know.

B: Headline's today in the paper Steve saying in Connecticut since early November, Covid hospitalizations have quadrupled.

S: I know, that what it feels like. So, you know, this is at the very beginning of the Omicron wave.

C: Yeah, this is real.

S: Oh it's real, it's real, not means that you need to step up your precautions ad least one or two notches, no question. We're not going to the lockdown, we're not doing the things we're doing at the very very beginning when we didn't know.

C: But some places are, I think UK is, you know it's not a... cause Omicron is just rampant in the UK right now. And there are you know─

E: Some cities are taking measures.

C: Yeah, there are new closures, all sorts of things are happening but I think the issue here it's not hell or heaven─

S: It's somewhere in between.

C: ─it's somewhere in between. And so, it's like, new available evidence iterate, new available evidence iterate. It's the only way we're gonna get through this without, you know, really destroying our mental health.

S: Cara, you're saying we should take a Bayesian approach to the event, to the pandemic?

C: I am! (laughs)

J: Cara of course we all agree with you but the core problem is in the United States particularly, you know, half the population is science-inert. Like they're just, they're not factoring in the science, they don't trust the science, they are assuing expertise. you know, how do we as a society, function as a society when we don't operate as a cohesive society?

C: The good news is, it's not half. It really isn't. We're seeing numbers close to 50% in only the most extreme states here in the US. When you actually look at the percentage of the state that's vaccinated in certain states, yeah, it's close to 50% and in many other states it's much higher than that. And so that's the good news. I think it feels sometimes like it's 50%, because the news like we all, like to talk about that, cause it is a real problem. But, you know, when you actually brake it down by population, what 75+, 84% of the US population is fully vaccinated.

B: Yeah but if you look at it globally I think the number I saw today was 57%, which is kinda pathetic.

C: It's scary, but that also is not just about anti-vax rhetoric. So much about the global is about access.

B: Oh yeah, absolutely not, exactly.

C: Yeah, geopolitics.

IC: Sorry, does fully vaccinated mean two shots or boosting now?

S: Boosting.

B: Two shots.

C: I think it depends on where you're looking.

S: With Omicron it means you're boosted.

IC: Right, ok.

C: Yeah, when we say 'fully vaccinated' now we should be referring to 'including your booster'. Which again, here in the US, anybody can just go get for free. You just go. But you're right Jay, I mean it is, obviously that's the big problem and I think that's why it's one of the big news items of the year. Like number one it's the progress we've made in fighting against this pandemic and on the exact equal and opposite pole of that what are we covering week after week after week - vaccine misinformation. And all of the efforts to fight against it. I mean I think that's by far the number one news item of the year is just all of the efforts going in to trying to prevent good public health.

S: Although, let's move to a happier topic─

C: Yes please.

S: ─global warming. Let's talk about global warming.

C: Oh god. Steve. (laughs)

S: Cause this is also a big science news.

C: Bait and switch.

E: It was like 50 degrees today in Connecticut, I love this.

B: We had warmest December that I can remember.

IC: We could grow bananas.

E: Grow bananas? Like Gros Michel bananas?

[talking over each other]

J: Gotta try again Steve.

S: Yeah, absolutely, I got my planters ready to go. So this year we had the IPCC number 6 report, so the updated report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change updating review of the science about climate change. We also had the COP 26 meeting, where world governments got together to talk about whether or not they should do something with an inconclusive outcome. Yeah! (sarcasm) And it's also a year of extreme weather events─

E: Extreme nastiness.

S: ─and trying to make sense of what these extreme weather events mean. You know, we're in a I think a different position than we were a year ago with global warming. I think it's more on everyone's radar. I think the evidence you it's still coming in, it's absolutely clear, that man-made global warming is a thing. It's happening. And we gotta do something about it. But I don't think we've crossed the tipping point of political will where we actually are doing something about it. Certainly in the US.

B: I don't think we ever will.

S: Yeah, we might not. I think, if I had to predict, this is my pessimistic topic. If I had to predict, I would say what's likely going to happen is that most governments are going to do little things where they nibble around the edges, but not gonna really make significant difference in the course of global warming. And, but we are gonna, you know technology will advance until eventually technology will solve the problem in that it will allow us to reduce our carbon emissions. But it will be too late to avoid─

C: Yeah but not before a ton of people die.

S: Yeah, it's gonna be, we're gonna blow past 1.5, we're probably gonna blow past 2.0 degrees C above, you know, pretechnological baseline temperatures.

B: I can make a worse prediction.

S: And we'll see what happens.

E: Or it could be worse.

S: Really the only question at this point is, you know, is the tipping points. Which we can't really predict. You know, will the Antarctic ice sheet fall into the ocean? You know, that kind of thing. If it does, we're pretty screwed. You know, if we dodged that bullet it not gonna be as bad, but you know, we'll find out in a hundred years, but it's you know I predict, yeah, we're not going to successfully, you know, do what we state we should to which is keep you know, warming below 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels. Not gonna happen, we don't have the political will. What's your worst prediction Bob?

B: Worse, in 20 years it's so obviously getting really bad and countries are getting desperate and some country takes on a geoengineering scale effort to deal with it and they screw up. And then cause if you're involved in something geo scale, like say, you're seeding the clouds to you know to and you screw up and you can't reverse it, you can't turn it off, it's like oh boy, we made a mistake.

J: Give us an example I'm not clear.

S: Then we get Snowpiercer, you guys see that show Snowpiercer?

IC: Yep.

E: It's a train, yeah.

S: They tried to fix global warming and they plunged the planet into an ice age.

B: There you go Jay, that's an example. You do something [inaudible] dramatic scale, that the worse case scenario is like altering the environment of the Earth you know increasing the effect dramatically.

S: I know let's push the Earth a little bit further away from the Sun, what could go wrong?

E: That was an episode of Futurama.

C: But the thing Bob that I think is like, yeah, that might happen, you're right that could be like 'worse case scenario' but I think the thing that we often forget because it's too existentially painful to think about is that like we did that, we just don't see it happening on the timescale. Like you're talking about overnight but like this is happening overnight in a geologic sense.

B: Yes, oh absolutely.

S: Totally.

C: Like it is that bad already, there's almost kind of nothing worse. Like, yes, it could always get worse, but like, lot's of people are gonna die, that's where were at.

E: Lot's of animals are gonna die, lots of vegetation is going to die.

C: Oh, of course, I mean that's why the people die, right, is because─

E: The whole chain goes down.

C: Yeah, it's because of drought, it's because of famine, it's because of displacement, it's because of sea-level rise, it's because of disease and pestilence and pandemics and you know all of these things are directly related to climate change.

E: Oh sure.

S: We spoke on the show that aired last week, this is our Fort Collins private show that we did about how fragile our civilization is, like what happened when 20% [inaudible] pooping 20% more at home than at work and how that disrupted the toilet paper supply chain, whatever. But think about how disruptive global warming is going to be. I think the most disruptive of it is going to be the climate refugees.

B: Exactly.

C: Sure.

S: What's gonna happen when we have hundreds of millions of people who no longer could leave where they're living? They're gonna go somewhere, they're not gonna just stay there and die.

C: Yeah, we can't handle the hundreds of thousands of refugees we see now.

S: Right.

C: What happens when that's order of magnitude or two more.

S: That's going to be massively disruptive and you know growing locations are going to shift, but our infrastructure is not going to easily shift along with it, you know, what happens when North American bread basket moves from America to Canada, just as an example. It's going to be extremely disruptive for food production and food supply lines and then of course coastal cities are going to, we're not budgeted you know, for the damage that's gonna be happening to coastal cities.

B: Yeah, basically go Disney World when you can folks.

C: (laughs)

J: I mean I would imagine Steve that some times the right thing to do might be to just quit on that city and go somewhere else.

S: Yeah, but then there's millions of more refugees, right? That's not going to be─

C: Yeah, where would they go?

S: ─look what happened with Catrina and how disruptive that was and people were able to go back, what if they could never go back and like, New Orleans was gone?

B: To be absorbed elsewhere.

S: They would have to be absorbed, yeah, but it's not, it's not just New Orleans, 20 coastal cities all at once.

B: Right. When do you think the excrement gonna hit the spinning blades really hard like, when do you think we're gonna start seeing that level...

E: Within a hundred years.

C: I think the question is, that is the question that is completely based on perspective. It depends on who you are and where you live. The excrement is hitting the spinning blades for shitload of people right now. It's just we're protected.

S: Yeah, I live in the hills of Connecticut.

B: When I say shit hitting the fan I'm talking like Steve said a hundred million climate refugees, that's not happening now, I'm talking about when, but when...

C: It happens slowly but surely. It doesn't happen overnight. That's the whole point.

S: Yeah, there's not gonna be like one line when now it's really happening.

J: Yeah, but Bob, you're missing the point, Bob's saying: 'What is it gonna be? Five years, ten years'─

B: Right.

J: ─Ten years until we hit something that's unavoidably, I know that we're slowly─

C: Yeah, there's not 'hitting anything' it's that every year we look in hindsight and go 'holy shit, how did it get this bad?'.

S: Yeah.

B So Steve, then how 'bout this, Steve you say a hundred million climate refugees, what do you mean then? Is it gonna be 5 million a year for 20 years or is it gonna be... is there gonna be a year when there's gonna be 100 million, what are you talking about then?

S: I don' know.

B: Well that's what I'm asking.

S: Yeah but these are the things that nobody can predict.

C: Yes, those are unanswerable questions.

S: That's too granular, it's too granular Bob.

B: I'm looking for order of magnitude, I'm talking, you're talking 20 years or a 500 years?

C: Not, it's not 500.

S: I wouldn't, no no I think it's probably closer to 20 years, you know, before. We're gonna start, we're already seeing climate refugees, we're gonna start getting into the millions probably withing 20 or 30 years. Again, it depends on variables that even scientists like yep, here's the range of problems─

B: Sure.

S: There's two things that I think are gonna really from reading you know what the scientists say that are gonna drive the climate refugees. One is just that some parts of the world are gonna get too hot to live. They're gonna have unsurvivable hot days more and more frequently.

B: Like, today they may have six or seven days a year where is over a 120 and it's incredibly horrible and people die, but we're gonna transition, those countries are gonna transition to 30, 60, 70 days like that. Where it's basically, you can't live there anymore, you're just basically can't live in that area and that's when you have to get out.

E: Yeah, it becomes death valley.

C: Or even, sorry to interject but or even places where for example it may be livable but the infrastructure, so it's not, we're not talking 120 maybe we're talking 100 but nobody in that town ever had air conditioning put into their home, you know it's just wasn't built that way and so we do see these boundary problems as well it's not always the most extreme version.

S: Then the other thing I think it's gonna do it is a, you know, the coastal cities are gonna get too dangerous you know from sea rise.

C: And we are already seeing that, we're seeing sea water flooding in Bangladesh where the crops aren't growing because they are getting saturated with salt water and they can't withstand that increase in their salination and we're seeing yeah, creep, we're seeing creep in on the cost lines. And even there are islands, I mean there are islands in the Maldives, there are islands in like atolls kind of in the middle of the Pacific where the island is sand bagged. And soon those sand bags won't be enough to keep it above the sea level. Like the whole thing is just gonna disappear. I mean it's happening before our eyes right now it's just very remote from us.

B: Yeah, I mean, and that's kinda the point, we're rapidly approaching the time when figuring it out is irrelevant, cause it's like the die is caskets, it's gonna happen, it's gonna be horrible, we can just mitigate, we can mitigate levels of horribleness.

S: For balance, cause I do think it's gonna suck, there's no way around it. It's already sucking, it's gonna suck a lot more before we really turn this ship around. On the other hand technology is advancing faster than I thought it was, you know like really really nicely in terms of renewable energy, grid storage even nuclear technology, electric cars. It's you know, we are going to you know I think in 20-30 years our energy infrastructure our transportation infrastructure is gonna be awesome. Just because technology is advancing and it will continue to advance and that's really the only thing we got going for us. And the thing is, politicians really can't do much about that. They could make it happen a little faster─

C: In our country you mean, in a country with a kind of democracy we have set up.

S: Absolutely. Industrialized nations I will say. I the poorer nations they basically need our help so that they could bypass coal and get to cleaner energy quicker. That could make a huge difference, so policy can make a huge difference in countries that can't afford to do it on their own. And that's a good investment because that's gonna save trillions of dollars in climate change induced costs.

C: Much like healthcare, much like education the ROI isn't obvious at first, you don't, it doesn't realize at first. We got a great ROI down the line but there's not always a good economic argument for, you know, keeping people alive. For health and wellness.

S: We definitely have to shift, our country was doing best when we were able to making long term investments and the reason, part of the reason for our success economically etc., is because we did, we made massive long term investments in education ,in technology, in infrastructure. And we gotta get back to that mode of doing things, you know, we've been out of it for a long time.

B: We've been living off of that for too long.

S: You know, at the end of the day I wouldn't be surprised it makes almost all the political ranging makes almost no difference in where we end up in 50 years, you know.

C: Yeah, and where we end up in 50 years is complicated question of our health and our wellness, of our survival but it's also question of where is our government, were is our society in 50 years, cause I think that's gonna be affected as well.

S: I agree and that has a lot to do with technology itself, it has a lot to do with social media, the internet, we've talked a lot this year about you know how the social media interacts and effects the flow of information and people's belief systems. And we start, I do see and I've written about a number of articles over the course of this year. I do think, at least scientifically we're starting to get a handle on the negative effect that social media and big internet computer companies have on society and on politics. You can argue that the internet broke democracy. You could make that argument and it's a reasonable argument and highly defensible. And we're gonna need to figure out how to adapt to this brave new world that we find ourselves in. You know 15, 20 years ago, like 'yey! social media! it's democratizing information and helping people communicate all this wonderful stuff is gonna happen! I can go shopping online!'. And then we've seen people close to us get sucked into this vortex of misinformation and it's, we are living in a dystopian future if you compare it to 20 years ago. We are living in the social media dystopian future we never really believe we were gonna get to.

C: One of my favorite news stories of the year was the news stories, I don't remember if I covered it, or somebody else did, about how like the top, the vast majority of misinformation on the internet around Covid and vaccines comes from like 12 people.

S: Yeah the dirty dozen of Covid misinformation and vaccine misinformation.

C: Like and that's the thing we're seeing over and over, there's undo influence on the internet.

S: We basically gave psychopaths and con-artists the keys to the kingdom, is what happened. We had no way of managing that and we don't we still really don't, you know, we're maybe a little bit more savvy about it, some of us, but honestly.

E: Now the cow left the barn.

S: I mean just think about how many people believe demonstrably absurd things and how disconnected we are.

E: And it's not like people didn't have those sort of thoughts before, but it's just so amplified.

B: On steroids. It's been amplified.

C: Yeah it's subjectively worse.

E: It turned into a monster beyond control.

B: And it's something part, it's partly because of something we've been talking about since day one, it's the lack of critical thinking skills, which is critical, I mean evaluating. Imagine if people were everyone was well versed in evaluating evidence, where would we be? If that was, just that. I think we'd be in a much better place and we are you know we're not gonna get there until something like that happens or there much more oversight.

S: Education is always the best option, you know we had that trifecta of scientific literacy, media savvy and critical thinking skills, we're always trying to push those three things and we're suffering now because we have a significant lack of those three things in our society and people are overwhelmed with not only misinformation, with misinformation that's curated for them by an artificially intelligent algorithm that knows them better than they do. We have algorithms that have been optimized to predict what you're going to buy and those same that same technology is being used to predict what you want to watch and what you want to read and it's created this belief system feedback loop that is you know exploiting vulnerabilities in human psychology─

B: That the people believe that the Earth is flat?

E: Psychological perpetual motion machine.

C: It's like we have to add something to the trifecta, you know you said there's the critical thinking, internet literacy and what was the other one?

S: Scientific literacy.

C: Scientific literacy, sorry, and media training or media literacy.

S: Media savvy, yeah.

C: it's like, we have to add accountability, like we have to hold the individual actors accountable who are intentionally for very often political gain forcing misinformation, and we're not.

S: Ian you are our social media expert, what do you think about all this?

IC: (laughs)

B: Solve this, solve this please.

IC: Yeah, I don't, I'm not sure what the solution is. I mean, we don't have enough oversight I guess over the big tech companies and some of them are external to the US, so I mean the Tik-Tok algorithm is 'awesome', cause it delivers such interesting content and I'll say it later but there's couple people on Tik-Tok that are doing science and they're great but it also is like fueling pseudoscience beyond measure. So like, you know, the Gen Z's are all inundated with it and it's like I'm not sure what the thing is. Obviously again it the political will. Will we actually be able to enforce like a these companies to ban these like really dangerous 'speech' if you wanna label that. I don't know, does that brake the freedom of speech thing? I don't think so with you know, private companies, but─

B: Correct.

IC: How do we get that with our political power to say 'hey, can you tell this private company to maybe they need to like figure that out?'. Especially given what is it, section 1.40 or whatever that like keeps them from being sued. Have we kinda shot ourselves in the foot in that situation?

C: Of course.

E: 2.30 I believe is the...

IC: Or is it 2.30 I'm sorry, not 1.40.

C: It's like a boxing match, or like a tournament. You can't just let one guy bring a shank into the ring. All the rules get broke, of course that guy is gonna win every time. And when you look at the algorithms of like is the great science content or the misinformation rising to the top, well, the people who just don't play by the rules very easily can overtake the entire system.

IC: Right.

S: Cara let me ask you a question, what's more deadly a shank or a shiv?

C: Oh, I don't know, what's the difference between shank and a shiv?

S: I think you shank somebody with a shiv.

IC: I think shank is the action.

C: Oh, you might be right you don't bring the shank, oh god.

E: One's a verb, one's a noun.

C: I just made the fatal error like when people say 'uu, I need to itch that', it makes me insane.

S: Yeah, to itch that scratch.

(laughter)

B: You just made a few people insane in our audience.

C: Oh, I'm so sorry you guys I know how painful that can be, it's like when somebody brings a shiv into a boxing match.

S: There you go.

C: Thank you. (laughs)

S: All right, let's pivot to some positive technology news.

IC: Oh god.

(laughter)

IC: Bait and switch.

S: I looked through the news items to try to say what do I think was the again in retrospect when we look back on 2021 what was like a real turning point kinda technology. I think, so two things top my list you guys tell me what's on your list. One was CRISPRoff, remember the CRISPRoff thing?

E: Oh yeah.

C: Yeah that was cool.

S: We could flip genes on and off reversibly and just the potential there just seem so amazing for research and therapeutics. And it also, it's just my representation of just the incredible advances in the genetic technology and CRISPR specifically and you know it is, we are on the steep part of the curve and it's still going, like it's still going, we're still learning like more incredible technology in terms of genetic manipulation. So far, and I think I know I am very optimistic about genetic technology. I don;t think we're gonna abuse it. I think the worse fears─

B: That's adorable

S: Probably not gonna happen, I think because we do, cause it is happening mainly within, you know, medical technology.

C: Yeah, where people are abiding by agreed upon ethics.

S: Right, and we're already seeing medical advances in treatment and everything, we're seeing the benefits of it, you know, it's happening so that's maybe my top list. The other thing that was kinda in the background, we only talked about it a little bit on the show, but over the course of the year I've seen a number of significant advances in quantum computing.

B: Yeah.

C: Mhm, yeah. That's making a lot of like top 10 lists.

S: Yeah, it is, cause I've seen a lot of it, we haven't talked about it every time it's like, oh we can miniaturize this quantum computing chip, that's interesting. All this little obstacles are starting to fall─

B: Yeah, error correcting, it's coming together.

S: Error correcting, it's still may not come to it's you know optimistic fruition, there still may be a deal killer lurking in there that we can't figure out, but the rate at which they are finding solutions to quantum computing problems is very encouraging and I think we may be getting close to this turning point where that's gonna start to become a major player in technology.

B: Yeah I really think so I think quantum computing clearly has quite a future ahead of it and it's the possibilities are really just a mind-blowing but, and I like in that Steve, you know what you just said to I like [inaudible] if you track it for the past year I think it really seems like, you know, that we are, that it's different this past year than it was even for the many years before that, because we're getting, you know they're making such important milestones that there's really not too many of those milestones left before it's we really have something, have a working reactor, that's maybe not commercial grade but at least a test bed that's working and that seems to be not to far away. And once that's done then what comes after that? You have essentially a working commercial reactor, so I think you would agree that this year was kinda special in terms of fusion research because we've made some pretty important milestones, are just falling down.

S: Yeah, we definitely hit, especially with the laser-confined fusion method. We definitely hit some milestones. I still think it's gonna be 2050 before we have like commercial fusion power on the grid but or something like that. But that, and that's soon, think about it, all this technologies we talked about we were just mentioning first mRNA thing, it was 30 years ago. That's the delay to yeah, we got this proof of concept now we now it could work before you actually get something that's in the clinic or making energy or whatever. It could easily be 20-30 years. If I had to guess, I'm still putting it somewhere in the 2050 range and again like quantum computing there still may be deal killers, you know, until you do it, you don't know that you can do it. It could be like a hydrogen thing, like yeah, the hydrogen makes perfect sense except for the fact that we can't figure out how to store it. Will figure that out. And here we are 20 years later.

J: Yeah but Steve artificial intelligence might dramatically speed up our ability to have gains in research.

S: Totally, is that what your vote for technology this year?

J: Well, I mean, I didn't see anything as I'm scrolling through my memory of just last year looking at news items I didn't see any major breakthroughs in AI, it's kinda like battery technology, it's progressing, we're seeing interesting new progress over the year, you know new layers to the complexity of it and what it can do. But at some point we're gonna have a situation where artificial intelligence is going to start to really be able to do things that are gonna speed up our ability to gain knowledge.

B: Yeah, Jay, I totally agree, especially like I talked about this actually one year ago, the AlphaFold and AlphaFold2, that's AI, that's AI mitigated right there and that's gonna, you know being able to determine protein folding that problem has much of it has fallen by the wayside. It's made dramatic, dramatic and very accurate predictions that, and this is, that's AI, that's AI based right there and that there you go that's gonna save us many many years of research and millions and millions of dollars. So this information about protein folding it's gonna come fast they're releasing huge libraries of protein, very accurate protein predictions and that's all AI dude and yes, we're gonna be seeing a lot of that and that's always a safe bet to talk about it at the end of every year is AI research.

J: But Bob we might have you know a computer system and you know this is where these you know fields kind of a criss-cross, concentric circles.

B: Exactly.

J: If we had quantum computing and quantum computing can help artificial intelligence research or speed that up, right you know these can support each other but─

B: Feedback yeah.

J: ─imagine, and I know we've talked about this on the show but it's just a fun thought experiment, you know imagine where we're at the point where we're posing questions to artificial intelligence, like, what can we do about the grid and battery storage.

S: So Jay, recently I wrote 2 articles that are about research that was augmented by AI. One we talked about on the show, the xenobots, the fact that AI was able to run billions of simulations and figure out the optimal shape of these living robots, these xenobots, but the other one which we didn't talk about on the show was also using AI. So we use AI to test the structure of potential solar cells, photovoltaic cells to make them more efficient. What configuration wold be more efficient. But again there's like so many different, like almost virtually infinite configurations. So now we have an AI algorithm that will predict which configuration will be more efficient, which we can then test with the AI to test how efficient they should be.

E: Yeah, cut out the fat and go for the meat.

B: Exactly.

S: We are literally, we are doing years of research in hours. This is one of the I think the most fulfilled promises of future technology. We are already living in an age where AI is doing months or years or even decades of research in hours or days or weeks.

B: That's what I'm talking about.

S: It's happening, it's happening.

C: And across almost every discipline, that's the other cool thing.

S: Absolutely.

C: It's happening in health care, it's happening in material science it's happening you know in engineering it's happening everywhere.

J: That might be the element though, guys like, you know earlier Steve said 'technology might save us' and Cara you were like, 'you know, come on, is it really gonna, is it really gonna save us>', I think─

'C: I was saying it's not gonna save those of us who don't have access to it, but go ahead.

J: ─that's true, you know when you say 'us', we're talking about pockets of us.

C: Right right, exactly, that's the whole point.

J: I do in a weird kind of was as if we're living in our own simulation like the world is falling apart in front of our eyes, look at the last ten years when we can literally point our fingers at things that has screwed up the world significantly that didn't exist 30 years ago, you know, like the Internet, you know, for good and bad the Internet has done a lot of bad. And then you look at artificial intelligence and you look at like achievements in science and it's almost like this race happening. What's gonna win out, is it gonna, is the best properties of human kind gonna win out over the worse properties of human kind. I kinda look at it like we're in a footrace now to the finish line, you know what's gonna be our ultimate result here. You know cause I, global warming is one of those things that could you know it could take us out.

C: It's an eschatological risk.

J: Right. And then on the other hand you look at artificial intelligence and you're like we might have a machine answer our problems. Give us the actual answers to the questions that we need right now that could happen, we could be within 10 years of that happening.

S: Jay, we have the answer man, it's 42.

(laughter)

E: AI said so.

J: It's a funny way to look at it, it's just an interesting and funny way the reality that we live in, we have such amazing things happening where I, I'm you know, mRNA and the whole platform. I know that we've been working on it for 30 years but man did it come like right when we needed it. mRNA was luckily there when this pandemic started to squeeze the life out of this planet.

E: Yeah, thank goodness, thank goodness.

J: If it weren't for scientists and engineers and researchers we would've been f'd without that mRNA technology. We would have been in a bad shape.

S: There were other vaccines, there were other vaccines.

[Talking over each other]

C: They were not as good, we already know that.

S: Enable us to change the vaccine to keep up with new variants to maybe tackle other diseases like I know they're working on an HIV mRNA-based vaccine. Yeah, that technology, we're just seeing the beginnings of it. It's like finally we're working on this technology for 30 years, now we've crossed this line to applications then the applications are gonna start coming fast and furious.

J: And you know right next to a CRISPR, kicking ass. I'm expecting like some remarkable things out of CRISPR in the next 10 years. Like we are gonna see things that humanity has had to deal with from the very beginning just not be a problem anymore.

S: Did we talked about using CRISPR to sex animals, did we talk about that on the show? I don't remember.

E: I don't recall.

S: There's another CRISPR news not too long ago where, so you know now like in the chicken industry they basically sacrifice─

J: Chicken!

S: ─all the males and they raise all the females cause they're, it's more cost-effective that way. But how, what if we could just magically make all of them female.

E: There you go.

C: I see, so not just sex them like to determine their sex, but actually...

E: Jurassic Park, Chicken Park.

S: No you can make them all female. So yeah, and they've done it. They've done it with CRISPR, you know, you have a system where there's like a suicide switch that only kills all the males. Or you could kill all the females, or whatever. This is like at the embryo stage, so they are not born as chicks. For research and for you know food production this could be a massive efficiency gain using CRISPR.

C: And you're saying like we're already doing it.

S: It's happening.

C: That's such a cool example like we've been, we talk a lot on the show about 5 to 10 years, 5 to 10 years or 10 to 50 years with the example of like quantum computing and...

B: Fusion research.

C: And AI. But I think one of the things that we talked about a lot this year that sort of at the translational edge, sort of this is now the accumulation of the previous several decades of research is brain-computer interfaces. Like we've done a lot of stories and I wonder sometimes if it's just like our bias because it's super interesting to us.

B: A little bit.

S: No that's happening.

C: Yeah, it's freaking happening! And it's amazing how many lives are actually being affected now and that you know we're still sort of on a precipice in terms of like really good trials are showing all these amazing promise in human beings now. Which means that it's not going to be long before these things and some of them are already available clinically but before it's like a regular option for individuals to be able to utilize these interfaces.

B: Doctor McCoy was clearly wrong referring to Pike and saying that we couldn't tap into the human brain.

C: (laughs)

B: That prediction did not panned out.

E: Right? Right?

B: We clearly can and brain-computer interfaces are showing that. But now that I got the floor finally I gotta do a five minute rewind and I wanna just express how happy I am that Steve is finally seeing things my way when he was talking about you know doing decades of research over the weekend and that's exactly what I'm talking about, because I agree with Steve as he often says so much in science research is incremental and it's true it's very incremental you're not gonna see big leaps and over 20 years even minimal incremental research improvements can have dramatic changes and that is absolutely true. But as I been saying for a long time we are now reaching the point where we can automate certain things like research and we will see the day in our lifetimes where we have dramatic far beyond incremental improvements in scientific discovery based things like AI and automated scientific research so we're gonna be seeing that. A lot things will stay incremental, but I think in the future a lot of things are also gonna go beyond incremental advances when you can do, when you can literally do you know months of research in a day at least months of human level research in a day.

C: Yeah I think computational chemistry is an area where that's just exploding, like when we're talking about looking for affinity of molecules, how well do they fit in certain receptors when you can just like model these things out using algorithms and having these calculations run in the background it's amazing how much we know now about the shapes and affinities of just different drugs and how they fit in different places. And just like modeling proteins structures and things like that. Things that used to be so painstaking in the lab now it's like, oh the computer just runs it in the background, so cool.

IC: So with the brain interface how long till I can order a Grubhub with a thought I was just wondering of you.

B: (laughs)

E: Yeah, right, let's talk about real world applications.

C: That is probably honestly more of a regulatory question than an actual technology cautions I think.

B: Yes.

IC: Ok, ok, fine...

C: I think we're kinda close to that.

IC: I'm excited.

S: I mean that's the, that's the killer app turning point, you know, when do we get to that point like with the smart phone was just that killer app that made a huge change. The technology was incremental but the, that came out and suddenly we were all using smartphones.

E: Change the world.

S: We're gonna get these incremental changes with brain-machine interface then there will be some we'll cross over some boundary and somebody will come out with something and then suddenly we are all jacking in. You know and then that's, that's what's gonna happen.

C: I do think though that we probably could be closer to that than we are and I shouldn't say could as in that what we want, but we don't want that, there's a really big fear around what that means, what are the implications of being able to order Grubhub with your thought.

IC: I mean a lot of cheesecake in my case, so...

(laughter)

E: Yeah, weight gain.

B: I think the pandemic ponds were a lot.

E: Don't remind me.

S: All right a couple of pseudoscience things for the year, so we are talking about science of the year, so much to talk about, we cannot talk about all the science of 2021. Couple of pseudoscience things peeked above the herd for me. I think the biggest pseudoscience story of the year was the fact that UFOs are back.

IC: They never left.

S: Didn't we deal with those 20 years ago?

C: Apparently not.

E: Philipp Klaas wrote that book.

S: Yeah we had the, the Pentagon UFO videos and then that just sparked the whole new generation of people and just terrible but it's all the same crap, it's all the same crap for the last 50 years.

E: Blobsquatch.

S: The same arguments the same low-grade evidence it's just recycled all of the crappy arguments we've been debunking for decades.

IC: So are people using an app to like pixelate and blur their photos, cause I would imagine they are so crisp nowadays.

S: Yeah, right?

E: Well, it;s the Navy, I think the Navy footage that came out is that everybody sort of pointed to say, hey, look this is official. Now you are seeing THE TRUTH, finally, they finally released this classified footage and they can't even explain what's going on, which is...

S: And it's still fuzzy blobs of light.

E: That's right.

IC (laughs)

E: And that's I think our best interviews of the year was when we had Mick West on who did a nice in depth analysis of those videos and was able to─

B: Yeah, he was great.

S: Yeah.

E: ─give some nice explanations about what exactly we were seeing.

S: Yeah we're getting, we're just about to shift to SGU in 2021 when we talk about some more of the interviews. The other one was more recent thing that we haven't talked about on the show but needs to get mentioned: Oliver Stone is back with more JFK conspiracy nonsense.

E: Oh yeah.

S: Doubling down on the JFK conspiracy crapola, you know, saying, making a string of claims that have already been completely debunked and you know you wonder if it's gonna tart the conversations all over again. But you know it's bad and the I was reading a good article by Max Boot, who was making a point that you know the JFK conspiracy theories that paved the road for all the QAnon modern crap that we're─

E: Sure.

S: You convinced a generation of people that the government can pull off lie about something like murdering a president and they can believe anything about the government.

E: 9/11 truthers.

S: Sure.

C: Right, well that just answered my question as to why, you know I'm always so curious as to why certain pseudo scientific things capture so many people's imagination, like why that, you know, but you're right it's sort of is like a deep state I'm an insider, you know I have that power cause I know something other people didn't know appeal that conspiracy theories have.

S: Yeah yeah, does anybody have any other pseudoscience that stuck out for them this year?

B: Well I mean we gotta say something about anti-vaxxers, right?

S: Well, yeah, we kinda covered that in the Covid segment, but you're right.

B: I know, but just throw, mention it, to me, that's number one, that's number on to me.

E: What about Sri Lanka being the first country in the world to ban inorganic fertilizer and crop protection products.

C: Well but didn't they just like unban them really quickly right after that.

E: Oh yeah they did, they did a fast turnaround, because that's how catastrophic that decision was.

S: There's always complicated politics behind it, but the are relevant to the main point though, you can't just suddenly ban fertilizer, you know and you're gonna still produce all the food that you need to produce but it was a good microcosm of the world can't do that either, half of our food comes from artificial fertilizer and we're already using all of the manure, so how are we gonna suddenly you know fertilize you know the other half of our food production if we ban artificial fertilizer, it's nonsense, you can't do it.

C: There's kind of a win against pseudo-science I think we shouldn't fail to mention which is, you remember those miracle mineral solution idiots.

E: Uuu, bleach.

C: Right? They were prosecuted this year, so that's good.

E: Yes.

C: So that's like an ongoing kind of fight but it's always good when, when we're able to step up against this toxic, god this unproven, cause it's one thing to be antivax it's another thing to actively promote.

S: To peddle poison.

C: Yeah, poison. And of course we thought the 2020 was the year of that 'what if I shine a light inside of your body' and hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and all of this but you know it's just spilled right over into 2021.

S: Yeah, yeah, Ivermectin was the snake oil of 2021, absolutely.

C: Yeah, for sure.

S: Alex Jones took a hit this year, so that was good.

IC: Oh yeah.

E: Yes, yes.

C: Oh hell yeah.

IC: Very good.

C: Hells yeah.

E: Go down.

IC: Yeah I found an interesting one on Tik-Tok no less, which is an individual or perhaps a community that believe the Roman Empire never existed.

(laughter)

C: Cool.

E: That was a Saturday Night Live skit─

[Talking over each other]

E:─with Mike Myers way back when actually. The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, discuss.

IC: Discuss, very good.

S: Discuss.

C: (laughs) Discuss.

E: And that's where it was born.

S: The Roman Empire never existed.

C: Have you seen Ian all over Tik-Tok, cause I've seen this like, I've seen screen-shares from, more from Facebook I think it might be a slightly different demographic, but shared all over Reddit of like these weird people who are all about pee. And they like─

IC: Ugh, yes. Boil it and then drink it.

C: ─drink pee, and they put it in their hair.

IC: Put it in their eyes, for like a glaucoma.

C: Yes! They do pee eye-drops, they call themselves like a uri...

E: Peeons?

B: The Pee People?

S: The Stream Team?

(laughter)

B: Nice, nice.

C: It's bananas, and the crazy thing is how often─

S: Oh they don't pee on bananas, do they?

IC: No it's not bananas.

C: (laughs) ─No. How often, I remember seeing a meme of this person who was like oh my gosh the reason with him was so strong I loved it, it was a screen grab of somebody talking about using, like, they have aged urine.

IC: Yes.

C: And unfiltered urine, they have all these weird things that they use. So using aged urine for their hair as a natural detoxifier.

IC: Sure.

C: Like the irony of people who fight against your kidneys, like, that's the stuff your body was like, we can't, we have no use for this anymore, like this is something we don't want in our body and they're saying let's capture this and us it to actually detox. What? It was already detoxed!

E: It doesn't have to make sense.

IC: Yeah, the Internet was a mistake.

B: Oh my god.

IC: I feel like it was made up on Reddit and then people actually believed it and started doing it, it's just like one of those things.

S: Well you know it's part of ayurvedic medicine, drinking pee.

IC: True.

S: So it didn't come out of nowhere.

C: Oh it's a whole thing, it's called urine culture.

IC: Is it urine culture? I see urine therapy or something.

C: Urine therapy, yeah.

IC: I mean it's all that kind of stuff.

E: I call it you're in the spotlight.

IC: Oh boy.

S: Urine culture is what we do in a hospital to see if you have a UTI.

IC: (laughs)

C: Yeah, exactly! (laughs)

E: And if you're urine is red, did you eat beets recently?

(laughter)

C: Oh yes, very important.

S: It's more of a mauve but yeah.

(laughter)

Favorite Segments from the Year (1:04:22)

S: Let's talk about some of your favorite segments from the year, we got a few votes from listener, episode 810 Cara said: 'Don't give the AI lasers'.

(laughter)

S: In that same episode Bob said: 'Fear minus death equals fun!'.

(laughter)

B: I didn't coin that, but I'll take the credit.

IC: Partial credit.

C: You could do an entire psychological study on that that's so true. That's what a roller-coaster is.

S: Evan.

E: Oh I said something?

S: In 808 Evan said: 'Tidal braking is a a drag'.

(laughter)

S: That's an Evanism, absolutely.

E: Totally.

B: Really? Tidal braking is a drag? I love it. And I love tidal braking.

S: Bob said, 828 Bob said: 'Organisms that breath through their rectum are asspirators'

(laughter)

B: That's awesome.

J: Bob that's awesome.

S: That's good for you, that was very good.

(laughter)

S: And 813 I said 'The Jaz drive was the A-track of data storage'.

(laughter)

E: Sure as heck was.

IC: True.

S: That's a pretty nerdy joke, but yeah. You guys have any votes?

C: Oh gosh, we got so many e-mails for people voting for Jay's meltdown about how there's no timezone.

B: Yeah.

E: Oh yes.

C: In the North Pole.

S: Yeah, it was a bit of a recent bias in terms of [inaudible].

C: (laughs) But it was really funny the attempts to argue that nothing could actually happen, was that the, what was the actual argument?

J: I just said you couldn't, Steve couldn't if somebody say hey what's the temperature out?

C: Oh no temperature!

E: It's tied to time.

J: And if you can't say what time it is, then you can't actually like do that.

S: There's still a now but here's the thing─

(laughter)

S: ─I left it all in, I didn't edit any of it out, cause it was [inaudible]

(laughter)

IC: I heard it, it was fun.

S: Do you guys have a favorite interview from the year?

B: Yes!.

S: There were some good ones this year.

E: Very good.

B: My favorite? David Copperfield and Richard Wiseman.

E: Yeah, that was special.

S: That was awesome.

B: Come on!

E: That was special.

J: That was by far my favorite.

B: That was my favorite and I love the Julia Galef one was a fun interview, interesting interview.

E: Very good interviews this year.

S: David Copperfield was so charming.

B: He was good man.

S: You know the thing is, he's a mega, like, first of all he is a billionaire, this guy and he's a mega super star magician and you never know how they're gonna be, right, you know, they could be and it's not like they necessarily have to be an asshole just not everybody─

C: Don't have enough time for you.

S: ─yeah, whatever, they could be very busy, they may not be comfortable in their celebrity, they're really shy when they come off as aloof.

B: Lot's of possibilities.

S: Lot of possibilities, he was so, nice, down-to-earth, you know, exactly what you would want a celebrity to be he was all of it just an awesome guy and Richard Wiseman says that's him, it's not an act, that's him, he's just a super nice guy. It's always nice to discover that.

B: Yeah the fact though that, that he was with Richard for the interview and Richard had spent obviously spent a lot of time with him and did this project with him that made me very optimistic that he would be a decent guy, because you know, Richard is awesome so it increased the odds in my in my estimation.

S: It may have made him more comfortable too to have a friend on the show with him, you know which is why it was a good─

B: Yeah that's true.

S: ─doing a double interviews can be is a can be really good. Can work really well. So yeah, that was definitely the funnest interview that we did. I just thought that I mention the Philip Goff argument of interview that we did, he is a philosopher we were talking about the multiverse, right, so this─

C: Oh and panpsychism, right, isn't that this thing?

S: Yeah, he's into panpsychism we didn't do that interview with him, we might do that.

C: Gotcha.

S: Jay, will do it next year. But we talked bout multiverse. The thing that I liked about this we, I think we took like three takes on this topic on the show, I wrote about it like two or three times on my blog, this was like the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around this year in terms of the skeptical things that we talked about. And it was really fun to like, just try to work through logic ally, the question is, can we infer multiverse from the fact that our Universe is very unlikely to exist, in a way that can support life. And you know so we like incrementally worked through the logic of this argument.

C: Oh yeah, those e-mail chains were intense.

E: It was looong.

S: It was intense, what he was saying you can't infer multiverse and I was saying yeah, you know, you pretty much can and it came down to the subtlest bit of logic, we like, we and it was also just like a great example of if you are not like waging war with somebody you are actually trying to find common ground, trying to understand the other persons position and work together to move forward we actually like incrementally was like yeah, we both agree on this, let's go step by step and see what we can agree on and it came down to like this nuance which we couldn't resolve which was whether or not the question is what's the probability of our Universe existing and supporting life versus what's the probability of any Universe, some Universe existing that could support life. And you know we were unable to resolve which was the correct question but I just thought that whole process was awesome.

B: That's almost, that's a rare best case scenario, isn't it Steve? I mean, that doesn't happen very often.

S: Yeah that's why, that's why it was so much fun.

B: Right, cause often you know, there's too much emotion and there's too much pride wrapped into a discussion and it's just you can't get pass a certain level. But here in this example you went to pretty much the nth degree and you know.

S: We took it to the end, we took it to the end.

B: Took it to the end, took it to the end and you found that subtle little nuance that neither of you really knew at the beginning but you discovered what that was the point that neither of you would go pass.

E: Yeah worked on it together.

B: The conversation is done and you know exactly what the problem was that's great. Unfortunately too rare.

E: Enlightening, and it was enlightening.

C: I don't think it's all that rare in academic circles or among philosophers.

S: No, it isn't.

B: Exactly.

C: And that's really what he is─

S: He's a philosopher.

C: ─academic philosopher.

B: Right, in our, in my experience.

S: In the skeptical universe it's very rare.

B: Normal people, yes.

S: Cause we're dealing with assholes all the time.

C: Like on Facebook it's quite rare.

S: It was pleasant because it was it was like a brake from arguing with people who have no interest in finding common ground. You know like I get so tired of just this endless discussions online and then comment section and dealing with all these people who are just insincere and can't logic their way out of a paper bag and don't want to.

E: No they don't pay attention

S: They are [inaudible] their side and they're not trying to come to a, so this was just such a pleasant departure from that.

B: That's good a way to put it.

S: And it was like this is what we should be doing, remove all the politics and ideology and emotion and juat have a discussion where you try to find common ground and that's gonna get you to the best place, you know.

B: Two Vulcans talking.

S: Yeah.

(laughter)

J: Steve I enjoyed talking to Andy Weir.

S: Oh yeah, he's fun, he was great.

B: Oh yeah, that was a great interview too, dammit.

J: Yeah, he, he's one of those people, the second we initiate a conversation with him it sounds like we're talking to one of our friends and you could tell that he, he is the same like level of geek-dome that we're at, like he knows all of our references, he gets all of our inside jokes, he knows like science and fantasy genres very very well where we're like I just feel very comfortable talking to him, he's a really really nice guy.

S: Absolutely. Our first interview of the year was Phil McAlister from NASA always fun to talk about what NASA's up to. We had two more NASA people at NECSS this year so a lot of NASA contact, it was great.

J: Those two talks were fantastic I mean that was going over you know the Artemis program and what the Moon missions are gonna be like and then finding out a lot of things like having a NASA scientist reveal to us that we're not gonna have one of those space stations where people you know─

S: No artificial gravity. Forget about it.

J: ─no artificial gravity.

S: No shielding, yeah, we're gonna get there fast, that's our solution.

J: Get there fast, oh my go I'll never forget that, how are we gonna solve this? Gotta get there fast.

(laughter)

B: Not only get there fast but then be able to deal with the medical problems.

S: Yeah, mitigate the radiation.

B: Yeah have treatments ready.

IC: Jay, where should I re-watch those? Where can I find those?

(laughter)

B: I thought those tapes were destroyed.

IC: Sorry shameless plug.

J: Ian aren't those, aren't they in the aether?

IC: No (sighs) Jay, necss.org you can go to necss.org and sign up [inaudible].

S: Ian, that's why you're here.

J: You can go to necss.org it's never too late to buy a ticket for NECSS because the entire conference is recorded, you can just, go on whenever you like.

E: Cool.

S: There you go.

B: Bob I'm surprised you didn't mentioned Izzy Lawrence who did a whole interview about pirates.

J: Arrrr!

B: Oh yeah, that's what happens, you know when you get in your late fifties you forget all this great stuff, it's like I remember the interviews we did it the past month, but before that, eeeee, who knows what we did.

C: Yeah what year was that, I don't know, that was this year and also I've no reference.

B: You're right Steve, thanks for reminding us.

S: Sure.

C: Like 2021 weirdly lasted a month and also infinity, like it's such a frustrating experience, I don't know what happened this year, I really did have to look at every episode just to remember what this year looked like, because yeah it's oh god─

E: It was a blur.

C: ─it's such a blur.

S: And we have to mention Craig Good cause otherwise he'll be the only interview we didn't mention.

E: Oh gosh (laughs)

S: He was, you know Craig is a friend of ours, we first knew him he was working at Pixar, he's obviously had, no longer there.

B: Oh my god great guy.

S: Yeah we talked to him about his book Relax and Enjoy Your Food he was just has his science communicator hat on and it was a really fun discussion, he did a great job with that.

B: Yeah that was. Learned a lot.

Psychic Precitions ()

The rogues review predictions for YYYY and make their own predictions for YYYY.

Favorite News Items

News_Item_1 ()

• [link_URL publication: title]

News_Item_2 ()

• [link_URL publication: title]

News_Item_3 ()

• [link_URL publication: title]

News_Item_4 ()

• [link_URL publication: title]

News_Item_5 ()

• [link_URL publication: title]

Science or Fiction ()

Answer	Item
Fiction
Science

Host	Result
'

Rogue	Guess

Voice-over: It's time for Science or Fiction.

Item #1: _item_text_from_show_notes_ Item #2: _item_text_from_show_notes_ Item #3: _item_text_from_show_notes_ Item #4: _item_text_from_show_notes_

Skeptical Quote of the Week ()

TEXT
– AUTHOR (YYYY-YYYY), _short_description_

Signoff/Announcements ()

S: —and until next week, this is your Skeptics' Guide to the Universe.

S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information on this and other episodes, please visit our website at theskepticsguide.org, where you will find the show notes as well as links to our blogs, videos, online forum, and other content. You can send us feedback or questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. Also, please consider supporting the SGU by visiting the store page on our website, where you will find merchandise, premium content, and subscription information. Our listeners are what make SGU possible.

[top]                        

S: Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is produced by SGU Productions, dedicated to promoting science and critical thinking. For more information, visit us at theskepticsguide.org. Send your questions to info@theskepticsguide.org. And, if you would like to support the show and all the work that we do, go to patreon.com/SkepticsGuide and consider becoming a patron and becoming part of the SGU community. Our listeners and supporters are what make SGU possible.

[top]                        

[top]                        

Today I Learned

• Fact/Description, possibly with an article reference
• Fact/Description
• Fact/Description

References

Vocabulary