1:59

point of view around progress

2:02

and technology, how things are good. So thank you for

2:04

that to keep me from being

2:06

a hack. So let's just start

2:08

at the most basic level with the following question.

2:12

In your book's title, there's a reference to

2:14

a sci-fi world that we were promised.

2:18

Describe for me the world that,

2:20

let's say, we're having this conversation

2:22

in 1950. What world would

2:24

we have expected to come about over the next 40 to 50 years?

2:28

Well, that world was actually fashion

2:31

fairly concretely in miniature.

2:34

In 1964, the New York World's

2:38

Fair, there was a kind of a quasi-scene

2:42

park ride called Futurama, which took

2:44

people through this little model of the world

2:46

of the future. And

2:49

that model, it had everything you might imagine

2:51

from that era. It had space colonies,

2:54

it had undersea cities, it

2:56

had super highways

2:59

going through cities with mile-high skyscrapers.

3:02

So that was what is now called sort of retro

3:05

futurist. That was the

3:08

vision. But whatever the specifics of

3:10

that vision, and you also saw it in things like the Jetsons

3:12

and so forth, was the idea that economic growth

3:18

and technological progress would

3:20

for sure

3:21

continue at the rapid

3:24

pace people were experiencing, but might

3:26

even accelerate. Listen, back then,

3:28

you didn't have all these long-range

3:31

economic forecasts from Wall

3:33

Street or the Federal Reserve. But

3:35

the people who did do that kind of thing, they

3:38

thought we were in a period of acceleration.

3:41

So it was only going to get better. So whatever

3:44

the specifics of that vision, of course, you

3:46

know, the flying cars and all that, it was

3:48

going to be pretty fantastic. And

3:51

the only problem we were going to face

3:53

was dealing with all that rapid

3:55

progress that we made. It

3:57

would be so rapid, it would drive us all crazy. But

4:00

one thing they're all sure of, we

4:03

were going to see bigger things, greater

4:05

things. And by

4:07

this point, by 2023, we

4:10

would be well on our way to mastering the solar

4:13

system.

4:14

And this is where this gets really interesting.

4:16

I love how you rooted us in the retrofuturism

4:20

of the 1960s. I

4:22

wonder to what degree

4:25

is our failure to achieve

4:27

some of that vision, a consequence

4:29

of failure, a consequence of shattered dreams

4:32

versus actually just turned out that wasn't a practical

4:34

thing. Like, let's think of the flying car.

4:37

My favorite response to the flying car is,

4:39

look, we have trouble driving

4:41

in two dimensions. We don't need to add

4:43

a third dimension. Let's do a variety

4:45

of different policies that can involve just as

4:47

much technological advance, just as

4:49

much innovation, this, this, or that, but focus in

4:51

kind of that direction. So what's the, and also we

4:54

could apply the same thing to undersea cities and

4:56

moon colonies. So what's the gap between

4:58

this retrofuturistic vision

5:00

just wasn't actually practical and

5:03

therefore we affirmatively chose as a society

5:05

not to do it versus no, we just

5:08

kind of gave up when we should have kept pushing

5:10

in the right direction. What's the gap between those two?

5:12

Well, I think the, the gap is

5:15

far narrower than I might have

5:17

imagined when I first began

5:20

writing this, which was the

5:23

early days of the pandemic, you know,

5:25

like probably a lot of people have books coming out right

5:27

now, probably in, you know, the summer

5:29

of 2020. And

5:31

in that time, not only have

5:34

we seen continuing advances in biotechnology

5:38

and genetics, you know, we already had CRISPR

5:40

and then the, and then the mRNA

5:42

vaccines, but also since then

5:45

we've seen continued success

5:47

with space and SpaceX and bringing down the

5:49

costs of space launches, which was

5:52

a massive barrier. Just

5:54

the economics of getting, you know,

5:56

a pound of anything into space was

5:58

a massive barrier. story of that space

6:01

vision. We've seen,

6:04

at this point, it appears to be a pretty significant

6:06

leap forward in artificial intelligences.

6:08

And all those visions

6:11

of the future thought there'd be

6:14

some sort of super intelligent computer

6:17

at some point. And you saw

6:20

that in 2001, Space Odyssey and Star Trek. And

6:24

the advances we've seen both in small

6:26

nuclear fission reactors and nuclear fusion.

6:28

I think when you put all those together, a

6:31

lot of those visions, which required

6:35

smart computers, powerful

6:38

energy sources, the ability

6:41

to get into space cheaply, all

6:44

those things seem to be maybe

6:46

happening now. And I don't think it's out

6:48

of the question to say, why

6:51

didn't they happen decades ago? Is it just the

6:53

natural sort of pace of invention

6:56

or progress? Or did

6:58

we do things that actually slowed

7:00

that progress down? And whatever the exact

7:03

form, and this is

7:05

key. I'm not saying, here is my

7:08

vision of the future. And if only we

7:10

had a Department of the Future in Washington.

7:14

People sitting around a table with flat screens,

7:16

TVs, looking

7:19

at different studies and charts, they could plan

7:21

this exact vision. That's

7:24

not what I'm saying. Whatever that vision is exactly,

7:27

I think we could have had the kind

7:29

of growth and technological

7:32

advances that would enable

7:34

us to create the kind of vision that we as society and

7:37

individually would like to see.

7:40

So I'll take the example. Listen,

7:42

I don't know if it's flying

7:45

cars. And a lot of visions of

7:47

flying cars are actually powered by some sort

7:49

of super science technology.

7:53

It's not just jet

7:56

turbines or something. It's some sort of anti-gravity

7:58

device. And whether we can have had that. We

8:01

all have our individual flying car or something like

8:03

what we're seeing now, which is

8:05

really kind of an air taxi system.

8:08

And maybe it'll be electric and autonomous.

8:10

Again, the exact form it takes, I don't know.

8:12

But I think that the thrust of that vision

8:15

back then, we absolutely

8:17

could have achieved and achieved it earlier.

8:20

See, and in your answer, I like

8:22

you making reference to Star Trek, because that

8:24

reference actually gets at the actual

8:26

title of the book, which is conservative.

8:30

The conservative futurist, we're discussing conservative

8:33

futurism here, because as anyone who knows

8:35

Star Trek knows, Star Trek is a deeply

8:38

progressive show. Like

8:41

it's, I'm a Star Trek nerd, so I could talk,

8:43

you know, there's a couple of Starship enterprises back there. But

8:45

I can talk about this. In Star Trek, the key

8:47

thing is World War Three happens. And from the ashes

8:50

of World War Three, you have a

8:52

post scarcity society emerge

8:55

via replicators and basically rejecting capitalism.

8:57

There's a scene in Star Trek First Contact where Captain

8:59

Picard is shocked at the existence of money

9:02

when he goes back in time to the 1990s. So

9:04

the way that we get to that society is

9:07

not private markets, not by a private

9:09

market. It's very top down. It's we emerge

9:11

out of economic ruin and devastation.

9:14

How does that vision of how we get there

9:16

contrast with the conservative

9:19

part of the way you articulate this?

9:21

Well, my vision, the conservative part

9:23

of the futurism, and it's not that we've talked

9:25

about for a few moments here about sort

9:27

of the futuristic vision. The conservative

9:30

vision is really a building

9:33

upon what I think is the the valuable

9:37

inheritance of

9:39

the past that we enjoy as Americans

9:41

and in the West and is inheritance of

9:44

political freedom and economic

9:47

freedom, liberal

9:49

democracy, free markets. I

9:52

think upon such things,

9:55

a better world will be

9:57

built. And I think That

10:02

Edmond Burke talked about

10:04

the connection that we feel between

10:06

the past and the future.

10:08

So to me, as I –

10:12

I'm – I guess I'm a self-described conservative.

10:15

I work at a center, right? Think tank, I'm not going

10:17

to pretend that I don't love a good tax

10:19

cut. But

10:21

I think sort of the deeper message here

10:24

is that what I want to conserve

10:26

is our sort of liberal tradition.

10:30

And this is probably as good a time to make

10:32

a point is that you do not have to be

10:35

a center, right person to

10:38

enjoy this book or to

10:41

have – or to

10:43

think hard about the kind of future that

10:45

you would like to create. And I think – and

10:47

something I called up-wing, I think if

10:49

you think we can have – that human

10:52

beings have the tools

10:55

and the wisdom and the agency

10:58

to solve problems, not

11:00

retreat, but to go forward and solve

11:02

problems, big problems, not

11:05

just flying cars, but

11:09

radically reducing global poverty, making

11:13

us healthier and solving big diseases. You

11:16

know, dealing with climate change

11:18

in a way that doesn't require everybody to live

11:20

poorer lives. If you think that

11:24

those goals are worth attacking

11:27

and that we have – and that we need to have the tools to

11:29

do it, then this is a book for you. You

11:32

don't have to – you don't have to want a 15% capital

11:35

gains tax rate to –

11:39

as awesome as that would be – to like to

11:41

enjoy this book. And I think

11:43

connect with this book. It

11:46

is not a partisan book, but it is

11:48

a book that I think sees

11:51

the world as people –

11:53

and they have this on both sides, people who really don't

11:56

want to do that, who don't want to embrace risk,

11:58

who want a different kind of future. society

12:00

that is about stasis and

12:03

stagnation and fearing

12:05

the future. I read a lot

12:07

in this book about Herman Kahn, former

12:12

head of the Hudson Institute. I

12:14

work so shout out to your

12:17

part of our lifestyle. Yes.

12:19

A long time ago, and great

12:22

nuclear war theorists turned sunny futurist.

12:25

And when he died in 1983, President Reagan said Herman

12:28

Kahn was a futurist who

12:31

embraced the future. And it was at a time

12:34

where a lot of people call themselves futurists did

12:36

not. So that's what I'm talking about. If you want to embrace the

12:38

future, think it can be better. I think this is

12:40

a great book for you.

12:42

And I want to offer you a quick compliment. I said

12:44

this before we started recording, but I was not not

12:46

surprised, Clint, I've known your work for especially

12:49

your work on, you know, startups and job creation. I've known

12:51

it for a while. So I knew you weren't a hack, but

12:53

I really want to highlight the worst case scenario

12:55

for conservative futurism would have been

12:58

and, you know, our failure to really

13:00

double down on tax cuts in 2005. Yeah,

13:03

you could have you could have written that. You're like, we

13:05

were this close, Marcia, you have to understand

13:07

the real if we just hit 14.8 instead

13:10

of 15.2. That's that is very much not the

13:14

book. So I want all of the left members

13:16

of the audience to I think embrace what you're

13:18

articulating and to kind of think about like from your ideological

13:20

perspective, and we'll actually get into upwind because

13:22

I think it's a very important addition here. But

13:24

here's something I want to really focus on. So to get kind of personal

13:27

for a second, I'm your your

13:29

Greek Orthodox, correct?

13:31

I'm not Greek Orthodox.

13:34

I am Greek was not raised Greek

13:36

Orthodox. I'm also this is the

13:38

the the mystery given my last time. I'm also

13:40

half Dutch. So I was actually raised

13:43

kind of Dutch reformed. So

13:46

it's guys so it's a real combination.

13:50

We may have to edit this out. This is a devastating

13:52

failure of research, but you're religious, correct?

13:55

Yeah, I am a Christian. Yeah.

13:57

Okay, so we're gonna we're gonna keep this in to hold

13:59

me accountable. I

14:01

know this is this is actually so embarrassing cuz I just

14:03

oh my little path the kookas. Okay, great.

14:06

It is a very common assumption.

14:09

You would not be the first to make it totally

14:11

fine. This is this

14:13

approach to the level of a macro aggression. So

14:16

okay to move forward though

14:18

with accountability. Where

14:21

do your religious beliefs fit in with all of this? Because

14:24

the reason why I ask is, and this is where

14:26

I think conservatives kind of find themselves in

14:28

an interesting space, there's kind of the

14:31

techno optimist part of Silicon

14:33

Valley is deeply libertarian. Deeply

14:36

libertarian to I think the point where a

14:39

lot of what gets people particularly

14:41

excited I think gets a little I

14:43

think complicated from a religious

14:46

perspective, from a traditionalist perspective. Conquering

14:50

death, benevolent

14:52

AGI, etc., etc., etc. So I

14:54

was just curious kind

14:56

of from your religious background and coming from once

14:58

again your rooting and center

15:01

right to conservative policy world. Where

15:03

do you interact with those

15:05

more libertarian visions of

15:08

basically untrammeled, unconstrained

15:11

optimism about the future?

15:13

Yeah, the book is not about creating

15:16

a utopia. I

15:18

think as long as we have human beings

15:22

inhabiting this earth and elsewhere, there will be problems.

15:26

One of my favorite bits of sci-fi,

15:29

I talk a lot about science fiction because I think it's important. Something

15:32

far beyond entertainment is a sci-fi

15:35

series called The Expanse. It's

15:37

a book series and a very good television

15:39

series. And it

15:42

shows a future, a couple hundred years in the future,

15:45

where man has moved out into the solar

15:47

system. And I've often

15:49

written in my newsletter called Faster

15:52

Please, and I have tweeted about this as well,

15:54

that I find that to be pro-progress

15:59

science fiction.

16:00

because we're still here in a few

16:02

hundred years. And as a society,

16:06

we have more technological capability.

16:09

We live longer. We're more resilient

16:11

as a species because we're not just here on earth.

16:14

We're on Mars. We're out in the asteroid

16:16

belt mining. Oh, and that all

16:18

the riches of the solar system, we

16:20

can tap because we're out there and we're mining

16:22

asteroids. So given

16:25

how much of sort of the futuristic

16:30

fiction and forecast, especially among

16:32

some environmentalists, is a tomorrow

16:34

of gloom, a failure, of civilizational

16:37

collapse. To me, if I can find any science fiction that

16:39

says, we're still here and

16:42

that's great. But

16:44

a lot of people do not view it like that because it's

16:46

not utopian. There are problems. You

16:48

know, there's a lot of people who are

16:50

unemployed. We still had climate change. Earth

16:55

and Mars and the asteroid belt, they

16:57

don't get along. So people, that's obviously dystopian.

17:00

Well, no, only if you're a utopian that

17:02

denies that people are flawed, do

17:05

you view that as a dystopian future. I

17:07

view it as humanity

17:09

continually,

17:10

incrementally moving forward.

17:13

So when I view this whole, so

17:16

when I think about Silicon Valley

17:18

and people want to conquer death and transhumanism,

17:22

anybody who wants to help me solve the big problems

17:24

of today, I will take their help.

17:27

But my goal is not to live forever. My goal is not to create

17:30

a utopia. And I

17:32

think the place where my faith interacts

17:34

most directly with this book is

17:38

humans, humans are creatives.

17:41

I think to deny

17:43

sort of the creative spark inside

17:46

us, that is, that

17:48

divine spark to me then

17:50

is to deny my faith. So I'm talking about

17:52

a world of creativity of

17:55

people using the tools they've

17:57

been given

17:58

to do stuff with them, to create a.

17:59

better world, you solve problems. Again, that's

18:02

credit utopia. So to me, it fits very

18:04

well with my faith.

18:07

And, you know, every, again,

18:10

every time someone creates something,

18:12

to me, that is a, that is a wonderful,

18:15

you know, kind of almost, you know,

18:17

divine act, you know, the divine

18:19

fire of our own creativity. So that's just

18:21

a look at a lot of books about nurturing creativity.

18:24

It's not about creating, it's not about essentially

18:27

planning a future. It's about sort

18:29

of organically creating one.

18:32

And

18:34

for folks who want to watch the Expanse, I

18:36

haven't watched yet, but it's available sci

18:38

fi channel originally. Now it's on Amazon.

18:41

I think it's I think it's over now, correct? It

18:44

is it is currently over, but we're all because it

18:46

didn't go as far as the book series, all the fans

18:48

are hoping that it will come back and

18:50

finish the the final round of books,

18:52

which would be awesome. Jeff Bezos is a big fan.

18:55

So hopefully he still has a he still has some pull

18:57

over there.

18:58

Of course, so that's a quick shout out for folks who want

19:00

to kind of dive deeper. But you raised

19:03

a really interesting point about your your

19:05

articulation of why you actually think the the

19:07

Expanse is optimistic. And you kind of actually raise

19:10

that Star Trek versus the Expanse

19:13

context that came from earlier, because the key thing

19:15

is that Star Trek is utopian, because

19:17

once again, technological progress

19:20

has ended scarcity.

19:22

In many respects, it's ended typical

19:25

ethno nationalism borders, it's

19:28

transcended the factors

19:30

that have driven conflict. And basically

19:33

most were human difficulties for the past 5000

19:36

years of civilization, you're basically articulating

19:38

here, there's a limit to what technological

19:41

progress can resolve and achieve.

19:43

So and I think I remember in the book, he actually

19:45

specifically made reference to the fact that many

19:48

futurists in the 40s and 50s,

19:50

the most optimistic moment thought that actually,

19:53

technology will kind of push

19:56

aside so many of these left right debates,

19:59

what we're remains in

20:02

your techno futurist

20:04

world? What are we still fighting over? What

20:07

is intractable? What is probably endemic to

20:09

the human condition?

20:13

Well, people, I think, we constantly

20:16

display just

20:21

an extraordinary bit of creativity

20:24

and imagination, which is manifested

20:28

in the physical things we create

20:30

and the stories we tell. And the

20:32

downside is this, I think, is we

20:35

have almost unlimited imagination to

20:38

find things to fight about, to find

20:40

differences. There is the, speaking

20:43

of Star Trek, there's a fantastic Star Trek episode

20:46

which tried to get at racial

20:49

discrimination

20:49

in the 60s where you had two sides

20:51

fighting and the only difference, they

20:54

had one side of their face was white, one side

20:56

was black, the only difference was which side

20:58

was white, which side was black. So I think if

21:00

people have an infinite capacity, and

21:02

that's actually not to talk anymore about

21:04

the expanse, but

21:06

did none of them get along? The Mars

21:08

people don't get along with Earth. Earth

21:10

doesn't get along with the belt. And people have written books

21:12

about, say that, oh, we shouldn't go

21:15

into space because we'll just take our geopolitical

21:17

conflicts out there. So

21:20

I don't know, but knowing

21:22

what I do with the human condition, we'll

21:24

figure out ways to

21:26

not get along. So I think there will

21:29

still be conflict, but I would also like a world where,

21:35

people can try to achieve their

21:37

dreams and have the capabilities to achieve

21:39

their dreams that they

21:41

currently don't have. I think the worst thing we could say

21:43

to someone who is poor

21:46

in this world is that you can't live like

21:48

Americans do, or Germans do, or

21:50

the Japanese do. So that's kind of where my focus

21:53

is, making sure people do

21:55

have that opportunity. Because this isn't just about

21:57

people in rich countries having really. great

22:00

lives and living in mile-high skyscrapers.

22:03

It's about moving everybody forward

22:06

together and a vision which says

22:08

we need to use less energy and

22:11

we can't even do even though we all know

22:13

AI is going to kill us, we just can't

22:16

even power it. It's going to use too much energy.

22:18

We need to go backwards and live more

22:20

poorly. I think that's a losing message.

22:22

I think it's inherently a moral one.

22:25

How do you think as a society

22:28

we should go about deciding which

22:31

of these sci-fi projects to

22:34

undergo? I had an interesting conversation with a tech critic

22:37

where he was bemoaning

22:40

Elon Musk and the mission to

22:42

Mars and everything and he's like, it's going to cost $10

22:44

trillion, which is by that number for a second.

22:47

It's a huge waste of money. We should spend that money fixing

22:50

problems here on Earth. And the obvious response to

22:52

that is basically, well, I mean, he's

22:55

deciding to go on this project, let him go on this project.

22:58

But the critic raises a valid point, which is, well,

23:00

yes, Elon could do what Elon wants, but also

23:03

that project involves government resources.

23:05

SpaceX has a lot of big government contracts. So there's

23:07

a kind of complicated mix here.

23:09

So on the one hand, I don't want society to tell you on

23:12

he shouldn't pursue big projects because I don't think

23:14

that today there's a lot of why

23:16

do we have Starlink because he pursued his

23:18

big projects. So that's kind of like the circular

23:21

part of this. But how do we as a society

23:23

understand this intersection between the private

23:25

sector and the public nature

23:28

of oftentimes the funding and

23:30

societal will in those parts?

23:32

Called the competition of ideas.

23:36

If someone does not want us to go

23:38

into space and or at least does not want to have

23:40

a public aspect of it. I

23:42

would say somebody like Bernie Sanders,

23:44

who's very critical of this effort. They

23:47

can make their case to the American

23:49

people and maybe we will fund it and maybe we

23:51

will don't this. What mine is is

23:54

a book of persuasion. I want

23:56

to persuade people that

23:58

we should that it is worthwhile. to

24:01

pursue some projects at a

24:03

government level while allowing entrepreneurs

24:07

and the private sector to fund things

24:09

that they find to be valuable. Maybe

24:12

those things will pass a market test. Maybe

24:15

they won't. For a long time, the

24:18

market test for moving into space

24:20

was a pretty bad proposition. It was super

24:23

expensive. We decided

24:25

not to do it. Perhaps

24:28

at the very moment when we were most pessimistic,

24:31

SpaceX started up and showed, guess

24:33

what? You can do it. So things that

24:35

seem uneconomical today might not be uneconomical

24:38

tomorrow. We will decide this thing as

24:40

a liberal democracy. Oftentimes,

24:45

decisions won't be what I want. Right

24:48

now, I would like to spend a lot more

24:51

money on scientific research. That's

24:54

really not happening right now. Hopefully,

24:57

my book and my other work will incrementally

25:01

make that more likely. So

25:03

people who don't – the people I think who are

25:05

most worried about that are worried about

25:07

what

25:08

we'll decide as a society to do,

25:11

who don't ultimately have faith in democracy

25:14

and wish there was a ministry or

25:16

department

25:17

of the future that could make those

25:19

decisions and impose them. I don't want to

25:21

impose anything. I

25:24

want to create a garden, a buoyant

25:27

verdant garden of

25:30

opportunity where we will all make choices

25:33

about what tomorrow will bring. Again,

25:36

it's a competition of ideas. I hope my ideas can

25:39

win that competition through their persuasive

25:42

power.

25:43

I really love that answer because I think it gets at,

25:46

hey, that's a really strong

25:48

defense of democracy. I asked, how does this work? You're

25:50

like, well, we do podcasts and you write books.

25:52

And then there's an elected representative, and an elected

25:54

representative is capable of watching the YouTube. I

25:57

know. It's an old-fashioned view, I

25:59

think, right now.

25:59

like democracy and we choose and

26:02

sometimes you win and sometimes you

26:04

lose. I just feel like I've been losing

26:06

for 50 years, so hopefully

26:08

the pendulum will swing a bit. I

26:10

think there are a lot of good reasons that

26:12

the pendulum will swing, and

26:15

that the next 50 years will

26:17

be one of perhaps a bit more risk-taking

26:20

and a bit more imaginative

26:23

approach to what the positive approach

26:25

to what the future can bring.

26:27

I love that. I'd love for you to actually speak about,

26:29

let's go with the what went wrong

26:32

category. I just did an episode with

26:34

a Bloomberg reporter about the history

26:36

of the Space Shuttle Program. My

26:38

clear takeaway from just doing some basic studying

26:41

of the Space Shuttle Program, it was an enormous

26:44

strategic error when

26:46

it came to NASA, in the

26:48

sense that it wasn't

26:51

something that was publicly sustainable. Let's

26:53

put aside the safety issues and death

26:55

and everything, obviously. But it didn't

26:58

capture the imagination the same way. The

27:02

mission to Mars that Elon Musk has pursued is captured.

27:04

It doesn't capture the imagination in the same way. The

27:08

mission to the moon actually captured the imagination. If

27:10

you're going to have public projects, if

27:12

anything, the success of Elon's efforts, I think is

27:14

a demonstration of the need to go

27:17

big, have the big vision. I think

27:19

that's my best interpretation of your up-wing

27:22

ideology, and

27:24

I'm going to go over that direct discussion of it. I'd love for you

27:26

to go into what is up-wing. You've

27:28

made a reference to it a couple of times.

27:30

It's a good way to understand this. I will do that, but

27:32

let me see. What's

27:35

the space shuttle? By the end, there

27:38

wasn't a lot of public enthusiasm about

27:40

it, and it was

27:42

like a space bus or space truck.

27:46

Let me tell you, when it was first announced, people

27:49

were extremely excited about the space shuttle, it

27:52

would allow a lot more access to outer

27:55

space. I think there really is a latent interest. in

28:00

space that Elon Musk has tapped.

28:04

Listen, if you want

28:07

to create a better future, if you think that,

28:10

and you think, you know, prosperity

28:13

and abundance, and we are good

28:15

as humans with innovating our way

28:18

around constraints,

28:20

then that is up wing. That is not necessarily left

28:22

wing. That is not right wing. And

28:24

you can, and this book, you can be, you can consider

28:27

yourself on the left and the right. But

28:29

you still want to use

28:31

man's ingenuity to

28:33

solve problems that you're not like these degrowth

28:36

people. I'll tell you this, this

28:38

was an amazing moment for me where I went

28:40

to the, you know, I'm in DC, and this

28:42

Smithsonian Institute was having this huge,

28:45

kind of like futurist exhibition.

28:49

I'm like, well, great, that's awesome. I cannot,

28:51

I cannot wait to go. So I went there.

28:53

And it was a vision of the future

28:56

that I, that was right

28:59

out of sort of the

29:00

limits to growth, the pessimist

29:03

1970s. There

29:05

was nothing, there was

29:06

maybe one small exhibit about

29:09

space, nothing about

29:11

what was going on with

29:14

nothing about nuclear energy other than some buttons

29:17

from the 70s that were against nuclear

29:19

energy. Instead of

29:21

seeing like, you know, you know, cool

29:23

visions of what we could create, what they, their

29:26

vision of the future was we're all going to live in homes,

29:29

sustainable homes made out of mushrooms

29:32

and things like that. There

29:34

was nothing you, no kid would walk

29:36

into that exhibit and walk

29:38

out with enthusiasm

29:41

like they would in like, let's say

29:43

that 1964 Futurama exhibit, it was the exact opposite.

29:46

You'd walk out thinking, the

29:48

world tomorrow is going to be super boring.

29:50

I'm going to be living in a mushroom house. I

29:53

certainly won't be living on the moon or

29:55

Mars or be flying

29:57

around in a, an amazing

29:59

flying. car or taking a hyperloop. Nobody

30:02

would walk by the way,

30:04

to have an exhibit

30:05

about the future in

30:07

2020, I think this is actually 2021,

30:10

and not even mention Elon Musk.

30:13

You can like him or hate him, but

30:15

he is an influential entrepreneur

30:18

in both electric vehicles, AI,

30:23

space, obviously, and to pretend he doesn't

30:25

exist, that's amazing.

30:27

So that means that was a down wing

30:30

exhibit, exhibit about constraints, about

30:32

problems, about dealing

30:36

with problems through retreat versus

30:38

moving forward. Listen,

30:42

any tool we create is going to create

30:44

other problems, and then we'll solve

30:47

that too. That's been the history of progress,

30:49

and yet we keep moving forward.

30:52

The huge cultural change that

30:54

humanity had 500 years ago was

30:57

thinking that it had the agency

30:59

to create a different kind of world that tomorrow

31:03

wasn't necessarily going to be just a different version

31:05

of today. And

31:09

that is, I think, fundamentally what

31:11

an up wing view of the world

31:14

builds on. I hate to bring

31:16

it up because maybe it's cliche now, but

31:20

in the film Interstellar, which

31:22

is about a society that

31:25

turned its back on progress and then found

31:27

itself facing an existential problem

31:29

that it did not have the tools to solve.

31:32

The main character, played by Matthew McConaughey,

31:35

said, we used to look to the stars,

31:37

now we just look at our place in the dirt. That

31:42

to me is a fantastic up wing

31:45

film, and it really captures

31:47

the kind of philosophy. I'm still looking at the

31:49

stars of what we can accomplish, not thinking we've

31:51

already invented everything that's worth inventing. You

31:54

know, I love that answer because I think you actually, you

31:57

could tie what you just said to the make

32:00

the public argument issue because if, let's

32:02

say folks who are primarily focused on climate change

32:05

and energy policy, if they ignore

32:07

the Elon Musk dynamic, they ignore the fact

32:09

that mushroom-based

32:12

sustainable homes, like, wait a minute, this way. If

32:14

you think that there's a $10 trillion

32:16

pot of money and we're as a society going to decide,

32:19

does this go to fixing the climate

32:21

or does this go to space? Elon

32:23

Musk's vision is going to be

32:25

sustainable mushroom homes

32:28

every single time. For my pure,

32:30

we as a society are going to dedicate public

32:32

goods. So that's why I think even within that

32:35

argument about space versus the

32:37

environment and technological progress, let's assume

32:39

that, let's pretend there is, I don't think there's a trade-off. I

32:42

think that's kind of like the point of this philosophy, but let's pretend there

32:44

really is that literal trade-off. The

32:48

circular kind of disaster that they've run into

32:50

is the degrowth mentality can't win

32:52

public arguments at the scale

32:55

necessary to accomplish the supposed goals

32:57

thereof. I don't get the sense you

32:59

could degrowth your way to a serious

33:01

public investment in climate change,

33:04

and that's like the awkward dynamic here

33:06

that you're kind of facing.

33:07

No, I think we unintentionally

33:11

saw a real degrowth experiment

33:14

during the pandemic when we had a

33:16

period of shortages.

33:21

We were shutting down

33:23

the economy. We didn't have

33:26

a vaccine ready to go. And

33:33

how did we like that world? How did

33:35

Americans love going to the store

33:37

and not seeing things on the shelves?

33:40

Or even just

33:42

not having Amazon deliver something

33:45

as quickly as it had in the past because

33:48

supply chains were snarled. There

33:50

is zero appetite

33:53

for that kind of approach,

33:57

except maybe a small minority have a certain

33:59

preference.

33:59

If you want to live your life like that, go

34:02

ahead. Most people, even rich countries

34:04

don't want it. Poor people in the world

34:07

want to get richer.

34:08

So you're wondering how that de-growth world would ever happen.

34:13

It seems to me that

34:16

it would be through compulsion. It would

34:18

ultimately be through compulsion. When I've read

34:20

some de-growth literature and fiction, there

34:23

is a strong, strong

34:26

undercurrent of people being

34:29

forced to go that

34:31

direction. And

34:33

that is not the competition

34:35

idea. That is just pure

34:38

estate having the ultimate means

34:41

of violence. And that is not what my book is about.

34:44

So for the last two sections here,

34:46

so number one, I'd love for you to talk about—we've

34:48

kind of hinted at the sci-fi conversation—the

34:51

cultural side of

34:53

this conversation. I really enjoyed your kind

34:55

of articulation of Disney's

34:58

Tomorrowland and where it went right,

35:00

where it went wrong. It's particularly depressing to

35:02

learn that in the late 90s,

35:04

it's kind of transitioned into steampunk,

35:07

which is 19th century-esque. Definitely,

35:11

A, it's not particularly attractive.

35:13

I was on a very specific niche on the internet. But

35:16

B, it's also not capturing the

35:18

original intention of it. So I'd love for you just to talk

35:20

about that history and

35:23

what lessons we could take from the

35:25

effective side of that

35:27

vision from a cultural production level.

35:30

Yeah, the Tomorrowland

35:32

problem is something Walt

35:34

Disney faced when he

35:37

opened up Disneyland, and one of the

35:39

theme lands was Tomorrowland, which

35:41

was the most difficult because it wasn't

35:44

just using what we already knew, nostalgia

35:46

for an older

35:49

America or frontier America. It was going

35:51

to have to look at the future. And

35:53

not surprisingly, in the 50s, a

35:56

lot of it was built around space. The

35:58

tallest— thing

36:01

in the original Disneyland structure was

36:03

a giant rocket that

36:06

was taller than Cinderella's

36:08

Castle and that was and Tomorrowland

36:11

was built around that notion and the notion

36:13

of creating a better future. And

36:16

the original Tomorrowland problem is

36:19

just keeping that, it was supposed

36:21

to be all based on facts because

36:24

the original like ride that

36:26

that rocket led to was supposed to be a

36:28

space trip people would take in the 1980s. So

36:31

it was not a fantasy, it was supposed to

36:35

be based on something we could actually do. And

36:37

the problem they faced after a few years was there

36:40

was so much rapid economic growth

36:42

and something new being invented every day that

36:45

Disney complained that

36:47

Tomorrowland just kind of looked like, instead

36:50

of being, I had 15 minutes in the future,

36:52

it looked like it was 15 minutes behind the times

36:54

and he said, instead of Tomorrowland we're getting

36:56

today land or yesterday

36:59

land. They retro part. It says

37:01

it is retro very quickly. Right.

37:04

But then that changed.

37:06

That really changed starting, you know, started to change

37:08

in the late 1960s and 1970s

37:11

when no longer was

37:14

progress happening fast and

37:16

helping inspire Tomorrowland.

37:19

Instead, we

37:21

slowed down as an economy. We

37:23

abandoned atomic power. We

37:26

abandoned the space age. The

37:29

futurists of the era were became

37:31

extremely pessimistic

37:34

about the future. It was all going to be overpopulation

37:37

and resource depletion. So then

37:39

it had a different Tomorrowland problem.

37:42

That problem was creating

37:44

an attractive future that people

37:47

would find realistic because none of it seemed realistic

37:49

because everyone knew that tomorrow was going to be terrible.

37:52

So Tomorrowland just seemed like a fantasy. So

37:54

Tomorrowland no longer had that thriving,

37:58

you know, broader economy. economy to

38:01

key off of And

38:03

eventually they just gave up they gave up trying

38:05

to create that kind of future and that

38:07

they've dabbled with Jules Verne And

38:09

steampunk and they dabble a lot more

38:11

with science You know science

38:13

fantasy and Star Wars rather

38:16

than trying to focus on Thinking

38:20

and being inspired by the world around them to creating

38:22

a a plausible future

38:25

that people would also find aspirational

38:29

and You know that

38:31

that problem just hasn't gone away They mean the biggest

38:34

the biggest new exhibit I was just at Disneyland

38:36

for the first time in a long time Was

38:39

the new Star Wars exhibit, which is awfully cool.

38:41

I loved it. I felt like I but you know what? It's

38:44

still based on science fantasy not

38:47

not a world that we're actually going to create and

38:49

I think we need images

38:51

of

38:52

a plausible images of

38:54

a future we'd want to live in if

38:56

we as a society is going

38:59

to take risks Because if we take risk and

39:01

we embrace change there will there will be downsides

39:04

Some people will lose jobs sectors will rise

39:06

sectors will fall and we have to believe

39:09

that the disruption that will come with

39:11

change Economic change technological

39:14

change will be worth it. And what

39:16

did we just see? What did we just see? Marshall

39:18

with the you know with AI that

39:21

we had a huge AI advance

39:24

and We got to enjoy it for

39:26

about 30 minutes about what it

39:28

might do and then it's been a non-stop stream of

39:31

Take all the jobs. It's gonna kill us. We

39:33

better pause it. We better nationalize it. We better regulate

39:35

it That to me that

39:38

this is the phenomenon I'm describing

39:40

here isn't just a set of these things with nuclear

39:42

power It's a current thing where

39:45

people have a when they imagine what a

39:47

new breakthrough will create The

39:49

only thing they and the media can think about is

39:51

how it will go terrible wrong terribly wrong AI

39:54

is not gonna help us It's gonna turn into the Terminator

39:58

you know

41:50

But

42:00

that, I think, is deep into the American

42:03

ethos and why we went from three

42:06

million people huddled on the coast

42:08

of the North Atlantic

42:10

to being a continent-spanning technological

42:13

leader that will also lead humanity

42:15

into space. That

42:18

is a very American way

42:21

of looking at the world. So when I talk about this

42:25

up-wing idea, I'm talking about the most

42:27

American idea ever, the

42:29

idea of there

42:32

might be something really interesting around

42:34

the bend, over the hill. Let's go

42:36

find out what that is. And you know what?

42:39

I think we kind of stopped doing that for a while for

42:42

a variety

42:44

of reasons, but there's nothing stopping us from doing

42:46

it right now. And I think, thank

42:48

goodness, we have a bunch of emerging

42:50

technologies to help us enable that. I

42:53

think we have the lesson from the pandemic

42:56

of what happens when you don't have technology

42:58

and what happens when you do suddenly

43:01

have technology, how it can solve a lot of problems.

43:04

And hopefully, people eventually look at AI

43:06

as a way of supercharging

43:09

the economy. So I think

43:12

now is a moment, and I don't want to waste this

43:14

moment. I think like we did

43:16

what I would call up-wing 1.0,

43:18

which was like the mid-50s to the early 70s,

43:20

then we had up-wing 2.0, which

43:22

was really the late 90s,

43:25

both of which I think ended before they showed up. And

43:28

I hope this will start up-wing 3.0, and

43:30

it will be never-ending. You know,

43:32

quick thing before we get to the last question. When you

43:34

said how we describe the internet, instant

43:36

vision, this is my pitch for any up-wing

43:39

aspirant politicians, I instantly

43:41

thought of Steve Ballmer,

43:44

Bill Gates, they're sweaty. It's

43:46

the debut of, you know that video, like it's

43:49

not, they're debuting Windows 95, and they're

43:52

just chanting. And just, right, maybe,

43:54

this is me. Yeah, I know that video. I'm just, I'm 31, so

43:56

I'm just. I'm

44:01

about as young as you could be and remember when Windows 95

44:03

showed up in our house. And I just think if

44:05

a politician needs an image of

44:08

weird nerd

44:10

aggression that also translates into something

44:12

serious, that's my nomination.

44:15

That is a wonderful idea. I think I see

44:17

that video once a week. Yeah, because

44:20

it's just, if you were to basically,

44:23

the weird brief 90s

44:26

optimism moment that's technologically and economically

44:28

focused, it's really those guys on

44:30

stage. So

44:33

here's the last and most obvious

44:35

question, kind of the most boring question because I think

44:37

what I love the most of this conversation is the vision

44:40

and the context. What's the up-wing

44:42

agenda? Obviously, one of them is just like investment in

44:45

research, but what are the broad things

44:48

that we should be doing? Because there's

44:50

one agenda I want to add, and

44:52

this is why this book isn't just we need to

44:55

reduce the tax rate and increase economic growth. During

44:57

the 80s and during the 90s, there's plenty

44:59

of economic growth. Taxes are

45:02

cut. The era of big government

45:04

is over. It's not necessarily

45:06

true that the economic

45:09

performance that a center-right economist

45:11

would enjoy is necessarily correlated

45:14

with the sci-fi level advances that you're

45:16

kind of articulating here. There has to be an agenda

45:18

that's mixed in there too, so I'd love for you to talk about

45:20

that agenda.

45:21

The agenda,

45:24

it's really a mix of things that I think

45:26

you could find people across the political – the

45:29

up-wing part of the political spectrum

45:32

would think are important, and they

45:35

are important. I mean,

45:37

the number one thing I have – and these are not in

45:39

any order, but I wanted to put something a little flashy,

45:42

number one to be honest – was

45:45

we should be building an absolute permanent

45:47

moon base as a proof of concept

45:49

that we can – move

45:52

out in the solar system, mine

45:54

asteroids, and really have never-ending

45:58

abundance of key materials. I think

46:01

not only would it begin – also be a proof of concept

46:03

for a colony to make sure that

46:06

even if something big and bad hits the earth, humanity

46:08

will survive. I think there's a

46:10

real economic case which has really been enabled

46:13

by the big drop in space cost. So that

46:15

would be one. I think

46:17

one, we have to put the 1970s

46:20

behind us and take a very hard look

46:22

at the kinds of regulations that make it extraordinarily

46:25

hard to build, not just building

46:27

highways in the 1970s, but right now.

46:30

Listen, you can love renewable power,

46:32

but if you want to build a factory that makes wind turbines,

46:35

it's going to take way longer and cost

46:37

way more because we have regulations

46:39

that were rooted in the idea

46:42

that growth was bad and

46:44

there were all kinds of court cases way back

46:46

in which, yeah, judges say that finally

46:49

we figured out a way to halt material

46:52

progress. So

46:54

the core economic idea here is

46:56

that economic growth – remember the

46:58

Soiling Green, a great down

47:00

wing movie from the 1970s, You know, the

47:04

Soiling Green is people. Well, economic growth is

47:07

people. So all my policies are

47:10

ways to connect people

47:12

together more efficiently

47:15

and make sure that the people we're connecting together

47:17

have every opportunity,

47:21

have every educational, training,

47:25

health opportunity to connect

47:27

together in a way that will enable

47:29

more growth, more progress. That means

47:32

economic openness. I mean, Elon Musk once said

47:34

that there is no better place – if you want to do big things

47:37

with your life, there's no better place to go to than the

47:39

United States. That absolutely is true.

47:42

That absolutely needs to continue

47:44

to be true and be more true.

47:46

So yes, immigrants, if

47:48

you want to do great things with your life,

47:50

come here. So there's a definite economic openness

47:53

component to this agenda. It

47:55

is, again, massively increasing

47:58

R&D. I know people will – worry about the national

48:00

debt, cutting R&D would be absolutely dumbest

48:03

thing you can do. So

48:05

I think there's a lot of things across the spectrum.

48:07

But again, if we fear if

48:10

we fear the changes that

48:12

will result, then

48:14

we won't do anything and we will be the

48:17

victim of circumstances rather than trying

48:19

to master broadly,

48:22

collectively, individually, organically,

48:26

our destiny as a country and as a species.

48:28

Well said,

48:29

James. Thank you for joining me on

48:32

the Realignment. The book is The Conservative

48:34

Futurist. Awesome. Thanks. Thanks

48:36

so much

48:36

for having me on. I appreciate it. Hope

48:43

you enjoyed this episode. You learned something

48:46

like the sort of mission or want to access

48:48

our subscriber exclusive Q&A, bonus

48:50

episodes and more. Go to realignment.supercast.com

48:54

and subscribe to our $5 a month, $50 a year or $500 for

48:58

a lifetime membership. Great. See

49:00

you all next time.