Speaker 1: Ridiculous History is a production of I Heart Radio. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the show Ridiculous Historians. As always, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for tuning in. This is part two of
Speaker 1: our Weird Predictions of Yesteryear episode. I'm Ben, and you
Speaker 1: know what, I already need to correct myself. No, well,
Speaker 1: I don't think all of those predictions were all that weird.
Speaker 1: Some of them were pretty accurate. What do you say,
Speaker 1: Some of them were pretty accurate, Bend. Some of them
Speaker 1: were pretty you know, cogent in terms of like within
Speaker 1: the realm of possibility. Um, we kind of reserved some
Speaker 1: of the more bizarro ones for this episode. I would
Speaker 1: say Episode one was mainly concerned with farming and sustenance
Speaker 1: and food trends and and maybe you know again, a
Speaker 1: lot of these people that are making these predictions, they're
Speaker 1: big brainiact types, and so they like to speak with authority.
Speaker 1: There's nothing less attractive than like hedging on a future prediction,
Speaker 1: because you have to say it with utter authority, or
Speaker 1: else you might as well just not say it at all. Um.
Speaker 1: So I would say everything that was in episode one,
Speaker 1: even if it hasn't come to pass, like the underwater
Speaker 1: helped Fields you know, I could see that a world
Speaker 1: where maybe there's something like that are certainly there are
Speaker 1: like tanks, you know that, uh, where you grow like
Speaker 1: hydroponically and things like that. So there's versions of a
Speaker 1: lot of those things. Today we're getting into like weird
Speaker 1: wild stuff is Johnny Carson would say, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: start in the underwater realm um. And but but mainly
Speaker 1: focusing on transportation. We're gonna stick stick with underwater for
Speaker 1: a while. Uh. First off, in the twenty one century,
Speaker 1: it was predicted by the French artists Jean Marc coute
Speaker 1: quote case cote ah Casey on the case French artist,
Speaker 1: I would argue surrealist artists. Based on what you're about
Speaker 1: to hear, Jean Marc cote H and many of his
Speaker 1: contemporaries um in the art world produced over a hundred
Speaker 1: of these illustrations of what the year two thousand. In
Speaker 1: the year two thousand, apparently we will ride on giant
Speaker 1: sea horses. Yeah and uh yeah, I love the idea.
Speaker 1: I love arts, I love futurism. Giant sea horses would
Speaker 1: have to be genetically created. They don't exist at this time. Uh.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's superproducer Casey Pagram, who was our
Speaker 1: Casey on the case there. Uh, they didn't stop there.
Speaker 1: They had something that might even be a little little
Speaker 1: bit a little bit more plausible, which is the idea
Speaker 1: of a whale pulling an entire kind of underwater bus
Speaker 1: of people through the sea. And whales do exist. Whales
Speaker 1: are quite intelligent, so maybe we could convince some whales
Speaker 1: to help people. Uh. There there's another shot where there's
Speaker 1: like a fish race picture a horse race, but instead
Speaker 1: of horses, the jockeys are these scuba divers on these
Speaker 1: enormous fish. Uh. There are enormous fish, we just don't
Speaker 1: know of any that are super down with being ridden
Speaker 1: like race animals. There's also a super weird one. It's
Speaker 1: almost like reverse fishing, where there are these like underwater
Speaker 1: like helmet frogman type figures, uh, fishing for seagulls. Uh.
Speaker 1: They are underwater already and they have like presumably fish
Speaker 1: bait or some sort of seagull bait. I guess in
Speaker 1: this scenario on strings that they're bobbing up to the
Speaker 1: top of the water. Then when the seagulls dive in
Speaker 1: to get it, they like jerk the seagulls underwater. What
Speaker 1: would you want with a seagull? It's bad luck to
Speaker 1: kill a seabird. Everybody knows that, who's seen the lighthouse.
Speaker 1: But also they're notoriously gamy and stringy and gross to eat. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's more of like a flex or revenge thing, I think,
Speaker 1: because seagulls are some of the most cantankerous of birds
Speaker 1: up there with the shoe bill. Uh, they're some of
Speaker 1: the only birds I don't particularly care for. Well, you
Speaker 1: know my position, But Ben, you are a friend of
Speaker 1: of of birds in general, and you're right. I think
Speaker 1: I've mentioned that the seagull might actually be the origin
Speaker 1: of my fear of birds as a small child. I
Speaker 1: believe I was dive bond by them. But then you
Speaker 1: get into some more like kind of some of these
Speaker 1: I think are like they're really styling. I do want
Speaker 1: to point out these all come from Uh what I
Speaker 1: was gonna say is these all come from the public
Speaker 1: domain review. I think this is an excellent resource. If
Speaker 1: you're on Twitter or something like that, follow them. They
Speaker 1: have the greatest stories all the time. But now you're
Speaker 1: going to describe some of these arcs pieces here absolutely
Speaker 1: and you can find this specifically at public domain review
Speaker 1: dot org. Slash collections slash all separated by dashes. A
Speaker 1: nineteenth century vision of the year two thousand and numbers
Speaker 1: separated by dashes. When you start doing show notes for
Speaker 1: the show, maybe we can um talk about that new year,
Speaker 1: new year, new new way of doing things. But um,
Speaker 1: some of these I think are kind of styling where
Speaker 1: they're like, I don't know that these artists necessarily believe
Speaker 1: that in the future would be riding on giant sea
Speaker 1: horses underwater. Um. I think it might have been just
Speaker 1: kind of like artistic license for like, oh, what would
Speaker 1: be the craziest thing that could happen in the year
Speaker 1: two thousands. Some of them are more functional, though. You've
Speaker 1: got one where it's like a gentleman running an entire
Speaker 1: farm remotely from like what looks sort of like a
Speaker 1: railway switching panel or like an old school elevator, where
Speaker 1: he's got like a kind of like lever, and then
Speaker 1: like a series of buttons on this panel all connected
Speaker 1: to these like power line looking things that are connected
Speaker 1: to threshers that are are running on these lines that
Speaker 1: are using them to like guide their path to like
Speaker 1: cut the wheat there are like wheats kind of bales,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's honeycomb or something. But the idea is
Speaker 1: I think that these lines are remotely running all these threshers,
Speaker 1: and that one man can do all this work himself.
Speaker 1: Uh and he got then he got ben. I think
Speaker 1: something that's the most prevalent here is lots of depictions
Speaker 1: of flying machines. Yes, I do want to I do
Speaker 1: want to pause though before we go on there. There's
Speaker 1: one that really stood out to me. It's a classroom scene.
Speaker 1: You can see it here on the side. I know
Speaker 1: you can see it in tune Old, where there's someone
Speaker 1: who looks like an older schoolmaster who's feeding books into
Speaker 1: what looks to be a crank operated shredder, and then
Speaker 1: these electric these electric wires lead to these headphones and
Speaker 1: spool caps and their students just sitting there with their
Speaker 1: hands folded on their desk. That technology, symbolically, I would argue,
Speaker 1: is already around in the form of audio books and
Speaker 1: dare we say it, podcast So I I feel like
Speaker 1: that one's accurate. But through the lens of arts, what
Speaker 1: happens to the books though bad? It will do you
Speaker 1: lose the books? It looks like the books would be
Speaker 1: like shredded into pulp and then converted into some kind
Speaker 1: of electronic signal that can then shoot through these wires.
Speaker 1: It's a very interesting image with this one poor little
Speaker 1: boy cranking the crank while the schoolmaster just shoves the
Speaker 1: books into this uh kind of like feeder. He's a
Speaker 1: human turnspit dog exactly. So. Yes, so this art is
Speaker 1: well worth your time if you're a fan of this
Speaker 1: kind of fanciful view of the future stuff. But you're
Speaker 1: right now. People are fascinated with air travel at this time.
Speaker 1: We have to remember that the first flight of the
Speaker 1: Right Brothers took place December seventeenth, nineteen o three. And
Speaker 1: during this time and leading up to this, people were
Speaker 1: obsessed with the idea that we would one day take
Speaker 1: to the air. I think it was nineteen thirteen the
Speaker 1: first commercial flight occurs from Florida to Tampa. It carries
Speaker 1: one person. It was like the level of uh. It
Speaker 1: was the level of flex that you would associate with
Speaker 1: billionaires traveling to the outer reaches of gravity just for
Speaker 1: like a few seconds nowadays. That's exactly right, Ben, And
Speaker 1: the thing that's so remarkable about some of these so
Speaker 1: many of these images, all of these in this collection,
Speaker 1: is that they just have that kind of Jules Verne,
Speaker 1: you know, like like steampunk. I don't know if that's right,
Speaker 1: but it's kind of this retro futuristic quality to them,
Speaker 1: where there's a lot of like flying suits where there'll
Speaker 1: be a man kind of in like a winged suit,
Speaker 1: you know, up there soaring right next to the to
Speaker 1: the zeppelin or or like you know biplane situation. But
Speaker 1: most of them are odd kind of styles on that.
Speaker 1: Like there's one that looks sort of like like a
Speaker 1: hot air balloon basket that has like a helicopter propeller
Speaker 1: on the top and sort of this like arrow looking
Speaker 1: ballast thing on either side. Um, then you have people
Speaker 1: in wings suits flying up to an eagle's nest, presumably
Speaker 1: robbing them of their eggs or poaching them or something
Speaker 1: like that. It's a little weird, uh. And then you've
Speaker 1: got like ones that we've seen in movies like Sky
Speaker 1: Captain in the World of Tomorrow, this like image of
Speaker 1: the future with a lot of these machines that logistically
Speaker 1: don't really make any sense, Like there's one where the
Speaker 1: wings on the flying machine actually flap and and have
Speaker 1: and has a tail. I don't think that would work.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's the way aerodynamics quite functions. But
Speaker 1: so you've got a lot of like dubious science and
Speaker 1: a lot of style over function here um, and then
Speaker 1: you've got like a blimp situation. We know, the fascination
Speaker 1: of about blimps and Zeppelin's you know when it comes
Speaker 1: to thinking about the future, and a lot of these
Speaker 1: illustrations remind me of well, I think they possibly inspired
Speaker 1: one of my favorite books, The Kodaks Sarah Finanius, which
Speaker 1: is an illustrated encyclopedia of an imaginary world. I think, uh, casey, no,
Speaker 1: you guys might have seen it the last time you
Speaker 1: were over at my house. Did I ever show you
Speaker 1: guys that one? If not, I'll bring it in. It's
Speaker 1: it's nuts, just check it out. The reason I mentioned
Speaker 1: it is because of the fanciful illustrations. But these illustrations, he's,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, I'm gonna do it. These flights of fancy
Speaker 1: don't come from yeah, don't come for thin air, because
Speaker 1: we know that, like you said, no, there was this
Speaker 1: rich cultural soil from which they sprang in the zeitgeist
Speaker 1: people were honestly predicting that we would by this time
Speaker 1: in human history, that we would all have personal airplanes.
Speaker 1: And full disclosure, folks, some people do have personal airplanes. Uh,
Speaker 1: your faithful, ridiculous historians here, however, we do not. I
Speaker 1: think le Bush may have maybe a small prop plane
Speaker 1: somewhere in France. But Casey, that's that's more for uh,
Speaker 1: you're off the grid work stuff, right, that's true. I
Speaker 1: was just going to jump in to say, I it
Speaker 1: took me a second to uh to recall the book.
Speaker 1: But the Codex is really really worth investigating. It's a
Speaker 1: really really cool book. The illustrations are amazing, and um,
Speaker 1: it's just one of those one of the kind bizarre
Speaker 1: objects in the world. It's really really cool. It makes
Speaker 1: no sense either, you know, it's a it's all. It's
Speaker 1: from one. But I think he was inspired by a
Speaker 1: lot of the art that we're discussing in the opening
Speaker 1: of today's episode. And it's funny, you know. The stuff
Speaker 1: about personal airplanes, uh dates back to what No. Nineteen
Speaker 1: thirty Frederick Edwin Smith published this book called the World
Speaker 1: in twenty thirty a d. And he said, everybody's going
Speaker 1: to own a small airplane. It's gonna be perfect for
Speaker 1: weekend trips. You know, you can go to Greenland and
Speaker 1: ski and then you can come back and yeah, so
Speaker 1: I will say this, I mean, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the closest thing we have to like personal crafts like
Speaker 1: that would be the helicopter, which is obviously you know,
Speaker 1: still within only within the realm of like you know,
Speaker 1: super super high level wealth. Um. Because we were talking
Speaker 1: off air, it would be very difficult to to like
Speaker 1: logistically deal with like the traffic of like everyone having
Speaker 1: an airplane, and just like air traffic as as difficult
Speaker 1: as already is for commercial flights, can you imagine like
Speaker 1: having everyone like have an aircraft and then how would
Speaker 1: you deal with that? You'd have to communicate with some
Speaker 1: sort of air traffic control or like have really really
Speaker 1: good radar. I don't know what do you guys think?
Speaker 1: What would be What would life be like? I feel
Speaker 1: like there would be just crashes, like just wreckage falling
Speaker 1: out of the sky left and right on the daily.
Speaker 1: This is a longstanding uh. I won't call it an argument,
Speaker 1: We'll call it a healthy conversation I had with my
Speaker 1: my my old rider Die Scott Benjamin on our show
Speaker 1: car stuff. Flying cars are one of those things that
Speaker 1: are always eternally just on the horizon. The only way
Speaker 1: they could happen safely is if they are autonomous vehicles
Speaker 1: controlled by a grid. That's the only way it can happen. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: flying cars are still one of those things where it's
Speaker 1: a matter of um, how's the best way to say it.
Speaker 1: It's amazing if I have a flying car, says one person,
Speaker 1: and no one else does. But it's a blood bath
Speaker 1: if everybody has a flying car. It just we don't
Speaker 1: have the skills as human operators to live in a
Speaker 1: world of personal flight machines in a safe way unless
Speaker 1: we have a huge jump in technology, or unless they're autonomous.
Speaker 1: Im and I say that as someone who does think
Speaker 1: the idea is really cool. But even if you gave
Speaker 1: everybody on the planet their own personal bicycle, who still
Speaker 1: see tons of accidents, we're just not ready for individual
Speaker 1: flying cars unless they're robot controlled. That's right. You made
Speaker 1: the really good point off air, Ben. We were talking
Speaker 1: about autonomous cars and how that's sort of becoming less
Speaker 1: of a priority. I think when we say uber is out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you made the really great point that autonomous vehicles
Speaker 1: only works if it's a hundred percent opt in. Like
Speaker 1: when you have any level of human error involved in
Speaker 1: the equation, it screws up the whole algorithm and makes
Speaker 1: the whole thing dangerous. So it's kind of an all
Speaker 1: or nothing situation, right, Yeah, that's true. Like, imagine a
Speaker 1: line of dominoes or whatever pattern dominoes you want to imagine,
Speaker 1: and each of those dominoes is an autonomous vehicle except
Speaker 1: for one, and the one domino is uh not controlled
Speaker 1: by the falling of the other dominoes. So when it
Speaker 1: is supposed to move with the system, it just doesn't.
Speaker 1: The system automatically breaks because of that one domino. That's
Speaker 1: a very lazy way to put it. But we're working
Speaker 1: live here, knowl or work and live. Also unrelated to anything.
Speaker 1: Did you see that meme? I didn't realize this, but
Speaker 1: the original map max takes place this year. Oh no,
Speaker 1: where we're getting there, we're not too too off. Um yeah,
Speaker 1: it was really interesting stuff. And um, you know, I
Speaker 1: think one thing that we have seen over time, we
Speaker 1: know this to be true. We always talk about how
Speaker 1: life expectancy back in the you know, olden days of
Speaker 1: life on the prairies or you know, in the medieval times,
Speaker 1: life expectancy was not good. And that was because you know,
Speaker 1: there were plagues and there was really bad ideas when
Speaker 1: it came to medicine and treating illnesses and things that
Speaker 1: would actually make you get sicker and very uh, you know,
Speaker 1: poor conditions when it came to childbirth, thing and your
Speaker 1: chances of living through bearing children were super low. Um. So,
Speaker 1: as we've seen technology progress and you know, humanity move forward,
Speaker 1: people's life expectancies that have seemed to jump. Um. But
Speaker 1: one thing that was predicted because of technology and the
Speaker 1: very thing in the twenty first century was that we
Speaker 1: would live to be old, like really old, like really
Speaker 1: really old. People have been thinking about this for centuries.
Speaker 1: Benjamin Franklin, the One and Only Benny f had even
Speaker 1: written about this as far back as the late seventeen
Speaker 1: hundreds and sev who wrote a letter to Reverend John
Speaker 1: Lathrop where he said, you know, within a few years,
Speaker 1: we're gonna live as long as those people from the
Speaker 1: Old Testament from the Book of Genesis. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: like Noah will be nine fifty years old. Who is
Speaker 1: that super old one Methuselah. That's the one. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: nine hundred and sixty nine years old. I think Methuselah
Speaker 1: made it. And we can go into where that comes from,
Speaker 1: maybe on stuff they don't want you to know. Check
Speaker 1: out that show. But the weird thing is just like
Speaker 1: the pattern we established in part one of our Predictions episode.
Speaker 1: The weird thing here is that it's an extreme claim,
Speaker 1: an extreme addiction, but it appears to have some degree
Speaker 1: of accuracy. People are living longer, people are healthier for
Speaker 1: longer in many parts of the world, And if you
Speaker 1: look at the science on the horizon, the medical research
Speaker 1: on the horizon, then we may be able to extend
Speaker 1: people's lives. Currently, we can't extend someone's organic life to
Speaker 1: almost a thousand years, but we may be able to
Speaker 1: an independs. We're waxing philosophical. We can get to this part,
Speaker 1: but we may be able to extend someone's life uh
Speaker 1: indefinitely by making a copy of their mind on a
Speaker 1: on a digital platform like right, like turning their mind
Speaker 1: into code, and then keeping that mind on a hard
Speaker 1: drive somewhere or in a cloud. That's that will probably
Speaker 1: happen before we can get to years old and still
Speaker 1: be hail and hardy. But you know, I've always I've
Speaker 1: always been interested in this. This is a question for
Speaker 1: you guys. Given the option, would you want to live
Speaker 1: for nine hundred plus years? Let's say, let's not make
Speaker 1: it a monkey spawl situation. Would you want to live
Speaker 1: for nine hundred plus years if you knew you would
Speaker 1: be relatively healthy until say, like the last five years.
Speaker 1: It's a hard one, man, because you know, you might
Speaker 1: say it when you're young with then realize that you
Speaker 1: just get bored and you just don't know. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: like the mind is a monkey's pat situation, or it's, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a devil's bargain. You think of like the
Speaker 1: like interview with the Vampire and all these characters that
Speaker 1: kind of live to see all their friends die, and like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe if I knew that everyone that
Speaker 1: I loved was also going to live that long, then
Speaker 1: I'd be cool with it. But I wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: like outlive everybody in my life and then be sad
Speaker 1: and alone living in some sort of like virtual reality
Speaker 1: brain cloud machine. Yeah, what if you could do it physically?
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll tell you, I would immediately go to space,
Speaker 1: and I would be like, all right, I got nine
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty years, but just spend the first two
Speaker 1: fifty traveling out somewhere. I'm just gonna turn around and
Speaker 1: come back. It sort of makes me think of the
Speaker 1: concept behind this really cool Philip K. Dick book called
Speaker 1: yubick UK. Maybe it's the idea where people are able
Speaker 1: to actually die uh and through this corporation um, their
Speaker 1: bodies are kept in cryo state uh and their minds
Speaker 1: are like put into this cloud type scenario, so they're
Speaker 1: able to kind of like their souls are able to
Speaker 1: live on even if their bodies of actually or their
Speaker 1: brains have died. I'm not remembering it very precisely, but
Speaker 1: it is. Again a lot of these ideas, it makes
Speaker 1: sense that they're coming from these science fiction writers or
Speaker 1: people like that, because so much of science fiction is
Speaker 1: just like thought experiments about like what if, like we
Speaker 1: progressed as a society, just this one little thing a
Speaker 1: little further than is when they aren't grasp right now,
Speaker 1: how would that change our inner actions with each other
Speaker 1: and with society in general. And I think that's why
Speaker 1: people still love science fiction. To this day. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: and also allowing that vein. If you enjoy the Philip K.
Speaker 1: Dick story that we'll just recommended, I think you'll also
Speaker 1: enjoy Fall or Dodge in Hell by Neil Stevenson, which
Speaker 1: has a very similar kind of thing. The only catches
Speaker 1: and this isn't a spoiler, but the only catches. The
Speaker 1: virtual world in Fall or Dodge in Hell is uh,
Speaker 1: for some reason, a medieval fantasy world. So if you
Speaker 1: like Neil Stevenson, he's weird. If you like Neil Stevenson,
Speaker 1: you haven't read him yet. Check that up. I read
Speaker 1: one of his an audiobook form that I can't remember
Speaker 1: the name it's about. It was about like a lot
Speaker 1: of things. Um. It was about like a a like
Speaker 1: gold farming in dungeons and dragons in like, um, what's
Speaker 1: that game that online game World of Warcraft where you
Speaker 1: can literally like gold, like farm for gold and then
Speaker 1: sell it for real money m D. Yeah, it's about
Speaker 1: like a like some sort of worm, um what do
Speaker 1: you call it, Like an invasive piece of malware? Um,
Speaker 1: And like a heist, like an online highest of all this,
Speaker 1: like you know, farmed gold and espionage. And he's just
Speaker 1: he's really all over the place and really really interesting.
Speaker 1: And I believe he wrote snow Crash as well, if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken. Yeah, he wrote snow Crash. He wrote Anathema,
Speaker 1: which is a book I I dearly love. But yes,
Speaker 1: Neil Stevenson is another iteration or his work is another
Speaker 1: iteration of this larger pattern that you just outlined all
Speaker 1: of science fiction through thought experimentation exploring the possibilities of
Speaker 1: the future world. And now that we're talking sci fi,
Speaker 1: we can go to another very sensitive topic. Uh spoiler alert.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be a fan of history to
Speaker 1: realize this. People, since people existed, have always has been
Speaker 1: talking about the weather. We used to have entire like
Speaker 1: religious things built along the passage of the seasons and
Speaker 1: the weather, and we still do a degree do. One
Speaker 1: of the things that people predicted back in the early
Speaker 1: nineteen hundreds is that one day, perhaps in the coming century,
Speaker 1: we would be able to control the weather, specifically to
Speaker 1: make rain. On January six, Iowa's Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette
Speaker 1: came came out with this article that said, yes, we
Speaker 1: were one day going to be able to control rain
Speaker 1: in the twenty one century. They said we will be
Speaker 1: the um masters of moisture. I just made that up.
Speaker 1: They would have much better, a much better phrase. But
Speaker 1: that turned out to actually be sort of true, which
Speaker 1: is amazing. Well, I mean we've talked about this before
Speaker 1: and whether we can call it actually whether control or
Speaker 1: not is maybe debatable. But the idea of cloud seating,
Speaker 1: like you can pump stuff up into clouds using what
Speaker 1: is it? Like, Oh, I am so some kind of
Speaker 1: like chemical that you can use um and you can
Speaker 1: make it rain. But that doesn't mean that you can
Speaker 1: make it not rain, you know what I mean, Like,
Speaker 1: you can't really control it if you can only work
Speaker 1: it one way. But but you also, do you really
Speaker 1: see that used during drought? I mean, we still obviously
Speaker 1: have terrible droughts. We haven't cracked the code on how
Speaker 1: to like not have droughts, so obviously this cloud seeding
Speaker 1: thing will only get you so far, right. Yeah, See,
Speaker 1: that's the problem. The concept of cloud seeding has been
Speaker 1: around for a for a while now. It wasn't around
Speaker 1: nineteen ten, but it came It's been around for decades
Speaker 1: at this point, as silver iodide particles are injected into clouds. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the problem is it's a drink your milkshake situation
Speaker 1: to a degree, because that cloud seeding does not create water.
Speaker 1: It gathers water to these clouds, and then that water
Speaker 1: becomes rain. So you're taking that water from somewhere. The
Speaker 1: government of China just a few weeks ago in December,
Speaker 1: they announced that they're going to expand their weather modification
Speaker 1: program to get this cover two point one million square miles.
Speaker 1: That's more than one and a half times the size
Speaker 1: of India. So where's that water coming from. They're they're
Speaker 1: using it to combat drought. But but I love your point.
Speaker 1: I think you make a fantastic point. We know how
Speaker 1: to start the process, but it's it's maybe a little
Speaker 1: optimistic to say we know how to control it. Right,
Speaker 1: that's right, Ben. Didn't China use cloud seating as like
Speaker 1: a kind of special effect during the Olympics to like
Speaker 1: do some kind of crazy display during the opening ceremonies. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think you're correct. I think you're correct. No, Um,
Speaker 1: I didn't personally see it, but it's definitely a flex
Speaker 1: that is within their uh weather wheelhouse wheelhouse of weather,
Speaker 1: oh will House of weather w o W like World
Speaker 1: of Warcraft. Wow, indeed. Yeah, the headline from Business Insider
Speaker 1: from sixteen is China spent millions on a shady project
Speaker 1: to control the weather ahead of the Beijing Olympics, and
Speaker 1: and that millions is thirty million dollars and their version
Speaker 1: of it involved shooting quote salt and mineral filled bullets
Speaker 1: into the sky in order to make it rain, uh,
Speaker 1: for the you know, for entertainment purposes. So yeah, we're like, like,
Speaker 1: we're sort of there. I don't know that this is
Speaker 1: something that like, surely some there's some research going into it,
Speaker 1: but it's not something we hear about a lot, and
Speaker 1: it certainly doesn't seem to have solved drought or wildfires
Speaker 1: or like any of the like things that the weather
Speaker 1: does that totally screw us over as human beings. So
Speaker 1: I would say this is a no that we have
Speaker 1: not figured out how to control the weather wheeled it
Speaker 1: to our our own purposes. Yet Yeah, I am unfortunately
Speaker 1: tempted to agree, man, because we also see other predictions
Speaker 1: about whether that are incredibly optimistic, because the weather has
Speaker 1: kind of gone down hill over the past a few centuries.
Speaker 1: There are people who predicted that hurricanes would one day
Speaker 1: be a thing of the past nine popular mechanics. A
Speaker 1: fellow named Waldemore camp Ferret said that hurricanes are going
Speaker 1: to be a non issue by the year two thousand
Speaker 1: and his he said there would be a non issue,
Speaker 1: not because we would prevent them from forming, but because
Speaker 1: once we saw one over the ocean, we would start
Speaker 1: a large oil fire across the water, drawing air from
Speaker 1: the region and and and somehow ending the hurricane. He
Speaker 1: also thought we'd be able to divert storms, etcetera. He
Speaker 1: was incredibly wrong on multiple accounts, but you know he
Speaker 1: was doing his best. I guess. By the way, Tesla
Speaker 1: also was incorrect with his uh, his predictions about weather.
Speaker 1: I think he said we would end a forestation and
Speaker 1: prevent forest fires smoking the bear would be disappointed. Um,
Speaker 1: but it still is up to you to prevent forest
Speaker 1: fires because we haven't figured it out like as a collective,
Speaker 1: so each individual has to do their part. Um. But yeah,
Speaker 1: So like another funny weather related one. And this is
Speaker 1: sort of like in the the stuff kind of category, right,
Speaker 1: like what will what will our stuff be like in
Speaker 1: the future. Well, according to Valdemar camp Fare, in the future,
Speaker 1: everything in our homes will be waterproof. Another one of
Speaker 1: these like underwater dwelling kind of future scenarios. Um. He
Speaker 1: believed that everything in the future, including the drapes, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, rugs, upholstery on couches, anything, anything you can
Speaker 1: put your hands on, would be made of waterproof plastic.
Speaker 1: Remember when plastic was like the wave of the future.
Speaker 1: You know that this seems to be from that kind
Speaker 1: of mentality that everything should be made of plastic. Is
Speaker 1: it's the wonder material. If only they knew about nanoplastics
Speaker 1: and you know, gives this all cancer um topic for
Speaker 1: another day. And that our homes would have like built
Speaker 1: in drainage systems, like in the floor so after you know,
Speaker 1: we would literally be able to hose down everything in
Speaker 1: our house to clean it off, and then the water
Speaker 1: would just you know, bloop bloop down the drain and
Speaker 1: then they like car wash style, there'd be a blast
Speaker 1: of heated air that would try everything off. This is uh,
Speaker 1: this one is absurd. I have to say maybe maybe
Speaker 1: the most we've got. You know, we have a thing
Speaker 1: like this in bathrooms in restrooms in different parts of
Speaker 1: the world. Like you'll go to a hotel or a
Speaker 1: hostel maybe and you'll see that the the entire restroom
Speaker 1: is the shower area. Have you ever seen those? They've
Speaker 1: got like the the Fawcett hooks to uley into the
Speaker 1: sink and there's a drain just in the middle of
Speaker 1: the floor. The commode is still there. It's just when
Speaker 1: you want to shower, you just hit a switch on
Speaker 1: the sink and then you take the shower head off
Speaker 1: the rack. Yeah. Also great, uh for like a murder room,
Speaker 1: you know, if you need if you need such, because
Speaker 1: then everything just drains down the drain and you can
Speaker 1: rinse it all off and you got a fresh start.
Speaker 1: But yeah, this is this is true, Bend that we
Speaker 1: do have something like this, but they're all kind of
Speaker 1: more in the realm of bathrooms. Or possibly you might
Speaker 1: have a drain in a garage situation for car wash maybe,
Speaker 1: or you know, something like that, like a foot rinsing
Speaker 1: station if you live by the beach. Yeah. I like
Speaker 1: that you mentioned I like that you mentioned kill rooms.
Speaker 1: Though that's gonna sound weird out of context. We're going
Speaker 1: somewhere with it because I immediately thought of of the
Speaker 1: show Dexter. You remember Dexter, of course, of course, so
Speaker 1: Dexter had this this pretty consistent depiction of a kill
Speaker 1: room on television. And people will argue all sorts of
Speaker 1: things about television and the things depicted upon it, But
Speaker 1: there were a lot of predictions about the future of
Speaker 1: television in the twenty one century. Imagine so like, according
Speaker 1: to some of these futurists, by this point in history,
Speaker 1: we should be able to watch a show like Dexter,
Speaker 1: or let's take another example, watch a show like Hannibal
Speaker 1: and smell uh the food cooking or feel the texture
Speaker 1: of of different different things depicted on the show. Nicholas Negroponte,
Speaker 1: who was a former director of m I T S
Speaker 1: Media Lab, said that we'll have full color, large scale
Speaker 1: holographic television with force feedback and old factory output by
Speaker 1: the twenty one century, meaning that you could see stuff
Speaker 1: on television and you would feel it and you would
Speaker 1: smell it. Uh. Here's the thing, man, I don't know
Speaker 1: if I want that. Hmm No. And honestly, I think
Speaker 1: attempts to do stuff like this it which is still around.
Speaker 1: I I think I think three d uh cinema is
Speaker 1: a gimmick and it hurts my eyeballs and it makes
Speaker 1: me kind of want to Recoil and horror. I don't
Speaker 1: really care for it. And I went and saw a
Speaker 1: movie with my daughter and her friends. It was an anime.
Speaker 1: And there's this like, I don't know, they call it
Speaker 1: four D theater at the fancy movie theater pre pre
Speaker 1: COVID times, where the seats actually move around. They kind
Speaker 1: of jerk you around, and they're a little spritzer's on
Speaker 1: the side of the seats that like shoot puffs of
Speaker 1: air at you, and there's like air stuff happening, and
Speaker 1: even moisture and uh, possibly smells. I don't recall. There
Speaker 1: were no smells in this one. But um. Also at
Speaker 1: the the Lego Land at one of our malls here,
Speaker 1: they have a four D cinema that does involve smells. Um,
Speaker 1: and it's just so gimmicky and I just don't see.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really integrate into like the experience of it,
Speaker 1: Like I get what it is, but it doesn't really
Speaker 1: add anything to it other than like, oh, this is cute,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. So I don't know. I
Speaker 1: know that there have been some companies doing research into
Speaker 1: how to create a smell machine, but I, yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: with you, man, I don't I don't know if I
Speaker 1: really want to I want to smell what I'm watching,
Speaker 1: or if I necessarily want that tactile feedback all the time.
Speaker 1: And I agree with you. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: us in the audience today can remember how television manufacturers
Speaker 1: had this ill fated push to create three D at
Speaker 1: home television's and it was a top down push and
Speaker 1: a lot of people didn't like it. So it's not
Speaker 1: just a question whether the technology exists, it's also a
Speaker 1: question of whether there's a demand for it. So let
Speaker 1: us know if you're a fan of smell a vision
Speaker 1: and why. There's another question here. I think it's it's
Speaker 1: one that we'd be remiss if we didn't mention. It's
Speaker 1: the world of medicine. We know that predictions of future
Speaker 1: miraculous cures are a tail as old as time. Back
Speaker 1: in there was a Swiss doctor named Francois Odi who
Speaker 1: said that by this time, in this century, by the
Speaker 1: twenty one century, all the victories that were the pride
Speaker 1: of brilliant surgeons will be forgotten, replaced by the discovery
Speaker 1: of quote, a substance which, in the form of a capsule,
Speaker 1: will capture the sources of energy that will bring recovery
Speaker 1: within hours. So it's just like one miracle pill for everything.
Speaker 1: What a world that would be amazing, right if Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it would be amazing you sure, But is
Speaker 1: that not that's like not how medicine works, right, There's
Speaker 1: no one pill to cure them all, like Lord of
Speaker 1: the Ring style. I mean, there's like nuances and each
Speaker 1: individual patient's individual malady. This is very like utopian, future
Speaker 1: sci fi type stuff way outside of the realm, just
Speaker 1: like a pill that is like your meal of sustenance.
Speaker 1: This I don't know that there's any scenario where this
Speaker 1: would make any kind of sense unless it was like
Speaker 1: may of like nano beings or something that could then
Speaker 1: just like zoom around inside your body and find the
Speaker 1: particular part that it was ailing you and then fix
Speaker 1: you up. Yeah. Yeah. The quest for a panacea is
Speaker 1: a long quest, and it's one that hasn't hasn't reached
Speaker 1: an endpoint yet. I think you're right, you know, if
Speaker 1: there's something that would be analogous to a pill of
Speaker 1: this sort, it would have to be some kind of
Speaker 1: nanotechnology that would be able to diagnose and immediately treat
Speaker 1: your your body and everything that ails it and then
Speaker 1: at that point you would just need to take it
Speaker 1: as soon as possible, take it before your six so
Speaker 1: it could apply preventative treatment. So far has Odie's prediction
Speaker 1: has not come to pass, but we still have several
Speaker 1: years left in the twenty one century. To say the least.
Speaker 1: One of my favorites, this is so weird. One of
Speaker 1: my favorite concepts. I had not heard of this before
Speaker 1: is the concept of the grouch pill. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's let's be real. I mean, we'd certainly have something
Speaker 1: approaching this, uh in terms of antidepressants, but they wouldn't
Speaker 1: have thought of it quite as high mindedly back in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty six. Uh. They were. This was back when
Speaker 1: KELP was really big again, the kind of the health
Speaker 1: food driven economy um, and they were thinking about how
Speaker 1: can we improve relations between married couples when one of
Speaker 1: them is in a particularly nasty mood. Um, and the
Speaker 1: Rand Corporation, you'll recall, who are the ones that sort
Speaker 1: of set forth this whole idea of the underwater fields
Speaker 1: of KELP and as far as the eye can see,
Speaker 1: tended by frog mem um. They described a world where
Speaker 1: you could pop down to the corner drug store, buy
Speaker 1: some anti grouch pills and slip them into their coffee.
Speaker 1: That's basically, ah, you know, a UM encouraging you to
Speaker 1: drug your partner, essentially, But we can leave that aside
Speaker 1: for now. But of course this is another kind of
Speaker 1: like very simplified version of what antidepressants are. They take,
Speaker 1: they work differently on different people, they take quite a
Speaker 1: long time to actually kick in. It's not something you
Speaker 1: can just dose somebody with and then magically they're happy.
Speaker 1: I mean, sure there are drugs like that, but those
Speaker 1: are called like hard drugs like heroin or cocaine that
Speaker 1: may make you happy instantly, but then long term effects
Speaker 1: of those are addiction and extra grouchiness or worse. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: so again we see there's some real world things that
Speaker 1: could be called grouch pills. But the problem is, as
Speaker 1: you said, no, uh, I think the problem is in
Speaker 1: the specifics of that prediction. I don't think you should
Speaker 1: unknowingly drug your partner. Is that is that a hot take?
Speaker 1: I hope not. I feel like if you have a
Speaker 1: romantic relationship with someone should be founded on trust rather
Speaker 1: than surreptitiously drugging them, And in that way, I would
Speaker 1: I would deem this a less than optimistic prediction about
Speaker 1: the twenty one century. Now, so far, folks, so far,
Speaker 1: dear ridiculous historians. We have been pretty uh, pretty honest,
Speaker 1: but pretty optimistic as well with our predictions. We've been
Speaker 1: talking about people saying nice things. People weren't always saying
Speaker 1: nice things. In fact, there were a few less than optimistic,
Speaker 1: somewhat strange predictions about the twenty first century. Uh No,
Speaker 1: you know, the weirdest one to me is the future
Speaker 1: humans one. This is where things get pretty interesting. This
Speaker 1: is like sort of in the realm of like body
Speaker 1: modification or like, you know what we evolve to be
Speaker 1: a certain way. I mean, yeah, there's this idea that
Speaker 1: seems really strange in dystopian that in the future humans
Speaker 1: will only need one eye. We'll all be cyclops ees.
Speaker 1: This was put forth by Dr Thomas Hall Shostad in
Speaker 1: article uh called the Face of the Future, and he
Speaker 1: says the future I will be in the center of
Speaker 1: the face, below a very high forehead where the bridge
Speaker 1: of the nose once rested. We won't need in the
Speaker 1: where we're going, we won't need noses. That was back
Speaker 1: to the future reference. The doctor said that the human
Speaker 1: eye originally had evolved to see into the distance. But
Speaker 1: we don't need that anymore because we're not like hunters,
Speaker 1: you know. We we we get our food served to
Speaker 1: us in pill form. All we need to be able
Speaker 1: to do is read and write and uh repair watches.
Speaker 1: He says, also cut gems. These are all very you know,
Speaker 1: modern things. Uh, and look at pictures and so forth. Um.
Speaker 1: And he says the cyclopean I would evolve to accommodate
Speaker 1: all these close strange tasks and and pastimes. Wow, jeez,
Speaker 1: that is that's a lot. That's a lot. That guy's
Speaker 1: a doctor, too, has a very low opinion of us.
Speaker 1: I don't know how serious that prediction is, but it
Speaker 1: seems like he's being he's being sincere, you know. Um.
Speaker 1: And then, of course there's a lot of cantankerous stuff
Speaker 1: about the way new technologies will affect future humans. One
Speaker 1: Time article from ninety one said that people are becoming
Speaker 1: less literate due to the rise of television and said
Speaker 1: that eventually people in the age of television would not
Speaker 1: be able to read. Uh. Specifically, this writer said, by
Speaker 1: the twenty first century, our people doubtless will be squint
Speaker 1: eyed hunch backed and fond of the dark. But why
Speaker 1: am I carrying on like this? Chances are that the
Speaker 1: grandchildren of the television age won't know how to read this.
Speaker 1: Tut tut, What a weird what a weird diss So
Speaker 1: hopefully that's a little bit of satire. We know that
Speaker 1: people are encountering literature in different ways, but it's not
Speaker 1: like literature no longer exist. I know a lot of
Speaker 1: people who read books. I would say, I would say
Speaker 1: maybe this writer from the nineteen fifties should consider directing
Speaker 1: their fire at the rise of the calculator. How many
Speaker 1: people can easily do somethings. When's the last time you
Speaker 1: had to do some long division, for instance, without tech assistance?
Speaker 1: A million percent? And we've talked about this so often
Speaker 1: where it's like do our brains how do they change
Speaker 1: based on the information that we no longer need them
Speaker 1: for like, uh, you know, remembering phone numbers or whatever,
Speaker 1: Like do they fill that space up with other stuff
Speaker 1: or do we just kind of lose it? Is like
Speaker 1: I use it or lose this situation. I know that
Speaker 1: you know, the mind and is very elastic and has
Speaker 1: a has a way of adapting to things. Like that.
Speaker 1: But it is an interesting thought, especially when you think
Speaker 1: about the extreme kind of evolution that he's describing here,
Speaker 1: which would presumably take like millions of years right to
Speaker 1: evolve into having a single eye. That's that's not the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that would happen like in anyone's lifetime. True, true.
Speaker 1: And I think the evolution of humanity is now a
Speaker 1: conversation with technology. But I don't I don't think television
Speaker 1: is going to render people a literate Uh, maybe it
Speaker 1: just changes the way we encounter literature. So let's bring
Speaker 1: it all the way back around to the very beginning
Speaker 1: of part one of our Predictions episode. Nicola Tesla. He
Speaker 1: had some really really nice, optimistic predictions to um and
Speaker 1: I don't want to say they're wrong, because I also
Speaker 1: strive to be optimistic, But I will say we have
Speaker 1: what we have, like eighty eighty years to work on
Speaker 1: these alright, Well, what what what are some of your favorites? Man? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, there's a lot. There's so
Speaker 1: much that we've covered, so many weird ones, like pretty
Speaker 1: close to accurate ones, ones that were seeing little shades
Speaker 1: of in our day to day lives. A couple I
Speaker 1: want to end on on Mr Tesla because he did
Speaker 1: make a couple of fun ones that actually have come
Speaker 1: to pass in very, very real and meaningful ways, one
Speaker 1: being the whole notion the concept of a smartphone, or
Speaker 1: let's just call it a cell phone. Um. He said
Speaker 1: in a nineteen o nine interview with The New York
Speaker 1: Times that was published in Popular Mechanics. Quote, h it
Speaker 1: will soon be possible, for instance, for a businessman in
Speaker 1: New York to dictate instructions and have them appear in type.
Speaker 1: In London or elsewhere. He will be able to call
Speaker 1: from his desk and talk with any telephone subscriber, even
Speaker 1: uses the word subscriber in the world. It will only
Speaker 1: be necessary to carry an expensive instrument no bigger than
Speaker 1: a watch, which will enable its bearer to hear anywhere
Speaker 1: on sea or land for distances of thousands of miles,
Speaker 1: one may listen to or transmit speech or song to
Speaker 1: the uttermost parts of the world. Wow. Amazing, Yeah he was.
Speaker 1: He was spot on with this one, which gives us
Speaker 1: a little hope that maybe he'll be He'll one day
Speaker 1: be right with his prediction that news headlines won't focus
Speaker 1: on crime and politics in nine and Liberty magazine. He said,
Speaker 1: today the most civilized countries of the world spend a
Speaker 1: maximum of their income on war and a minimum on education.
Speaker 1: The twenty one century will reverse this order. It will
Speaker 1: be more glorious to fight against ignorance than to die
Speaker 1: on the field of battle. How amazing would that be? Nick,
Speaker 1: If you're listening, I hope you're right. I guess he's
Speaker 1: not familiar with the expression. If it bleeds, it leads.
Speaker 1: I still seem to operate rarely under that principle. UM,
Speaker 1: So I would say that's a big no, but would
Speaker 1: love to see that happen. It's going to require a
Speaker 1: whole lot of consensus and a lot of just changing
Speaker 1: of attitudes, you know, um, and who knows? I mean,
Speaker 1: was a rough year, um moving into one. It's it's
Speaker 1: it would be foolish to think that all of a
Speaker 1: sudden things are going to change for the better overnight.
Speaker 1: But it does feel like the discourses maybe moving towards
Speaker 1: something more representing a consensus or a little bit more
Speaker 1: do they what is the word? Uh? Lowering the temperature
Speaker 1: of of of discourse and of rhetoric and all of that.
Speaker 1: So we'll see UM again like you said, Ben, I
Speaker 1: too like to be optimistic. Uh. One thing that Tesla
Speaker 1: absolutely got right more than a dred years ago. That
Speaker 1: isn't a particularly I don't know, it's it's not net unpositive.
Speaker 1: They're certainly positive uses for these things. But the idea
Speaker 1: of unmanned aerial vehicles are what we love to talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, on stuff that I want you to know,
Speaker 1: UM drones, idea of drone warfare um and Nicola. Tesla
Speaker 1: actually had a pretty optimistic view of what these devices
Speaker 1: would accomplish. He uh said, he actually has a patent
Speaker 1: for something resembling a drone. Uh. It was it's a
Speaker 1: like a sub whatever, like a ship, like a drone ship.
Speaker 1: But he believed that radio waves would be able to
Speaker 1: use be used as communication technology that would transmit messages
Speaker 1: between like a master and and and a host in
Speaker 1: this drone UM and be able to use them to
Speaker 1: carry out warfare operations. But he referred to them as
Speaker 1: drone peacekeeping. Yeah. Yeah, and he was right. He called
Speaker 1: it century ago. He predicted the path we would take. Uh.
Speaker 1: And as you said, Noel, it is a is a
Speaker 1: path fraught with complications. It could be seen as a
Speaker 1: net positive. It certainly was seen. Is that positive by Tesla?
Speaker 1: But so he was right about cell phones, he was
Speaker 1: right about drones. We're hoping he's right about the emphasis
Speaker 1: on science over war. And we're also hoping he's right
Speaker 1: on one of his most optimistic predictions, the idea that
Speaker 1: a Department of hygiene would eliminate pollution and world hunger.
Speaker 1: He said, by the year five, there would be enough
Speaker 1: wheat and wheat products because remember from our earlier episode,
Speaker 1: the guy loved honey milk and wheat, health food nut,
Speaker 1: health food nut. He said, there will be enough of
Speaker 1: this stuff to feed the entire world, including parts of
Speaker 1: the world that have been chronically on the verge of
Speaker 1: starvation or experienced food insecurity. And he said, long before
Speaker 1: the next century dawns, systematic reforest station and the scientific
Speaker 1: management of natural resources will have made an end of
Speaker 1: all devastating droughts, forest fires, and floods. Oh and he
Speaker 1: also predicted, uh that we would be done with the
Speaker 1: necessity burning fuel and it would be doing such thing
Speaker 1: as unsafe drinking water. Tesla, we're trying our best, man,
Speaker 1: We're let's just say we're running a little late with
Speaker 1: that one. Yeah, we sure are. I want to circle
Speaker 1: back to drones just really quickly, because again I sort
Speaker 1: of briefly mentioned that he thought of these as a
Speaker 1: method of keeping the peace, and the reason is he
Speaker 1: felt that his patent for a drone, these unmanned vehicles
Speaker 1: would quote this is from a tweet from Matt Schreyer,
Speaker 1: um would bring about world peace through mutually assured destruction
Speaker 1: in the same way that like the H bomb did.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, there's a really good quote from John Oliver
Speaker 1: from last week tonight where he says, uh that drones
Speaker 1: didn't have that same effect because so much of what
Speaker 1: drones do happen in secret, and you don't have that
Speaker 1: same spectacle and that same theater and that same shock
Speaker 1: and awe as you do with a singular event like
Speaker 1: dropping an H bomb and seeing an associated mushroom cloud
Speaker 1: that everyone can like oh and ah over and experience
Speaker 1: the fear of God. Right, yeah, right, that's the problem.
Speaker 1: Technology always outpaces legislation, and we are now in a
Speaker 1: world where, um, it's difficult to make solid predictions about
Speaker 1: so much of the future. One thing we can predict, though, hopefully,
Speaker 1: is that you have enjoyed this two part episode and
Speaker 1: we predict I think we can safely predict that we
Speaker 1: are gonna be making more of these episodes in the future,
Speaker 1: so long as our super producer, Casey Pegram sticks with us,
Speaker 1: as long as we don't get on your nerves too much,
Speaker 1: right Casey, I'm here for the long haul, guys. Thanks man,
Speaker 1: We appreciate it, and we're here for you for the
Speaker 1: long haul and for you ridiculous historians. So and you
Speaker 1: could be there for us or for each other, and
Speaker 1: in whatever form you see fit, as long as it
Speaker 1: involves you know, the Internet. You can find us on Facebook,
Speaker 1: on Instagram, on Twitter, where we're Ridiculous History. If you
Speaker 1: would like, you can join our Facebook group Ridiculous Historians,
Speaker 1: where you can participate in conversations and engage with your
Speaker 1: fellow ridiculous historians. And you can also find us as individuals.
Speaker 1: You can talk to me directly. I'm on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Ben Bullin. You can also find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Ben Bullin hs W HUE. Thanks to super producer Casey Pegram,
Speaker 1: as always Alex Williams, who composed this theme. Christopher hasciotis
Speaker 1: here in spirit our wonderful research associate Gabe Lousier. Thanks
Speaker 1: to you, Gabe, Thanks also to our own mad Scientists
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. Thanks to Eve's Jeff co our pure podcaster,
Speaker 1: uh friend of the show. Do check out her fantastic
Speaker 1: podcast This Day in History Class. Yes please do. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, I hope your new year is treating
Speaker 1: you well. Let us know what the cut off for
Speaker 1: calling it a new year is. I would love to know.
Speaker 1: Why don't we just call it the new year until
Speaker 1: like September? You know what. I'm cool with that. Wait
Speaker 1: weigh in though. We'll see you next time Fox. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from My Heart Radio, visit the I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.