Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of I Heart Brading. Hello, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: My name is Met, my name is Nol. They called
Speaker 1: me Ben. We're joined as always with our superproducer Alexis
Speaker 1: code named Doc Holiday Jackson. Most importantly, you are you.
Speaker 1: You are here, and that makes this the stuff they
Speaker 1: don't want you to know. It is the top of
Speaker 1: the week where at the very end of January, hope
Speaker 1: everybody's January went well, and we linger on the precipice
Speaker 1: of February, so wishing everybody well over the Valentine Holiday.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of stuff going on in the world,
Speaker 1: in the US and abroad, and in space as well,
Speaker 1: and quite possibly in the bounds of your very own
Speaker 1: body very soon. That's why we do this weekly segment
Speaker 1: we call Strange News. Today, we are going to have
Speaker 1: kind of a a spiritual update to our earlier episode
Speaker 1: on Ticketmaster, which somehow didn't get us sued yet, and
Speaker 1: then we're going to also explore some frightening realities of
Speaker 1: the bleeding edge of gene alteration, gene injections, and medication.
Speaker 1: You'll see what we're talking about towards the end, because
Speaker 1: before we get to any of that, we are going
Speaker 1: to turn our turn our lidless I to Ukraine, to Russia,
Speaker 1: to NATO. The conflict, the war continues, even though some
Speaker 1: people in the US how honestly encountered what you might
Speaker 1: call Ukraine fatigue. They you know, or maybe just tuning
Speaker 1: out the news. The reality is that the situation remains
Speaker 1: in a crisis point and there are big, big things happening.
Speaker 1: The world collectively is edging closer and closer to a threshold,
Speaker 1: threshold that quite realistically is one of no return. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that pot of water is boiling, and it's been boiling.
Speaker 1: It's ready for that pasta. You guys, I'm getting a
Speaker 1: little nervous, and make sure to cook at al dente.
Speaker 1: Don't let it become ashy puss. Yeah, it does, in
Speaker 1: a weird way, make me hungry. Wait, do you guys
Speaker 1: hear that? Yes, that's the alarm That means it's time
Speaker 1: to check the old doomsday clock. Guys, So let's do that.
Speaker 1: Let's see, guys, let's just type this in here doomsday clock. Oh, uh, guys,
Speaker 1: we've decreased by ten seconds. It is now ninety seconds
Speaker 1: to midnight according to the dooms ninety seconds from from
Speaker 1: now seconds to midnight nine figurative seconds. But you know
Speaker 1: how head text tracks, just in case, just in case,
Speaker 1: you know, uh sees the day uh that we did
Speaker 1: an episode on the doomsday clock. Uh many doomsday minutes ago.
Speaker 1: Do we want to give people a quick recap about
Speaker 1: about this bad boy? Sure, the Doomsday clock, it's a clock.
Speaker 1: I think the last time we checked in it was
Speaker 1: one hundred seconds to midnight. But let's give the people
Speaker 1: a little background. So the doomsday clock is not a
Speaker 1: physical clock. Really, it's a symbol that was created by
Speaker 1: a bunch of repentant scientists evolved with the Manhattan Project.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have a lot of scientific rigor. As our
Speaker 1: pal Jack O'Brien over at Daily Zeitgeist has pointed out, Uh,
Speaker 1: we talked about this in the past. It's one of
Speaker 1: those things I think continually fascinates us. The real goal
Speaker 1: of the clock is to give people a very simple understanding,
Speaker 1: a vibe, if you will, of how close humanity is
Speaker 1: to a nuclear exchange or other civilization, threatening catastrophe. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the existential stuff that would take a lot of us out,
Speaker 1: if not most of us, if not all of us.
Speaker 1: Check out The End of the World by Josh Clark
Speaker 1: if you want to find out more about existential threats. Definitely,
Speaker 1: definitely check that out. Very good show, I believe. Eped
Speaker 1: by Ben Bolin. Yes, no, you know, Uh, the thing
Speaker 1: about our pal Josh is very easy to work with.
Speaker 1: Did I send some emails about the show? Yeah, let's
Speaker 1: put it that that way. But credit is important to me.
Speaker 1: I don't want to take credit for his work. As
Speaker 1: you guys said it is. It is fantastic. It does
Speaker 1: hold up, and it's it's great listening. Uh. If you're
Speaker 1: ever like, I'm just too happy about how things are going.
Speaker 1: What you pointed out, Matt is huge because this is
Speaker 1: I think the closest this figurative clock has been. It
Speaker 1: is shoot midnight to the time in nuclear change. This
Speaker 1: change happened very very recently, right it was January this year,
Speaker 1: I think, Yes, they announced the change, yes, Tuesday, January
Speaker 1: yesterday as we record this on the twenty five January.
Speaker 1: Exciting stuff. It just happened, and you know, the scientists
Speaker 1: there are pointing to the things that you probably are
Speaker 1: already thinking about or actively avoiding in your daily life.
Speaker 1: The situation in Ukraine, the situation with you know, global
Speaker 1: climate change, and those are really the two major ones,
Speaker 1: and the combination of those two situations for them has
Speaker 1: has caused them to reduce the amount of time we
Speaker 1: have until we're all gone figuratively as you said. Oh,
Speaker 1: they also factor in things about China's expansion, North Korea's
Speaker 1: enhancement of their I C B M s, their missile capabilities,
Speaker 1: Iran's capability to enrich and they're continuing desire to enrich uranium,
Speaker 1: and India's development of its nuclear arsenal um. So yeehaw, everybody,
Speaker 1: good times. Really enjoy that next meal because it could
Speaker 1: be your last. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. But
Speaker 1: here's here's the other, rub y'all. Along with the change
Speaker 1: in the doomsday clock here, there were several other large
Speaker 1: announcements when it comes to geopolitics. They're all happening this week,
Speaker 1: uh and one of them culminated today on as we
Speaker 1: record this. So, a bunch of NATO countries and a
Speaker 1: few non NATO countries that are interested in joining up
Speaker 1: with the crew. They met in Germany at the Romstein
Speaker 1: US Air Force Base, the most metal of air force
Speaker 1: base named after the absolutely don't fact check that m
Speaker 1: Stein do host. And they they decided to meet at
Speaker 1: this base and discuss sending arsenals of tanks to Ukraine
Speaker 1: to fight in the battles there on the ground with Russia. Uh.
Speaker 1: This occurred on Friday, January twenty last week as we
Speaker 1: record this, and those countries decided over you know, the
Speaker 1: next couple of days between January twenty of that meeting
Speaker 1: and today as we're recording this on they all decided
Speaker 1: they're gonna, I guess Anti up some tanks up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Which that's a bit of a move. That's a bit
Speaker 1: of a throw in your hat in the ring kind
Speaker 1: of situation. Well, it's a big deal because numerous countries
Speaker 1: have already been lending support to Ukraine in their fight
Speaker 1: against Russia. UM, and many countries have also aided Russia
Speaker 1: in their fight against Ukraine. In this case, it is
Speaker 1: many of the primary NATO countries that have all pledged
Speaker 1: to send real weaponry into fight. This is these tanks
Speaker 1: aren't messing around, Uh, tanks are you know? Accredited very
Speaker 1: much so with the I would say quick defeat of
Speaker 1: Iraqs forces the first time the US invaded. Tanks have
Speaker 1: been used in many conflicts as the deciding factor where
Speaker 1: they have been a large part of a deciding factor,
Speaker 1: and who wins a conflict, I guess the effective use
Speaker 1: of tanks. So let's just go through the list here, guys,
Speaker 1: because this is evolving as we're going along here right now,
Speaker 1: as we stand, these countries have decided to send some tanks. UH.
Speaker 1: Poland sending fourteen tanks. They're called Leopard two's or Leopard
Speaker 1: two tank also known as m B t s if
Speaker 1: you see it written anywhere. Finland, who is not a
Speaker 1: member of NATO but really wants to be, is stated
Speaker 1: that they're going to be providing tanks or they're willing
Speaker 1: to provide tanks. Okay, did that make sense? Um, Spain
Speaker 1: agreed to send tanks if Germany agreed to send tanks,
Speaker 1: and then they did. And Germany just I guess, kind
Speaker 1: of relinquished to uh internal pressure and external pressure to
Speaker 1: send a bunch of tanks. They just I think it
Speaker 1: was yesterday they agreed. Uh. The United Kingdom is sending
Speaker 1: fourteen Challenger two tanks. France is sending their I think
Speaker 1: that's Le Clerc tanks, Norway sending eight, Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands.
Speaker 1: I thought the Netherlands was neutral though, aren't they? Like,
Speaker 1: why are they sending tanks where the Hague is? They
Speaker 1: said they are willing to provide tanks. Again, I think
Speaker 1: it's pressure coming from being members of NATO. That's really
Speaker 1: where the pressure is coming from. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: global pressure at this point. They're required to move as
Speaker 1: a unit. Exactly, got it. And then today, as we're recording,
Speaker 1: just a few hours before we started rolling, the United
Speaker 1: States announced that we will be sending thirty one Abrams
Speaker 1: tanks over to Ukraine. We're also going to provide training
Speaker 1: to use the tanks effectively and other supplies that are
Speaker 1: necessary to run the things as a battalion. What's that
Speaker 1: total number? Um, I haven't done the math yet, the
Speaker 1: thirty one. It also really depends on how many actually
Speaker 1: get delivered before we hear it are some pledges, so
Speaker 1: it might be it might be a little bit um
Speaker 1: optimistic to give a definitive tally at this time. But
Speaker 1: but these tanks will all be needed. This is not
Speaker 1: quite overwhelming force. That kind of stuff we would expect
Speaker 1: if if Article five of NATO wasn't voked. I mean,
Speaker 1: West military alone could essentially delete the Russian Air Force,
Speaker 1: delete them from the sky. But they're not doing that
Speaker 1: because NATO hasn't gone in. I think, you know, we
Speaker 1: know Russia has a lot of tanks. The problem is
Speaker 1: their tanks are kind of like used car lot tanks.
Speaker 1: They've been cannibalized for parts, but there's still um, there's
Speaker 1: still hundreds and hundreds. Russia is still going to have
Speaker 1: more tanks then Ukrainian forces, even if all these agreements
Speaker 1: go through. But still Abraham's tanks, Abrams tanks, excuse me there, Um,
Speaker 1: they're super sophisticated, but they can also have a lot
Speaker 1: of difficulty in terms of field maintenance and supply chains.
Speaker 1: And they're not cheap, really can at like over ten
Speaker 1: million per unit sense of the finance, I had no
Speaker 1: idea that they were that costly. I mean, but it's
Speaker 1: interesting too because I mean Ukraine has already shown pretty
Speaker 1: significant scrappiness. I mean, this is a conflict that was
Speaker 1: thought to maybe and pretty quickly, and they've held their
Speaker 1: ground and held their territory and made some serious inroads
Speaker 1: in this conflict when we thought, you know, the the
Speaker 1: overwhelming opinion was that maybe they weren't a match. You're correct, Um,
Speaker 1: I'm not even thinking about this in any terms as
Speaker 1: far as is this going to change the times the war? Right? UM.
Speaker 1: I'm more thinking about this currently, at least as big picture.
Speaker 1: What does this mean to have all of these NATO
Speaker 1: countries allied together. This is NATO joining together to send
Speaker 1: a bunch of really serious weapons to a country that's
Speaker 1: at war with another global superpower. And it feels like
Speaker 1: a major escalation to me. When I woke up this
Speaker 1: morning and I read the news, I I was like,
Speaker 1: oh crap, well, there's just talking about this. I mean
Speaker 1: in terms of what does World War three look like
Speaker 1: and what does it what would it take to make
Speaker 1: that happen? And this feels like in roads in that direction. Also, uh,
Speaker 1: this is also pushing NATO membership. I really appreciate the
Speaker 1: point you brought up with Finland, because look, if you
Speaker 1: are consuming domestic Russian media, then you are going to
Speaker 1: hear this presented as not a war nor an invasion,
Speaker 1: but a special military operation at the request of the
Speaker 1: people living in these areas of eastern Ukraine. That is
Speaker 1: not really the case, just to be honest with you
Speaker 1: about it. But seeing that kind of aggression from neighboring
Speaker 1: countries Finland, a couple other countries in the orbit, uh,
Speaker 1: that is enough for them to start feeling like NATO
Speaker 1: is an act now offer. And there's a lot of
Speaker 1: there's a lot of paperwork, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: boxes you have to tick to hold up to the
Speaker 1: rights and responsibilities of a NATO member. But this Article
Speaker 1: five thing has only been invoked one time in the
Speaker 1: entirety of NATO's history, and that was after the attacks
Speaker 1: on New York and the Pentagon in September eleven. So
Speaker 1: this is a big, big deal. And you know, you
Speaker 1: can rightly dunk on the doomsday clock all you what,
Speaker 1: I sure have, because it is an opinion clock. But
Speaker 1: not for nothing are they escalating the time on the clock, because,
Speaker 1: like you said, Matt, this is a major escalation. As
Speaker 1: imperfect as those tanks maybe, and I know we've got
Speaker 1: a lot of we've got a lot of people with
Speaker 1: experience with tanks in some regard in the audience today,
Speaker 1: and you know, as as imperfect as those things can
Speaker 1: be when they are part of the right force, when
Speaker 1: they're combined with the right stuff and infrastructure and support.
Speaker 1: They're dangerous, dude. They are not to be played with.
Speaker 1: And the question then is how will this something was
Speaker 1: talking about with some geopolitics nerds, how will Russia respond?
Speaker 1: Has there been any scuttle but that you've heard regarding
Speaker 1: this match? I mean tank for tank, They've got the numbers,
Speaker 1: but I don't think they have the tank by any means.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you Russia's response in one second, and
Speaker 1: then we can move on to the next story. But
Speaker 1: I want to give you a solid number just when
Speaker 1: you're thinking about the number of tanks involved here, Uh, Poland,
Speaker 1: which is sending fourteen of its tanks, has an arsenal
Speaker 1: of two D and fifty of those tanks that are
Speaker 1: you know, kept in Poland ready to go to fight
Speaker 1: for Poland as their military right. So they're tending sending
Speaker 1: fourteen of those two D and fifty. But if you
Speaker 1: imagine the number that a large country like Russia would
Speaker 1: have when compared to a country like Poland, you can
Speaker 1: only imagine that there are many, many, many, many many
Speaker 1: more tanks that are gonna oppose these NATO tanks. UM.
Speaker 1: The Kremlin as of today we're recording. January has responded
Speaker 1: as the way you maybe would imagine. Uh, they've come
Speaker 1: out and say that the tanks being sent over by
Speaker 1: NATO forces will burn in Ukraine. UM possibly S four
Speaker 1: hundred S three hundred missile systems. Yes. Yeah, basically we've
Speaker 1: got superior things to take those out. Um, we can
Speaker 1: also take them out with our our aircraft. And we've
Speaker 1: seen over the past I don't know month or so,
Speaker 1: guys in the news, we've been seeing all kinds of
Speaker 1: information about brutal air strikes that have been occurring to
Speaker 1: take out infrastructure and other targets. So it's just something
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to keep watching. I look, it's not
Speaker 1: gonna help anyone or even me, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: go to the store later and buy a bunch of
Speaker 1: canned goods and just put them in my basement. You
Speaker 1: should have some cast more. Get put butter to peanut
Speaker 1: butter has super high. Yeah, if you're lost in the woods,
Speaker 1: you can get by with like a spoon FULU peanut butter.
Speaker 1: You should the peanut butter in my house. It's nuts.
Speaker 1: So can I speak to the quality of Campbell's chunky.
Speaker 1: I think it's very very good soup there. Chicken and dumplings.
Speaker 1: Uh gosh, it's like cracker barrel quality. It's very very
Speaker 1: good chicken and dumps. Their old original motto, which was
Speaker 1: not successful, was the soup you can eat with a fork.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you can drink with your mouth. That's right,
Speaker 1: you don't have to boof it. But one I think
Speaker 1: one other thing that we should add is something that
Speaker 1: I think obsesses a lot of people rightly. Things that
Speaker 1: we should adds. Those tanks are not like a final
Speaker 1: anti up right there as we speak, Zelinski's administration is
Speaker 1: fighting a growing corruption scandal in you crying, and they
Speaker 1: also further requested this is the beginning of the stuff
Speaker 1: they were asking for. Hardware wise, we're talking long range missiles,
Speaker 1: we're talking jet fighters. That is what we mean when
Speaker 1: we say s elatition. This is not the first supply
Speaker 1: run by any means, but it's definitely not the last,
Speaker 1: and the bigger toys might be in place soon. Are
Speaker 1: you saying that Zelenski may not be of the golden
Speaker 1: good boy that he's been portrayed as in the media
Speaker 1: and with a lot of help from American media. I'm
Speaker 1: unclear on that. I would need to do some more
Speaker 1: research on my end. I don't want to talk out
Speaker 1: of my neck on this, but I do know that
Speaker 1: there's been a like a top Ukrainian government officials are quitting.
Speaker 1: He's trying to trying to shore up support too. And
Speaker 1: if you know how Russia has historically worked when it
Speaker 1: comes through the affairs of other countries, then I would
Speaker 1: definitely I think any of us, if we were in
Speaker 1: Zelenski's position, would be keeping a close eye on my
Speaker 1: colleagues because people turn for the easiest things. The last
Speaker 1: thing I want to put your guys, we mentioned pressure
Speaker 1: has all been about pressure, you a political pressure, right,
Speaker 1: So the United States denied that Germany was putting pressure
Speaker 1: on it too, say as the US, yes, we'll send tanks.
Speaker 1: Germany is saying it's been resisting pressure by other NATO
Speaker 1: countries to send tanks. Everybody's basically saying, look, it's not me,
Speaker 1: it's all of us. It's together. It's we're only doing
Speaker 1: this because we're all doing it. Okay, got it. It's
Speaker 1: not it's not me, it's us. Does that make sense. Okay, cool,
Speaker 1: everybody good? All right, here's the tanks, So just keep
Speaker 1: that in mind as you're taking news in. It's all well,
Speaker 1: that's how coalitions work, right, I mean, it's sort of
Speaker 1: like a group think. You know, it's all or nothing.
Speaker 1: We're all in this together. Yeah, as long as it
Speaker 1: prevents the US and Russia from getting into direct hot combat.
Speaker 1: Let's not do that, okay, because nukes don't avoid civilians. Nope,
Speaker 1: neither does fall out. Hey, here's some ads. Will be
Speaker 1: right back, and we've returned with another piece of strange news. Uh,
Speaker 1: Fellas if ye all bought tickets to any concerts of late, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get swifty with it pretty soon, pretty excited
Speaker 1: about that. It's too late for that. But I think
Speaker 1: you may well have missed nah nah yeah, sorry, Ben.
Speaker 1: I think you and I are roughly the same where
Speaker 1: we typically if we go to concerts or events, it's
Speaker 1: the kinds of things that are more like uh event
Speaker 1: bright tickets, you know, or like smaller like access a.
Speaker 1: Access is a ticket company that services a lot of
Speaker 1: the medium sized venues here in Atlanta, like the the
Speaker 1: Eastern and and the Tabernacle. Well not the Tabernacle they
Speaker 1: are a live nation venue. But another one would be
Speaker 1: the Variety playhouse they use. Yeah, I'll tell you man,
Speaker 1: the last time I had to buy tickets Ticketmaster, you
Speaker 1: guys remembered, I got so irritated that we did an
Speaker 1: episode all about how Ticketmaster is crooked and they and
Speaker 1: and you know, honestly, it is a monopoly. You can
Speaker 1: read any number of things that allies or proponents of
Speaker 1: ticket Masters say, like are these people who are these
Speaker 1: allies and proponent the people work for ticket Master. And
Speaker 1: one of the arguments is I couldn't let this go.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I'll make a more a eel when I bite
Speaker 1: out right. But the the idea was that ticket Master
Speaker 1: part of their service for these venues, for these promoters,
Speaker 1: these companies, these artists, is to take the blame for
Speaker 1: those other policies. That's part of their argument. They're saying, like,
Speaker 1: just like a hell in wrestling, part of their job
Speaker 1: is to be the bad guy. But that simply doesn't
Speaker 1: bear up to the fact when you look at all
Speaker 1: the fees they tack on for themselves, look at all
Speaker 1: the crazy uh stuff they do to get in bed
Speaker 1: with scalpers. It's not man, screw those guys. Well, it's
Speaker 1: like Live Nation is maybe the good cop and ticket
Speaker 1: Masters the bad cop. Because you know, Congress allowed a merger,
Speaker 1: a vertical merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation. I don't
Speaker 1: remember exactly what this happened, but it was a big deal.
Speaker 1: It was my on over a decade ago, I want
Speaker 1: to say, But it doesn't matter exactly the fact that
Speaker 1: this is a thing. Ticketmaster and Live Nation are vertically integrated,
Speaker 1: and a vertical merger means it's two companies that do
Speaker 1: slightly different things leaguing together. So Live Nation owns the venues,
Speaker 1: Live Nation promotes tours. Uh. Live Nation is is sort
Speaker 1: of vaguely kind of not an artist management company, but
Speaker 1: their promoters. Essentially, they're like the largest promoter, you know,
Speaker 1: in the United States. Uh. And again they own these venues.
Speaker 1: I'm sure anybody out there that is a fan of
Speaker 1: live music has been to a concert at a Live
Speaker 1: Nation event. They use the same vendors, they take a
Speaker 1: cut of the merch sales, you know. And if you're
Speaker 1: not into being in business with Live Nation, well then
Speaker 1: you're not going to play their venues. And that means
Speaker 1: at a certain size of artists. There's really no alternative
Speaker 1: other than booking like fifteen nights, you know, at a
Speaker 1: smaller venue, which I think is cool. Ben and I
Speaker 1: recently were in New York together and we got to
Speaker 1: see LCD sound System play at a venue called Brooklyn Steel,
Speaker 1: which is another a excess or access however you say
Speaker 1: it venue, and it's a big venue. I think it's
Speaker 1: like it held about two thousand people. But that's a
Speaker 1: lower tier of venue than the Live Nation venues we're
Speaker 1: talking about, which typically are in the you know, dozens
Speaker 1: of thousands in terms of capacity, like fifty ish. You know,
Speaker 1: huge artists like Taylor Swift, for example, would only really
Speaker 1: be able to play venues of that capacity because of
Speaker 1: the demand, because of just how stinking famous, uh she
Speaker 1: and artists of her ilk are and how much demand
Speaker 1: there is. So the issue here, the story in particular,
Speaker 1: is revolving around Ylor Swift. I'm sorry, Matt, I hate
Speaker 1: to tell you, but those tickets were gone before you
Speaker 1: even ever clicked your mouse. Whether that be because of
Speaker 1: pure sorry buddy, because of pure demand, because of pure scarcity,
Speaker 1: or because of a combination of those things and very
Speaker 1: clever hackers. We we know, you know, as far back
Speaker 1: as like Pearl Jam. You remember when Pearl Jam tried
Speaker 1: to take on Ticketmaster. We talked about that in the episode.
Speaker 1: They tried to do their own thing. That was before
Speaker 1: the Live Nation merger, so they maybe had a bit
Speaker 1: more of a shot because Ticketmaster didn't. I don't think
Speaker 1: we're in the business of owning venues, but a lot
Speaker 1: of the bigger venues were in business with Ticketmaster. Now
Speaker 1: it's even more difficult because if you want to play
Speaker 1: a show at a Live Nation venue, you have to
Speaker 1: use Ticketmaster because that is their proprietary, you know, vendor
Speaker 1: for selling tickets. Um. Famously, recently, uh, Taylor Swift fans
Speaker 1: were crestfallen when they were not able to get tickets
Speaker 1: to see their favorite artists. Um. Essentially, the demand was
Speaker 1: so high for these Taylor Swift tickets for her tour
Speaker 1: behind this record Midnight UM that it crashed like the internet.
Speaker 1: You know, it was just an absolute bonkers level of demand, unprecedented.
Speaker 1: I think they sold something like some million number of
Speaker 1: tickets like in a day or or something insane like
Speaker 1: it really hadn't happened before. And while you could argue
Speaker 1: that okay, Taylor Swift, if you want your fans to
Speaker 1: get tickets, then put safeguards in place so that only
Speaker 1: the true fans you know, can get the tickets. A
Speaker 1: lot of artists will do things like you have to
Speaker 1: have an ID to claim your tickets. You can only
Speaker 1: get certain number of tickets that they're associated with your
Speaker 1: actual identity, and that prevents these you know, very high
Speaker 1: tech scalpers. We're not talking about the scalpers of yesteryear
Speaker 1: that just you know, bought up the tickets and then
Speaker 1: hung around outside the venues. These are calculated, targeted operations
Speaker 1: that use very sophisticated bots uh to automatically buy up
Speaker 1: these tickets even you know, circumventing things like pre sales,
Speaker 1: circumventing things like I'm talking about with you know, these
Speaker 1: these i D kind of situations which are not widely adopted. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, Taylor Swift fans were understandably upset when the
Speaker 1: ticketmaster servers crashed and they weren't able to get their tickets. UM.
Speaker 1: This has caused quite the kerfuffle, to the point where
Speaker 1: Congress is now weighing in the same Congress that you know,
Speaker 1: granted this merger, and lawmakers are kind of up in
Speaker 1: arms like they like to be. They like to have,
Speaker 1: you know, pet causes. He was even I can't remember
Speaker 1: who it was, but one person that spoke in this
Speaker 1: uh this hearing that took place a couple of days ago,
Speaker 1: actually quoted Taylor swift lyrics and said, like it's like
Speaker 1: a nightmare dressed like a daydream or daydream dressed like
Speaker 1: a nightmare, which we whichever, you know from from blank
Speaker 1: blank space. Uh, that is quite the banger. Really. I
Speaker 1: like a lot of Taylor Swift's music, but Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: as a musician correct. Taylor was also a musician that
Speaker 1: made an interesting career trajectory in terms of, like, you know,
Speaker 1: she was very young country artist who then pivoted to
Speaker 1: being much more broad kind of like pop, and at
Speaker 1: first it was sort of more like pop country and
Speaker 1: her her you know, famously was in legal disputes with
Speaker 1: her label I think Big Machine is what they were called,
Speaker 1: and her former you know, I guess, and our guy
Speaker 1: or manager or whatever. Point being that she lost the
Speaker 1: rights to a lot of her recordings, but not the
Speaker 1: rights to her songs. So she famously re recorded a
Speaker 1: lot of these albums so that she could take them
Speaker 1: back and as she calls them, Taylor's version, and that's awesome.
Speaker 1: I think she's a very interesting, disruptive artist in that respect.
Speaker 1: But this whole ticket Master thing is is its own
Speaker 1: kind of debacle. Um, Taylor Swift can't exactly change the
Speaker 1: nature of these relationships because of the reasons that I
Speaker 1: lay out a minute ago. The venues that she needs
Speaker 1: to be able to play in are the ones that
Speaker 1: are owned and operated by Ticketmaster and Live Nation, and
Speaker 1: it's there's a lot of the lobbying power behind Live Nation,
Speaker 1: and then a lot of the conversations I've been hearing
Speaker 1: with you know, industry experts and lawmakers, even they acknowledge
Speaker 1: that like Live Nation has massive power on on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill in terms of like the ability to kind of
Speaker 1: grease the wheels and make sure that this merger doesn't
Speaker 1: get called into question. Um. Ticketmaster exactly, in fact, is
Speaker 1: asking Congress to help them eliminate these bots. They're saying,
Speaker 1: it's not us, We're not a monopoly. You guys know
Speaker 1: that you said this was okay, So help us help
Speaker 1: the fans by eliminating these bots. Um, And I just
Speaker 1: think that's so fascinating. They're literally saying, we aren't what
Speaker 1: was that thing you did? Now, you did a really
Speaker 1: great Instagram video about the gas companies and gas stoves
Speaker 1: with that clip from alec all the one. It's like,
Speaker 1: somebody used to blame here, but it's definitely not me.
Speaker 1: I don't know who it is. So that's that's kind
Speaker 1: of what's happening. Um, there's a there's an article on
Speaker 1: roll call dot com after Taylor Swift ticket fiasco. Senate
Speaker 1: panel calls Ticketmaster a monopolistic anti hero. So now there
Speaker 1: is you know, these pet kind of causes that I
Speaker 1: was talking about against Ticketmaster, but we have Ticketmaster saying
Speaker 1: help us get rid of this bot problem. It's not
Speaker 1: our fault. We need help getting rid of these bots
Speaker 1: there too. Um, they are too sophisticated. There's something we
Speaker 1: can do to fight against them. One point five million
Speaker 1: people signed up as legitimate customers. Uh, and over fourteen
Speaker 1: million people entities. Let's just say, hit the site when
Speaker 1: the tickets went on sale. Uh, we don't know how many.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing with Elon Musk and Twitter saying
Speaker 1: there's too many bots. We don't know how many of
Speaker 1: these users are legitimate, but we know it's a lot
Speaker 1: um and now live Nation President and CFO Joe Burke
Speaker 1: told spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee, uh saying that, Okay,
Speaker 1: we learned a lot we had we had an issue.
Speaker 1: It was a described as a bad user experience UM
Speaker 1: or whatever, a bad end user experience. But it was
Speaker 1: not our faults. It was the bots. So we need
Speaker 1: Congress to help expand the Bots Act in order to
Speaker 1: increase enforcement of these spots. But is that really Congress's job, Like,
Speaker 1: shouldn't the ticket vendor have the tech in place to
Speaker 1: prevent these things or change their model in such a
Speaker 1: way that maybe doesn't favor them just selling as many
Speaker 1: tickets as possible and make it a little more in
Speaker 1: favor of actual fans and actual you know, humans getting
Speaker 1: these tickets. It's Congress's job to create legislation. That's a
Speaker 1: short phrase with a lot of stuff in there. I
Speaker 1: like to point it out pet causes. If you're being
Speaker 1: a bit cynical Malcavellian about it, you could say being
Speaker 1: associated with fixing the ticket master problem is a great
Speaker 1: way to get young voters, right, I'm sure with literists
Speaker 1: that play there, Yeah, and this means that um, in
Speaker 1: terms of like your your actual question there, like is
Speaker 1: it Congress's role to do this? At what point are
Speaker 1: they overstepping their bounds right and interfering with the functions
Speaker 1: of a private company. I mean, it'd be different if
Speaker 1: they were an energy giant, right, It'd be different if
Speaker 1: they were, um, if they held power over all the
Speaker 1: water plants on the Eastern Seaboard or something. So it's
Speaker 1: easy to dismiss this stuff for tickets, but because it's
Speaker 1: for you know, entertainment. But I would say, you know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people's livelihoods on the line
Speaker 1: with this kind of off It's a huge industry. And additionally,
Speaker 1: after I rightly dunked on Ticketmaster at the beginning of
Speaker 1: the of this, I do have to say, you know,
Speaker 1: stopping those bots is difficult. It's very much whackable. You know,
Speaker 1: you have to be on the defensive. It's kind of
Speaker 1: hard for them to Like I I think it would
Speaker 1: be unfair of an anti Ticketmaster person like me to
Speaker 1: say that, uh, they are definitely not trying to stop
Speaker 1: the box, because I think they are. It's just like
Speaker 1: Congress could pass a law requiring them to fix as
Speaker 1: much as they can, and it still might not fix
Speaker 1: the problem. It might just be out of their hands.
Speaker 1: If that makes sense. It totally does, Matt. One last
Speaker 1: thing I see nodding there. Um, The thing about being
Speaker 1: a for all intents and purposes monopoly is that you
Speaker 1: don't really have to do that great of a job
Speaker 1: what you do because you're kind of the only game
Speaker 1: in town. Um, So it's not even really in your
Speaker 1: best interest to make that big of an effort outside
Speaker 1: of just like, okay, a lot of the insiders here
Speaker 1: that have been talking you know, NPR and in the
Speaker 1: press about this stuff, um, are saying, Yeah, what's probably
Speaker 1: gonna happen is they're gonna get a little slap on
Speaker 1: the wrist, maybe pay some fines, and then just say
Speaker 1: we'll do better and then you know, kick the can
Speaker 1: down the road. Um. And the fact that there aren't
Speaker 1: any artists at the caliber of Taylor Swift that are
Speaker 1: truly taking on Ticketmaster and Live Nation in the way
Speaker 1: that Pearl Jam did, uh No those many years ago
Speaker 1: speaks to how powerful they are. I think there's one
Speaker 1: band lawrence, which again there was some congressman said, look
Speaker 1: like like, have you ever heard of Lawrence. The fact
Speaker 1: that that's the band and that's the kind of spokesperson
Speaker 1: for this anti ticketmaster rhetoric speaks volumes because I've never
Speaker 1: heard of Lawrence either. No shade to Lawrence. I'm sure
Speaker 1: they're great. But Matt, what do you think about this?
Speaker 1: I mean, you're a musician, music fan, you know, like,
Speaker 1: what is the alternative? I don't know the answer. I
Speaker 1: think the only alternative is you do what Louis c
Speaker 1: k did a long time ago, and you sell tickets
Speaker 1: exclusively on your website and you don't get to play
Speaker 1: the places that a large company says you can't play
Speaker 1: because you're not selling tickets through their platform. I think
Speaker 1: that's the only way to do it. You have to
Speaker 1: have enough big names who decide to go that route
Speaker 1: and to take on those costs and that effort, and
Speaker 1: then you could fight build a new standbus. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: have to build an alternative alternative system. Yeah, I'd say
Speaker 1: only realistically. There's obviously probably an episode in this as
Speaker 1: well um that. I will wrap up this segment with
Speaker 1: a quote from Diana Moss, who spoke to Vox in
Speaker 1: a recent article. She is the president of the American
Speaker 1: Anti trust institute who have a very vested interest in
Speaker 1: breaking up monopolies and just you know, you know, bringing
Speaker 1: these kinds of issues to light. Uh. Live Nation Ticketmaster
Speaker 1: is probably one of the best examples of a modern
Speaker 1: day monopoly that blankets the live entertainment supply chain. But
Speaker 1: we expan of the company is enormous. It extends from
Speaker 1: artist management, so yeah, there is artist management Live Nation
Speaker 1: through concert promotion, through venue management, down to primary ticketing
Speaker 1: and now of course secondary ticketing. Oh we didn't even
Speaker 1: talk about their whole dynamic pricing thing, like like Ticketmaster
Speaker 1: has this thing that gauges demand and just changes the
Speaker 1: price of tickets like the airlines do with plane tickets.
Speaker 1: So you've seen all these big, you know, media backlash
Speaker 1: kind of like stories where oh gosh, the boss, you know,
Speaker 1: Bruce Springsteen tickets are five thousand dollars. That's because the
Speaker 1: demand is there, so it gauges the demand and prices
Speaker 1: the tickets accordingly gone or the days of like the
Speaker 1: ticket is this price and that's it. Now it's like
Speaker 1: very ephemeral. You don't really know what's going into that,
Speaker 1: but it is this dynamic ticket thing, which is pretty new.
Speaker 1: Probably them trying to regain some ground after covid Um frankly,
Speaker 1: but it's totally messed up. So to continue secondary ticketing
Speaker 1: all the way down to the consumer facing fan markets,
Speaker 1: we have a monopoly that covers an entire supply chain.
Speaker 1: So take that for what it's worth, give it a thought,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna take a break, come back with one
Speaker 1: more piece of strange news, and we have returned. Think
Speaker 1: of this, Uh, this very end of our strange News
Speaker 1: segment this week, as UM the lobby of a large,
Speaker 1: disturbing mansion of thought and reality. We've talked in the past. Uh,
Speaker 1: my favorite old thought experiments the ship of thesis, right
Speaker 1: where if you take a ship and you fix it
Speaker 1: over time and repair it eventually there may be a
Speaker 1: point where none of the original pieces of the ship
Speaker 1: are there, but you're still calling the ship the same
Speaker 1: thing it was. How close are we to that happening
Speaker 1: with human beings? I mean it already sort of happens
Speaker 1: because cells die and cycle out. This thing. I really
Speaker 1: wanted to open our converse station with his um Genetic editing.
Speaker 1: Gene Editing talked about it a little bit in the past,
Speaker 1: definitely talked about Crisper, which is one of the most
Speaker 1: famous proprietary aspects of this out here. But there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of news that's not getting a ton of
Speaker 1: national coverage about breakthroughs in gene editing. Right now as
Speaker 1: we speak, there are breakthroughs with human trials. They got
Speaker 1: past rodents where they're discovering ways to address very rare,
Speaker 1: dangerous genetic conditions involving the liver. Uh. One of the
Speaker 1: things that's been grabbing a lot of attention recently, not
Speaker 1: as much as it should, is anti aging gene injections
Speaker 1: that can essentially rewind your heart by a decade. And
Speaker 1: they did it. They did They did it because they
Speaker 1: found mutants that this is like, I know, I'm doing
Speaker 1: a comic book thing recently, but they found a new
Speaker 1: gene and what people that you could think of as
Speaker 1: super fit, they're called super agers, right uh. And you
Speaker 1: can inject this into other people and reverse the decline
Speaker 1: of heart performance, especially if they're elderly. This has already happened.
Speaker 1: Inject this into failing heart cells, it regenerates them and
Speaker 1: it makes them function as though the heart itself is
Speaker 1: ten years younger. This is due to a variation on
Speaker 1: the BP one FB four gene. People who carry a
Speaker 1: specific variant of this tend to live longer, they tend
Speaker 1: to have fewer heart problems. Uh. The story starts with
Speaker 1: the University of Bristol. They injected Okay, this is gonna
Speaker 1: sound scary for anybody's already a little bit wary of
Speaker 1: vaccines and injections because that they did a University of Bristol.
Speaker 1: They took this mute gene and it really is a
Speaker 1: mutant gene. They put it into a virus as a vehicle,
Speaker 1: a harmless virus. They kind of trojan horsted, if you will.
Speaker 1: Then they injected it into elderly mice first, and they said, oh,
Speaker 1: holy smokes. Uh, these mice, their their hearts just got
Speaker 1: ten years younger. Or that's what it would have happened
Speaker 1: if they were humans. They weren't that elderly is what
Speaker 1: does that look like? Super it's weirdly sexy, But I
Speaker 1: mean it means that, like it literally reverses the course
Speaker 1: of aging. And you can see that physically it uh
Speaker 1: specifically it when it triggers that kind of cardiac regeneration,
Speaker 1: the heart starts generating new blood vessels, restoring previously lost functions.
Speaker 1: So things start getting kind of unblocked. Coupled with and uh,
Speaker 1: a reasonable amount of exercise, some kind of regimen, right,
Speaker 1: maybe a couple of dieting pro tips. Uh, this can
Speaker 1: no fooling extend someone's lifespan because what it's doing is
Speaker 1: it's giving a different version of that biological clock that
Speaker 1: people have. And lifestyle plays a huge role in aging,
Speaker 1: for sure, but genes are your baseline and they determine
Speaker 1: how you know how long you have in this particular
Speaker 1: stretch of existence. Folks like you or I afford this
Speaker 1: type of track. We're going to get to that towards
Speaker 1: the end. These things are happening concurrently, and what we're
Speaker 1: seeing is like right now, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of pops I reporting that's getting this wrong. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's not quite to the level of injecting someone to
Speaker 1: have an instant change across the board, because we have
Speaker 1: to remember that because the genetic code is incredibly intricate
Speaker 1: and interlocked with all these things. It's like if you've
Speaker 1: ever here's what it's like. It's like if you've ever
Speaker 1: walked into a really big house and it's unfamiliar and
Speaker 1: you have light switches that operate multiple things. Then you
Speaker 1: turn on maybe you flip one switch because you want
Speaker 1: the particular light on in the kitchen, but that turns
Speaker 1: on the kitchen and the hallway, and then you hear
Speaker 1: something on the second floor start going. So you don't
Speaker 1: know what. We don't know fully yet. Current civilization doesn't
Speaker 1: know what one change can do to the rest of
Speaker 1: the game. They don't They know there's a domino butterfly effect,
Speaker 1: but they don't know which domino's knock which other dominoes down.
Speaker 1: That's why the research might seem kind of slow to
Speaker 1: a lot of us non genius geneticist. But what we
Speaker 1: are seeing is that if you very carefully narrow your
Speaker 1: scope and you target very specific things like hereditary and
Speaker 1: gio demo that's a rare immune or immune deficiency, then
Speaker 1: you are going to be able to extend people's lives
Speaker 1: for possibly decades and potentially spook is it is to say,
Speaker 1: potentially much longer. Question where can I get where? Where
Speaker 1: can I get? This? Is now you have my other thing,
Speaker 1: possibly your paycheck, right, So this is the issue. The
Speaker 1: The issue here is that this opens the door for
Speaker 1: a lot of things that humanity is simply not prepared
Speaker 1: for economy of scale, argues that inevitably these treatments could
Speaker 1: will improve. Right barring some catastrophe, some Doomsday clock level thing,
Speaker 1: they will improve. It will also become more reliable and
Speaker 1: less expensive, unless there's another intervening variable. The dystopian science
Speaker 1: would say, or the dystopian futurists would say, that there's
Speaker 1: going to be a world where the new marker of
Speaker 1: privilege of being a have is that you simply live much,
Speaker 1: much longer. No matter how cheap the treatment might actually be,
Speaker 1: there might be a way that it is repressed from
Speaker 1: say of the population. And the argument would, of course,
Speaker 1: as it always comes, it would be a greater good argument,
Speaker 1: we can't have this many people living this long. There
Speaker 1: are some people that will provide a greater service for
Speaker 1: the world. Me because I'm at Davos and there's some
Speaker 1: people that just shouldn't be eating for that many decades
Speaker 1: and dreating that increasingly low reserve of potable water. Now,
Speaker 1: that's that's fascinating. And I think I mentioned in terms
Speaker 1: of another conversation that I've been rewatching Silicon Valley, the
Speaker 1: Might Judge TV show, and I'm on the season where um,
Speaker 1: the guy that's like the kind of Zuckerberg like head
Speaker 1: of Houly, the Google type company, he's got a blood boy.
Speaker 1: It's literally a healthy young man who gives him weekly
Speaker 1: blood transfusions, which we don't even know if that actually
Speaker 1: does anything, but it's sort of like maybe it does.
Speaker 1: So let's just go with things. That's the best we've got.
Speaker 1: But we've seen the feeding frenzy of like curative and
Speaker 1: or you know, helpful medications that are scarce, like vaccines.
Speaker 1: You know when it was like who got those first?
Speaker 1: And who cheated the system to make sure they got
Speaker 1: those COVID vaccines before anybody else? Super rich? So can
Speaker 1: you imagine this is like the fountain of youth we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, It's it's been sought for, you know, generations. Potentially, yeah, potentially,
Speaker 1: there could be there could be something. But again we
Speaker 1: have to go back to unintended consequences. How long can
Speaker 1: your app ridge garden variety human mind exists in a
Speaker 1: coaching state? Right? Fixing the body may may do a lot,
Speaker 1: but it may be the same thing as giving a
Speaker 1: car a fresh coat of paint every decade and never
Speaker 1: changing the oil. This isn't apply to neurons and neural pathways.
Speaker 1: It doesn't like fix your brain back decade as it depends,
Speaker 1: because you have to you have to narrow the scope
Speaker 1: right now. Now, possibly one day there might be a
Speaker 1: panacea thing. But this brings me to another dystopian thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're gonna end on a utopian thing. Don't worry,
Speaker 1: we'll get too. Another dystopian thing would be the idea
Speaker 1: of certain modifications becoming illegal, maybe because if everyone had
Speaker 1: it there'd be simply too many people, right. Or maybe
Speaker 1: there would be a deal where for certain modifications one
Speaker 1: has to agree to sterilization as part of it, right,
Speaker 1: because you don't want to reproducing in the wild. Or
Speaker 1: there could be things that are associated with the military.
Speaker 1: Imagine if part of being conscripted in the New Russian
Speaker 1: Empire or whatever, just for fun, Uh, what if part
Speaker 1: of that involved an injection a gene editing device. That
Speaker 1: would that would make you much more resistant to a
Speaker 1: lot of diseases, right, but it wouldn't stop you from
Speaker 1: carrying those diseases, So then you could become someone who's
Speaker 1: exposed to some nasty biological warfare contaminants, right, and going
Speaker 1: to be okay, but now you are the freaking typhoid
Speaker 1: Mary of that thing for the rest of your life,
Speaker 1: unstoppable And that sounds terrible, but it's it's less and
Speaker 1: less implausible. I won't say it's happening now, but it's
Speaker 1: something humanity is on the way toward. How can a
Speaker 1: story be so simultaneously sighting and terrifying, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean? I mean, I think it's I think again,
Speaker 1: I think this is this is an episode. But if
Speaker 1: we if we do this episode in um, we're probably
Speaker 1: gonna have to do an update in length six. I
Speaker 1: don't even know how long we'll do this show. We
Speaker 1: should all get our genes edited. Uh, here's here's another one.
Speaker 1: This is my question. This is the utopian I wish
Speaker 1: it would happen question. Do you think it would be
Speaker 1: possible that some editing or modifications could be innocuous enough
Speaker 1: and helpful enough that they become considered a human right
Speaker 1: in parts of the world, like the right to literacy,
Speaker 1: the right to clean water, things like that. That is fascinating.
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, if it's available and it becomes like
Speaker 1: a new I mean, but that's the that's the question though,
Speaker 1: is like who deserves to live forever? Or should we
Speaker 1: be able to you know what I mean? Like is
Speaker 1: that really a human right? Or is it like a luxury?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? Maybe I can see it
Speaker 1: working out the same way early childhood vaccinations work out,
Speaker 1: where if you do have health insurance, at least within
Speaker 1: the United States, if you pay for insurance when you
Speaker 1: know you're on track with a child or something to
Speaker 1: get their vaccinations, they'll just get their gene editing. That
Speaker 1: gets rid of some of the major problems facing American children.
Speaker 1: I get. Yeah, I can totally see that happening. So
Speaker 1: for everybody. UM, we're specifically at this point talking about
Speaker 1: what's called germline gene therapy. Not all gene therapies heritable, right,
Speaker 1: So there might be a vaccination thing that happens after
Speaker 1: the child is born at some age where their immune
Speaker 1: system is seen as UM capable of vibing with it.
Speaker 1: But then germ line therapy is we give you an
Speaker 1: injection some kind of treatment that means, uh, you will
Speaker 1: have UM I don't know, like we're freestyle in here.
Speaker 1: So like a gene for UM heart problems, you'll you
Speaker 1: will be much more resistant to developing heart problems like
Speaker 1: cardiac arrests problems, stuff like that. It doesn't cure them though,
Speaker 1: right if you are less likely it's a percentages ok yeah,
Speaker 1: like Buffy a weapon in Elden ring wor Skyroe. But
Speaker 1: there's this idea, then okay, maybe a better thing would
Speaker 1: be diabetes. What if you could inject a gene that
Speaker 1: not only changes the way your body uh, addresses factors
Speaker 1: leading to diabetes, but also means that your children would
Speaker 1: have that same gene and therefore their children and so
Speaker 1: on and so on, just like the Bible saying bigat, bigat, bigat.
Speaker 1: How do you think the world would react to that idea?
Speaker 1: This is because vaccines are only affecting the person who
Speaker 1: has injected, not their children. I see massive blowback on that.
Speaker 1: I'd be very interested to see. You know, like, what
Speaker 1: what do religious figures say? What the more luddite among
Speaker 1: us say? Well? Also, like what if people, the super
Speaker 1: rich or whomever start taking these just so they can
Speaker 1: eat like and like not you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: like not actually do any of the normal things that
Speaker 1: would lead you to like living a healthier lifestyle. Is
Speaker 1: this like a cheap code? And if so, those people
Speaker 1: should be way further down the ladder. As to who
Speaker 1: gets to get this, it should be more like people
Speaker 1: whose lives it will vastly improve and maybe have some
Speaker 1: sort of deficiency should get it first. And and then
Speaker 1: it becomes a matter of scale. And then, like he said,
Speaker 1: it becomes a matter of scale in terms of population control.
Speaker 1: Not control, but it's a population, you know, people sticking
Speaker 1: around too long. If everyone was vampires, we would run
Speaker 1: on it. Well, we run of blood bags for the
Speaker 1: vampires to drink, and then the vampires would die. That's
Speaker 1: a silly example. But my point is like if people
Speaker 1: live forever, we would deplete the resources for the people
Speaker 1: that maybe couldn't live forever. That's a point. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: then also what happens then is the all right, the
Speaker 1: thing is that at this level of scientific innovation, there's
Speaker 1: going to be sort of a Dona whole gap. There's
Speaker 1: going to be a chasm and interval of time between
Speaker 1: which these things are absolutely possible, perhaps on a wide scale,
Speaker 1: and then the other side of the gap where we
Speaker 1: learn about any unintended consequences over generations or over decades.
Speaker 1: Because some of these gene therapies do have risk of
Speaker 1: um allergic reaction oregon damage in certain types of cancer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well that's why human cloning honestly, ethics aciety, and I
Speaker 1: understand why ethics have to exist. Um, there's not more
Speaker 1: public research on human cloning because human clones or clones
Speaker 1: in general, have really crappy lives, you know, like that's
Speaker 1: if you could make perfect clothes, then there would be
Speaker 1: mandalorians of plenty to get sci fi about it. I
Speaker 1: just watched this to the latest David Cronenberg movie called
Speaker 1: Crimes of the Future, where it's this kind of future
Speaker 1: where people randomly start growing different organs that have no
Speaker 1: known function at the time, but also they're kind of
Speaker 1: mutations and at a certain point, if they grow enough
Speaker 1: of these, they ceased to be human. So I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: like this is the sci fi kind of weirdo dystopian take,
Speaker 1: but like it does call into question like what it
Speaker 1: means to be human and are we meant to live forever?
Speaker 1: But in the dark ages, like people had much lower
Speaker 1: life expectancy. So who are we to say what the
Speaker 1: proper life expectancy is? Well, I guess we're probably at about,
Speaker 1: you know, the baseline for it. Now people that have
Speaker 1: access to the best healthcare and live healthy lives could
Speaker 1: maybe live to be a hundred or so. Should ask
Speaker 1: beyond that? It's well, so we're talking about blue zones,
Speaker 1: the seven or so parts of the world where people
Speaker 1: will just have a much higher likelihood of living to
Speaker 1: become centenarians. But but that is I think this is
Speaker 1: this is a fantastic point. This stuff is on the way, folks,
Speaker 1: It's already here. It is doing some very good things,
Speaker 1: but again, there are tremendous potential consequences that are what
Speaker 1: Donald Rumsfeld would currently call unknown unknowns. I think Ashcroft, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: yeah yeah. And this is this is where we're going
Speaker 1: to leave it, because this is a really important question
Speaker 1: to me, at least I hope to all of us.
Speaker 1: What would you do if you add a kid and
Speaker 1: you had the offer of giving them, uh, giving them
Speaker 1: gene therapy that would a lot like drastically reduce the
Speaker 1: likelihood of SEB medical problems? What would you do in
Speaker 1: your own situation knowing those traits could be heritable in
Speaker 1: some way? Let us know, what do you think about Ticketmaster?
Speaker 1: Have we have we unfairly maligned them? What's gonna happen
Speaker 1: when Taylor Swift fans march on other cities. What do
Speaker 1: you think they're scary dedicated? I like people are passionate
Speaker 1: about specific stuff. I say that because I've never will
Speaker 1: come for you speaking Taylor, I have not. I have not.
Speaker 1: I love musicians. And then, also, what do you think
Speaker 1: about the growing situation in Ukraine. We've got a lot
Speaker 1: of people who also followed geopolitics. We would love to
Speaker 1: hear your take, and you may end up on air
Speaker 1: with us in a future listener mail segment if you
Speaker 1: want to do that. If you would like to open
Speaker 1: that door, then there are many ways for you to
Speaker 1: contact us. Yes, you can find us all over social media. Huh.
Speaker 1: Like our new TikTok account whatever it is, TikTok Us
Speaker 1: conspiracy stuff show, I think, find it, get it while
Speaker 1: it's hot and still legal. Yeah, Instagram conspiracy stuff show,
Speaker 1: Twitter and Facebook conspiracy stuff. If you don't like social media,
Speaker 1: we get it. Why not give us a call? One
Speaker 1: A three three st d w y c K is
Speaker 1: the relatively analog way of getting in touch with us.
Speaker 1: Leave a message of the sound of Ben's dulcet tones
Speaker 1: three minutes is the time that you shall have to
Speaker 1: tell your tale, let us know what to call you,
Speaker 1: and then it's okay to use your voice. And then,
Speaker 1: as you said, Ben, you may well hear that voice
Speaker 1: on one of our weekly listener mail episodes. If you
Speaker 1: don't want to do any of that stuff, why not
Speaker 1: reach out to us the old fashioned way. We are
Speaker 1: conspiracy at i heart radio dot com. Stuff they don't
Speaker 1: want you to know is a production of i heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.