WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:05.080 The de evolution of one man. Richard Dawkins used his new podcast to promote 2 00:00:05.080 --> 00:00:09.560 more transphobic lies. And this article is by Friendly Atheist dot com by Hemmet 3 00:00:09.640 --> 00:00:14.759 Meta on July thirty feet of twenty twenty three, and basically, Richard Dawkins, 4 00:00:14.800 --> 00:00:18.079 not any surprise to any of us, has launched a podcast called The 5 00:00:18.120 --> 00:00:23.839 Poetry of Reality, which has been an avenue for him to promote more transphobic 6 00:00:23.920 --> 00:00:29.239 ideas. And in fact, his first episode of this podcast was with very 7 00:00:29.280 --> 00:00:34.920 famous transphob Helen Joyce talking about what is gender and of course he goes into 8 00:00:34.920 --> 00:00:40.359 talks about biological sex and all of that. So before I get into all 9 00:00:40.359 --> 00:00:43.799 of my rants, I want to hear about what you all have to say 10 00:00:43.799 --> 00:00:48.960 about this topic. So when I was going through my own deconstruction process, 11 00:00:49.079 --> 00:00:53.640 and but unlike like a lot of atheists, I wasn't interested in the Four 12 00:00:53.719 --> 00:00:58.200 Horsemen. I didn't read any of Dawkins's work. I had I kind of 13 00:00:58.280 --> 00:01:03.119 knew for him in the Proliferary and I knew he was a respected evolutionary biologists 14 00:01:03.320 --> 00:01:07.280 and making that education through his work and lecture. Apparently he can't stay in 15 00:01:07.319 --> 00:01:15.959 his lane and he's now a gender expert, which is problematic, and he's 16 00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:21.200 clearly only following a biggest narrative and is in sitting back and asking himself about 17 00:01:21.280 --> 00:01:25.680 like, m is this true? You know? And I'm sorry, but 18 00:01:25.760 --> 00:01:29.680 I have no desire to listen to his podcasts as I really like my Sandy 19 00:01:29.840 --> 00:01:33.480 and this article is an example of why. And I would also like to 20 00:01:33.519 --> 00:01:38.280 point out that Helen joyce this turf that he had on this first episode and 21 00:01:38.480 --> 00:01:42.760 also a bigot. They were just sitting there sniffing their own farts and not 22 00:01:42.920 --> 00:01:49.719 realizing this rhetoric and falsehoods are actually being set about actual human beings. And 23 00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:55.079 also I'd like to point out that this Geryl person shares my name, and 24 00:01:55.239 --> 00:01:59.239 I would like to point out that hashtag not all Helen. So my kind 25 00:01:59.280 --> 00:02:02.799 of respective on this is that I'm a little bit frustrated because he should know 26 00:02:04.079 --> 00:02:07.120 the science and he should be inquiring about these things, but he's not, 27 00:02:07.520 --> 00:02:12.599 and it's just very, very very frustrating. So, you know, I'd 28 00:02:12.639 --> 00:02:15.439 like to get your opinion on this, Scott, because I've obviously have lots 29 00:02:15.479 --> 00:02:20.240 of opinions, but I'm kind of I can go more into that a little 30 00:02:20.319 --> 00:02:23.680 later, sure, well, when I was reading this article, it became 31 00:02:23.719 --> 00:02:30.199 clear that there was really two subjects being addressed here. One is the actions 32 00:02:30.240 --> 00:02:35.840 and the comments and the ideas of Richard Dawkins and how they impact the LGBTQ 33 00:02:36.039 --> 00:02:40.240 community. There's other others on this panel that are much more directly affected by 34 00:02:40.319 --> 00:02:46.919 those issues, and so I'll defer time to hearing much more important perspective in 35 00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:50.840 regards to those issues. But the second issue was what can we do, 36 00:02:51.400 --> 00:02:54.800 how should we interact? How should we as atheists respond to this type of 37 00:02:54.840 --> 00:03:00.360 thing? How should we react to Richard Dawkins? And I mean, well, 38 00:03:00.400 --> 00:03:04.800 I mean basically, it's bigger tree. We have a moral responsibility of 39 00:03:04.840 --> 00:03:09.439 calling this out. And one of the themes on the nonprofits that one of 40 00:03:09.439 --> 00:03:15.719 the things we talk about frequently is how religious leaders are afforded unfair and undeserved 41 00:03:15.800 --> 00:03:19.960 respect simply due to their position in the community. And so this is a 42 00:03:20.039 --> 00:03:23.800 chance for us to put our money where our mouth is. Richard Dawkins we 43 00:03:23.879 --> 00:03:27.360 know as a prominent figure in the atheist community, but that does not mean 44 00:03:27.439 --> 00:03:31.080 that we as atheists are expected to go along with whatever he says. That's 45 00:03:31.120 --> 00:03:35.280 not what our group does. That's what the other group does. And so 46 00:03:35.319 --> 00:03:39.080 if we want to promote ourselves as being reasonable and rational and freethinking humanists, 47 00:03:39.479 --> 00:03:43.280 then we need to step up and say the hard things. We need to 48 00:03:43.280 --> 00:03:46.800 say the difficult things, and the morally correct thing to do when you're leaders, 49 00:03:46.080 --> 00:03:50.280 and I'll use that term loosely in this case when they're doing bad things, 50 00:03:50.479 --> 00:03:53.159 is to say that they're doing bad things and to oppose to doing those 51 00:03:53.240 --> 00:03:57.520 bad things. And so if we want to if we want to be taken 52 00:03:57.520 --> 00:04:01.039 seriously and when we talk about things, we need to with our actions as 53 00:04:01.039 --> 00:04:03.520 well as our words. And so we need to step up and we need 54 00:04:03.560 --> 00:04:06.159 to call things out as we see them. Phoebe, what are your what 55 00:04:06.240 --> 00:04:11.560 are your thoughts here? Well? I can't stand Richard Dawkins. I never 56 00:04:11.599 --> 00:04:15.279 really have liked the man, and the descent of man is always something that 57 00:04:15.360 --> 00:04:20.079 I enjoy to watch from Afar, especially those that we have for some reason 58 00:04:20.240 --> 00:04:26.199 be actified. And yet I deliberately choose very religious language to the way that 59 00:04:26.279 --> 00:04:30.639 people are hero worshiped and cult worshiped. But I don't know what mister Dawkins 60 00:04:30.920 --> 00:04:34.480 believes. I don't know if he genuinely believes what he's saying, or whether 61 00:04:34.519 --> 00:04:41.160 he is just seeing a way of making money about the issues that he think 62 00:04:41.399 --> 00:04:45.800 make him money from the same people who he was making money from in the 63 00:04:45.800 --> 00:04:50.759 first place. So the group of people that he's main targeting are fairly angry, 64 00:04:51.120 --> 00:04:58.399 white middle class individuals commonly referred to in the United Kingdom as a gammon. 65 00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:02.800 So they rally against society, they rally against this, they rally against 66 00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:06.759 that. They're typically of his age and so on. And I wonder whether 67 00:05:06.759 --> 00:05:11.759 he actually believes what he's actually saying here, And if he doesn't believe what 68 00:05:11.759 --> 00:05:15.839 he's saying, it makes it even worse because there's an intenserity to everything that 69 00:05:15.879 --> 00:05:19.920 he is doing. He in the article is described as a brilliant long form 70 00:05:20.120 --> 00:05:25.360 individual, but only you really crap short form individual. And this does go 71 00:05:25.680 --> 00:05:30.079 some way on a slightly different thing to show that everything is now getting boiled 72 00:05:30.160 --> 00:05:34.079 down to the sixty second TikTok and the two hundred and forty platform formerly known 73 00:05:34.079 --> 00:05:39.199 as Twitter, that we've got to this thing where if you try to have 74 00:05:39.399 --> 00:05:43.279 nuance, you try to have discussion, you try to say things, you 75 00:05:43.360 --> 00:05:47.120 try to do things that are more than just those sixty seconds here those sixty 76 00:05:47.160 --> 00:05:53.079 seconds there, and the argumentation and the conflict, you end up with what 77 00:05:53.279 --> 00:05:59.360 is effectively a dire tribe of us and them, And it's become this nonsense 78 00:05:59.399 --> 00:06:03.519 where my existence has become canon folder and I want to know what Ben thinks 79 00:06:03.560 --> 00:06:10.680 about his existence. Yeah, I've been continually frustrated with Richard Dawkins, and 80 00:06:10.879 --> 00:06:15.800 I do think he knows that there's nuance. As a biologist, especially in 81 00:06:15.839 --> 00:06:20.360 the field of evolutionary biology, you understand that there are kind of ambiguous lines 82 00:06:20.439 --> 00:06:24.959 between a lot of things, like even more talking speciation, like yeah, 83 00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:29.560 we've set these lines in place when we study this as a way to categorize 84 00:06:29.560 --> 00:06:32.560 things in our brains easier, but we know that that's not the extent of 85 00:06:32.839 --> 00:06:39.120 reality in terms of different species. So I think Richard Dawkins understands that there's 86 00:06:39.199 --> 00:06:42.839 nuance here. But instead of going too far into the science here, because 87 00:06:42.839 --> 00:06:46.279 we've on other shows and other episodes of this, we've talked about why sex 88 00:06:46.319 --> 00:06:50.680 and gender are non binary, But I wanted to today go into his logic 89 00:06:50.720 --> 00:06:56.279 and what he specifically does when he communicates this, because this, especially number 90 00:06:56.319 --> 00:07:01.279 one, is the big Achilles heel to his argument because logically it doesn't hold 91 00:07:01.399 --> 00:07:05.319 up, and or people who might not necessarily be able to argue the scientific 92 00:07:05.360 --> 00:07:10.879 points you can argue against the logic here. So kind of two main things 93 00:07:10.879 --> 00:07:14.680 I want to focus on with him are number one being the use of the 94 00:07:14.800 --> 00:07:19.759 term biological as being intentionally ambiguous because it allows them to move the goal post. 95 00:07:20.040 --> 00:07:24.079 So, if you're imagining a conversation with somebody and you say this person 96 00:07:24.199 --> 00:07:28.199 is a biological male or a biological female, what traits come to mind? 97 00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:30.079 We all might think of different things. You might think of anatomy, you 98 00:07:30.160 --> 00:07:34.199 might think of hormones, you might think of chromosomes. But everyone has their 99 00:07:34.240 --> 00:07:39.560 own idea of like this is what biologically male or female means. So that's 100 00:07:39.600 --> 00:07:43.680 already a little bit ambiguous. You're not pinning down what trait you're standardizing that 101 00:07:43.800 --> 00:07:47.680 as. But if you think about hormones being a components of biological sex, 102 00:07:47.800 --> 00:07:54.720 like your hormones or biological substances, they have biological functions in your body. 103 00:07:54.839 --> 00:07:59.160 So if you have a transperson that is on gender affirming hormone therapy, they 104 00:07:59.240 --> 00:08:03.240 have chain their biology. They have changed a component of their biological sex, 105 00:08:03.319 --> 00:08:07.000 namely their hormonal sex, which I would argue is a category of sex. 106 00:08:07.079 --> 00:08:11.399 So if you break down every one of these components, being chromosomes, anatomy, 107 00:08:11.560 --> 00:08:16.120 gammeats, hormones, if you broke those all down and then assigned up 108 00:08:16.120 --> 00:08:20.399 person based on each one of these factors, you'd find most people are somewhere 109 00:08:20.399 --> 00:08:24.199 in between, especially on the hormonal standpoint. So even if you take CIS 110 00:08:24.199 --> 00:08:26.560 people, you get a variety of combination. So if you take a post 111 00:08:26.560 --> 00:08:33.240 stop transwoman, they are probably chromosomally male, hormonally and anatomically female and with 112 00:08:33.399 --> 00:08:37.720 no gammets. So we don't have a very clear boundary there at all. 113 00:08:39.480 --> 00:08:43.039 But if someone takes the term biological, you need to make sure that you're 114 00:08:43.279 --> 00:08:46.559 forcing them to define their criteria. Do they mean gammeats, do they mean 115 00:08:46.840 --> 00:08:50.960 chromosomes, do they mean anatomy, Because as we know, one of those 116 00:08:52.039 --> 00:08:54.799 characteristics might not be in place and they would still be viewed in society as 117 00:08:54.840 --> 00:09:00.240 a cisman or a sis woman. So then you pinpoint those topics and and 118 00:09:00.279 --> 00:09:03.440 you say, okay, well what about people that don't produce gam meats? 119 00:09:03.440 --> 00:09:07.720 And they'll say, well, it's about your potential to produce gam meats, 120 00:09:07.799 --> 00:09:11.440 which gets into this weird gendered soul argument like, but then how do you 121 00:09:11.480 --> 00:09:16.759 determine what potential somebody has if they've never produced game meats? So you have 122 00:09:16.799 --> 00:09:20.360 to pin them down because it ends up being completely incoherent once you get to 123 00:09:20.399 --> 00:09:24.399 that point. But if you if they just say, like very vague biological 124 00:09:24.440 --> 00:09:28.000 sex, that could mean a multitative thing. So that's something that allows him 125 00:09:28.039 --> 00:09:31.919 to technically be right even if he's not right with whatever he says. But 126 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:35.960 the other point I wanted to bring up with this is the ecological fallacy, 127 00:09:37.120 --> 00:09:41.039 which I actually wrote some syllogisms to use for this. I'm not usually the 128 00:09:41.039 --> 00:09:45.679 one to do that. I mean, I'm not maybe I'm becoming secularity in 129 00:09:45.759 --> 00:09:50.440 J Mike today. But the ecological fallacy is when you take a population statistic 130 00:09:50.480 --> 00:09:56.120 and apply it to an individual. And this is often used for transwomen in 131 00:09:56.159 --> 00:09:58.799 sports and for gender firm and care for minors, and so basically it is 132 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:03.879 it assumes that the individual exhibits the same characteristics as the entire group. And 133 00:10:03.879 --> 00:10:09.200 this is very problematic when you're creating guidelines, because not every individual is going 134 00:10:09.279 --> 00:10:13.279 to meet those set of standards that you would assume are the case for the 135 00:10:13.279 --> 00:10:16.960 whole population. So I wrote a little syllogism here relating to the average heights 136 00:10:18.039 --> 00:10:22.000 of women compared to men. So we all of us here know who Cynthia 137 00:10:22.159 --> 00:10:26.279 is. She's a lovely frequent guest and host on all of the ACA shows. 138 00:10:26.799 --> 00:10:31.600 But I wrote a syllogism saying the average height of a woman is five 139 00:10:31.679 --> 00:10:35.519 foot four. Cynthia is a woman. Therefore Cynthia is five foot four, 140 00:10:35.639 --> 00:10:37.320 And we all know this isn't true. I know Cynthia, she's a tall 141 00:10:37.360 --> 00:10:41.840 person, She's not five. But if we look at this, especially with 142 00:10:41.960 --> 00:10:46.159 trans women in sports, you think of the population, people think, oh, 143 00:10:46.320 --> 00:10:48.039 what is the average for women? And that's all that they think of. 144 00:10:48.200 --> 00:10:52.639 But you're not considering the fact that each individual does not necessarily meet those 145 00:10:52.679 --> 00:10:56.480 criteria. And the average itself isn't even a data point on this spectrum. 146 00:10:56.480 --> 00:11:01.080 It's just the central tendency of the values. It might not even be an 147 00:11:01.080 --> 00:11:07.519 actual data point. So this is really problematic, and this fallacy is used 148 00:11:07.519 --> 00:11:11.480 to perpetuate stigma surrounding like racial issues as well. Like you hear about this 149 00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:16.639 with this neighborhood has a higher crime rate. Bob lives in this neighborhood. 150 00:11:16.759 --> 00:11:18.679 Therefore, Bob is more likely to commit a crime. So you see, 151 00:11:18.720 --> 00:11:24.519 this logic is extremely problematic. And if we view it in the sense of 152 00:11:24.200 --> 00:11:28.720 racial disparities, like we see that this is a problem. But once the 153 00:11:28.759 --> 00:11:33.519 same logic is applied to trans people, suddenly people don't recognize it as a 154 00:11:33.519 --> 00:11:35.960 problem anymore. So, I know that was a little bit of a rant, 155 00:11:35.039 --> 00:11:39.799 but I was really passionate about that. But it was an awesome rant. 156 00:11:39.720 --> 00:11:43.039 Yeah, But to follow on from what you were saying, I am 157 00:11:43.080 --> 00:11:46.519 a transfer you're allowed to rant, wow, very much so. But following 158 00:11:46.559 --> 00:11:50.519 on from what you were saying, I am a Transferman and I am six 159 00:11:50.559 --> 00:11:54.279 foot four, I am above average height for a woman. And there are 160 00:11:54.320 --> 00:11:58.600 other women such as say, I know Brittany Griner who is significantly taller than 161 00:11:58.639 --> 00:12:01.799 I am. So does that mean Britney Griners should be banned as well? 162 00:12:01.240 --> 00:12:05.679 But somebody who has been granting awangon to give him a bit of a break. 163 00:12:05.840 --> 00:12:11.159 So I want to throw to the whole panel. And should we recommend 164 00:12:11.320 --> 00:12:15.519 the original evolution text of Dawkins or should we just throw him in the bin? 165 00:12:15.679 --> 00:12:18.120 Helen? Oh, I don't know, because this is this is my 166 00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:22.120 kind of problem with this thing where that we're discussing is that you can be 167 00:12:22.279 --> 00:12:28.000 brilliant in one field, right and understand your particular thing they went into study 168 00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:31.679 for. Like, he's an evolutionary biologists. This is the thing that he 169 00:12:31.799 --> 00:12:39.600 educates on. But does he understand the reality of gender and sex and how 170 00:12:39.799 --> 00:12:43.399 you know we can define these things and that gender exists on his spectrum? 171 00:12:43.559 --> 00:12:46.799 Can't? Does he want to know these things? Does he care? And 172 00:12:48.039 --> 00:12:50.399 I'm based on his rhetoric lately, he doesn't seem to, and we all 173 00:12:50.440 --> 00:12:56.360 know that he knows people that probably are experts in this field. And what 174 00:12:56.799 --> 00:13:01.679 is kind of bothering me is that if we decide you toss the work he 175 00:13:01.759 --> 00:13:07.440 has done into the bin, does that negate the people that actually learn something 176 00:13:07.519 --> 00:13:13.200 from him and learned about evolutionary biologists and started to question things about creationism. 177 00:13:13.240 --> 00:13:16.919 Do we toss that aside? I don't know, because yeah, he's being 178 00:13:16.919 --> 00:13:20.799 a bigot and terrible right now. But I'm always in this thing about like, 179 00:13:20.879 --> 00:13:24.440 well, you could be really good at one thing and be terrible on 180 00:13:24.480 --> 00:13:28.559 like social issues. So I'm kind of in this weird place with it. 181 00:13:28.200 --> 00:13:33.759 But again, I'm not really a big fan of Dowkins either. So you 182 00:13:33.799 --> 00:13:37.120 know, I don't think I'm the person to ask because I don't have a 183 00:13:37.200 --> 00:13:41.720 dog in this fight. All I'm sitting over here going is like, you're 184 00:13:41.759 --> 00:13:46.200 being a bigot and you're being terrible already to marginalized groups. And I'm also 185 00:13:46.279 --> 00:13:50.879 as a queer person to pissed me off. So I'm sitting over here going 186 00:13:50.919 --> 00:13:54.799 and like, I really don't care how smart you are. You are on 187 00:13:54.840 --> 00:13:58.480 the wrong side of history when it comes to this issue. So that's kind 188 00:13:58.519 --> 00:14:01.679 of my kind of feeling on it. But those people that helped, like 189 00:14:01.759 --> 00:14:07.519 their certain groups and people that he influenced them to think about the world more 190 00:14:07.559 --> 00:14:13.960 skeptically. So I don't know. And I because I to me, he's 191 00:14:13.960 --> 00:14:20.320 just another cranky old man that has some bad takes, and I think that 192 00:14:20.399 --> 00:14:24.600 we can do better going forward. Yeah, I think I agree. I 193 00:14:24.600 --> 00:14:28.960 agree, but I think we need to It depends, I mean, right, 194 00:14:30.000 --> 00:14:33.919 the question is should we still support dawkins work in other areas? And 195 00:14:35.399 --> 00:14:39.759 I mean, on one hand, he clearly has credentials and experience and research 196 00:14:39.799 --> 00:14:43.159 in the area. On the other hand, he's turned out to be quite 197 00:14:43.200 --> 00:14:46.720 the asshole, and so and so there's going to be a balance going on 198 00:14:46.759 --> 00:14:54.679 there is it is. The question would be will the assholeness affect the affect 199 00:14:54.679 --> 00:15:00.919 the scientific uh representation that he's giving, And you know, it's it's hard 200 00:15:00.960 --> 00:15:05.200 to say. I mean at this point, I listened to his podcast today 201 00:15:05.200 --> 00:15:09.480 and it was really abhorrent. It was really it was difficult to listen to 202 00:15:09.720 --> 00:15:15.279 and and there really wasn't a lot of science in it, especially if we 203 00:15:15.360 --> 00:15:20.159 compare it to say, there was an article written by Stephen Novella at Science 204 00:15:20.159 --> 00:15:24.759 based Medicine dot com he where he kind of breaks down the differences between gender 205 00:15:24.799 --> 00:15:28.840 and sex and the fact that it's not, uh that it's more of a 206 00:15:28.919 --> 00:15:33.200 bimodal situation than a than a dichotomy right one or the other, black and 207 00:15:33.200 --> 00:15:37.120 white kind of things. He's talking about how he uses he uses science to 208 00:15:37.240 --> 00:15:43.519 show that even uh, with any of those decision factors that doctor Ben was 209 00:15:43.559 --> 00:15:48.759 talking about, even within those situations, there's plenty of gray area for for 210 00:15:48.840 --> 00:15:52.320 us to take into consideration. And those gray that gray areas people and so 211 00:15:52.600 --> 00:15:54.960 are you know, are we going to respect those people? But if we 212 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:00.279 compare the two approaches that uh, that Dawkins used and that uh Stephen Novelli 213 00:16:00.440 --> 00:16:08.080 uses, It's clear to me that the science is slipping out of dawkins representation 214 00:16:08.120 --> 00:16:11.080 about the way that he presents he I used to think that he was a 215 00:16:11.159 --> 00:16:17.399 very spot on and very fine science advocate, and but now you know, 216 00:16:17.440 --> 00:16:22.200 now I'm starting to question. I was physically ill listening to his podcast today 217 00:16:22.320 --> 00:16:26.159 and and and just to give you an idea of what the kind of things 218 00:16:26.159 --> 00:16:27.799 he was saying. First of all, he was very flippant throughout the whole 219 00:16:27.799 --> 00:16:30.200 thing. And I don't know if that's just because he's British or if he 220 00:16:30.360 --> 00:16:36.600 if it does an actual representation of his attitude there. But but he he 221 00:16:36.759 --> 00:16:41.080 suggested that some parents would prefer to have a trans kid than a gay kid. 222 00:16:41.919 --> 00:16:48.639 Just the the ignorance just in that one statement is mind boggy. But 223 00:16:48.679 --> 00:16:52.960 but but if any of our listeners are going to be uh listening to that 224 00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:56.480 podcast, I would recommend that you also either immediately before or immediately after, 225 00:16:56.879 --> 00:17:00.240 read that article by Stephen Novellen. I think we can make sure to have 226 00:17:00.320 --> 00:17:04.960 the link in the show notes here. But just the difference in their approaches 227 00:17:06.000 --> 00:17:11.319 and their presentations is amazing. And so to answer Phoebe's question before, and 228 00:17:11.359 --> 00:17:12.880 I'll pass it to Ben in a second. But to answer your question, 229 00:17:12.920 --> 00:17:17.519 Phoebe, I think we're we're definitely getting to a point where we need to 230 00:17:17.839 --> 00:17:22.720 or at least in my opinion, he's he's lost in any any amount of 231 00:17:22.799 --> 00:17:25.960 slack that that was going to be given to him, And I think it's 232 00:17:26.000 --> 00:17:27.240 to the point where, you know, I'm just going to move on, 233 00:17:27.359 --> 00:17:30.640 Ben, what's your what's your take here? I was just going to quickly 234 00:17:30.680 --> 00:17:36.880 respond to Phoebe's question and say that I think it is okay to still learn 235 00:17:37.000 --> 00:17:40.200 from the good things that he has said in the past, and even if 236 00:17:40.200 --> 00:17:42.799 he has some good ideas, it's it's okay to learn from those, but 237 00:17:44.039 --> 00:17:47.519 it's important to not let him profit from those. So if people want to 238 00:17:47.599 --> 00:17:51.319 use one of his books to learn, get it used from somewhere else. 239 00:17:51.559 --> 00:17:55.519 Don't be giving him the revenue from it. Unfollow him on the social media 240 00:17:55.559 --> 00:17:56.960 as we don't need to listen to him there, and there are plenty of 241 00:17:57.000 --> 00:18:02.559 other up and coming scientists, send newer people with better character that also have 242 00:18:02.680 --> 00:18:07.480 similar credibility in the field of evolutionary biology. So that's my perspective on that 243 00:18:07.960 --> 00:18:11.640 to answer my own question. If you're a mathematician, you've probably been taught 244 00:18:11.680 --> 00:18:15.720 things that were developed by the unibomb up. So if you want to find 245 00:18:15.759 --> 00:18:18.319 out more about the nonprofits, click here.