Speaker 1: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to another edition of the
Speaker 1: CA Tonight Live. I am your host, Jacob Mok and
Speaker 1: uh yeah, we got a couple of things we wanna
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into on this evening. Most of it's geopolitical,
Speaker 1: as it is. Some of it's more of the environmental
Speaker 1: side of things, just some unanswered questions of what the
Speaker 1: heck is going on in this world. We got some
Speaker 1: things going on as far as what Trump has been
Speaker 1: saying and hinting at. We got some things surrounding China,
Speaker 1: what they have been doing and what they are hinting at.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be talking Venezuela. We're gonna be talking Russia.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be talking Israel. We're gonna be talking Iran.
Speaker 1: We're all over the place. We are gonna be all
Speaker 1: over the place on this episode. And if anybody has
Speaker 1: anything that they have liked to bring and share with
Speaker 1: the class, by all means, drop it in the comments
Speaker 1: and I will pull it up. And for anybody listening
Speaker 1: to this on the Cult of Conspiracy on the following day,
Speaker 1: I might as well just give the shameless plug. Now
Speaker 1: if you would like to join in on the conversation
Speaker 1: next Wednesday Night. We do this every Wednesday night at
Speaker 1: nine pm Central Standard Time. Then come check me out
Speaker 1: Cajun Night on Patreon. The link is in the description below,
Speaker 1: and I do this on the Culture Conspiracy, but I'll
Speaker 1: do it here too. If you would like to listen
Speaker 1: completely commercial form, then please come check it out on
Speaker 1: the Patreon. That's also where I post all the videos
Speaker 1: to get the commercial free listening associated with the Cajun
Speaker 1: Night lives. All right, with all of that mumbo jumbo
Speaker 1: pish posh things out of the way, let's just dive
Speaker 1: straight in. So this article, as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: was sent by a Raven Lee and it is tall.
Speaker 1: It's a Reuter's article. Now, I know Reuter's is going
Speaker 1: to be a little a little skewed, a little biased, right,
Speaker 1: But at the same time, every now and then they
Speaker 1: do have a little bit of a kernel of truth
Speaker 1: associated with it that is worth diving into, at least
Speaker 1: I believe, so Justice Micro quick, so I'm get closer.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you all, my eyes are getting worse by
Speaker 1: the day. I I've actually got to start like moving
Speaker 1: up to read because you know, all right, so this
Speaker 1: is actually from April first. This is on April Fool's Day.
Speaker 1: I'm a damn China to sell first global green sovereign
Speaker 1: bond on Wednesday. A global green sovereign bond. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't really know what to think of that with China,
Speaker 1: they're not exactly known for being a very green country.
Speaker 1: But let's check it out here. This is published in
Speaker 1: London on April first. China is set to finalize it's
Speaker 1: long way to debut global green sovereign bond on Wednesday
Speaker 1: and what is expected to be the first in a
Speaker 1: series of sales that will expand its footprint in the
Speaker 1: market as a pivotal time. Having signaled it was ready
Speaker 1: last month, top Chinese financial ministry officials laid out the
Speaker 1: details at a meeting with the investors in London on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: where the six billion WAND which is about eight hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty five million dollars bond is set to be
Speaker 1: issued on the London Stock Exchange. Oh oh, okay, China's
Speaker 1: trying to break into the London Stock Exchange with a
Speaker 1: green bond. That's it's bold strategy. But all right, I
Speaker 1: could I could see the appeal on it. The green
Speaker 1: bond market has ballooned to be worth roughly three trillion
Speaker 1: dollars in recent years. China's firms, including a state run
Speaker 1: once which would be all of them everything in China's
Speaker 1: state run have contributed significantly to that growth, but international
Speaker 1: investors have long been waiting for the government to make
Speaker 1: its move for years. Chinese Finance Ministries Director General Wu
Speaker 1: Yong I'm sorry, U Hong jeez yeah, is and his
Speaker 1: deputy Director General Xi Chao Hong. I'm sorry, I'm not
Speaker 1: mature enough to try to pronounce Chinese names without laughing.
Speaker 1: Because yep, all right outlined that it would come in
Speaker 1: two parts, one with a three year maturity or end date,
Speaker 1: and the second with a five year maturity. Both will
Speaker 1: have fixed interest rates and they are expected to be
Speaker 1: sub two percent really, although it will depend on demand
Speaker 1: during the formal sale process, which is being overseen by
Speaker 1: no fewer than eight banks from both China and Europe. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds more believable. Two percent, I mean, don't even
Speaker 1: me wrong. That's solid, But I also I feel like
Speaker 1: that would fluctuate a bit. I'm glad at least they
Speaker 1: gave a little addendum to say it will depend on demand,
Speaker 1: we'll see a Chinese global bond, one issued in one
Speaker 1: of the main international finance centers. Has long been anticipated
Speaker 1: given the country size. China's plan finally emerged earlier this
Speaker 1: year after British Finance Minister Rachel Reeves met China's Vice
Speaker 1: Premier he Liffing in Beijing to discuss pragmatic cooperation quote
Speaker 1: unquote on financial services, trade, investment, and climate issues. Climate
Speaker 1: issues from China Jesus. China is the world's largest producer
Speaker 1: of climate warming greenhouse gases. Yeah, that's that's kind of
Speaker 1: the irony that I've been kind of giggling at this
Speaker 1: whole time. It's no secret that China does not give
Speaker 1: two rats asses about the environment or the globe, or
Speaker 1: clean air or clean water or feeding their people. I digress.
Speaker 1: But to say that they're going to come up with
Speaker 1: a green bond, it's like, hmmm, that the irony here.
Speaker 1: It just anyway, anyway, like Ethiopia coming out with a
Speaker 1: food bond, Like I'm sorry you're doing what But I digress.
Speaker 1: China is the largest producer of climate warming greenhouse gases,
Speaker 1: but has said it wants to bring its carbon dioxide
Speaker 1: emissions to a peak before twenty thirty and become carbon
Speaker 1: neutral by twenty sixty. Wow, that is quite That is
Speaker 1: one of the most claims I've ever heard in thirty years.
Speaker 1: They want to go from being the number one producer
Speaker 1: to being carbon neutral. Oh wow, that's it's a ball strategy, Cotton.
Speaker 1: Let's see if it works out for them, monus, But
Speaker 1: I don't know. In February, the Finance Ministry published it's
Speaker 1: Green Bond Framework, calling it an effort to quote attract
Speaker 1: international funds to support domestic green and low carbon development. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you're trying to take other people's money to make
Speaker 1: you more environmentally friendly, because everybody knows that what solves
Speaker 1: global warming is money. Obviously, what cleaned up the plastic
Speaker 1: from the oceans. Giving money to wealthy financiers obviously to
Speaker 1: read a book right. It flagged climate change mitigation, climate
Speaker 1: change adaptation, natural resource conservation, pollution prevention and control, and
Speaker 1: biodiversity conservation as its five key priorities. I'll bet it did.
Speaker 1: One investor who attended Tuesday's meeting said some of the
Speaker 1: details on what exactly the money raised would be useful
Speaker 1: included the country's electric vehicle charging network and its national parks.
Speaker 1: Yep again, because I know, depending on what media outlet
Speaker 1: we're looking at, oh Man electric cars totally cut down
Speaker 1: on the carbon emissions, never mind what the manufacturing facilities
Speaker 1: for those batteries does to the environment, which is what
Speaker 1: this whole thing is actually about. You know, macro, not
Speaker 1: the micro but sure, that's that's a whole thing. Uh Raven,
Speaker 1: I see your hand raise, please chime in.
Speaker 2: So apparently there was on I don't know if it's
Speaker 2: that actual website. There's another website talking about China's electrical
Speaker 2: like electric car sales have like quadrupled in the last
Speaker 2: two months for some reason. And there I mean during COVID.
Speaker 2: They're the ones that decided that they were going to
Speaker 2: make make their nuclear energy push, and so they really
Speaker 2: wanted to gain nuclear energy. They are also the ones
Speaker 2: that leading the charge right now in fusion, like they
Speaker 2: have actually stabilized it the longest because they wanted to
Speaker 2: break apart from everybody because like fuck everybody else. But
Speaker 2: that also means that they've kind of ostracized themselves when
Speaker 2: it comes to the green push, and with a lot
Speaker 2: of the money being up for grabs right now with
Speaker 2: the green stuff. And with America is stepping away from NATO,
Speaker 2: then that means that if they keep pushing forward, then
Speaker 2: they'll be able to gain quote unquote more funds to
Speaker 2: be more green.
Speaker 1: Now not considered green? What is nuclear not considered green?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 4: Not really?
Speaker 1: It is like the cleanest and planet. How is that
Speaker 1: not considered green?
Speaker 2: The green ones are solar, which is ridiculous, wind and rious. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I think that the newest version of water is
Speaker 2: maybe potentially. But the thing about the I mean with
Speaker 2: anybody that knows anything about solar and wind like you're
Speaker 2: talking about, they have braveyards of parts because they can
Speaker 2: never be disposed of.
Speaker 4: They're so chemically toxic that like.
Speaker 2: You're just making more waste than you're doing any good.
Speaker 2: And it doesn't even generate that much power compared to nuclear,
Speaker 2: nuclear by far is the safest type of energy that
Speaker 2: we currently have. Obviously, fusion if it happens one day,
Speaker 2: dot dot dot can power the whole world.
Speaker 4: But that's a one day thing.
Speaker 1: So I still understand how nuclear is not considered green. Like, yes,
Speaker 1: there is waste at a certain point, right the depleted
Speaker 1: uranium has to be disposed of in some way, But
Speaker 1: we're talking about like realistically big picture here, micro and macro. Honestly,
Speaker 1: we're talking about pounds, not tons, pounds of depleted uranium
Speaker 1: to be disposed of which we put in ammunition to
Speaker 1: be shot out of the A ten and like we
Speaker 1: have a thing for that. It's all good. That's like
Speaker 1: the only waste in byproduct that really comes out of
Speaker 1: that other than steam. But how is this not considered green?
Speaker 1: This is kind of new to me. I honestly thought
Speaker 1: nuclear was within the conversation of green energy. That's okay,
Speaker 1: fair enough. So that's the end of that article. So
Speaker 1: if I and maybe I'm excuse me, maybe I'm missing
Speaker 1: the overarching theme here, but it sounds like China is
Speaker 1: trying to fund their new electric everything from outside international funding,
Speaker 1: and the way they're gonna do that is to try
Speaker 1: to sell it with a green bond and that's gonna
Speaker 1: attract international investors. Sounds like they're just gonna take the
Speaker 1: money and run. I could be very very incorrect here,
Speaker 1: but boy oh boy, that's what that sounds like to me.
Speaker 1: But okay, well that is story number one. If anybody
Speaker 1: would like to chime in on that, then bio means
Speaker 1: let's talk about it, Tony, you got anything, you go?
Speaker 1: U mute to yourself. I know if you're about to
Speaker 1: chime in or not.
Speaker 5: Well, I was just looking up nuclear power in China
Speaker 5: and it says only about five percent of their electricity
Speaker 5: comes from nuclear energy, but I think they're planning on
Speaker 5: increasing it, and they're even building an attempt at a
Speaker 5: fusion nuclear power plant by twenty thirty, which would be
Speaker 5: I don't think any of these exist yet, but these
Speaker 5: are the kind that confuse hydrogen, which is way more
Speaker 5: efficient than fission. And I got a whole article fear
Speaker 5: about it. But you know, the sum total of it
Speaker 5: is that they really want to make fusion and more
Speaker 5: nuclear power, and I would agree that it is very green,
Speaker 5: especially compared to coal, which they've been using a lot of.
Speaker 1: Yeah, China's been running off of coal for forever. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, they got some oil too, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure they use some LNG for certain things, but by
Speaker 1: and large, I would say coal would be their bread
Speaker 1: and butter as far as energy production goes. The cool
Speaker 1: that you sent in the chat, is that what you're
Speaker 1: talking about that you had pulled up?
Speaker 5: Yeah? I got it pulled up I can even read
Speaker 5: it if you want.
Speaker 1: Oh, go for I got to pull up on screen,
Speaker 1: but by all means, brother, if you want to read
Speaker 1: floor yours.
Speaker 5: China is poised to start building the world's first fusion
Speaker 5: power hybrid nuclear power plant, with the goal of generating
Speaker 5: one hundred megawatts of contiguous electricity and connecting to the
Speaker 5: greed the grid by the end of the decade. The
Speaker 5: Hong Kong based South China Morning Post, which by the way,
Speaker 5: is very pro Beijing and kind of anti us, but sure,
Speaker 5: that's my editorial, he says. The project is to cost
Speaker 5: twenty billion yuan, which is two point seven billion dollars.
Speaker 5: And you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna stop here because
Speaker 5: the article is just too long. But I think I
Speaker 5: captured the gist of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong. It's it's wonderful
Speaker 1: that any country anyone. Yes, I want America to be
Speaker 1: first to make a fusion fission hybrid nuclear power plant, absolutely,
Speaker 1: but honestly, even if China does it, that's still a
Speaker 1: net positive. We will be able to reverse engineer that
Speaker 1: on our own or even maybe work with them in
Speaker 1: some way, maybe buy the blueprints. Though a little money
Speaker 1: their way. I'm sure that you know the CCP is
Speaker 1: down to take a little extra to open open the
Speaker 1: books a bit. But uh, but yeah, so they're talking.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that the exchange rate was twenty billion
Speaker 1: to two point seven billion dollars, so it's like a
Speaker 1: ten to one exchange rate. I didn't know that, well,
Speaker 1: a little less than but yeah, that's that's pretty remarkable
Speaker 1: as well. I could understand why. But still but uh, yeah, actually,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna read a little bit more on this article
Speaker 1: just for a second.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 1: It uh, it says the Wing Shoot, the high temperature
Speaker 1: er superconducting reactor, has entered its first phase with a
Speaker 1: public tender for an environmental impact assessment. According to the website,
Speaker 1: a platform that aggregates bidding and procurement information in China. Interesting.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: The facility will be built on Wohu Science Island in
Speaker 1: the high Tech zone of Nanchang Jang z Province, Okay
Speaker 1: in central China. According to the tender, the environmental report
Speaker 1: will include baseline studies, impact evaluations on airwater noise ecology,
Speaker 1: as well as risk analysis, pollution control measures and monitoring plans. Hm.
Speaker 1: I'm a little trepidacious though. Honestly the reason why, and
Speaker 1: I know when I say this, I am not intending
Speaker 1: to offend anybody of Japan. I understand that Japan and
Speaker 1: China are very different countries with very different cultures and
Speaker 1: all the stuff. I get it. I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: make a South Park episode out of this. Just hear
Speaker 1: me out. The Fukushima incident is still putting currently radioactive
Speaker 1: waste into the ocean, like, that's still happening, and Japan
Speaker 1: has They're the ones that literally wrote the book on
Speaker 1: QA and QC right, quality assurance and quality control. Quite literally. Actually,
Speaker 1: when I was in college, we did a whole class
Speaker 1: on it, and all of the big dogs as far
Speaker 1: as QAQC was concerned, were Japanese and they let that slip.
Speaker 1: And it's still to that level of bad. If China
Speaker 1: had this nuclear reactor and something went a little fukunushi
Speaker 1: with it, right, someone went a little fugezy and it
Speaker 1: goes sideways, I can't imagine China doing all that would
Speaker 1: be needed to stop it from damaging the planet even worse.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just a bit of a pessimist and I
Speaker 1: just have all of the distrust possible when it comes
Speaker 1: to the CCP. But I just m that's a tough
Speaker 1: pill for me to swallow. Raven, I see your hand
Speaker 1: raise go ahead.
Speaker 2: Oh, I was just gonna say that I dropped an
Speaker 2: article from green Peace saying, well, my nuclear wasn't considered
Speaker 2: green underneath Tony's. But the whole thing about there's actually
Speaker 2: the really cool YouTube videos on like the Race for
Speaker 2: Fusion and like where like the progresses and it breaks
Speaker 2: it down like kind of like what's going on with
Speaker 2: it and how it is and stuff.
Speaker 4: China is.
Speaker 2: I think they're right now at like almost eleven seconds
Speaker 2: holding it stable. And that's a huge thing because once
Speaker 2: that actually stabilizes, then it will power the entire universe.
Speaker 2: And so that's why everyone is trying to universe, excuse me,
Speaker 2: the Earth. That's why everyone's trying to monopolize on it
Speaker 2: is because whoever can get it is going to be
Speaker 2: in control of all power period. And so that is
Speaker 2: the huge push because everybody else is going joined up
Speaker 2: together and then China is all by themselves, so like
Speaker 2: everybody is in one boat and then here's China.
Speaker 4: So that's why it's a big issue with that.
Speaker 1: So it's the same as any other thing in this
Speaker 1: current modern day Cold war. It's a race, right, just
Speaker 1: like the AI race and the data race between China
Speaker 1: and US. So the nuclear fusion slash fission high conversation,
Speaker 1: it's a race between US and China because whoever gets
Speaker 1: it first will dominated in that regard. That makes a
Speaker 1: lot of sense to me. Actually, Okay, I'm actually gonna
Speaker 1: read this article because I've I'm very curious what the
Speaker 1: green peak of all of all the sources, Of all
Speaker 1: the sources, they would be the one to just shit
Speaker 1: all over nuclear one hundred percent. So six reasons why
Speaker 1: nuclear energy is not to a green and peace is
Speaker 1: not the way to a green and peaceful world. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go Number one, Nuclear energy delivers too little to matter. Wow,
Speaker 1: well that's incorrect, but all right. In order to tackle
Speaker 1: climate change, we need to reduce fossil fuels in the
Speaker 1: total energy mix well before twenty fifty to zero percent yep.
Speaker 1: According to the scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and
Speaker 1: the Nuclear Energy Agency, doubling the capacity of nuclear power
Speaker 1: worldwide in twenty fifth would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions
Speaker 1: by around four percent. In order to do that the
Speaker 1: world would need to bring thirty seven new large nuclear
Speaker 1: reactors to the grid every year from now year on
Speaker 1: year until twenty fifty. The last decade only showed a
Speaker 1: few to ten new grid connections per year. Ramping that
Speaker 1: up to thirty seven is physically impossible. There is not
Speaker 1: sufficient capacity to make large foragings like reactor vessels. There
Speaker 1: are currently only fifty seven new reactors under construction or
Speaker 1: planned for the coming one and a half decade. Doubling
Speaker 1: nuclear capacity different from the explosive growth of clean renewable
Speaker 1: energy sources like solar and went wow, is therefore unrealistic
Speaker 1: And that only and that for only four percent we
Speaker 1: already need to reduce one hundred Okay, yep, I knew
Speaker 1: that this article is gonna be overly biased. I going wrong.
Speaker 1: I knew that going into it. But they legitimately just
Speaker 1: said that nuclear is not as effective as the explosive
Speaker 1: growth of clean renewable sources like solar and wind. They
Speaker 1: just said that like it was the legitimate statement and
Speaker 1: not dripping with lie and deceit. But okay, okay, so
Speaker 1: number one, it's not effective enough to be considered green.
Speaker 1: But somehow wind turbines are but I Digress number two.
Speaker 1: Nuclear power plants are dangerous and vulnerable. Nuclear factories and
Speaker 1: plants are easy targets for malevolent acts, terrorist threats, the
Speaker 1: risk of unintentional or voluntary airline crashes, cyber attacks, or
Speaker 1: acts of war. The enclosures of plants and certain ancillary
Speaker 1: buildings containing radioactive materials are not designed to withstand this
Speaker 1: type of attack or shock. Nuclear power plants present unique
Speaker 1: hazards in terms of the potential consequence resulting from from
Speaker 1: a severe accident. Nuclear reactors and their association high level
Speaker 1: spent fuel stores are vulnerable to natural disasters, as the
Speaker 1: Fukushima Dachi showed, but they are also vulnerable in times
Speaker 1: of military conflict. For the first time in history, a
Speaker 1: major war is being waged in a country with multiple
Speaker 1: nuclear reactors and thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel.
Speaker 1: The war in southern Ukraine and Zaparigia around Zaparisia rather
Speaker 1: puts them all at heightened risk of a severe accident.
Speaker 1: Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex and
Speaker 1: sensitive industrial installations, which require a very complex set of
Speaker 1: resources in ready state all at all times to keep
Speaker 1: them operational. This cannot be guaranteed in a war. Okay.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if anybody listening has worked in
Speaker 1: a nuke before, a nuclear plant. Okay, I've worked around
Speaker 1: them before, and I have a ton of buddies that
Speaker 1: have helped build nuclear plants and sites and things. Boy
Speaker 1: oh boy, the incorrect statement that was said up here.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that they are not vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Speaker 1: What I am saying is the security forces and security
Speaker 1: guards that they have surrounding nuclear sites are not Paul
Speaker 1: Blart mall cop Okay, these guys are like a legitimate
Speaker 1: swat team that are standing by waiting for some stupid
Speaker 1: shit to go off on the side of the fence. Okay,
Speaker 1: just throwing that out. Number one. Number two cyber attacks,
Speaker 1: You got me there. Sure there's everything's hackable, and I
Speaker 1: can at least understand that. But it's not like you're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to hack into this thing to make
Speaker 1: it go into a catastrophic meltdown. Because there's so many,
Speaker 1: at least in the United States, I cannot speak on
Speaker 1: behalf of other countries and their way of doing things.
Speaker 1: And yes, I understand people are gonna look at chernobyl.
Speaker 1: I understand people are gonna look at Fukushima. I get it.
Speaker 1: Fukushima was a title wave to hit it and drastically
Speaker 1: cool the reactor to such a degree that they couldn't
Speaker 1: expect or waiting for. And all the stuff. Yes with
Speaker 1: you in America. Quick, quick little story here, one of
Speaker 1: my buddies was a pipe fitter and he was fitting
Speaker 1: up a piece. I think it was like a one
Speaker 1: inch or a one and a half inch pipe. And
Speaker 1: for anybody who's not really familiar with materials or anything
Speaker 1: like that, it's the diameter of the pipes like that big.
Speaker 1: It's not. It's not a large pipe by any means.
Speaker 1: And they basically had to get it from point A
Speaker 1: to point B. They had bolted down jersey barriers, and
Speaker 1: if anybody doesn't know what that is, those would be
Speaker 1: those giant concrete barriers on either side of an inner
Speaker 1: state when they're doing like roadworking stuff. Not the plastic type,
Speaker 1: the concrete type. And they had this thing bolted down
Speaker 1: like every foot and a half strapped to this jersey barrier.
Speaker 1: And my buddy asked the guys like, look, I mean
Speaker 1: it's I understand that things got to be secure here
Speaker 1: and everything. But why does it have to be this secure?
Speaker 1: Like everything we do has to be secured to this fashion.
Speaker 1: The planner told him, this whole plant was designed so
Speaker 1: that if a volcan know, an earthquake and a tidal
Speaker 1: wave hit this plant at the exact same time, these
Speaker 1: reactors would not go down. That's the level of ingenuity
Speaker 1: that is put into the American nuclear programs as far
Speaker 1: as nuclear energy is concerned. So again, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that green Peace is like completely full of shit here,
Speaker 1: because they are speaking on behalf of the world and
Speaker 1: everybody's nuclear programs, and I cannot speak on behalf of
Speaker 1: everyone else's safety protocols and things. But in America that's
Speaker 1: pretty much a non point. But like, all right, and
Speaker 1: I get what they're saying. In a time of war, sure, yes,
Speaker 1: I'm with you. Like the nuclear reactor could be hit
Speaker 1: in these things. Do they think that if like you
Speaker 1: hit a nuclear reactor with a with a bunker buster
Speaker 1: or something that like a nuclear bomb would go off.
Speaker 1: I think they think that's how that works.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think they might think it's like a dirty
Speaker 5: bomb where even if you don't get the nuclear explosion,
Speaker 5: just scattering all that stuff might be bad for people.
Speaker 1: And I get that the nuclear waste from like the water,
Speaker 1: if you're like on an island Fukushima as an example,
Speaker 1: I get what they're saying here the stuff into the air.
Speaker 1: I'm with you one hundred percent. It's not like you're
Speaker 1: gonna make a crater with the mushroom cloud and the
Speaker 1: whole nine from a reactor getting hit. That's not it's
Speaker 1: not the same at all. Actually, but yeah, all right, yeah, Raven,
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 2: So my mom actually because my mom worked for the
Speaker 2: my parents worked for the electrical company for forty plus
Speaker 2: years in Oregon. We have like we did the company
Speaker 2: that she worked for, they they have some of the
Speaker 2: fields where they keep the nuclear waste and like, uh,
Speaker 2: they the government actually renigged on the nuclear like power
Speaker 2: because they he was in charge of it, because of
Speaker 2: they didn't want to help with a waste any longer.
Speaker 2: And like we have a steam plant there we I
Speaker 2: think it's still operating, but it was like it worked
Speaker 2: in a cycle to be able to use the steam
Speaker 2: and the steam energy actually was fantastic. And like there's
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of stuff. I was just looking glancing.
Speaker 2: So this is actually a really good book about like
Speaker 2: it's called Sustainable Energy Choosing among Options, And this is
Speaker 2: a book all about like actual sustainable energy and like
Speaker 2: the different types of energy and what breaking it down to,
Speaker 2: like the super smart level, which I'm like brough math
Speaker 2: Amede not a thing, but it's talking about different options
Speaker 2: and stuff, and it's just it doesn't make sense to me,
Speaker 2: Like there is there's been a couple new energy types
Speaker 2: in the last few years that they've tested and it
Speaker 2: has better options, but it keeps getting shut down.
Speaker 4: For whatever reason.
Speaker 2: Then the one I like is the hydro energy that
Speaker 2: they actually have the new turbines that don't destroy the
Speaker 2: rivers and it actually like help smooth the fish around,
Speaker 2: and it's a whole thing.
Speaker 4: They only have one of them.
Speaker 2: They might have more now it's been a few years
Speaker 2: since they've looked into it, so they might have more,
Speaker 2: but it actually produces a ton of energy and that's
Speaker 2: super clean. I kind of laughed about the Green Peace
Speaker 2: That's why I.
Speaker 4: Had to drop it in there.
Speaker 2: But I mean I could understand some of what they're saying,
Speaker 2: like nuclear plants are a bigger target quote unquote, because
Speaker 2: if you hit the wind turbine fields in California. You're
Speaker 2: not going to have like an actual meltdown of anything. Yes,
Speaker 2: they do have toxic chemicals in the actual you know, blades,
Speaker 2: but it's not going to kill anybody as like leeching
Speaker 2: out tons of chemicals. If they did hit a nuclear plant,
Speaker 2: potentially it's there.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree.
Speaker 1: I haven't heard much about the new hydro. I've heard
Speaker 1: that there is a new hydro. I haven't really looked
Speaker 1: into it. And that's the thing. I'm only looking at
Speaker 1: hydro from the perspective of how it has been done
Speaker 1: in the past, and the dams and how that affects
Speaker 1: the things downstream and upstream, the flooding that takes place,
Speaker 1: all of that. If they have a better way of
Speaker 1: doing it, then like I'm all here for it. But
Speaker 1: I would have to look more into that for sure.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so going back into the green peace thing here,
Speaker 1: nuclear energy is too expensive. Let's see, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to read the whole thing here. The cost of generating
Speaker 1: solar power ranges from thirty six dollars to forty four
Speaker 1: dollars per megawatt hour. Yeah, in the perfect conditions. My god.
Speaker 1: The World Nuclear Energy World Nuclear Industry Status Reports said
Speaker 1: while onshore wind power comes in at twenty nine to
Speaker 1: fifty six dollars per megawatt, it's already counterintuited to what
Speaker 1: they just said. Nuclear energy costs between one hundred and
Speaker 1: twelve and one hundred and eighty nine dollars per megawatt.
Speaker 1: So they just kind of renigged on their sentence prior.
Speaker 1: But like, okay, anyway, Yeah, so apparently, according to them,
Speaker 1: nuclear is too expensive, your energy is too slow. Number four.
Speaker 1: The twenty twenty one World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates
Speaker 1: that since two thousand and nine, the average construction time
Speaker 1: for reactors worldwide was just under ten years, well above
Speaker 1: the estimate, well above the estimate given by the World
Speaker 1: Nuclear Association industry body of between five and eight point
Speaker 1: five years. There's probably a reason for that, the same
Speaker 1: reason why most big industrial projects go on longer than
Speaker 1: planned and scheduled, because OSHA and things like that get
Speaker 1: in the way. But when it comes to nuclear I
Speaker 1: would rather than take the extra time and make sure
Speaker 1: they build it right. That's just me. That's kind of
Speaker 1: how the cookie crumbles here and number five, nuclear energy
Speaker 1: generates huge amounts of toxic waste. That is also not true.
Speaker 1: There is waste that comes off of it, and it
Speaker 1: can be toxic to people, but we have uses for that. Again.
Speaker 1: The A ten warhog shoots bullets made out of depleted
Speaker 1: uranium the size of red bull cans. It's beautiful, it's amazing,
Speaker 1: and it pierces armor. But you know whatever. Okay, so
Speaker 1: green peace is Oh I forgot number six. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: There was a six one here. There wasn't. No, there
Speaker 1: was not literally the oh here it is, and number
Speaker 1: six the nuclear industry is falling short of its promises. Okay,
Speaker 1: none of these things would make sense as to why
Speaker 1: it's not considered green. I maybe I'm missing something here.
Speaker 1: They said how it wasn't as good as solar and wind,
Speaker 1: which mathematically that's laughable. But I didn't see one thing
Speaker 1: as to why that wouldn't be considered green.
Speaker 5: But right, I just see it depends on the definition.
Speaker 5: If your highest priority is to get rid of carbon dioxide,
Speaker 5: they do a really good job at given power without
Speaker 5: producing that. But if you're really afraid of a dirty bomb,
Speaker 5: which is a legitimate fear, then it just depends what
Speaker 5: your priority is. I learned something just in the last
Speaker 5: few minutes about how France has so much nuclear power,
Speaker 5: because I've heard about this for years. They've been between
Speaker 5: seventy and eighty percent of their electricity coming from nuclear
Speaker 5: and it's a direct result of something called the Mesmer plane,
Speaker 5: which was invented after nineteen seventy three with the big
Speaker 5: oil crisis with one of the Arab Israeli wars, the
Speaker 5: Young Kapur War, and it was named after Prime Minister
Speaker 5: Pierre Mesmer, who announced that it was going to be
Speaker 5: a hugely ambitious nuclear power program aimed at generating most
Speaker 5: of France's electricity from nuclear power, and they got up
Speaker 5: to about eighty percent. It's lower than that now and
Speaker 5: they do have a significant amount of renewables. This I guess.
Speaker 5: I've heard Europe has much higher electrical power costs than
Speaker 5: we do here in the US because we have something
Speaker 5: like ten cents of kilowatt hour, but over there it's
Speaker 5: like four times higher. So maybe nuclear is more competitive
Speaker 5: over there. But yeah, they gave the figures in the
Speaker 5: green Peace article as one hundred dollars per mega waite hour,
Speaker 5: and that's just the same thing as ten cents of
Speaker 5: kill a wat hour, just so people can convert that
Speaker 5: ratio in their head.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 5: I guess at the largest scales, people calculating gigawatt hours
Speaker 5: and megawat hours and tarawat hours. But for your house,
Speaker 5: you get charged in kill a WoT hours. In France,
Speaker 5: most of their power plants make well over a thousand megawatts,
Speaker 5: as opposed to the Chinese one we were talking about,
Speaker 5: which is only one hundred megawatts. So the Chinese one
Speaker 5: that I was just talking about is apparently pretty small
Speaker 5: by comparison.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the picture at least, and I don't
Speaker 1: know if that was a model or if that was
Speaker 1: their current construction of it, but you saw people standing
Speaker 1: next to it, and it didn't look nearly as large
Speaker 1: as the reactors that we have in America. So I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's because it's the new hybrid type
Speaker 1: and maybe it's not as big and it doesn't require
Speaker 1: as much space or what the case is.
Speaker 5: But yeah, well, hydrogen deuterium fusion, I don't know the
Speaker 5: exact number, but it's something like ten or one hundred
Speaker 5: times more energy dense than uranium, which is already incredibly
Speaker 5: energy dens. Yeah, and I don't know what the figure
Speaker 5: is on it, but any any supplementing they can do
Speaker 5: with hydrogen, it's basically free energy, and hydrogen is not radioactive,
Speaker 5: so that's really the best source we could possibly hope for.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, I may be wrong, but isn't that
Speaker 1: also the same Not to bring it to nuclear bombs,
Speaker 1: but bear with me in that the same kind of
Speaker 1: process or at least concept behind the hydrogen bomb versus
Speaker 1: the atomic bomb. Hydrogen has a lot more energy to
Speaker 1: be expelled or used in this case.
Speaker 5: One hundred percent. Yeah. The first nuclear bombs in Almagordo
Speaker 5: and Hiroshima and Nagasaki used uranium, and I think the
Speaker 5: Nagasaki one might have used plutonium two. But those work
Speaker 5: by fission, and when those elements split, they give off
Speaker 5: an enormous amount of power. But hydrogen fusion is when
Speaker 5: hydrogen when it has to be deuterium. Okay, there's got
Speaker 5: to be a proton and a neutron in it, and
Speaker 5: I forget what ratio of hydrogen that is, but it's
Speaker 5: like one percent or zero point one percent of all
Speaker 5: the hydrogen in the universe is deuterium and it's got
Speaker 5: the necessary neutrons that it needs in order to fuse
Speaker 5: the helium. And the way you make a hydrogen bomb
Speaker 5: is you use a uranium fission bomb and put it
Speaker 5: right next to a bunch of deuterium that gets compressed
Speaker 5: into a tiny space somehow. And when you compress the
Speaker 5: deuterium that much at high enough temperature, it replicates the
Speaker 5: fusion process in the Sun. But it's actually even more
Speaker 5: hardcore than the Sun, because the Sun's core only gets
Speaker 5: up to about two or three million kelvin or two
Speaker 5: or three million celsius, and a hydrogen bomb gets to
Speaker 5: two hundred or three hundred million calvin. Yeah, because when
Speaker 5: you think about it, the Sun's fusing this hydrogen, but
Speaker 5: over the course of millions of years, the amount of
Speaker 5: deuterium there as a percentage of its mass, barely changes
Speaker 5: it at all, which is why I just can keep
Speaker 5: burning it forever and ever and ever practically speaking, But
Speaker 5: a hydrogen bomb needs to needs to get all that
Speaker 5: energy out right away, so it needs the temperature to
Speaker 5: be way, way, way way higher.
Speaker 1: Dude, I just I stumbled upon and on the cult
Speaker 1: of conspiracy. You know, we dive into all the conspiracies,
Speaker 1: and there are some people out there that don't believe
Speaker 1: the nuclear bombs are real. Yeah, that is a actual
Speaker 1: conspiracy that certain people who are like voting adults, really believe,
Speaker 1: and their evidence behind it is like on the surface,
Speaker 1: without doing any digging of your own. To an uneducated person,
Speaker 1: they'd be like, yeah, that's true. Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Speaker 1: people live there today. If nukes went off, how is
Speaker 1: there not radioactive fallout? And blah blah blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, and like that's the basis of their whole
Speaker 1: talking point. To put this into perspective for everybody, that
Speaker 1: would be like somebody's saying, I don't believe gunpowder is
Speaker 1: real because every time I fire a bullet, the casing
Speaker 1: comes out, but there's no gunpowder inside of it. That
Speaker 1: is about a one to one comparison for anybody who
Speaker 1: doesn't know why there's no nuclear fallouts after a bomb
Speaker 1: goes off. Now, yes, there is initially some radiation in
Speaker 1: the air, and there's radioactive burns that happened, sure of course,
Speaker 1: But why we don't have that thirty five year half
Speaker 1: life or things like that after a bomb goes off
Speaker 1: is because all of the radioactive materials get burned and
Speaker 1: used as the fuel for the kaboom. They don't have
Speaker 1: the long half life and all these things. And for
Speaker 1: the people who also believe that nukes are fake, all
Speaker 1: the testing that was done in the Nevada and New
Speaker 1: Mexico desert back in the day, the people who lived
Speaker 1: around there that got all kinds of horrible radio radiation poisoning.
Speaker 1: They're called down winders. Anybody would like to look into them,
Speaker 1: and the crazy lawsuits they had to fight for years
Speaker 1: to finally get compensation and acknowledgment for him. Yeah, nukes
Speaker 1: are one hundred percent reel. They are one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: It blows my mind that people people thinking.
Speaker 5: And you might have heard of Richard Ramirez. He was
Speaker 5: a serial killer from El Paso and see that Juarez. Yeah,
Speaker 5: and he was a downwinder. His family suffered birth defects
Speaker 5: and trauma when he was a kid as a result
Speaker 5: of that. Yeah. Well, another thing, the uranium bombs over Japan.
Speaker 5: They only had a yield of about ten to twenty
Speaker 5: thousand kilotons, but hydrogen bombs are normally in the thousands
Speaker 5: of kilotons, and the largest couple that ever were detonated
Speaker 5: were the Sonder BOMBA and the Castle Bravo at one
Speaker 5: hundred megatons or one hundred thousand kilotons. Yeah, that's so
Speaker 5: hydrogen is just a whole different order of magnitude bigger
Speaker 5: in terms of power. As far as the radiation in Hiroshima,
Speaker 5: I don't know why, but you know, people do live
Speaker 5: there now obviously, and I've heard that the radioactive fallout
Speaker 5: from more recent nukes would be even worse. But I
Speaker 5: don't know why. But yeah, the nuclear bomb does not
Speaker 5: burn one hundred percent of the isotopes. It's maybe only
Speaker 5: like fifty percent, and the other fifty percent do get
Speaker 5: scattered and they can't make people sick.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: In fact, the no nukes people, I think part of
Speaker 5: the conspiracy theory from their angle is that Hiroshima was firebombed,
Speaker 5: but they also dropped a bunch of radioactive uranium at
Speaker 5: the same time to make it look like there was
Speaker 5: a nuclear bomb, although I still agree that there was
Speaker 5: really just a nuclear bomb.
Speaker 1: Well, they say it also because Tokyo was firebombed, right,
Speaker 1: so we because most of Tokyo at this time, and
Speaker 1: I would assume it's not like this today. During World
Speaker 1: War Two, most of their buildings were made out of
Speaker 1: wood and paper, but it was traditional Japanese homes and things.
Speaker 1: And so dropping the World War II equivalent of napalm
Speaker 1: in that city goes hard, goes really hard, and it
Speaker 1: does the job. It was like one hundred thousand people
Speaker 1: died in the course of it wasn't like a day,
Speaker 1: maybe it was like two days or three days or
Speaker 1: something ridiculous. And yeah, the fire bombing in Tokyo was
Speaker 1: way more devastating to life than the nuclear bombs that
Speaker 1: happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But like also this is
Speaker 1: another historical fact that America really doesn't want to acknowledge.
Speaker 1: We dropped a nuke on the Christian epicenter of Japan.
Speaker 1: If I'm not mistaken, Nagasaki was like the biggest Christian
Speaker 1: as far as faith and religion goes, The biggest Christian
Speaker 1: conglomerates of that country was there, and we nuked them.
Speaker 1: And of course we had to push that one to
Speaker 1: the side and all the things later on because at
Speaker 1: that time, especially the Bible Belt wasn't exact just in
Speaker 1: the south. That was a pretty much a whole country
Speaker 1: vibe and uh, yeah, yeah, that's a whole thing that happened.
Speaker 1: And yeah there's radiation burns and it's not one hundred
Speaker 1: percent burn for sure, there's gonna be some fallout, but
Speaker 1: it's not it's not what people are thinking, like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they rebuilt those towns relatively quickly because they can, and
Speaker 1: you can go there with your Uh, I forget, it's
Speaker 1: not a meger because that's an electric device. I forget
Speaker 1: what it's called. Whenever they like use the wand to
Speaker 1: tech for radioactive isotopes and things like that and like
Speaker 1: tiger counter, thank you, not a Meger tiger counter. And yeah,
Speaker 1: you can find certain spots where there is a radiation signature,
Speaker 1: but it's not it is nowhere near which you'll find
Speaker 1: at Chernobyl. Reason why is because Chernobyl is still currently
Speaker 1: burning and it's still putting off those the waste and
Speaker 1: the isotopes and all the stuff. Fukushima, same thing. It's
Speaker 1: still putting these things off. It didn't burn it all
Speaker 1: in an instant like a bomb. So anyway, Ravenly, I
Speaker 1: see your hand, go ahead.
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 2: While we've been talking, I've just realized that I'm looking
Speaker 2: at all this stuff about China. So China has a
Speaker 2: new mega project for the mountain dam. Also they are
Speaker 2: trying to do their one hundred billion dollar impossible Himalayan dam.
Speaker 1: And then sure, by the way.
Speaker 2: That's one of that is the engineering or disaster that's
Speaker 2: talking about the I think that's talking about the one
Speaker 2: that's the mountain dam.
Speaker 4: I'm just I found a twelve day old YouTube video.
Speaker 2: And then Canada has a twelve billion dollar megadam that
Speaker 2: they're also pushing forward. So it looks like hydropower is
Speaker 2: actually coming back into popularity. To the articles they sent
Speaker 2: you are just about hydropower and stuff. But yeah, so
Speaker 2: that's something that's going on.
Speaker 1: I mean that makes me happy. I mean, especially if
Speaker 1: there's a it's a better and more efficient way than
Speaker 1: it has been done in the past. Like I'm all
Speaker 1: yours absolutely. Matter of fact, let's watch little bit of
Speaker 1: this video. It's only like six minutes long. We don't
Speaker 1: have to watch the entirety of it, but at least
Speaker 1: to get the gist. I'm all here.
Speaker 6: Embarking on a project of unparalleled scale and ambition, constructing
Speaker 6: the world's largest hydropower dam on the Yar Lung Chung
Speaker 6: Po River in Tibet. This enormous undertaking, which could cost
Speaker 6: as much as one hundred thirty seven billion dollars, is
Speaker 6: set to produce three hundred billion kilowat hours of electricity annually.
Speaker 6: That's nearly three times the output of the Three Gorges Dam,
Speaker 6: currently the world's largest hydropower facility. While Beijing touts the
Speaker 6: project as a major step forward in renewable energy and
Speaker 6: economic development, its implications are raising serious concerns across environmental, geopolitical,
Speaker 6: and humanitarian spheres. Harnessing the power of the yar lungchang Po.
Speaker 6: The yar Lung sang Po River, originating from the Angsi
Speaker 6: Glacier in the Tibetan place, flows through the world's deepest canyon,
Speaker 6: the Yarlungsangpo Grand Canyon. This region boasts an extraordinary combination
Speaker 6: of natural features that make it ideal for hydropower generation.
Speaker 6: In a single fifty kilometer stretch near Namchabarwa Mountain, the
Speaker 6: river drops and astonishing two thousand meters, creating one of
Speaker 6: the most hydropower rich zones on Earth. China's plan to
Speaker 6: harness this power involves drilling multiple twenty kilometer long tunnels
Speaker 6: to divert the river's flow, enabling the generation of unprecedented
Speaker 6: levels of electricity. Once operational, the dam could play a
Speaker 6: pivotal role in China's broader strategy to meet its climate
Speaker 6: neutrality goals and shift toward renewable energy, as outlined in
Speaker 6: its fourteenth five Year Plan. Promises of progress or ecological catastrophe.
Speaker 6: Chinese state media describes the dam as a safe project
Speaker 6: that prioritizes ecological protection, but such assurances have done little
Speaker 6: to assuage the concerns of environmental experts and human rights organizations.
Speaker 6: The Tibetan Plateau is one of the most biodiverse regions
Speaker 6: on Earth, home to unique ecosystems that could face irreversible
Speaker 6: damage from this development. Altering the river's natural flow, coupled
Speaker 6: with large scale construction in a tectonically active area, poses
Speaker 6: significant risks, including landslides and seismic instability. Furthermore, the displacement
Speaker 6: of local Tibetan communities is almost certain, although Beijing has
Speaker 6: yet to disclose how many people will be affected. For context,
Speaker 6: the construction of the Three Gorges Dam required the relocation
Speaker 6: of one point four million people. In the case of
Speaker 6: the Yarlungsangpo Project. Affected populations could face loss of ancestral lands,
Speaker 6: cultural heritage, and livelihoods. Activists and Tibetan advocacy groups argue
Speaker 6: that this is yet another example of China's exploitation of
Speaker 6: Tibetan resources under the guise of development.
Speaker 1: Okay, maybe I'm just a little jaded, but I don't
Speaker 1: think China cares about displacing one point four million when
Speaker 1: they have like a population of a billion, give or take.
Speaker 1: And I know for a fact they don't care about
Speaker 1: the Tibetan culture. They're currently occupying a portion of Tibet
Speaker 1: right now, and the Dalai Lama is in hiding or
Speaker 1: in exile or whatever you want to call it in
Speaker 1: India because of this, so.
Speaker 6: Right, okay, deepening the historical tensions in the region, geopolitical
Speaker 6: ripples Downstream, the yar Lung Tangpo River doesn't end in Tibet.
Speaker 6: It flows south northward into India, where it becomes the
Speaker 6: Brahmaputra River and eventually reaches Bangladesh. For millions of people downstream,
Speaker 6: the river is a critical lifeline supporting agriculture, fishing, and
Speaker 6: drinking water supplies. By controlling the flow of this trans
Speaker 6: boundary river, China gains a powerful geopolitical tool that could
Speaker 6: exacerbate tensions with neighboring countries. India in particular, has raised
Speaker 6: alarm over the potential for China to manipulate the river's flow,
Speaker 6: which could affect water availability and flood risks in its
Speaker 6: northeastern states. Indian officials have even proposed the construction of
Speaker 6: a competing dam and reservoir to counterbalance China's influence on
Speaker 6: the river. This hydropower race could further strain already delicate
Speaker 6: relations between the two nuclear armed nations. Engineering feet meets
Speaker 6: environmental challenge.
Speaker 1: We could kind of go ahead and stop it there,
Speaker 1: but okay, and especially I didn't know that area was
Speaker 1: such a hot spot for like plate tectonic shifts and
Speaker 1: mud slides and things like that. Although a hydro power
Speaker 1: plant does not pose the same types of risk it
Speaker 1: like a nuclear power plant would would present as far
Speaker 1: as like having some sort of like earthquake happening or
Speaker 1: something like that. But still it's interesting, and I mean,
Speaker 1: I see the benefits that China would be going after here,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's big picture why they've been making more
Speaker 1: pushes into more pushes into India and all these things.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I don't see that going into a net
Speaker 1: positive direction for them. Although listen here a new vision
Speaker 1: for United States hydropower raven This is the article that
Speaker 1: you sent. Is this talking about the new form of
Speaker 1: hydro power that they were talking about the new form
Speaker 1: of it?
Speaker 4: It's just talking let me see which our article?
Speaker 2: Sorry if yeah, if you scroll down, it's just talk
Speaker 2: like it's just kind of talking about the different existing
Speaker 2: facilities that they're providing low cost, low carb low carbon
Speaker 2: stuff that they are in high value potentially to increase
Speaker 2: the contribute blah blah generation story. I'm just scanning really quick.
Speaker 2: It's just kind of talking overall about like what the
Speaker 2: vision is.
Speaker 3: I just was.
Speaker 4: You don't need to read it.
Speaker 2: It's just pretty much what I found on the new
Speaker 2: version is the infrastructure is changed in how they do
Speaker 2: it is like what I was seeing, Like the actual
Speaker 2: way that they actually are getting the water and moving
Speaker 2: it around, it's not disturbing as much, and so they're
Speaker 2: trying to make it more of a popular thing. Also,
Speaker 2: I didn't know Australia has five massive hydroplants there, so
Speaker 2: there's a whole bunch of people like countries that are
Speaker 2: using hydropower more now, and there's a lot of debate
Speaker 2: going on about Canada's massive megadam so I was just
Speaker 2: kind of reading different stuff like that.
Speaker 1: Hey, okay, very interesting, and thank you for sharing all
Speaker 1: of this, for sure. And you know what, while we're
Speaker 1: already kind of on the topic of China, this does
Speaker 1: actually present a very decent segue for something that I heard.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how much of this I actually believe,
Speaker 1: but at the same time, it's worth talking about here.
Speaker 1: This is an article from twenty twenty two, as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, and it's saying basically, does China have
Speaker 1: designs on Siberia? Now? I don't Again, I don't know
Speaker 1: the validity of this. I do know that once upon
Speaker 1: a time they were talking about China invading Russia, and
Speaker 1: this was, if I'm not mistaken, right before the invasion
Speaker 1: took place. And this is a September twenty second of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. Now I don't know why, but there
Speaker 1: is more recently talking points about this being more realistic.
Speaker 1: Apparently Jizjaping and Putin are on the outs right now.
Speaker 1: And again, it really depends on the source. It depends
Speaker 1: on the source you read. I don't know that for
Speaker 1: a fact. I don't know Xi personally or anything old
Speaker 1: Panda boy himself. But this was something from a few
Speaker 1: years back. Here it says, actually, I'm sorry, this is
Speaker 1: right after the invasion happened. Chinese leaders Ji japan relationship
Speaker 1: with Russian President Vladimir Putin is tarnished as a result
Speaker 1: of Russia's unprovoked invasion and occupation of Ukraine. GI has
Speaker 1: been distancing China from Putin's predaceous predation gradually out of
Speaker 1: deference to his two biggest customers, the United States and
Speaker 1: the European Union, but on September fifteenth, his displeasure about
Speaker 1: the war became public. Putin himself admitted at the press
Speaker 1: conference following the meeting with Ji that China had concerns
Speaker 1: about his war in Ukraine, and so did India. But
Speaker 1: there is one more elephant in the room, Siberia, a
Speaker 1: region bigger and richer than any place on Earth. I
Speaker 1: feel like that's also a bit biased pool see with
Speaker 1: resources that under pin Putin's economy. It is Asian, not European,
Speaker 1: and one day will most likely or mostly fall into
Speaker 1: China's hands. Okay, g knows this and needn't lift a
Speaker 1: finger to speed along. This outcome to some Chinese takeover
Speaker 1: of Siberia may seem preposterous, but Putin's flailing war against
Speaker 1: the West increases the odds that the Russian Federation itself
Speaker 1: may atomize. Well, that didn't exactly play it off, though,
Speaker 1: way did it. Although again, depending on the Sorcier read,
Speaker 1: they're collapsing more and more by the day, and there's
Speaker 1: more outcries and more protests, and now they're calling for
Speaker 1: more coups. But I mean again, it depends on who
Speaker 1: you're talking to. Honestly, Putin may eventually be removed, freeing
Speaker 1: Russia from a dictatorship, but also liberating revolutionary and secessionist
Speaker 1: movements across the vast federation. Moscow's militarized center with a
Speaker 1: military that's been humiliated and will not hold, and there
Speaker 1: are dozens of active secession movements across Russia Cheshniya, Tartistan, Colingrad,
Speaker 1: Sokko Report, Public and others in Siberia. In twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: this person whose name I can't pronounce, a lecturer in
Speaker 1: Eastern European studies at the University of Warsaw posted a
Speaker 1: six scenarios for Russia the fall of Russia under the
Speaker 1: influence of China, Balkanization, territorial disintegration, a gradual but peaceful disintegration,
Speaker 1: an imperial boom resulting from high oil and gas prices
Speaker 1: for years, and modernization in cooperation with the West. Cooperation
Speaker 1: is not in Putin's DNA and his illegal invasion. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this article is very very very very very biased.
Speaker 1: I see this, I get this. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: the article wasn't going on to say, just like, yes,
Speaker 1: you's mad at Putin, He's about to invade Siberia. Apparently
Speaker 1: there was some sort of a historical precedent to this
Speaker 1: that they were going on about. Now, again, this is
Speaker 1: back in twenty twenty two, right, and a lot of
Speaker 1: the predictions of what would happen and what things would
Speaker 1: look like in the near future did not exactly come
Speaker 1: to pass. But same time, if China was to try
Speaker 1: to make a move into Siberia for the resources, and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying a military invasion, more like a buyout,
Speaker 1: if you will, or something like that, or maybe they're
Speaker 1: waiting for Russia to collapse so that they could come
Speaker 1: in and fill the void. In that regard, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I don't see that as necessarily a dumb plan.
Speaker 1: I see it as a very wise move for them
Speaker 1: to try to do that if the situation was to
Speaker 1: go a certain direction, Tony, go ahead.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So first of all, on the Putin Shee partnership,
Speaker 5: they've always got pretty rosy words for each other. Who
Speaker 5: knows what's really going on in the background, But I
Speaker 5: suppose that it's actually a pretty good relationship. She is
Speaker 5: she Genping is going to be in Moscow for their
Speaker 5: Victory Day parades on May ninth of this year. So
Speaker 5: things look good enough. And like I think I said before,
Speaker 5: if China really wanted Siberia, I think they would just
Speaker 5: try to buy it. If not, you know, politically, at least,
Speaker 5: you know, just just in a private kind of way.
Speaker 1: That's how I've been doing it. They haven't been going
Speaker 1: in and taking things over militarily. They've been taking it
Speaker 1: over in a corporation way, right the big Belton Road
Speaker 1: in the way. If they were going to make yeah,
Speaker 1: it would be with a corporate greed, A suit and
Speaker 1: tie would take Siberia, not a gun.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Furthermore, there actually was a huge Sino Soviet border conflict,
Speaker 5: and there's a whole Wikipedia article on it, and some
Speaker 5: people even believe that nuclear weapons were used at that time,
Speaker 5: but hardly anybody saw them, and there was enough political
Speaker 5: pressure not to write any of this down. So I don't know.
Speaker 5: I'm not sure I believe that, but there was a
Speaker 5: there was a border conflict in nineteen sixty nine between
Speaker 5: the two countries.
Speaker 1: That was And as a matter of fact, we just
Speaker 1: did the episode on the Cult about the Lost Cosmonauts,
Speaker 1: and it was around that time when one of the
Speaker 1: Russian cosmonauts landed in China and they scrubbed him from
Speaker 1: the program and made it seem like he never was
Speaker 1: a part of it or whatever. But he was hailed
Speaker 1: in China as a prisoner for a year because they
Speaker 1: thought he was a Russian spy who fell out of
Speaker 1: a spycraft of some type. Because it was during that
Speaker 1: time of the Cold War where China and Russia happened
Speaker 1: to be on the outs. So yeah, there was a conflict,
Speaker 1: and I sincerely doubt that nuclear warheads were used, but
Speaker 1: especially during the Cold War when no information was coming
Speaker 1: out of communist nations other than what they wanted to
Speaker 1: come out, I could understand why maybe the West never
Speaker 1: heard about it in grave detail. I don't know, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm with you one hundred percent. I don't think China's
Speaker 1: going to take over in some sort of a military way,
Speaker 1: maybe a business way, maybe a co op type situation
Speaker 1: like they've been doing with everything else in the Belton
Speaker 1: wrote initiative. But I don't know, especially now that Russia's
Speaker 1: economy and yes, I know they've been everybody's been saying
Speaker 1: the Russian economy is like on its last leg, except
Speaker 1: for the fact that they were able to to sell
Speaker 1: their oil in LNG with a different flag on the
Speaker 1: boat and people were buying a third party because Europe
Speaker 1: really wants to buy Russian oil, even if not out loud,
Speaker 1: which we will get to that here in a minute.
Speaker 1: Actually why not now? Why not?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 1: This is actually right in line with that fact check.
Speaker 1: Did Europe spend more on Russian oil and gas than
Speaker 1: Ukrainian aid? This is from March fifth of this year,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, And this is actually pretty interesting,
Speaker 1: so to everybody who's thinking that, like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: these European countries hate Russia and they need to back Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna send weapons and manpower and blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah blah. Before we just take on
Speaker 1: that stance, let's go ahead and look at it full pictures,
Speaker 1: shall we. There's a fact checking article from Newsweek about this.
Speaker 1: Europe has spent more on purchasing Russia's oil and gas
Speaker 1: than it has on assistance for Ukraine in the war
Speaker 1: with the country, President Donald Trump has told the US Congress.
Speaker 1: Trump made the comment during his address to lawmakers on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: in which he referred to what his administration might do
Speaker 1: to in the three year old conflict started at by Moscow.
Speaker 1: Trump compared the aid that the US has provided Ukraine
Speaker 1: with with what the war tour country was receiving from
Speaker 1: its European allies, effectively casting doubt on the commitment of
Speaker 1: the continent's leaders, who have raised concerns about Washington stopping
Speaker 1: its assistance in the fight against Russia. Isaac Levy from
Speaker 1: the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air told
Speaker 1: Newsweek on Wednesday that the EU's purchase of fossil fuels
Speaker 1: from Russia are financing the Kremlins War chest and canceling
Speaker 1: out the support the block gives Ukraine. Yeah, I believe
Speaker 1: that one thousand percent. Trump said Europe has spent more
Speaker 1: money buying Russian oil than defending Ukraine, adding that the
Speaker 1: US spent has spent three hundred and fifty billion dollars,
Speaker 1: which was like taking candy from a baby, while Europe
Speaker 1: had spent one hundred billion dollars. What a difference that is.
Speaker 1: Over the course of the war started by Putin, the
Speaker 1: US had been the biggest donor of military and financial assistance.
Speaker 1: Trump claimed that he could end the war within a
Speaker 1: day entering the Oval office, and while the deadline has
Speaker 1: been extended to a more realistic timeframe, the US leader
Speaker 1: has insisted that he could still broke a swift of
Speaker 1: resolution to the conflict. During the address to Congress, Trump
Speaker 1: reiterated that his grievance about US spending on Ukraine, which
Speaker 1: he said provided no security, as he asked, do you
Speaker 1: want to keep it going for another five years? Which,
Speaker 1: by the way, yes, I personally believe the European countries
Speaker 1: want to keep it going for another five years. War
Speaker 1: makes money and they like that. And yes, it may
Speaker 1: not be making money for the European military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: They're able to buy Russian oil at cut rate prices
Speaker 1: because they know that Russia really needs to sell this oil.
Speaker 1: And now that they have all these crazy terrists from
Speaker 1: the international conglomerates and all that, the Russian ships have
Speaker 1: just changed their numbers and changed what flag they're flying
Speaker 1: and now it's some third party from Panama or from Liberia.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't matter because those two countries. You don't
Speaker 1: have to actually register the boat there in order to
Speaker 1: fly the flag there. You just had to file a
Speaker 1: paperwork and pay a fee and that's it. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: they're buying oil from this boat, where the boat come from.
Speaker 1: What language are the people on the boat speaking, that's
Speaker 1: not important. They're buying the oil at a really good rate,
Speaker 1: which is how Russia's been able to keep their economy
Speaker 1: going this whole time. If the European countries were that
Speaker 1: dead set on ending this war and crippling Russia, then
Speaker 1: they would be buying oil from name an Arabic country,
Speaker 1: name a North American country, not Venezuela. But I mean,
Speaker 1: there's ways that they could go about that, but they're
Speaker 1: just simply not doing it. And they have been funding
Speaker 1: both sides of this war. I understand this sounds very
Speaker 1: rothchild of them, but really looking at the numbers here,
Speaker 1: that's what they've been doing. So as much as they
Speaker 1: want to get on microphones and stand on podiums and
Speaker 1: tout their display with Russia b blah blah blah, then
Speaker 1: why are they funding it? I don't know, Tony, what
Speaker 1: are your thoughts?
Speaker 5: Well? My thoughts are Britain and the EU are both
Speaker 5: facing a potential sovereign debt crisis they're afraid of and
Speaker 5: a great There's two ways that they've been getting around this.
Speaker 5: In twenty twenty, there was the great COVID panic and pandemic.
Speaker 5: That was a good excuse to shut everything down and
Speaker 5: maybe and divert everyone's attention away from the strength of
Speaker 5: their currency. And the other way is to say we
Speaker 5: all got to rally around the flag and react to
Speaker 5: this foreign threat that is Russia. And Germany is not
Speaker 5: very enthusiastic about it, but the French and the British
Speaker 5: are talking about sending at least small numbers of troops
Speaker 5: to Ukraine. I don't think they'll actually do it. I
Speaker 5: hope they don't, but they feel like they need to
Speaker 5: talk about it, and I think they think this will
Speaker 5: help rescue their economy and their sovereign debt and their currency.
Speaker 5: That's why I think that's the main motivator for doing this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree they're gonna they're talking. They're doing a
Speaker 1: lot of talking right about sending not just money, but manpower.
Speaker 1: And by manpower, I don't mean like a chunk of
Speaker 1: their military might, more like a couple battalions. Let's not
Speaker 1: forget that North Korea has sent ten thousand troops, so
Speaker 1: at this point, like France promising ten thousand, like ooh ooh,
Speaker 1: they're talking about matching North Korea's of donation. How magnanimous
Speaker 1: of them. It's Yeah, it's a whole lot of talking.
Speaker 1: And although it's a very ugly conversation to have, Yes,
Speaker 1: war makes money for these groups. And do you want
Speaker 1: to keep this war going on forever the European country,
Speaker 1: Sure do absolutely, And they'll tell you the reason why
Speaker 1: is because if they're fighting in Ukraine, that means that
Speaker 1: they're not coming to our doorstep. Russia I don't believe
Speaker 1: has any intentions on Germany. In France and Spain, I
Speaker 1: understand the argument for like Estonia I understand the argument
Speaker 1: for North Macedonia. I understand the argument for Poland. I
Speaker 1: at least understand the thought process of why they would
Speaker 1: think that's a real thing that needs to be concerned with. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: I may disagree, I may agree, but I understand at least,
Speaker 1: like you know, on the chalkboard, looking at the math,
Speaker 1: how it maths. Fine, But the countries that are talking
Speaker 1: about donating all of these resources and manpower and everything
Speaker 1: else are not at risk of this becoming of them problem.
Speaker 1: But yes, they're wanting to match North Korea's charity, which
Speaker 1: is I think kind of insulting any but Zelenski's all
Speaker 1: too willing to accept whatever donations he can get because boy,
Speaker 1: oh boy, does he need it. So I get it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, these Western European countries, it wouldn't be the first
Speaker 5: time they've been at war with Russia either, or the
Speaker 5: first time that they've frankly lost, for example Napoleon. You
Speaker 5: could argue the British won the Crimean War, but some
Speaker 5: people argue the opposite, And I don't know enough about
Speaker 5: it to say for sure.
Speaker 1: I called the Curic victory at best, dude, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe on paper they won, but like at what cost.
Speaker 5: You know, uh huh, Yeah, they had to send a
Speaker 5: lot of troops very far away, whereas for Russia that
Speaker 5: fight was right next door. But anyway, I found another
Speaker 5: kind of funny interesting thing is this is admittedly from
Speaker 5: a Russian propagana outlet, but it seems true that the
Speaker 5: Russia Defense Ministry published a fragment of the interrogation of
Speaker 5: a Ukrainian soldier named Andre Chemer from Kiya. He was
Speaker 5: captured during the battles for Kirsk. Chamr showed a strange document.
Speaker 5: It was in French. The commanders of the armed for
Speaker 5: vers of Ukraine gave their subordinates an alleged French insurance policy,
Speaker 5: but in fact these guys couldn't read French. But what
Speaker 5: the document was was a consent for organ donation and
Speaker 5: transplantation in Canada. The prisoner didn't know about this, and
Speaker 5: the soldiers were told that if they were wounded, they
Speaker 5: would be sent to the best clinics in France for
Speaker 5: treatment and have a French life insurance policy. But in reality,
Speaker 5: allegedly when they were getting wounded, there were doctors coming
Speaker 5: up to harvest their organs. Maybe it's true, maybe it's
Speaker 5: not true. But this is just one of many little
Speaker 5: tidbits of information flying around in the fog of war.
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, so much to unpack on that one. So
Speaker 1: if that is accurate, I'm not saying it is. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it isn't. It would really depend on the
Speaker 1: injury sustained by the person, because it's not like every
Speaker 1: organ is harvestable upon, you know, even if it's a
Speaker 1: fresh I mean, we're talking about a guy that's been
Speaker 1: living in trenches and on the front line for god
Speaker 1: knows how many months or whatever the case may be.
Speaker 1: But if it was a viable, you know, source of organs,
Speaker 1: I could envision a world where if this person's especially
Speaker 1: already being chalked up as a death anyway, you know,
Speaker 1: and we're talking about a war where there's report saying
Speaker 1: that neither side actually cares about their soldiers. So I
Speaker 1: get that I could see a world in which that
Speaker 1: would be accurate. I also think that if you were
Speaker 1: able to keep him alive long enough to make it
Speaker 1: to an AID station, and then they would, you know, say,
Speaker 1: oh no, this guy's not going to get surgery. He's
Speaker 1: going to get that other surgery. I just I don't know.
Speaker 1: I have a hard time seeing making it to the
Speaker 1: surgical room or tint or whatever the case. And then
Speaker 1: like what organs would you harvest from a frontline soldier
Speaker 1: that would be viable or sellable at that point, I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, part of me kind of doubts it too, But
Speaker 5: it goes on that they claim that there were doctors
Speaker 5: running around with like a thermal box containers for organs,
Speaker 5: trying to put people's organs on ice and stuff. Maybe
Speaker 5: it's not true for the record, but maybe I've heard
Speaker 5: a lot of stories about like China doing organ harvesting,
Speaker 5: and I'm not one hundred percent sure that's true either.
Speaker 5: It could be half true. But these are kind of
Speaker 5: the kind of accusations that just fly around a lot
Speaker 5: when two countries aid each other.
Speaker 1: I mean, it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.
Speaker 1: I'll give you that. It sounds not probable, but very possible.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's and I know we're looking at
Speaker 1: this from an American lenns right, and on paper, at least,
Speaker 1: the American government gives a they give a rats ass
Speaker 1: about their military members and all these things, and yeah, yeah, yeah, sure, Sure,
Speaker 1: even though they let that marine stay in a Russian
Speaker 1: prison for years for nothing, and they traded Britney Griner
Speaker 1: back before him, and like that's the thing that absolutely happened.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so that's what I'm saying. There is absolutely
Speaker 1: a greater than zero percent chance that something like this
Speaker 1: has happened. And I mean, even if it's a very
Speaker 1: isolated case or cases of something like this happening, maybe
Speaker 1: it's not a big mass push that still breaks a
Speaker 1: lot of Geneva Convention walls, which I mean that only
Speaker 1: applies to the countries that actually acknowledge the Geneva Convention.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I don't believe that Ukraine wasn't a
Speaker 1: country when that was signed. And the Soviet Union was
Speaker 1: the one that was signed the Geneva Convention, not the
Speaker 1: Russian Federation.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I don't know that's a good point. I
Speaker 5: could look that up. But this brings up something that
Speaker 5: is not political at all, if you'll indulge me for
Speaker 5: a minute. But yeah, I have a friend through church
Speaker 5: and he and his wife just had a baby. But
Speaker 5: I don't want to give away information or docks him
Speaker 5: or anything, but the baby did not survive. But The
Speaker 5: one silver lining though, is that they got to donate
Speaker 5: the baby's heart valve, so there's probably another baby out
Speaker 5: there who's going to get to live who wouldn't have
Speaker 5: gotten to live otherwise. So it's obviously highly emotional for
Speaker 5: them and this is like the one little silver lining
Speaker 5: of it. So I guess thank God for organ donation.
Speaker 5: And some people don't believe in it for some reason,
Speaker 5: but I think it's a good thing. Gee, what's your take, Podox.
Speaker 7: Judaism does not believe in it does not believe in
Speaker 7: Oregon transplants. I'm not entirely so I don't I don't know.
Speaker 7: I knew that was gonna be the follow up question,
Speaker 7: and I will have to do a little bit more
Speaker 7: research on it, but I I'm not sure if it
Speaker 7: has to do with what we believe that there will
Speaker 7: be a a revivification of the dead.
Speaker 3: Basically means like.
Speaker 7: Probably probably the resurrection, just different, different, different term. So
Speaker 7: that since eventually there will be a point where, like
Speaker 7: we believe that all Jews will go to Israel, like
Speaker 7: when once our Messiah eventually comes in et cetera, and
Speaker 7: once it gets to a certain point, it could be
Speaker 7: that it's not necessary because obviously God being God there
Speaker 7: and there are there have been millions of Jews over
Speaker 7: the past, you know, a couple of thousand years who
Speaker 7: have died. So it's not like these organs are Bible,
Speaker 7: you know, hundreds of years later.
Speaker 3: It could just.
Speaker 7: Be because God gave it to us. I don't know,
Speaker 7: so I will have to do more research. But no,
Speaker 7: Orthodox Jews do not believe in organ donations.
Speaker 1: So follow up question, I would love to hear what
Speaker 1: you find as far as that goes. Ask I would
Speaker 1: love for like some rabbis and get like the the
Speaker 1: dogmatic reasons for that. But and I understand why. For instance,
Speaker 1: like a heart valve replacement, I fully get why Jews
Speaker 1: would not want a pig valve installed in them.
Speaker 3: Not true, not true, not true.
Speaker 1: Actually wait, I was about saying, I know now replacements though,
Speaker 1: like a cow valve would be better than a pig valve.
Speaker 1: As far as the Jewish, you know, dog Mo was concerned.
Speaker 1: You're fine with.
Speaker 3: Neither, So hold on, hold on, a hold lot. So
Speaker 3: here's the reason.
Speaker 7: So there is a mitzvah in the tour that says
Speaker 7: that you should live be ahem, which means you should
Speaker 7: live through them. And one of the interpretations and reading
Speaker 7: of it is that if you are that you are
Speaker 7: required to do whatever you can.
Speaker 3: To save life.
Speaker 7: So for for example, my my grandmother is is not religious,
Speaker 7: for example, and I am. However, if she was having
Speaker 7: a heart attack, I would pick up my phone and
Speaker 7: I would call that, I would call if there was
Speaker 7: if there was a doctor. There are plenty of religious
Speaker 7: communities that a doctor will have their phone on during shop.
Speaker 7: Is because if you are able to save the life,
Speaker 7: you are required to do so.
Speaker 3: This this is not optional.
Speaker 7: So when it comes to any kind of surgeries that
Speaker 7: are uh, life giving surgeries that like, if you do.
Speaker 3: Not get this pig valve, you will die.
Speaker 7: You not even should you must take that heart or
Speaker 7: take take that take that valve in order to do so.
Speaker 1: Orthodox Jews are not down with organ donation and all
Speaker 1: that it would Orthodox Jews be down with a heart
Speaker 1: valve replacement for a pig valve. Or is this like
Speaker 1: the different yes, modern type of judy.
Speaker 3: No that no, that that no, that that's that's a
Speaker 3: different thing.
Speaker 7: Those are two different One of them is giving the
Speaker 7: organs away after one has been deceased, and the other
Speaker 7: one is getting something in order to survive.
Speaker 1: That kind of it's a different.
Speaker 3: No, it's it's a different it's a different thing.
Speaker 7: So like so when it comes to when I say organization,
Speaker 7: or we're talking about that posthumously.
Speaker 3: So so after someone.
Speaker 7: Has been deceased, you are the all of the organs
Speaker 7: should stay with the body, as opposed to with the
Speaker 7: example you're giving about the pig valve, is that if
Speaker 7: I were to not get the surgery, I would die.
Speaker 3: As opposed to I'm already dead.
Speaker 7: Therefore, the organs that I already have internally I can
Speaker 7: give away.
Speaker 3: It's a different thing one is in order to survive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're against receiving a donated organ. They are
Speaker 1: against donating their own organs.
Speaker 7: At least at the very least after you are dead.
Speaker 7: So a good question also would be if I was
Speaker 7: to say, had the same I don't know kidney as
Speaker 7: somebody and they needed a kidney transplant, would I be
Speaker 7: allowed to give my organ? I'm not sure, so that
Speaker 7: that would be a secondary question.
Speaker 3: So after someone dies, for sure.
Speaker 7: Not If it's to save a life, that might be
Speaker 7: permissible because you're doing something to help someone survive.
Speaker 1: Wow, Yeah, please find out more on the dogma of this.
Speaker 1: I would love to learn more about. I didn't know
Speaker 1: this honestly. Wow.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm kind of confused, but I'm interested to learn
Speaker 5: more too. One thing I could say is that there
Speaker 5: was a similar teaching in the Catholic Church that you
Speaker 5: couldn't be cremated and you're supposed to be buried because
Speaker 5: it will make the resurrection of the body easier.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean right, it's kind of I think that's
Speaker 7: why I think catholic has got it from Jews, because
Speaker 7: Jews should not be cremated.
Speaker 3: That's a it's a very bad thing.
Speaker 7: And even like when it comes to laws of mourning,
Speaker 7: that that you should not or cannot properly mourn for
Speaker 7: somebody if they were cremated.
Speaker 3: Obviously, the Holocaust is a completely difference.
Speaker 7: Because that was something that was that was done extremely forcefully,
Speaker 7: that was not exactly done willingly.
Speaker 3: But but for those.
Speaker 7: Who willingly get it done, it's it is not looked
Speaker 7: upon very highly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I have an uncle who is like overly Catholic,
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying that in an insulting way, but
Speaker 1: he's like full on Knights of Columbus. Dude, and I'm
Speaker 1: not throwing shaite at the Knight's Columbus. You know, a
Speaker 1: lot of these guys are amazing organization, amazing people. But
Speaker 1: he also we were talking about that one day. My dad,
Speaker 1: his brother wants to be cremated, right. He on the
Speaker 1: other hand, was like, I don't know why I would
Speaker 1: do that. Why would I make it harder for God
Speaker 1: to put all the pieces back together once I die?
Speaker 1: And I was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, when you die,
Speaker 1: your body doesn't go with you. Your body stays here,
Speaker 1: your soul goes up. Wait do you think you're gonna
Speaker 1: have like this body? You're gonna look like you when
Speaker 1: you go there. He's like, well yeah, And I'm like, wait,
Speaker 1: where in the book does it say that? Show me
Speaker 1: anywhere where it says that. Well, I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: the way it's gonna work. I was like, who told
Speaker 1: you this? It's the way it's gonna be. And I'm like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: that's sure. That's a thing. So I didn't know that
Speaker 1: was a whole Catholic ideology. I just thought that was
Speaker 1: a hymn being a hymn thing. So this is, uh,
Speaker 1: that's a thing. And I knew that the Jews weren't
Speaker 1: allowed to do like a cremation that. If anything, the
Speaker 1: whole burial rights of the jew is how we even
Speaker 1: got the shrouded touring from Jesus and like the burial
Speaker 1: tombs and all these things. Lazarus was in a tomb, Like,
Speaker 1: there's there's an order of precedence to this, And I
Speaker 1: know there's gonna be some people that say that they
Speaker 1: adopted that from Egypt when they were there, and it's like, dude,
Speaker 1: the Jewish culture predates that. It's it's not the same conversation.
Speaker 1: But yeah, people like to look at these things and
Speaker 1: pretend like they're comparing apples to apples. I get it.
Speaker 1: And as a matter of fact, we were having a
Speaker 1: conversation about that today with Cosmic Peach. We shot an
Speaker 1: episode with her this morning. We were talking about burial
Speaker 1: practices from different cultures around the world and it's actually
Speaker 1: really fascinating to look at like without any biases, right,
Speaker 1: just no biases from ourselves whatsoever. Certain cultures believe in cremation,
Speaker 1: just outright right, Like the Greeks and the Romans, they
Speaker 1: did funeral pyres cut two egypt Semitic religions, Hell Zoroastrians
Speaker 1: even they don't believe in funeral pyres and they worship fire, right,
Speaker 1: they bring their dead to the Towers of Silence and
Speaker 1: they set them on top of a roof, on top
Speaker 1: of this tall tower so they can rot naturally, and
Speaker 1: it's like a whole thing. There's no funeral details with it,
Speaker 1: but they're also forbidden to touch dead things, and there's
Speaker 1: this other stuff to it. Then you look at like
Speaker 1: certain Native American tribes who alle hundred percent did cremation
Speaker 1: and funeral pyres. Then you cut to the Mayans, who
Speaker 1: did a very specific way of not I wouldn't sa mummification,
Speaker 1: but we could say body preservation, and they did them
Speaker 1: in these bags and they would set the bodies in
Speaker 1: this fetal position. It was a whole thing. It is
Speaker 1: very fascinating to look at the burial practices, or I
Speaker 1: say burial loosely, let's just say how to dispose of
Speaker 1: a dead person's body. Put that to the overarching theme.
Speaker 1: It is very interesting to look at how that changes
Speaker 1: culture to culture, especially with neighboring cultures. But yeah, go ahead, zombie,
Speaker 1: I I say, raven Lee, I know you have something
Speaker 1: to say on this. You being the anthropologist and all.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, I I have a question for hard Gie.
Speaker 2: I was sitting here thinking about like how does that
Speaker 2: work with like byproducts, so like can you receive other
Speaker 2: people's blood? Can you give blood? Because like blood is
Speaker 2: such like a deeply you know that that if you
Speaker 2: want to talk about anything, Yeah, blood.
Speaker 4: Is life, so like could you receive that?
Speaker 2: Like I mean, and then I know this is really
Speaker 2: random and like kind of gross, but like there's fecal transplant,
Speaker 2: Like can you receive that from somebody? Could you get
Speaker 2: Like I'm just really like I'm kind of I mean,
Speaker 2: I knew about.
Speaker 4: Like some things, but I'm just like, huh.
Speaker 2: That's and then the whole theory, like the conspiracy theory
Speaker 2: that if you have donor on your license that like
Speaker 2: they'll kill you to be able to get your organs.
Speaker 2: I don't know anybody, And when I was doing my
Speaker 2: like when I was an EMT and did my EMT stuff, like,
Speaker 2: I never looked at anyone's license. I was just concerned
Speaker 2: about making sure the person lives. So that's always been
Speaker 2: an interesting conspiracy theory. A lot of people always bring
Speaker 2: that up about the donor stuff.
Speaker 1: No good question about blood so please.
Speaker 3: I agree. So so as far as.
Speaker 7: Blood, as far as I know, is fine to give
Speaker 7: and to be given too, so there should there's there's
Speaker 7: not a problem with that because I think that's one
Speaker 7: of those things that's replenishable as opposed to you're not
Speaker 7: going to grow a different kidney. They're not going to
Speaker 7: grow a different I don't know they name another organ
Speaker 7: that we give out. So as far as the I
Speaker 7: think that's how it goes. As far I've never had
Speaker 7: I used to donate blood all the time because I'm
Speaker 7: all positive. Uh so, I you know, they enjoyed my blood.
Speaker 7: Because so if you're doing something to save someone's life,
Speaker 7: I think that that's fine.
Speaker 3: Plenty of people, I mean plenty.
Speaker 7: Of juice go to the hospitals every single day that
Speaker 7: need something.
Speaker 3: So that would be as far as that it's internal
Speaker 3: and you're doing it probably for.
Speaker 1: The you're cutting out on his roy ah man, do
Speaker 1: we lose them? Sorry, Harry, Yeah, we can hear you, brother, sure.
Speaker 3: Sorry, a bad part of the mountains.
Speaker 7: As far as the Fegal transport, I would I would
Speaker 7: assume that that should be fine also because it's all
Speaker 7: about receiving good bacteria, so that you can survive from
Speaker 7: what the basic law is that you can if you
Speaker 7: can do something or if you need to do something
Speaker 7: in order to survive or to help someone to survive,
Speaker 7: that takes precedents because that's how valuable God treats human life.
Speaker 7: So anything that we can do to save ourselves and
Speaker 7: save other people. Now, then you get to these wonderful
Speaker 7: questions on well, all right, well, if you can either
Speaker 7: kill one person or five, like obviously these are not
Speaker 7: my kinds of questions, and I will I have zero
Speaker 7: desire to try to eat to like that. Morality questions
Speaker 7: sometimes are not not easy or for this scope. But yeah,
Speaker 7: basically if you can, if you can save someone's life
Speaker 7: and you can save of you'r and saved your own life,
Speaker 7: that takes pressing. And then randomly there was actually one
Speaker 7: Jew in history that actually got bummified.
Speaker 1: Really like Egyptian mummified.
Speaker 7: Yes, who actually said it says very very specifically in
Speaker 7: the in the Torah. I believe it was. They want
Speaker 7: to say Jacob because he traveled down.
Speaker 3: Joseph. I think if I'm bad at this on one
Speaker 3: about that, but.
Speaker 1: Basically, now you said the tourus would be in the
Speaker 1: first five.
Speaker 7: Books correct, So not so it was either Jacob or Joseph.
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't remember. I don't remember either, because no,
Speaker 3: it wasn't.
Speaker 7: It wasn't just Joseph, because it was his father, because
Speaker 7: he said, please mummify me that way, because he wanted
Speaker 7: to be buried in Israel in the Cave of Mala
Speaker 7: with his with his father's so in order to preserve him,
Speaker 7: he was also momified.
Speaker 1: How interesting I'm trying to think, I'm I honestly don't
Speaker 1: even know how Jacob died, like as far as the
Speaker 1: story goes and all of that. I actually just was
Speaker 1: talking about that earlier today too. If I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 1: One of Jacob's descendants became the Samaritans, right, So I
Speaker 1: mean it as a whole whole thing about that. But
Speaker 1: it's wow, So Jacob's dad, no.
Speaker 7: I think, yes, So thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Hold on, that doesn't sound right.
Speaker 1: It doesn't sound right. I can't tell you the burial
Speaker 1: practices of the Prophets, you know what I mean. So
Speaker 1: I don't know. But of all the things, why would
Speaker 1: they go for an Egyptian burial? That that's wild to me?
Speaker 1: I mean body.
Speaker 3: Preservation preserve well also know.
Speaker 7: Another idea is that a someone who is a sid
Speaker 7: or a righteous person, their body does not decompose, so.
Speaker 3: Like they didn't want He didn't.
Speaker 7: Want to be worshiped as a deity because his body
Speaker 7: didn't decompose.
Speaker 1: Interesting, all right, you learned something new every day, so
Speaker 1: this is just kind of new information to me. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I'm reading into the chat here, and you know what,
Speaker 1: can I just take a second and say thank you
Speaker 1: all of you for being adults who know your blood type.
Speaker 1: I'm it shocks me how many people, actual adults, not
Speaker 1: just like nineteen year olds, but like full fledged adults
Speaker 1: who don't know their blood type. That that bothers me.
Speaker 1: And they just they don't know. They know they're social
Speaker 1: Security number, but they don't know that. And it's like, wait,
Speaker 1: how do you not. It's not even something like well
Speaker 1: I never learned it, bro read your medical records. Just
Speaker 1: it's it's right there. It's not like it's a secret
Speaker 1: and you might need to know that one day it
Speaker 1: kills me. I don't know.
Speaker 3: By the way, it was, it was Joseph So in
Speaker 3: La Tourah, Joseph So.
Speaker 7: Joseph was embalmed and placed in Egyptian coffin with the
Speaker 7: promise that his bones would be taken to Canaan or
Speaker 7: Israel bias people. While Jacob was also involved with there
Speaker 7: is no mention of coffin. So both Jacob and Joseph
Speaker 7: were embalmed and Mamma.
Speaker 1: Five Joseph, which Joseph is this there's a few of
Speaker 1: them in the book.
Speaker 3: Uh, So we're talking about my Joseph, not you're Joseph.
Speaker 1: That's all I'm asking, Like, who is he the son
Speaker 1: of or the father of? Yes, yes, Jacob's son Joseph.
Speaker 5: If you went to Egypt to bec I'm a hill
Speaker 5: than all of his other brothers and his father had
Speaker 5: to come down when there was a famine. Yeah, they're
Speaker 5: all in Egypt for a little while.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, Oh my god, Joseph in the many colored cloak,
Speaker 1: that's what we're talking about. That's David. That's Joseph.
Speaker 8: Nod No, No, Joseph as Joseph.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not David.
Speaker 5: And David's like what three hundred years later?
Speaker 1: Maybe I didn't mean King David. I'm thinking there's more
Speaker 1: than one David. Okay, So Joseph he was his dad
Speaker 1: gave him favor gave him a cloak. His brothers got pissed,
Speaker 1: sold him into slavery and long stories. He ended up
Speaker 1: handling the finances of Egypt, so that would make sense
Speaker 1: why he was buried in the proper Egyptian way. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm with you now, God It, dude, I need to
Speaker 1: do more digging into the OT I really, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know the stories and stuff, but man, I really
Speaker 1: need to reread some of these things. Honestly, I've been
Speaker 1: digging more into the Gospels here lately, but the Old
Speaker 1: Testament has so much fascinating history behind it all. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I digress. Yeah, and Royce, please let us know more
Speaker 1: about uh when you find out more about the the
Speaker 1: ins and outs of the whole organ donating versus organ receiving.
Speaker 1: How is a pig heart? Okay, I'm also very curious
Speaker 1: about that. I understand it's too like save your life.
Speaker 1: I get that, But like of all things, the bovine valve,
Speaker 1: I could see nobody really having an issue with it's
Speaker 1: a cow. Everybody's cool with that. Not the Hindi's obviously,
Speaker 1: but like for the Jews and the Muslims and the Christians,
Speaker 1: why not. It's cool. A pig valve I thought would
Speaker 1: be like haram as as hell for the I don't
Speaker 1: know that the Jewish word for forbidden. I don't mean
Speaker 1: to you. See what I'm saying, sir, So.
Speaker 7: User as u r acer, Yeah, okay, is prohibited?
Speaker 1: Okay, So I thought a pig valve would be aucer
Speaker 1: as hell.
Speaker 9: Dude.
Speaker 1: But like I, I'm not a Jew. I don't be
Speaker 1: knowing the thing. So please do some digging on that
Speaker 1: and let us know.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, I'll try to get next by by next week.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, go ahead, Raven, your hand is raised.
Speaker 4: I'm curious. I know this is I just I don't
Speaker 4: know much about the Jewish faith.
Speaker 2: I mean I've I've watched some stuff, but like I
Speaker 2: don't know a lot about it. But what is the
Speaker 2: views on like doing IVF or like you know, like
Speaker 2: is there can you have?
Speaker 3: Like yes? I guess so yeah.
Speaker 7: The reason why I know that yes is because I've
Speaker 7: had friends that have used them. I have also have
Speaker 7: a good friend who had her eggs frozen, So yes,
Speaker 7: on both accounts.
Speaker 3: Why I don't know, I'm.
Speaker 1: To make more Jews, so anything to make Jewish babies
Speaker 1: is okay by them. I could see that.
Speaker 3: Orange Jews, Apple Jews, you.
Speaker 1: Know, yep.
Speaker 2: Also to the burial stuff, like I dropped the because
Speaker 2: that me and Tony were talking about the South Africa
Speaker 2: is someone that I showed you a couple weeks ago
Speaker 2: about the new information coming out about the burial rights
Speaker 2: for like who they believe the cradle of faith and
Speaker 2: stuff for that area in South Africa. But that's I
Speaker 2: think that's really fascinating, the different barrieral rights around the
Speaker 2: world and how they've changed or stayed the same through
Speaker 2: so much history. I always find just all of that fascinating.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Matter of fact, let's read a little bit of this.
Speaker 1: The Homo n lady or no laddie. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: we're burying their dead at least one hundred thousand years
Speaker 1: before humans. Now that's interesting. This would be one of
Speaker 1: our evolutionary predecessors, if we are to believe in that
Speaker 1: style of evolution. But let's see here, some twenty five
Speaker 1: miles out of Johannesburg, South Africa, there is a famous
Speaker 1: paleonanthropical yep sight known as the Cradle of Humankind. So
Speaker 1: any hominin bones were found in the region that it
Speaker 1: was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in nineteen ninety nine.
Speaker 1: Among the many limestone caves in the region is the
Speaker 1: Rising Star Cave, where the caverns discovered fossil. Yet the
Speaker 1: caverns discovered fossil representing a new hominin species, Homoni lady.
Speaker 1: In twenty fifteen, only Hlady homon ladies remains were found
Speaker 1: in the cave, suggesting the possibility that the bodies have
Speaker 1: been placed there deliberately, although this hypothesis proved to be
Speaker 1: a bit controversial. Now the same expedition team has announced
Speaker 1: the discovery of the Nilaiti bodies deposited in fetal positions,
Speaker 1: indicating intentional burials. Now that's fascinating. This predates the earliest
Speaker 1: known burials by Homo sapiens by at least one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand years, suggesting that brain size might not be the
Speaker 1: definitive factor behind such complex behavior. The team also found
Speaker 1: crosshatched symbols engraved on the walls of the cave that
Speaker 1: could as far back as two thousand and forty one
Speaker 1: or two hundred and forty one thousand to three hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty five thousand years, although testing is still ongoing,
Speaker 1: so we're talking about realistically, over a quarter million years ago,
Speaker 1: they were doing deliberate burial styles and doing carvings, which
Speaker 1: would not necessarily indicate some sort of a religion, but
Speaker 1: more than likely some sort of burial practices which do
Speaker 1: typically tie into some sort of spirituality or religion, which
Speaker 1: is wow. Taken together, the discoveries provide evidence of a
Speaker 1: major cognitive step in human evolution in terms of mortuary
Speaker 1: practices and meaning making. The team described these new findings
Speaker 1: during a virtual press conference in a in three new
Speaker 1: pre prints posted to the bioerxiv rx iv, which will
Speaker 1: be published later this year in the journal eLife. Quote here,
Speaker 1: I think we are facing a remarkable discovery here of
Speaker 1: hominids with brains a third the size of living humans
Speaker 1: and slightly larger than chimpanzees burying their dead, something previously
Speaker 1: only found in large brain hominids, as well as etching
Speaker 1: meaning making symbols on the wall, says Lee Berger, a
Speaker 1: pale paleothropologist in the National Geographic Explorer in Residents who
Speaker 1: leads the Rising Star project. Back to the quote, this
Speaker 1: would mean not only are humans not unique in the
Speaker 1: development of symbolic practices, but they may not even have
Speaker 1: invented such behaviors. Wow, it says here that, oh Jesus, naturally.
Speaker 1: There are skeptics. For instance, Maria Marnton Torres, director of
Speaker 1: Spain's National Research Center for Human Evolution, told The New
Speaker 1: York Times that such speculations were premature based on the
Speaker 1: evidence presented so far, suggesting that funerary caching cashing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: funerary caching was a more likely scenario than burials. Hypotheses
Speaker 1: need to be built on what we have, not what
Speaker 1: we guess. She said, Isn't that the entire point of
Speaker 1: a hypothesis is an educated guess. I don't know. Still,
Speaker 1: I think the possibility of having funerary caching with the
Speaker 1: antiquity is already stunning. So she's not saying that this
Speaker 1: isn't this isn't a real thing. She's just saying that
Speaker 1: they're kind of being premature in what they're guestimating about
Speaker 1: what these things could mean. The story of homeown a
Speaker 1: Daily technically begins millions of years ago with the Cradles
Speaker 1: network of limestone caves, first formed, as Lydia Pine wrote
Speaker 1: for Ours Ars into twenty eighteen, caves in that area
Speaker 1: of South Africa form a water paracolates I guess through
Speaker 1: the cracks and fissures of the region's domolite dolomite excuse
Speaker 1: me rock and slowly erodes the rock away, forming underground
Speaker 1: caverns of all shapes and sizes. As water flows through
Speaker 1: these caves, it leads behind posits of calcium carbonates easily
Speaker 1: recognizable as concrete, hard brakiaz or sheet like deposits of
Speaker 1: flowstone found along cave walls in the Rising Star Cave system.
Speaker 1: This resulted in a network of chambers, including those where
Speaker 1: researchers have recovered Homone Lady fossils. Recreational cavers have been
Speaker 1: exploring parts of the Rising Star system since the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: but Berger hired a team of cavers in twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: to survey the cave more thoroughly and to map out
Speaker 1: any chambers with potentially significant fossils. The team included Rick
Speaker 1: Hunter and Stephn Tucker, who used a nineteen eighty five
Speaker 1: map to guide their explorations. The duo managed to worm
Speaker 1: their weight through a previously unmapped slot just eighteen centimeters
Speaker 1: wide and found themselves in one of the cave's chambers. There,
Speaker 1: they saw a treasure trove of fossilized bones is a
Speaker 1: quote here. When we first saw the mandible, we thought
Speaker 1: maybe this was the last guy that came down the
Speaker 1: chain and didn't make it out, Hunter told Ars in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, the reality was potentially much more significant. Excited
Speaker 1: by the discovery, Berger hired an additional team of six
Speaker 1: women with both scientific and caving experiences to excavate the site,
Speaker 1: using two picks and sometimes even porcupine quills, among other tools.
Speaker 1: The entire three week excavation played out live on Twitter.
Speaker 1: These are not easy sites to access. In fact, the
Speaker 1: shoot elaborate the long one portion of the route to
Speaker 1: the dun a lady chamber is known as Superman's crawl
Speaker 1: because most cavers can only manage to squeeze through by
Speaker 1: extending one arm above the head while holding the other
Speaker 1: tied against the body. It's basically a narrow, vertical, twelve
Speaker 1: meter long chimney with an average width of twenty centimeters,
Speaker 1: which is about seven point nine inches.
Speaker 3: Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is a really really long article. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to read all of it, but essentially what they're
Speaker 1: saying is, and this is if I'm sure they're going
Speaker 1: to do some carbon dating. I'm sure there's going to
Speaker 1: be a lot more studies to go along with, but
Speaker 1: this would show like actual forethought given to funerary rights
Speaker 1: and again arguably religious practices being conducted over a quarter
Speaker 1: million years ago. That's pretty incredible. Wow.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I don't think gymps bury their dead or seem
Speaker 5: to do much with them, but human religion probably evolved
Speaker 5: from what to do with people when they die, and
Speaker 5: that's how ancestor worship came into existence, and some of
Speaker 5: these ancestors were deified. So that's a running theory and
Speaker 5: I think it's a pretty good one. As for carbon dating,
Speaker 5: this is a kind of a nerdy topic, but carbon
Speaker 5: fourteen has a half life of seven thousand years, so
Speaker 5: if these if these samples are more than ten carbon
Speaker 5: half lives old, you probably wouldn't even use carbon. You'd
Speaker 5: probably use something else. And I don't know what that
Speaker 5: would be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, fossilized bones. These are rocks at this point, Like,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what kind of carbon you would
Speaker 1: be looking at in this if they are Yeah, wow, But.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I watched a video on this. It's really hard
Speaker 5: to get in that chamber because you can see a
Speaker 5: map of it in the video, but nobody's been in
Speaker 5: there for a long time anyway. Now I'm talking about
Speaker 5: stuff though a slightly different topic. You know, one thing
Speaker 5: that came that started really pissing me off, and I'm
Speaker 5: and I'm I hate this because, you know, my friend
Speaker 5: went through so much losing losing their child. So many
Speaker 5: people were telling telling them and and our group that well,
Speaker 5: this is God's will and God is going to have,
Speaker 5: you know, some way to make up for this. And
Speaker 5: I just thought I would never tell somebody this is
Speaker 5: God's will, you know, if they've gone through a tragedy.
Speaker 5: I don't think God wills stuff like that. But stuff
Speaker 5: like that happens by accident or negligent answer, you know,
Speaker 5: just by accident. It's not a question of God wanting
Speaker 5: it to happen. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so all right, when you say it's God's will,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that God, the God that I worship, anyway,
Speaker 1: deals with dice or plays in chance, or makes mistakes
Speaker 1: or has accidents. I'm personally not of that belief. Yeah,
Speaker 1: human error is a thing, but I also believe that's
Speaker 1: all predetermined as well. I believe in free will, but
Speaker 1: I also believe in determination and destiny. I believe they work.
Speaker 1: They work in an intertwined type of scenario. But that's
Speaker 1: that's a very very very convoluted and philosophical conversation, which
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess this is getting and ready to
Speaker 1: get that way. But it depends on if somebody can
Speaker 1: find peace and solace in the fact that it was
Speaker 1: God's plan for this to happen, not to them. See,
Speaker 1: that's it depends on how it's contextualized, right, if you
Speaker 1: look at it that way, than anything that's ever happened
Speaker 1: period happened to a person rather than just happened and
Speaker 1: a person was a part of it. And it's not
Speaker 1: a fun conversation. It's the same way of like, you know,
Speaker 1: some people are born with a silver spoon in their
Speaker 1: mouth and some people are born with cancer like already
Speaker 1: as a baby, both of which are equally a part
Speaker 1: of God's plan. Whether we understand that or not. That's
Speaker 1: one of the great mysteries. Why do some people get
Speaker 1: hooked up and why do some people get screwed right
Speaker 1: out the gate? It's not fair, But no one ever
Speaker 1: said that life was going to be fair. It's not
Speaker 1: fun or comfortable, but it's still true. But it's like, uh,
Speaker 1: in Heaven forbid, if I was to suffer some sort
Speaker 1: of tragedy like that, I would personally take solace in
Speaker 1: the fact that God saw fit to bless me to
Speaker 1: be a father for the amount of time that I was.
Speaker 1: I also, to bring this up even further, Josh Monday,
Speaker 1: who does two different shows on the Cult to Conspiracy
Speaker 1: right on Sundays and Wednesdays, he just lost his child.
Speaker 1: And when I reached out to him and expressed all
Speaker 1: my condonances and all of this, he said, hey, man,
Speaker 1: it's all good. He's with this heavenly Father, which is
Speaker 1: a way better father than I could have ever been
Speaker 1: for him. Right, And like, he didn't say that in
Speaker 1: a sad way. He was saying that honestly and truthfully,
Speaker 1: and he found solace in that. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I could understand why somebody would be very emotional and
Speaker 1: jaded and hurt in that moment and hearing that it
Speaker 1: was God's will would actually make them spurn against God.
Speaker 1: In that sense, it really depends on the person and
Speaker 1: depends on the faith, And there's so many different levels
Speaker 1: to that you know, but I understand absolutely say it.
Speaker 1: I hope it wasn't meant as a well, I guess
Speaker 1: that was God's plan, Like, don't be a dick, you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, But like if it was given
Speaker 1: in a sense of true love, of like this was sad.
Speaker 1: Of course you're going to mourn the loss of your
Speaker 1: child one hundred percent, but you should take solace in
Speaker 1: knowing that this child will never experience pain again. He'll
Speaker 1: never experience the hardships of this life. Yes, he may
Speaker 1: may never also experience the joys and the amazing things
Speaker 1: life has to offer. But at the same time, he
Speaker 1: is now with his heavenly Father, and we should take
Speaker 1: joy in that. Right. As Christians, we should be looking
Speaker 1: forward to death, not be afraid of it, and say,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm saying. It's a very difficult philosophical conversation
Speaker 1: I have for sure.
Speaker 3: Art, So may I chime in for a quick second.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so, as far as the death of a child,
Speaker 7: we do not know the reason.
Speaker 3: Ultimately, Jacob, you believe.
Speaker 10: Very similarly to what you do, and that everything that
Speaker 10: happens God wills it or like so, and the different
Speaker 10: the idea of.
Speaker 3: Free Like what is free will? And that's it. That's
Speaker 3: a huge other topic. But like, there was a story
Speaker 3: that I read once.
Speaker 8: And and basically to where there was this couple that
Speaker 8: lost a three year old's child, and like the mother
Speaker 8: was like in consolable up until I guess there was
Speaker 8: like a dream where the child came back to her
Speaker 8: or if you visited, except that wasn't a child at
Speaker 8: that point. Basically, what it needed to happen is that
Speaker 8: for some reason, this stage of this person needed to
Speaker 8: be reincarnated for a certain amount of time, and.
Speaker 11: Once their time was up, then that child died, but
Speaker 11: the soul which was reincarnated was then able to ascend
Speaker 11: to heaven because we don't we don't know the status
Speaker 11: of that soul, especially.
Speaker 3: Of someone who is so young.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's it. I didn't know the Jews believed
Speaker 1: in reincarnation until you told me that. By the way,
Speaker 1: that blows my mind. But there are examples of prophets
Speaker 1: coming back through people, and I understand why that is
Speaker 1: a talking point for sure. But and again, if that,
Speaker 1: if that is what gave that mother solace in that time,
Speaker 1: then like, hey, who am I to tell her that
Speaker 1: she's incorrect, you know what I mean. I get that
Speaker 1: for sure, But Tony, I hope I answered that question
Speaker 1: without signing like a complete asshole.
Speaker 5: Yeah you did. I hope they took it the best way.
Speaker 5: I don't really know. They seem to be okay with it,
Speaker 5: and they seem to be saying similar things. But I
Speaker 5: know I would not react well if somebody told me
Speaker 5: that in that situation.
Speaker 1: I so a little bit of a backstory with me.
Speaker 1: Me and my ex wife miscarried our first time, right,
Speaker 1: which I understand the like, what was there statistics like
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of women miscarry their first go round
Speaker 1: and it's just like unviable and all these things, and
Speaker 1: most just think it's like a late period. They don't
Speaker 1: even realize it was a miscarriage. And all the things
Speaker 1: I read, all the literature and all this stuff. At
Speaker 1: that time, I was already struggling with my faith. I
Speaker 1: was this is what kind of led me to what
Speaker 1: I call my season of doubt, when I turned away
Speaker 1: from Christianity as a whole and started digging into every
Speaker 1: other religion that I could get my hands on. But
Speaker 1: this is what began that for me, and I felt
Speaker 1: like God had taken my child from me and all
Speaker 1: these things, and I was so angry and I cursed
Speaker 1: against God and all of these things. Right, but I
Speaker 1: never stopped to think, hey, bro, maybe you weren't ready
Speaker 1: to be a dad yet, Like, maybe there's a reason
Speaker 1: why it miscarried rather than it was stillborn or whatever
Speaker 1: the case was. And I'm not saying that that is
Speaker 1: the case for other people. This is Jacob speaking on
Speaker 1: behalf of Jacob here. But it also took me years
Speaker 1: to come to peace with the fact that life be
Speaker 1: life in you know, and it's never going to be
Speaker 1: according to our plan. We can make all the preparations
Speaker 1: we want, but in the end, curveballs are going to
Speaker 1: come our way whether we like it or not. Right,
Speaker 1: But the same way that, for instance, in the Bible,
Speaker 1: job blessed God in the highs and in the lows,
Speaker 1: we are supposed to do the same thing. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that a miscarriage or a still born or
Speaker 1: the losing of a child should be looked at as
Speaker 1: a test for us, right, that's a very narcissistic way
Speaker 1: of looking at it. However, we also need to acknowledge
Speaker 1: that we are being tested every single day, in small
Speaker 1: ways and in large ways, and we should always be
Speaker 1: putting our best foot forward because we are supposed to
Speaker 1: be that way. We're supposed to be, as we were
Speaker 1: just told to be waiting with our lamps ready rather
Speaker 1: than sleeping on the job. Right. We are always supposed
Speaker 1: to be acting as that the Lord's coming back tomorrow
Speaker 1: or right now, and sometimes we fall short of that,
Speaker 1: and that's okay. There's a reason why the Savior came
Speaker 1: and gave his life and all of these things. But
Speaker 1: we also cannot look at the lows and blame others
Speaker 1: or even blame ourselves. Sometimes sometimes it's okay to acknowledge
Speaker 1: that curveballs are going to hit us regardless, and it
Speaker 1: sometimes just our turn to get shit on, you know,
Speaker 1: and something, and that's not fair. It's not fun all
Speaker 1: these things. But that's also not something that we should
Speaker 1: wallow in. We should get through our hard seasons with
Speaker 1: as much spirit of joy as we possibly can muster.
Speaker 1: And that's why I believe that having a sense of
Speaker 1: community is also important. When I went into my season
Speaker 1: of doubt, I did not have any kind of real
Speaker 1: community or network that I could fall on, And now
Speaker 1: I mean a religious community or like being plugged into
Speaker 1: your church like, nothing like that. I was just at
Speaker 1: a really big low point in my life. My marriage
Speaker 1: was failing, my career was failing, had a misk, it
Speaker 1: was a whole whole mess. I was drinking like a fish.
Speaker 1: It was not a good time. So pretty much anything
Speaker 1: that happened to me, I thought it was happening to me, right,
Speaker 1: Oh poor me, whan wan wha. And I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to downplay the experiences. But at the same time, my
Speaker 1: perspective was very limited to my current situation, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean.
Speaker 3: And it took me a.
Speaker 1: Long time to step back and look at it from
Speaker 1: a different perspective and gain new insights. So when everybody
Speaker 1: or anybody is going through the tough shit, because all
Speaker 1: of us are going to go through the tough shit,
Speaker 1: whatever that may be, it's gonna be different for everybody,
Speaker 1: and not everybody's going to handle the same situation the
Speaker 1: same way. Some people can handle the worst situations with
Speaker 1: grace and with with you know, all of the amazing
Speaker 1: qualities that make you revere somebody. And then you'll see
Speaker 1: somebody who handles a broken nail like it's the actual
Speaker 1: end of the earth, and they don't mean it to
Speaker 1: be dramatic. They mean it to be real, and there's
Speaker 1: all areas in between. But yeah, regardless of what the
Speaker 1: situation is, I believe that we should still praise God,
Speaker 1: we should bless his name, and we should still try
Speaker 1: to do everything we can to bless those around us
Speaker 1: as a way to be an inspiration and if anything,
Speaker 1: build the testimony to help people when they get the
Speaker 1: shit on their front step. If that makes sense.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's just I find it easier to believe God
Speaker 5: is good and benevolent if God does not have a
Speaker 5: plan for tons of people to die for no good
Speaker 5: reason at least that I can understand, or to try
Speaker 5: to say that, oh, well, there must have been a
Speaker 5: good reason for this war or this genocide or this
Speaker 5: baby to die. Oh God must have had a reason
Speaker 5: for it.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 5: Maybe maybe God didn't actually want that to happen, but
Speaker 5: it happened because somebody made a mistake of negligence, or
Speaker 5: it was just an accident in some other way. I
Speaker 5: gif a branch falls on somebody. Some people would interpret
Speaker 5: that as God wanted that to happen, or somebody gets
Speaker 5: struck by lightning. I had a neighbor whose brother got
Speaker 5: struck and killed by lightning. But I don't believe that
Speaker 5: it was thor striking emor that God wanted him dead.
Speaker 5: It's just now it happens. Sometimes Lightning strikes a lot
Speaker 5: of places on the earth. Normally doesn't hit anyone, but
Speaker 5: every once in a while it's gonna hit somebody, and
Speaker 5: it's just an accident. And you know, if I believed
Speaker 5: in a God that really wanted people to die and
Speaker 5: wanted all the horrible things in history that have happened
Speaker 5: to have happened precisely that way, I think I would
Speaker 5: be more likely to blame God for the bad things
Speaker 5: in the world. And the fact that I don't believe
Speaker 5: that makes me think, Okay, maybe it's just an accident,
Speaker 5: but God will help people through it, or God will
Speaker 5: help people make the best of it. Maybe there's a
Speaker 5: silver lining, like getting to donate the heart valve. That
Speaker 5: doesn't mean that, you know, God actually wanted the bad
Speaker 5: thing to happen, wanted.
Speaker 1: It to happen, or it was a part of the
Speaker 1: plan for it to happen. I feel like that's not
Speaker 1: exactly the same thing, but it might equal the same result.
Speaker 5: I think of it as it's got to be the
Speaker 5: same thing. If it's part of the plan and God
Speaker 5: made the plan, does that mean he wanted it? And
Speaker 5: if people say it's God's will, does that mean he
Speaker 5: wanted it? Will kind of means want. Some people soften
Speaker 5: it just to say, oh, well, God lets bad things happen.
Speaker 5: It's like, okay, well, let's is different from lands it
Speaker 5: or wills it.
Speaker 1: So let's go further with this. The Garden of Eden.
Speaker 1: God didn't want man to fall from grace, but they did.
Speaker 1: I believe that was a part of the plan. But
Speaker 1: I don't believe God wanted that to happen.
Speaker 3: True, But God still made the temptation. Sure, for sure,
Speaker 3: I allowed the temptation because there can't be free will
Speaker 3: without it.
Speaker 1: Exactly exactly Now, he didn't want Eve to eat the
Speaker 1: fruit and Adam and all these things. He didn't want
Speaker 1: them to leave the Garden of Eden. But that's just
Speaker 1: kind of how this works. There has to be a
Speaker 1: harmonic balance. So they made their choices and everything that
Speaker 1: has fallen out after that. Sure, but that wasn't that
Speaker 1: God wanted man to sin, but it was a part
Speaker 1: of the plan in the destiny, if you will for
Speaker 1: that to happen, and that's not fair, But who said
Speaker 1: life was ever going to be fair? God never said that.
Speaker 5: Well, plan and will, in my opinion, they have to
Speaker 5: be synonymous. And maybe maybe my opinion is wrong, maybe
Speaker 5: I haven't thought it through more than that. But if
Speaker 5: God makes a plan, if God scripts everything and we
Speaker 5: just followed the script, are we really responsible for anything?
Speaker 5: I would think that, you know, if free will is
Speaker 5: just an illusion, But I don't believe that. I'm a
Speaker 5: big believer in free will, not in determinism. And that's
Speaker 5: just me because I don't see him as compatible at all.
Speaker 5: Most people tell me that they are compatible, but I
Speaker 5: just don't see a way. Unless some higher dimensional reality
Speaker 5: is real and we're stuck in these three spatial dimensions
Speaker 5: in one time dimension and we're stuck here and we
Speaker 5: just can't see above that, there would have to be
Speaker 5: some you know, God's ways are higher than ours. In
Speaker 5: order to make that make sense, I can't make it
Speaker 5: make sense.
Speaker 1: Have I ever told you my example of my children
Speaker 1: with the stove?
Speaker 5: Maybe maybe not. Let's hear it go.
Speaker 1: This is about the best example I can find as
Speaker 1: far as free will versus determinism, and how they are
Speaker 1: not the same thing but can work in harmony. And
Speaker 1: then other people will reap or reap the benefits or
Speaker 1: the punishments for something that they had no part of.
Speaker 1: And that's just how things shake out sometimes. So was
Speaker 1: living in my first trailer, me and my ex wife,
Speaker 1: actually my only trailer now I think about it. I
Speaker 1: went straight from the trailer to the house. But long
Speaker 1: story short, my son three years old. I was cooking
Speaker 1: something and he was right next to me, as a
Speaker 1: three year old will be just under your foot, right,
Speaker 1: and I had to turn to do something, and I
Speaker 1: told him, don't touch the stove, right, And he had
Speaker 1: already touched the stove before he knew it was hot.
Speaker 1: He knew he'll get burned. It wasn't like this was
Speaker 1: like the first time ever. He had already done this before.
Speaker 1: So I told him, buddy, don't touch the stove. Oups,
Speaker 1: it's hot, it'll burn you. Right. I turned around. Now
Speaker 1: I knew for a fact he was about to touch
Speaker 1: the stove. But unfortunately, some lessons have to be learned
Speaker 1: the hard way, because you can tell them a million
Speaker 1: times don't do it. The second you turn around, they're
Speaker 1: going to do it. So I already knew it, but
Speaker 1: he was at a point where it was just going
Speaker 1: to do a fingertips, not his whole whatever my point is.
Speaker 1: So I turned to do something and I heard I
Speaker 1: heard it. I already knew it was going to happen.
Speaker 1: Now pause. I told him the rules. I told him
Speaker 1: as left and right, loatteral limits. And I told him
Speaker 1: what would happen if he did it. And he took
Speaker 1: his own free will and did it anyway right, and
Speaker 1: he got the immediate justice for that. I didn't have
Speaker 1: to punish him. He just got burned, And of course
Speaker 1: I'm going to be there to take care of him
Speaker 1: and all the stuff. Now, let me take this a
Speaker 1: step further, and for the record, I believe that is
Speaker 1: a pretty fair depiction of determinism and free will working
Speaker 1: in unison. I knew what was about to happen, it
Speaker 1: was determined, it was set in stone, but he still
Speaker 1: within his free will to do it. Now, let's go
Speaker 1: to the next step. Unbeknownst to my three year old son,
Speaker 1: his one year old baby sister had just walked up
Speaker 1: behind him. When he touched the stove, he jumped back
Speaker 1: and elbowed her in the nose. Now, my one year
Speaker 1: old daughter has a broken nose. Wrong place, wrong time.
Speaker 1: She did nothing to deserve this except for just was there. Now,
Speaker 1: how is that fair? How is this justified? It wasn't
Speaker 1: a part of what I determined on that front. I'm
Speaker 1: not God as an example. Here's a contrived example. To
Speaker 1: bear with me. Now, she is suffering because of the
Speaker 1: actions of someone else's free will, who was doing what
Speaker 1: they weren't supposed to do. Now, how is this justice?
Speaker 1: How is this fair? Sometimes life happens like this, and
Speaker 1: a lot of the time our injustice that we suffer
Speaker 1: is because of someone else misusing their free will. But
Speaker 1: it is all still a part of the plan, whether
Speaker 1: it's a positive or negative. Belie believe that God kind
Speaker 1: of does similar things with us. He's got the plan
Speaker 1: laid out. He knows everything. There's good things that are
Speaker 1: gonna happen, there is bad things that are gonna happen,
Speaker 1: both of them. Yes, if we're gonna really start playing
Speaker 1: the blame game, sure, I guess everything good and bad
Speaker 1: are because of God. But I also don't think that
Speaker 1: it's not for us as humans to assign blame, at
Speaker 1: least not in this kind of context when it comes
Speaker 1: to life and stuff like like, yeah, okay, if somebody
Speaker 1: kills somebody, yeah we could assign blame. Sure, that's an
Speaker 1: easy pointing of the finger. But when it comes to
Speaker 1: the big picture of it, the macro of life itself,
Speaker 1: we are but humans. We hell, half of us can't
Speaker 1: even decide what bathroom to use or if the earth
Speaker 1: is flatter around anymore. Some people believe nukes ain't real.
Speaker 1: So how are we gonna start playing the game of
Speaker 1: blaming one side versus the other for the good and
Speaker 1: the bad in this world? It's kind of not up
Speaker 1: for us to decide. I don't know. Maybe I'm completely
Speaker 1: off base in that assumption, but at least that that's
Speaker 1: what makes it make sense to me.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 5: The hand raise over here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I see that, Stephanie, go ahead. Hey, So.
Speaker 12: I love this conversation, and I just wanted to add
Speaker 12: a couple of thoughts. Hopefully I can kind of formulate
Speaker 12: my thoughts, because I really don't know if they're quite formulated.
Speaker 12: But I was recently listening to our buddies, the Nephelum
Speaker 12: Desk Squad, and they had this episode called what is
Speaker 12: the Jew? Kind of hilarious, you know title, but it
Speaker 12: was kind of around this concept about obviously the Jew
Speaker 12: world order, and this guy was basically his his philosophy was,
Speaker 12: we're missing the big picture by arguing over you know,
Speaker 12: Israel and who's in control and you know what creepy,
Speaker 12: what creepy things are doing are being done behind you know,
Speaker 12: behind the scenes, we're missing the bigger picture that like
Speaker 12: this is part of God's plan and that God's always
Speaker 12: in control. And so he kind of had this and
Speaker 12: it seemed like a philosophy of just we don't need
Speaker 12: to like, we don't need to worry too much. We
Speaker 12: don't need to stress or fight or try to dismantle
Speaker 12: like the powers that be that God's already got, you know,
Speaker 12: because you know, the God's will will be fulfilled. What
Speaker 12: is written in the Old Testament will come in the
Speaker 12: New Testament, will come to fruition. And so it's kind
Speaker 12: of this same type of debate around you know, God's
Speaker 12: will and uh, you know, destiny and fate and then
Speaker 12: you know absolute chaos and agency and free will. And
Speaker 12: it was just a really really interesting topic because in
Speaker 12: some ways it's like, if you believe in God, if
Speaker 12: you believe in the God of the Old Testament, or
Speaker 12: the or the Tour or the Koran, whoever, the whoever
Speaker 12: you believe in, and you believe in this being that
Speaker 12: has all power, you then have to wrap, uh, you know,
Speaker 12: grapple with this idea of like what Zombie just posted,
Speaker 12: you should put a note about some of the most
Speaker 12: horrific things a person can't experience, and that if these,
Speaker 12: you know, biblical things are God will God's will, then
Speaker 12: then also these individual things are God's will. And a
Speaker 12: question that I heard once on a podcast when I
Speaker 12: was kind of leaving the faith, was this this question
Speaker 12: of if you were God, you know, how would you
Speaker 12: create the world, how would you create a human experience?
Speaker 12: What rules would you implement? And it kind of it
Speaker 12: kind of makes you think, is like, oh, how would
Speaker 12: you create a world? How what rules would you implement?
Speaker 12: You know, how would you protect your children? And I
Speaker 12: don't know if I necessarily had the answer, but I
Speaker 12: do believe that I do believe we're supposed to experience
Speaker 12: some of the most horrific things because they can be
Speaker 12: unfortunately the best teachers, and so I don't know, I
Speaker 12: don't think God's hand is in at all the details
Speaker 12: of our life. I think sometimes he you know, steps
Speaker 12: back and just lets us figure out some shit, if
Speaker 12: that makes sense. I don't think that, you know, God
Speaker 12: takes part in like you know, some some horrific shit
Speaker 12: that that's happening to people.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's like his will.
Speaker 12: I think people are making choices and he'll get you
Speaker 12: on the other side when you when you're going through
Speaker 12: that shit, But he's not necessarily like allowing allowing it
Speaker 12: to be. It's kind of like, there has to be chaos,
Speaker 12: there has to be pain, there has to be suffering,
Speaker 12: there has to be grief, because if you don't have pain,
Speaker 12: you don't know what healing feels like if you don't
Speaker 12: have And that's the whole point of the adversary, like
Speaker 12: Satan is always doing God's will, or the adversary is
Speaker 12: always doing God's will, because yeah, you know, essentially Satan
Speaker 12: is the great greatest teacher, because if we didn't have
Speaker 12: that negative shit, that darkness and those horrific things, then
Speaker 12: we wouldn't experience the the opposite of that, you know,
Speaker 12: which is love and light and you know, all the
Speaker 12: positive things So those are a couple of thoughts that
Speaker 12: I have, and I don't know if I've quite formulated
Speaker 12: my thoughts, but there you go.
Speaker 1: I hear you one hundred percent. And also, I don't
Speaker 1: believe that it's God letting things happen. People are acting
Speaker 1: on their own free will one hundred percent. And yes,
Speaker 1: whether that is a part of determinism and it's not
Speaker 1: a pretty part of it, I agree with you that
Speaker 1: there has to be harmony. And for every absolute evil,
Speaker 1: there is an absolute good, and there's areas of gray
Speaker 1: and levels to that on all sides of it. I
Speaker 1: don't believe that like Raven just put in a horrible,
Speaker 1: horrible thing that took place, and I would say that
Speaker 1: is one hundred percent true evil, right with you, one
Speaker 1: hundred percent. But it's not God letting the true evil exist.
Speaker 1: It's not like it because that was my big thing too.
Speaker 1: If God is all good and all powerful, how could
Speaker 1: he let so much bad things happen on earth. That's
Speaker 1: not exactly a fair context to put it in. It's
Speaker 1: not God letting it happen. It's kim giving humans free
Speaker 1: will and people acting on the free will to do
Speaker 1: horrible things. Now, yes, could he fix it on a
Speaker 1: second with the snap of his fingers? Of course, will
Speaker 1: he know, because that's not how this goes. And unfortunately
Speaker 1: a lot of really good people suffer in the worst
Speaker 1: ways possible because of it. But it's not God's. It's
Speaker 1: not us blaming God for it. We should be blaming
Speaker 1: the true evil and the ones committing these horrible acts.
Speaker 1: So at least that's where I'm at with it.
Speaker 5: Well, God does. He does let bad things happen, and
Speaker 5: I don't think there's any way to escape that, because
Speaker 5: he could micromanage the universe and just prevent every little
Speaker 5: bad thing from happening, if you want to do like
Speaker 5: you were saying. But he doesn't, so that is, by definition,
Speaker 5: letting it happen. I don't think he scripts all the
Speaker 5: bad things. I don't think that all of history has
Speaker 5: been written and all the future has been written, and
Speaker 5: that it's all going to unfold a certain predetermined way.
Speaker 5: And that's that's why I'm not a determinist. But one
Speaker 5: last thing is that one way determinists will get around
Speaker 5: this is by arguing that everything that happens is actually good.
Speaker 5: So even that horrible crime where you know a girl
Speaker 5: gets raped in her throat slip for example. Oh well,
Speaker 5: somehow everything that happens is good, and I'm just not
Speaker 5: on board with that. But this is just people have
Speaker 5: to People have to find some way to rationalize. There
Speaker 5: are religious dogmas, I think, and I.
Speaker 1: Find evil though that that's crazy.
Speaker 5: Well people do and well, I don't know, but people
Speaker 5: grappled with this with lots of horrible events. I think
Speaker 5: the Holocaust is probably the biggest one. It's like, why
Speaker 5: did God let that happen? Well, yeah, you can't argue
Speaker 5: that he didn't let it happen, because he did let
Speaker 5: it happen. It's just the result of people making bad decisions.
Speaker 5: People made it happen. God didn't make it happen, but
Speaker 5: he let it happen.
Speaker 1: Right, right, And I mean, now that's a whole other
Speaker 1: example as well, right, because if we didn't have the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: and the nation of Israel would have never been founded.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying I wouldn't exist.
Speaker 5: Sorry, if I.
Speaker 3: Said I don't know, I said I don't know if
Speaker 3: I can.
Speaker 7: Fully believe or I completely agree with that statement that
Speaker 7: if not for the Holocaust, that the state of Vision
Speaker 7: would have happened.
Speaker 13: Obviously that's the that's the way that it's happened because
Speaker 13: of what happened. But I think that was meant to
Speaker 13: come into fruition regardless. If it wouldn't have been this,
Speaker 13: there would have been another reason.
Speaker 1: I don't see it happening from a good place though,
Speaker 1: like it was. Again, this is not me trying to
Speaker 1: take like Tony said, I'm not trying to say, well,
Speaker 1: everything that happens has to be a all ill good No,
Speaker 1: that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that that example,
Speaker 1: like the reason why the entire world basically told the Palestinians,
Speaker 1: hey the Jews live here, now deal with it, was
Speaker 1: because they literally just survived a holocaust, and like whatever
Speaker 1: argument they were about to say was invalid.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 14: I think the only thing I'm trying to say is
Speaker 14: that it would have happened regardless that that's how we
Speaker 14: know it in our.
Speaker 3: Reality, because that's what has happened. If not for that,
Speaker 3: it would have happened another way. Because so.
Speaker 15: I think part of the prophecy is that there was
Speaker 15: going to be Atlanta Israel again, So like it was
Speaker 15: already a part of our prophecy. So regardless of how
Speaker 15: that came into truition, it was going to happen regardless.
Speaker 3: I think that's all all that I read to say.
Speaker 14: So if what what, what could have happened had the
Speaker 14: Holocaust happened?
Speaker 3: Who knows?
Speaker 1: Yeah, who knows?
Speaker 3: So that was my that was my only point with it,
Speaker 3: and that's fair.
Speaker 1: I mean geopolitically, there was conversations about moving the Jews
Speaker 1: to an area in that region of the world before
Speaker 1: the Holocaust happened. So I might be completely talking out
Speaker 1: of my ass on that point. I don't know, But yeah,
Speaker 1: to your point, Tony, no, I don't believe that everything,
Speaker 1: even the pure evil in the world that's happening, has
Speaker 1: to be done in and all out good because it
Speaker 1: was all a part. Like No, I think that's that's
Speaker 1: not even a cop out at that point, that's just
Speaker 1: sticking your head in the sand.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I really appreciate everyone's opinion on this. This is
Speaker 5: something that's been debated since before Jesus was around.
Speaker 3: I'm immoral.
Speaker 7: It's it's a big it's a big paradox a he
Speaker 7: it's a huge paradox, Like the whole idea about free
Speaker 7: will and do we have do we have free will,
Speaker 7: and how and how does it work?
Speaker 14: The only thing that I have to I guess comment
Speaker 14: on is as we were talking, I was looking up.
Speaker 7: This whole idea and one of the things that said,
Speaker 7: just a small paradraph, said God is be on time
Speaker 7: for him.
Speaker 3: All has already occurred. His knowledge of the future is
Speaker 3: similar to our knowledge of the present.
Speaker 7: That knowledge is not a cause to our deeds, but
Speaker 7: an outcome.
Speaker 3: So too, God cannot help help be responsible.
Speaker 9: For our misdeeds simply because he knew them beforehand. But
Speaker 9: it is a it's it is a paradox has been
Speaker 9: going on for thousands of years, and plenty of theologians
Speaker 9: and philosophers have tried.
Speaker 16: To discuss this whole matter, So it's definitely something to
Speaker 16: think about that at the very least, it could potentially
Speaker 16: bring us closer to our own in faith, because we're.
Speaker 14: Trying to understand and try to justify what's going on
Speaker 14: to our own capacity, whether that's everything is for the
Speaker 14: good or it happened because God willed it. You know,
Speaker 14: I think that's us putting our own understanding in this situation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's kind of us trying to put God and
Speaker 1: his plan or his will or any of this into
Speaker 1: a box. And I don't think this is something that
Speaker 1: can fit into a box that humans can put it into.
Speaker 1: But this is in fact the place you have these conversations,
Speaker 1: and I agree. I appreciate everybody for chiming in on this.
Speaker 1: Although as I'm looking as I'm looking at who all
Speaker 1: is in attendance tonight, So a trans a Jew, a Catholic,
Speaker 1: a Pagan, and a Mountain Jew, I mean former Mormon
Speaker 1: walk into a bar and this is what the conversation
Speaker 1: leads to. I absolutely love that this is the group
Speaker 1: that we have come to with the Cajun Night Live. Y'all.
Speaker 1: Y'all have no idea. I was hoping that eventually the
Speaker 1: conversations would go more philosophical, and yeah, we do talk geopolitics,
Speaker 1: and yes we talk environmental and all these things, but
Speaker 1: these are like really amazing conversations and I mean, this
Speaker 1: is great content. So I appreciate everybody for chiming in
Speaker 1: on this one. So for anybody who would like to
Speaker 1: join in on the Cajun Night Live next week, again,
Speaker 1: please come check out Cajun Night on Patreon. Link is
Speaker 1: in the description below. And again, y'all, I appreciate everybody
Speaker 1: for jumping in on this one, and I hope to
Speaker 1: see more people in these conversations in the future. And
Speaker 1: if we do want to dive further into this conversation
Speaker 1: next week, please do, please do. I want to have
Speaker 1: it all the way through all of the depths and
Speaker 1: all of the ugly bits like this is amazing and
Speaker 1: I think that, if anything, this might be how true
Speaker 1: growth can happen. Having uncomfortable conversations in US, combining forces
Speaker 1: and sharing ideas. This is how true philosophy goes down.
Speaker 1: So again, thank you everybody for coming out and to
Speaker 1: everybody listening. As always, God bless