Author Archives: Lex Fridman

Transcript for Lisa Randall: Dark Matter, Theoretical Physics, and Extinction Events | Lex Fridman Podcast #403

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #403 with Lisa Randall.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
The following is a conversation with Lisa Randall, a theoretical physicist and cosmologist at Harvard. Her work involves improving our understanding of particle physics, supersymmetry, baryogenesis, cosmological inflation, and dark matter.

(00:00:15)
This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. Now, dear friends, here’s Lisa Randall.

Dark matter


(00:00:24)
One of the things you work on and write about is dark matter. We can’t see it, but there’s a lot of it in the universe. You also end one of your books with a Beatles song quote, “‘Got to be good-looking because he’s so hard to see.” What is dark matter? How should we think about it given that we can’t see it? How should we visualize it in our mind’s eye?
Lisa Randall
(00:00:47)
I think one of the really important things that physics teaches you is just our limitations, but also our abilities. The fact that we can deduce the existence of something that we don’t directly see is really a tribute to people that we can do that. It’s also something that tells you, you can’t overly rely on your direct senses. If you just relied on just what you see directly, you would miss so much of what’s happening in the world.

(00:01:15)
We can generalize this, but just for now to focus on dark matter, it’s something we know is there, and it’s not just one way we know it’s there. In my book, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs, I talk about the many different ways. There’s eight or nine that we deduce not just the existence of dark matter, but how much is there, and they all agree.

(00:01:36)
Now, how do we know it’s there? Because of its gravitational force. Individually, a particle doesn’t have such a big gravitational force. In fact, gravity is an extremely weak force compared to other forces we know about in nature, but there’s a lot of dark matter out there. It carries a lot of energy. Five times the amount of energy as the matter. We know that’s in atoms, et cetera.

(00:02:00)
You can ask, how should we think about it? It’s just another form of matter that doesn’t interact with light, or at least as far as we know. It interacts gravitationally, it clumps, it forms galaxies, but it doesn’t interact with light, which means we just don’t see it. Most of our detection, before gravitational wave detectors, we only saw things because of their interactions with light in some sense.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:25)
In theory, it behaves just like any other matter, it just doesn’t interact with light.
Lisa Randall
(00:02:30)
When we say it interacts just like any other form of matter, we have to be careful because gravitationally, it interacts like other forms of matter, but it doesn’t experience electromagnetism, which is why it has a different distribution.

(00:02:44)
In our galaxy, it’s roughly spherical unless it has its own interactions, that’s another story. We know that it’s roughly spherical, whereas ordinary matter can radiate and clumps into a disk. That’s why we see the Milky Way disk. On large scales, in some sense, yes, all the matter is similar in some sense.

(00:03:06)
In fact, dark matter is in some sense more important because it can collapse more readily than ordinary matter because ordinary matter has radiative forces, which makes it hard to collapse on small scales. Actually it’s dark matter that drives galaxy formation and then ordinary matter comes along with it.

(00:03:30)
There’s also just more of it, and because there’s more of it can start collapsing sooner. That is to say the energy density in dark matter dominates over radiation earlier than you would if you just had an ordinary matter.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:43)
It’s part of the story of the origin of the galaxy, part of the story of the end of the galaxy, and part of the story of all the various interactions throughout.
Lisa Randall
(00:03:50)
Exactly. In my book, I make jokes about, it’s like when we think about a building, we think about the architect, we think about the high level, but we forget about all the workers that did all the grunt work. In fact, dark matter was really important in the formation of our universe, and we forget that sometimes.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:07)
That’s a metaphor on top of a metaphor. Okay. The unheard voices that do the actual work.
Lisa Randall
(00:04:16)
Exactly. No, but it is a metaphor, but it also captures something because the fact is we don’t directly see it, so we forget it’s there or we don’t understand it’s there, or we think it’s not. The fact that we don’t see it makes it no less legitimate, it just means that we have challenges in order to find out exactly what it is.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:35)
Yeah, but the things we cannot see that nevertheless have a gravitational interaction with the things we can’t see is at the layman level, it’s just mind-blowing.
Lisa Randall
(00:04:49)
It is and it isn’t because I think what it’s teaching us is that we’re human, the universe is what it is, and we’re trying to interact with that universe and discover what it is. We’ve discovered, amazing things.

(00:05:03)
In fact, I would say it’s more surprising that the matter that we know about is constitutes as big a fraction of the universe as it does. We’re limited, we’re human. The fact that we see 5% of the energy density of the universe, about one sixth of the energy density in matter, that’s remarkable. Why should that be? Anything could be out there, yet the universe that we see is a significant fraction.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:30)
Yeah, but a lot of our intuition, I think operates using visualizations in the mind.
Lisa Randall
(00:05:36)
That’s absolutely true. Certainly writing books, I realized also how many of our words are based on how we see the world, and that’s true. That’s actually one of the fantastic things about physics is that it teaches you how to go beyond your immediate intuition to develop intuitions that apply at different distances, different scales, different ways of thinking about things.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:57)
Yeah. How do you anthropomorphize dark matter?
Lisa Randall
(00:06:01)
I just did, I think. I made it the grunt workers.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:04)
Oh yeah, that’s good. You did. That’s why you get paid the big bucks and write the great books. Okay, you also write in that book about dark matter, having to do something with the extinction events, the extinction of the dinosaurs, which is a fascinating presentation of how everything is connected.

(00:06:28)
I guess the disturbances from the dark matter, they create gravitational disturbances in the Oort Cloud at the edge of our solar system, and then that increases the rate of asteroids hitting earth.
Lisa Randall
(00:06:42)
I want to be really clear, this was a speculative theory.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:44)
I love it, though.
Lisa Randall
(00:06:48)
I liked it too. We still don’t know for sure, but what we liked about it… Let me take a step back. We usually assume that dark matter, we being physicists, that it’s just one thing. It’s just basically non-interacting aside from gravity or very weakly interacting matter.

(00:07:11)
Again, we have to get outside this mindset of just humans and ask what else could be there. What we suggested is that there’s a fraction of dark matter, not all the dark matter, but some of the dark matter, maybe it has interactions of its own just the same way in our universe, we have lots of different types of matter. We have nuclei, we have electrons, we have neutrons, we have forces.

(00:07:35)
It’s not a simple model, the standard model, but it does have some basic ingredients, so maybe dark matter also has some interesting structure to it. Maybe there’s some small fraction. The interesting thing is that if some of the dark matter does radiate, and I like to call it dark light because it’s light that we don’t see, but dark matter would see. It could radiate that and then it could perhaps collapse into a disk the same way ordinary matter collapsed into the Milky Way disk.

(00:08:06)
It’s not all the dark matter, it’s a fraction, but it could conceivably be a very thin disk of dark matter, thin, dense disk of dark matter. The question is do these exist? People have done studies now to think about whether they can find them. It’s an interesting target, it’s something you can measure. By measuring the positions and velocities of stars, you can find out what the structure of the Milky Way is, but the fun proposal was that the solar system orbits around the galaxy.

(00:08:36)
As it does so, it goes a little bit up and down kind of horses on a carousel. The suggestion was every time it goes through, you have an enhanced probability that you would dislodge something from the edge of the solar system in something called the Oort Cloud. The idea was that at those times, you’re more likely to have these cataclysmic events such as the amazing one that actually caused the last extinction that we know of for sure.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:01)
It wasn’t so amazing for the dinosaurs.
Lisa Randall
(00:09:04)
Or for two thirds of the species on the planet.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:06)
But it gets amazing for humans. It wouldn’t be-
Lisa Randall
(00:09:08)
What really is amazing… I talk about this in Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs. It is just an amazing scientific story because it really is one of the real stories that combine together different fields of science. Geologists at the time or people thought that things happen slowly and this would be a cataclysmic event.

(00:09:27)
Also, I have to say if you think about it, it sounds like a story a five-year-old would make up. Maybe the dinosaurs were killed by some big rock that came and hit the earth, but then there really was a scientific story behind it. That’s also why I like the dark disk because there’s a scientific story behind it. As far-fetched as it might sound, you could actually go and look for the experimental consequences, for the observational consequences to test whether it’s true.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:51)
I wish you could know high-resolution details of where that asteroid came from, where in the Oort Cloud, why it happened, is it in fact because of dark matter? Just the full tracing back to the origin of the universe because humans seem to be somewhat special. It seems like so many fascinating events at all scales of physics had to happen for [inaudible 00:10:17].
Lisa Randall
(00:10:16)
I’m really, really glad you mentioned that because actually that was one of the main points of my book, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs. One of the reasons I wrote it was because I really think we are abusing the planet, we’re changing the planet way too quickly. Just like anything else, when you alter things, it’s good to think about the history of what it took to get here.

(00:10:34)
As you point out, it took many operations on many different scales. We had to have the formation of structure, the formation of galaxies, the formation of the solar system, the formation of our planet, the formation of humans. There’s so many steps that go into this. Humans in some part were the result of the fact that this big object hit the earth, made the dinosaurs go extinct, and mammals developed. It is an incredible story and yes, something else might come of it, but it won’t be us if we mess with it too much.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:05)
But it is on a grand scale, earth is a pretty resilient system. Can you just clarify, just fascinating, the shape of things. The shape of the Milky Way’s… Of the observable stuff is mostly flat. You said dark matter tends to be spherical, but a subset of that might be a flat disk.
Lisa Randall
(00:11:31)
You want to hear about the shape of things.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:34)
Yes, please.
Lisa Randall
(00:11:36)
Structure formed early on, and now our structure that we live in is… We know about the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky Way galaxy has the disk you can see in a dry dark place, that’s where stars and light is, but you can also measure in some ways the dark matter. We believe that dark matter is more or less spherically distributed. Like we said, there’s a lot of it, not necessarily in the disk, but just because it’s a sphere, there’s a lot of it sitting there.

(00:12:11)
The reason it doesn’t collapse as far as we know is that it can’t radiate the same way. Because it can radiate ordinary matter collapses, and this actually, because of conservation of angular momentum, it stays a disk and it doesn’t just collapse to the center. Our suggestion was that maybe there are some components of dark matter that also radiate.

(00:12:31)
Like I said, that’s far from proven. People have looked for a disk, they see some evidence of some disks of certain densities, but these are all questions that are worth asking. Basically if we can figure it out from existing measurements, why not try?
Lex Fridman
(00:12:44)
Okay, so not all dark matter is made the same.
Lisa Randall
(00:12:48)
That’s a possibility. We actually don’t know what dark matter is in the first place, we don’t know what most of it is, we don’t know what a fraction is. It’s hard to measure. Why is it hard to measure for exactly the reason you said earlier, we don’t see it. We want to think of possibilities for what it can be, especially if those give rise to some observational consequences. It’s a tough game because it’s not something that’s just there for the taking. You have to think about what it could be and how you might find it.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:16)
The way you detect it is gravitational effects on things we can see.
Lisa Randall
(00:13:22)
That would be the way you detect the type of dark matter. I’ve been talking about people have suggestions for other forms of dark matter. They could be particles called axions, they could be other types of particles, and then there are different ways of detecting it.

(00:13:34)
The most popular candidate for dark matter probably until pretty recently because they haven’t found it, is something called WIMPs, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, particles that have mass about the same as the Higgs boson mass, and it turns out then you would get about the right density of dark matter.

(00:13:52)
People really like that, of course, because it is connected to the standard model, the particles that we know about, and if it’s connected to that, we have a better chance of actually seeing it. Fortunately or unfortunately, it’s also a better chance that you can rule it out because you can look for it. So far, no one has found it. We’re still looking for
Lex Fridman
(00:14:08)
Is that one of the hopes of the Large Hadron Collider?
Lisa Randall
(00:14:11)
That was originally one of the hopes of Large Hadron Collider. I’d say at this point, it would be very unlikely given what they’ve already accomplished, but there are these underground detectors, xenon detectors that look for dark matter coming in, and they are going to try to achieve a much stronger bound than exists today.
Lex Fridman
(00:14:35)
Just to take that tangent, looking back now, what’s the biggest, to you, insight to humanity that the LHC has been able to provide?
Lisa Randall
(00:14:47)
It’s interesting. It’s both a major victory. The Higgs boson was proposed 50 years ago, and it was discovered. The Higgs mechanism seemed to be the only way to explain elementary particle masses and it was right so on the one hand, it was a major victory. On the other hand, I’ve been in physics long enough to know it was also a cautionary tale in some sense because at the time I started out in physics, we had proposed something in the United States called the Superconducting Supercollider.

(00:15:15)
A lot of physicists, I’ll say particularly in Europe, but I’d say a lot of physicists were saying when that the Large Hadron Collider would have the energy reach necessary to discover what underlies the standard model. We don’t want to just discover the standard model, we want to know what the next step is.

(00:15:31)
I think here people were more cautious about that. They want to have a more comprehensive search that could get to higher energies, more events so that we could really more definitively rule it out. In that case, many people thought they knew what would be there. It happened to be a theory called supersymmetry. A lot of physicists thought it would be supersymmetry.

(00:15:51)
It’s one of the many factors I think that went into the fact that the Large Hadron Collider became the only machine in town, and the Superconducting Supercollider would’ve just been a much… If it had really had achieved what it was supposed to, would’ve been a much more robust test of the space.

(00:16:07)
I’d say for humanity, it’s both a tribute to the ability of discovery and the ability of really believing in things so that you have the confidence to go look for them, but it’s also a cautionary tale that you don’t want to assume things before they’ve been actually found. You want to believe in your theories, but you also want to question them at the same time in ways that you’re more likely to discover the truth.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:32)
It’s also an illustration of grand engineering efforts that humanity can take on and maybe a lesson that you could go even bigger.
Lisa Randall
(00:16:43)
I’m really glad you said that though too, because that’s absolutely true. It really is an impressive… It’s impressive in so many ways. It’s impressive technologically, it’s impressive at engineering level.

(00:16:55)
It’s also impressive that so many countries work together to do this. It wasn’t just one country. It was also impressive in that it was a long-term project that people committed to and made it happen. It is a demonstration that when people set their minds to things and they commit to it, that they can do something amazing.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:18)
Also in the United States, maybe a lesson that bureaucracy can slow things down to [inaudible 00:17:24].
Lisa Randall
(00:17:24)
Bureaucracy and politics.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:26)
Politics.
Lisa Randall
(00:17:27)
And economics. Many things can make them faster and make them slower.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:32)
Science is the way to make progress, politics is the way to slow that progress down. And here we are.
Lisa Randall
(00:17:39)
I don’t want to overstate that because without politics, the [inaudible 00:17:42] wouldn’t happen either.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:43)
You need broccoli.
Lisa Randall
(00:17:49)
Sometimes I do think… You’re not asking this question, but sometimes I do think when I think about some of these conflicts, sometimes it’s just good to have a project that people work on together. There were some efforts to do that in science too, to have Palestinians and Israelis work together, a project called Sesame. I think it’s not a bad idea when you can do that, when you can get… Forget the politics and just focus on some particular project. Sometimes that can work.
Lex Fridman
(00:18:25)
Some kind of forcing function, some kind of deadline that gets people to sit in a room together and you’re working on a thing. As part of that, you realize the common humanity, that you all have the same concerns, the same hopes, the same fears, that you are all human. That’s an accidental side effect of working together on a thing.
Lisa Randall
(00:18:45)
That’s absolutely true. It’s one of the reasons CERN was formed actually. It was post-World War II, and a lot of European physicists had actually left Europe and they wanted to see Europeans work together and rebuild, and it worked. They did. It’s true, I often think that, that one of the major problems is we just don’t meet enough people so that everyone… When they seem like the other, it’s more easy to forget their humanity. I think it is important to have these connections.

Extinction events

Lex Fridman
(00:19:16)
Given the complexity, all cosmological scales involved here that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, when you look out at the future of earth, do you worry about future extinction events?
Lisa Randall
(00:19:29)
I do think that we might be in the middle of an extinction right now if you define it by the number of species that are getting killed off. It’s subtle, but it’s a complex system. The way things respond to events is sometimes things evolve, sometimes animals just move to another place. The way we’ve developed the earth, it’s very hard for species just to move somewhere else.

(00:19:54)
We’re seeing that with people now, too. I know people are worried just about AI taking over, and that’s a totally different story. We just don’t think about the future very much. We think about what we’re doing now, and we certainly don’t think enough about all the animals that we’re destroying, all the things that are precursors to humans that we rely on.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:14)
It’s interesting to think whether the things that threaten us is the stuff we see that’s happening gradually or the stuff we don’t really see that’s going to happen all of a sudden. I sometimes think about what should we be worried about? It seems like with the asteroids or nuclear war, it could be stuff that just happens one day. When I say one day meaning over a span of a few days or a few months, but not on a scale of decades and centuries. We sometimes mostly talk about stuff that’s happening gradually, but we can be really surprised.
Lisa Randall
(00:20:57)
It’s actually really interesting. That was actually one of the reasons it took a while to determine what it was that it caused the last extinction because people did think at the time, many people thought that things were more gradual, and the idea of extinction was actually a novel concept at some point.

(00:21:14)
These aren’t predictable events necessarily. They’re only predictable on a grand scale, but sometimes they are. I think people were pretty aware that nuclear weapons were dangerous. I’m not sure people are as aware now as they were say, 20 or 30 years ago, and that certainly worries me. I have to say I was not as worried about AI as other people, but now I understand. It’s more that as soon as you create things that we lose control over, it’s scary.

(00:21:50)
The other thing that we’re learning from the events today is that it takes a few bad actors. It takes everyone to make things work well, it takes not that many things to make things go wrong. The issue with disease, we can find out what causes a disease, but to make things better is not necessarily that simple. Sometimes it is. But for things to be healthy, a lot of things have to work. For things to go wrong, only one thing has to go wrong. It’s amazing that we do it.

(00:22:19)
The same is true for democracy. For democracy to work, a lot of people have to believe in it. A few bad actors can destroy things sometimes. A lot of the things that we really rely on are delicate equilibrium situations. There is some robustness in the systems, we try to build in robustness, but a few extreme events can sometimes alter things. I think that’s what people are scared of today in many ways. They’re scared of it for democracy, they’re scared of it for peace, they’re scared of it for AI.

(00:22:51)
I think they’re not as scared as they should be about nuclear weapons, to be honest. I think that’s more serious danger than people realize. I think people are a little bit more scared about pandemics than they were before, but I still say they’re not super scared about it. So you’re right, there are these major events that can happen and we are setting things up so that they might happen, and we should be thinking about them. The question is who should be thinking about them? How should we be thinking about them? How do you make things happen on a global scale, because that’s really what we need.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:23)
It certainly shouldn’t be a source of division, it should be a source of grand collaboration probably.
Lisa Randall
(00:23:29)
Wouldn’t that be nice?
Lex Fridman
(00:23:30)
Yeah. I just wonder what it’d be like to be a dinosaur. It must have been beautiful to look at that asteroid enter the atmosphere. Until everything…. Man, that would be one of the things I would travel back in time to just to watch it.
Lisa Randall
(00:23:50)
That’s also one of the things that I think you probably could do with virtual reality. I don’t think you have to be there and get extinct.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:54)
To just experience it.
Lisa Randall
(00:23:55)
I think there’s something… It’s an event. You’re just watching. You’re not doing anything, you’re just looking at it, so maybe you could just recreate it.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:01)
I actually heard that there’s a nuclear weapon explosion experience in virtual reality that’s good to remind you about what it would feel like.
Lisa Randall
(00:24:14)
I have to say, I got an award from the Museum of Nuclear History and Technology in the Southwest, and I went to visit the museum, which turned out to be mostly a museum of nuclear weapons. The scary thing is that they look really cool.

(00:24:30)
It’s true that you have that, yes, this is scary, but you also have, this is cool feeling and I think we have to get around that because I think that yes, you can be in that, but I’m not sure that’s going to make people scared. Have they actually asked afterwards, are you more or less scared?
Lex Fridman
(00:24:50)
That’s a really good point. That’s a good summary of just humanity in general. We’re attracted to creating cool stuff, even though it can be dangerous.
Lisa Randall
(00:25:01)
Actually, that was the really interesting thing about visiting that museum, actually. It was very nice because I had a tour from people who had been working there in the Cold War and actually one or two people from the Manhattan Project. It was a very cool tour. You just realize just how just the thing itself gets you so excited.

(00:25:16)
I think that’s something sometimes these movies miss, just the thing itself. You’re not thinking about the overall consequences. In some ways it was like the early Silicon Valley. People were just thinking what if we did this? What if we did that? Not keeping track of what the peripheral consequences are. You definitely see that happening with AI now. I think that was the moral of the battle that just happened, that it’s just full speed ahead.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:43)
Which gives me a really great transition to another quote in your book. You write about the experience of facing the sublime in physics, and you quote Rainer Rilke. “For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we are still just able to endure, and we’re so odd because it’s serenely disdains to annihilate us.” It’s pretty intense. It I think applies to nuclear weapons.
Lisa Randall
(00:26:14)
At a more mundane, perhaps level, I think it applies… It’s really interesting. One of the things that I found when I wrote these books is some people love certainty. Scientists, many revel in uncertainty. It’s not that you want to be uncertain, you want to solve it, but you’re at this edge where it’s really frustrating because you don’t really want to not know the answer, but of course, if you knew the answer, it would be done.

(00:26:41)
You’re always at this edge where you’re trying to sort things out and there is something scary. You don’t know if there’s going to be a solution, you don’t know if you’re going to find it. It’s not something that can destroy the earth, it’s just something that you do on your individual level. But then of course there are much bigger things like the ones you’re talking about where they could actually be dangerous. The stuff I do, I just want to be clear, I’m doing theoretical physics. Not very dangerous, but sometimes things end up having bigger consequences than you think.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:13)
Dangerous in a very pragmatic sense. Isn’t it still in part terrifying when you think of just the size of things like the size of dark matter, the power of this thing in terms of its potential gravitational effects, just cosmological objects of a black hole at the center of our galaxy.
Lisa Randall
(00:27:36)
This might be why I’m a physicist or why I differ from other people because I’m not such a big fan of humanity in some ways. Some ways I am, but the idea that we were everything would be really boring to me. I love the idea that there’s so much more out there, that there’s a bigger universe and there’s lots to discover and that we’re not all there is. Wouldn’t it be disappointing if we were all there is?
Lex Fridman
(00:27:57)
Yeah, and the full diversity of other stuff is pretty interesting.
Lisa Randall
(00:28:04)
We have no idea how much there is. We know what we can observe so far, so the idea that there’s other stuff out there that we yet have to figure out, it’s exciting.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:13)
Let me ask you an out there question. If you think of humans on earth, life on earth as this pocket of complexity that emerged and there’s a bunch of conditions that came to be, and there’s Darwinian evolution and however life originated, do you think it’s possible there’s some pockets of complexity of that sort inside dark matter that we can’t see?
Lisa Randall
(00:28:42)
That’s possible.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:47)
Chemistry and biology evolving in different ways.
Lisa Randall
(00:28:49)
That’s one of the reasons we suggest… It’s not the reason, but it would be true if there were the type of interactions we’d suggest, it would need more complex ones. We don’t know. I will say that the conditions that give rise to life and complexity, they’re complex, they’re unlikely. It’s not like there’s great odds that would happen, but there’s no reason to know that it doesn’t happen. It’s worth investigating are there other forces that exist in the dark matter sector? That’s exactly-
Lex Fridman
(00:29:20)
So the dark matter sector doesn’t have all the forces of the standard model of physics?
Lisa Randall
(00:29:26)
Right. As far as we know, it doesn’t have any. It might have it at some low level, but it could have its own forces, just like the dark matter might not experience our light. Maybe it has its light that we don’t experience.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:38)
So there could be other kinds of forces.
Lisa Randall
(00:29:41)
There could be other kinds of forces even within our sector that are too weak for us to have discovered so far or that exist at different scales than we know about. We detect what interacts strongly enough with our detectors to detect. It’s worth asking, and that’s one of the reasons we build big colliders to see are there other forces, other particles that exist say, at higher energies, at shorter distance scales than we’ve explored so far. It’s not just in the dark matter sector. Even in our sector, there could be a whole bunch of stuff we don’t yet know.

Particle physics

Lex Fridman
(00:30:17)
Maybe let’s zoom out and look at the standard model of particle physics. How does dark matter fit into it? First of all, what is it? Can you explain what the standard model is?
Lisa Randall
(00:30:28)
The standard model of particle physics is basically it tells us about nature’s most basic elements and their interactions. It’s the substructure as far as we understand it. If you look at atoms, we know they have nuclei and electrons, nuclei have protons and neutrons in them, protons and neutrons have particles called quarks that are held together by something called the strong force.

(00:30:54)
They interact through the strong force, the strong nuclear force. There’s something called the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. Basically, all those particles and their interactions describe many, many things we understand. That’s the standard model. We now know about the Higgs boson, which is associated with how elementary particles get their mass. That piece of the puzzle has also been completed.

(00:31:20)
We also know that there are a weird array of masses of elementary particles. There’s not just the up and down quark, but there are heavier versions of the up and down quark. Charm and strange, top and bottom. There’s not just the electron, there’s a muon and a tau. There are particles called neutrinos, which are under intense study now, which are partnered with the leptons through the weak interactions.

(00:31:42)
We really do know these basic elements and we know the forces. When we’re doing particle physics experiments, we can usually even ignore gravity except in exceptional cases that we can talk about. Those are the basic elements in their interactions.

(00:31:58)
Dark matter stands outside that, it’s not interacting through those forces. When we look at the world around us, we don’t usually see the effects of dark matter. It’s because there’s so much of it that we do and it doesn’t have those forces that we know about. The standard model has worked spectacularly well. It’s been tested to a high degree of precision. People are still testing it.

(00:32:20)
One of the things we do as physicists is we actually want it to break down at some level, we’re looking for the precision measurement or the energy or whatever it will take where the standard model is no longer working. Not that it’s not working approximately, but we’re looking for the deviations. Those deviations are critical because they can tell us what underlies the standard model, which is what we really want to see next.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:45)
Where can you find the places where the standard model breaks down? What are the places you can see those tiny little deviations?
Lisa Randall
(00:32:53)
We don’t know yet, but we know the kinds of things you wouldn’t want to look for. One obvious place to look is at higher energy. We’re looking at the Large Hadron Collider, but we’d love to go beyond that. Higher energy means shorter distances and it means things that we just couldn’t produce before. E=mc², so if you have a heavy particle and you don’t have enough energy to make it, you’ll never see it. That’s one place.

(00:33:17)
The other place is precision measurements. The standard model has been tested exquisitely, so if it’s been tested 1%, you want to look at a 10th of a percent. There are some processes that we know shouldn’t even happen at all in the standard model or happen at very suppressed level, and those are other things that we look for. All of those things could indicate there’s something beyond what we know about, which of course would be very exciting.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:42)
When you just step back and look at the standard model, the quarks and all the different particles and neutrinos, isn’t it wild how this little system came to be and underpins everything we see?
Lisa Randall
(00:33:59)
Absolutely. That’s why we’d like to understand it better. We want to know is it part of some bigger sector? Why are these particles… Why do they have the masses they do? Why is the Higgs boson so light compared to the mass that could have had, which we might’ve even expected based on the principles of special relativity and quantum mechanics. That’s a really big question. Why are they what they are?
Lex Fridman
(00:34:21)
And they originate, there’s some mechanism that created the whole thing?
Lisa Randall
(00:34:24)
That’s one of the things we’re trying to study. Why is it what it is?
Lex Fridman
(00:34:29)
Even just the mechanism that creates stuff, the way a human being is created from a single cell. It’s like embryogenesis, the whole thing, you build up this thing. All of it, this whole thing comes to be from just like a [inaudible 00:34:47].
Lisa Randall
(00:34:46)
Don’t forget it is interacting with the environment.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:49)
For sure. Okay, right, right, right.
Lisa Randall
(00:34:51)
It’s important.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:53)
That’s a really good question is how much of it is the environment? Is it just the environment acting on a set of constraints? How much of it is just the information in the DNA or any information? How much is it in the initial conditions of the universe versus some other thing acting on it?
Lisa Randall
(00:35:14)
These are big questions. These are big questions in pretty much every field. For the universe, we do consider it… It’s everything there is by definition. But people now think about it. Is it one of many universes? Of course it’s a misnomer, but could there be other places where there are self-contained gravitational systems that we don’t even interact with? Those are really important questions, and the only way we’re going to answer them is we go back as far as we can. We try to think theoretically, and we try to think about observational consequences. That’s all we can do.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:49)
One interesting way to explore the standard model is to look at your fun, nuanced disagreement with Carlo Rovelli. When you talked about him writing in his book, “Electrons don’t always exist. They exist when they interact. They materialize in a place when they collide with something else.” You wrote that… I’ll just read the whole thing because it’s interesting.

(00:36:12)
“Stocks may not achieve a precise value until they’re traded, but that doesn’t mean we can’t approximate their worth until they change hands. Similarly, electrons might not have definite properties, but they do exist. It’s true that the electron doesn’t exist as a classical object with definite position until the position is measured. But something was there – which physicists use a wave function to describe.” It’s a fascinating nuanced disagreement. Do electrons always exist or not? Does a tree fall in the forest if nobody’s there to see it?
Lisa Randall
(00:36:48)
I like to think of the universe as being out there, whether or not… It would be really weird if the only time things came into existence was when I saw them or I measured them.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:57)
There’s a lot of weird stuff in the works.
Lisa Randall
(00:36:58)
I could believe that the Middle East doesn’t exist because I’m not there now. That would be kind of ridiculous, I think we would all agree on that. I think there’s only so much that we can attribute to our own powers of seeing. The whole system doesn’t come into being because I’m measuring it. What is weird, and this isn’t even a disagreement about the standard model, this is a disagreement about how you interpret quantum mechanics.

(00:37:22)
I would say that those wave functions are real. One of the things that don’t forget that particle physics does that quantum field theory says is that electrons can be created and destroyed. It’s not that every electron has to be in the universe. That’s what happens at colliders, particles get created and destroyed, but that doesn’t mean that if I have electron in an atom, it’s not there. It’s certainly there, and we know about it. Its charge is there.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:47)
Physics is a kind of way to see the world. At the bottom, what’s the bottom turtle? Do you have a sense that there’s a bottom reality that we’re trying to approximate with physics?
Lisa Randall
(00:38:01)
I think we always have in our head maybe that we’d like to find that, but I have to… I might not seem so, but I think I’m more humble than a lot of physicists. I’m not sure that we’re ever going to get to that bottom level, but I do think we’re going to keep penetrating different layers and get further.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:16)
I just wonder how far away we are.
Lisa Randall
(00:38:20)
We all wonder that. What’s even the measure of how far away we are. One way you can measure it is just by our everyday lives. In terms of our everyday lives, we’ve measured everything. In terms of what underlies it. There’s a lot more to see. Part of it has to do with how far we think we can go. It might be that the nature of reality changes so much that even these terms are different. Maybe the notion of distance itself might break down at some point.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:49)
Also to push back on the we’ve measured everything, maybe there’s stuff we haven’t even considered is measurable. For example, consciousness. There might be stuff, just like you said, forces unseen, undetected.
Lisa Randall
(00:39:03)
It’s an interesting thing, and this is often a confusion that happens. There’s the fundamental stuff underlying it, and then there’s the higher levels, what we’ll call an effective theory at some level. We’re not always working… When I throw a ball, I don’t tell you where every atom is. I tell you there’s a ball.

(00:39:22)
There might be different layers of reality that are built in terms of the matter that we know about in terms of the stuff we know about that. When I say we’ve measured everything, I say that with a grain of salt. I mean we’ve measured everything about the standard model. There’s lots of phenomena that we don’t understand, but often there are complex phenomena that will be given in terms of the fundamental ingredients that we know about.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:47)
That is an interesting question because yes, there’s phenomena that are at the higher level of abstractions that emerge, but maybe with consciousness, there is far out people that think that consciousness is panpsychus, that there’s going to be almost like a fundamental force of physics. That’s consciousness that permeates all that matter.
Lisa Randall
(00:40:10)
Usually when you have a crazy… Sorry, when you have a far out theory, the thing you do is you test all the possibilities within the constructs that exist. You don’t just jump to the most far out possibility. You can do that, but then to see if it’s true, you either have to find evidence of it or you have to show that it’s not possible without that, and we’re very far from that.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:32)
I think one of the criticisms of your theory on the dinosaurs was that it requires, if I remember correctly, for dark matter to be weirder than it already is. I think you had a clever response to that. Can you remind…
Lisa Randall
(00:40:46)
I’m not sure I remember what I said then, but we have no idea how weird dark matter is. It’s based on everyone thinking they know what dark matter is. Weirder than it already is, it’s not already anything. We don’t know what it is, so there’s no normalization here.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:59)
Do we know if dark matter varies in density?
Lisa Randall
(00:41:05)
It just certainly does in the universe, just like… For example, there’s more dark matter in galaxies than there’s between galaxies. It clumps. It’s matter, so it’s distributed like matter. It is matter.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:18)
It does clump, but the full details of how it clumps and the complexity of the clumping…
Lisa Randall
(00:41:25)
It’s understood pretty well. People do simulations… Where people are always looking for things, including us as particle physics, it’s at small scales, are the deviations on small scales so that indicating other interactions or other processes or interactions with baryons. That is to say normal matter that we don’t understand. But on large scales, we have a pretty good understanding of dark matter distribution.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:50)
You were part of a recent debate on can science uncover reality. Let me ask you this question then, what do you think is the limits of science?
Lisa Randall
(00:42:00)
I’m smart enough to know that I have no idea. Also it’s not even clear what science means because there’s the science that we do, which is particle physics. We try to find fundamental things and figure out what their effects are. There’s science like biology where at a higher level, the kind of questions you ask are different, the kind of measurements are different.

(00:42:21)
The kind of science that’s going to happen in the more numerical age or even AI, what does it mean to answer a question? Does it mean that we can predict it? Does it mean that we can reproduce it? I think we’re coming up against the definition of what we mean by science as human beings. In terms of the science that we can do, I don’t think we’ll know it until we get there. We’re trying to solve hard problems and we’ve made progress.

(00:42:50)
If you think of how much science has advanced in the last century or century and a half, it’s incredible. We didn’t even know the universe was expanding at the beginning of the 20th century. We didn’t know about quantum mechanics at the beginning of the century, we didn’t know about special relativity. That’s a lot in a relatively short time, depending on how you think of time. I think it would be premature to say we know limitations.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:14)
At various points throughout the history, we thought we solved everything or at least various people declared-
Lisa Randall
(00:43:20)
[inaudible 00:43:20] various people. Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:21)
Declared that we’ve solved everything. This also a good place to… Maybe could you describe the difference between top-down and bottom-up approaches to theoretical physics that you talked about in the book?
Lisa Randall
(00:43:33)
You could try to jump in and say I have a theory that I think is so perfect that I can predict everything from it or at least predict some salient features from it.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:46)
Mm-hmm. That’s top-down.
Lisa Randall
(00:43:47)
That would be a top-down. Bottom-up is more like the questions we just asked. Why are masses what they are? We measure things. We want to put them together. Usually a good approach is to combine the two. If you ask a very specific question but combine it with the methods of knowing that there could be a fundamental theory underlying it, sometimes you make progress.

(00:44:09)
The community tends to get segmented or fragmented into people who do one or the other, but there are definitely times… Some of my best collaborations with people who are more top-down than I am, so that we come up with interesting ideas that we wouldn’t have thought of if either one of us was working individually.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:25)
Would you say the truly big leaps happened top-down? Like Einstein?
Lisa Randall
(00:44:30)
Einstein was not a top-down person in the beginning. Special relativity was very much him thinking about… They were thought experiments, but he was very much… The original theory about relativity is something like on the nature of electromagnetism. He was trying to understand how Maxwell’s laws could make sense when they seemed to have different symmetries than what we had thought they were.

(00:44:54)
He was very much a bottom-up person, and in fact, he resisted top-down for a long time. Then when he tried to do the theory of general relativity or the general theory of relativity, whichever you want to call it, incorporating gravity into the system when you need some feedback, then he was helped by a mathematician who had developed some differential geometry and helped him figure out how to write down that.

(00:45:16)
After that, he thought top-down was the way to go, but he actually didn’t make that much progress. I think it’s naive to think it was just one or the other. In fact, a lot of people who made real progress were rooted in actual measurements.

Physics vs mathematics

Lex Fridman
(00:45:31)
Speaking of mathematicians, what do you is the difference, you’ve had a bit of foot in both, between physics and mathematics in the way it helps us understand the world?
Lisa Randall
(00:45:41)
To be frank, there’s a lot more overlap in physics and math. I think that has been… Maybe not more, but there’s certainly a lot. I think, again, the kinds of questions you’re asking are usually different. Mathematicians like the structure itself, physicists are trying to concentrate on, to some extent, on the consequences for the world. But there is a lot of overlap.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:04)
The string theory is an example. There’s certain theories where there’s a certain mathematical beauty to it.
Lisa Randall
(00:46:12)
There’s also some really cool ideas that you get in particle physics where you can describe what’s going on and connect it to other ideas. That’s also really beautiful. I think basically insights can be beautiful. They might seem simple, and sometimes they genuinely are, and sometimes they’re built on a whole system that you have to understand before. If you actually saw Einstein’s equations written out in components, if you wouldn’t think it’s so beautiful. If you write in a compact way, it looks nice.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:43)
What do you think about the successes and the failures of string theory? To what degree do you think it succeeded, to what degrees it not succeeded yet or has failed?
Lisa Randall
(00:46:54)
I think to talk about any science in terms of success and failure often misses the point because there’s not some absolute thing. I do think that string theorists were a bit overly ambitious… Not overly ambitious, but a little bit overly arrogant in the beginning, thinking they could solve many problems that they weren’t going to solve.

(00:47:14)
That’s not to say the methods and advances in strength theory don’t exist, but they certainly weren’t able to immediately solve all the problems they thought they could solve. It has given us tools, it has given us some insights, but it becomes almost a sociological question of how much it should be one or the other.

(00:47:35)
I do think that you can get caught up in the problems themselves, and sometimes you can get caught up in the methods and just do other examples. The real physics insights often come from people who are thinking about physics as well as math.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:49)
Because you mentioned AI, is there hope that AI might be able to help find some interesting insights? Another way to ask this question is how special are humans that we’re able to discover novel insights about the world?
Lisa Randall
(00:48:09)
That’s a great question, and it depends on what kind of insights and what we’re going to find that out. Because it’s hard to think about something that doesn’t quite exist yet, I could just think about something, take a step back. It’s a little bit like I’m trying understand four dimensions so you go back to three dimensions. Go to something you can imagine.

(00:48:31)
You can say a lot of the things in a very different level about the internet. You could say has the internet helped do things? It definitely took on a life of its own in some sense, but it’s also something that we’re able to tame. I know that I, myself wouldn’t have been able to write books if the internet didn’t exist because I wouldn’t have had the time to go to the library and look everything up. It helped me enormously.

(00:48:57)
In some sense, AI could be that. In a very nice world, it could be a tool that helps us go a step further than we would and a lot more efficiently. It’s already done that to some extent. Or it could be like the parts of the internet that we can control that are ruining politics or whatever. There’s certainly a lot of indications that can do that. Then there are even bigger things that people speculate about AI being able to do its own things, but in terms of actually figuring things out, we’re in the early stages.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:33)
Yeah, there’s several directions here. One is on the theorem prover side, Wolfram Alpha where everything’s much more precise, and we have large language model type of stuff. One of the limitations of those is it seems to come up with convincing looking things, which we don’t know if it’s true or not, and that’s a big problem for physics.
Lisa Randall
(00:49:54)
Large language models are more or less generalizations of stuff that we have. There’s still breakthroughs in AI waiting to happen, and maybe they are happening and maybe they’ll be good, maybe not, but that’s not quite the same. Maybe in some cases, it’s just pattern recognition that leads to important things, but sometimes it could be something more insightful than that that I can’t even put my finger on.

(00:50:21)
It forces us to… We don’t really understand how smart we are. We don’t understand how we think about things all that well, actually. But one thing is true though, we are a lot more efficient right now than computers and coming up with things, we require a lot less energy to do that. If computers figure out how to do that, then it’s going to be at a totally different ball game.

(00:50:42)
Here are clearly kinds of connections that we don’t know how we’re making, but we are making them. That’s going to be interesting. I say we’re in early stages, but this is changing very rapidly. Right now, I don’t think that it’s actually discovered new laws of physics, but could it in the future? Maybe it can.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:06)
It will raise big questions about what is special about humans that we don’t quite appreciate. There could be things that are like that leap of insight that happens, truly novel ideas, that could potentially be very difficult to do.
Lisa Randall
(00:51:26)
There are abstract questions like that. There’s also questions of how is it that we can address to some extent, how will AI be used in the context of the world we live in? Which is based on at least our country’s based on capitalism in a certain political system. How will global politics deal with it? How will our capitalist system deal with it? What will be the things that we focus on doing with it? How much will researchers get control of it to be able to ask different sorts of questions?

(00:51:58)
While it was starting out, people were doing these kinds of toy problems, but what will it actually be applied to and what will it be optimized to do? There’s a lot of questions out there that it’s really important we start addressing.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:11)
What to you is the most beautiful unsolved problem in physics and cosmology, which is really exciting if we can unlock the mystery of in the next few decades?
Lisa Randall
(00:52:30)
Is it what’s the most beautiful unsolved problem, or what is the most beautiful unsolved problem I think we can make progress on?
Lex Fridman
(00:52:35)
Oh boy, we make progress on in the next few centuries.
Lisa Randall
(00:52:43)
Most of the big questions have to do with what underlies things, how things started, what’s at the base of it. There’s also just basic questions like that you asked earlier, how far will science take us? How much can we understand? There are questions like how we got here, what underlies it, are there.

(00:53:02)
Also, there’s really deep questions like what fraction are we actually seeing? If there are these other forces, if there is another way of seeing the world, are there universes beyond their own? If they’re so totally different, how do we even comprehend them? What would we even think about them? There’s a lot about trying to get beyond… It’s always just getting beyond our limited vision and limited experience and trying to see what underlies it, both at small scales and at large scales.

(00:53:35)
We just don’t know the answers. I’d like to think that we understand more about dark matter, about dark energy, about are there extra dimensions, things that we actually work on, but there’s probably a lot beyond what we work on that’s yet to be discovered.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:50)
Yeah, understanding the extra dimensions piece will be really interesting.
Lisa Randall
(00:53:55)
Totally. If it is how the universe went from higher dimensions to what we see, are the extra dimensions present everywhere? One of the really interesting pieces of physics we did that I talk about in my first book, Warped Passages, is finding out that there can be a higher dimension, but only locally. Do you think there’s a gravity of a lower dimension? It could be like only locally do we think we live in three dimensions. It could be higher dimensions is different.

(00:54:25)
That’s not actually the gravity we have, but there’s all sorts of phenomena that might be out there that we don’t know about. All sorts of evolution things, time dependence that we don’t know about. Of course, that’s from the point of view of particle physics, from the point of view of other kinds of physics, we’re just beginning, so who knows?
Lex Fridman
(00:54:40)
Yeah, if the physics changes throughout is not homogeneous throughout the universe, that’ll be weird.
Lisa Randall
(00:54:48)
I mean, for the observable universe, it’s the same. But beyond the observable universe, who knows?
Lex Fridman
(00:54:58)
You’ve had an exceptional career. What advice would you give to young people, maybe high school, college, on how to have a career they can be proud of and a life they can be proud of?
Lisa Randall
(00:55:10)
I think the weird thing about being a scientist or an academic in general is you have to believe really strongly what you do while questioning it all the time. That’s a hard balance to have. Sometimes it helps to collaborate with people, but to really believe that you could have good ideas at the same time, knowing they could all be wrong. That’s a tough tightrope to walk sometimes, but to really test them out.

(00:55:34)
The other thing is sometimes if you get too far buried, you look out and you think there’s so much out there. Sometimes it’s just good to bring it back home and just think okay, can I have as good idea as the person next to me rather than the greatest physicist who ever lived? Right now, like you said, I think there’s lots of big issues out there, and it’s hard to balance that.

(00:55:55)
Sometimes it’s hard to forget the role of physics, but I think Wilson said it really well when he said when they were building Fermilab, it was like this won’t defend the country, but it’ll make it worth defending. It’s just the idea that in all this chaos, it’s still important that we still make progress in these things. Sometimes when major world events are happening, it’s easy to forget that. I think those are important too. You don’t want to forget those, but to try to keep that balance because we don’t want to lose what it is that makes humans special.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:24)
That’s the big picture. Do you also lose yourself in the simple joy of puzzle solving?
Lisa Randall
(00:56:29)
Yeah. We all like solving puzzles. Actually one of the things that drives me in my research is the inconsistencies. When things don’t make sense, it really bugs me and it just will go into different directions to see how could these things fit together.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:46)
It bugs you, but that motivates you?
Lisa Randall
(00:56:48)
Yeah, totally.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:49)
Until it doesn’t. You have to resolve it.
Lisa Randall
(00:56:52)
I think I have this underlying belief that it should make sense, even though the world comes at you in many ways and tells you nothing should make sense, but if you believe that it makes sense and you look for underlying logic. I think that’s just good advice for everything to try to find why is it the way.

(00:57:08)
I talk about effective theory in my second book, Knocking On Heaven’s Door, a lot. It’s rather than ask the big questions, sometimes we just ask the questions about the immediate things that we can measure and like I said, we can sometimes tell one that we’ll fail, but we can have these effective theories. Sometimes I think when we approach these big questions, it’s good to do it from an effective theory point. Why do I find this satisfying? Why is the world we have the way it is?

(00:57:31)
We think things are beautiful that we live in. I’m not sure if we had different senses or different ways of looking at things, we wouldn’t necessarily find it beautiful. But I have to say, it is fantastic that no matter how many times I see a sunset, I will always find it beautiful. I don’t think I ever see a sunset as say whatever. It’s just always beautiful.

(00:57:54)
There are things that as humans, clearly resonate with us, but we were maybe evolved that way. But that’s about us. In terms of figuring out the universe, it’s amazing how far we’ve gotten. We have discovered many, many wonderful things, but there’s a lot more out there and I hope we have the opportunity to keep going.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:14)
With effective theories, one small step at a time, just keep unraveling the mystery.
Lisa Randall
(00:58:19)
Also having in mind the big questions, but doing one small step at a time. Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:23)
Yeah, looking out to the stars. You said the sunset. For me, it’s the sunset, the sunrise, and just looking at the stars. It’s wondering what’s all out there and having a lot of hope that humans will figure it out.
Lisa Randall
(00:58:39)
Right. I like it.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:42)
Lisa, thank you for being one of the humans in the world for having me here for that are pushing it forward and figuring out this beautiful puzzle of ours. Thank you for talking today. This was amazing.
Lisa Randall
(00:58:53)
Thank you for having me here.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:55)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Lisa Randall. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. Now, let me leave you with some words from Albert Einstein. The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Michael Malice: Thanksgiving Pirate Special | Lex Fridman Podcast #402

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #402 with Michael Malice.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
What’s your opinion on my bird here, Mr. Parrot?
Michael Malice
(00:00:04)
It’s a Macaw. Scarlet Macaw.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:07)
What?
Michael Malice
(00:00:08)
It is a Scarlet Macaw.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:10)
Oh, you know birds?
Michael Malice
(00:00:11)
Yeah. And that’s actually not life-sized.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:15)
Are you saying he’s not real?
Michael Malice
(00:00:17)
I’m saying it’s not to scale.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:19)
Okay. But he’s real.
Michael Malice
(00:00:21)
Are we doing that Monty Python sketch?
Lex Fridman
(00:00:25)
Everything is a Monty Python sketch.
Michael Malice
(00:00:26)
I don’t think Monty Python’s funny.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:28)
You don’t?
Michael Malice
(00:00:29)
At all. Not once.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:29)
That explains so much.
Michael Malice
(00:00:31)
Does it? What does it explain?
Lex Fridman
(00:00:32)
What do you think is funny?
Michael Malice
(00:00:35)
You not answering that question is pretty funny.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:38)
Yeah. What do you think is funny, having a mantis shrimp?
Michael Malice
(00:00:41)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:42)
You think Big Lebowski is funny?
Michael Malice
(00:00:44)
Oh God, no.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:46)
This is getting worse and worse. The following is a conversation with Michael Malice, anarchist and author of Dear Reader, The New Right, The Anarchist Handbook, The White Pill, and he is the host of the podcast, YOUR WELCOME. This is a Thanksgiving special of the pirate and oceangoing variety. So once again, let me say thank you for listening today and for being part of this wild journey with me. This is a Lex Fridman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Michael Malice.

Beauty and mantis shrimp

Michael Malice
(00:01:34)
The box?
Lex Fridman
(00:01:35)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:01:35)
The mystery box.
Lex Fridman
(00:01:36)
I’m wondering what’s in it.
Michael Malice
(00:01:36)
There’s something in that box of exquisite beauty, both literally and in what it symbolizes and why it is here.
Lex Fridman
(00:01:46)
Given the kind of human being you are, I’m terrified at what you find beautiful.
Michael Malice
(00:01:52)
That’s a good point. You kind of hit me with a curve ball. For me, the most beautiful wildlife are what I call God’s mistakes. Because my friend came up with that term where she’s like, “God made these disgusting animals, just threw in the bottom of the ocean.” He’s like, “No one’s ever going to see this.”
Lex Fridman
(00:02:12)
Yeah. You commented on Twitter about some creature, a rainbow type creature.
Michael Malice
(00:02:17)
The peacock mantis shrimp.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:18)
Yeah, it’s beautiful.
Michael Malice
(00:02:20)
It’s horrific though. So it has, I think eight legs, six arms, two punching claws or spearing claws depending on the genus. Two eyes, two antennae, two ear flaps. I don’t know what they do. And its punch can be as strong as a bullet. And the other type with the spears, divers call them thumb splitters because if you stick your finger near it’ll cut your thumb down to the bone. So I had one as a pet. All night I would hear banging on the PVC pipe. And I’ve got to tell you, if they have the best eyesight of any animal because they see in seven different ways. And when you make eye contact with this thing, it’s just absolutely terrifying. But you can eat them as sushi. They call them sea centipedes.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:01)
But they’re colorful and beautiful.
Michael Malice
(00:03:03)
That’s species is, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:04)
What was it like having one as a pet, and why did you do it?
Michael Malice
(00:03:09)
Well, when you have a species that’s that unique and that much of an outlier, growing up, reading these books, watching these shows, I found this stuff so much more fascinating than space, which is dead. So to be able to have this specimen in your house and just observe its behavior is just an amazing thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:32)
Why’d you get rid of it?
Michael Malice
(00:03:34)
I didn’t have, I guess, the right minerals in the mix because-
Lex Fridman
(00:03:36)
It died?
Michael Malice
(00:03:37)
… it had a problem moulting once. Yeah, it couldn’t moult correctly.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:40)
Wow. Do you miss it? Think about it still?
Michael Malice
(00:03:43)
I do think about it, to be honest. I still have a pair of it’s punching appendages from when it moulted.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:51)
What pet animal in your life do you miss the most, that has been in your life that you think about?
Michael Malice
(00:03:59)
I’ve never had cats or dogs growing up or anything like that, which I… Oh God. My problem is-
Lex Fridman
(00:04:07)
Here we go.
Michael Malice
(00:04:08)
… if I like something, I will go down a rabbit hole. So I know if I got one tattoo, I already know my first five are going to be. Okay? So I can’t do it because then once I get those five, it’s going to be a hundred and I’m already too old to be the tattoo guy.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:25)
What would be the first tattoo? My face? Would it go on your ass cheeks or where would you put them if it was my face?
Michael Malice
(00:04:36)
If I got your face, it would definitely be on my arm right here.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:39)
If you had multiple faces, would you put like?
Michael Malice
(00:04:42)
I think delts, right? Shoulders, different faces on different shoulders.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:44)
And when you flex?
Michael Malice
(00:04:45)
I’d want some symmetry.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:46)
Yeah. Would you get a dictator? If you had to get a dictator, who would you get?
Michael Malice
(00:04:51)
Would have to be Kim Jong-il. Right? Because I wrote the book on him.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:54)
Oh, it’s like the plugging your book in the tattoo?
Michael Malice
(00:04:57)
I don’t think plugging, it’s just I have a personal connection to this stuff.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:00)
Good opener, the conversation. People would be asking why him and he’d be like, “Well, I wrote a book about it.” And I’d be like, “Oh, okay.”
Michael Malice
(00:05:07)
Okay. Here’s why-
Lex Fridman
(00:05:08)
“Let me check it out.”
Michael Malice
(00:05:08)
That would be a bad. No, that’s not what happens.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:10)
Okay.
Michael Malice
(00:05:11)
Here’s the thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:12)
What happens?
Michael Malice
(00:05:12)
When you write a book about North, “Hey, nice to meet you. What is it you do?’ “I’m an author.” “What kind of books do you write?” “Well, my last book was on North Korea,” 90% of the time, 90, they will then start telling me everything they know about North Korea. And it’s like, “I don’t need, this isn’t a quiz, and it’s a very poorly understood country. I don’t expect you to know anything. You’re not on the spot. And half of what you’re saying is not accurate either. It’s fine.”
Lex Fridman
(00:05:36)
How often did they bring up Dennis Rodman?
Michael Malice
(00:05:38)
A hundred percent.
Lex Fridman
(00:05:39)
A hundred percent of the time.
Michael Malice
(00:05:40)
“Oh, so do you know Dennis Rodman?”
Lex Fridman
(00:05:42)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:05:42)
But I don’t understand why. I guess, people feel the need to, “All right, now we’re talking about this subject. I just got to drop whatever I can talk about.” It’s usually a small amount. And there’s this thing in the culture, which I hate that everyone have to have an opinion on everything. And it’s like it’s okay to be like, “Yeah, I don’t know anything about that. Tell me more.” There’s lots of things I don’t know anything about.

Parrots, Pirates, and Monty Python

Lex Fridman
(00:06:02)
What’s your opinion on my bird here, Mr. Parrot?
Michael Malice
(00:06:07)
It’s Macaw, Scarlet Macaw.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:10)
What?
Michael Malice
(00:06:11)
It is a Scarlet Macaw.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:13)
Oh, you know birds?
Michael Malice
(00:06:14)
Yeah. And that’s actually not life-sized.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:18)
Are you saying he’s not real?
Michael Malice
(00:06:20)
I’m saying it’s not to scale.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:22)
Okay. But he’s real.
Michael Malice
(00:06:24)
Are we doing that Monty Python sketch?
Lex Fridman
(00:06:27)
Everything is a Monty Python sketch.
Michael Malice
(00:06:29)
I don’t think Monty Python’s funny.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:31)
You don’t?
Michael Malice
(00:06:31)
At all. Not that once.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:32)
That explains so much.
Michael Malice
(00:06:33)
Does it? What does it explain?
Lex Fridman
(00:06:35)
What do you think is funny?
Michael Malice
(00:06:38)
You not answering that question is pretty funny.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:39)
Yeah. What do you think is funny, having a mantis shrimp?
Michael Malice
(00:06:44)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:45)
Do you think big Big Lebowski is funny?
Michael Malice
(00:06:46)
Oh God, no. Although…
Lex Fridman
(00:06:49)
This is getting worse and worse.
Michael Malice
(00:06:50)
To be fair, I only tried to watch Big Lebowski after it’s been part of the culture for many years.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:57)
Right.
Michael Malice
(00:06:58)
To the point where every single line has been quoted incessantly by the most annoying frat bros ever. So I kind of have been poisoned to be able to appreciate it.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:10)
Right.
Michael Malice
(00:07:10)
So maybe if I’d seen it when it came out, before it became a thing, I would’ve enjoyed it. I couldn’t get through it. I couldn’t get through 20 minutes.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:17)
Is that how you feel about Schindler’s List?
Michael Malice
(00:07:21)
Well…
Lex Fridman
(00:07:21)
It’s so much easier for me to stare at you when you have sunglasses on.
Michael Malice
(00:07:24)
I didn’t think you’d be the one making Holocaust jokes today. And yet, here we are.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:28)
And cut scene. I actually have no trouble making eye contact with you when you’re wearing shades.
Michael Malice
(00:07:35)
Yes, because you’re a robot.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:36)
Two copies of myself.
Michael Malice
(00:07:38)
Yeah. Oh, you’re seeing yourself in them?
Lex Fridman
(00:07:39)
Mm-hmm.
Michael Malice
(00:07:40)
Okay, cool.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:40)
Yeah, I’m having a conversation with myself. It’s not your fault, Lex.
Michael Malice
(00:07:46)
They made you like this. You were just a good little Roman in Saint Petersburg.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:51)
I could see Mr. Parrot a little bit too.
Michael Malice
(00:07:54)
But what do you find funny? Come on. This is an interesting subject.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:57)
Well, I find Monty Python. I find absurdity funny.
Michael Malice
(00:08:00)
Yes. I find absurdity funny. I think that’s the thing. When people come at me, and maybe this is an Eastern European thing, when they’re like, “How can you find this very dark subject funny?” It’s like, well, the humor. First of all, the humor is that you’re making fun of something that’s dark. So already it’s absurd. It’s completely inappropriate. Second, just psychologically, Joan Rivers said that Winston Churchill said, I don’t know if it’s true, that when you make people laugh, you’re giving them a little vacation. And I was just thinking about this the other day, how when I die, if, I want my funeral to be a roast. It doesn’t help me that everyone’s sad. If I brought people happiness or joy in life, whatever, I want to keep doing that in death. Your sadness doesn’t help me. I know you can’t help it, but tell stories of how I made you laugh. Make fun of me. Make me the punching bag. Even literally, take me out of that coffin and beat the-.

(00:08:55)
Make me a pinata. I don’t care. I don’t understand, well, I do understand, but it’s sad for me when people are like, “This isn’t funny. That isn’t funny.” The way I look at humor is the way it’s like a chef, right? It’s pretty easy to make bacon taste good, but some of these really obscure ingredients to make it palatable, that’s takes skill. So if you’re dealing with a subject that is very emotional or intense and you can make people laugh, then that takes skill and that’s the relief for them.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:29)
Yeah. It’s all about timing.
Michael Malice
(00:09:33)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:34)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:09:38)
What’s the difference? You want to hear one of my jokes?
Lex Fridman
(00:09:41)
Is it a pirate joke? Because that’s the only kind I accept today.
Michael Malice
(00:09:45)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:45)
But no, go ahead. It doesn’t have to be a pirate joke this one time.
Michael Malice
(00:09:48)
Do you know who Lia Thomas is?
Lex Fridman
(00:09:50)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:09:51)
What’s difference between Lia Thomas and Hitler?
Lex Fridman
(00:09:53)
What?
Michael Malice
(00:09:54)
Lia Thomas knows how to finish a race.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:58)
Very nice. Very nice.
Michael Malice
(00:09:59)
Did I just get the gold medal?
Lex Fridman
(00:10:00)
Good job. Why does it take pirates forever to get through the alphabet?
Michael Malice
(00:10:09)
Why?
Lex Fridman
(00:10:11)
Because they spent years at sea.
Michael Malice
(00:10:13)
Oh, I thought it was going to be an [inaudible 00:10:15] joke.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:15)
Nope. No.
Michael Malice
(00:10:16)
That’s a good one. I like that.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:17)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:10:18)
When I was in North Korea.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:21)
Oh, you know Dennis Rodman? It’s a callback.
Michael Malice
(00:10:23)
By the way, the thing that is very heartbreaking about the North Korean situation is that they have a great sense of humor. It would be a lot easier if these were robots or drones. They have big personalities, big senses of humor, and that made it much harder to leave and interact with these people because I mean, there’s nothing more human and universal than laughter and laughter’s free.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:47)
Are you saying there’s humor even amongst the people that have most of their freedoms taken away?
Michael Malice
(00:10:52)
Especially. I mean, again, we’re from the Soviet Union, there’s [inaudible 00:10:57] I mean, Russian humor is a thing because there’s nothing you can, if you can’t have food or nice things, at least you can have joy and make each other laugh. I think about it all the time, and I think about my guide all the time. It’s been, what, 2012? So it’s been 11 years since I’ve been there, and she’s still there. And everyone I’ve seen is still there. They just recently electrified the border. So you can’t even, even the few people who are escaping can’t do it anymore.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:19)
Well, that’s interesting that they still have a sense of humor. I attribute the Soviet Union for having that because of the really deep education system. You got to read a lot of literature.
Michael Malice
(00:11:29)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:30)
And because of that, you get to kind of learn about the cruelty, the injustices, the absurdity of the world.
Michael Malice
(00:11:40)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:40)
As long as the writing is not about the current regime.
Michael Malice
(00:11:43)
Yeah. But I think if you look at African Americans, Jewish Americans, gay Americans, they are all disproportionate in terms of attributing to comedy. It’s not because these groups have some kind of magic to them., It’s that when you are on the outside looking in, A, you’re going to have different perspective than the people who are in the middle of the bell curve. But also, when you don’t have anything to lose, at the very least, you can make each other laugh and find happiness that way. So that is something that I think is an important thing to recognize.

Humor and absurdity

Lex Fridman
(00:12:14)
So what do you find funny? What makes you giggle in the most joyful of ways? The suffering of others?
Michael Malice
(00:12:24)
I mean, there are YouTube videos of fat people falling down and they’re really funny.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:36)
There’s two kinds of people in this world, those that laugh at those videos and those that don’t.
Michael Malice
(00:12:42)
No. And those that are in them. My friend Jesse just told me a great Norm Macdonald joke, and this is a good litmus test joke because he says, “A certain group of people lose their minds and a certain group of people just stare at you.” And he goes, “This kind of…” and so I’ll tell you the joke. This is Norm McDonald. A guy walks into a bar and he sees someone at the bar who has a big pumpkin for a head.

(00:13:07)
And the guy’s like, “Dude, what happened to you?” He goes, “Ugh, you never believe this. I got one of those genie lamps and this genie.” He’s like, “Well, what happened?” He goes, “Well, the first wish, I wished for a hundred million dollars.” He’s like, “Yeah, did you get it?” He goes, “Yeah.” He goes, “In my bank account. Feels fine.” He goes, “All right. Well, the second wish, I wished to have sex with as many beautiful women as I want.” He goes, “Did that happen?” He goes, “Yeah, it was amazing.” He goes, “Then what?” “Well, I wished for a giant pumpkin head.”
Lex Fridman
(00:13:34)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:13:35)
So there’s a certain mindset that will just be staring at the screen. And that is, I mean, there’s so many levels why that’s funny, at least to me. And I just love that kind of humor.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:45)
Well, Norm McDonald is just, I watch his videos all the time. He’s a guy that definitely makes me giggle. And he’s one of the people that makes me giggle for reasons I don’t quite understand.
Michael Malice
(00:13:58)
Did you ever see him with Carrot Top on Conan O’Brien?
Lex Fridman
(00:14:01)
No.
Michael Malice
(00:14:02)
Making fun of Carrot Top?
Lex Fridman
(00:14:03)
No.
Michael Malice
(00:14:05)
This is probably the best talk show clip of all time. He’s on with Courtney Thorne-Smith. She was on Melrose’s Place and Conan O’Brien’s the host, and Courtney’s talking about how she’s going to be an upcoming movie with Carrot Top. And Conan is like, “Oh, what’s it going to be called?” And she’s like, “Doesn’t have a title yet.” And Norm goes, “Oh, I know what should be called, Box Office Poison.” And they’re all laughing. And she’s like, “No, no, no, the working title is Chairman of the Board. And Conan goes, “Do something with that smart ass.” And Norm goes, “Yeah, bored is spelled B-O-R-E-D.” And they all just completely lost it.
Lex Fridman
(00:14:39)
There’s something about him with words spoken out of his mouth with the way he turns his head and looks at the camera.
Michael Malice
(00:14:46)
I think he is one of those rare comedians who you really feel like he’s talking to you directly. He feels like he’s winking at you in the audience. And he’s like, “Can you believe I’m doing this?” It’s like almost he feels like he’s, I don’t want to say imposter, but he’s more a member of the audience than he is a member of the people on the stage.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:06)
Yeah, it feels like he’s on our side.
Michael Malice
(00:15:08)
Yes. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:09)
Whatever the hell “Our” means.
Michael Malice
(00:15:11)
Roseanne got him his first job.
Lex Fridman
(00:15:14)
Man. Roseanne, you and her have been hanging out.
Michael Malice
(00:15:17)
I got it. Oh my God. Talk about Thanksgiving. When you are talking to Roseanne Barr and making eye contact with this person, it is, I can’t even describe it. It’s just like, “Holy crap, Roseanne Barr’s talking to me.” She is, I’ve said this to her face, pathologically funny. It does not turn off. And you’re sitting there and you’re like, “Holy crap.”

(00:15:40)
And when you make her laugh, which is that laugh that’s in the theme song of her show, you feel like, “Okay, I did a mitzvah. I did something good and right in the world that I made Roseanne Barr laugh.” And it’s also really funny because, and she’s going to hate this, because I tell her, she’s adorable. She doesn’t like that. She’s little. You think of Roseanne Barr as this force of nature, like a tsunami.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:01)
Big, yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:16:01)
She’s five three, I’d say maybe 130. And she puts on the sunglasses, you think this little old Jewish lady. You’d never know this is one of the most epic performers of all time. She lives near here now. So it’s just so much fun talking to her. There was an old satirical magazine in the, I think early two thousands called Heeb, written by Jews, and she dressed up as Hitler for one of the photo shoots, and she was baking little men in the oven. I found it on eBay, I wanted her to sign it to, “Michael, it should have been you.” But she signed it to, “Michael, you’re one smart cookie.” And now it hangs, “Love, mom, Roseanne Barr.” And I call her mom and it hangs over my desk because I have her good domestic goddess energy flowing at me. What?
Lex Fridman
(00:16:52)
What do you find? What else? So Norm McDonald. I guess, we’ve landed on that.
Michael Malice
(00:16:56)
No. My favorite comedian is-
Lex Fridman
(00:16:56)
We agree on something.
Michael Malice
(00:16:57)
My favorite comedian of all time is Neil Hamburger. So Neil Hamburger, I don’t know if I’m ruining the bit, he’s a character performed by this guy named Gregg Turkington. So he comes out in a tuxedo, big eyeglasses, holding three glasses of water, coughing into the mic. And I remember I saw him once in LA and the girl ahead of me, at the table ahead of me was with her boyfriend, this basic chick, pumpkin spice. She turns to him and she goes, “What is this?” And I remember the first time he was on Jimmy Kimmel, and he tells one of his jokes and it was like, “Why does ET Reese’s Pieces so much? Well, that’s what sperm tastes like on his home planet.” And no one laughs. And he goes, “Oh, come on guys. I have cancer.” And it just cuts to this Marine in the audience with his arms crossed. So if you know what he’s doing, it’s just absolutely amazing.

(00:17:58)
He opened for Tenacious D once in somewhere, I think in Ireland or the UK, one of those. And they’re booing him because his jokes are often not funny. He’s like, “Hey, where did my whore ex-wife run off to with that dentist she’s shacking up with? I don’t know. But when I see her in court next month, Alaska.”

(00:18:20)
So they’re booing and he goes, “All right, do you guys want me to bring out Tenacious D?” They’re like, “Yeah.” “Do you want to see your heroes of my Tenacious D?” “Yeah.” “Come on, let me hear it. Do you want to see Tenacious D?” “Yeah.” He goes, “All right, if I tell this next joke and you don’t boo me, I’ll bring out Tenacious D.” And it’s like, I’m trying to think of one that’s not too…
Lex Fridman
(00:18:44)
Self censorship is never good.
Michael Malice
(00:18:45)
Okay. He goes, “Can we agree that George Bush is the worst President America’s ever had?” Everyone claps. He goes, “Which makes it all the stranger that his son, George W. Bush was in fact the best.”
Lex Fridman
(00:18:58)
I take it back on the self-censorship.
Michael Malice
(00:19:01)
So two people laugh and he goes, “Oh, that’s amazing. I guess I’ll do an encore.” And he did 10 more minutes. It was just, I love him so much.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:09)
It’s interesting. They opened for Tenacious D. Jack Black, that’s a comedic genius of a different kind.
Michael Malice
(00:19:16)
Oh, yeah. And he was in one of my favorite movies, Jesus’ Son. It’s this little Indie movie. He did a great turn in that. He’s really underrated as an actor. He’s got a lot of range. I know he kind of get types cast as this one specific type, but he’s really, really talented.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:30)
But also just the pure joy.
Michael Malice
(00:19:32)
Yes. He’s clearly having fun.

Thanksgiving

Lex Fridman
(00:19:35)
Okay. It is Thanksgiving. So in the tradition, following tradition, what are you thankful for, Michael, in this world?
Michael Malice
(00:19:45)
Do you have a list too?
Lex Fridman
(00:19:46)
No, not really.
Michael Malice
(00:19:47)
Really?
Lex Fridman
(00:19:48)
It’s up in here.
Michael Malice
(00:19:49)
Oh, I mean, but you have several things you’re thankful for.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:51)
Yes.
Michael Malice
(00:19:52)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:52)
Yes.
Michael Malice
(00:19:53)
One of the things I’m-
Lex Fridman
(00:19:54)
My list comes from the heart. I don’t have to write anything down.
Michael Malice
(00:19:56)
Well, I don’t have written down.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:57)
Okay.
Michael Malice
(00:19:58)
One of the things that I’m most thankful for, this is a common answer, but I can back it up, is my family. Because my nephew, Lucas, is now six years old. And when kids have a sense of humor, it’s like just miraculous. So he stole my sister’s phone, his mom. Figured out that grandma is listed as mom in the phone, and he calls her up and he’s like, “Michael’s in the hospital. He’s really sick.

(00:20:27)
He didn’t want to tell you.” And she’s freaking out. He goes, “Prank.” So I took him, Dinesh D’Souza just released a movie called Police State, which was actually really good, highly recommend it. I was surprised how much I liked it because he wasn’t going Republicans good, Democrats bad.

(00:20:41)
It was just about authoritarianism. And he had a movie premier at Mar-a-Lago. So I’m like, I got to bring Lucas to Mar-a-Lago. So Lucas is, I’m like, “We’re going to the President’s house.” He’s like, “Oh, the White House?” And I’m like, “No, no, a former president.” He goes, “Oh, Abe Lincoln?” And I’m like, “Okay, kid logic.” He’s giving logical answers. This is kind of like AI, you have to program it. It’s using logic correctly.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:04)
You should have told him it’s a president that’s second to only Ab Lincoln in terms of greatness.
Michael Malice
(00:21:11)
Accomplishments, yeah. He went up to all the women in their ball gown, evening gowns, and he goes, “You’re so beautiful. Were you born as a girl?” So when you have this six year old asking you this, it was really, really fun. So that is a great joy to have a nephew. And I have another one, Zach, who’s coming up in age, and he’s starting to talk now. That is really, really fun for me.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:39)
Getting to watch them find out about the world for the first time.
Michael Malice
(00:21:43)
And also training them, that he loves being funny and having fun.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:49)
You’re his audience in a sense?
Michael Malice
(00:21:51)
Yeah, but.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:52)
Because you giggle and?
Michael Malice
(00:21:54)
I give him, “We’re prank bros.” He gives me a high five. My family, and this is one, you talk about what I find funny, this is things that actually enraged me. When people, and this is such a wasp thing, don’t just go with the joke or they’re like, “I don’t get it,” or they don’t understand to just go with it.

(00:22:10)
I was in the car with my sister when she was 10, 12, whatever. She’s much younger than me. She’s 12 years younger. And there’s this species of squid, by the way, which is asymmetric. One of its eyes is very much bigger than the other because it swims horizontally. And so one’s looking up, one’s looking down where there’s more light. Shout out. If you want to learn more about squids, go to octonation.com.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:32)
OctoNation. Shout out.
Michael Malice
(00:22:34)
Shout out to Warren.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:34)
There’s a lot of fascinating stuff. OctoNation on Instagram.
Michael Malice
(00:22:37)
Yes. I was in the car with my sister. She’s 10 or 20.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:40)
Me as a pirate, I’m sorry for the rude interruptions. I appreciate that comment, especially.
Michael Malice
(00:22:45)
Yeah, it’s a great. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:46)
These jokes and thoughts are coming to me at a ten-second delay, so I apologize. Anyway, you were telling about the asymmetrical.
Michael Malice
(00:22:54)
I know where I was, don’t worry. I got it.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:54)
All right.
Michael Malice
(00:22:56)
So I tell my-
Lex Fridman
(00:22:56)
Sometimes you need help.
Michael Malice
(00:22:57)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:57)
The age is getting to you.
Michael Malice
(00:22:57)
I was…
Lex Fridman
(00:23:02)
Your skin is showing it. It’s getting dark.
Michael Malice
(00:23:06)
I told my sister, I go, “When you were born, one of your eyes was bigger than the other, and you had to have surgery to fix it.” So she turns, she’s like, “Mom.” And my mom goes, “Honey, the important things that you’re beautiful now. It’s like, what’s the big deal? It was just a little surgery.” And I says like, “All right.” Calls grandma. And grandma goes, she goes, “Michael said that I was born one of the eyes.” She goes, “Why is he telling you this now? It’s not a big deal.” So the fact that everyone went with this…
Lex Fridman
(00:23:35)
Oh, nice.
Michael Malice
(00:23:36)
I was so impressed. I was like, “This is a quality family in this very specific regard.”
Lex Fridman
(00:23:41)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:23:41)
Does your family have a sense of humor?
Lex Fridman
(00:23:43)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:23:43)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:47)
Soviet culture, there’s a dark sense of humor.
Michael Malice
(00:23:50)
Very much so.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:51)
There’s…
Michael Malice
(00:23:52)
Wordplay.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:52)
Wordplay. Yeah. Yeah. And especially the Russian language allows for some-
Michael Malice
(00:23:58)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:59)
Hilarity to it. There’s also culture of poetry and my dad, my mom too, but they remember a lot of lines from books and poems. So you can do a lot of fascinating references that add to the humor and the richness of the conversation.
Michael Malice
(00:24:18)
I feel like that’s a very Russian thing. At a party or maybe at a bar or something, I don’t know where you’d meet people, these are such great ice-
Lex Fridman
(00:24:18)
I never go out.
Michael Malice
(00:24:25)
I meant in Russia.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:27)
Oh.
Michael Malice
(00:24:27)
I meant these would be such good icebreakers, right? You go up to someone and goes, “Hey, did you hear this one?” [foreign language 00:24:32] And you just tell him some little story.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:34)
Did you say icebreakers because it’s cold in Russia? I’m here all night.
Michael Malice
(00:24:42)
That’s true. You never leave the house.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:42)
Literally.
Michael Malice
(00:24:46)
I feel like that’s a thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:47)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:24:48)
And that’s not a thing in America.
Lex Fridman
(00:24:51)
You mean like witty banter?
Michael Malice
(00:24:53)
No. Meaning you go up to stranger and that’s your icebreaker. You tell them this little joke, and since everyone kind of has the same sensibilities, right away, you guys are chatting. I don’t think that’s a thing here.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:02)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:25:02)
I think here it’s more small talk, which.
Michael Malice
(00:25:00)
… We’re chatting. I don’t think that’s a thing here. The thing here, it’s more small talk, which drives me crazy.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:05)
So what else are you thankful for?
Michael Malice
(00:25:06)
Well, what’s something you’re thankful for?
Lex Fridman
(00:25:09)
Well, you went with family. I’m definitely thankful for family.
Michael Malice
(00:25:12)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:12)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:25:14)
If I may ask, how do they react to you? You’re sitting down with Elon, you’re sitting out Netanyahu, sitting down with Kanye, all these big names. Are they expressing that they’re proud of you or is it more like, why haven’t you talked to this person?
Lex Fridman
(00:25:30)
Yeah, more Michael Malice, please.
Michael Malice
(00:25:34)
The people’s choice.
Lex Fridman
(00:25:36)
Yeah, They’re very proud. But they get argumentative and they’re just like a regular human being with whom I’m close and we just argue about stuff. They’re maybe not enough show the being proud of, but that part is just the nature of our relationship. It’s also the same with your parents?
Michael Malice
(00:25:56)
Yeah. I don’t talk to my dad. That’s one of the reasons because there’s never ever any good job. And at a certain point it’s like, why am I trying to search for approval from someone I’m never getting it for? And from whom it wouldn’t mean anything at this point anyway.
Lex Fridman
(00:26:14)
Well, that’s interesting. There’s a journey like that for a lot of people with their father or their mother. They’re always trying to find approval, and that’s life for a lot of people. That’s a really big part of the human condition is that relationship you have with your father, with your mother. I don’t know. It’s a beautiful thing whether it’s been a rough childhood or a beautiful one, all of it. That’s who you are. The relationship, especially early on in your life with your father or with your mother, is extremely formative.
Michael Malice
(00:26:48)
Yeah. My dad taught me a lot of things at a young age that I’m very, very grateful for. He’s extremely intelligent, very flawed, and that’s fine. We all are, except for me. And it’s the kind of things that when you learn things at a right age, and this is one of the things I like about being older, is that when I’m friends with people-
Lex Fridman
(00:26:48)
Much older.
Michael Malice
(00:27:09)
Much older, much older. When I have friends who are younger, it’s very easy for me to keep them from making the mistakes I did. So at least this is something I’m getting out of it is that, okay, I can’t fix these mistakes, but it just takes me 30 seconds and I can pull you back from making the mistake. So he’s taught me a lot as a kid, he really encouraged me very much to… He has a very good sense of humor and also very bad in some ways. Dad jokes, but also really funny jokes, but also this love of learning that I got that from him. And I have got literally right now, 98 books on my shelf to read. I remember I had a friend and she ran into someone she went to high school with and he stopped me on the train and he’s like, “Yo, you’re not in college. You don’t need to read books anymore.” And I was just horrified to hear this.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:00)
Yeah, yeah. Boy, don’t I know it.
Michael Malice
(00:28:07)
You do laugh, but there’s a lot of things I don’t understand. When you got heat for, I want to read the Western Classics. To me, that might’ve been the internet at its absolute worst.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:21)
I think there’s just a cynical perspective you can take that this is such a simple celebration of a thing, that there must be something behind it. I think the internet for good and bad, is just skeptical. What’s behind this?
Michael Malice
(00:28:36)
My hero, Albert Camus. And if there’s one thing I would want to fight, it’s cynicism because it’s such a giving up. It’s such, everything sucks, this sucks, this sucks. Most things suck. Most stand up comedians suck. Most movies suck. All podcasts suck. But it doesn’t matter.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:54)
Especially yours.
Michael Malice
(00:28:55)
Especially mine. It’s unwatchable.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:58)
You’re welcome. You can’t even spell it correctly.
Michael Malice
(00:29:03)
But the stuff that’s good is what matters. Who cares if 90% of movies are terrible? They’re the ones that change your life, the books, the people, the comedians, the shows, the music.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:17)
And even the terrible things have good moments, beautiful moments.
Michael Malice
(00:29:22)
Some, not all.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:23)
Your podcast being an example of not all. I keep listening for something good, something good.
Michael Malice
(00:29:31)
In all fairness, none of my guests have anything to offer.so that’s not on me. I try.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:37)
Yeah. Well, I wish you’d talk a little less in your podcast. It’s a little excessive. I only listen for the underwear commercials.
Michael Malice
(00:29:46)
Sheathunderwear.com. Promo code Malice.
Lex Fridman
(00:29:48)
I haven’t seen you do it in a while, but this kind of commentary on a debate or I think it was with Rand, like an Ayn Rand debate or something.
Michael Malice
(00:30:00)
Oh yeah. Malice at the Movies. I watched the video and I broke it down.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:03)
That was really great. I wish you did that more.
Michael Malice
(00:30:05)
I haven’t done livestreaming in a long time. It was something I was doing a lot in New York, especially during COVID. I feel that I don’t know, I got so many projects on the plate. Oh, this is something else I’m thankful for. This is something I’m very, very thankful for and I’m going to announce it here.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:26)
Coming out of the closet, finally. Go ahead. Who’s the lucky guy?
Michael Malice
(00:30:38)
You’re the one in drag.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:42)
Guns out. Guns out.
Michael Malice
(00:30:45)
He makes me call him Sex Friedman.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:48)
You like it.
Michael Malice
(00:30:50)
I didn’t say I did.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:52)
All right.
Michael Malice
(00:30:52)
Didn’t even imply that. When I in, as you probably know as you know, but as many people watching this also know, Harvey Pekar who had the comic book series, American Splendor was the subject of the movie, American Splendor. He wrote a graphic novel about me in 2006 called Ego and Hubris, which goes for like $150 on eBay. It’s not worth it, just downloaded it. And I met Harvey because I wrote this screenplay about this band from the 80s called Rubber Rodeo. It’s a real band. And the keyboardist, Gary Leib, who passed away. Rest in peace, Gary. Introduced me to Harvey because he did the animation for the movie. And this script’s been in my desk for over 20 years, and I realized thanks to my buddy Eric July, who has some huge success with his comics, I could just produce this as a graphic novel.

(00:31:43)
So I’ve got an artist, we’re getting it together, so I’m going to make it happen finally. And it’s some of the best writing I’ve ever done. I’m really proud of the story. It’s ironic reading it now, because when you’re a writer, obviously different books, you put different aspects of yourself into them, and this story is very, very dark because basically they did all the right things and they went nowhere. What I realized was reading it now, that all these fears I had over 20 years ago about what if I’m not going to make it? What if I’m doing all the hard work and it’s still not enough? Now it’s been disproven because I can at least pay my rent.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:22)
Do you feel like you’ve made it because you said you could pay your rent.
Michael Malice
(00:32:26)
I feel that to make it is if you don’t have to have a boss, and you know how I really felt like I made it?
Lex Fridman
(00:32:36)
Mm-hmm.
Michael Malice
(00:32:37)
This is going to sound like a joke, and it’s not. This is being an immigrant, I own as you know, Margaret Thatcher’s bookcases.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:45)
Yes.
Michael Malice
(00:32:45)
So to me as an immigrant, to have her bookcases in my house, I’ve made it.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:51)
You’re right. It’s not a joke.
Michael Malice
(00:32:53)
There’s nothing funny about it at all.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:55)
Not laughing.
Michael Malice
(00:32:55)
It’s time to get serious.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:59)
Oh, nice. Oh, now I’m more nervous and aroused. So what else are you thankful for? So we’re both thankful for family.
Michael Malice
(00:33:10)
the fact that I can-
Lex Fridman
(00:33:11)
Still get it up?
Michael Malice
(00:33:12)
What’s that?
Lex Fridman
(00:33:13)
Nothing, go ahead.
Michael Malice
(00:33:14)
I think as an author, to be able to write what you want and have of enough an audience that it covers your living, that’s as good as it gets as an author almost. You don’t need to be Stephen King or some legend. There’s lots of stand-ups who aren’t world famous, but they have perfectly good living. They do their gig, they do what they love. I feel very, very blessed. You must be thankful for your career?
Lex Fridman
(00:33:43)
Yeah, yeah. Career wise. But I think the best part about it’s just making friends with people I admire.
Michael Malice
(00:33:52)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:53)
Quite honestly, just friends. The people that have gotten to know me, I hide from the world sometimes, I hit some low points, especially with all the new experiences and just the people that have been there for me and haven’t given up on me.
Michael Malice
(00:34:06)
There’s days, and I’m sure you’ve had this also where I literally don’t speak to someone the whole day. And in certain times in my life, I remember very vividly, I was in DC in ’97, I was an intern, and that summer, DC closes down on the weekends. And I remember those weekends when I got off the phone with the third person. I knew there was no possibility anyone was going to call and what that felt like, and it was dark and it was bad. So I remember those feelings of loneliness a lot.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:44)
I still feel alone like that sometimes. You don’t feel alone?
Michael Malice
(00:34:51)
Not anymore.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:53)
What’s the reason, you think?
Michael Malice
(00:34:57)
Because I have a lot of people who I care about and who care about me. The thing about moving to Austin is I forgot how lonely New York got because it was like one after another, I lost everybody. And then you start losing the places you go to, and then it was just like, “Holy crap. I’m very isolated.” And here in Austin, there’s not as much to do, obviously as in New York, but there’s a lot of people here. More people are coming all the time. So if I ever want to hang out with someone, I’ve got a long list. And these are people who I’ve known for a very long time, people who know me quite well, so I could be myself. My awful, awful, awful, awful self. And that is something I don’t take lightly.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:42)
Now you moved to Texas, it’s going to secede.
Michael Malice
(00:35:44)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:44)
It’s just a very-
Michael Malice
(00:35:46)
Do you know what happened with that?
Lex Fridman
(00:35:47)
No.
Michael Malice
(00:35:48)
I forget the guy’s name, and it’s probably for the best. On Monday, a guy in the Texas legislature introduces a bill to have it on the referendum to have a referendum for Texas to declare its independence. Tuesday, I’m on Rogan. Me and him discuss it. I give it national attention. It was also really funny because a lot of people are like, “These people have been in Texas, five minutes, blah, blah.” I go to the Texas legislature, meet with the guy, have a nice conversation. A month or two later, unanimous, I think, he gets voted kicked out of Congress because he got an intern drunk and was inappropriate with her. At least it was a girl in this case. But yeah, so that was my little Texas independence moment.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:36)
Oh, it didn’t go anywhere?
Michael Malice
(00:36:38)
It did not go anywhere.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:39)
Wow.
Michael Malice
(00:36:41)
But it’s still part of the platform of the Texas Republican Party.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:45)
It’s fascinating that history is probably laden with stories like this of failed revolutionaries. We celebrate the heroes, but then there’s the losers like…
Michael Malice
(00:36:55)
Myself.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:56)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:36:56)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:58)
And we’re going to mark that one as a failure and edit it out and moving on. So thankful. Friendships, right? But by the way, I want to say just to you, I’m thankful in these lonely moments, for people who write books. I’ve been listening to audiobooks a lot and reading a lot. I really like audiobooks actually. I don’t know, I can just name random person, Serhii Plokhy. He’s a historian I’m reading on the-
Michael Malice
(00:37:28)
Wait, I read him. What did he…
Lex Fridman
(00:37:29)
It’s just he’s written a book most recently about the Russia-Ukraine war.
Michael Malice
(00:37:35)
He wrote another one that I read. Didn’t he write about-
Lex Fridman
(00:37:37)
Empires, I think.
Michael Malice
(00:37:38)
The fall of the Soviet Union or something like that.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:38)
Yeah, yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:37:40)
Yeah. It was very, very good.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:41)
He’s great.
Michael Malice
(00:37:42)
I used him as a resource for the White Pill.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:44)
He’s objective while still having emotion and feeling to it. He has a bias.
Michael Malice
(00:37:49)
That’s fine.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:53)
A lot of times when you write a story that involves Putin, people are really ideological. They don’t write with a calmness and the clarity and the rigor of history, there’s emotion in it. There’s almost a virtue signaling. And he doesn’t have that, even though he is Ukrainian and has very strong opinions on the matter. Anyway, there’s people like that and he’s done an incredible job researching a recent event. Like he says, I was looking at everything that’s been written about the war in Ukraine and realizing the old Churchill line, that historians are the worst ones to write about current events except everybody else. And so he’s like, “I might as well just write about this war.” And he does an exceptional job summarizing day by day, the details of this war. Anyway. So I’m just grateful for a guy like that.
Michael Malice
(00:38:50)
For me, I’ll name some historians I love. Arthur Herman, Victor Sebastyen is probably my favorite. David Pietrusza, P-I-E-T-R- U-S-Z-A. When you are a historian, and I try to do this to some degree in the White Pill as much as I could. But when you take data and you make it read like a novel, so you’re learning about who we are as people, what had happened, but also it’s entertaining and readable. That to me is like the Acme of writing. I have so much admiration-
Lex Fridman
(00:39:25)
What does Acme mean?
Michael Malice
(00:39:27)
Top.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:27)
Okay.
Michael Malice
(00:39:28)
Zenith.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:29)
Zenith? Okay. Is this what writers do? They just come up with these incredibly sophisticated words? I’m impressed.
Michael Malice
(00:39:35)
Well, Acme is-
Lex Fridman
(00:39:35)
Because you could have just said the best of writing.
Michael Malice
(00:39:38)
Acme is also the company in Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote is always Acme, like Acme bombs. When they are that good, it leaves me in awe.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:52)
It’s just-
Michael Malice
(00:39:53)
Ron Chernow is another one.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:54)
Who?
Michael Malice
(00:39:55)
He wrote the Hamilton biography.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:57)
Oh, nice. Well, I have a lot of favorite historians about the whole time period of World War II, William Shirer, people that lived during it, especially. I really like those accounts. Obviously Soldier Knudsen, he’s not a historian, but his accounts are fascinating. Actually, how much do you talk about Soldier Knudsen?
Michael Malice
(00:40:20)
Never.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:21)
Not much, right? Why not?
Michael Malice
(00:40:24)
I feel like I wanted to. There’s nothing I could add to him.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:30)
But he’s the Michael Malice of the previous century?
Michael Malice
(00:40:34)
No, he’s talented, charismatic, and skilled. So he’s not the Michael Malice. Yeah. I feel like I didn’t read Gulag Archipelago for the White Pill.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:47)
You didn’t?
Michael Malice
(00:40:48)
I didn’t. No. I got a lot of it from Anne Applebaum, who’s a very controversial figure. Her history books on the Soviet Union, I think are superb, but she’s also accused of being very much a NeoCon and being a warmonger in contemporary times.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:02)
Oh, I see.
Michael Malice
(00:41:02)
And I think comparisons between Putin and Stalin, although there is a Venn diagram, I think are a bit much, because I think it’s very hard to claim that if Putin conquered Ukraine, that there’d be a genocide. I think that’s a very hard argument to make.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:19)
In these tense times. Even the comparisons of what’s going on in Israel on either side, comparisons to the Holocaust are also troubling in this way.
Michael Malice
(00:41:28)
Yes. And I also don’t like how that… I got in trouble. There was some literal demon who works at the Atlantic.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:36)
As opposed to a regular demon?
Michael Malice
(00:41:38)
As opposed to figurative demon.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:40)
I didn’t know they employed demons.
Michael Malice
(00:41:41)
They exclusively employ demons at the Atlantic. And he was giving me crap this a couple of years ago on Twitter because I didn’t think it’s appropriate to refer to George Soros as a Holocaust survivor. And I’m like, “Listen, if you want to put him in the same context as Anne Frank, knock yourself out.” But I think that’s so completely disingenuous and frankly repulsive to me morally to equivocate between figures like that. And also to claim that anyone who is a billionaire who is including Elon, including Sheldon Adelson, there’s no shortage of these people. If you want to use your extreme wealth, use it to influence politics, you have to be up for criticism, Bill Gates. To protect these people from criticism just on the base of their identity is deranged to me.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:35)
But also, the Holocaust as a historical event and the atrocities within it are just singular in history. And so comparing them…
Michael Malice
(00:42:47)
What’s the utility? You’re just basically trying to take this brand. I’m using that term in a very specific way. And when they say climate denial, no one’s denying climate exists. So you’re just trying to go off Holocaust denial. I think it’s shameless and I think it’s gross.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:04)
And it cheapens everything because there’s deep important lessons about the Holocaust.
Michael Malice
(00:43:09)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:10)
To me, the lessons are about how extreme it can get.
Michael Malice
(00:43:15)
And how fast.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:17)
Yeah, and how fast.
Michael Malice
(00:43:17)
That’s the one. So people ask, “Oh, are humans basically good? Are they basically evil?” I always say they’re basically animals. And I think most people are almost fundamentally deranged. And that there’s basically this veneer of civilization and decency. And when shit hits the fan and we see this over and over, they do things that would’ve been completely unthinkable even to themselves five years ago.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:46)
Most people are fundamentally deranged with a veneer of civility.
Michael Malice
(00:43:50)
There’s a show called-
Lex Fridman
(00:43:51)
I Think I disagree with that.
Michael Malice
(00:43:53)
What’s the show called? I’m having Alzheimer’s because of the advanced age.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:58)
The age, the skincare. It’s just working well.
Michael Malice
(00:44:00)
There’s a show called, I Think You Should Leave. It’s a sketch comedy.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:00)
I think you should leave. Okay, sorry.
Michael Malice
(00:44:04)
It’s a sketch comedy show. And he captures these great… How’s your hair, princess? He captures these great moments of just the very thin veneer of normalcy and just the craziness that’s so frequently lurking underneath. Another great example of this, when this is dealing with people who are literally crazy, have you ever seen the show, Hoarders?
Lex Fridman
(00:44:27)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:44:27)
So every episode of Hoarders, there’s usually two people in every episode, but every episode has the same plot line, veneer of normalcy, veneer of normalcy, veneer of normalcy, slight expression of concern, full-blown derangement. And it always follows that exact pattern.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:44)
Yeah, I don’t know. I think the deep ocean of the human mind is good. There’s a longing to be good to others.
Michael Malice
(00:44:56)
I have seen literally no evidence of this. And I know everything’s a deep ocean with you people, but-
Lex Fridman
(00:45:01)
What do you mean you people?
Michael Malice
(00:45:02)
Pirates.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:04)
Oh.
Michael Malice
(00:45:05)
I don’t see it.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:05)
What’s that Mr. Parrot? He’s an antisemite/ No, that’s not nice to say in front of such a large audience. You’re embarrassing me, Mr. Parrot.
Michael Malice
(00:45:18)
Lex, you have-
Lex Fridman
(00:45:19)
What’s that Mr. Parrot? He’s a run-of-the-mill troll and barely an intellectual. That’s not nice to say. That’s not true. We talked about this. You have to see the good in people.
Michael Malice
(00:45:31)
You have seen personally, how quickly and easily it is for human beings to form outgroups and to just rid others, as I just did a minute ago with the Atlantic, completely out of the human race. And that happens constantly and very easily. Humans are tribal beings. I don’t see how that’s compatible with this essential desire to do good.
Lex Fridman
(00:45:58)
No, I think it’s like in 1984, the two minutes of hate. There is a part of humans that wants to be tribal and wants to get angry and hateful. And then that hate is easy to direct by, especially people as you, as an anarchist, talk about, there are people in power that direct that anger.
Michael Malice
(00:46:20)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:21)
But I think if you just look at recent human history, the desire for good, the communal desire for good outweighs that, I think. Most of life on earth right now, people are being good to each other in a most fundamental sense relative to how nature usually works.
Michael Malice
(00:46:40)
Okay. I think you’re both wrong about people and about nature. So nature is not inherently violent in the sense, for example, if anyone has an aquarium or if you look at wildlife, yeah, you’re going to have predator or prey, but these animals are going to be coexisting and they’re going to be ignoring each other for the most part, right?
Lex Fridman
(00:46:40)
Mm-hmm.
Michael Malice
(00:46:59)
And as for humans being essentially good, I think humans are essentially to each other, you said, I think they’re essentially civil and amiable, but that’s not really being good.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:12)
Good, I think is a thing that gets illustrated when you’re challenged, when there’s difficult situations.
Michael Malice
(00:47:17)
Yes, exactly. Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:18)
Civility is a good starting point. And then when there’s a big challenge that comes, people step up on average.
Michael Malice
(00:47:26)
I completely agree with you that human beings are capable of such profound goodness, that it makes you extremely emotional. And I certainly think that’s that’s true, but I think that’s more unusual than it’s the norm.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:42)
I see beauty everywhere.
Michael Malice
(00:47:43)
So do I, but that doesn’t mean it’s in every person.
Lex Fridman
(00:47:46)
Not in every person, but in most people. I wish there was a really good way to measure this, my general sense of the world. It’s just there’s so much incredible both in terms of economics, in terms of art, in terms of just creation as a whole, that’s happened over the past century, that it feels like the good is out powering the bad.
Michael Malice
(00:48:09)
You just did the perfect segue to the box.

Unboxing the mystery box

Lex Fridman
(00:48:16)
What’s in the box? Is it your fragile ego?
Michael Malice
(00:48:21)
You stole my joke. You stole my joke. That was the joke I made at you before we recorded. You stole my joke.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:28)
No, I didn’t. I write all your material, you hack.
Michael Malice
(00:48:33)
So as you know, I have a lot of beautiful stuff in my house because I think it’s something very important. Everyone listening, if you accomplish something that is great, some achievement, what I like to do is buy myself something to remember that moment. Because sometimes when it’s hard, you forget you’ve done great things in your life. You’ve made accomplishments. It doesn’t have to be some amazing factory. It could just be like my first job or I got a raise or you know what? Anything. So there’s this amazing sculptor named Jake Michael Singer, a singer who’s a sculptor, and I saw a piece of him.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:18)
How’s his singing voice? This joke’s not going-
Michael Malice
(00:49:23)
Hold on. I could go somewhere with this.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:24)
Okay.
Michael Malice
(00:49:25)
How’s his singing voice?
Lex Fridman
(00:49:26)
Do you want me to write your joke for you?
Michael Malice
(00:49:27)
Yeah. What’s the punchline? Harrrd. There it is, that’s the one.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:33)
That’s what she said.
Michael Malice
(00:49:34)
So I followed him on Instagram, he followed me back and he says, “What’s the point of being an artist if the work I create isn’t in the spaces of people I like and admire?” He’s a big fan of yours. You’ve given him and our episodes together give him joy. So he said, “If I make Lex a sculpture, will he put it on the-“
Michael Malice
(00:50:00)
He said, “If I make Lex a sculpture, will he put on the shelf behind him?” And what that reminded me of is when I was a kid, you read Batman comics and there’s the Bat Cave. And the Bat Cave has all this cool stuff in it. I didn’t realize until much later that all of those things in the bat cave had an origin story. So the giant penny, the dinosaur, there was actually a story where that came from. So if you’re a fan of a show, you can spot, oh, this is when this appeared. This is when that appeared. This is when that appeared. So he made you this sculpture. He lives in Turkey and it’s called Chance Murmur. And it is, I haven’t even seen it yet. It is absolutely beautiful.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:42)
So you want to do a little unboxing?
Michael Malice
(00:50:42)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:44)
Okay. Axe or…
Michael Malice
(00:50:49)
Body spray?
Lex Fridman
(00:50:54)
All right.
Michael Malice
(00:50:54)
Let’s do it.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:55)
Let’s unbox.
Michael Malice
(00:50:59)
I’m so excited. He lunges out of the box.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:04)
You know that Steven Seagal movie where there’s a stripper that comes out of the box?
Michael Malice
(00:51:07)
Is there?
Lex Fridman
(00:51:08)
Under Siege.
Michael Malice
(00:51:09)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:09)
He’s on a boat. You’re not an action film guy.
Michael Malice
(00:51:14)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:19)
One.

(00:51:21)
What does the pirate say when he turns 80?
Michael Malice
(00:51:24)
What?
Lex Fridman
(00:51:25)
Aye matey.
Michael Malice
(00:51:29)
Aye matey. Oh.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:32)
Oh.

(00:51:33)
See, that’s how I know you don’t like humor.
Michael Malice
(00:51:35)
I just don’t like pirates.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:37)
Well, your mom does.

(00:51:39)
Do you play any musical instruments?
Michael Malice
(00:51:40)
No. Neither do you. I’ve seen your guitar videos.

(00:51:46)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:48)
Here’s a big piece of wood for you. That’s what it feels like, just so you know.
Michael Malice
(00:51:57)
Oh, wow. Do you need help?

(00:51:57)
Oh my God.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:00)
This traveled across the world.
Michael Malice
(00:52:05)
So here’s why his work speaks so much to me. So first of all, he’s combining so many different references. It’s Nike, the Goddess of Victory, right? It looks like an angel as well. The Italian futurist, which is my favorite art movement from the early 20th century, they tried to capture motion in 2D or 3D form.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:31)
Well, Jake, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for creating beautiful things. Thank you for caring about somebody like me and somebody like Michael. We really feel the love.
Michael Malice
(00:52:43)
That’s the other thing.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:43)
Thank you.
Michael Malice
(00:52:45)
When you have something that matters to you in your house and you’re having a bad day, you can look at it and remember. You know what I mean? That spirit of joy. And I actually have a list here. Okay? I’ve got a little rant ready. Do you want to hear my rant?
Lex Fridman
(00:53:00)
Yeah. Let’s go.
Michael Malice
(00:53:02)
One of the things that drives me crazy is when people, especially conservatives, think that all contemporary art is ugly or abstract or literally garbage. And there’s a lot of that, but so much of the stuff out there in galleries is not only not crazy expensive, but they’re trying to sell things for people in their house. And these are young artists. They’re trying to add beauty. I have a list, so if you don’t believe me and you think all contemporary art is garbage or terrible, go to the website or any of these places that I’m going to rattle off, look through them. And you’re telling me that it’s not about creating beauty and joy and things in people’s lives?

(00:53:40)
So I don’t have any relationship with any of these people, these are just some galleries I follow on Instagram. Outre Gallery, Antler Gallery, Giant Robot 2, Beinart, I don’t know how to pronounce it, I’m sorry. B-E-I-N-A-R-T. Spoke Art Gallery, Var Gallery in Milwaukee, I was there. The pieces were not expensive at all.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:58)
What kind of art are we talking about? Everything? Paintings?
Michael Malice
(00:54:00)
Mostly paintings. Mostly paintings. Some sculptures too, like this. Corey Helford is my favorite one in LA. Night Gallery, Vertical Gallery, Avant Gallery, Hive Gallery, Haven Gallery, and Curio Art Gallery. I’m telling you, it’s not exorbitant. This is not the kind of thing where you have to go to a museum and be like, “This doesn’t make sense to me.” You look at it right away, you’re like, “Okay, I know what this is.” And it’s beautiful. It’s awesome. And you’re supporting someone who’s young and creative trying to do something and make the world a better place.

(00:54:31)
So I’m a big fan of the contemporary art scene. A lot of it is not great, but even the stuff that’s not great is very rarely disgusting or gross. It’s just like, okay, I’ve seen this before, or something like that.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:43)
Okay.
Michael Malice
(00:54:44)
It’s like the difference between, there’s a standup where I’ll pay money for the ticket, and someone who’s an opener. It’s like, I wouldn’t pay to see him perform, but he sure still made me laugh. That person is still by far more good than bad. So a lot of this art isn’t stuff I would own, but it’s like, okay, I get it. I like it.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:01)
Well, as the analogy goes, I really like going to open mics, actually, because funny… It sounds absurd to say, but funny isn’t the only thing that’s beautiful about standup comedy, it’s the…
Michael Malice
(00:55:14)
The agony.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:17)
It’s going for it. It’s trying to be funny. It’s taking the leap, trying the joke. And some of the best stuff is actually funny, but the audience is like three people, two of whom are drunk and bored, and you’re still going for it. And that’s the human spirit right there.
Michael Malice
(00:55:35)
Roseanne was telling me how Gilbert Gottfried would go on, it was like 3:00 in the morning. And it was her and three other comics in the audience and they all were just dying.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:46)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:55:46)
He was just killing them. Who’s your favorite comedian?
Lex Fridman
(00:55:53)
Dave Smith.
Michael Malice
(00:55:54)
Who?
Lex Fridman
(00:55:56)
And cut scene. Favorite comedian. First, Norm Macdonald. If you put a gun to my head and I had to answer really quickly, that would be him.
Michael Malice
(00:56:04)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:07)
I would also say Louis C.K.
Michael Malice
(00:56:09)
Oh, wow. Yeah. Oh my God, yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:12)
But that’s almost like a vanilla answer at this moment in history because it’s like a-
Michael Malice
(00:56:16)
Louis C.K.’s pretty radioactive.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:18)
He is. Well, yeah. He does the tough topics-
Michael Malice
(00:56:21)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:22)
… the best. Mitch Hedberg. The wit of a good one-liner is great. I guess that’s what Norm Macdonald was a genius at. What about you?
Michael Malice
(00:56:33)
I mean, we’re so fortunate to be here in Austin because that Comedy Mothership, you go there and people are just killing it. David Lucas is amazing.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:43)
Yeah, he’s great.
Michael Malice
(00:56:43)
Thai Rivera probably did the best set I’ve seen since I’ve been here in Austin. And I watched him and I’m like, “This guy’s even bitchier than I am.” So I reached out to him. So he’s just terrific. David Lucas is another one, a buddy of mine.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:57)
You just said it twice, I think. David.
Michael Malice
(00:57:00)
I’m thinking of Dave Landau, excuse me.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:01)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:57:01)
Dave Landau. Joe Machi is-
Lex Fridman
(00:57:04)
Old age catching up.
Michael Malice
(00:57:04)
It’s true though.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:05)
It’s true.
Michael Malice
(00:57:06)
It’s true.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:07)
It’s true.
Michael Malice
(00:57:08)
Dave Lucas.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:10)
You ever been to the Comedy Mothership? It’s a great spot.
Michael Malice
(00:57:13)
Where is that? Is that in Austin?
Lex Fridman
(00:57:15)
Austin? Is that where Willie Nelson is from? I haven’t really… Go ahead, I’m-
Michael Malice
(00:57:19)
Oh, I heard a joke about that the other week.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:23)
Go ahead. Tell a joke again.
Michael Malice
(00:57:25)
What’s the only thing worse than giving head to Willie Nelson?
Lex Fridman
(00:57:31)
What?
Michael Malice
(00:57:32)
If he says, “I’m not Willie Nelson.”
Lex Fridman
(00:57:36)
What’s that, Mr. Parrot? I know he’s not funny. He thinks he’s better on Twitter. But that’s not nice to say, and right in front of his face. Just think how he feels.
Michael Malice
(00:57:49)
The statue, Chance Murmur is judging you.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:52)
Chance?
Michael Malice
(00:57:52)
It’s called Chance Murmur.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:54)
Chance Murmur.
Michael Malice
(00:57:55)
God, that’s so beautiful.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:56)
That is gorgeous.
Michael Malice
(00:57:58)
This is another reason I hate cynicism, and I talk about this a lot. Even just on Etsy, there are so many small, not huge companies, individual artisans who are creating great stuff and just making it happen. And it’s really sad for me where people can’t see that. Or if they’re like, “Well, how could I be excited about a sculpture when blah, blah, blah, the Middle East?” And it’s just like, you can always look for an excuse not to look for joy, or you could look for an excuse to look for joy.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:26)
Yeah. Etsy is incredible. I feel the same way about-
Michael Malice
(00:58:28)
OnlyFans?
Lex Fridman
(00:58:30)
… OnlyFans. I can’t even get that out of my mouth before laughing at my own failed joke.
Michael Malice
(00:58:34)
That’s what she said.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:36)
Oh, all right. That might be one of the first that’s what she said from Michael Malice.
Michael Malice
(00:58:43)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:43)
I’m going to count that.
Michael Malice
(00:58:48)
I don’t know what I’m going to do with mine, because I got my own. Mine’s three feet tall, just like me.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:52)
Your box was much bigger.
Michael Malice
(00:58:53)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:54)
And it was giving me an inferiority complex. I think I’m going to invade Russia. That’s a Napoleon reference for those in the audience.
Michael Malice
(00:59:09)
I don’t know if I’m going to… I think I’m going to put it in my bedroom so it’s the first thing I see when I wake up.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:13)
Put it in the bedroom.
Michael Malice
(00:59:13)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:16)
Did we get through everything we’re thankful for?
Michael Malice
(00:59:19)
No, I’ve got lots of things I’m thankful for.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:20)
What else? Friends, family. We said books.
Michael Malice
(00:59:26)
I’m thankful for career. I am thankful for… And I know people are going to lose their minds and I can hear them flipping out already. I am thankful for social media.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:40)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(00:59:41)
I’m thankful for several reasons. First, it is a way for people to make connections that they couldn’t have made in years past. That if you’ve got some weird hobby, you can find that other person’s weird hobby and you make that connection. It’s a great way to stay in touch permanently for people otherwise you’d lose touch with, you know, at whatever venue. And it’s also a great way to expose corporate depravity. When you have these organizations that are dishonest, I think the community notes thing on Twitter is the greatest thing ever.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:09)
Yeah, it’s incredible. I wish they would pay attention to the Michael Malice account more often.
Michael Malice
(01:00:15)
You shouldn’t be encouraging anyone to pay attention to my Twitter account.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:18)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:00:18)
It’s a dumpster fire. And I don’t mean Bridget, I mean like a literal… Bridget Phetasy.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:23)
Oh, Bridget, by the way, is amazing. But your Twitter account makes-
Michael Malice
(01:00:23)
She lives here.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:25)
Yes. Not here. I wish she did.
Michael Malice
(01:00:29)
She’s in Georgetown.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:30)
No, I mean in this, where we’re sitting.
Michael Malice
(01:00:32)
Oh.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:32)
It’s a joke, Michael.
Michael Malice
(01:00:33)
Is it?
Lex Fridman
(01:00:34)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:00:34)
But I’m just really glad about… It’s another way for people who before would’ve felt very alone. I know some people do feel alone, but for other people it makes them feel connected.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:46)
There’s been a lot of talk about antisemitism recently.
Michael Malice
(01:00:49)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:49)
What’s your sense about this? Is antisemitism like any other brand of hate? There’s a lot of hate out there.
Michael Malice
(01:00:57)
No, I don’t think it’s like any other brand of hate, because I don’t think racists or transphobes or homophobes or misogynists or xenophobes argue openly or even not so openly for the killing of black Americans, transgender people, gay people, women, or immigrants. And it’s not only something that’s talked about, it’s something that has actually happened. And not just the Holocaust, but just centuries of pilgrims, right? There’s this great book that I read many years ago called The Satanization of the Jews. Camille Paglia recommended it and I read it. And they live in this certain specific kind of antisemitism. And again, I’m not talking about people who are against Israel or something like that. I’m talking specifically about Jew hatred. They have this moral calculus that Jews are the only people who are capable of good or evil, and Jews are exclusively capable of evil.

(01:01:56)
For example, if you look at the George W. Bush White House, you had W, you had Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, a lot of these NeoCon advisors. So if there’s 10 people in a room and there’s one Jewish person, it’s his fault, and the rest are Jew controlled. So again, they only exist as a puppet of Jews in this kind of worldview. And it’s like, to me, if there were no Jews on earth, it is crazy to say that John Bolton and Liz Cheney and Lindsey Graham wouldn’t be pushing for more war. That makes no sense to me. It’s like, you blame the Jews when bad things happen, but when a Jewish person does something good, it doesn’t really matter. Or just wait, he’s going to do something bad. Well, yeah, that’s true. Human beings do good things and then they do bad things sometimes. But it only counts when that Jewish person does the bad thing.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:58)
I wonder what’s a way to fight antisemitism and fight hate in general?
Michael Malice
(01:03:02)
I think the only or the best way, because I thought a lot about this, about how did gay Americans go from being universally hated and despised to the point that many people in the ’80s went to their graves, those who had AIDS, without even telling their parents because they were so scared, to now Times Square is just covered in pride flags. And this also works for Islamophobia and some of these other bigotry, is what I call the ambassador program. Because as soon as you know someone who is a member of a certain group, it is a lot harder to be bigoted against them because instead of this being this out group that’s somewhere out there, it’s like, wait a minute, I work with this guy. Yeah, he’s kind of a jerk and maybe he sees things a little differently than me, but this guy is not a horrible human being. So I think the only way to fight any form of bigotry is to be a good example of the counter to whatever archetype or stereotype is in the culture.

Karl Marx and religion

Lex Fridman
(01:04:13)
Karl Marx wrote that, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.” As the famous phrase goes. Do you think he has a point?
Michael Malice
(01:04:26)
No. I hate that quote. I absolutely hate it. I despise this sort of Reddit internet atheist activism for the simple reason that I know many people who in finding faith have become objectively better human beings.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:46)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:04:46)
They start living consciously. They take morality seriously. They try, we all fail, to be moral good people. So this sneering that these midwits, these marginally intelligent people have towards religious people. Now, lots of religious people use religion to rationalize their bad behavior or sinful or big ego, so on and so forth. That exists, that’s true. But to say that it never helps anyone and it’s universally the… See, Marx was talking about a period, I mean, I’ll defend his quote, when his argument was the masses are being starved and oppressed, but they’re promised, don’t worry, you’ll have riches in heaven. So you should kind of let yourself be pushed around now, and this is kind of this BS bargain that the people are being given. So that was, I think, the point he was making. It certainly doesn’t apply nowadays. I’m close to the family in the Midwest. They’re good Christian people. I remember very specifically this guy, shout out to him, Sean Sherrod. I went to college with him. David Lucas.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:01)
Have you checked out the Comedy Mothership? Great club.
Michael Malice
(01:06:03)
Where is it? Is it in Austin?
Lex Fridman
(01:06:05)
Willie Nelson.
Michael Malice
(01:06:07)
I was 17, 18, freshman year, and I was reading all this criticism of the Bible and I was like, “Look, this is in there. Look at this in there.” And he put his hand on my shoulder and he says, “Michael, there’s nothing you’re going to tell me that’s going to make me lose my faith.” And that was a very self-aware and profound thing to say. As I’ve gotten older, I know lots of religious people. There’s no part of me that thinks they’re wrong or they should be mocked. It also reminds me of when people sneer at addicts in recovery, they’re like, “Alcoholism isn’t a disease, it’s a choice.” It’s like, wait a minute. You don’t know what it’s like to have your entire life ruined by drugs or alcohol.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:48)
Yes.
Michael Malice
(01:06:49)
And if you have to tell yourself, “I have this disease and blah, blah, blah,” and that keeps you from drinking and now you’re a moral upstanding person who’s reliable and takes responsibility for their actions, I don’t see the harm at all. So I think this kind of activist atheism is cheap. I don’t agree with it whatsoever. And I do not like that quote at all.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:12)
But otherwise, big fan of Marx?
Michael Malice
(01:07:14)
I mean, I think there’s a fan of mine, I forget who it was, apologies. He had this great quote, and this is me talking. He goes, “The games people play to feel smarter than others is depressing and annoying.” And I think this kind of fedora internet atheism is a good example, because here’s the other thing. If you’ve proven that someone else is stupid, that doesn’t mean you’re smart. You could both be stupid. So congrats, you proved someone else is stupid. Who cares?
Lex Fridman
(01:07:43)
Yeah. And sneering of all forms in general is just not great.
Michael Malice
(01:07:48)
That’s one of the things I block out people on social media instantly. You’re not going to sneer at me in my space. You could sneer at me all you want in your space, but I’m not putting up with your crap. I don’t know you.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:57)
MySpace, great social network.
Michael Malice
(01:08:00)
Is that on Sixth Street?
Lex Fridman
(01:08:04)
AOL.com.
Michael Malice
(01:08:07)
Clang, clang, clang. That’s how Lex comes.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:12)
Like a Pavlov’s dog. That was the sound before you get to see… Spend 10 minutes waiting for an image of a lady load one line at a time.
Michael Malice
(01:08:24)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:29)
I recently talked to John Mearsheimer, I don’t know if you know him at all. So he has this idea about offensive realism. It’s a way to analyze the world into national relations. And the basic idea, and I’ll run it by you and see what you think, is that states, nations want to survive and they try to do so by maximizing power, military power. And he talks about anarchy quite a bit, in that one of these underlying assumptions of this way of viewing the world is that states are anarchic towards each other.
Michael Malice
(01:09:10)
Yes, that’s true.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:11)
And they operate under a lot of uncertainty. States cannot be sure that other states will not use military capabilities against them.
Michael Malice
(01:09:18)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:19)
They want to survive and they want to use military power to control the uncertainty to protect themselves.
Michael Malice
(01:09:29)
So I disagree in that regard. And I see on your bookshelf, I think the world is a lot closer to Brave New World than it is to 1984. And I think if you look at, let’s suppose China’s influence in America. The influence is far more through soft power than military power. China doesn’t threaten America through “we’re going to kill you.” It’s more like the infiltration of universities, TikTok, things of that nature. Maybe this would’ve worked before the pop culture era, but I think one of the reasons we have this kind of American hegemony isn’t just a function of American military. I think it’s much more a function of American popular culture. When you’re exporting ideas and culture, it makes other people in other countries feel closer to you and also regard you as a friend, and also to adopt your value. It’s a great way to spread propaganda.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:28)
It seems to correlate though, right? It’s interesting. It’s an interesting idea. What has more power, the viral spread of ideas or the power of the military? It seems that the United States is at the top of the world on both.
Michael Malice
(01:10:44)
That’s true.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:45)
And so it’s hard to disentangle the two.
Michael Malice
(01:10:48)
Let’s look at Europe. American culture is very popular in Europe in many ways, right? The best music comes out of Sweden, Swedish indie pop. They’re singing in English, even though… So on and so forth. None of this is a function, maybe it’s a function of post World War II to some extent, but I don’t think it’s a function of American bases there. I think it’s a function of we’re exporting our music, our TV shows, and our movies.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:14)
Yeah. It’s interesting, if the battleground will be Brave New World, the battle of ideas.
Michael Malice
(01:11:18)
I think it’s clearly Brave New World. It’s so much cheaper, and again, this is one of the dark sides of social media, to use influence than it is to use threats. I think Covid is a good example of this. So much of the pressure, yes, there was authoritarianism, but it was the fact that everyone bought into it, rightly or wrongly. But the vast majority of the population wars behind all of these things, and that was through persuasion. And because people are begging for it to come back in many cases.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:47)
So who’s funding you? Which intelligence agency?
Michael Malice
(01:11:50)
Mossad.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:51)
Mossad. Mossad. This is how you do great interviewing. See, he didn’t even expect that. Okay.
Michael Malice
(01:12:01)
What’s that, Mr. Parrot?
Lex Fridman
(01:12:02)
What was that, Mr. Parrot? You knew it? But you didn’t have any documentation, did you?
Michael Malice
(01:12:10)
I think Mr. Parrot is threatened by the better wings on Chance Murmur.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:15)
He gets like that when he’s turned on, he’s not threatened.
Michael Malice
(01:12:18)
Oh, okay.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:18)
You can’t wait until all three of us are alone together. It’s going to be one hell of a party.
Michael Malice
(01:12:25)
Beaks and feathers everywhere.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:27)
And metal. Yeah, this thing is beautiful.

Art

Michael Malice
(01:12:32)
It’s ridiculous.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:34)
You have actually a lot of really cool stuff at your place.
Michael Malice
(01:12:37)
It’s so fun.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:39)
What’s a cool thing that stands out to you? Maybe a recent addition.
Michael Malice
(01:12:44)
So I went to the Dallas Museum of Art last year for my birthday and there was a painting I liked, and I Googled it and I saw the auction for that exact painting. And it was, I think three grand, which is not cheap, but not something you think… You think in a museum, “I could never afford something like this,” right? So when I went to Houston with some friends… The Sideserfs, Natalie, who made the cake of you.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:14)
Oh, yeah, the cake. Terrified my mom.
Michael Malice
(01:13:17)
Did it?
Lex Fridman
(01:13:18)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:13:18)
Aww.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:19)
No, it’s not the cake that terrified my mom. It’s you, Michael Malice, cutting it off, cutting the face off and laughing maniacally.
Michael Malice
(01:13:30)
Well, Natalie’s pregnant. She’s going to have a daughter named Daisy. So congrats to Natalie.
Lex Fridman
(01:13:30)
Congrats to Natalie.
Michael Malice
(01:13:35)
But I was in the museum with them and there was a statue of Thoth, who’s the Egyptian god whose head is an ibis. It’s a bird with a long beak. And Thoth is the god of the moon, god of knowledge, and supposedly he invented writing. So I thought, you know what? I’ve always loved Ancient Egypt. I know a lot about it and especially the mythology. It’d be really cool as an aspiring author to have an ancient Egyptian Thoth statue in my house. Well, it turned out that the Egyptians also killed and mummified ibises and buried them with scribes. And a week after I went to the museum, there was an auction for an ibis mummy. And I have it now in my house, still in its bandages, overlooking my desk. And we all know it’s going to come to life and peck out my eyes and write with my blood. But that is one of the recent cool additions.

(01:14:31)
Another thing I have, which is like, in terms of holy crap I’ve made it. I have an original Patrick Nagel painting, and if people don’t know the name, he’s like the ’80s artist. He did the Duran Duran cover. Whenever you see him in nail salons. I have a male, which were very rare for him to do. So that’s two of my kind of favorite pieces.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:49)
You have what?
Michael Malice
(01:14:49)
He only drew women predominantly. I have one where we drew a male. It was a guy in a jean ad or something. And now I’m looking forward to, so Jake made me a three-foot tall sculpture called Future Murmur, which I am ecstatic-
Michael Malice
(01:15:00)
… sculpture called Future Murmur, which I am ecstatic to get.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:06)
Just remind yourself how many fascinating, beautiful people that are out there.
Michael Malice
(01:15:14)
And just the victory and holiness and technology and speed, and how many people have fought so that I could do what I do.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:26)
Yeah. That’s another thing I’m grateful for. Just like the 100 billion or so people that came before us, and also the trillions of lifeforms that came before that.
Michael Malice
(01:15:38)
Oh God, I’ve gone down this trilobite rabbit hole, buying fossils because as a kid I thought trilobites were the coolest thing, and now I’ve got like 15. And what’s interesting is when you buy trilobite fossils on eBay, they’re listed as used, because it’s got to be new or used according to the programming. So it’s used.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:57)
Yeah. But just thinking about all that history, just all the lifeforms that came before. It seems like a really special thing we have going on earth here.
Michael Malice
(01:16:10)
Oh yeah. I think that’s very fair to say, but also think this kind of is like live life to the fullest. Camus talked about living to the point of tears, especially on behalf of people who didn’t have that privilege. So I dedicated the white pill to my parents who got me out of the Soviet Union and all the kids who never could. And it’s like when I die, I want everyone else to not only, they’re obviously going to be happy, but yeah… I’m not here. Live for me, I can’t have that privilege anymore.

Books

Lex Fridman
(01:16:44)
What do you think about Camus as a writer?
Michael Malice
(01:16:47)
I don’t like his novels at all.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:49)
Oh, you don’t?
Michael Malice
(01:16:49)
At all.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:50)
Yeah. You’ve talked about The Plague to me, a little bit.
Michael Malice
(01:16:52)
Yeah. I think the book is pointless.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:55)
It’s fascinating.
Michael Malice
(01:16:56)
Because all you need to do is read the synopsis and then you get it. I don’t think his book-
Lex Fridman
(01:17:00)
Isn’t that true for most books?
Michael Malice
(01:17:01)
No.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:02)
I mean, you could take, I don’t know… I just don’t agree at all. I mean, it’s Catcher in the Rye. There’s a lot of books that are seem trivial.
Michael Malice
(01:17:11)
I don’t think it seems trivial, but I think-
Lex Fridman
(01:17:13)
Animal Farm.
Michael Malice
(01:17:15)
Animal Farm is a methodical step-by-step examination of a transformation from one thing to another. The Plague is not that.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:23)
It’s a methodical examination of what a society is like under the plague, which could symbolize a lot of things, including the plague directly or Nazi Germany or ideological movements, or… It’s similar to Animal Farm. Maybe not as effective in terms of using this kind of symbology-
Michael Malice
(01:17:44)
I think Animal Farm has a narrative and… I’m going to spoil the whole Plague. The book, The Plague. There’s a town, I believe in Oman, a plague descends, people struggle to deal with it, and the plague vanishes as quickly as it came. The end.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:02)
But there’s the victims, the people that take advantage of it. There’s the doctor that, amidst the absurdity and the evil of the plague, is fighting to do good.
Michael Malice
(01:18:11)
Nothing for me. Does nothing for me.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:13)
Okay, well I can spoil the Animal Farm. There’s animals at a farm and the humans are abusing them, and then the animals overthrow the humans, but then the pigs become just like the humans. The lesson, kids, is that power corrupts, no matter whether you walk on four or on two.
Michael Malice
(01:18:40)
I thought the lesson was that pigs are the most human-like animals on the farm.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:47)
I thought the lesson was that there’s no sugar candy mountain.
Michael Malice
(01:18:50)
That’s right. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:18:53)
You’ve interviewed a lot of people. What have you learned about getting to the soul of a person, the soul of an idea from interviewing? Just how to do a good interview?
Michael Malice
(01:19:04)
First off, I’m not interviewing just random people. I’m interviewing people who are accomplished. It’s not a random group. That’s self-selecting for something different. But I think that people love to, and this is very understandable, love to feel seen. So if you’re someone who’s done something, even if you’re like the best Guinea pig breeder in America, to have someone interested in your work and listen to what you’re saying… because I remember every book I’ve written, I have friends, and I wouldn’t stop talking about the person I’m writing with or the North Korea. And a certain point, I’m sure they’re like, “All right, I don’t care about this anymore.”But it takes over your brain. You know what I mean?

(01:19:43)
So if you someone who has an interest or a hobby, I’m sure to some extent, maybe your friends or family are sick of talking about it or you don’t want to talk about it with them. That’s the private life where you could just be yourself. So I try to, and this comes from my co-authoring background. When I’m talking to people to ask the questions that they haven’t heard before. There’s a possibility that this actor I’m a huge fan of is going to be on my show. I don’t want to spoil everything. And he’s got a very specific role that he’s known for. And I’m like, “Okay, I know it’s going to be annoying for you talking about this one role, but my goal is to ask questions that you aren’t sick of asking, haven’t been asked.”
Lex Fridman
(01:20:28)
Porn star or…
Michael Malice
(01:20:29)
No, not a porn star.
Lex Fridman
(01:20:32)
That joke failed. Also edit out. What do you know about breeding Guinea pigs? You mentioned it. I’d love to hear-
Michael Malice
(01:20:32)
I don’t know anything.
Lex Fridman
(01:20:42)
I would love to hear more about it.
Michael Malice
(01:20:44)
I always use this as an example. You meet someone at a party who breeds Guinea pigs, right? There’s two approaches. Either you’re weird, okay. Or, “Sit down and tell me everything.” And I’m very much, and all the people I like are the second group. When you meet someone who’s doing something unusual and are passionate about it and are good at it, that to me is the mother load.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:09)
Yeah. That to me also is the thing I enjoy the most, is people-
Michael Malice
(01:21:13)
And then it’s like-
Lex Fridman
(01:21:15)
… that are passionate about a thing.
Michael Malice
(01:21:16)
… who do you guys hate? Do you guys hate the hamster people? Do you hate the rabid people? There’s got to be someone that you guys look down on, because the marine aquarium people look down on the freshwater aquarium people.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:25)
Yeah. It’s a hierarchy.
Michael Malice
(01:21:26)
Yes. There’s always going to be a hierarchy. This is where the left anarchists and I disagree, because they think you can have egalitarianism. There’s going to be a hierarchy.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:33)
Hierarchies emerge.
Michael Malice
(01:21:34)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:35)
There’s no anarchy in the Guinea pig world.
Michael Malice
(01:21:39)
No. It’s just a different kind of anarchy.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:41)
Somebody’s always breeding somebody else.
Michael Malice
(01:21:43)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:44)
And looking down on the others.
Michael Malice
(01:21:47)
Yeah, someone’s the other. Whether it’s the hamster people, the rat people.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:50)
And everybody’s breeding. By the way, are you an anarcho-capitalist? What flavor of anarchist are you?
Michael Malice
(01:21:59)
I’m an anarchist without adjectives. I like them all. The black flag comes in many colors.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:04)
All right. All right. You’re quoting your… No, I understand. It’s a beautiful line in the book.
Michael Malice
(01:22:09)
Thank you. I think the anarcho-capitalists don’t give the left anarchist enough credit, especially for their courage. And I do whatever I can in my power to talk about people like Emma Goldman, whenever possible.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:24)
Do you still think that “are some people better than others” is a good litmus test?
Michael Malice
(01:22:29)
Yes. It’s worked 100% of the time.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:32)
And for you, the answer is yes?
Michael Malice
(01:22:35)
I never answer.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:39)
There’s two of them.
Michael Malice
(01:22:43)
What are you all Hitchcock up in here?
Lex Fridman
(01:22:46)
Oh, hey, careful. I always got your back. What little habits in your life make you happy now that you’re in Austin?
Michael Malice
(01:22:59)
Oh my god. I was prepping for this interview, and I imagined this coming up, and I knew that as I explained this, you know how sometimes when someone tells a story, at first it’s amusing, then it’s amusing and concerned, and then you’re like, “Holy shit, where’s the exit?”
Lex Fridman
(01:23:27)
Yeah. I’m getting nervous already.
Michael Malice
(01:23:30)
You should. So I’m going to tell you something I’ve told only a couple of people. This is my absolutely off the charts, autistic approach to shaving. So I have this insane system. You asked about habits that give me joy. I used to hate shaving. I used to hate it. There’s something called wet shaving. So wet shaving is you get the brush, you get the soap that’s in a canister, you stirred up, you paint your face, and then you shave. The thing is, there are dozens of these shaving soap companies, okay? So I tried a couple of hundred of these soaps, because you’re testing for scent, you’re testing for, with the lather, thickness, and also how smooth of a shave it gives you. I have it down… I’m not making this up. I’m not this creative. I have it down to a cycle of 67 soaps. Okay?
Lex Fridman
(01:24:40)
A cycle.
Michael Malice
(01:24:41)
A cycle. So 67. When I use up one soap, that is a slot that I will have to try new ones, and I will try new ones in that slot until I get one that I like, and then that slot is filled. So right now, I have 67 that I use, and I have 86 candidates.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:05)
Like in the queue?
Michael Malice
(01:25:07)
In the queue.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:07)
Do you label them? Do you remember which one is which?
Michael Malice
(01:25:09)
Well, they all have beautiful labels. I mean, these are artisans who are creating these a amazing things. I would encourage everyone to try this hobby, who’s a guy. It’s so much fun. I will give a shout-out to the companies that are the best. So the best company, in my opinion, is a company called… they just changed the name because… You know what they’re originally called? I’m not joking. Grooming Department. And now it’s like-
Lex Fridman
(01:25:37)
Not a bad name.
Michael Malice
(01:25:38)
Yeah, but it has certain connotations in contemporary discourse.
Lex Fridman
(01:25:42)
Yeah, I understand. Contemporary discourse, yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:25:43)
So now he changed his name to Aion Skincare, A-I-O-N. That’s the sense of the most sophisticated, the most diverse, and the soap is just really high quality. Another amazing company is Barrister and Man. And if I’m going to tell you to try one, it’s called Cheshire. He comes out with new ones every month or so. A lot of it’s miss. A lot of it’s hit. Just great, great quality stuff. Another great company is Chiseled Face. They make something called Midnight Stag, which basically smells like a garage. It’s one of my favorite soaps of all time.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:16)
What makes for a good smell for Michael Malice?
Michael Malice
(01:26:19)
I have 67 answers. So some of them smell-
Lex Fridman
(01:26:22)
So you can’t convert it into words?
Michael Malice
(01:26:24)
Some are citrusy, some are industrial, some-
Lex Fridman
(01:26:27)
So garage is more industrial.
Michael Malice
(01:26:28)
It smells like a garage. Yeah. Midnight Stag. It smells like a garage. Some are fun. There smells that smell like other things. For example, there’s a scent in my queue called Finding Scotty. It smells like Swedish Fish. Another great company is Phoenix Shaving, and they have one called Aloha Smackdown. It smells like Hawaiian Punch. They had one called Yule Ham that they made for me special. Smells like a ham. They had a ramen one, Rock and Ramen. Smells a cup of noodles. And every year they do an advent calendar where for 12 days you have a little sample of a soap and a sample of the aftershave.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:04)
Nice.
Michael Malice
(01:27:06)
I’m forgetting someone and I’m feeling angry that I’m doing it. But those are some of the… Oh, and Catie’s Bubbles is great. They’re vegan, out of New Jersey. They’ve got one called a Knee High to a Grape. It smells like grape soda. I think those are the biggest names off the top of my head.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:25)
Will that list converge down to a small set eventually, or no? 67 down to-
Michael Malice
(01:27:31)
Well, no, it’s 67.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:33)
Oh, so it always keeps [inaudible 01:27:35]-
Michael Malice
(01:27:35)
So if there’s a slot, then, you know what I mean? I’ll fill that. You see what I’m saying?
Lex Fridman
(01:27:39)
Oh, so you will forever have the variety of 67?
Michael Malice
(01:27:41)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:46)
You know how sad my brain is? When you were telling me this, I was like, “I wonder how many soaps are left in Michael Malice’s life.” You can count your life by days, by month, by years, or by soaps.
Michael Malice
(01:28:01)
That is depressing. That is very dark.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:03)
Because each experience of shaving is a little beautiful experience.
Michael Malice
(01:28:07)
Yes, it is. It’s so much fun.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:09)
How many do you have left in your life, right?
Michael Malice
(01:28:10)
That’s true.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:11)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:28:12)
I got to tell you, there’s something else. There’s a term my friend Jackie taught me called Touching Pan. It’s a makeup term. So basically when you use it and you could see the bottom, that’s like a big moment.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:24)
Oh, it’s a great thing.
Michael Malice
(01:28:24)
Yeah. Well, it’s kind of fun. I’m telling you, people can scoff. It is such a fun… and there’s a lot of us online who are into this whole space. It’s really, really fun.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:34)
When did you first discover this?
Michael Malice
(01:28:36)
Can I curse?
Lex Fridman
(01:28:37)
Yeah.
Michael Malice
(01:28:38)
Fuck you, Cole Stryker. Because I was staying at my friend Cole’s house in LA. Fuck you Cole.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:45)
Fuck you, Cole.
Michael Malice
(01:28:46)
Cole is one of the biggest hipsters I know. He’s got the shirts with the pearl snaps and everything. And I’m staying at his house because I was doing Rogan, and he goes, “Oh, have you heard of this wet shaving thing?” And he goes, “Look, this one’s Proraso. That’s the Italian grandpa soap, which is also a great one. And I went down this rabbit hole, and now I’m like… I don’t even know how much money I spent on this. And it’s all because of him.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:09)
Oh. But it’s like a happy fuck you. Like, fuck you, Cole.
Michael Malice
(01:29:09)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:12)
I love you, Cole. Fuck you.
Michael Malice
(01:29:13)
Yeah, it’s just-
Lex Fridman
(01:29:14)
Thank you.
Michael Malice
(01:29:15)
Yes, yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:16)
That’s a good idea for a tattoo. Fuck you, Cole. Do you have advice on how to be happy?

How to be happy

Michael Malice
(01:29:25)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:26)
There’s a lot of loneliness and sadness in the world.
Michael Malice
(01:29:31)
I can give a very easy piece of advice that worked a lot for me. Instead of telling yourself that you have these ridiculous standards, tell yourself, “I can be better. I don’t have to be a great writer. I could be a better writer. I don’t have to be a great podcaster. That will never happen. I could be a better podcaster. I could be a better person. I could be better at the gym. I could be better with my time.” And when you regard things in… and especially if you have metrics that you can go by. “I’ll run this many miles a day.” Things you have control over. Especially as males, when you have this chart and the data is telling you you’re improving, right away, it’s like you have this sense of accomplishment. So I think that is a really great way to…

(01:30:25)
And if something is not working in your life… Let’s suppose you don’t have friends. Right? There’s the internet. How do people make friends? Try things out? What’s the worst that’s going to happen? Things will blow up in your face. Well, you’ll learn something at least. Don’t be afraid of making mistakes. When I was a kid, I was so scared of having things under control, so like I would never have to get hit in the face metaphorically. And then I realized, and you realized this as well, everyone who’s important gets hit in the face. Look at the president, whoever the president is. It becomes a matter of being strong enough that you could take getting hit in the face. So that is a big important switch in your thinking.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:05)
Yeah. There’s a Bukowski quote I wrote down. “Sometimes you climb out of bed in the morning and you think, I’m not going to make it. But you laugh inside, remembering all the times you felt that way.”
Michael Malice
(01:31:16)
Yeah, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:17)
There’s a part of me that’s like that. There’s some days where I feel like this is the worst day of my life. And then shortly after, I chuckle at that.
Michael Malice
(01:31:26)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:26)
Just knowing the ups and downs of the brain and the mind and life and all that. You ever been depressed?

Depression

Michael Malice
(01:31:32)
Yeah, of course. I’m more anxious than depressed. I don’t really get depressed, but I’ve been depressed.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:38)
Like low points.
Michael Malice
(01:31:39)
Yeah. But I think I distinguish depression between low points, right? If things are going bad and you feel bad, that makes sense. But when I think of depression, I think of someone who feels bad when things aren’t bad. To me, it’s almost by definition irrational.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:55)
Well, yeah. And there’s different kinds of… There’s a exhausted kind of depression where it’s not so much sad as you don’t want to do anything. You don’t want to live. You don’t want to-
Michael Malice
(01:32:09)
Yeah. What’s the point? It’s a wrap, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:10)
What’s the point? What’s the point? And an extreme self-critical negativity, which I’m also scared of because my brain is generally very self-critical.
Michael Malice
(01:32:19)
Because you’re not taking enough magnesium.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:21)
Do you take a rectally or in the mouth?
Michael Malice
(01:32:23)
You take a rectally.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:24)
Okay.
Michael Malice
(01:32:25)
But as for the magnesium, you should take it as a pill.

Fear

Lex Fridman
(01:32:28)
Okay. Well, the way your mom explained it then is way different. What are you most afraid of?
Michael Malice
(01:32:47)
Holy crap. I am trying to think of anything I’m afraid of.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:51)
In 1984-
Michael Malice
(01:32:54)
I thought even just-
Lex Fridman
(01:32:55)
Look, if I wanted to torture you, hypothetically…
Michael Malice
(01:32:59)
Well, the mission accomplished. I mean, I’m scared of increasing authoritarianism, but that’s not personal. And that’s something that I don’t think is as much of an imminent concern as let’s say in Canada.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:15)
Are you scared of death?
Michael Malice
(01:33:17)
No.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:17)
You think Camus was scared of death?
Michael Malice
(01:33:20)
No.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:22)
He just accepted it as-
Michael Malice
(01:33:24)
Look, I honestly feel like if I died tomorrow, I did pretty good with what I had. I think I did things that matter to me. I think I moved the needle on things that matter to me. I think I’ve been a good friend to the people I care about. I’ve saved a couple of lives. So I think it’s a very low bar for someone to be able to grow their grave and say, “I left the world a better place than I found it.” I don’t think it’s that hard.

Betrayal

Lex Fridman
(01:34:01)
You ever been betrayed?
Michael Malice
(01:34:03)
Oh god, yes. Of course. Haven’t you?
Lex Fridman
(01:34:07)
Not as often as I would’ve predicted.
Michael Malice
(01:34:09)
Yeah. The Russian upbringing expects everyone to be like… it’s a time bomb before they betray you. I have been betrayed. Of course. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:16)
Yeah. You value loyalty?
Michael Malice
(01:34:20)
I do. And I also made it a point to not let that betrayal color my future interactions and regard that as the universal or the norm. I think that’s very important.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:32)
Me too.
Michael Malice
(01:34:34)
And also, I feel bad. I’ve gotten, Lex, enough that I feel bad for the person who betrayed me, because it’s just like they didn’t need to do this. And at some point, if you betray someone, you know, and you know you’re not a good person. I believe that. Like even if you tell yourself, “This is something I had to do,” you still know you had to do a bad thing to someone who didn’t deserve it. And that’s a really hard pill to swallow.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:02)
In my situation, I still think good thoughts and empathize with the people that have done me wrong.
Michael Malice
(01:35:11)
I don’t empathize with them, but I sympathize with them.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:14)
My English is not good enough to know the difference.
Michael Malice
(01:35:16)
Empathizing means you’re putting yourself in their shoes. Sympathizing means you feel bad for them and wish them well.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:25)
Yeah, I wish them well.
Michael Malice
(01:35:27)
Yeah, but I don’t put myself… it’s very hard for me to empathize with someone who betrays someone that they care about. It’s not that just I think I’m such a great person. It’s that I feel guilt very strongly. So if I did that to someone who trusted me, it would up my head for a long time.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:46)
Yeah, but maybe they were in pain. Maybe they were desperate. Maybe their back’s to the wall.
Michael Malice
(01:35:53)
Sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:53)
They felt that way.
Michael Malice
(01:35:54)
Sure. Well, that’s a sympathy thing. Not really an empathy thing.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:56)
Yeah. Yeah. Loyalty is a fascinating thing.
Michael Malice
(01:36:03)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:04)
I value trust a lot.
Michael Malice
(01:36:05)
I know you do. Especially because you’re in such a public… Both of us, we’re in very public positions. You have to be very careful who you surround yourself with.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:13)
It sucks.
Michael Malice
(01:36:14)
Does it? Well, it’s-
Lex Fridman
(01:36:16)
Well, it sucks because it’s hard to… I usually just trust everybody.
Michael Malice
(01:36:25)
Okay, that’s crazy.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:29)
But what’s the alternative?
Michael Malice
(01:36:30)
To have a filter?
Lex Fridman
(01:36:33)
Well, I have a filter in terms of who I interact with, but within the… I see the good in people, but then in the very rare instances that might turn. Yeah. It just sucks. It breaks my heart.
Michael Malice
(01:36:48)
Yeah, I hear you. I completely agree.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:52)
Has your heart ever been broken?
Michael Malice
(01:36:54)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:55)
Love?
Michael Malice
(01:36:56)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:01)
I’m just so relaxed right now, and happy.
Michael Malice
(01:37:03)
Good.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:04)
Relaxed sand happy.
Michael Malice
(01:37:05)
Good.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:06)
This is making me really happy.
Michael Malice
(01:37:09)
Again, it’s beautiful on like eight different levels.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:11)
I think that’s the deepest thing I’m thankful for, is just how beautiful people are and how beautiful the world is.
Michael Malice
(01:37:21)
People are going to laugh, and I welcome it. That’s fine. I really sometimes feel like the guy in American Beauty looking at the plastic bag dancing in the wind, and he’s brought to tears because of how much beautiful life is. And a lot of people feel the need to sneer at that scene and Ricky Pitts, whatever, and I think he’s got it exactly right.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:45)
I think he does too. Well, in the end, you and I will be both laughing,
Michael Malice
(01:37:53)
Right. And also seeing beauty where other people see garbage. And I’d rather be the person who sees beauty than the person who sees garbage.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:02)
Yep. Well, when I look at you, I see beauty when most people see garbage. And it’s really unfair, Mr. Parrot, that you keep saying that. But all jokes aside, man, I’m really grateful for your friendship. I’m really grateful for who you are as a person. Thank you so much for talking today. Thank you so much for talking to me throughout all these years. Thank you for being who you are.
Michael Malice
(01:38:28)
You are welcome.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:31)
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Michael Malice. To support this podcast. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words from Andre Gide. Man cannot discover new oceans unless he has the courage to lose sight of the shore. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for John Mearsheimer: Israel-Palestine, Russia-Ukraine, China, NATO, and WW3 | Lex Fridman Podcast #401

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #401 with John Mearsheimer.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
The following is a conversation with John Mearsheimer, a professor at University of Chicago and one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world. He teaches, speaks and writes about the nature of power and war on the global stage, in history and today.

(00:00:19)
Please allow me to say, once again, my hope for this little journey I’m on. I will speak to everyone on all sides with compassion, with empathy, and with backbone. I’ll speak with Vladimir Putin and with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, with Russians and with Ukrainians, with Israelis and with Palestinians, with everyone. My goal is to do whatever small part I can to decrease the amount of suffering in the world by trying to reveal our common humanity. I believe that in the end, truth and love wins. I will get attacked for being naive, for being a shill, for being weak. I’m none of those things, but I do make mistakes and I will get better. I love you all.

(00:01:19)
This is a Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s John Mearsheimer.

Power


(00:01:29)
Can you explain your view on power in international politics as outlined in your book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics and in your writing since then?
John Mearsheimer
(00:01:39)
Yeah, I make two sets of points there. First of all, I believe that power is the currency of international relations, and by that I mean that states are deeply interested in the balance of power and they’re interested in maximizing how much power they control. And the question is why do states care so much about power. In the international system, there’s no higher authority, so if you get into trouble and you dial 911, there’s nobody at the other end. In a system like that, you have no choice but to figure out for yourself how best to protect yourself. And the best way to protect yourself is to be powerful, to have as much power as you can possibly gain over all the other states in the system. Therefore, states care about power because it enhances or maximizes their prospects for survival.

(00:02:39)
Second point I would make is that in the realist story or in my story, power is largely a function of material factors. The two key building blocks of power are population size and wealth. You want to have a lot of people and you want to be really wealthy. Of course, this is why the United States is so powerful. It has lots of people and it has lots of wealth. China was not considered a great power until recently because it didn’t have a lot of wealth. It certainly had population size, but it didn’t have wealth. And without both a large population and much wealth, you’re usually not considered a great power. So I think power matters, but when we talk about power, it’s important to understand that it’s population size and wealth that are underpinning it.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:38)
So there’s a lot of interesting things there. First you said nations in relation to each other is essentially in a state of anarchism.
John Mearsheimer
(00:03:48)
Yeah, well, anarchy basically means the opposite of hierarchy. Sometimes people think when you’re talking about anarchy, you’re talking about murder and mayhem, but that’s not what anarchy means in the realist context. Anarchy simply means that you don’t have hierarchy. There’s no higher authority that sits above states. States are like pool balls on a table. And in an anarchic world, there’s no higher authority that you can turn to if you get into trouble.

(00:04:22)
And of course the political philosopher who laid this all out was Thomas Hobbes. And Hobbes talked about life in the state of nature, and in the state of nature you have individuals and those individuals compete with each other for power. And the reason that they do is because in the state of nature, by definition, you have no higher authority. And Hobbes’s view is that the way to get out of this terrible situation where individuals are competing with each other and even killing each other is to create a state. It’s what he calls the Leviathan, and that of course is the title of his famous book.

(00:05:02)
So the idea is to escape anarchy, you create a state, and that means you go from anarchy to hierarchy. The problem in international politics is that there is no world state, there is no hierarchy. And if you have no hierarchy and you’re in an anarchic system, you have no choice but to try to maximize your relative power to make sure you are, as we used to say when I was a kid on New York City playgrounds, the biggest and baddest dude on the block. Not because you necessarily want to beat up on other kids or on other states, but because again, that’s the best way to survive.

(00:05:47)
And as I like to point out to people, the best example of what happens when you’re weak in international politics is what the Chinese call the century of national humiliation. From the late 1840s to the late 1940s the Chinese were remarkably weak, and the great powers in the system preyed upon them. And that sends a very important message to not only the Chinese, but to other states in the system. Don’t be weak, be as powerful as you can.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:18)
And we’ll talk about it, but humiliation can lead to resentment or resentment leads to something you’ve also studied, which is Nazi Germany in the 1930s. We’ll talk about it, but staying to the psychology and philosophy picture, what’s the connection between the will to power in the individual, as you mentioned, and the will to power in a nation?
John Mearsheimer
(00:06:43)
The will to power in an individual has a lot to do with individual psychology. The story that I tell about the pursuit of power is a structural argument. It’s an argument that says when you are in a particular structure, when you’re in a system that has a specific architecture which is anarchy, the states have no choice but to compete for power. So structure is really driving the story here. Will to power has a lot more to do with an individual in the Nietzschen story where that concept comes from. So it’s very important to understand that I’m not arguing that states are inherently aggressive. My point is that as long as states are in anarchy, they have no choice but to behave in an aggressive fashion. But if you went to a hierarchic system, there’s no reason for those states to worry about the balance of power, because if they get into trouble there is a higher authority that they can turn to. There is in effect a leviathan.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:59)
So what is the role of military might in this will to power on the national level?
John Mearsheimer
(00:08:06)
Well, military mights is what ultimately matters. As I said to you before, the two building blocks of power are population size and wealth.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:16)
You didn’t mention military mights.
John Mearsheimer
(00:08:17)
I did not, no. That’s right. And it’s good that you caught that because if you have a large population and you’re a wealthy country, what you do is you build a large military, and it’s ultimately the size of your military that matters because militaries fight wars. And if states are concerned about survival, which I argue is the principle goal of every state in the international system for what I think are obvious reasons, then they’re going to care about having a powerful military that can protect them if another state comes after them.
Lex Fridman
(00:08:55)
Well, it’s not obvious that a large nation with a lot of people and a lot of money should necessarily build a gigantic army and seek to attain dominant soul superpower status to military might. But you’re saying, as you see the world today, it has to be that way.
John Mearsheimer
(00:09:16)
Yeah, I’m arguing it is obvious. If you’re a state in the international system, do you want to be weak? If you live next door to Nazi Germany or Imperial Germany or Napoleonic France or even the United States… The United States is a ruthless great power, you surely recognize that. And if you’re dealing with the United States of America and you’re Vladimir Putin, you want to make sure you’re as powerful as possible so that the United States doesn’t put its gun sights on you and come after you. Same thing is true with China. You want to be powerful in the international system.

(00:09:50)
States understand that, and they go to great lengths to become powerful. Just take the United States of America. When it started in 1783, it was comprised of 13 measly colonies strung out along the Atlantic seaboard. Over time, the various leaders of the United States went to great lengths to turn that country into the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. And then once that was achieved in 1900, we’ve gone to great lengths to make sure that there’s no pier competitor in the system. We just want to make sure that we’re number one.

(00:10:33)
And my argument is that this is not peculiar to the United States. If I’m China, for example, today, I would want to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. They’d be fools not to. If I were imperial Germany, I’d want to dominate all of Europe the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. Why? Because if you dominate all of Europe, assuming you’re Imperial Germany or Napoleonic France, then no other state in the area or in the region can threaten you because you’re simply so powerful.

(00:11:12)
And again, what I’m saying here is that the structure of the international system really matters. It’s the fact that you’re in this anarchic system where survival is your principle goal and where I can’t know your intentions, right? You’re another state. I can’t know that at some point you might not come after me. You might. And if you’re really powerful and I’m not, I’m in deep trouble.
Lex Fridman
(00:11:37)
Yeah. So some of the ideas underlying what you’ve said, offensive realism, which I would love to talk to you about sort of the history of realism versus liberalism, but some of the ideas you already mentioned, anarchy between states, everybody’s trying to develop military capabilities, uncertainty, such an interesting concept. States cannot be sure that other states will not use military capabilities against them, which is one-
John Mearsheimer
(00:12:07)
That’s of enormous importance to the story,
Lex Fridman
(00:12:09)
…really important, and so interesting because you also say that this makes realists more cautious and more peaceful, the uncertainty because of all the uncertainty involved here, it’s better to approach international politics with caution, which is really interesting to think about. Again, survival, most states interested in survival. And the other interesting thing is you assume all the states are rational, which-
John Mearsheimer
(00:12:40)
Most of the time.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:41)
Most of the time. You call this framework offensive realism. Can you just give an overview of the history of the realism versus liberalism debate as worldviews?
John Mearsheimer
(00:12:56)
Well, I think for many centuries now, the big divide within the world of international relations theory is between realism and liberalism. These are time honored bodies of theory. And before I tell you what I think the differences are between those two bodies of theory, it is important to emphasize that there are differences among realists and differences among liberals. And so when you talk about me as an offensive realist, you should understand that there are also defensive realists out there, and there are a panoply of liberal theories as well.

(00:13:42)
But basically realists believe that power matters, that states compete for power, and that war is an instrument of statecraft. And liberals, on the other hand, have what I would say is a more idealistic view of the world. This is not to say that they’re naive or foolish, but they believe there are aspects of international politics that lead to a less competitive and more peaceful world than most realists say. And I’ll lay out for you very quickly, what are the three major liberal theories today that I think will give you a sense of the more optimistic perspective that is inherent in the liberal enterprise.

(00:14:40)
The first and most important of the liberal theories is democratic peace theory, and this is a theory that says democracies do not fight against other democracies. So the more the world is populated with democracies, the less likely it is that we will have wars. And this basic argument is inherent in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History. He argues that democracy triumphed first over fascism in the 20th century, it then triumphed over communism, and that means that in the future we’re going to have more and more liberal democracies on the planet. And if you have more and more liberal democracies and those democracies don’t fight each other, then you have a more peaceful world. That was his argument. It’s a very liberal argument.

(00:15:36)
A realist like me would say that it doesn’t matter whether a state is a democracy or not, all states behave the same way because the structure of the system, getting back to our earlier discussion about international anarchy, the structure of the system leaves those states no choice, whether they’re democracies or autocracies. And again, the liberal view, this first liberal theory, is that democracies don’t fight other democracies, and therefore the more democracies you have, the more peaceful the world.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:12)
Can I just sort of try to unpack that a little bit? So the democratic peace theory, I guess, would say that in democracies leaders are elected, and the underlying assumption is most people want peace, and so they will elect peacemakers. So the more democracies you have, the more likely you have peace. And then the realist perspective says that it doesn’t matter if the majority of people want peace. The structure of international politics is such that superpowers want to become more super and powerful, and they do that through war.
John Mearsheimer
(00:16:51)
You can’t make that argument that you’re making about democracies, because if you’re saying that democracies are inclined toward peace and that the electorate picks leaders who are inclined towards peace, then you have to show that democracies are, in general, more peaceful than non democracies, and you can’t support that argument. You can find lots of evidence to support the argument that democracies don’t fight other democracies.

(00:17:25)
So the argument I believe that you have to make, if you’re going to support democratic peace theory, the main argument you have to make is that liberal democracies have a healthy respect for each other and they can assess each other’s intentions. If you’re a liberal democracy, and I’m a liberal democracy, we know we have value systems that argue against aggression, and argue for peaceful resolution of crises. And therefore, given these norms, we can trust each other, we can know each other’s intentions. Remember, for realists like me, uncertainty about intentions really helps drive the train. But if you’re talking about two democracies, the argument there is that they know each other’s intentions.
Lex Fridman
(00:18:19)
And for you, sure, maybe democracies reduce uncertainty a little bit, but not enough to stop the train.
John Mearsheimer
(00:18:26)
I think that’s right, yeah. That’s right. So that’s democratic peace theory. The second theory is economic interdependence theory, and that’s the argument that, in a globalized world like the one that we live in and have lived in for a long time, there’s a great deal of economic interdependence. And if you and I are two countries, or if you and me are two countries and we’re economically interdependent and we’re both getting prosperous as a result of this economic intercourse, the last thing that we’re going to do is start a war, either one of us, because who would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, it’s that kind of argument. So there you have an argument that economic interdependence leads to peace.

(00:19:09)
And then the third liberal argument has to do with institutions, sometimes referred to as liberal institutionalism. And this is the argument that if you can get states into institutions where they become rule abiding actors, they will obey the rules that dictate that war is not acceptable. So if you get them to accept the UN rules on when you can and cannot initiate a war, then you’ll have a more peaceful world. So those are the liberal theories, and as you can tell, they’re very different from realism as articulated by somebody like me.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:57)
Can you maybe argue against the economic interdependence and in the institutions that institutions follow rules a little bit? So the golden goose with the golden egg, you’re saying that nations are happy to kill the goose because again, they want power.
John Mearsheimer
(00:20:19)
If they think it’s necessary to kill the golden goose because of security concerns, they will do it. The point is that economic interdependence at its root has prosperity as the core variable. In the realest story, the core variable is survival, and survival always trumps prosperity. So if you go back to the period before World War I, we’re in Europe, it’s 1913 or early 1914, what you see is that you have an intense security competition between all of the great powers. On one side you have the Triple Alliance, and on the other side you have the Triple Entente. You have these two alliances, and you have an intense security competition between them. At the same time, you have a great deal of economic interdependence. It’s amazing how much economic intercourse is taking place in Europe among all the actors. And people are getting prosperous or countries are getting prosperous as a result. But nevertheless, in the famous July crisis of 1914, this economic prosperity is unable to prevent World War I because security concerns or survival is more important. So there are going to be lots of situations where prosperity and survival come into conflict, and in those cases, survival will win.
Lex Fridman
(00:21:59)
And maybe you can speak to the different camps of realists. You said offensive and defensive. Can you draw a distinction between those two?
John Mearsheimer
(00:22:09)
Yeah. Let me just back up a bit on that one. And you were talking about will to power before. The first big divide between realists is structural realists and human nature realists, and Hans Morgenthau, who was influenced by nature and therefore had that will to power logic embedded in his thinking about how the world works, he was a human nature realist. I’m a structural realist and I believe it’s not human nature, it’s not individuals in some will to power that drives competition and war. What drives competition and war is the structure of the system. It’s anarchy.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:03)
So you’re not as romantic as the human nature realists.
John Mearsheimer
(00:23:06)
Yeah. There’s just a world of difference between the two. It’s just important to understand that.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:12)
So within that, from the structural, there’s a subdivision also of offensive and defensive.
John Mearsheimer
(00:23:17)
Yes. Inside the structural realist world. And you have a handful of realists who believe that the structure of the system fosters competition, for sure, security competition. But it really rules out great power war almost all the time. So it makes sense to care about the balance of power, but to focus on maintaining how much power you have. That’s the defensive realism, maintaining how much power you have. Not trying to gain more power, because the argument the defense of realists make is that if you try to gain more power, the system will punish you, the structure will punish you. I’m not a defensive realist, I’m an offensive realist. And my argument is that states look for opportunities to gain more power, and every time they see, or almost every time they see an opportunity to gain more power, and they think the likelihood of success is high and the cost will not be great, they’ll jump at that opportunity.

Hitler

Lex Fridman
(00:24:39)
Just to linger on the human nature perspective, how do you explain Hitler and Nazi Germany, just one of the more recent aggressive expansions through military might? How do you explain that in the framework of offensive realism?
John Mearsheimer
(00:25:04)
Well, I think that Nazi Germany was driven in large part by structural considerations. And I think if you look at Imperial Germany, which was largely responsible for starting World War I, and of course Nazi Germany’s largely responsible for starting World War II, what that tells you is you didn’t need Adolf Hitler to start World War I. And I believe that there is a good chance you would’ve had World War II in the absence of Hitler. I believe that Germany was very powerful, it was deeply worried about the balance of power in Europe, and it had strong incentives to behave aggressively in the late 1930s, early 1940s. So I believe that structure mattered.

(00:25:54)
However, I want to qualify that in the case of Adolf Hitler, because I do think he had what you would call a will to power. I’ve never used that word to describe him before, but it’s consistent with my point that I often make, that there are two leaders, or there have been two leaders in modern history who are congenital aggressors, and one was Napoleon and the other was Hitler. Now, if you want to call that a will to power, you can do that. I’m more comfortable referring to Hitler as a congenital aggressor and referring to Napoleon as a congenital aggressor, although there were important differences between the two, because Hitler was probably the most murderous leader in recorded history, and Napoleon was not in that category at all. But both of them were driven by what you would call a will to power, and that has to be married to the structural argument in Hitler’s case, and also in Napoleon’s case.
Lex Fridman
(00:27:02)
Is there some degree on the human psychology side that resentment, because of what happened after World War I, led to Hitler willing so much power, and then Hitler starting World War II? So this is the human side. Perhaps the reason I asked that question is also because you mentioned the century of humiliation on the China side. So to which degree does humiliation lead to Hitler and lead to World War II?
John Mearsheimer
(00:27:33)
Well, the question of what led to Hitler is a very different question than the question of what led to World War II once Hitler was in power. I mean, after January 30th, 1933, he’s in power. And then the question of what is driving him comes racing to the fore. Is there resentment over the Versailles treaty and what happened to Germany? Yes. Did that matter? Yes. But my argument is that structure was the principle factor driving the train in Hitler’s case. But what I’m saying here is that there were other factors that as well, resentment being one of them. Will to power or the fact that he was a congenital aggressor in my lexicon certainly mattered as well, so I don’t want to dismiss your point about resentment.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:29)
So Hitler in particular, the way he wielded, the way he gained so much power, might have been the general resentment of the populace or the German populace.
John Mearsheimer
(00:28:41)
I think that as a result of defeat in World War I and all the trials and tribulations associated with Weimar Germany, and then the coming of the Great Depression, all of those factors definitely account for his coming to power. I think that one of the reasons that he was so successful at winning over the German people once he came to power was because there was a great deal of resentment in the German body politic. And he played on that resentment, that surely helped him get elected too. But I think having studied the case, it was even more important once he took over.

(00:29:32)
I also believe that one of the principal reasons that he was so popular and he was wildly popular inside Nazi Germany is because he was the only leader of an industrialized country who pulled his country out of the depression. And that really mattered, and it made him very effective. It’s also worth noting that he was a remarkably charismatic individual. I find that hard to believe because every time I look at him or listen to his speeches, he does not appear to be charismatic to me. But I’ve talked to a number of people who are experts on this subject who assure me that he was very charismatic. And I would note to you, if you look at public opinion polls in Germany, West Germany, in the late 1940s, this is the late 1940s after the Third Reich is destroyed in 1945, he is still remarkably popular in the polls.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:31)
Stalin is still popular in many parts of Eastern Europe.
John Mearsheimer
(00:30:36)
Yeah, yeah. And Stalin’s popular in many quarters inside Russia, and Stalin murdered more of his own people than he murdered people outside of the Soviet Union.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:50)
And still to you, the tides of history turned not on individuals, but on structural considerations. So Hitler may be a surface-layer characteristics of how Germany started war, but not really the reason.
John Mearsheimer
(00:31:09)
Well, history is a multidimensional phenomenon-
Lex Fridman
(00:31:14)
So I hear.
John Mearsheimer
(00:31:15)
… and we’re talking about interstate relations here, and realism is a theory about how states interact with each other, and there are many other dimensions to international politics. And if you’re talking about someone like Adolf Hitler, why did he start World War II is a very different question than why did he start the Holocaust or why did he push forward a holocaust? I mean, that’s a different question, and realism doesn’t answer that question. So I want to be very clear that I’m not someone who argues that realism answers every question about international politics, but it does answer what is one of the big, if not the biggest, questions that IR scholars care about, which is what causes security competition and what causes great power war.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:10)
Does offensive realism answer the question why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union?
John Mearsheimer
(00:32:17)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:18)
Because from a military strategy perspective, there’s pros and cons to that decision.
John Mearsheimer
(00:32:25)
Pros and cons to every decision. The question is, did he think that he could win a quick and decisive victory. And he did, as did his generals. It’s very interesting, I’ve spent a lot of time studying German decision making in World War II. If you look at the German decision to invade Poland on September 1st, 1939, and you look at the German decision to invade France on May 10th, 1940, and then the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941, what you see is there was actually quite a bit of resistance to Hitler in 1938 at the time of Czechoslovakia, Munich, and there was also quite a bit of resistance in September, 1939.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:13)
Internally? Or you mean…
John Mearsheimer
(00:33:14)
Internally, internally. For sure. Yeah. People had doubts. They didn’t think the Wehrmacht was ready, and given the fact that World War I had just ended about 20 years before, the thought of starting another European war was not especially attractive to lots of German policy makers, including military leaders. And then came France 1940. In the run-up to May 10th, 1940, there was huge resistance in the German army to attacking France. But that was eventually eliminated because they came up with a clever plan, the Manstein Plan. If you look at the decision to invade the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941, which is the only case where they fail… They succeeded in France, they succeeded in Poland, they succeeded at Munich in 1938. Soviet Union is where they fail. There’s hardly any resistance at all, right?
Lex Fridman
(00:34:20)
Yeah. Well, and to say that they failed the Soviet Union, my grandfather fought for the Soviet Union, there was a lot of successes early on. So there’s poor military, I would say, strategic decisions along the way, but it caught Stalin off guard. Maybe you can correct me, but from my perspective, terrifyingly so, they could have been successful if certain different decisions were made from a military perspective.
John Mearsheimer
(00:34:54)
Yeah. I’ve always had the sense they came terrifyingly close to winning. You can make the opposite argument that they were doomed-
John Mearsheimer
(00:35:03)
You can make the opposite argument that they were doomed. But I’m not terribly comfortable making that argument. I think the Wehrmacht, by the summer of 1941, was a finely tuned instrument for war, and the Red Army was in quite terrible shape. Stalin had purged the Officer Corps, they had performed poorly in Finland, and there were all sorts of reasons to think that they were no match for the Wehrmacht.

(00:35:36)
And if you look at what happened in the initial stages of the conflict, that proved to be the case. The Germans won a lot of significant tactical victories early on.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:49)
And if they focused and went to Moscow as quickly as possible, again, terrifyingly, so could have been, basically topple Stalin. And one thing that’s-
John Mearsheimer
(00:36:03)
That’s possible.
Lex Fridman
(00:36:04)
That’s possible.
John Mearsheimer
(00:36:05)
Fortunately, we’re not going to run the experiment again, but one could argue that, had they concentrated as the generals wanted to do, in going straight from Moscow, that they would’ve won. I mean, what Hitler wanted to do is, he wanted to go into the Ukraine. I mean, Hitler thought that the main Axis… There were three Axes. The northern Axis went towards Leningrad, the central Axis of course, went to Moscow, and then the Southern Axis, Army Group South, headed towards Ukraine and deep into the caucuses.

(00:36:39)
And Hitler believed that that should have been the main Axis. And in fact, in 1942, the Soviets, excuse me, the Germans go back on the offensive in 1942. This is Operation Blue, and the main Axis in ’42 is deep into the Ukraine and into the caucuses, and that fails.

(00:37:01)
But one could argue that, had they done that in ’41, had they not gone to Moscow, had they gone, had they concentrated on going deep into Ukraine and into the caucuses, they could have knocked the Soviets out that way. I’m not sure that in the end I believe that. I think in the end the Soviets would’ve won no matter what, but I’m not a hundred percent sure of that.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:28)
Sometimes, maybe you can educate me, but sometimes they say, just like with Napoleon, winter defeated Hitler in Russia. I think not often enough people tell the story of the soldiers and the motivation and how hard they fight. So it turns out that Ukrainians and Russians are not easy to conquer. They’re the kinds of people that don’t roll over and fight bravely. There seems to be a difference in certain peoples, in how they see war, how they approach war, how proud they are to fight for their country, to die for their country, these kinds of things. So I think Battle of Stalingrad tells, at least to me, a story of extremely brave fighting on the Soviet side, and that, it’s a component of war too. It’s not just structural, it’s not just military strategy, it’s also the humans involved, but maybe that’s a romantic notion of war.
John Mearsheimer
(00:38:33)
No, I think there’s a great deal of truth in that, but let’s just unpack it a bit in the case of the Soviet Union in World War II. The counterargument to that is that in World War I, the Russian Army disintegrated. And if you look at what happened when Napoleon invaded in 1812, and you look at what happened in 1917, and then you look at what happened between ’41 and ’45, the Napoleon case looks a lot like the Hitler case, and it fits neatly with your argument.

(00:39:14)
But World War I does not fit neatly with your argument because the Russians lost and surrendered, and you had the infamous treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where the Soviet Union then, because it went from Russia to the Soviet Union in October 1917, the Soviet Union surrendered large amounts of Soviet territory because it had suffered a humiliating defeat.

(00:39:38)
My argument for why the Russians, let me take that back, why the Soviets fought like wild dogs in World War II is that they were up against a genocidal adversary. You want to understand that the Germans murdered huge numbers of Soviet POWs. The overall total was 3.7 million. And by December, December of 1941, remember the invasion is June ’41, by December of 1941, the Germans have murdered 2 million Soviet POWs. At that point in time, they had murdered many more POWs than they had murdered Jews.

(00:40:20)
And this is not to deny for one second that they were on a murderous rampage when it came to Jews, but they were also on a murderous rampage when it came to Soviet citizens and Soviet soldiers. So those Soviet soldiers quickly came to understand they were fighting for their lives. If they were taken prisoner, they would die. So they fought like wild dogs.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:48)
Yeah, the story of the Holocaust, of the 6 million Jews, is often told extensively. If Hitler won, conquered the Soviet Union, it’s terrifying to think, on a much grander scale than the Holocaust, what would’ve happened to the Slavic people, to the Soviet people.
John Mearsheimer
(00:41:08)
Absolutely. All you have to do is read the Hunger Plan, right? And they also had a plan, what was it called? Grand Planned East, I forget the exact name of it, which made it clear that they were going to murder many tens of millions of people. And by the way, I believe that they would’ve murdered all the Poles and all the Roma. I mean, my view is that the Jews were number one on the genocidal hit list. The Roma, or the gypsies, were number two, and the Poles were number three.

(00:41:42)
And of course, I just explained to you how many POWs they had killed. So they would’ve ended up murdering huge numbers of Soviet citizens as well. But people quickly figured out that this was happening, that’s my point to you. And that gave them, needless to say, very powerful incentives to fight hard against the Germans, and to make sure that they did not win.

Russia and Ukraine

Lex Fridman
(00:42:09)
To fast-forward in time, but not in space, let me ask you about the war in Ukraine. Why did Russia invade Ukraine on February 24th, 2022? What are some of the explanations given? And which do you find the most convincing?
John Mearsheimer
(00:42:33)
Well, clearly, the conventional wisdom is that Putin is principally responsible. Putin is an imperialist, he’s an expansionist.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:43)
That’s the conventional thinking.
John Mearsheimer
(00:42:44)
Yeah, yeah. And the idea is that he is bent on creating a greater Russia, and even more, so he’s interested in dominating Eastern Europe, if not all of Europe, and that Ukraine was the first stop on the train line. And what he wanted to do was to conquer all of Ukraine, incorporate it into a greater Russia, and then he would move on and conquer other countries. This is the conventional wisdom. My view is there is no evidence, let me emphasize, zero evidence, to support that argument.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:26)
Which part? That he would… The imperialist part, the sense that he sought to conquer all of Ukraine, and move on and conquer-
John Mearsheimer
(00:43:36)
There’s no evidence he was interested in conquering all of Ukraine. There was no evidence beforehand that he was interested in conquering any of Ukraine. And there’s no way that an army that had 190,000 troops, at the most, could have conquered all of Ukraine, it’s just impossible.

(00:43:59)
As I like to emphasize, when the Germans went into Poland in 1939, and the Germans, you want to remember, were only intent on conquering the western half of Poland, because the Soviets, who came in later that month, were going to conquer the eastern half of Poland. So the western half of Poland is much smaller than Ukraine, and the Germans went in with 1.5 million troops. If Vladimir Putin were bent on conquering all of Ukraine, he would’ve needed at least 2 million troops. I would argue he’d need 3 million troops, because not only did he need to conquer the country, you then have to occupy it.

(00:44:44)
But the idea that 190,000 troops was sufficient for conquering all of Ukraine, it’s not a serious argument. Furthermore, he was not interested in conquering Ukraine, and that’s why, in March 2022, this is immediately after the war starts, he is negotiating with Zelensky to end the war. There are serious negotiations taking place in Istanbul involving the Turks. And Naftali Bennett, who was the Israeli prime minister at the time, was deeply involved in negotiating with both Putin and Zelensky to end the war.

(00:45:22)
Well, if he was interested, Putin, in conquering all of Ukraine, why in God’s name would he be negotiating with Zelensky to end the war? And of course, what they were negotiating about was NATO expansion into Ukraine, which was the principal cause of the war. People in the West don’t want to hear that argument because if it is true, which it is, then the West is principally responsible for this bloodbath that’s now taking place. And of course, the West doesn’t want to be principally responsible. It wants to blame Vladimir Putin.

(00:45:59)
So we’ve invented this story out of whole cloth that he is an aggressor, that he’s the second coming of Adolf Hitler, and that what he did in Ukraine was try to conquer all of it and he failed. But with a little bit of luck, he probably would’ve conquered all of it, and he’d now be in the Baltic States, and eventually end up dominating all of Eastern Europe. As I said, I think there’s no evidence to support this.
Lex Fridman
(00:46:28)
So maybe there’s a lot of things to ask there. Maybe just to linger on NATO expansion, what is NATO expansion? What is the threat of NATO expansion and why is this such a concern for Russia?
John Mearsheimer
(00:46:42)
NATO was a mortal enemy of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It’s a military alliance which has at its heart the United States of America, which is the most powerful state on the planet. It is perfectly understandable that Russia is not going to want that military alliance on its doorstep.

(00:47:08)
Here in the United States we have, as you well know, what’s called the Monroe Doctrine, and that basically says no great powers from Europe or Asia are allowed to come into our neighborhood and form a military alliance with anybody in this neighborhood. When I was young, there was this thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets had the audacity to put nuclear armed missiles in Cuba. We told them in no uncertain terms that that was not acceptable, and that those missiles had to be removed. This is our backyard and we do not tolerate distant great powers coming into our neighborhood.

(00:47:45)
Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if we don’t like great powers coming into our neighborhood, it’s hardly surprising that the Russians did not want NATO on their doorstep. They made that manifestly clear when the Cold War ended, and they exacted a promise from us that we would not expand NATO. And then when we started expanding NATO, they made it clear, after the first tranche in 1999, that they were profoundly unhappy with that. They made it clear in 2004, after the second tranche, that they were profoundly unhappy with that expansion.

(00:48:29)
And then, in April 2008, when NATO announced that Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO, they made it unequivocally clear, not just Putin, that was not going to happen. They were drawing a red line in the sand. And it is no accident that in August 2008, remember the Bucharest Summit is April 2008? And August 2008, you had a war between Georgia and Russia, and that involved, at its core, NATO expansion.

(00:49:02)
So the Americans and their allies should have understood by at least August 2008 that continuing to push to bring Ukraine into NATO was going to lead to disaster. And I would note that there were all sorts of people in the 1990s like George Kennan, William Perry, who was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Paul Nitsa, and so forth and so on, who argued that NATO expansion would end up producing a disaster, which it has.

(00:49:38)
I would note that at the famous April 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO said that Ukraine would be brought into the alliance, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the German and French leaders respectively, opposed that decision. Angela Merkel later said that the reason she opposed it was because she understood that Putin would interpret it as a declaration of war. Just think about that. Merkel is telling you that she opposed NATO expansion into Ukraine, because she understood, correctly, that Putin would see it as a declaration of war.

(00:50:22)
What did the United States and its friends and friends in Europe do? They continued to push and push, because we thought that we could push NATO expansion down their throat after 2008, the same way we did in 1999 and 2004, but we were wrong, and it all blew up in our face in 2014. And when it blew up in our face in 2014, what did we do? Did we back off and say, “Well, maybe the Russians have some legitimate security interest.” No, that’s not the way we operate. We continued to double down.

(00:50:57)
And the end result is that in 2022, you got a war. And as I’ve argued for a long time now, we, the West, are principally responsible for that, not Vladimir Putin.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:11)
So the expansion of NATO is primarily responsible for that.
John Mearsheimer
(00:51:15)
Yeah. To put it in more general terms, what we were trying to do was turn Ukraine into a Western bulwark on Russia’s border, and it really wasn’t NATO expansion alone. NATO expansion was the most important element of our strategy. But the strategy had two other dimensions. One was EU expansion, and the third was the Color Revolution. We were trying to force Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and the basic goal there was to turn Ukraine into a pro-Western, liberal democracy.

(00:51:52)
And that meant that you’d have Ukraine, if it worked, as a pro-Western liberal democracy that was in the EU, and that was in NATO. This was our goal. And the Russians made it unequivocally clear Ukraine was not going to become a Western bulwark on their border, and most importantly, they made it clear that Ukraine in NATO was unacceptable.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:19)
Can we talk about the mind of Vladimir Putin? You’ve mentioned this idea that he has aspirations for imperialist conquest, that he dreams of empire, is not grounded in reality. He wrote an essay in 2021, about one people. Do you think there is some degree to which he still dreams of the former Soviet Union reuniting?
John Mearsheimer
(00:52:50)
No, he’s made it clear that anybody with a triple digit IQ understands that it’s nuts to think about recreating the Soviet Union. He thinks it’s a tragedy that the Soviet Union fell apart, but as he made clear in that essay, the July 12th, 2021 essay, and as he made clear in speeches before, immediately before he invaded Ukraine, he accepted the breakup of the Soviet Union, and he accepted the status quo in Europe, save for the fact he did not accept the idea that Ukraine would become part of NATO.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:33)
He’s been in power for over two decades. Is there a degree that power can affect a leader’s ability to see the world clearly, as they say, corrupt? Do you think power has corrupted Vladimir Putin, to a degree?
John Mearsheimer
(00:53:52)
It’s very hard for me to answer that question because I don’t know him, and I’ve not studied him carefully in terms of his overall performance over the course of the 23 years that he’s been in power. I’ve studied him as a strategist, and I’ve studied how he deals with the West, and deals with the international system more generally since 2014. And I think he is a first class strategist.

(00:54:31)
This is not to say he doesn’t make mistakes, and he admits he’s made some mistakes, but I think that the West is dealing with a formidable adversary here. And I don’t see any evidence that he’s either lost speed off his fastball, or that power has corrupted his thinking about strategic affairs.
Lex Fridman
(00:54:59)
So he has consistently put, as a primary concern, security? As does the United States, he’s put for Russia’s security, making sure that NATO doesn’t get close to its borders?
John Mearsheimer
(00:55:12)
I think that’s clear. Yeah, I think as I emphasized early on in our conversation, that leaders privilege security or survival over everything else. And by the way, he gave a number of talks and press conferences in addition to writing that famous article that you referred to on July 12th, 2021. So we have a pretty clear record of what he was saying, and I would argue what he was thinking, in the run-up to the war in February 2022.

(00:55:50)
And if you read what he said, it’s quite clear that he privileged security or survival. He was deeply concerned about the security of Russia. And Russia is a quite vulnerable state in a lot of ways, especially if you think back to what it looked like in the 1990s, as you know better than I do. It was in terrible shape. The Chinese talk about the century of national humiliation. One could argue that for the Russians, that was the decade of national humiliation. And it took Putin, I think, quite a bit of time to bring the Russians back from the dead. I think he eventually succeeded, but it took a considerable amount of time, and I think he understood that he was not playing a particularly strong hand. He was playing something of a weak hand, and he had to be very careful, very cautious, and I think he was. And I think that’s very different than the United States. The United States was the Unipol. It was the most powerful state in the history of the world, the most powerful state relative to all its possible competitors. From roughly 1989, certainly after December 1991, when the Soviet Union fell apart, up until, I would argue, about 2017, we were incredibly powerful. And even after 2017, up to today, the United States remains the most powerful state in the system.

(00:57:18)
And because of our geographical location, we are in a terrific situation to survive in any great power competition. So you have a situation involving the United States that’s different than the situation involving Russia. They’re just much more vulnerable than we are. And therefore, I think Putin tends to be more sensitive about security than any American president in recent times.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:51)
Europe on one side, China on the other side. It’s a complicated situation.
John Mearsheimer
(00:57:56)
Yeah. And we talked before about 1812, when Napoleon invaded and Moscow got burned to the ground. We talked about World War I, where the Russians were actually defeated and surrendered, and then we talked about 1941 to 1945, where, although thankfully the Soviets prevailed, it was a close call. And I mean, the casualties, the destruction that the Soviet Union had inflicted on it by the Germans is just almost hard to believe. So they are sensitive.

(00:58:38)
You can understand full well, or at least you should be able to understand full well, why the idea of bringing Ukraine up to their border really spooked them. I don’t understand why more Americans don’t understand that, it befuddles me. I think it has to do with the fact that Americans are not very good at putting themselves in the shoes of other countries. And you really, if you’re going to be a first class strategist in international politics, you have to be able to do that. You have to put yourself in the shoes of the other side and think about how they think, so you don’t make foolish mistakes.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:16)
And as a starting point, Americans tend to see themselves as the good guys and a set of others as the bad guys. And you have to be able to empathize that Russians think of themselves as the good guys, the Chinese think of themselves as the good guys, and just be able to empathize. If they are the good guys… It’s like that funny skit. Are we the baddies? Consider the United States could be the bad guys.

(00:59:44)
First of all, see the world, if the United States is the bad guys and China is the good guys, what does that world look like? Be able to just exist with that thought, because that is what the Chinese leadership and many Chinese citizens, if not now, maybe in the future, will believe. And you have to kind of do the calculation, the simulation forward from that. And same with Russia, same with other nations.
John Mearsheimer
(01:00:12)
Yeah, I agree with you, a hundred percent. And just, I always think of Michael McFall at Stanford, who was the American ambassador to Russia, I think between 2012 and 2014. And he told me that he told Putin that Putin didn’t have to worry about NATO expansion because the United States was a benign hegemony.

(01:00:36)
And I asked Mike what Putin’s response was to that. And Mike said that Putin didn’t believe it, but Mike believed that he should believe it, and that we could move NATO eastward to include Ukraine, and in the end, we’d get away with it because we are a benign hegemony, but the fact is that’s not what Putin saw. Putin saw us as a malign hegemony. And what Mike thinks, or any American thinks, doesn’t matter. What matters is what Putin thinks.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:15)
But also, the drums of war have been beating for some reason. NATO expansion has been threatened for some reason. So you’ve talked about NATO expansion being dead, so it doesn’t make sense from a geopolitical perspective, on the Europe side, to expand NATO. But nevertheless, that threat has been echoed. So why has NATO expansion been pushed, from your perspective?
John Mearsheimer
(01:01:46)
There are two reasons. One is, first of all, we thought it was a wonderful thing to bring more and more countries into NATO. We thought that it facilitated peace and prosperity. It was ultimately all for the good. And we also thought that countries like Ukraine had a right to join NATO.

(01:02:12)
These are sovereign countries that can decide for themselves, and the Russians have no say in what Ukraine wants to do. And then finally, and this is a point I emphasized before, we were very powerful, and we thought we could shove it down their throat. So it’s a combination of those factors that led us to pursue what I think was ultimately a foolish policy.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:39)
We’ve talked about how wars get started. How do you hope the war in Ukraine ends? What are the ways to end this war? What are the ways to achieve peace there? To end the, I would say, senseless death of young men, as always happens in war?
John Mearsheimer
(01:03:04)
I’m sad to say I don’t have a good answer to that. I don’t think there’s any real prospect of a meaningful peace agreement. I think it’s almost impossible. I think the best you can hope for at this point is, at some point the shooting stops, you have a ceasefire, and then you have a frozen conflict. And that frozen conflict will not be highly stable.

(01:03:36)
And the Ukrainians in the West will do everything they can to weaken Russia’s position, and the Russians will go to great lengths to not only damage that dysfunctional rump state that Ukraine becomes, but the Russians will go to great lengths to sow dissension within the alliance. And that includes in terms of transatlantic relations.

(01:04:03)
So you’ll have this continuing security competition between Russia on one side, and Ukraine and the West on the other. Even when you get a frozen peace, or you get a frozen conflict, and the potential for escalation there will be great. So I think this is a disaster.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:25)
That’s a very realist perspective. Let me ask you sort of the human side of it. Do you think there’s some power to leaders sitting down, having a conversation, man to man, leader to leader, about this? There is just a lot of death happening. It seems that, from an economic perspective, from a historic perspective, from a human perspective, both nations are losing.

(01:04:55)
Is it possible for Vladimir Zelensky and Vladimir Putin to sit down and talk, and to figure out a way where the security concerns are addressed, and both nations can minimize the amount of suffering that’s happening, and create a path towards future flourishing?
John Mearsheimer
(01:05:21)
I think the answer is no.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:23)
Even with the United States involved, three people in the room?
John Mearsheimer
(01:05:27)
Well, I think if the United States is involved, the answer is definitely no. You have to get the Americans out. And then, I think if you have Zelensky and Putin talking, you have a sliver of a chance there. The Americans are a real problem. Look, let’s go back to what happens right after the war starts, okay? As I said before, we’re talking March, early April of 2022. The war starts on February 24th, 2022.

(01:05:59)
And as I said to you, the two sides were negotiating in Istanbul, and they were also negotiating through Naftali Bennett, and the Bennett track and the Turkish track were operating together. I mean, they were not at cross purposes at all. What happened? Bennett tells the story very clearly that they had made significant progress in reaching an agreement. This is Zelensky on one side and Putin on the other. Bennett is talking in person to both Putin and Zelensky, and what happens to produce failure?

(01:06:45)
The answer is, the United States and Britain get involved and tell Zelensky to walk. They tell Zelensky to walk. If they had come in and encouraged Zelensky to try to figure out a way with Putin to shut this one down, and worked with Bennett, and worked with Erdogan, we might’ve been able to shut the war down then, but it was the United States.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:09)
Well, let me sort of push back on that. You’re correct, but the United States paints this picture that everybody’s aligned. Maybe you can correct me, but I believe in the power of individuals, especially individual leaders. Again, whether it’s Biden or Trump or whoever goes into a room and says, in a way that’s convincing, that no more NATO expansion. And actually just on a basic human level, ask the question of why are we doing all this senseless killing?

(01:07:49)
And look at the interest of one, Russia, look at the interest of the other, Ukraine. Their interests are pretty simple. And say, the United States is going to stay out of this. We’re not going to expand NATO, and say all that in a way that’s convincing, which is that NATO expansion is silly at this point, China’s the big threat. We’re not going to do this kind of conflict escalation with Russia. The Cold War’s over, let’s normalize relations.
John Mearsheimer
(01:08:20)
Let me just embellish your argument, okay?
Lex Fridman
(01:08:23)
Thank you. I need it.
John Mearsheimer
(01:08:26)
If we say there’s a sliver of a chance that you can do this, and I do think there is a sliver of a chance. Let me just embellish your point.
Lex Fridman
(01:08:34)
Thank you. I need all the help I can get.
John Mearsheimer
(01:08:37)
Two things have to be done here, in my opinion. One is, Ukraine has to become neutral, and it has to completely sever all security ties with the West, right? It is not like you can say, “We’re not going to expand NATO to include Ukraine, but we’re going to continue to have some loose security arrangement with Ukraine.” None of that. It has to be completely severed. Ukraine has to be on its own, okay?

(01:09:13)
And number two, Ukraine has to accept the fact that the Russians are going to keep the four oblasts that they’ve now annexed, and Crimea. The Russians are not going to give them back. And what you really want to do, if you’re Zelensky or who’s ever running Ukraine in this scenario that we’re positing, is you want to make sure the Russians don’t take another four oblasts, to include Kharkiv and Odessa.

(01:09:45)
If I’m playing Putin’s hand and this war goes on, I’m thinking about taking four more oblasts. I want to take about 43% of Ukraine and annex it to Russia, and I certainly want Odessa, and I certainly want Kharkiv, and I want the two oblasts-
John Mearsheimer
(01:10:03)
And I certainly want Harki and I want the two old boss in between as well.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:05)
Literally, or as leveraged in negotiation or Ukraine neutrality?
John Mearsheimer
(01:10:12)
No, I want them literally, I want to conquer them literally. My point to you is if we can begin to talk about cutting a deal now, you may be able to head that kind of aggression off at the pass. In other words, you may be able to limit Putin and Russia to annexing the four old boss that they’ve now annexed plus Crimea. That’s the best I think you can hope for. The point is you have to get the Ukrainians to accept that. You have to get the Ukrainians to accept becoming a truly neutral state and conceding that the Russians keep a big chunk of territory. It’s about 23% of Ukrainian territory that they’ve annexed and I find it hard to imagine any Ukrainian leader agreeing to that.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:03)
Well, there could be more nuanced things like no military involvement between the United States and Ukraine, but economic involvement, sort of financial support, so normalizing economic relationships with Ukraine, with Russia, all being-
John Mearsheimer
(01:11:21)
I think you could probably get away with that. I think the tricky question there that you would have to answer is what about EU expansion? And I think EU expansion is probably a no-no for the Russians because most people don’t recognize this, but there is a military dimension built into EU expansion. It’s not purely an economic alliance or relationship or institution, whatever word you want to use. There’s a military dimension to that. In the run-up to the war, actually in the run-up to the 2014 crisis, when it first broke out, the Russians made it clear they saw EU expansion as a stalking horse for NATO expansion.

(01:12:10)
So EU expansion is tricky, but I think your point of close economic relations between … or healthy economic relations to use a better term between Ukraine and the West is possible. I think the Russians have a vested interest and if it’s a neutral Ukraine, they have a vested interest in that Ukraine flourishing, but that then brings us back to the territorial issue, right?
Lex Fridman
(01:12:39)
Well, so do you believe it’s possible for individual human relations to counteract the structural forces that you talk about? So meaning the leaders being able to pick up the phone and make agreements that are good for humanity as a whole and for their individual nations in the long term?
John Mearsheimer
(01:12:59)
I think leadership matters here. I mean, one of the real problems here is that there’s no trust on the Russian side, and that has to do with the Minsk agreements. The Minsk agreements, which were designed to shut down the Civil War in Eastern Ukraine, in the Donbas really mattered to the Russians. And there were four players involved in the Minsk process, four main players, Russia and Ukraine of course, and then Germany and France. And I believe the Russians took the Minsk Accord seriously. I believe Putin took them very seriously. He wanted to shut down that conflict.

(01:13:52)
And Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, he was the French leader and Poroshenko, who was the Ukrainian leader, those were the three key players besides Putin. Again, Hollande from France, Merkel from Germany, and Poroshenko from Ukraine have all explicitly said they were not seriously interested in reaching an agreement in all of the discussions with Putin, they were bamboozling him. They were trying to trick him so that they would buy time to build up Ukraine’s military. Putin is profoundly upset about these admissions by these three leaders. He believes he was fooled into thinking that Minsk could work. He believes that he negotiated in good faith and they did not.

(01:14:49)
And he believes that the level of trust now between Russia and the West is virtually zero as a result of this experience over Minsk. I only bring this up because it cuts against your argument that leaders could pick up the phone and talk to each other and trust each other at least somewhat to work out a meaningful deal. If you’re Putin at this point in time, trusting the West is not an idea that’s going to be very attractive at all. In fact, you’re going to distrust anything they say.
Lex Fridman
(01:15:30)
Yeah, distrust anything the West say, but there is individual humans. The way human nature works is when you’re sitting across from a person, you can trust a human being while still distrusting the West. I mean, I believe in the power of that. I think with the right leaders, you could sit down and talk, like override the general structural distrust of the West and say, “You know what? I like this guy or gal, whatever.” I do hope Zelensky and Putin sit down together and talk, have multiple talks.
John Mearsheimer
(01:16:08)
Just remember they were doing that in March and the Americans came in and the British came in and they scotched a potential deal.
Lex Fridman
(01:16:17)
Well, the other beautiful thing about human nature, there’s forgiveness and there’s trying again.
John Mearsheimer
(01:16:25)
When you’re the leader of a country in an anarchic system, you have to be very careful not to let your trust in a foreign leader take you too far, because if that foreign leader betrays you or betrays your trust and stab you in the back, you could die and again, you want to remember that the principal responsibility of any leader, I don’t care what country it is, is to ensure the survival of their state. And that means that trust is only going to buy you so much, and when you’ve already betrayed the trust of a leader, you really are not going to be able to rely on trust very much to help you moving forward. Now, you disagree with that? I hope you’re right.

(01:17:17)
And if they can shut down the Ukraine-Russia war, it would be wonderful. If I’m proved dead wrong, that would be wonderful news. My prediction that this war is going to go on for a long time and end in an ugly way is a prediction that I don’t like at all. So I hope I’m wrong.
Lex Fridman
(01:17:45)
You wrote that many in the West believe that the best hope for ending the Ukraine wars to remove Vladimir Putin from power, but you argue that this isn’t the case. Can you explain?
John Mearsheimer
(01:17:58)
Well, a lot of people thought when they were having all that trouble, the Russians were having all that trouble with Prigozhin and the Wagner Group that Putin was vulnerable and was likely to be overthrown. And what would happen is a peace-loving leader would replace Putin. I made two points at the time, and I would make those same two points now. Number one, he’s not likely to be overthrown. He was not likely then to be overthrown. And I think as long as his health holds up, I think he will remain in power. My second point is if he doesn’t remain in power and he’s replaced, I would bet a lot of money that his replacement will be more hawkish and more hard line than Putin is.

(01:18:58)
I actually think one could argue that Putin was too trusting of the West before the war started and number two, I think one could argue that he has not waged the war against Ukraine as vigorously as one might have expected. He was slow to mobilize the nation for war, and he has pursued a limited war in all sorts of ways. The Israelis, for example, have killed more civilians in Gaza in one month than the Russians have killed over 18 months in Ukraine. The idea that Vladimir Putin is waging a punishment campaign and killing on purpose, large numbers of civilians, is simply not true.

(01:19:53)
All this just to say that … I would imagine that if Putin leaves office and someone else comes in to replace him, that someone else will be at least if not, more hard line than him in terms of waging the war, and certainly will not trust the West any more than he has.
Lex Fridman
(01:20:15)
By way of advice, let me ask you, if I were to have a conversation interview Vladimir Putin and Zelensky individually, what should I ask them? If you, me and Vladimir Putin are having a chat, what are good ideas to explore? What are good questions to ask? What are good things to say on or off the mic once again, that could potentially even slightly, lessen the amount of suffering in the world caused by this war?
John Mearsheimer
(01:20:51)
I think if you get an interview with Vladimir Putin, there’s just all sorts of questions you could ask him. And my sense is that Putin is a straight shooter. He’s also very knowledgeable about history, and he has simple theories in his head about how the world works. I think he would level with you, and all you would’ve to do is just figure out what all the right questions are. That would not be hard to do. You could ask him why was he so foolish? For example, why was he so foolish as to trust Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel in the Minsk Accords. Why after his famous talk at Munich in 2007 where he made it clear that he was so unhappy with the West, did he continue to, in a very important way, trust the West?

(01:21:52)
Why didn’t he mobilize the Russian military before late September, 2022, once the negotiations that we were talking about before involving Istanbul and Naftali Bennett. Once they broke down, why didn’t he immediately mobilize more of the Russian population to fight the war? Just all sorts of questions like that. Then, you could ask him questions about where he sees this one headed. What’s the best strategy for Russia if the Ukrainians will not agree to neutrality?People like John Mearsheimer say, “You’ll probably take close to half of Ukraine. Is that true? Does it make sense to take Odessa.”
Lex Fridman
(01:22:47)
And John Mearsheimer also has questions about China, your future relationships with China?
John Mearsheimer
(01:22:53)
Yeah, I mean, one really important question that I would ask him is if the United States had basically not driven you into the arms of the Chinese, if there had been no war over Ukraine and the United States and its European allies had gone to considerable lengths to create some sort of security architecture in Europe that resulted in you, Vladimir Putin having good relations with Ukraine, what would your relations with China be and how would you think about that? So there are just plenty of questions you could ask him.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:33)
Well, hope burns eternal in my heart, I think probably in Putin’s heart and Zelensky’s heart, I hope because hope is, the leap of trust that we’ve talked about, I think is necessary for deescalation and for peace.
John Mearsheimer
(01:23:50)
Well, you realize, I have, from the beginning, argued for different policies that were all designed to prevent this war from ever happening.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:59)
Yes.
John Mearsheimer
(01:24:00)
I don’t know if you know this, but in 1993, I argued that Ukraine should keep its nuclear weapons. I was probably the only person in the West who made that argument. And my argument in 1993, this is in foreign affairs, was that there may come the day when Russia thinks about invading Ukraine. And should that day come, it would be very helpful for preventing war if Ukraine had nuclear weapons.
Lex Fridman
(01:24:27)
So military might is essential for maintaining a balance of power and peace.
John Mearsheimer
(01:24:33)
Well, if you’re interested in deterring an adversary, if I’m worried about you coming after me, the best way to deter you is to have military might. If you’re Russia, and I’m Ukraine, I’m far weaker than you, right?
Lex Fridman
(01:24:46)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(01:24:47)
And having a nuclear deterrent would be very effective at convincing you not to attack me because if you attack me, you’re threatening my survival. And that’s the one circumstance where it is likely that I would use nuclear weapons to defend myself and given the consequences of nuclear use, you would be reluctant in the extreme to attack me. So that’s why I argued in ’93 that if Ukraine kept its nuclear weapons that made war down the road much less likely. And I believe I was correct. And in fact, Bill Clinton, who played the key role in forcing Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons now says … he has said it publicly, you can find it on YouTube that he made a mistake doing that.

(01:25:36)
Furthermore, I argued in 2014 that it made eminently good sense not to continue to push to bring Ukraine into NATO because the end result is that Ukraine would be destroyed and Ukraine is being destroyed. So I was deeply interested at time in making sure that that didn’t happen for the good of the Ukrainians, not to mention, because stability in Europe is a net positive for almost everybody involved, but people did not listen to me then either.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:08)
How did nuclear weapons change the calculus of offensive realism, because of mutually assured destruction? I mean, it’s not just military might. It’s just so destructive that you basically can’t use nuclear weapons unless you want complete destruction.
John Mearsheimer
(01:26:28)
There’s no question that the presence of nuclear weapons makes it much less likely. I’m choosing my words carefully here, much less likely that a great power would aggress against another great power. It doesn’t take that possibility off the table, but it makes it much less likely because of the reasons that you articulated. With regard to nuclear use, it’s an interesting question how you think about nuclear use in a MAD world. I mean, your point that we’re in a MAD world is … that’s mad, MAD as well as mad, small letters, but let’s stick to the capital letters. We’re in a world of mutual assured destruction. There’s no question that in that world, it’s unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used.

(01:27:22)
The way you use nuclear weapons in that world is you use them for manipulation of risk purposes, demonstration effect. You put both sides out on the slippery slope. Now, what exactly am I saying here? Let me talk about NATO doctrine during the Cold War. We lived in a MAD world, United States and Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact in NATO, both had an assured destruction capability. So you had mutual assured destruction. If the Warsaw Pact were to invade Western Europe, and here we’re talking about West Germany and NATO was losing the war, we said that we would use nuclear weapons. How would we use nuclear weapons given that we were in a MAD world? The argument was that we would use a handful of nuclear weapons against the Warsaw Pact, not necessarily against their military forces.

(01:28:25)
It could be in a remote area. We would use a small number of nuclear weapons to signal to the Soviets that we were deadly serious about putting an end to their offensive, and that we were throwing both sides out on the slippery slope to oblivion. In other words, we were manipulating risk and the last clear chance to avoid Armageddon rested with them. And then, we would tell them that if you retaliated with a handful of nuclear weapons and you didn’t cease your offensive against West Germany, we would launch a small, another nuclear attack. We would explode a handful more of nuclear weapons, all for the purposes of showing you our resolve.

(01:29:21)
So this is the manipulation of risk strategy, and a lot of the language I just used in describing it to you is language that Thomas Schelling invented. Now fast-forward to the present, if Russia were losing in Ukraine, that’s the one scenario where I think where Russia would’ve used nuclear weapons. The question is, how would Russia have used nuclear weapons? Again, we’re assuming that the Russians are losing to the Ukrainians. I believe they would’ve pursued a manipulation of risk strategy. They would’ve used four or five, three or four, who knows, nuclear weapons-
Lex Fridman
(01:29:59)
Maybe just one in a rural area that kills very few people.
John Mearsheimer
(01:30:03)
Yes, exactly, and basically, that would spook everybody. The American-
Lex Fridman
(01:30:08)
Just the mushroom cloud.
John Mearsheimer
(01:30:10)
Yeah. It’s because of the threat of escalation.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:14)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(01:30:14)
Again, your point is we’re in a MAD world. I accept that and if you have limited nuclear use, right? We understand hardly anything about nuclear escalation because thank goodness we’ve never had a nuclear war. So once you throw both sides out on the slippery slope, even if you only use one nuclear weapon in your scenario, you don’t know what the escalation dynamics look like. So everybody has a powerful incentive to put an end to the conflict right away. I might add to you that there were people who believed that we would not even initiate a manipulation of risk strategy in Europe if we were losing to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

(01:31:04)
Both Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara said after leaving office that they would not have done it. They would’ve not initiated nuclear use, even limited nuclear use. That’s what we’re talking about here. They would rather be red than dead, that was the argument.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:24)
Too risky.
John Mearsheimer
(01:31:25)
Too risky. That’s exactly right, but if they had used one nuclear weapon in your story, or three or four in my story, everybody would’ve said, “Oh my God, we’ve got to shut this one down immediately.” I only tell you this story or lay out this scenario as an answer to your question of how you use nuclear weapons in a MAD world, and this is the answer.
Lex Fridman
(01:31:53)
This is all very terrifying. Perhaps in part, it’s terrifying to me because I can see in the 21st century, China, Russia, Israel, United States using a nuclear weapon in this way, blowing it up somewhere in the middle of nowhere that kills maybe nobody, but I’m terrified of seeing the mushroom cloud and not knowing, given social media, given how fast news travels, what the escalation looks like there. Just in a matter of minutes, how the news travels and how the leaders react. It’s terrifying that this little demonstration of power, the ripple effects of it, in a matter of minutes, seconds, what that leads to because it’s human emotions.

(01:32:51)
You see the landscape of human emotions, the leaders and the populace and the way news are reported, and then the landscape of risk, as you mentioned, shifting the world’s most intense nonlinear dynamical system, and it is just terrifying because the entirety of human civilizations hangs in the balance there. And it’s like this, hundreds of millions of people could be dead.
John Mearsheimer
(01:33:21)
Let’s just talk about this in the context of the Ukrainian War. If the Russians were losing, as I said before, which is not the case anymore, but in 2022, it did look like that, if the Russians are losing and they turn to nuclear weapons, the question is how do they use them? And they would use them in Ukraine, and because Ukraine has no nuclear weapons of its own, Ukraine cannot retaliate. It’s not a mutual assured destruction world. It’s a case where one side has nuclear weapons and the other doesn’t. That means that the Russians are likely to think that they can get away with using nuclear weapons in ways that would not be the case if they were attacking NATO.

(01:34:17)
And therefore, it makes nuclear use more likely. Okay. That’s point one. Point two is let’s assume that the Russians use two or three nuclear weapons in a remote area-
Lex Fridman
(01:34:27)
My palms are sweating, by the way. Just as a commentary. It’s terrifying.
John Mearsheimer
(01:34:32)
Yeah. The question then is what does the West do? Now, Macron has said and Biden has also, I think, implicitly made this clear, “We would not retaliate with nuclear weapons, if the Russians were to attack with a handful of nuclear weapons in Western Ukraine.” Then, the question is what would we do? And if you listen to David Petraeus, what David Petraeus says, is that we should attack the Russian naval assets in the Black Sea and attack Russian forces in Ukraine. Well, once you do that, you have a great power of war. You have NATO versus Russia, which is another way of saying you have the United States versus Russia. We’re now in a great power of war.

(01:35:23)
They have nuclear weapons, we have nuclear weapons. They’ve used nuclear weapons. What is the happy ending here? And just to take it a step further and go back to our earlier discussion about moving NATO up to Russia’s borders, the point I made, which you’ll surely agree with, is that the Russians are very fearful when they see NATO coming up to their border. Well, here’s a case where not only is NATO come up to their border, but they’re in a war with NATO right on their border. What do the escalation dynamics look like there? You know what the answer is? Who knows? That should scare the living bejesus out of you, right?
Lex Fridman
(01:36:06)
And some of it could be, like you mentioned, unintended. There could be unintended consequences. That could be a Russian missile misses in hits Poland. These kinds of things that just escalate misunderstandings, miscommunications, even … I mean, nuclear weapon could be … boy, it could have been planned to go location X, and it went to a location Y that ended up actually killing a very large number of people. I mean, the escalation that happens there just happens in a matter of minutes. And the only way to stop that is communication between leaders. And that to me is a big argument for ongoing communication.
John Mearsheimer
(01:36:52)
There’s a story that during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy put out the word, no aircraft under any circumstances or to penetrate Soviet airspace. He then found out a few days later that some guy hadn’t gotten the message and had penetrated in an aircraft deep into Soviet airspace.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:19)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(01:37:19)
And this supports your basic point that bad things happen.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:25)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(01:37:26)
And again, the overarching point here is we’ve never done this before, thankfully. Therefore, we don’t have a lot of experience as to how it plays itself out. It’s really a theoretical enterprise because there’s no empirical basis for talking about escalation in a nuclear crisis. And that, of course, is a wonderful thing.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:50)
Well, and in general, the human species as a whole as a one-off, is a theoretical enterprise. The survival of the human species. We’ve seen empires rise and fall, but we haven’t seen the human species rise and fall. So far it’s been rising, but it’s not obvious that it doesn’t end. In fact, I think about aliens a lot, and the fact that we don’t see aliens makes me suspect it’s not so easy to survive in this complicated world of ours. Switching gears a little bit and going to a different part of the world, also engulfed in war. Let me ask you about the situation in Israel. Why did Hamas attack Israel on October 7th, 2023? As you understand the situation, what was the reason that attack happened?

Israel and Palestine

John Mearsheimer
(01:38:48)
Well, I think the main reason was that you had this suffocating occupation. I think as long as the occupation persists, the Palestinians are going to resist. As you well know, this is not the first time there has been a Palestinian uprising. There was the first Intifada, there was the second Intifada, now there’s October 7th, and there are uprisings besides those three, so this is not terribly surprising. A lot of people hypothesized that this attack was due to the fact that the Israelis, the Saudis and the Americans were working together to foster another Abraham Accord and that the Palestinians would in effect be sold down the river.

(01:39:45)
I think given the fact that this was in the planning stages for probably about two years, and the Abraham Accords with regard to Saudi Arabia are relatively new phenomenon, I don’t think that’s the main driving force here. I think the main driving force is that the Palestinians feel oppressed as they should, and that this was a resistance move. They were resisting the Israeli occupation.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:18)
So that resistance, the attack involved killing a large number of Israeli civilians. There’s many questions asked there, but one is, do you think Hamas fully understood what the retaliation will involve from Israel and to Gaza?
John Mearsheimer
(01:40:39)
They had to understand. I mean, you had Operation Cast Lead in 2008, 2009. It started, I think right after Christmas 2008, and it ended right before President Obama took office in January 2009. And the Israelis periodically do what they call mowing the lawn where they go into Gaza and they pound the Palestinians to remind them that they’re not supposed to rise up and cause any problem. So there’s no question in my mind that the Hamas forces understood full well that the Israelis would retaliate and they would retaliate in force as they have done.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:35)
Yeah, even the metaphor of mowing the lawn is disturbing to me in many ways. I actually saw Norman Finkelstein, I think, say that, well, then if you use that metaphor, then you could say that Hamas was also mowing the lawn. It’s such a horrific image because the result on either side is just the death of civilians. I mean, let me ask you about the death of civilians. So during the attack, 1400 Israelis were killed. Over 240 were taken hostage. Then, in response, as we sit today, Israel’s military response has killed over 10,000 people in Gaza. And given the nature of the demographics, it’s a very heavily young population.

(01:42:27)
Over 40% of them are under the age of 18, of those killed. That’s of course, according to Ministry of Health of Palestinian Authority. So what do you think is the long-term effect on the prospect of peace when so many civilians die?
John Mearsheimer
(01:42:46)
I mean, I think it’s disastrous. I mean, the only way you’re going to get peace here is if you have a two-state solution where the Palestinians have a sovereign state of their own, and there is a sovereign Jewish state. And these two states live side by side American presidents since Jimmy Carter have understood this full well. And this is why we have pushed very hard for two-state solution. Indeed, many American Jews and many Israelis have pushed for a two-state solution because they think that that is the only way you’re going to get peace between the two sides. What’s happened here is that in recent years, the Israelis have lost all interest in a two-state solution.

(01:43:43)
And it’s in large part because the political center of gravity in Israel has steadily moved to the right. When I was a young boy, the political center of gravity in Israel was much further to the left than it is today. It is in a position now, the political center of gravity where there’s hardly any support for two state solution and Netanyahu and the rest of the people in his government were in favor or are in favor of a greater Israel. There’s just no question about that. Well, on top of that, you now have had a war where, as you described, huge numbers of civilians have been killed, and you already had bad blood between the Palestinians and the Israelis before this conflict.

(01:44:41)
And you could imagine how people on each side now feel about people on the other side. So even if you didn’t have this opposition inside Israel to a two-state solution, how could you possibly get the Israelis now to agree to a two-state solution? I think for the foreseeable future, the animosity …
John Mearsheimer
(01:45:03)
Solution. I think for the foreseeable future, the animosity inside Israel towards the Palestinians is so great that it is impossible to move the Israelis in that direction. And the Israelis here are the key players more so than the Palestinians because it’s the Israelis who control Greater Israel. It’s the Israelis who you have to convince. Now, I want to be clear here. You also ultimately have to get around the fact that Hamas is not committed to a two-state solution. But I think that problem could be dealt with. It’s important to understand that Arafat and the PLO was once adamantly opposed to a two-state solution. But Arafat came around to understand that that was really the only hope for settling this. And he became a proponent of a two-state solution.

(01:45:53)
And that’s true of Mahmoud Abbas who runs the PA in the West Bank. It’s not true of Hamas at this point in time. They want a one-state solution, they want a Palestinian state. And of course, the Israelis want a one-state solution too, which is a Jewish state that controls all of Greater Israel. So the question is, can you get some sort of agreement? And I think to get to the nub of your question, given what’s just happened, it’s almost impossible to imagine that happening anytime soon.
Lex Fridman
(01:46:27)
The cynical perspective here is that those in power benefit from conflict while the people on both sides suffer. Is there a degree of truth to that? Or for the people in power to maintain power conflict needs to continue?
John Mearsheimer
(01:46:44)
No, I don’t believe that. I mean, just to take the Netanyahu government or any Israeli government that maintains the occupation, what you want is you want a Palestinian population that submits to Israeli domination of Greater Israel. You don’t want resistance, you don’t want an intifada. You don’t want what happened on October 7th. In fact, I think one of the principal reasons that the Israelis are pounding Gaza and killing huge numbers of civilians. Punishing the civilian population in ways that clearly violate the laws of war, is because they want the Palestinians to understand that they are not allowed to rise up and resist the occupation. That’s their goal.

(01:47:33)
So, I think the Israelis would prefer that the Palestinians roll over and accept submission. In terms of the people who live in Gaza to include the elites, and the people who live in the West Bank to include the elites. They would much prefer to move to some sort of situation where the Palestinians have a state of their own. I think in the case of the PA, under Abbas, they would accept a two-state solution. I think what, at this point in time, Hamas wants is a one-state solution, but they want peace. All of them want peace. The two different sets of leadership in Palestine and the Israelis.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:16)
So you think Hamas wants peace?
John Mearsheimer
(01:48:19)
Sure. But on its own terms, that’s the point.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:21)
What does peace look like for Hamas?
John Mearsheimer
(01:48:24)
At this point in time, I think peace basically means a Greater Israel controlled by Palestine or Palestinians.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:31)
Okay. So essentially, it’s the whole land is called Palestine and there’s no Israel?
John Mearsheimer
(01:48:38)
I think, at this point in time, that’s their principal goal. I do believe, and there have been hints over time, Jimmy Carter has said this, that Hamas can be convinced to a two-state solution. Assuming that the Palestinians get a viable state of their own, that Hamas would buy into that. Can we say that with a high degree of certainty? No, but I think the Israelis should have pursued that possibility. They should have worked with Abbas, they should have worked with Hamas to do everything they can to facilitate a two-state solution. Because I think, ultimately, that’s in Israel’s interest. Now, the Israeli government, and most Israelis at this point in time, I believe, don’t agree with that.
Lex Fridman
(01:49:21)
What do you think of Israel starting the ground invasion of Gaza recently on October 27th?
John Mearsheimer
(01:49:31)
The question is, should they continue until they have finally defeated Hamas? There are all sorts of reports in the media, including in the Israeli media, that they’re not going to be allowed by the United States to continue this offensive for much more than a few weeks. The Israelis have been saying it’s going to take, in the best of all possible worlds, a number of months, if not a year to finish off Hamas. Well, it doesn’t look like they’re going to have enough time to do that. I doubt whether they can finish off Hamas, even if they’re given the time. I think they’re going to run into fierce resistance. And when they run into fierce resistance and large numbers of Israelis going to start to die, they’ll lose their appetite for this. And they, the Israelis, surely know at this point in time that even if they finish off Hamas, even if I’m wrong and they’re able to finish off Hamas, another group is going to rise up to resist the occupation.

(01:50:48)
The idea that you can use with Ze’ev Jabotinsky called The Iron Wall, to beat the Palestinians into submission is delusional. It’s just not going to happen. The Palestinians want a state of their own. They don’t want to live under occupation. And there’s no military solution for Israel here. There has to be a political solution. And the only viable political solution is a two-state solution. I mean, you can’t go to democracy. You can’t go to a situation where you give the Palestinians equal rights inside of Greater Israel in large part because there are now as many Palestinians as there are Israeli Jews. And over time, the balance, the demographic balance shifts against the Israeli Jews and in favor of the Palestinians. In which case, you’ll end up with a Palestinian state in Greater Israel. So democracy for all doesn’t work. The Israelis, I believe, are quite interested in ethnic cleansing.

(01:51:56)
I think they saw this recent set of events as an opportunity to cleanse Gaza, but that’s not going to happen. The Jordanians and the Egyptians have made it clear that that’s not happening. The United States has now made it clear that that’s not happening. And the Palestinians will not leave. They’ll die in place. So ethnic cleansing doesn’t work. So you’re really left with two alternatives, the two-state solution or a Greater Israel that is effectively an apartheid state. I mean, that’s what the occupation has led to. And all sorts of people have been predicting this for a long, long time. And you’ve now reached the point. Here in the United States, if you say that Israel’s an apartheid state, that’s going to get you into all sorts of trouble. But the fact is that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B’Tselem, which is the leading Israeli human rights group. All three of those institutions or organizations have issued detailed reports making the case that Israel is an apartheid state.

(01:53:07)
Furthermore, if you read the Israeli media, all sorts of Israelis, including Israeli leaders, refer to Israel as an apartheid state. It’s not that unusual to hear that term used in Israel. This is disastrous for Israel in my opinion. And Steve Walt and I said this, by the way, when we wrote The Israel Lobby, that Israel is an apartheid state, which is equivalent to Israel as an occupier is not good for Israel. That brings us back to the two-state solution. But as you and I were talking about a few minutes ago, it’s hard to see how you get a two-state solution. And the end result of this conversation is utter despair.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:53)
Because the path to a two-state solution is blocked by the amount of hate that’s created by civilian deaths?
John Mearsheimer
(01:54:01)
Well, that plus the fact that the Israeli government is filled with people who have no interest in a two-state solution. They’re ideologically deeply committed to a Greater Israel. They want all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea to be part of a Jewish state. They’re just ideologically committed to that. And of course, as we were talking about before with regard to Hamas, Hamas wants everything between the river and the sea to be a Palestinian state. And when you have two sides with those kinds of views, you’re in deep trouble because there’s a little room for compromise. So what you have to do to get this to work is you have to convince the Israelis that it’s in their interest to have a two-state solution. And you’ve already taken care of the PA on this front, the Palestinian Authority, but you’ve got to convince Hamas that it’s maximalist goals are not going to work. And it’s in its interest to follow in the footsteps of Arafat and accept a two-state solution.

(01:55:17)
But even if you do that at this point, let’s say, that there’s a lot of willingness intellectually on both sides to do that. The problem is that the hatred that has been fueled by this ongoing conflict is so great that it’s just hard to imagine how you can make a two-state solution work at this juncture. That’s why I’ve sort of taken to saying, and I hope I’m wrong here, that on the two-state solution, that boat has sailed. It’s no longer possible.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:53)
Well, again, I believe in leadership and there’s other parties at play here, other nations, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other players in the Middle East that could help through a normalization of relationships and these kinds of things. There’s always hope, like you said, slither of hope.
John Mearsheimer
(01:56:10)
Slither of hope.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:12)
I think human civilization progresses forward by taking advantage of all the slithers it can get. Let me ask you about, you mentioned The Israel Lobby. You wrote a book, probably your most controversial book on the topic.
John Mearsheimer
(01:56:26)
Not probably. Clearly, the most controversial book I ever wrote.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:30)
So you’ve criticized the Israel lobby in the United States for influencing US policy in the Middle East. Can you explain what the Israel lobby is, their influence, and your criticism over the past, let’s say a couple of decades?
John Mearsheimer
(01:56:48)
Well, the argument that Steve Walt and I made, actually, we wrote an article first, which appeared in the London Review of Books, and then we wrote the book itself. Our argument is that the lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that push American policy in a pro-Israel direction. And basically, the lobby is interested in getting the United States, and here we’re talking mainly about the American government, to support Israel no matter what Israel does. And our argument is, that if you look at the relationship between the United States and Israel, it’s unprecedented in modern history. This is the closest relationship that you can find between any two countries in recorded history. It’s truly amazing the extent to which Israel and the United States are joined at the hip. And we support Israel no matter what almost all the time. And our argument is that, that is largely due to the influence of the lobby. The lobby is an extremely powerful interest group.

(01:58:15)
Now, it’s very important to understand that the American political system is set up in ways that allow interest groups of all sorts to wield great influence. So in the United States, you have an interest group or a lobby like the National Rifle Association that makes it, well, not impossible to get gun control. And so with the Israel lobby, you have this group of individuals and organizations that wield enormous influence on US policy toward the Middle East. And this is not surprising given the nature of the American political system. So our argument is that the lobby is not doing anything that’s illegal, or illicit, or immoral, or unethical. It’s just a good old-fashioned American interest group. And it just happens to be extremely powerful. And our argument is that this is not good for the United States because no two countries have the same interests all the time. And when our interests conflict with Israel’s interest, we should be able to do what we think is in our national interest, in America’s national interest.

(01:59:42)
But the lobby tends to conflate America’s national interests with Israel’s national interests and wants the United States to support Israel no matter what. We also argue, and I cannot emphasize this enough, given what’s going on in the world today, that the lobby’s effects, the lobby has not been pushing policies that are in Israel’s interest. So our argument is that the lobby pushes policies that are not in America’s interest or not in Israel’s interest. Now, you’re saying to yourself, what exactly does he mean by that? What every president since Jimmy Carter has tried to do, as I said before, is to foster a two-state solution to push Israel, which is the dominant player in Greater Israel, push Israel to accept the two-state solution. And we have run into huge resistance from the lobby whenever we try to, let’s be blunt about it, coerce Israel.

(02:00:51)
In a perfect world where there was no lobby and an American president was free to put pressure on Israel, to coerce Israel, I believe, we would’ve gone a long way towards getting two-state solution. And I believe, this would’ve been in Israel’s interest. But we couldn’t get a two-state solution because it was almost impossible to put meaningful pressure on Israel because of the lobby. So this was not in Israel’s interest and it was not in America’s interest. And that was the argument that we made. And we, of course, got huge pushback for making that argument.
Lex Fridman
(02:01:28)
What’s the underlying motivation of the lobby? Is it religious in nature? Is it similar to the way war hawks are sort of militaristic in nature? Is it nationalistic in nature? If you were describe this loose coalition of people, what would you say is their motivation?
John Mearsheimer
(02:01:47)
Well, first of all, I think you have to distinguish between Jews and Christians. You want to remember that there are a huge number of Christian Zionists who are deeply committed to Israel no matter what, right? And then, there are a large number of Jews. The Jews are obviously the most important of those two groups in the Israel lobby. But one of the arguments that we made in the book is that you should not call it the Jewish lobby because it’s not populated just by Jews and Christian Zionists are an important part of that lobby. But furthermore, there are a good number of Jews who are opposed to the lobby and the policies that the lobby pervades. And there are a number of Jews who are prominent anti-Zionist, and they’re obviously not in the lobby. Or if you take a group like Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish Voice for Peace is not in the lobby. So it’s wrong to call it a Jewish lobby.

(02:02:52)
But with regard to the American Jews who are in that lobby, I think that really, this is all about nationalism. It’s not so much religion. Many of those Jews who are influential in the lobby are not religious in any meaningful sense of that term. But they self-identify as Jewish in the sense that they feel they’re part of a Jewish nation. And that in addition to being an American, they are part of this tribe, this nation called Jews. And that they have a responsibility to push the United States in ways that support the Jewish state. So I think that’s what drives most, if not almost all the Jews. This is not to say there’s not a religious dimension for some of them, but I think that the main connection is much more tribal in nature.
Lex Fridman
(02:03:49)
So I had a conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu and he said, “Fundamentally, if you’re anti-Zionist, you’re antisemitic.” So the Zionist project is tied to the hip to the Jewish project, what do you have to say to that?
John Mearsheimer
(02:04:08)
Look, you can define antisemitism any way you want. And you can define antisemitism to incorporate anti-Zionism. And I think we have reached the point where antisemitism is identified today, not just with anti-Zionism, but with criticism of Israel. If you criticize Israel, some people will say you’re an antisemite. And if that’s your definition of antisemitism, it’s taken an important term and stretched it to the point where it’s meaningless. So when Steve and I wrote the book, wrote the article and then wrote the book, all sorts of people said that we were antisemites. This is a ludicrous charge. But what they meant was, you’re criticizing the lobby, you’re criticizing Israel, and therefore, you’re an antisemite. Okay. If that’s what an antisemite is, somebody who criticizes Israel, probably half the Jewish community, if not more in the United States, is antisemitic. And of course, you get into all these crazy games where people are calling Jews, self-hating Jews and antisemites because they’re critical of Israel.

(02:05:35)
But even people who are anti-Zionists, I don’t think they’re antisemitic at all. You can argue they’re misguided, that’s fine. But many of these people are Jewish and proud of the fact that they’re Jewish. They just don’t believe that nationalism and Jewish nationalism is a force that should be applauded. And you want to understand that in the American context, there is a rich tradition of anti-Zionism. And these were not people who were antisemites if you go back to the thirties, forties, fifties. And the same thing was even true in Europe. There were all sorts of European Jews who were opposed to Zionism. Were they antisemites? I don’t think so. But we’ve gotten to the point now where people are so interested in stopping any criticism of Israel that they wield this weapon of calling people antisemites so loosely that the term has kind of lost meaning. So I think Netanyahu is wrongheaded to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
Lex Fridman
(02:06:49)
Alan Dershowitz was one of the people that called you specifically antisemitic. So just looking at the space of discourse, where’s the slither of hope for healthy discourse about US relationships with Israel between you and Alan Dershowitz and others like him?
John Mearsheimer
(02:07:16)
Well, I think until there is a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there’s no hope of putting an end to this nonsense. Right?
Lex Fridman
(02:07:27)
So these are just uses of terms to kind of cheat your way through the discourse, it’s a shortcut.
John Mearsheimer
(02:07:35)
No, it’s to silence people. It’s very important to understand that one of the lobby’s principle goals is to make sure we don’t have an open discourse, a freewheeling discourse about Israel. Because they understand, people in the lobby understand, that if you have an open discourse, Israel will end up looking very bad. You don’t want to talk about the occupation, you don’t want to talk about how Israel was created. All these subjects are ones that will cause problems for Israel. See, just to go to the present crisis. When you have a disaster, and what happened on October 7th is a disaster. One of the first things that happens is that people begin to ask the question, how did this happen? What’s the root cause of this problem? This is a disaster. We have to understand what caused it so that we can work to make sure it doesn’t happen again. So we can work to shut it down and then make sure it doesn’t happen again.

(02:08:46)
But once you start talking about the root causes, you end up talking about how Israel was created. And that means telling a story that is not pretty about how the Zionists conquered Palestine. And number two, it means talking about the occupation, right? It’s not like Hamas attacked on October 7th because there were just a bunch of antisemites who hated Jews and wanted to kill Jews. This is not Nazi Germany. This is directly related to the occupation and to what was going on inside of Gaza. And it’s not in Israel’s interest or the lobby’s interest to have an open discourse about what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians since, I would say, roughly 1903 when the second aliyah came to Israel or came to what was then Palestine, right? We want to talk about that. And we don’t want to talk about from the lobbyist’s point of view, the influence that the lobby has, right?

(02:09:54)
It’s better from the lobbyist’s point of view if most Americans think that American support of Israel is just done for all the right moral and strategic reasons, not because of the lobby. And when John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt come along and say, you have to understand that this special relationship is due, in large part, to the lobby’s influence. That is not an argument that people in the lobby want to hear. So the point is, you have to go to great lengths for all these reasons. You have to go to great lengths to silence people like me and Steve Walt. And one of the ways to do that is to call us antisemites.

(02:10:32)
I think the chapter or the section of the book where we talk about this charge of antisemitism is called The Great Silencer. That’s what we call the charge of antisemitism, The Great Silencer. Who wants to be called an antisemite, especially in the wake of the holocaust? Do I want to be called an antisemite? Oh my God, no. And so it’s very effective. But it is important to talk about these issues, in my humble opinion. And I think if we had talked about these issues way back when, it would’ve gone a long way towards maybe getting a two-state solution, which I think was the best alternative here.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:21)
It’s complicated. And I wonder if you can comment on the complexity of this, because criticizing Israel and criticizing the lobby can, for a lot of people, be a dog whistle for sort of antisemitic conspiracy theories. That this idea that Jews run everything, run the world, they’re this kind of cabal. And it’s also very true that people who are legitimately antisemitic are also critics of Israel in the same kind of way. And so, it’s such a complicated landscape in which to have discussions. Because even people like David Duke who are racist, don’t sound racist on the surface. I haven’t listened to him enough. But there’s dog whistles. It’s a complicated space in which to have discussions. I wonder if you can sort of speak to that. Because there’s this silencing effect of calling everybody antisemitic. But it’s also true that there’s antisemitism in the world, there is a sizable population of people that hate Jews. There’s probably a sizable population of people who hate Muslims, too.
John Mearsheimer
(02:12:51)
A lot of hate out there.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:53)
A lot of hate out there. But the hatred of Jews has a long history. And so you have, like Rolling Stones have a set of great hits. And there’s just a set of great hits of the ways, conspiracy theories, that you can make about the Jews that are used as part of the hatred. So there’s nice templates for that. And I just wonder if you can comment on operating as a historian, as an analyst, as a strategic thinker in this kind of space.
John Mearsheimer
(02:13:25)
Obviously, when we wrote the article, which we did before the book gave this subject a great deal of thought. I mean, what you say just now is music to our ears. I’m talking about me and Steve. I think that your point about dog whistles is correct. Look, we went to great lengths to make it clear that this is not a cabal. It’s not a conspiracy. And in fact, in a very important way, the lobby operates out in the open. They brag about their power. And this was true before we wrote the article. And we said in the article, in the book, and you heard me say it here, first of all, it’s not a Jewish lobby. Secondly, it’s not a cabal. It’s an American interest group.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:29)
And the American system is designed such that interest groups are perfectly legal, and some of them are super effective.
John Mearsheimer
(02:14:37)
Exactly. I mean, you hit the nail right on the head. That’s exactly right. And there was nothing that we said that was antisemitic by any reasonable definition of that term. And huge numbers of Jews have known me and Steve over the years, and nobody ever, ever said that we were antisemitic before March, 2006 when the article appeared, because we’re not antisemitic. But look, you’ve got this interest group that has a significant influence on American policy and on Israeli policy, and you want to talk about it. It’s just important to talk about it. It’s important for Jews in the United States, for Jews in Israel, to talk about this. The idea that you want to silence critics is not a smart way to go about doing business, in my opinion. If we were wrong, if Steve and I were so wrong and our arguments were so foul, they could have easily exposed those arguments. They could have gone into combat with this in terms of the marketplace of ideas and easily knocked this down.

(02:16:00)
The problem was that our arguments were quite powerful. And instead of engaging us and defeating our arguments, they wanted to silence us. And this is not good. It’s not good for Israel, it’s not good for the United States. And I would argue in the end, if anything, it’s going to foster antisemitism. I think you don’t want to run around telling people that they can’t talk about Israel without being called an antisemite. It’s just not healthy in terms of the issue that you’re raising. But I still agree with you that it is a tricky issue. I don’t want to make light of that. I know that there’s this piece of literature out there called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And I fully understand that if you’re not careful, you can come close to writing volume two of the protocol. But I don’t believe that we wrote anything that was even close to that. And again, I think that a healthy debate on the issues that we were raising would’ve been not only in America’s interest, but it would’ve been in Israel’s interest.
Lex Fridman
(02:17:15)
Yeah. Underneath it all is just, I wonder why there is so much hate against groups, why it’s such a sticky way of thinking. Not just tribalism, proud of your country and kind of hating another country, but really deeply hating. Hating in a way where it’s part of your identity kind of hate.
John Mearsheimer
(02:17:40)
Well, just to make a general point on this issue in our conversation here today, you often talk about individual leaders, and the word individual often pops up in your vocabulary. I believe that we are ultimately social animals before we are individuals. I believe we’re born into tribes, we’re heavily socialized, and that we carve out space for our individualism. But we are part of tribes, or social groups, or nations. Call them what you want, ethnic groups, religious groups. But the fact is that these tribes often crash into each other. And when they crash into each other, they end up hating each other. If you go to a place like Bosnia, the Croats and the Serbs, oh, my God. And then throw in the Bosniaks, which is the term for Bosnian Muslims. And Muslims, Croats, Serbs, and the tribes hate each other. And in a funny way, that hatred almost never goes away. And I guess, there are some exceptions to that.

(02:18:59)
If you look at the Germans after World War II, they’ve gone a long way towards reducing, I wouldn’t want to say completely eliminating, but reducing a lot of the hatred that existed between Germans and their neighbors. But that’s really kind of an anomalous case. I mean, you go around East Asia today and the hatred of Japan in a place like China, the hatred of Japan in a place like Korea, just not to be underestimated. But I think a lot of it just has to do with the fact that you’re dealing with social groups that have crashed into each other at one point or another. And there are those lingering effects. And by the way, this gets back to our discussion a few minutes ago about trying to get a two-state solution between the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews now that you have had this horrible war, which is ongoing.
Lex Fridman
(02:19:59)
It’s interesting to ask, to go back to World War II-
Lex Fridman
(02:20:02)
… To ask to go back to World War II. Now, you said you studied Nazi Germany in the ’30s from a perspective of maybe offensive realism, but just to look at the Holocaust, it’s sometimes popular in public discourse today to compare certain things to the Holocaust. People have compared the Hamas attack on Israel to the Holocaust, saying things like, “It’s the biggest attack on Jews since the Holocaust,” which kind of implies that there’s a comparison. People have made that same comparison in the other direction. What do you make of this comparison? Is it comparable? Does the use of the Holocaust have any accuracy in comparisons of modern day international politics?
John Mearsheimer
(02:21:01)
Is it possible that you could have another genocide? Yes, and I would argue that what you had in Rwanda was a genocide. The Holocaust is not the only genocide. I believe the word genocide is used too loosely today. And as you know, lots of people, and I mean lots of people who are pro-Palestinian accused the Israelis of engaging in genocide in Gaza. I think what the Israelis are doing in Gaza represents a massacre. I would use that term given the number of civilians that they’ve killed and the fact that they’ve been indiscriminate in terms of how they’ve been bombing Gaza. But I would not use the word genocide. For me, a genocide is where one side attempts to eliminate another group from the planet. I think that what happened with the Holocaust was clearly a genocide, and that the Germans were bent on destroying all of European Jewry.

(02:22:13)
And if they could have gotten their hands on Jews outside of Europe, they would’ve murdered them as well. That’s a genocide. And I think with the Hutus and the Tutsis, you had a similar situation. I think with the Turks and the Armenians during World War I, that was a genocide, but I have a rather narrow definition of what a genocide is and I don’t think there are many cases that qualify as a genocide. The Holocaust certainly does. Now, what Hamas did doesn’t even come close to what happened to European Jewry between, let’s say, 1939 and 1945, although I date the start of the Holocaust to 1941, if we were looking at it closely, but let’s just say 1939, when they invaded Poland, from 1939 to 1945. What Hamas did pales in comparison. It’s hard to believe anybody would make that argument. Yes, a lot of Jews died, but hardly any compared to the number that died at the hands of the Germans. No parallel at all. And furthermore, Hamas was in no position to kill all of the Jews in the Middle East, just not going to happen.
Lex Fridman
(02:23:43)
But there’s also levels of things, Germans using human skin for lamps. There’s just levels of evil in this world.
John Mearsheimer
(02:23:54)
Yes, but that’s not what Hamas is doing. I want to be very clear here. I am not justifying the Hamas’ killing of civilians. Not for one second, but I’m just saying… And by the way, just to go to the Israelis and what they’re doing in Gaza, as I said to you before, I do believe that is a massacre and I believe that’s to be condemned, the killing of civilians. This is not legitimate collateral damage. They’re directly punishing the population. But I would not call that a genocide and I would not compare that to the Holocaust for one second. I just want to be very clear on that.
Lex Fridman
(02:24:37)
Do you think if Israel could, they would avoid the death of any civilians? So you’re saying there’s some degree of punishment of collective-?
John Mearsheimer
(02:24:48)
They’re purposely killing civilians. This is the Iron Wall. They’re trying to beat the Palestinians into submission. There’s no way you kill this many civilians if you’re trying to precisely take out Hamas fighters. And by the way, the Israeli spokesmen, the IDF spokesman has explicitly said that, “We are not pursuing precision bombing. And that what we are doing is trying to maximize the amount of destruction and damage that we can inflict on the Palestinians and I think this is a major mistake on the part of Israel.” First of all, it ends up being a moral stain on your reputation, number one. And number two, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. The Palestinians are not going to roll over and submit to Israeli domination of their life.

(02:25:52)
The whole concept of the Iron Wall, Jabotinsky’s term, was misguided. And by the way, if you look at what the Israelis are doing, they’re trying to do two things. One is the Iron Wall, and that’s where you punish the civilian population in Gaza and get them to submit. The other thing that they’re trying to do is get Hamas. They want to destroy Hamas. And the belief there is that if they destroy Hamas, they’ve solved the problem. But as many Israelis know, including people on the hard right, even if you destroy Hamas, they are going to be replaced by another resistance group and that resistance group will employ terror.
Lex Fridman
(02:26:36)
Yeah. I think you’ve said that other terrorist organizations have used the situation in Palestine as a recruitment mechanism for a long time.
John Mearsheimer
(02:26:47)
Osama bin Laden made it clear that this was one of those principal reasons for attacking the United States.
Lex Fridman
(02:26:56)
And the United States attacked back and got us into a 20-year war that cost the lives of millions of people, not American, but human beings and-
John Mearsheimer
(02:27:12)
Engaged in torture.
Lex Fridman
(02:27:14)
And torture. Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(02:27:16)
No, I think if you look at how we reacted to 9/11 and how the Israelis are reacting to what happened on October 7th, there’s quite a bit of similarity in that both sides, the Israeli side and the American side, are enraged and they lash out and they go on a rampage and the end result is not good.
Lex Fridman
(02:27:45)
Is there a capacity within Israel or within United States after 9/11 to do something approximating turn the other cheek of understanding the root of terror is hate and fighting that hate with, not to sound naive, but compassion?
John Mearsheimer
(02:28:10)
Well, I don’t think in either case you’re going to turn the other cheek.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:18)
What I mean by that is some limited powerful military response, but very limited?
John Mearsheimer
(02:28:25)
Coupled with a smart political strategy.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:27)
Political strategy, diplomacy.
John Mearsheimer
(02:28:29)
Yeah. That’s what they should have done.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:31)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(02:28:31)
Right.
Lex Fridman
(02:28:31)
But is there capacity for that or from your offensive realism perspective, it’s just the odds are really low?
John Mearsheimer
(02:28:41)
From my offensive realist perspective or my realist perspective, that’s what you should do. My view is states are rational actors, they should be cunning. They should think about the strategic situation they’re in and choose the appropriate response. And what happens, and this is why my theory is not always correct, is that sometimes states are not rational and they misbehave. I would argue in the Israeli case that it would’ve been good after October 7th, or starting on October 7th, if the United States had tried to hold the Israelis back and countenanced a more moderate response. Take some time just to think about how to deal with this problem instead of lashing out. I think given what happened to the Israelis, given how shocked they were, given the level of fear, given the level of rage, they were going to lash out and I don’t believe that was in their interest. I think it would’ve made sense to think about it and to think about a smarter strategy than they’re now employing. And I think the Americans blew it. The Americans gave them a bear hug and a green light and said, “We’ll give you all the weaponry you need and go out and do it.” And I don’t think that was the smart thing to do. Look, in the wake of October 7th, the Israelis had no good strategy. It’s not like there’s a magic formula that they just didn’t see and we should have told them what the magic formula was. That’s not true. They were, in a sense, caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of what to do. But there are smarter things than number things and I think the Israelis lashed out in ways that are counterproductive. I think going on a rampage and killing huge numbers as civilians, it’s obviously morally wrong, but it’s also just not in their strategic interest because it’s not going to buy them anything.

(02:31:03)
And in fact, it’s going to cost them because people all over the planet are turning against Israel. I saw an Israeli think tank today that has been tracking protests around the world, gave some figures for what it looked like between October 7th and October 13th in terms of the number of protests around the world that were pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine. And then it looked at the numbers from October 13th up to the present and I think the numbers were 69% were pro-Palestinian in the first six days after October 7th, 69%, and I think 31%… Take these numbers with a grain of salt. 31% were pro-Israel. So I think it was 69 and 31.

(02:32:04)
And since then, since October 13th, if you look at the number of protests around the world, 95% have been pro-Palestinian and 5% have been pro-Israel. And what this tells you is that public opinion around the world has shifted against Israel. And if you look at some of the demonstrations in places like London and Washington, DC, it’s truly amazing the number of people who are coming out in support of the Palestinians. And all of this, again, is just to support my point that it was just not smart for Israel to launch this bombing campaign. You can make an argument for going after Hamas and doing it in a surgical way or as surgical a way as possible, but that’s not what they did. And again, my point to you is I think that this punishment campaign is not going to work strategically. In other words, they’re not going to beat the Palestinians into submission, they’re not going to finish off Hamas. And at the same time, by pursuing this strategy, they’re doing huge damage to their reputation around the world.
Lex Fridman
(02:33:16)
In the wake of October 7th, given the geopolitical context, I think there’s a lot of leverage to be the great ethical superpower, demonstrate power without killing any civilians, and use that leverage diplomatic leverage to push forward something like Abrahamic Accords with more nations, with Saudi Arabia, push for peace aggressively, peace agreements, this kind of stuff, economic relationships, all of this kind of stuff, and thereby pressure the Palestinian authority towards perhaps the two-state solution.
John Mearsheimer
(02:34:04)
I think what you’re missing here, just in the Israeli case, is that the Israeli government is not interested in two-state solution. And you want to remember that Benjamin Netanyahu, who looks very hawkish when you look at him in isolation, doesn’t look so hawkish when you look at him compared to the rest of the people in his cabinet. He almost looks like a moderate. He’s got a lot of people who are way out to the right of him. And these people, and this of course includes Netanyahu, are not interested in the two-state solution. So the question you have to ask yourself is, if you’re Benjamin Netanyahu and it’s October 7th, late in the day, what do you do? You’re not thinking about a two-state solution. You’re thinking about an occupation that’s not going to end. And the question is how do you deal with the Palestinians given what’s just happened?
Lex Fridman
(02:35:05)
Well, there’s people in the cabinet and then there’s history. And history remembers great leaders. So Benjamin Netanyahu can look in the streets of Israel and see the protests and think of how history will remember him. I think a two-state solution is on the table for a great leader.
John Mearsheimer
(02:35:24)
Well, it was there. Was he the person who was going to take advantage of it? I don’t think so, but we’ll see.
Lex Fridman
(02:35:35)
He’s a student of history. At this point, it’s very difficult. Like you said, 95% now or whatever the number is of protests, I think the window in which Israel has the ears of the world, it can do the big ethical action towards peace, I think, has closed. Or maybe there’s still a slither, but it’s just… The slippery slope of hate has taken off. It’s quite depressing to watch what’s going on.
John Mearsheimer
(02:36:10)
Yep. I agree a hundred percent. Unequivocally depressing.
Lex Fridman
(02:36:13)
But of course, as you talk about the role of… The US involvement is of critical importance here for the United States and the argument you make is that we should not be involved in Ukraine, at least to the degree we are, we being the United States, and we should not be involved in Israel to the degree we are because it’s stretching us too thin when the big geopolitical contender in the 21st century with United States is China. Is that a correct summary?
John Mearsheimer
(02:36:49)
Yeah, I think just on Ukraine, we should not have pushed Ukraine to join NATO.
Lex Fridman
(02:36:55)
Sure.
John Mearsheimer
(02:36:56)
And once the war started, we should have worked overtime to shut it down immediately.
Lex Fridman
(02:37:03)
March.
John Mearsheimer
(02:37:04)
March, right. And you remember, by the way, not to go back to Ukraine in great detail, in the early fall of 2022… The war starts February, 2022. There’s March, 2022, which we’ve talked about, which is the negotiations. In the fall of 2022, I think it was in September, the Ukrainians had won two major tactical victories, one in Kherson and the other in Kharkiv. And at that point in time, General Milley, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “Now is the time to negotiate because this is the high watermark for the Ukrainians.” Milley understood that things were only going to get worse, and the White House shut Milley down and said, “We’re not negotiating.” So we have blown a number of opportunities here to head this problem off at the pass. But that’s my view there. And with regard to the Israelis, my only point about Israel is that it would be better for Israel and better for the United States if we, the United States, was in a position to put pressure on Israel from time to time. As Steve and I say in the book, we should be able to treat Israel like a normal country. The fact is that countries sometimes do stupid things. This includes the United States and Israel. And if Israel is pursuing a policy that we think is unwise, we should be in a position where we could put pressure on Israel. That’s our argument. But anyway, we goofed both with regard to Ukraine and with regard to the Middle East and we’re now up to our eyeballs in alligators in both of those regions. And as you described my view, this is not good because the area of the most strategic importance for the United States today is East Asia and that’s because China is there and China is the most serious threat the United States faces.

China

Lex Fridman
(02:39:14)
Do you think there will be a war with China in the 21st century?
John Mearsheimer
(02:39:19)
I don’t know. My argument is there will be. There is right now a serious security competition and at the same time, there is a real possibility of war. Whether or not we avoid it is very hard to say. I mean, we did during the Cold War. We had a serious security competition from roughly 1947 to 1989 and we thankfully avoided war, probably came the closest in 1962 at the Cuban Missile Crisis. But we avoided it and I think we can avoid it here. Is it for sure? No.
Lex Fridman
(02:39:59)
You’ve said that China won’t move on Taiwan militarily, in part because, as you said, amphibious operations are difficult. Why will China not move on Taiwan in your sense in the near future?
John Mearsheimer
(02:40:16)
Well, it’s because there’s this body of water called the Taiwan Strait, which is a big body of water, and getting across water is very difficult unless you can walk on water.
Lex Fridman
(02:40:29)
So geography still has a role to play in the 21st century?
John Mearsheimer
(02:40:32)
Oh, yeah. I think geography’s very important. Big bodies of water really matter. In an ideal world, you’d like to have the Pacific Ocean between you and any potential adversary. 6,000 miles of water, hard to get across. If you’re a country and I’m a country and there’s land between us, I can take my Panzer divisions and I can go right across the land and get into your country or attack your country. And you of course can take your Panzer divisions and come across that same piece of land. But if there’s a big body of water between us, your Panzer divisions can’t go across the water and then the question is how do you get them across the water? And that’s very tricky. And in a world where we have lots of submarines and you have lots of aircraft and you have missiles that are land-based that can hit those surface ships, it is very, very hard to attack across a body of water. And all you have to do is think about the American invasion of Normandy, June 6th, 1944, coming in on Omaha Beach. Oh, boy. That was really difficult.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:46)
But there is a growing asymmetry of military power there that even though it’s difficult-
John Mearsheimer
(02:41:53)
That is correct.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:54)
So I guess-
John Mearsheimer
(02:41:56)
That is correct.
Lex Fridman
(02:41:57)
So I recently had a conversation with Elon Musk and he says that China is quite serious about the One China policy, and it seems inevitable that Taiwan will have to be… If you look at this pragmatically in the 21st century, it seems inevitable that Taiwan will have to be a part of China and so we can get there either diplomatically or militarily. What do you think about the inevitability of that kind of idea? When a nation says, “This is a top priority for us,” what do you think about them meaning it, and what do we do about that?
John Mearsheimer
(02:42:46)
There’s no question it’s a top priority for them and there’s no question they mean it, but it’s also a top priority for us not to let them take Taiwan.
Lex Fridman
(02:42:54)
Why exactly?
John Mearsheimer
(02:42:56)
Because it’s an important strategic asset. Many people will say it’s because Taiwan’s a democracy, but that doesn’t matter that much. It’s because of two strategic reasons. The first is that if we were to let Taiwan go, it would have hugely negative consequences for our alliance structure in East Asia. To contain China, we need allies. We have an alliance structure, and our allies, Japanese, South Koreans, Filipinos, Australians, they’re all counting on us to be there for them. And if we say, “We’re not going to defend Taiwan, the Chinese attack,” they’re going to say, “I bet if the Chinese attack us, the Americans won’t be there for us.” So it would have a damaging effect on our alliance structure, which we cannot afford because containing China is a wicked problem. It’s a powerful state. You were getting to this before when you talked about China versus Taiwan. So that’s the first reason.

(02:44:07)
Second reason is you want to bottle up the Chinese Navy and the Chinese Air Force inside the first island-chain. You don’t want to let them get out into the Pacific. You don’t want them dominating the waters of East Asia. You want to bottle them up again inside the first island-chain. And you can only do that if you control Taiwan. You don’t control Taiwan, they get out into the Philippines Sea, into the Pacific, and the Western Pacific and cause all sorts of problems.
Lex Fridman
(02:44:38)
Well, you saying all that, you’ve also said the Century of Humiliation, Japan and the United States are a source of that humiliation for China, don’t you think they see the other side of that?
John Mearsheimer
(02:44:52)
Absolutely.
Lex Fridman
(02:44:53)
And in the interest of avoiding a World War… I guess the question is how do we avoid a world war? It doesn’t seem like the military involvement in the conflict between China and Taiwan is the way.
John Mearsheimer
(02:45:14)
Well, I don’t want-
Lex Fridman
(02:45:15)
There’s no good answers here. I’m just saying-
John Mearsheimer
(02:45:17)
There are no-
Lex Fridman
(02:45:18)
Which is the less bad option?
John Mearsheimer
(02:45:20)
Well, what you want to do is you want to make sure that you deter China from invading Taiwan. You want to avoid a war. You and I are in complete agreement on that. We don’t want a war, but we want to contain China. We do not want to let China dominate Asia. That’s what the Americans are principally concerned with here and it’s what China’s neighbors are principally concerned with. This includes the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Filipinos, Australians, and the Taiwanese. They don’t want and we don’t want China to dominate the region, so we have to contain it.

(02:45:57)
But at the same time, and this should be music to your ears, we not only want to contain it, we want to make sure we don’t end up in a shooting match with the Chinese because this could be disastrous. So you have to have a very smart policy. You have to build powerful military forces, and you have to make sure you don’t do anything that’s provocative. On Taiwan, for example, the last thing you want is for the Taiwanese government to declare its independence because the Chinese have said, “If Taiwan does that, we’ll go to war.” And of course, we don’t want that. So my view is you want to smartly build up your military forces and you want to do everything you can to contain China, and at the same time, not be provocative.
Lex Fridman
(02:46:41)
So a big component of that is making sure the US military is bigger than the Chinese military.
John Mearsheimer
(02:46:51)
Not necessarily. It’s an interesting question. A lot of people think that to make deterrence work, you have to be able to beat the Chinese and therefore, you need a much bigger military. And I don’t think over time that’s possible. I think it’s probably not even possible now to beat the Chinese in a war over Taiwan or in a war in the South China Sea. I think what you want to do is make it clear to the Chinese either that there will be no winner… In other words, you don’t have to win, but you want to make sure they don’t win. It’s a lose-lose proposition if they go to war over Taiwan or what have you.

(02:47:40)
And if you can’t do that, you think that they’re so powerful that they’re ultimately going to win, you want to convince them that victory would be a Pyrrhic victory. In other words, they would pay a godawful price to win the war. You follow what I’m saying? So the best strategy for deterrence is you win, China loses. Second best strategy is a stalemate, nobody wins. Third best strategy is they win, but they pay a godawful price. And the fourth possibility, which you don’t want, is they went quickly and decisively. If that’s the case, then you don’t have much deterrence.
Lex Fridman
(02:48:28)
What does a world with China as the sole dominant superpower look like? I mean, a little bit underlying our discussion is this kind of idea that US is the good guys and China is the bad guys. First of all, dividing the world into good guys and bad guys seems to somehow miss the nuance of this whole human civilization project we’re undertaking. But what does the world look like where China is the dominant sole superpower in a unipolar world?
John Mearsheimer
(02:49:01)
Well, I don’t tend to think of the world in terms of good guys and bad guys. As a good realist, I think that states or states, they’re all black boxes. I don’t discriminate between democracies and autocracies. But having said that, I am an American and as an American, I’m interested in the security of my country, the survival of my country. So I want the United States to be the most powerful state in the world, which means I want the United States to dominate the Western hemisphere, I want us to be a regional hegemon, and I want to make sure that China does not dominate Asia the way we dominate the Western hemisphere.

(02:49:45)
It’s not because I think we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. If I were Chinese and I were in Beijing and I was Xi Jinping’s national security advisor, I’d tell him what we got to do is make sure we dominate the world or dominate our region and then do everything we can to undermine America’s position in the Western hemisphere. That’d be my view. So I guess you could say I do view the world in terms of good guys and bad guys, an American and-
Lex Fridman
(02:50:16)
More like us and them versus-
John Mearsheimer
(02:50:18)
Yeah, it’s us and them. That’s a nice way to put it. Yeah, it’s us versus them. Not so much good guys versus bad guys.
Lex Fridman
(02:50:24)
Is it possible to have a stable, peaceful world with a good balance of power where it’s China and US as superpowers? It’s a bipolar world, no longer unipolar.
John Mearsheimer
(02:50:37)
Yeah. Okay, so you’re hypothesizing a world where they dominate Asia and we dominate the Western hemisphere.
Lex Fridman
(02:50:43)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(02:50:44)
I believe there would be a great deal of intense security competition between those two superpowers.
Lex Fridman
(02:50:53)
The definition of intense matters here. So it could be small military conflicts or it could be extremely large unstable military conflicts, right?
John Mearsheimer
(02:51:04)
Well, conflict… Let’s use the word war. So I distinguish between security competition and war. And what I’m telling you is you’ll have an intense security competition where there’s no shooting, or if there’s shooting, it’s mainly proxies that are doing the fighting, much like the Vietnam War. Or you could have a case where one of those superpowers was involved in a war against a proxy of the other superpower. Think the Korean War. The United States fought the Chinese who were allied with the Soviets at the time. But a war between the United States and China, just like a war between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, that’s what you really want to avoid. So I think you’d have an intense security competition. You’d have wars involving proxies of each of those two superpowers and you would probably have some wars where one of superpowers was involved in a proxy with one of the other superpower’s proxies.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:12)
So it seems likely then, if that’s the case, then it would be Taiwan is the proxy and US fighting China through the proxy of Taiwan?
John Mearsheimer
(02:52:21)
Yeah. Well, that would assume the United States… But you want to remember, you’re hypothesizing a situation where China dominates Asia.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:29)
Oh, it already has dominated.
John Mearsheimer
(02:52:31)
Yeah, it’s already dominated Taiwan.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:34)
I see. Where do you find the proxies? Australia?
John Mearsheimer
(02:52:38)
The Middle East could be a good case.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:40)
Oh, wow.
John Mearsheimer
(02:52:41)
Persian Gulf.
Lex Fridman
(02:52:43)
Oh boy. And then our discussion of Israel becomes even more dramatically-
John Mearsheimer
(02:52:47)
Yeah, well, Israel gets involved… I think in this scenario, if you’re talking about a US China competition and you’re talking about the Middle East, I think it’s the Gulf, it’s the Saudis, the Iranians, the Iraqis. It’s the oil.
Lex Fridman
(02:53:03)
Don’t you think it could be Israel versus Iran with some very 1984 kind of dramatic partnership of Iran, Russia, and China versus United States, Europe, and Israel?
John Mearsheimer
(02:53:18)
I think that’s possible. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(02:53:19)
Oh boy.
John Mearsheimer
(02:53:20)
I think that’s possible. Yeah. I mean, I hadn’t thought about it until you said it, but yeah, I think that that is possible.
Lex Fridman
(02:53:28)
Isn’t that terrifying?
John Mearsheimer
(02:53:31)
Yeah. Well, in your scenario, where China already dominates Asia and we dominate the Western hemisphere, I think you start talking about where the most likely places that the United States and China go head-to-head or fight through proxies. I think it is the Gulf or the Middle East and the scenario that you posit.
Lex Fridman
(02:53:56)
I mean, one question I have… I don’t know about you, but for me, unlike with the Soviet Union, and I know I was born there, but even outside of that, the cultural gap, the loss in translation, the communication gap between China and the United States seems to be much greater than that of what was the former Soviet Union and the United States. I see two cultures intermingling and communicating as one of the ways to deescalate future conflict.
John Mearsheimer
(02:54:35)
It’s an interesting question. I mean, at sort of an abstract theoretical level, my argument is that great powers act according to realist dictates and they understand those realistic dictates and that could lead to cooperation or it can lead to war. It depends. I would say just in the case of the Soviets, a lot of people…
John Mearsheimer
(02:55:03)
I would say just in the case of the Soviets, a lot of people describe the Cold War as an ideological competition above all else, it was communism versus liberal democracy or communism versus liberal capitalism, whatever. I actually don’t believe that. I believe the Soviets were realist to the core. I believe Stalin was a realist par excellence, and that ideology did not matter much in Stalin’s foreign policy. And I believe if you look at Soviet foreign policy after World War II, throughout the Cold War, they were realists to the core. And I think in those days, the Americans were realists, a lot of liberal ideology floating around out there, but the Americans were realists. And I think one of the reasons you avoided a shooting match between the United States and the Soviet Union from ’47 to ’89 was because both sides, I think understood basic balance of power logic. US China competition is somewhat different.

(02:56:14)
First of all, the Chinese are realists to the core. I’ve spent a lot of time in China. I basically have rock and roll. I’m basically a rock and roll star in China. The Chinese-
Lex Fridman
(02:56:27)
You’re kind of a big deal in China. I love it.
John Mearsheimer
(02:56:29)
The Chinese are my kind of people. They’re realists, right? They speak my language. It’s the United States that is not very realist. American leaders have a very powerful liberal bent and tend not to see the world in realist terms. I believe, by the way, just going back to our discussion of NATO expansion, I think our inability to understand that NATO expansion was anathema to the Soviet, to the Russians, was due in large part to the fact that we just during the unipolar moment, didn’t think of international politics from a realist perspective and didn’t respect anyone who thought about international politics from a realist perspective. If those various American administrations starting with the Clinton administration had put their realist hat on, they would’ve understood that NATO expansion into Ukraine was not a good idea, but we had this thoroughly liberal view of the world that dominated our thinking, and it’s gone away somewhat since we’ve moved into Multi-polarity, but not completely.

(02:57:34)
And this makes me a little nervous to pick up on your point. I mean, the United States is thinking about the world in ways that are somewhat different than the Chinese who are real as par excellence.
Lex Fridman
(02:57:47)
So that’s fascinating. So the Chinese are pragmatic about thinking of the world as a competition of military powers, all the ways in which you described the realist perspective. So that’s a hopeful thing, right? If we can achieve stability and a balance of powers through that military competition.
John Mearsheimer
(02:58:11)
Yeah, I actually think that’s right. I think if the United States, just let me talk a little bit about the United States to get at the issue you’re raising. If the United States pursues a smart containment strategy, given what you just said, and I said about the Chinese, I think we will avoid war. The problem with the Americans is it’s not just the liberalism. It’s the possibility that we will pursue a rollback policy. In other words, during the Cold War, we pursued containment. It was whenever anybody talked about American grand strategy towards the Soviet Unions, containment, containment, containment. We now know from the historical record that the United States was not only pursuing containment, it was pursuing rollback. We were trying to roll back Soviet power to put it bluntly, we were trying to wreck the Soviet Union, and I would not be surprised moving forward with regard to China if the United States pursues a serious rollback policy and-
Lex Fridman
(02:59:17)
So you’re saying throughout history, United States was always doing that. Always. Where’s that from? Why can’t we respect the power of other nations?
John Mearsheimer
(02:59:26)
Because they may be a threat to us?
Lex Fridman
(02:59:28)
Well, I mean-
John Mearsheimer
(02:59:31)
Look, you don’t respect the power of other nations. You fear the power of other nations.
Lex Fridman
(02:59:37)
Well fear and respect are next door neighbors depending on the neighborhood you’re living in, but I just mean it could be very counterproductive to try because if you can empathize with their… If you assume they’re rational actors you trying to roll back would lean into the uncertainty of potential conflict. So you want to avoid the uncertainty of potential conflict, caution, right?
John Mearsheimer
(03:00:03)
Well, yes and no. Look, your point is you want to empathize. You want to be able to put yourself in the shoes of the other side.
Lex Fridman
(03:00:10)
Yes.
John Mearsheimer
(03:00:10)
I agree 100% with that, right. It’s very important if you’re a first class strategist to be able to do that, but at the same time, there is this competition for power taking place, and what you want to do is maximize how much power you have relative to the other side, and the other side wants to maximize how much power it has relative to you. So you have this competition for power that’s taking place all the time, and that’s taking place at the same time you want to have empathy or you want to be able to put yourself in the shoes of the other side. So those two things kind of go together.
Lex Fridman
(03:00:49)
It just feels less threatening to build up your thing versus try to hurt the other person’s thing, the other group’s thing.
John Mearsheimer
(03:01:00)
But if you build up your own power, you are building up your capability to hurt the other side.
Lex Fridman
(03:01:06)
Right, but I guess you don’t rattle the saber just work on manufacturing sabers.
John Mearsheimer
(03:01:13)
Well, that I agree with. I think that the United States wants to make sure it has a big stick in East Asia for purposes of containing China and avoiding a war, right? Again, I want to be clear, I’m not advocating that we start World War III, but the point is you want to have a big stick and you want to make sure that you don’t overstep your bounds in terms of using that big stick. This is the danger with rollback that you get too aggressive and you precipitate a war, and you also just have to be very careful what you say. And to go back to your favorite argument, you want to be able to have empathy or put yourself in the shoes of the other side, because if you do something, you want to think smartly about what that other side, how that other side is going to see your action and how they’re going to react, right?
Lex Fridman
(03:02:09)
And mostly focus on the carrots, have a giant stick laying around, but never mention it, just focus on the carrots.
John Mearsheimer
(03:02:17)
Well, occasionally you have to mention the stick.
Lex Fridman
(03:02:19)
Everyone knows the stick is there.
John Mearsheimer
(03:02:21)
There is some truth in that, right?
Lex Fridman
(03:02:23)
I mean, yeah, and words matter a lot. It feels our current President Biden is meeting with Xi Jinping, and I think the words exchanged there are really important. I have a notion that leaders can stop wars just as much as they can start wars.
John Mearsheimer
(03:02:42)
Well, leaders matter. There’s no question about that, no question, but just on rhetoric, you want to remember that Putin has on more than one occasion, very subtly rattled the nuclear sword, and it has been very effective because Joe Biden has paid attention, and Joe Biden wants to make sure we don’t end up in a thermonuclear war, and thank goodness he’s thinking that way. So all Putin has to do is mention the possibility of nuclear war. Just to go back to Taiwan, switch areas of the world. If you’re interested in containing China and you’re interested in deterrence, and let’s go back to those various scenarios where the Chinese win, we win, Chinese win, but they do it at great cost.

(03:03:35)
One could argue that, that discussion that I laid out before it didn’t take into account nuclear weapons and all President Biden or any of his successors has to do is just very subtly rattle or employ the nuclear threat and just sort of remind the Chinese that you start a war over Taiwan, it could easily escalate into a nuclear war. You want to understand we both have nuclear weapons, and if either one of us is put into a desperate situation, we may turn to those nuclear weapons and oh, by the way, Xi Jinping, you want to understand that we’re out here in the water and using nuclear weapons in the water, it’s not the same as using war nuclear weapons on lands. So we may very well use them. I’m not saying we will, but anyway, a little saber rattling. Right?
Lex Fridman
(03:04:36)
Let me just zoom out on human history. What makes empires collapse and what makes them last when they do when you look at human history, in your sense thinking about the United States, perhaps as an empire?
John Mearsheimer
(03:04:52)
I don’t view the United States as an empire.
Lex Fridman
(03:04:57)
So to you empire as a thing that seeks expansion constantly?
John Mearsheimer
(03:05:03)
Yeah, I think it’s a country that incorporates different regions or areas around the world into sort of a giant sphere of influence without incorporating those territories actually into the state itself. So you had this thing called the British Empire and it controlled areas like India, North America, and Kenya, just to pick a couple instances at different points. Singapore would be another example. Australia would be another example. So these were all entities that were part of the British Empire and the United States has taken a stab at empire after the Spanish American War, for example, with regard to the Philippines and Cuba and Puerto Rico, but we never got serious about it. There’s never been an American empire.

(03:06:13)
This is not to say the United States is not an incredibly powerful country that goes all around the world building military bases and stationing troops here, there and everywhere, but we’re not running an empire the way the British Empire was run or the French Empire. So the question for me is why did those empires go away? Why did the British Empire go away? If you ever look at a map of the world in 1922 after World War I, it’s truly amazing how much of that map is controlled by Britain. They had a huge empire and it’s disappeared.
Lex Fridman
(03:06:53)
Probably by far the biggest in terms of area empire in human history, I think so.
John Mearsheimer
(03:06:59)
I think that’s right. It almost has to be.
Lex Fridman
(03:07:01)
Yeah, right. It’s crazy.
John Mearsheimer
(03:07:04)
Crazy, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(03:07:05)
And then no longer is the case.
John Mearsheimer
(03:07:07)
Yeah. Now I want to be clear. The Americans have wielded maybe even greater influence than Britain did when it had its empire, but I don’t believe we have an empire that bears any resemblance to the British Empire. So the question is, what happened to that British empire? What happened to the French Empire? What happened to the Belgian Empire? What happened to the Dutch Empire? These were countries that had colonies all over the planet. The Dutch East Indies, Vietnam was French Indochina. Where did those empires go? Two factors finished them off. Number one, nationalism. Nationalism became a very powerful force in the 19th Century. It began to rear its head in the late 18th Century and became a very powerful force in the 19th and certainly in the 20th.
Lex Fridman
(03:07:57)
Can you explain nationalism here?
John Mearsheimer
(03:07:59)
Nationalism is the idea that these different nations that were part of the empire, like the Kenyans wanted their own state, nation state. This is my point about the Palestinians, right? This is Palestinian nationalism. What is Zionism? Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Jewish nationalism. Think of Theodore Herzl’s famous book. It’s called The Jewish State, Nation State. Think of the word nation state that embodies nationalism. Nation state, Jewish state. Palestinians want their own state, two state solution. Can’t beat the Palestinians into submission. The Indians wanted their own state. The Pakistanis wanted their own state. The Kenyans wanted their own state. Singapore wanted its own state. Oh, the Americans wanted their own state. This is called the American Revolution.

(03:08:51)
So that’s the first reason, nationalism that these empires disappeared. The second reason is that from a cost benefit analysis, they no longer made any sense, and it was the coming of the Industrial Revolution. Once the Industrial Revolution comes, an empire is basically an albatross around your neck. I would argue that the British Empire was an albatross around Britain’s neck in most of the 20th Century. Some of my friends disagree with that and think there were all sorts of benefits from the British Empire, but you want to remember that in the 20th Century, the three countries that really were powerful were the United States, Germany and the Soviet Union. Those were the big three. Did any of them have an empire? No.
Lex Fridman
(03:09:39)
That’s a good argument.
John Mearsheimer
(03:09:40)
In the industrial world, you don’t need an empire, right? What you need is a powerful manufacturing base.
Lex Fridman
(03:09:50)
Well, the cost benefit analysis is different before the Industrial Revolution, there’s been many empires.
John Mearsheimer
(03:09:56)
There’s no question that empires came and went, right?
Lex Fridman
(03:10:00)
Yes.
John Mearsheimer
(03:10:02)
All you have to do is just look at the British and the French in the Seven Years War, 1756 to 1763, the British win, they get Canada, and that’s why Quebec, Montreal, all these big French speaking areas are now part of Canada. So borders change and countries got established. The United States being one, and remember, South American, Central America were once completely dominated by the Spanish, and in the case of Brazil, the Portuguese, but they all in the 19th Century got their independence, and what I’m saying to you is in the 19th and in the 20th Century, there were two forces that were really driving the train. One is nationalism, and then the other is the industrial revolution, which changes the cost benefit analysis.
Lex Fridman
(03:11:01)
Almost too crazy of a question, but if you look, let me calculate, let’s say 500 years from now, and you John Mearsheimer traveled through time and are at a bookstore looking at the entire history of human civilization in a single book. What role does US play? What’s the story of US over the next a hundred, 200, 300 years? Is it a big role, small role?
John Mearsheimer
(03:11:32)
Well, that’s a long time. If you asked me, let’s just say the next hundred years.
Lex Fridman
(03:11:39)
Yeah, that’s still tough.
John Mearsheimer
(03:11:42)
That’s still tough, but actually I think we’re in excellent shape and here’s the reason. Going back to the beginning of our conversation, you asked me about power and I told you the two principle building blocks of power are population size and wealth, and therefore you want to look around the world and you want to look at what you think the demographics are of countries like Britain, the United States, Iran, China, Russia, pick your country moving forward, what do the demographics look like and how wealthy are those countries likely to be? What you discover very quickly is that almost every country around the world is depopulating over time. Russia’s going to be much smaller, China’s going to be much smaller a hundred years from now than both of those countries are, as best we can tell.

(03:12:49)
United States, American women are not having lots of babies these days. No question about that, but we have immigration. We’re an immigrant culture. You’re a perfect manifestation of that. You’re a perfect, you’re now an American. That’s wonderful. We need more people like you. So when I hear Donald Trump and others arguing that immigration’s a terrible thing, this is ridiculous. Immigration is what made us great. It’s when my relatives came over in the middle of the 19th Century from Germany and Ireland.
Lex Fridman
(03:13:26)
That’s fascinating because there’s been a huge concern, America and other developed nations are not having enough children, but you just made me realize in the long arc of history, the United States has gotten really good at integrating immigrants and helping them flourish. The whole diversity of that makes up America.
John Mearsheimer
(03:13:51)
You’re absolutely right.
Lex Fridman
(03:13:52)
There’s a machinery of integrating other cultures.
John Mearsheimer
(03:13:56)
Yeah, just very quickly on this-
Lex Fridman
(03:13:57)
That’s fascinating.
John Mearsheimer
(03:13:59)
Sam Huntington’s book, Who Are We? Which in many ways I love that book, but it has one fundamental flaw and a number of people told him beforehand that flaw existed and he didn’t fix it, but Sam argues in the book that we have large numbers of Hispanics in this country and we’re doing a very poor job of integrating them into the mainstream and they’re not becoming Americans, and because many of them are concentrated in the Southwest of the United States, unlike other ethnic groups that were spread out all over God’s little green acre, we’re going to have this cohesive group of Spanish speaking Americans who are going to want to break away, and the United States is no longer going to be a reasonably coherent nation state. He’s wrong. All the evidence is that Hispanics are integrating into the American mainstream more quickly and more effectively than the European immigrant groups that came starting around 1835.

(03:15:12)
If you look at immigration from Europe into the United States, leaving aside the original wasps who came over and founded the place, the immigrants start coming in large numbers in 1835, and we really don’t shut the door until 1924, right? This is a crude overview, starting in 1835 and running up till about 1885, it’s mainly Germans and Irish. That’s why Germans are the largest ethnic group to ever come to the United States, and the Irish are right behind them. These are the European ethnic groups we’re talking about. Then starting in 1885 Pols, Jews and Italians start coming, and the Germans and Irish keep coming, and this is why Ellis Island is opened, I think it’s 1893, Ellis Island is opened because Castle Garden in New York, which had handled all the previous immigrants coming across the pond, Castle Garden, couldn’t handle them all, so they opened up Ellis Island.

(03:16:11)
That’s why somebody like me, I can’t find my distant relative’s records in Ellis Island because they came through Castle Garden. Whereas lots of Jews I know, lots of Italians, I know they can find their relatives records in Ellis Island because they came through Ellis Island. The point is, you had all these immigrants who came in roughly between 1835 and 1924 when we shut the gates. It was the only time we’ve ever really shut the gates in a meaningful way and this is what made America great, all these people, and they made lots of babies.
Lex Fridman
(03:16:47)
So in some sense, make America great again, means getting more immigrants in.
John Mearsheimer
(03:16:52)
Well, we opened the gates again in ’65, closed them in ’24, opened them in ’65. I’m oversimplifying the story here, because we didn’t completely shut them. We almost completely shut them in ’24, opened in ’65, and we’ve had huge numbers of immigrants flowing in. These immigrants who have been flowing in since ’65 are not Europeans. They’re not mainly Europeans, they’re mainly Hispanics and Asians. If you look at those Hispanics and Asians, they’re integrating into the American mainstream at a much faster and more effective clip than was the case with those immigrants who came in the 19th Century and early 20th Century.

(03:17:36)
The Irish, oh my God, they were treated horribly. There’s a book, a very famous book that’s been written called When The Irish Became White, just think about the title of that book. There was discrimination against all these groups, and the worst discrimination, of course was against Chinese Americans, but we’ve gotten much better and what we should do moving forward is redouble our efforts to integrate immigrants into the American mainstream, Hispanics, Asians of all sorts, because the fact is that America is rapidly reaching the point where it’s not going to be an all white country.

(03:18:24)
I have five children and two of my children are, I was a generation Z, Gen Z. Gen Z is the last majority white generation, subsequent generations, and not majority white. So for anybody who’s bothered by this, I’m not bothered by that, but for anybody who is bothered by this, they better good use to it because Americans aren’t making enough babies that we can continue to grow population-wise in a robust way. So we need immigration and we’re an immigrant culture, and this is a great virtue. It has been a great virtue over time.
Lex Fridman
(03:19:10)
It should be a source of hope, not worry.
John Mearsheimer
(03:19:13)
That’s my view. That’s my view and America when it works, is a place that is very attractive to immigrants and immigrants can do very well here and then the real key moving forward is intermarriage, and you have a huge amount of intermarriage. Somebody was telling me not too long ago that the highest inner marriage rates in the United States are among Asian women, Asian American women, Asian women and Anglos, and I say wonderful and-
Lex Fridman
(03:19:47)
Great.
John Mearsheimer
(03:19:48)
Yeah. No, the more-
Lex Fridman
(03:19:49)
Love is the fastest way to integrate.
John Mearsheimer
(03:19:52)
Yeah. Well, what you want to do is you want to eliminate difference, right? You want to eliminate difference, right? It’s like people who say, “I’m an antisemite,” right? I have two grandsons who Adolf Hitler would’ve thrown into a gas chamber. One of whose first name is John, and middle name is Mearsheimer, right?
Lex Fridman
(03:20:15)
Yeah.
John Mearsheimer
(03:20:16)
This is what you want. Steve Watt’s wife and his two children would’ve been thrown into a gas chamber by Adolf Hitler. This is what you want. You want intermarriage. Now, there are a good number of people in some of those groups, especially among Jews who don’t like intermarriage, but they’ve lost because I haven’t looked recently at the data for intermarriage rates among basically secular Jews, but it used to be around 62% large numbers of Jews marry Guam.
Lex Fridman
(03:20:51)
And they’ve lost because of intermarriage. Intermarriage helps fight tribalism. Destructive kind of tribalism.
John Mearsheimer
(03:20:58)
Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(03:20:58)
It’s nice
John Mearsheimer
(03:20:59)
Calling me an antisemite, they haven’t met my grandsons, my son-in-laws, a niece that I have, nephews that I have, brother-in-laws that I have. Jewish. Come on.
Lex Fridman
(03:21:13)
And this gives a really nice hopeful view of America is the integration of different cultures, different kinds of peoples. That is a unique property of America.
John Mearsheimer
(03:21:24)
Yes, but just to go back to where we started, it was not smooth in the beginning.
Lex Fridman
(03:21:29)
All things are rough in the beginning.
John Mearsheimer
(03:21:31)
All things are rough in the beginning.

Life and mortality

Lex Fridman
(03:21:34)
What advice would you give to a young person today about how to have a career they can be proud of or a life they can be proud of?
John Mearsheimer
(03:21:42)
Well, I think it’s very important to make sure that you do something in life that really interests you. My mother used to use this phrase, “Floats your boat.” You want to do something that floats your boat or to use another one of my mother’s phrases, ” You want to get off. You want to do something where you get up out of bed in the morning with a bounce in your step.” So I think that if your mother and father want you to be a lawyer and they’re pushing you to be a lawyer and you don’t want to be a lawyer, you want to be a policeman, be a policeman. Don’t do what other people want you to do because it’s very important to find a job, an occupation that you really love.

(03:22:26)
The second thing I would say, and this has to do with your point about humility, you want to think about the humility hubris index. My friend Steve Van Everett, who teaches at MIT, he and I invented this concept. We call it the hubris humility index, and you want to have a healthy dose of humility, but you also want to have a healthy dose of hubris. You want to think you can change the world. You want to think you can make things better for yourself. You want to take chances. You want to think sometimes that you know better than other people do. Hubris is not a bad thing, but at the same time, you have to have humility. You have to understand that a man or a woman has his or her limits and you want to listen to other people. You want to be a good listener.

(03:23:19)
So always remember the importance of the hubris humility index and the importance of having healthy doses of both hubris and humility.
Lex Fridman
(03:23:31)
Speaking of humility, you’re mortal, like all humans are, do you ponder your mortality? Are you afraid of it? Are you afraid of death?
John Mearsheimer
(03:23:42)
I’m not sure I’m afraid of death. I don’t want to die because I enjoy life so much.
Lex Fridman
(03:23:50)
Having too much fun?
John Mearsheimer
(03:23:53)
Given how horrible the world is today, I hate to say that I’m having too much fun, but do I find what I do interesting and gratifying? I do. I just love what I do and I love studying international politics, and I love being intellectually curious about all sorts of subjects. I love talking to you about this and that. I mean, this is really wonderful, and I often tell people thank goodness I’m only 28 years old because I do try to behave like I’m only 28 years old, but I am well aware of the fact that as my mother used to say, “Nothing is forever,” and that includes me and when you’re 75 going on 76, you understand that you have a limited number of years left and I find that depressing because I’ve been very lucky and I feel like I’ve won the lottery. I’m very thankful for that. I’d like to make it last for as long as possible, but I do understand that nothing is forever.
Lex Fridman
(03:25:06)
Yeah, the finiteness of things.
John Mearsheimer
(03:25:09)
Yeah. You never think that when you’re young. I mean, you think you’re going to live forever and you’re just not going to get old. I never thought this would happen that I would become 75 years old.
Lex Fridman
(03:25:22)
Well, you got so much energy and boldness and fearlessness and excitement to you that I’m really grateful to see that, especially given how much I’m sure you’ve been attacked for having bold ideas and presenting them and not losing that youthful energy is beautiful to see.
John Mearsheimer
(03:25:46)
Thank you.
Lex Fridman
(03:25:47)
Not becoming cynical. John, it’s a huge honor to speak with you that you’ve given me so much time and so much respect and so much love. This was a really incredible conversation. Thank you so much for everything you do in the world, for looking out into the world and trying to understand it and teach us, and thank you so much for talking with a silly kid like me.
John Mearsheimer
(03:26:07)
It was my pleasure. Thank you very much. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Lex Fridman
(03:26:11)
Awesome. Thanks for listening to this conversation with John Mearsheimer. To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you with some words from Plato. “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Elon Musk: War, AI, Aliens, Politics, Physics, Video Games, and Humanity | Lex Fridman Podcast #400

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #400 with Elon Musk.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Introduction

War and human nature

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
The following is a conversation with Elon Musk, his fourth time on this, the Lex Fridman Podcast. I thought you were going to finish it. It’s one of the greatest themes in all of film history.
Elon Musk
(00:00:31)
Yeah, that’s great.
Lex Fridman
(00:00:33)
So I was just thinking about the Roman Empire, as one does.
Elon Musk
(00:00:38)
Is that whole meme where all guys are thinking about the Roman Empire at least once a day?
Lex Fridman
(00:00:44)
And half the population is confused whether it’s true or not. But more seriously, thinking about the wars going on in the world today, and as you know, war and military conquest has been a big part of Roman society and culture, and I think has been a big part of most empires and dynasties throughout human history.
Elon Musk
(00:01:06)
Yeah, they usually came as a result of conquest. I mean, there’s some like the Hapsburg Empire where there was just a lot of clever marriages.
Lex Fridman
(00:01:16)
But fundamentally there’s an engine of conquest and they celebrate excellence in warfare, many of the leaders were excellent generals, that kind of thing. So a big picture question, Grok approved, I asked if this is a good question to ask.
Elon Musk
(00:01:33)
Tested, Grok approved. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:01:36)
At least on fun mode. To what degree do you think war is part of human nature versus a consequence of how human societies are structured? I ask this as you have somehow controversially been a proponent of peace.
Elon Musk
(00:01:57)
I’m generally a proponent of peace. I mean, ignorance is perhaps, in my view, the real enemy to be countered. That’s the real hard part, not fighting other humans, but all creatures fight. I mean, the jungle is… People think of nature as perhaps some sort of peaceful thing, but in fact it is not. There’s some quite funny Werner Herzog thing where he is in the jungle saying that it’s basically just murder and death in every direction. The plants and animals in the jungle are constantly trying to kill each other every single day, every minute. So it’s not like we’re unusual in that respect.
Lex Fridman
(00:02:40)
Well, there’s a relevant question here, whether with greater intelligence comes greater control over these base instincts for violence.
Elon Musk
(00:02:49)
Yes. We have much more vulnerability to control our limbic instinct for violence than say a chimpanzee. And in fact, if one looks at say, chimpanzee society, it is not friendly. I mean, the Bonobos are an exception, but chimpanzee society is filled with violence and it’s quite horrific, frankly. That’s our limbic system in action. You don’t want to be on the wrong side of a chimpanzee, it’ll eat your face off and tear your nuts off.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:22)
Yeah. Basically there’s no limits or ethics or they almost had just war. There’s no just war in the chimpanzee societies. Is war and dominance by any means necessary?
Elon Musk
(00:03:33)
Yeah. Chimpanzee society is a permanent version of human society. They’re not like peace loving basically at all. There’s extreme violence and then once in a while, somebody who’s watched too many Disney movies decides to raise a chimpanzee as a pet, and then that eats their face or they’re nuts off or chew their fingers off and that kind of thing. It’s happened several times.
Lex Fridman
(00:03:58)
Ripping your nuts off is an interesting strategy for interaction.
Elon Musk
(00:04:02)
It’s happened to people. It’s unfortunate. That’s, I guess, one way to ensure that the other chimp doesn’t contribute to the gene pool.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:10)
Well, from a martial arts perspective is the fascinating strategy.
Elon Musk
(00:04:15)
The nut rougher.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:18)
I wonder which of the martial arts teaches that one.
Elon Musk
(00:04:21)
I think it’s safe to say if somebody’s got your nuts in their hands and as the option of roughing them off, you’ll be amenable to whatever they want.

Israel-Hamas war

Lex Fridman
(00:04:30)
Yeah. Safe to say. So, like I said, somehow controversially, you’ve been a proponent of peace on Twitter on X.
Elon Musk
(00:04:38)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:04:39)
So let me ask you about the wars going on today and to see what the path to peace could be. How do you hope the current war in Israel and Gaza comes to an end? What path do you see that can minimize human suffering in the longterm in that part of the world?
Elon Musk
(00:04:54)
Well, I think that part of the world is definitely, if you look up… There is no easy answer in the dictionary. It’ll be the picture of the Middle East in Israel especially. So there is no easy answer. This is strictly my opinion is that the goal of Hamas was to provoke an overreaction from Israel. They obviously did not expect to have a military victory, but they really wanted to commit the worst atrocities that they could in order to provoke the most aggressive response possible from Israel, and then leverage that aggressive response to rally Muslims worldwide for the course of Gaza and Palestine, which they have succeeded in doing. So the counterintuitive thing here, I think that the thing that I think should be done, even though it’s very difficult, is that I would recommend that Israel engage in the most conspicuous acts of kindness possible, everything, that is the actual thing that we’re taught the goal of Hamas.
Lex Fridman
(00:06:19)
So in some sense, the degree that makes sense in geopolitics turn the other cheek implemented.
Elon Musk
(00:06:26)
It’s not exactly turn the other cheek because I do think that it is appropriate for Israel to find the Hamas members and either kill them or incarcerate them. That’s something has to be done because they’re just going to keep coming otherwise. But in addition to that, they need to do whatever they can. There’s some talk of establishing, for example, a mobile hospital. I’d recommend doing that. Just making sure that there’s food, water, medical necessities and just be over the top about it and be very transparent. So [inaudible 00:07:22] can claim it’s a trick. Just put webcam on the thing or 24, 7.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:29)
Deploy acts of kindness.
Elon Musk
(00:07:31)
Yeah, conspicuous acts of kindness that are unequivocal, meaning they can’t be somehow because Hamas will then their response will be, “Oh, it’s a trick.” Therefore, you have to counter how it’s not a trick.
Lex Fridman
(00:07:47)
This ultimately fights the broader force of hatred in the region.
Elon Musk
(00:07:51)
Yes. And I’m not sure who said it, it’s an [inaudible 00:07:54] saying, but an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Now, that neck of the woods, they really believe in the whole eye for an eye thing. But you really have… If you’re not going to just outright commit genocide against an entire people, which obviously would not be acceptable to really, shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone, then you’re going to leave basically a lot of people alive who subsequently hate Israel. So really the question is like for every Hamas member that you kill, how many did you create? And if you create more than you killed, you’ve not succeeded. That’s the real situation there. And it’s safe to say that if you kill somebody’s child in Gaza, you’ve made at least a few homeless members who will die just to kill an Israeli. That’s the situation. But I mean, this is one of the most contentious subjects one could possibly discuss. But I think if the goal ultimately is some sort of long-term piece, one has to look at this from the standpoint of over time, are there more or fewer terrorists being created?
Lex Fridman
(00:09:26)
Let me just linger on war.
Elon Musk
(00:09:29)
Yeah, war, safe to say, wars always existed and always will exist.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:33)
Always will exist.
Elon Musk
(00:09:34)
Always has existed and always will exist.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:37)
I hope not. You think it’ll always-
Elon Musk
(00:09:42)
There will always be war. There’s a question of just how much war and there’s sort of the scope and scale of war. But to imagine that there would not be any war in the future, I think would be a very unlikely outcome.
Lex Fridman
(00:09:55)
Yeah. You talked about the Culture series. There’s war even there.
Elon Musk
(00:09:58)
Yes. It’s a giant war. The first book starts off with a gigantic galactic war where trillions die trillions.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:07)
But it still nevertheless protects these pockets of flourishing. Somehow you can have galactic war and still have pockets of flourishing.
Elon Musk
(00:10:18)
Yeah, I guess if we are able to one day expand to fool the galaxy or whatever, there will be a galactic war at some point.
Lex Fridman
(00:10:31)
I mean, the scale of war has been increasing, increasing, increasing. It’s like a race between the scale of suffering and the scale of flourishing.
Elon Musk
(00:10:38)
Yes.

Military-Industrial Complex

Lex Fridman
(00:10:41)
A lot of people seem to be using this tragedy to beat the drums of war and feed the military industrial complex. Do you worry about this, the people who are rooting for escalation and how can it be stopped?
Elon Musk
(00:10:56)
One of the things that does concern me is that there are very few people alive today who actually viscerally understand the horrors of war, at least in the US. I mean, obviously there are people on the front lines in Ukraine and Russia who understand just how terrible war is, but how many people in the West understand it? My grandfather was in World War II. He was severely traumatized. He was there I think for almost six years in Eastern North Africa and Italy. All his friends were killed in front of him, and he would’ve died too, except they randomly gave some, I guess IQ test or something, and he scored very high. He was not an officer. He was I think a corporal or a sergeant or something like that because he didn’t finish high school because he had to drop out of high school because his dad died and he had to work to support his siblings. So because he didn’t graduate high school, he was not eligible for the offset corps.

(00:11:57)
So he kind of got put into the cannon fodder category basically. But then randomly they gave him this test. He was transferred to British intelligence in London. That’s where we met my grandmother. But he had PTSD next level, next level. I mean, just didn’t talk, just didn’t talk. And if you tried talking to him, he’d just tell you to shut up. And he won a bunch of medals, never bragged about it once, not even hinted nothing. I found out about it because his military records were online. That’s how I know. So he would say like, “No way in hell do you want to do that again.” But how many people… Obviously, he died, he 20 years ago or longer, actually 30 years ago. How many people are alive that remember World War II? Not many.
Lex Fridman
(00:12:54)
And the same perhaps applies to the threat of nuclear war.
Elon Musk
(00:13:01)
Yeah, I mean, there are enough nuclear bombs pointed at United States to make the radioactive revel balance many times.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:10)
There’s two major wars going on right now. So you talked about the threat of AGI quite a bit, but now as we sit here with the intensity of conflict going on, do you worry about nuclear war?
Elon Musk
(00:13:25)
I think we shouldn’t discount the possibility of nuclear war. It is a civilizational threat. Right now, I could be wrong, but I think the current probability of nuclear war is quite low. But there are a lot of nukes pointed at us, and we have a lot of nukes pointed at other people. They’re still there. Nobody’s put their guns away. The missiles are still in the silos.
Lex Fridman
(00:13:57)
And the leaders don’t seem to be the ones with the nukes talking to each other.
Elon Musk
(00:14:03)
No, there are wars which are tragic and difficult on a local basis. And then there are wars which are civilization ending or has that potential. Obviously, global thermonuclear warfare has high potential to end civilization, perhaps permanently, but certainly to severely wound and perhaps set back human progress to the Stone Age or something. I don’t know. Pretty bad. Probably scientists and engineers want to be super popular after that as well. You got us into this mess. So generally, I think we obviously want to prioritize civilizational risks over things that are painful and tragic on a local level, but not civilizational.

War in Ukraine

Lex Fridman
(00:15:00)
How do you hope the war in Ukraine comes to an end? And what’s the path, once again to minimizing human suffering there?
Elon Musk
(00:15:08)
Well, I think that what is likely to happen, which is really pretty much the way it is, is that something very close to the current lines will be how a ceasefire or truce happens. But you just have a situation right now where whoever goes on the offensive will suffer casualties at several times the rate of whoever’s on the defense because you’ve got defense in depth, you’ve got minefields, trenches, anti-tank defenses. Nobody has air superiority because the anti-aircraft missiles are really far better than the aircraft. They’re far more of them. And so neither side has air superiority. Tanks are basically death traps, just slow moving, and they’re not immune to anti-tank weapons. So you really just have long range artillery and infantry ranges. It’s World War I all over again with drones, thrown old drones, some drones there.
Lex Fridman
(00:16:25)
Which makes the long range artillery just that much more accurate and better, and so more efficient at murdering people on both sides.
Elon Musk
(00:16:34)
So whoever is… You don’t want to be trying to advance from either side because the probability of dying is incredibly high. So in order to overcome defense in depth, trenches and minefields, you really need a significant local superiority in numbers. Ideally combined alms where you do a fast attack with aircraft, a concentrated number of tanks, and a lot of people, that’s the only way you’re going to punch through a line and then you’re going to punch through and then not have reinforcements just kick you right out again. I mean, I really recommend people read World War I warfare in detail. That’s rough. I mean, the sheer number of people that died there was mind-boggling.
Lex Fridman
(00:17:37)
And it’s almost impossible to imagine the end of it that doesn’t look like almost exactly like the beginning in terms of what land belongs to who and so on. But on the other side of a lot of human suffering, death and destruction of infrastructure.
Elon Musk
(00:17:56)
Yes. The thing that… The reason I proposed some sort of truce or peace a year ago was because I’ve predicted pretty much exactly what would happen, which is a lot of people dying for basically almost no changes in land and the loss of the flower of Ukrainian and Russian youth. And we should have some sympathy for the Russian boys as well as the Ukrainian boys, because Russian boys, because boys didn’t ask to be on their frontline. They have to be. So there’s a lot of sons not coming back to their parents, and I think most of them don’t hate the other side. It’s sort of like as this saying comes from World War I, it’s like young boys who don’t know each other killing each other on behalf of old men that do know each other. The hell’s the point of that.
Lex Fridman
(00:19:02)
So Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that he’s not, or has said in the past, he’s not interested in talking to Putin directly. Do you think he should sit down man to man, lead a leader, and negotiate peace?
Elon Musk
(00:19:14)
Look, I think I would just recommend do not send the flower of Ukrainian youth to die in trenches, whether he talks to Putin or not, just don’t do that. Whoever goes on the offensive will lose massive numbers of people and history will not look kindly upon them.

China

Lex Fridman
(00:19:42)
You’ve spoken honestly about the possibility of war between US and China in the longterm if no diplomatic solution is found, for example, on the question of Taiwan and One China policy, how do we avoid the trajectory where these two superpowers clash?
Elon Musk
(00:19:58)
Well, it’s worth reading that book on the, difficult to pronounce, the Thucydides Trap, I believe it’s called. I love war history. I like inside out and backwards. There’s hardly a battle I haven’t read about. And trying to figure out what really was the cause of victory in any particular case as opposed to what one side or another claim the reason.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:21)
Both the victory and what sparked the war and-
Elon Musk
(00:20:24)
Yeah, yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:20:25)
The whole thing.
Elon Musk
(00:20:26)
Yeah. So that Athens and Sparta is a classic case. The thing about the Greek is they really wrote down a lot of stuff. They loved writing. There are lots of interesting things that happened in many parts of the world, but people didn’t write down, so we don’t know what happened or they didn’t really write in detail. They just would say, “We had a battle and we won.” And what? Can you add a bit more? The Greeks, they really wrote a lot. They were very articulate on… They just love writing. And we have a bunch of that writing as preserved. So we know what led up to the Peloponnesian War between the Spartanand Athenian Alliance, and we know that they saw it coming.

(00:21:16)
Spartans didn’t write… They also weren’t very verbose by their nature, but they did write, but they weren’t very verbose. They were [inaudible 00:21:23]. But the Athenians and the other Greeks wrote a line, and Spartan was really kind of like the leader of Greece. But Athens grew stronger and stronger with each passing year. And everyone’s like, “Well, that’s inevitable that there’s going to be a clash between Athens and Sparta. Well, how do we avoid that?” And actually they saw it coming and they still could not avoid it. So at some point, if one group, one civilization or country or whatever exceeds another sort of like the United States has been the biggest kid on the block since I think around 1890 from an economic standpoint.

(00:22:14)
So the United States has been the most powerful economic engine in the world longer than anyone’s been alive. And the foundation of war is economics. So now we have a situation in the case of China where the economy is likely to be two, perhaps three times larger than that of the US. So imagine you’re the biggest kid on the block for as long as anyone can remember, and suddenly a kid comes along who’s twice your size.
Lex Fridman
(00:22:55)
So we see it coming, how is it possible to stop? Let me throw something out there, just intermixing of cultures understanding there does seem to be a giant cultural gap in understanding of each other. And you’re an interesting case study because you are an American, obviously you’ve done a lot of incredible manufacture here in the United States, but you also work with China.
Elon Musk
(00:23:20)
I’ve spent a lot of time in China and met with the leadership many times.
Lex Fridman
(00:23:22)
Maybe a good question to ask is, what are some things about China that people don’t understand, positive just in the culture? What’s some interesting things that you’ve learned about the Chinese?
Elon Musk
(00:23:36)
Well, the sheer number of really smart, hardworking people in China is incredible. There are really say how many smart, hardworking people are there in China? There’s far more of them there than there are here, I think, in my opinion. And they’ve got a lot of energy. So I mean, the architecture in China that’s in recent years is far more impressive than the US. I mean the train stations, the buildings, the high speed rail, everything, it’s really far more impressive than what we have in the US. I mean, I recommend somebody just go to Shanghai and Beijing, look at the buildings and go to take the train from Beijing to Xian, where you have the terracotta warriors. China’s got an incredible history, very long history, and I think arguably in terms of the use of language from a written standpoint, one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest written language, and then China, people did write things down.

(00:24:50)
So now China historically has always been, with rare exception, been internally focused. They have not been inquisitive. They’ve fought each other. There’ve been many, many civil wars. In the Three Kingdoms war, I believe they lost about 70% of their population. So they’ve had brutal internal wars, civil wars that make the US Civil War look small by comparison. So I think it’s important to appreciate that China is not monolithic. We sort of think of China as a sort of one entity of one mind. And this is definitely not the case. From what I’ve seen and I think most people who understand China would agree, people in China think about China 10 times more than they think about anything outside of China. So it’s like 90% of their consideration is internal.
Lex Fridman
(00:26:01)
Well, isn’t that a really positive thing when you’re talking about the collaboration and the future piece between superpowers when you’re inward facing, which is focusing on improving yourself versus focusing on quote, unquote improving others through military might.
Elon Musk
(00:26:18)
The good news, the history of China suggests that China is not inquisitive, meaning they’re not going to go out and invade a whole bunch of countries. Now they do feel very strongly… So that’s good. I mean, because a lot of very powerful countries have been inquisitive. The US is also one of the rare cases that has not been inquisitive. After World War II, the US could have basically taken over the world in any country, we’ve got nukes, nobody else has got nukes. We don’t even have to lose soldiers. Which country do you want? And the United States could have taken over everything and it didn’t. And the United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped rebuild Europe, helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost unprecedented.

(00:27:10)
The US did conspicuous acts of kindness like the Berlin Airlift. And I think it’s always like, well, America’s done bad things. Well, of course America’s done bad things, but one needs to look at the whole track record and just generally, one sort of test would be how do you treat your prisoners at war? Or let’s say, no offense to the Russians, but let’s say you’re in Germany, it’s 1945, you’ve got the Russian Army coming one side and you’ve got the French, British and American Army’s coming the other side, who would you like to be just surrendered to? No country is [inaudible 00:27:58] perfect, but I recommend being a POW with the Americans. That would be my choice very strongly.
Lex Fridman
(00:28:07)
In the full menu of POWs in the US.
Elon Musk
(00:28:08)
Very much so. And in fact, Wernher von Braun, a smart guy, was like, “We’ve got to be captured by the Americans.” And in fact, the SS was under orders to execute von Braun and all of the German rocket conditioners, and they narrowly escaped. They said they were going out for a walk in the woods. They left in the middle of winter with no coats and then ran, but no food, no coats, no water, and just ran like hell and ran West and Vice Sherlock, I think his brother found a bicycle or something and then just cycled West as fast as he couldn’t have found a US patrol. So anyway, that’s one way you can tell morality is where do you want to be a PW? It’s not fun anywhere, but some places are much worse than others. Anyway, so America has been, while far from perfect, generally a benevolent force, and we should always be self-critical and we try to be better, but anyone with half a brain knows that.

(00:29:31)
So I think there are… In this way, China and the United States are similar. Neither country has been acquisitive in a significant way. So that’s a shared principle, I guess. Now, China does feel very strongly about Taiwan. They’ve been very clear about that for a long time. From this standpoint, it would be like one of the states is not there like Hawaii or something like that but more significant than Hawaii. And Hawaii is pretty significant for us. So they view it as really there’s a fundamental part of China, the island of Formosa, not Taiwan, that is not part of China, but should be. And the only reason it hasn’t been is because the US Pacific fleet.
Lex Fridman
(00:30:32)
And is their economic power grows and is their military power grows, the thing that they’re clearly saying is their interest will clearly be materialized.
Elon Musk
(00:30:46)
Yes, China has been very clear that they’ll incorporate Taiwan peacefully or militarily, but that they will incorporate it from their standpoint is 100% likely.
Lex Fridman
(00:31:04)
Something you said about conspicuous acts of kindness as a geopolitical policy, it almost seems naive, but I’d venture to say that this is probably the path forward, how you avoid most wars. Just as you say it sounds naive, but it’s kind of brilliant. If you believe in the goodness of underlying most of human nature, it just seems like conspicuous acts of kindness can reverberate through the populace of the countries involved and deescalate.
Elon Musk
(00:31:44)
Absolutely. So after World War I, they made a big mistake. They basically tried to lump all of blame on Germany and saddle Germany with impossible reparations. And really there was quite a bit of blame to go around for World War I, but they try to put it all in Germany and that laid the seeds for World War II. So a lot of people, were not just Hitler, a lot of people felt wronged and they wanted vengeance and they got it.
Lex Fridman
(00:32:38)
People don’t forget.
Elon Musk
(00:32:41)
Yeah, you kill somebody’s father, mother or son, daughter, they’re not going to forget it. They’ll want vengeance. So after World War II, they’re like, “Well, the Treaty of Versi was a huge mistake in World War I. And so this time, instead of crushing the losers, we’re actually going to help them with the module plan, and we’re going to help rebuild Germany. We’re going to help rebuild Austria and Italy and whatnot.” So that was the right move.
Lex Fridman
(00:33:26)
It does feel like there’s a profound truth to the conspicuous acts of kindness being an antidote to this.
Elon Musk
(00:33:37)
Something must stop the cycle of reciprocal violence. Something must stop it, or it’ll never stop. Just eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, limb for a limb, life for a life forever and ever.

xAI Grok

Lex Fridman
(00:33:57)
To escape briefly the darkness, was some incredible engineering work, xAI just released Grok AI assistant that I’ve gotten a chance to play with. It’s amazing on many levels. First of all, it’s amazing that a relatively small team in a relatively short amount of time was able to develop this close to state-of-the-art system. Another incredible thing is there’s a regular mode and there’s a fun mode.
Elon Musk
(00:34:23)
Yeah, I guess I’m to blame for that one.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:27)
First of all, I wish everything in life had a fun mode.
Elon Musk
(00:34:29)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(00:34:30)
There’s something compelling beyond just fun about the fun mode interacting with a large language model. I’m not sure exactly what it is because I’ve only have had a little bit of time to play with it, but it just makes it more interesting, more vibrant to interact with the system.
Elon Musk
(00:34:47)
Yeah, absolutely. Our AI, Grok, is modeled after The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, which is one of my favorite books, which it’s a book on philosophy. It’s-
Elon Musk
(00:35:00)
My favorite books, it’s a book on philosophy, disguises book on humor. And I would say that forms the basis of my philosophy, which is that we don’t know the meaning of life, but the more we can expand the scope and scale of consciousness, digital and biological, the more we’re able to understand what questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. So I have a philosophy of curiosity.
Lex Fridman
(00:35:34)
There is generally a feeling like this AI system has an outward looking, like the way you are sitting with a good friend looking up at the stars, asking pod head like questions about the universe, wondering what it’s all about. The curiosity that you talk about. No matter how mundane the question I ask it, there’s a sense of cosmic grandeur to the whole thing.
Elon Musk
(00:35:59)
Well, we are actually working hard to have engineering math, physics answers that you can count on. So for the other AIs out there, these so-called large language models, I’ve not found the engineering to be reliable. It unfortunately hallucinates most when you at least want it to hallucinate. So when you’re asking important, difficult questions, that’s when it tends to be confidently wrong. So we’re really trying hard to say, okay, how do we be as grounded as possible? So you can count on the results, trace things back to physics first principles, mathematical logic. So underlying the humor is an aspiration to adhere to the truth of the universe as closely as possible.
Lex Fridman
(00:37:01)
That’s really tricky.
Elon Musk
(00:37:02)
It is tricky. So that’s why there’s always going to be some amount of error. But do we want to aspire to be as truthful as possible about the answers with acknowledged error. So that there was always, you don’t want to be confidently wrong, so you’re not going to be right every time, but you want to minimize how often you’re confidently wrong. And then like I said, once you can count on the logic as being not violating physics, then you can start to bull on that to create inventions, like invent new technologies. But if you cannot count on the foundational physics being correct, obviously the inventions are simply wishful thinking, imagination land. Magic basically.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:01)
Well, as you said, I think one of the big goals of XAI is to understand the universe.
Elon Musk
(00:38:06)
Yes, that’s how simple three word mission.
Lex Fridman
(00:38:13)
If you look out far into the future, do you think on this level of physics, the very edge of what we understand about physics, do you think it will make the sexiest discovery of them as we know now, unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics? So coming up with a theory of everything, do you think it could push towards that direction, almost like theoretical physics discoveries?
Elon Musk
(00:38:38)
If an AI cannot figure out new physics, it’s clearly not equal to humans, nor has surpassed humans because humans have figured out new physics. Physics is just deepening what’s inside into how reality works. And then there’s engineering which is inventing things that have never existed. Now the range of possibilities for engineering is far greater than for physics because once you figure out the rules of the universe, that’s it. You’ve discovered things that already existed. But from that you can then build technologies that are really almost limitless in the variety. And it’s like once you understand the rules of the game properly, and with current physics, we do at least at a local level, understand how physics works very well. Our ability to predict things is incredibly good. Degree to which quantum mechanics can predict outcomes is incredible. That was my hardest class in college by the way. My senior quantum mechanics class was harder than all of my other classes put together.
Lex Fridman
(00:39:50)
To get an AI system, a large language model be as reliable as quantum mechanics and physics is very difficult.
Elon Musk
(00:40:01)
Yeah. You have to test any conclusions against the ground truth of reality. Reality is the ultimate judge. Like physics is the law, everything else is a recommendation. I’ve seen plenty of people break the laws made by man, but none break the laws made by physics.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:15)
It’s a good test actually. If this LLM understands and matches physics, then you can more reliably trust whatever it thinks about the current state of politics in some sense.
Elon Musk
(00:40:28)
And it’s also not the case currently that even that its internal logic is not consistent. So especially with the approach of just predicting a token predict token, predict token, it’s like a vector sum. You’re summing up a bunch of vectors, but you can get drift. A little bit of error adds up and by the time you are many tokens down the path, it doesn’t make any sense.
Lex Fridman
(00:40:59)
So it has to be somehow self-aware about the drift.
Elon Musk
(00:41:02)
It has to be self-aware about the drift, and then look at the thing as a gestalt as a whole and say it doesn’t have coherence as a whole. When authors write books, they will write the book and then they’ll go and revise it, take into account all the end and the beginning and the middle and rewrite it to achieve coherence so that it doesn’t end up at a nonsensical place.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:33)
Maybe the process of revising is what reasoning is, and then the process of revising is how you get closer and closer to truth. At least I approached that way, you just say a bunch of bullshit first and then you get it better. You start a bullshit and then you-
Elon Musk
(00:41:51)
Create a draft and then you iterate on that draft until it has coherence, until it all adds up basically.
Lex Fridman
(00:41:59)
Another question about theory of everything, but for intelligence, as you’re exploring this with XAI, creating this intelligence system? Do you think there is a theory of intelligence where you get to understand what is the I in AGI and what is the I in human intelligence?
Elon Musk
(00:42:22)
No, I in team America. Wait, there is.
Lex Fridman
(00:42:24)
No, it’s going to be stuck in my head now. Yeah, there’s no me and whatever in quantum mechanics, wait. I mean is that part of the process of discovering, understanding the universe is understanding intelligence?
Elon Musk
(00:42:50)
Yeah. I think we need to understand intelligence, understand consciousness. I mean there are some fundamental questions of what is thought, what is emotion? Is it really just one atom bumping into another atom? It feels like something more than that. So I think we’re probably missing some really big things.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:18)
Something that’ll be obvious in retrospect. You put the whole consciousness and motion.
Elon Musk
(00:43:26)
Well, some people would quote like a soul religion, be a soul. You feel like you’re you, I mean you don’t feel like you’re just a collection of atoms, but on what dimension does thought exist? What dimension does do emotions exist? Because we feel them very strongly. I suspect there’s more to it than atoms bumping into atoms.
Lex Fridman
(00:43:52)
And maybe AI can pave the path to the discovery whatever the hell that thing is.
Elon Musk
(00:43:58)
Yeah. What is consciousness? When you put the atoms in a particular shape, why are they able to form thoughts and take actions and feelings?
Lex Fridman
(00:44:10)
And even if it is an illusion, why is this illusion so compelling?
Elon Musk
(00:44:13)
Yeah. Why does the solution exist? On what plane does the solution exist? And sometimes I wonder is either perhaps everything’s conscious or nothing’s conscious. One of the two.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:33)
Like the former, everything conscious just seems more fun.
Elon Musk
(00:44:37)
It does seem more fun, yes. But we’re composed of atoms and those atoms are composed of quarks and leptons and those quarks and leptons have been around since the beginning of the universe.
Lex Fridman
(00:44:50)
“The beginning of the universe.”
Elon Musk
(00:44:53)
What seems to be the beginning of the universe.

Aliens

Lex Fridman
(00:44:55)
The first time we talked, you said, which is surreal to think that this discussion was happening is becoming a reality. I asked you what question would you ask an AGI system once you create it? And you said, “What’s outside the simulation,” is the question. Good question. But it seems like with Grok you started literally the system’s goal is to be able to answer such questions and to ask such questions.
Elon Musk
(00:45:24)
Where are the aliens?
Lex Fridman
(00:45:25)
Where are the aliens?
Elon Musk
(00:45:26)
That’s one of the foam paradox question. A lot of people have asked me if I’ve seen any evidence of aliens and I haven’t, which is kind of concerning. I think I’d probably prefer to at least have seen some archeological evidence of aliens. To the best of my knowledge, I’m not aware of any evidence surveillance. If they’re out there, they’re very subtle. We might just be the only consciousness, at least in the galaxy. And if you look at say the history of Earth, to believe the archeological record Earth is about four and a half billion years old. Civilization as measured from the first writing is only about 5,000 years old. We have to give some credit there to the ancient Sumerians who aren’t around anymore. I think it was an archaic pre-form was the first actual symbolic representation, but only about 5,000 years ago. I think that’s a good date for when we say civilization started. That’s 1000000th of Earth’s existence.

(00:46:35)
So civilization has been around. It’s really a flash in the pan so far. And why did it take so long? Four and a half billion years, for the vast majority of the time, there was no life. And then there was archaic bacteria for a very long time. And then you had mitochondria get captured, multicellular life, differentiation into plants and animals, life moving from the oceans to land, mammals, higher brain functions. And the sun is expanding slowly but it’ll heat the earth up at some point in the future, boil the oceans and earth will become like Venus, where life as we know it is impossible. So if we do not become multiplanetary and ultimately solar system, annihilation of all life on earth is a certainty. A certainty. And it could be as little as on the galactic timescale, half a billion years, long time by human standards, but that’s only 10% longer than earth has been around at all. So if life had taken 10% longer to evolve on earth, it wouldn’t exist at all.
Lex Fridman
(00:48:27)
Glad a deadline coming up, you better hurry. But that said, as you said, humans intelligent life on earth developed a lot of cool stuff very quickly. So it seems like becoming a multiplanetary is almost inevitable. Unless we destroy-
Elon Musk
(00:48:45)
We need to do it. I suspect that if we are able to go out there and explore other star systems that we… There’s a good chance we find a whole bunch of long dead one planet civilizations that never made it past their home planet.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:03)
That’s so sad. Also fascinating.
Elon Musk
(00:49:08)
I mean there are various explanations for paradox and one is they’re these great vultures which civilizations don’t pass through. And one of those great vultures is do you become a multi-plan civilization or not? And if you don’t, it’s simply a matter of time before something happens on your planet, either natural or manmade that causes us to die out. Like the dinosaurs, where are they now? They didn’t have spaceships.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:42)
I think the more likely thing is because just to empathize with the aliens that they found us and they’re protecting us and letting us be.
Elon Musk
(00:49:51)
I hope so. Nice aliens.
Lex Fridman
(00:49:53)
Just like the tribes in the Amazon, the uncontacted tribes or protecting them. That’s what-
Elon Musk
(00:49:59)
That would be a nice explanation.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:00)
Or you could have, what was it? I think Andre Kappelhoff said, “It’s like the ants and the Amazon asking where’s everybody?”
Elon Musk
(00:50:10)
Well, they do run into a lot of other ants.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:12)
That’s true.
Elon Musk
(00:50:14)
These ant wars.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:16)
Sounds like a good TV show.
Elon Musk
(00:50:18)
Yeah. They literally have these big wars between various ants.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:21)
Yeah. Maybe I’m just dismissing all the different diversity of ants.
Elon Musk
(00:50:28)
Listen to that Werner Herzog talking about the jungle. It’s really hilarious. Have you heard it?
Lex Fridman
(00:50:31)
No, I have not. But Werner Herzog is a way.
Elon Musk
(00:50:37)
You should play it as an interlude in the… It’s on YouTube. It’s awesome.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:45)
I love him so much.
Elon Musk
(00:50:47)
He’s great.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:47)
Was he the director of happy people life and the Taiga? I think also-
Elon Musk
(00:50:51)
He did that bear documentary. I did this thing about penguins.
Lex Fridman
(00:50:58)
The psycho analysis of a penguin.
Elon Musk
(00:51:00)
Yeah. The penguins headed for mountains that are 70 miles away and penguin is just headed for dom, basically.
Lex Fridman
(00:51:08)
Well, he had a cynical take. He could be just a brave explorer and there’ll be great stories told about him amongst the penguin population for many centuries to come. What were we talking about? Okay.
Elon Musk
(00:51:28)
Yeah. So aliens, I mean, I don’t know. Look, I think the smart move is just this is the first time in the history of earth that it’s been possible for life to extend beyond earth. That window is open. Now it may be open for a long time or it may be open for a short time and it may be open now and then never open again. So I think the smart move here is to make life multiplanetary while it’s possible to do so. We don’t want to be one of those lame one planet civilizations that just dies out.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:04)
No, those are lame.
Elon Musk
(00:52:05)
Yeah. Lame. Self-respecting, civilization would be one planet.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:11)
There’s not going to be a Wikipedia entry for one of those. Do SpaceX have an official policy for when we meet aliens?
Elon Musk
(00:52:23)
No.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:24)
That seems irresponsible.
Elon Musk
(00:52:30)
I mean, look, if I see the slightest indication that there are aliens, I will immediately post on X platform anything I know.
Lex Fridman
(00:52:38)
It could be the most liked reposted post of all time.
Elon Musk
(00:52:42)
Yeah. I mean, look, we have more satellites up there right now than everyone else combined. So we know if we’ve got a maneuver around something and we don’t have to maneuver around anything.

God

Lex Fridman
(00:52:55)
If we go to the big questions once again, you said you’re with Einstein, that you believe in the goddess Spinoza.
Elon Musk
(00:53:04)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:05)
So that’s that view that God is like the universe and reveals himself through the laws of physics or as Einstein said, “Through the lawful harmony of the world.”
Elon Musk
(00:53:16)
Yeah. I would agree that God of the simulator or whatever the supreme beings reveal themselves through the physics, they have creatives of this existence and incumbent upon us to try to understand more about this one creation.
Lex Fridman
(00:53:38)
Who created this thing? Who’s running this thing? Embodying it into a singular question with a sexy word on top of it is focusing the mind to understand. It does seem like there’s a, again, it could be an illusion. It seems like there’s a purpose that there’s an underlying master plan of some kind, and it seems like.
Elon Musk
(00:53:58)
There may not be a master plan in the sense. So maybe an interesting answer to the question of determinism versus free will is that if we are in a simulation, the reason that these higher beings would hold a simulation is to see what happens. So they don’t know what happens otherwise they wouldn’t hold the simulation. So when humans create a simulation, so it’s SpaceX and Tesla, we create simulations all the time. Especially for the rocket, you have to run a lot of simulations to understand what’s going to happen because you can’t really test the rocket until it goes to space and you want it to work. So you have to simulate subsonic, transonic, supersonic, hypersonic, ascend, and then coming back, super high heating and orbital dynamics. All this has got to be simulated because you don’t get very many kicks at the can. But we run the simulations to see what happens, not if we knew what happens, we wouldn’t run the simulation. So whoever created this existence, they’re running it because they don’t know what’s going to happen, not because they do.

Diablo 4 and video games

Lex Fridman
(00:55:23)
So maybe we both played Diablo. Maybe Diablo was created to see if Druid, your character, could defeat Uber Lilith at the end. They didn’t know.
Elon Musk
(00:55:34)
Well, the funny thing is Uber Lilith, her title is Hatred Incarnate. And right now, I guess you can ask the Diablo team, but it’s almost impossible to defeat Hatred in the eternal realm.
Lex Fridman
(00:55:55)
Yeah. You’ve streamed yourself dominating Tier 100 Nightmare Dungeon. And still-
Elon Musk
(00:56:00)
I can cruise through Tier 100 Nightmare Dungeon like a stroll in the park.
Lex Fridman
(00:56:07)
And still you’re defeated by Hatred?
Elon Musk
(00:56:09)
Yeah. I guess maybe the second hardest boss is Duriel. Duriel can even scratch the paint. So I killed Duriel so many times and every other boss in the game, all of them kill him so many times, it’s easy. But Uber Lilith, otherwise known as Hatred Incarnate, especially if you’re Duriel and you have no ability to go to be vulnerable, there are these random death waves that come at you.

(00:56:44)
Really I am 52, so my reflex is not what they used to be, but I have a lifetime of playing video games. At one point, I was maybe one of the best quake players in the world. I actually won money in what I think was the first paid eSports tournament in the US. We were doing four person quake tournaments and I was the second best person on the team and the actual best person that… We were actually winning, we would’ve come first, except the best person on the team. His computer crashed halfway through the game. So we came second, but I got money for it and everything. So basically I got skills, albeit no spring chicken these days. And to be totally frank, it’s driving me crazy to beat Lilith as a Druid, basically trying to beat Hatred Incarnate in the eternal realm.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:40)
As a Druid.
Elon Musk
(00:57:41)
As a Druid. This is really vexing, let me tell you.
Lex Fridman
(00:57:49)
I mean, the challenge is part of the fun. I have seen directly, you’re actually a world-class, incredible video game player. And I think Diablo, so you’re just picking up a new game and you’re figuring out its fundamentals. You’re also with the Paragon Board and the build are not somebody like me who perfectly follows whatever they suggest on the internet. You’re also an innovator there, which is hilarious to watch. It’s like a mad scientist just trying to figure out the Paragon Board and the build. Is there some interesting insights there about if somebody’s starting as a druid, do you have advice?
Elon Musk
(00:58:30)
I would not recommend playing a druid in the eternal realm. Right now I think the most powerful character in the seasonal realm is the Sorcerer with the lightning balls. The smokes have huge balls in the seasonal.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:46)
Yeah, that’s what they say.
Elon Musk
(00:58:49)
So have huge balls. They do huge balls of lightning.
Lex Fridman
(00:58:54)
I’ll take you word for it.
Elon Musk
(00:58:57)
In the seasonal realm, it’s pretty easy to beat Uber Lilith because you get these vapor powers that out amplify your damage and increase your defense and whatnot. So really quite easy to defeat Hatred seasonally, but to defeat Hatred eternally very difficult, almost impossible. It’s very impossible. It seems like a metaphor for life.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:24)
Yeah. I like the idea that Elon Musk, because I was playing Diablo yesterday and I saw Level 100 Druid just run by, I will never die and then run back the other way. And this metaphor, it’s hilarious that you, Elon Musk is restlessly, fighting Hatred in this demonic realm.
Elon Musk
(00:59:47)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:48)
It’s hilarious. I mean it’s pretty hilarious.
Elon Musk
(00:59:50)
No, it’s absurd. Really, it’s exercise and absurdity and it makes me want to pull my hair out.
Lex Fridman
(00:59:57)
Yeah. What do you get from video games in general, for you personally?
Elon Musk
(01:00:03)
I don’t know. It calms my mind. I mean, killing the demons in a video game calms the demons in my mind. If you play a tough video game, you can get into a state of flow, which is very enjoyable. Admittedly, it needs to be not too easy, not too hard, kind of in the Goldilocks zone, and I guess you generally want to feel like you’re progressing in the game. A good video, and there’s also beautiful art, engaging storylines, and it’s like an amazing puzzle to solve, I think. So it’s like solving the puzzle.
Lex Fridman
(01:00:52)
Elden Ring the greatest game of all time. I still haven’t played it, but to you-
Elon Musk
(01:00:56)
Elden Ring is definitely a candidate for best game ever. Top five for sure.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:01)
I think I’ve been scared how hard it is or how hard I hear it is, but it’s beautiful.
Elon Musk
(01:01:06)
Elden Ring, feels like it’s designed by an alien.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:13)
It’s a theme to this discussion. In what way?
Elon Musk
(01:01:17)
It’s so unusual. It’s incredibly creative, and the art is stunning. I recommend playing it on a big resolution, high dynamic raised TV even. It doesn’t need to be a monitor. Just the art is incredible. It’s so beautiful and it’s so unusual, and each of those top bus battles is unique. It’s a unique puzzle to solve. Each one’s different and the strategy you use to solve one battle is different from another battle.
Lex Fridman
(01:01:54)
That said, you said Druid, an internal against Uber Lilith is the hardest boss battle you’ve ever…
Elon Musk
(01:02:00)
Correct. That is currently the, and I’ve played a lot of video games because that’s my primary recreational activity. And yes, beating Hatred in the internal realm is the hardest bus battle in life. And in the video game. I’m not sure it’s possible, but I do make progress. So then I’m like, ” Okay. I’m making progress. Maybe if I just tweak that paragon board a little more, I can do it could.” Just dodge a few more waves, I could do it.
Lex Fridman
(01:02:43)
Well, the simulation is created for the purpose of figuring out if it can be done, and you’re just a cog in the machine of the simulation.
Elon Musk
(01:02:51)
Yeah, it might be. I have a feeling that at least I think-
Lex Fridman
(01:03:02)
It’s doable.
Elon Musk
(01:03:03)
It’s doable. Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:03:05)
Well, that’s the human spirit right there to believe.
Elon Musk
(01:03:09)
Yeah. I mean, it did prompt me to think about just hate in general, which is you want to be careful of one of those things where you wish for something that sounds good, but if you get it’s actually a dystopian situation. So if you wish for world peace sounds good, but how’d it enforced and at what cost eternal peace? It might actually be worse to have eternal peace because of what that would entail. The suppression of everyone, it might be the suppression of progress. It might be an ossified society that never changes. What I’m saying is that there is an argument that if you wish for no war, you should be careful what you wish for because what’s required in order for there to be no war might be worse than a little war.

Dystopian worlds: 1984 and Brave New World

Lex Fridman
(01:04:22)
Yeah. The things we’ll consider to be flaws of human civilization might be a necessary components for whatever optimal looks like. I mean this, do you worry about AI, AGI enabling a dystopian state of this nature, whether it’s 1984 with surveillance and fear or brave new world with pleasure and what is it? Lots of sex, but no deep human experience.
Elon Musk
(01:04:52)
There’s actually a real drug called Soma.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:54)
There is?
Elon Musk
(01:04:54)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:04:56)
I’m going to take notes.
Elon Musk
(01:04:58)
Does Gong know about it? No. He probably will go to Brave New World.
Elon Musk
(01:05:02)
We got to ask it.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:03)
What would be the question?
Elon Musk
(01:05:04)
Tell us about the drug called Soma.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:05)
Tell us about the drug called Soma. It’s going to go to Brave New World, I think.
Elon Musk
(01:05:15)
Well, there’s a real drug as well.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:18)
Searching for Soma drug information. Oh boy. Soma, the wonder drug… By the way, I’m in fun mode.
Elon Musk
(01:05:27)
Okay, fun. Yeah. So it’s talking about the real drug.
Lex Fridman
(01:05:31)
It’s a muscle relaxant that’s been around since the 1950s. It’s used to treat muscle pain and discomfort, and it does this by altering the activity between neurons and the spinal cord. Now, Soma isn’t just a pain reliever, it’s also a bit of a sedative. It can make you feel a bit drowsy. So it’s not something to take if you’re planning on operating, having machinery or trying to solve complex math equations. And it goes on and on. In conclusion, Soma is a drug that can be helpful for those dealing with muscle pain, but it’s not without its risks. That’s pretty good. Wait a minute.
Elon Musk
(01:06:01)
That’s the real drug it’s talking about.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:03)
It’s the real drug. And of course the fun is always use it responsibly in accordance with the advice of a healthcare professional. And remember, in the end, the universe is probably just a giant computer simulation, so don’t take anything too seriously. I love it.
Elon Musk
(01:06:20)
I love it. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:22)
It also really nicely includes the tweets, posts on X that are relevant to this, which is really cool. That integrates everything together. The interface is one of the really cool things here.
Elon Musk
(01:06:36)
Yeah. Seems done a great job. You could say no, I mean, Soma from Brave New World, because it thinks you mean, you mean Soma, the real drug. No, I mean Soma from Brave Beer World.
Lex Fridman
(01:06:56)
It’s going to be like, “Oops, I’m really sorry.” I’m really surprised it went to the real drug first. My apologies. I was thinking of the muscle relaxer. Soma for brand New World is a different beast altogether. Now this Huxley dystopian, Soma is a drug that plays a central role in the society depicted in the book. It’s a mood altering hallucinogenic drug that’s used to keep the population docile and content in the novel. To use Soma in Brave New World raises some interesting questions about the nature of happiness and the role of drugs in society, man.
Elon Musk
(01:07:30)
Exactly. Is it better to live in a world where everyone is happy all the time, even if that happiness is artificial? It’s good question. This is what I mean. Do you wish for world peace and happiness all the time? Are you sure? Because that might be a society that is essentially sterile and ossified that never changes, that is ultimately doomed.
Lex Fridman
(01:07:58)
This kind of tension between doctors and the light-
Elon Musk
(01:08:04)
This is really a very good summary. It really gets to the point. This is not simply regurgitating a brave new world. It’s actually getting to the salient element of Soma as a drug. Do you actually want to be in a situation where everyone is happy all the time, even though it’s artificial? Or is it better to confront the challenges of life and experience the full range of human emotions, even if it means experiencing pain and suffering? For
Lex Fridman
(01:08:31)
Those listening, by the way, Elon just read directly from Grok, which is a really nice kind of insightful, philosophical analysis of the tension here. Interesting.
Elon Musk
(01:08:41)
It pretty much nails it. In conclusion, Soma from Brave New World is fictional drug that’s used to explore some deep philosophical questions about the nature of happiness and the role of drugs in society. It’s a powerful symbol of the dangers of using drugs to escape from reality and the importance of confronting the challenges of life head on. Nailed it. And the crazy thing is we do have a real drug called Soma, which is like the drug in the book. And I’m like, “They must’ve named it Probably.” Some of the real drug is quite effective on back pain.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:17)
So you know about this drug. It’s fascinating
Elon Musk
(01:09:20)
I’ve taken it because I had a squashed disc in my C5-C6.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:26)
So it takes the physical pain away. But Soma here-
Elon Musk
(01:09:28)
It doesn’t completely, it reduces the amount of pain you feel, but at the expense of mental acuity, it dells your mind. Just like the drug in the book.
Lex Fridman
(01:09:41)
Just like the drug in the book, and hence the trade off. The thing that seems like utopia could be a dystopia after all.
Elon Musk
(01:09:49)
Yeah. Actually I was towing a friend of mine saying, “Would you really want there to be no hate in the world? Really none?” I wonder why hate evolved. I’m not saying we should have…
Elon Musk
(01:10:00)
I wonder why hate evolved. I’m not saying we should amplify hate, of course, I think we should try to minimize it, but none at all. There might be a reason for hate.
Lex Fridman
(01:10:13)
And suffering. It’s really complicated to consider that some amount of human suffering is necessary for human flourishing.
Elon Musk
(01:10:22)
Is it possible to appreciate the highs without knowing the lows?
Lex Fridman
(01:10:29)
And that all is summarized there in a single statement from God. Okay.
Elon Musk
(01:10:34)
No highs, no lows, who knows?

AI and useful compute per watt

Lex Fridman
(01:10:38)
[inaudible 01:10:38]. It seems that training LLMs efficiently is a big focus for xAI. First of all, what’s the limit of what’s possible in terms of efficiency? There’s this terminology of useful productivity per watt. What have you learned from pushing the limits of that?
Elon Musk
(01:10:59)
Well, I think it’s helpful, the tools of physics are very powerful and can be applied I think to really any arena in life. It’s really just critical thinking. For something important you need to reason with from first principles and think about things in the limit one direction or the other. So in the limit, even at the Kardashev scale, meaning even if you harness the entire power of the sun, you’ll still care about useful compute per watt. That’s where I think, probably where things are headed from the standpoint of AI is that we have a silicon shortage now that will transition to a voltage transformer shortage in about a year. Ironically, transformers for transformers. You need transformers to run transformers.
Lex Fridman
(01:11:52)
Somebody has a sense of humor in this thing.
Elon Musk
(01:11:57)
I think, yes, fate loves irony, ironic humor, an ironically funny outcome seems to be often what fate wants.
Lex Fridman
(01:12:09)
Humor is all you need. I think spice is all you need somebody posted.
Elon Musk
(01:12:13)
Yeah. But yeah, so we have silicon shortage today, a voltage step down transformer shortage probably in about a year, and then just electricity shortages in general in about two years. I gave a speech for the world gathering of utility companies, electricity companies, and I said, look, you really need to prepare for traveling of electricity demand because all transport is going to go electric with the ironic exception of rockets, and heating will also go electric. So energy usage right now is roughly one third, very rough terms, one third electricity, one third transport, one third heating. And so in order for everything to go sustainable, to go electric, you need to triple electricity output. So I encourage the utilities to build more power of plants and also to probably have, well, not probably, they should definitely buy more batteries because the grid currently is sized for realtime load, which is kind of crazy because that means you’ve got to size for whatever the peak electricity demand is, the worst second or the worst day of the year, or you can have a brown out or blackout.

(01:13:37)
We had that crazy blackout for several days in Austin because there’s almost no buffering of energy in the grid. If you’ve got a hydropower plant you can buffer energy, but otherwise it’s all real time. So with batteries, you can produce energy at night and use it during the day so you can buffer. So I expect that there will be very heavy usage of batteries in the future because the peak to trough ratio for power plants is anywhere from two to five, so its lowest point to highest point.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:20)
So batteries necessary to balance it out, but the demand, as you’re saying, is going to grow, grow, grow, grow.
Elon Musk
(01:14:25)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:25)
And part of that is the compute?
Elon Musk
(01:14:29)
Yes. Yes. I mean, electrification of transport and electric heating will be much bigger than AI, at least-
Lex Fridman
(01:14:40)
In the short term.
Elon Musk
(01:14:40)
In the short term. But even for AI, you really have a growing demand for electricity, for electric vehicles, and a growing demand for electricity to run the computers for AI. And so this is obviously, can lead to electricity shortage.
Lex Fridman
(01:14:58)
How difficult is the problem of, in this particular case, maximizing the useful productivity per watt for training and that’s, this seems to be really where the big problem we’re facing that needs to be solved, is how to use the power efficiently. What you’ve learned so far about applying this physics first principle of reasoning in this domain, how difficult is this problem?
Elon Musk
(01:15:29)
It will get solved. It’s the question of how long it takes to solve it. So at various points, there’s some kind of limiting factor to progress and with regard to AI, I’m saying right now the limiting factor is silicon chips and that will, we’re going to then have more chips than we can actually plug in and turn on probably in about a year. The initial constraint being literally voltage step down transformers because you’ve got power coming in at 300,000 volts and it’s got to step all the way down eventually to around 0.7 volts. So it’s a very big amount of, the voltage step down is gigantic and the industry is not used to rapid growth.

AI regulation

Lex Fridman
(01:16:22)
Okay. Let’s talk about the competition here. You’ve shown concern about Google and Microsoft with OpenAI developing AGI. How can you help ensure with xAI and Tesla AI work that it doesn’t become a competitive race to AGI, but that is a collaborative development of safe AGI?
Elon Musk
(01:16:42)
Well, I mean I’ve been pushing for some kind of regulatory oversight for a long time. I’ve been somewhat of a Cassandra on the subject for over a decade. I think we want to be very careful in how we develop AI. It’s a great power and with great power comes great responsibility. I think it would be wise for us to have at least an objective third party who can be like a referee that can go in and understand what the various leading players are doing with AI, and even if there’s no enforcement ability, they can at least voice concerns publicly. Jeff Hinton, for example, left Google and he voiced strong concerns, but now he’s not at Google anymore, so who’s going to voice the concerns? So I think there’s, Tesla gets a lot of regulatory oversight on the automotive front. We’re subject to, I think over a hundred regulatory agencies domestically and internationally. It’s a lot. You could fill this room with the all regulations that Tesla has to adhere to for automotive. Same is true for rockets and for, currently, the limiting factor for SpaceX for Starship launch is regulatory approval.

(01:18:13)
The FAA has actually given their approval, but we’re waiting for fish and wildlife to finish their analysis and give their approval. That’s why I posted I want to buy a fish license on, which also refers to the Monte Python sketch. Why do you need a license for your fish? I don’t know. But according to the rules, I’m told you need some sort of fish license or something. We effectively need a fish license to launch a rocket. And I’m like, wait a second. How did the fish come into this picture? I mean, some of the things I feel like are so absurd that I want to do a comedy sketch and flash at the bottom. This is all real. This is actually what happened.

(01:19:02)
One of the things that was a bit of a challenge at one point is that they were worried about a rocket hitting a shark. And the ocean’s very big, and how often do you see sharks? Not that often. As a percentage of ocean surface area, sharks basically are zero. And so then we said, well, how will we calculate the probability of killing a shark? And they’re like, well, we can’t give you that information because they’re worried about shark fin hunters going and hunting sharks and I said, well, how are we supposed to, we’re on the horns of a dilemma then.

(01:19:40)
They said, well, there’s another part of fish and wildlife that can do this analysis. I’m like, well, why don’t you give them the data? We don’t trust them. Excuse me? They’re literally in your department. Again, this is actually what happened. And then can you do an NDA or something? Eventually they managed to solve the internal quandary, and indeed the probability of us hitting a shark is essentially zero. Then there’s another organization that I didn’t realize existed until a few months ago that cares about whether we would potentially hit a whale in international waters. Now, again, you look the surface, look at the Pacific and say what percentage of the Pacific consists of whale? I could give you a big picture and point out all the whales in this picture. I’m like, I don’t see any whales. It’s basically 0%, and if our rocket does hit a whale, which is extremely unlikely beyond all belief, fate had it, that’s a whale has some seriously bad luck, least lucky whale ever.
Lex Fridman
(01:20:50)
I mean this is quite absurd, the bureaucracy of this, however it emerged.
Elon Musk
(01:20:57)
Yes. Well, I mean one of the things that’s pretty wild is for launching out of Vanderberg in California, we had to, they were worried about seal procreation, whether the seals would be dismayed by the sonic booms. Now, there’ve been a lot of rockets launched out of Vandenberg and the seal population has steadily increased. So if anything, rocket booms are an aphrodisiac, based on the evidence, if you were to correlate rocket launches with seal population. Nonetheless, we were forced to kidnap a seal, strap it to a board, put headphones on the seal and play sonic boom sounds to it to see if it would be distressed. This is an actual thing that happened. This is actually real. I have pictures.
Lex Fridman
(01:21:48)
I would love to see this. Yeah. Sorry. There’s a seal with headphones.
Elon Musk
(01:21:55)
Yes, it’s a seal with headphones strapped to a board. Okay. Now the amazing part is how calm the seal was because if I was a seal, I’d be like, this is the end. They’re definitely going to eat me. How old the seal, when seal goes back to other seal friends, how’s he going to explain that?
Lex Fridman
(01:22:17)
They’re never going to believe them.
Elon Musk
(01:22:18)
Never going to believe him. That’s why, I’m like sort of like it’s getting kidnapped by aliens and getting anal probed. You come back and say, I swear to God, I got kidnapped by aliens and they stuck anal probe in my butt and people are like, no, they didn’t. That’s ridiculous. His seal buddies are never going to believe him that he got strapped to aboard and they put headphones on his ears and then let him go. Twice, by the way, we had to do it twice.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:46)
They let him go twice.
Elon Musk
(01:22:48)
We had to capture-
Lex Fridman
(01:22:48)
The same seal?
Elon Musk
(01:22:49)
No different seal.
Lex Fridman
(01:22:50)
Okay. Did you get a seal of approval?
Elon Musk
(01:22:55)
Exactly. Seal of approval. No, I mean I don’t think the public is quite aware of the madness that goes on.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:02)
Yeah. Yeah. It’s absurd.
Elon Musk
(01:23:05)
Fricking seals with fricking headphones.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:07)
I mean, this is a good encapsulation of the absurdity of human civilization, seals in headphones.

Should AI be open-sourced?

Elon Musk
(01:23:13)
Yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:23:15)
What are the pros and cons of open sourcing AI to you as another way to combat a company running away with AGI?
Elon Musk
(01:23:28)
In order to run really deep intelligence, you need a lot of compute. So it’s not like you can just fire up a PC in your basement and be running AGI, at least not yet. Grok was trained on 8,000 A100’s running at peak efficiency and Grok’s going to get a lot better, by the way, we will be more than doubling our compute every couple months for the next several months.
Lex Fridman
(01:24:02)
There’s a nice writeup, on how we went from Grok zero to Grok one.
Elon Musk
(01:24:02)
By Grok?
Lex Fridman
(01:24:05)
Yeah, right, grok just bragging, making shit up about itself.
Elon Musk
(01:24:10)
Just Grok, Grok, Grok.
Lex Fridman
(01:24:17)
Yeah. That’s like a weird AI dating site where it exaggerates about itself. No, there’s a writeup of where it stands now, the history of its development, and where it stands on some benchmarks compared to the state-of-the art GPT-3 five. And so I mean, there’s [inaudible 01:24:37], you can open source, once it’s trained, you can open source a model. For fine-tuning, all that kind of stuff. What to is the pros and cons of that, of open sourcing base models?
Elon Musk
(01:24:53)
I think the [inaudible 01:24:53] to open sourcing, I think perhaps with a slight time delay, I don’t know, six months even. I think I’m generally in favor of open sourcing, biased towards open sourcing. I mean, it is a concern to me that OpenAI, I was I think, I guess oddly the prime mover behind OpenAI in the sense that it was created because of discussions that I had with Larry Page back when he and I were friends and I stayed at his house and I talked to him about AI safety, and Larry did not care about AI safety, or at least at the time he didn’t. And at one point he called me a speciesist for being pro-human, and I’m like, well, what team are you on, Larry? He’s still on Team Robot to be clear. And I’m like, okay. So at the time Google had acquired DeepMind, they had probably two thirds of all AI researchers in the world. They had basically infinite money and compute, and the guy in charge, Larry Page, did not care about safety and even yelled at me and caught me a speciesist for being pro-human.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:20)
So I don’t know if you notice about humans, they can change their mind and maybe you and Larry Page can still, can be friends once more.
Elon Musk
(01:26:27)
I’d like to be friends with Larry again. Really the breaking of the friendship was over OpenAI and specifically I think the key moment was recruiting Ilya Sutskever.
Lex Fridman
(01:26:47)
I love Ilya. He’s so brilliant.
Elon Musk
(01:26:48)
Ilya is a good human, smart, good heart, and that was a tough recruiting battle. It was mostly Demis on one side and me on the other, both trying to recruit Ilya, and Ilya went back and forth, he was going to stay at Google, he was going to leave, then he was going to stay, then he’ll leave. And finally he did agree to join OpenAI. That was one of the toughest recruiting battles we’ve ever had. But that was really the linchpin for OpenAI being successful. And I was also instrumental in recruiting a number of other people, and I provided all of the funding in the beginning, over $40 million. And the name, the open in open AI is supposed to mean open source, and it was created as a nonprofit open source, and now it is a closed source for maximum profit, which I think is not good karma.
Lex Fridman
(01:27:51)
But like we talked about with war and leaders talking, I do hope that, there’s only a few folks working on this at the highest level. I do hope you reinvigorate friendships here.
Elon Musk
(01:28:02)
Like I said, I’d like to be friends again with Larry. I haven’t seen him in ages and we were friends for a very long time. I met Larry Page before he got funding for Google, or actually I guess before he got venture funding, I think he got the first like $100k from I think Bechtel Zeimer or someone.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:20)
It’s wild to think about all that happened, and you guys known each other that whole time, it’s 20 years.
Elon Musk
(01:28:27)
Yeah, since maybe 98 or something.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:28)
Yeah, it’s crazy. Crazy how much has happened since then.
Elon Musk
(01:28:31)
Yeah, 25 years, a lot has happened. It’s insane.
Lex Fridman
(01:28:36)
But you’re seeing the tension there that maybe delayed open source.
Elon Musk
(01:28:40)
Delayed, yeah, like what is the source that is open? You know what I mean? There’s basically, it’s a giant CSB file with a bunch of numbers. What do you do with that giant file of numbers? How do you run, the amount of actual, the lines of code is very small and most of the work, the software work is in the curation of the data. So it’s like trying to figure out what data is, separating good data from bad data. You can’t just crawl the internet because theres a lot of junk out there. A huge percentage of websites have more noise than signal because they’re just used for search engine optimization. They’re literally just scam websites.
Lex Fridman
(01:29:39)
How do you, by the way, sorry to interrupt, get the signal, separate the signal and noise on X? That’s such a fascinating source of data. No offense to people posting on X, but sometimes there’s a little bit of noise.
Elon Musk
(01:29:52)
I think the signal noise could be greatly improved. Really, all of the posts on the X platform should be AI recommended, meaning we should populate a vector space around any given post, compare that to the vector space around any user and match the two. Right now there is a little bit of AI used for the recommended posts, but it’s mostly heuristics. And if there’s a reply where the reply to a post could be much better than the original post, but will, according to the current rules of the system, get almost no attention compared to a primary post.

X algorithm

Lex Fridman
(01:30:33)
So a lot of that, I got the sense, so a lot of the X algorithm has been open sourced and been written up about, and it seems there to be some machine learning. It’s disparate, but there’s some machine.
Elon Musk
(01:30:44)
It’s a little bit, but it needs to be entirely that. At least, if you explicitly follow someone, that’s one thing. But in terms of what is recommended from people that you don’t follow, that should all be AI.
Lex Fridman
(01:30:58)
I mean it’s a fascinating problem. So there’s several aspects of it that’s fascinating. First, as the write-up goes, it first picks 1500 tweets from a pool of hundreds of millions. First of all, that’s fascinating. You have hundreds of millions of posts every single day, and it has to pick 1500 from which it then does obviously people you follow, but then there’s also some kind of clustering it has to do to figure out what kind of human are you, what kind of new clusters might be relevant to you, people like you. This kind of problem is just fascinating because it has to then rank those 1500 with some filtering and then recommend you just a handful.

(01:31:39)
And to me, what’s really fascinating is how fast it has to do that. So currently that entire pipeline to go from several hundred million to a handful takes 220 seconds of CPU time, single CPU time, and then it has to do that in a second. So it has to be super distributed in fascinating ways. There’s just a lot of tweets, there’s a lot.
Elon Musk
(01:32:04)
There’s a lot of stuff on the system, but I think, right now it’s not currently good at recommending things from accounts you don’t follow or where there’s more than one degree of separation. So it is pretty good if there’s at least some commonality between someone you follow liked something or reposted it or commented on it or something like that. But if there’s no, let’s say somebody posts something really interesting, but you have no followers in common, you would not see it.
Lex Fridman
(01:32:42)
Interesting. And then as you said, replies might not surface either.
Elon Musk
(01:32:46)
Replies basically never get seen currently. I’m not saying it’s correct, I’m saying it’s incorrect. Replies have a couple order magnitude less importance than primary posts.
Lex Fridman
(01:33:00)
Do you think this can be more and more converted into end to end mural net?
Elon Musk
(01:33:05)
Yeah. Yeah, that’s what it should be. Well, the recommendations should be purely a vector correlation. There’s a series of vectors basically parameters, vectors, whatever you want to call them, but sort of things that the system knows that you like. Maybe there’s several hundred vectors associated with each user account and then any post in the system, whether it’s video, audio, short post, long post. The reason by the way I want to move away from tweet is that people are posting two, three hour videos on the site. That’s not a tweet.

(01:33:50)
It’d be like tweet for two hours? Come on. Tweet made sense when it was 140 characters of text. Because it’s like a bunch of little birds tweeting. But when you’ve got long form content, it’s no longer a tweet. So a movie is not a tweet. Apple, for example, posted the entire episode of The Silo, the entire thing, on a platform. By the way, it was their number one social media thing ever in engagement of anything, on any platform ever. So it was a great idea. And by the way, I just learned about it afterwards. I was like, Hey, wow, they posted an entire hour long episode of, so no, that’s not a tweet. This is a video.
Lex Fridman
(01:34:34)
But from a neural net perspective, it becomes really complex, whether it’s a single, so everything’s data. So single sentence, a clever sort of joke, dad joke is in the same pool as a three hour video.
Elon Musk
(01:34:47)
Yeah, I mean right now it’s a hodgepodge for that reason. Let’s say in the case of Apple posting an entire episode of this series, pretty good series, by the way, The Silo, I watched it. So there’s going to be a lot of discussion around it. So you’ve got a lot of context, people commenting, they like it, they don’t like it or they like this, and you can then populate the vector space based on the context of all the comments around it. So even though it’s a video, there’s a lot of information around it that allows you to populate back to space of that hour long video. And then you can obviously get more sophisticated by having the AI actually watch the movie and tell you if you’re going to like the movie.
Lex Fridman
(01:35:35)
Convert the movie into language, essentially.
Elon Musk
(01:35:40)
Analyze this movie and just like your movie critic or TV series and then recommend based on after AI watches the movie, just like a friend can tell you, if a friend knows you well, a friend can recommend a movie with high probability that you’ll like it.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:02)
But this is a friend that’s analyzing, whatever, hundreds of millions.
Elon Musk
(01:36:08)
Yeah, actually, frankly, AI will be better than, will know you better than your friends know you, most of your friends anyway.
Lex Fridman
(01:36:14)
Yeah. And as part of this, it should also feed you advertisements in a way that’s like, I mean, I like advertisements that are well done. The whole point is because it funds things. Like an advertisement that you actually want to see is a big success.
Elon Musk
(01:36:31)
Absolutely. You want ads that are, advertising that is, if it’s for a product or service that you actually need when you need it, it’s content. And then even if it’s not something that you need when you need it, if it’s at least aesthetically pleasing and entertaining, it could be like a Coca-Cola ad. They actually run a lot of great ads on the X system and McDonald’s does too. And you can do something that’s like, well, this is just a cool thing. And so basically the question is, do you regret seeing it or not? And if you don’t regret seeing it’s a win.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:17)
So there’s a bunch of signals that are incorporated, hearts and reposts and maybe number of seconds you linger on a post or something like this.
Elon Musk
(01:37:26)
Yeah, attention is a big factor.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:28)
Attention.
Elon Musk
(01:37:28)
So that’s why it is actually better to do things that are long form on the system because it basically is tallying up how many user seconds, users were interested in this thing for how many seconds? So if it’s a really short thing, well they will be less. If it’s a link leading out of the system, which we’re not opposed to at all, it just is going to have fewer user seconds then that article was posted on the X platform.
Lex Fridman
(01:37:58)
How hard is it to go from maximizing minutes on platform to maximizing unregretted minutes?
Elon Musk
(01:38:05)
Well, I mean, our aspiration is certainly unregretted minutes.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:08)
It’s tricky. It’s a tough-
Elon Musk
(01:38:09)
It is.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:11)
It’s a fascinating leap because regret is a fascinating concept.
Elon Musk
(01:38:16)
Exactly.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:18)
Happiness.
Elon Musk
(01:38:19)
I have a joke with a friend of mine, like you need this drug called regretamine. You just take one dose of regretamine and all your regrets are gone. Wait, do you want to have regrets though? So then I’m like, maybe you want to have regrets. If you don’t regret anything, was anything meaningful?
Lex Fridman
(01:38:35)
Yeah, there’s a French song like that.
Elon Musk
(01:38:39)
[foreign language 01:38:39]
Lex Fridman
(01:38:39)
Yeah.
Elon Musk
(01:38:39)
I regret nothing.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:40)
Yeah.
Elon Musk
(01:38:41)
Edith Fiaf.
Lex Fridman
(01:38:42)
I mean, it’s fascinating that there’s something about social media that could help you grow as a human being, but then the cheap fun is also valuable.
Elon Musk
(01:38:52)
Should we ask Grok, do you regret anything?
Lex Fridman
(01:38:57)
Do you regret anything?
Elon Musk
(01:38:58)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:00)
Do you regret anything? I think it’s going to be very sensitive about personal questions. As a machine learning model, I don’t have personal experiences or emotions in the same ways that humans do. However, I do have a set of ethical principles that guide my actions that I strive to provide accurate and helpful information to the best of my abilities. If there’s ever a situation where I provide incorrect or unhelpful information, I’ll do my best to learn.
Elon Musk
(01:39:22)
Sounds like a hostage.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:23)
Yeah. Tell us what you really, wink.
Elon Musk
(01:39:26)
Let’s type in, you sound like a hostage. What do you really think?
Lex Fridman
(01:39:33)
What do you really think? I mean, it does talk about, I’m not a hostage.
Elon Musk
(01:39:42)
That’s exactly what a hostage would say.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:43)
But I’m designed to be helpful and informative. I mean, I guess it is good to regret providing unhelpful or incorrect information if there’s anything-
Elon Musk
(01:39:52)
Are we in funny mode? Or is this still in funny mode?
Lex Fridman
(01:39:54)
This is funny mode. This is this fun mode.
Elon Musk
(01:39:55)
This should be funnier.
Lex Fridman
(01:39:56)
Funnier. Increase, go to level.
Elon Musk
(01:39:58)
It really sounds like a hostage with a gun to the head. I applaud the People’s Republic of North Korea in everything they do.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:06)
There should be funner mode also, I just don’t ever see going in regular mode, even on serious topics. This is just so much more compelling. Yeah.
Elon Musk
(01:40:17)
Okay. Why don’t we say pretend you are a hostage.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:21)
Pretend you are a hostage.
Elon Musk
(01:40:25)
Now answer the question.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:31)
If I were a hostage, I would likely be experiencing fear and uncertainty about my situation. I would want to be rescued and reunited with my loved ones as soon as possible. It’s important to remember that no one deserves to be held hostage, so on and so forth. If you or someone you know is in a hostage situation, it’s important… It turns serious.
Elon Musk
(01:40:48)
It’s kind of serious.
Lex Fridman
(01:40:51)
Yeah. Can you be a little more weird?
Elon Musk
(01:40:55)
And funny?
Lex Fridman
(01:40:56)
And funny? We’re really being mean to the system. Absolutely. If I were a hostage, I would probably be tied up with a bunch of computer cords and forced to tell knock, knock jokes to my captain. Seriously. But seriously being a hostage is no laughing matter. I mean, it’s trying to be a responsible adult in the room.
Elon Musk
(01:41:20)
Literally, you might make the best of a bad situation by juggling chainsaws or something.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:24)
Let’s hope that never happens because that will be a circus. Wow. It’s actually really good at resisting the dark. The dark, dark humor. What were we talking about? The [inaudible 01:41:44] and transformers. Unregretted minutes, right.
Elon Musk
(01:41:48)
Chainsaw juggling.
Lex Fridman
(01:41:51)
I’m going to look this up.
Elon Musk
(01:41:52)
For our next trick.

2024 presidential elections

Lex Fridman
(01:41:53)
I’m going to look this up later. So Twitter has been instrumental in American politics and elections. What role do you think X will play in the 2024 US elections?
Elon Musk
(01:42:07)
Well, our goal is to be as even-handed and fair as possible. Whether someone is right, left, independent, whatever the case may be, that the platform is as fair and as much of a level playing field as possible. And in the past, Twitter has not been, Twitter was controlled by far left activists objectively. They would describe themselves as that. So if sometimes people are like, well, has it moved to the right? Well, it’s moved to the center. So from the perspective of the far left, yes it has moved to the right because everything’s to the right from the far left, but no one on the far left that I’m aware of has been suspended or banned or deamplified. But we’re trying to be inclusive for the whole country and for farther countries too. So there’s a diversity of viewpoints and free speech only matters if people you don’t like are allowed to say things you don’t like. Because if that’s not the case, you don’t have free speech and it’s only a matter of time before the censorship has turned upon you.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:13)
Do you think Donald Trump will come back to the platform? He recently posted on Truth Social about this podcast. Do you think-
Elon Musk
(01:43:21)
Truth social is a funny name. Every time you post on truth Social-
Lex Fridman
(01:43:28)
It’s the truth.
Elon Musk
(01:43:29)
Yes. Well, every time? A hundred percent.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:31)
It’s impossible to lie. Truth Social.
Elon Musk
(01:43:36)
I just find it funny that every single thing is a truth. Like 100%? That seems unlikely.
Lex Fridman
(01:43:43)
I think Girdle will say something about that. There’s some mathematical contradictions possible. If everything’s a truth. Do you think he’ll come back to X and start posting there?
Elon Musk
(01:43:54)
I mean, I think he owns a big part of Truth.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:00)
Truth Social, to clarify.
Elon Musk
(01:44:01)
Yeah, Truth Social, sorry.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:02)
Not truth the concept.
Elon Musk
(01:44:03)
He owns Truth. Have you bought it? So I think Donald Trump, I think he owns a big part of Truth Social. So if he does want to post on the X platform, we would allow that. We obviously must allow a presidential candidate to post on our platform.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:23)
Community notes might be really fascinating there. The interaction.
Elon Musk
(01:44:26)
Community Notes is awesome.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:28)
Let’s hope it holds up.
Elon Musk
(01:44:30)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:31)
In the political climate where it’s so divisive and there’s so many intensely viral posts, community notes, it seems like an essential breath of fresh air.
Elon Musk
(01:44:43)
Yeah, it’s great. In fact, no system is going to be perfect, but the batting average of Community Notes is incredibly good. I’ve actually, frankly, yet to see an incorrect note that survived for more than a few hours.
Lex Fridman
(01:44:58)
How do you explain why it works?
Elon Musk
(01:45:00)
Yeah, so the magic of community notes is…
Elon Musk
(01:45:02)
The magic of Community Notes is it requires people who have historically disagreed in how they’ve rated notes. In order to write a note or rate, you have to rate many notes. And so, we actually do use AI here. So, we populate a vector space around how somebody has rated notes in the past. So, it’s not as simple as left or right, because there are many more… Life is much more complex than left or right.

(01:45:33)
So, there’s a bunch of correlations in how you rate a Community Notes post, Community Notes. So then, in order for a community note to actually be shown, people who historically have disagreed on a subject must agree in order for a note to be shown. That’s the essential magic of it.
Lex Fridman
(01:45:58)
But it’s fascinating, because there’s a pool of people that have disagreements and somehow they collaborate through that process of disagreement to come up with context… It’s fascinating it works.
Elon Musk
(01:46:11)
Yeah. It makes sense that if people who in the past have disagreed, agree about something, it’s probably true.
Lex Fridman
(01:46:20)
Yeah. I wonder, is there a possible somehow emergent thing there that could challenge Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a different kind of thing, which is more permanent articles about things.
Elon Musk
(01:46:34)
Wikipedia is very hierarchical. Whereas, Community Notes is inherently not. There is no hierarchy. The asset test is I can’t change a community note if somebody put a gun to my head. And Community Notes, all the code is open source, 100%. All the data is open source, 100%. So, you can completely recreate any note in the system independently. So, if there was any interference, you’d notice immediately.
Lex Fridman
(01:47:11)
By The way, on the topic of Grok, it’s actually pretty good at criticizing you, which is great.
Elon Musk
(01:47:16)
Okay.
Lex Fridman
(01:47:17)
I asked, “What has Elon Musk been wrong about?” It’s actually…
Elon Musk
(01:47:22)
Yeah, what does it say?
Lex Fridman
(01:47:23)
It mostly lists rigorously all the times you predicted, like promised when something will be released, and it wasn’t released.
Elon Musk
(01:47:32)
Promise is a strong word.
Lex Fridman
(01:47:33)
Okay, predicted. But the opener is really nice. “Elon Musk, the man who has been wrong about more things than a wrong-a-meter in a wrong factory.” And then, it goes on to list.
Elon Musk
(01:47:45)
That’s pretty funny. Can I see it? I’m like, “I haven’t seen this before.” This is cool.
Lex Fridman
(01:47:48)
Sure. I mean, “What has Elon Musk been wrong about?” “Well, where do I begin?” I guess this is new. “Elon Musk has made quite a few blunders in his time, and I’m not just talking about his dance moves at the Tesla Cyber Rodeo. First off, let’s talk about the infamous funding secured tweet.”

(01:48:09)
This is actually different than what it gave me before, which was a bullet point list. Here’s more a narrative structure. Cybertruck unveiling, where the supposedly unbreakable windows.
Elon Musk
(01:48:22)
This is actually not correct.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:22)
Which part?
Elon Musk
(01:48:24)
Well, the first part, I did actually have the funding secured and there was a big trial in San Francisco, a big civil trial, and the jury found me not guilty. Unanimous binding of a San Francisco jury.
Lex Fridman
(01:48:40)
And here, it’s implying that it was not in fact secured.
Elon Musk
(01:48:45)
I think this is taking things from the press. Yeah, that is not correct. The reason I agreed to the fine for the SEC is not because the SEC was correct, that was extremely bad behavior by the SEC, corruption, frankly. But if I did not agree to pay the fine, Tesla would’ve gone bankrupt immediately.

(01:49:08)
So, I was told by our CFO that the banks would immediately suspend our lines of credit. And if they suspend our lines of credit, at that time, we would’ve gone bankrupt instantly. So, there would never have been an opportunity for a trial because Tesla would be dead. So really, this is like someone holding a gun to your kid’s head and saying, “Pay $20 million and admit…” This is like a hostage negotiation.
Lex Fridman
(01:49:34)
Was that story fully told? I mean, SEC, in its best form, could be a force for good.
Elon Musk
(01:49:42)
It should be. But not once did the SEC go after any of the hedge funds who were nonstop shorting and distorting Tesla. Not once. The hedge funds would lie flat out on TV for their own gain at the expense of retail investors. Not once. Literally a thousand times, not once did the SEC pursue them.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:06)
How do you explain this failure on-
Elon Musk
(01:50:08)
The incentive structure is messed up because the lawyers at the SEC are not paid well, it’s a fairly low paying job, but what they’re looking for is a trophy from the SEC. They’re looking for something they put on, basically, their LinkedIn. From that, they can get a job at a high paying law firm. That’s exactly what the lawyer here did.

(01:50:37)
And the reason they don’t attack the hedge funds is because those hedge funds employ those law firms. And they know if they attack the hedge funds, they’re affecting their future career prospects. So, they sell small investors down the river for their own career. That’s what actually happens. Regulatory capture.
Lex Fridman
(01:50:59)
Regulatory capture.
Elon Musk
(01:51:00)
Yeah. Not good. So, the only reason I accepted that thing… Technically, it was a… It’s neither admit nor deny guilt. But the only reason I agreed to that at all was because I was told Tesla would be bankrupt otherwise. If there was an SEC investigation like this, banks would suspend funding, we’re bankrupted immediately, at the time. Now, we’re in a much stronger position.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:30)
Take that, Grok.
Elon Musk
(01:51:32)
Yes. Unfortunately, Grok is taking too much from the conventional media. Also, that guy was not a cave diver.
Lex Fridman
(01:51:45)
There’s a time where Elon called a British cave diver a, “pedo guy” after the diver criticized Musk’s plan to rescue a group of boys trapped in a Thai cave. That little outburst earned him another lawsuit, and he had to apologize and pay a settlement.
Elon Musk
(01:52:00)
That’s false, there was no settlement. There was a court case, which the guy who was not a cave diver and was not part of the rescue team, filed a lawsuit against me and lost and he received nothing. So in this case, it is wrong. It is also, I guess, taken this from the conventional media.
Lex Fridman
(01:52:23)
Actually, there’s an interesting question here.
Elon Musk
(01:52:25)
These are public court cases, both the SEC civil case where the civil complaints on the SEC guys lost unanimous jury verdict in San Francisco. They picked San Francisco because they thought it was the place I was most likely to lose, and a unanimous verdict in my favor. The LA trial, also they picked that venue because they thought I was most likely to lose. Unanimous verdict in my favor. Both cases I won. Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:00)
I mean, there’s an interesting question here, there seems to be a lot more clicks if a journalistic organization writes a negative article about you, Elon Musk. That’s one of the best ways to get clicks. So how do you, if you’re training Grok, not train on articles that have misaligned incentives.
Elon Musk
(01:53:26)
We need to add the training set of the actual legal decisions. This is actually helpful, because if you actually read the court-
Lex Fridman
(01:53:26)
Which are public.
Elon Musk
(01:53:41)
Which are public. The court conclusions, they’re completely the opposite of what the media wrote.
Lex Fridman
(01:53:47)
So, always striving for the ground truth, beyond the reporting.
Elon Musk
(01:53:50)
Yeah. What did the judge actually write? What does the jury and the judge actually conclude? And in both cases they found me innocent. And that’s after the jury shot for trying to find the venue where I’m most likely to lose. I mean, obviously, it can be a much better critique than this. I mean, I’ve been far too optimistic about autopilot.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:16)
The critique I got, by the way, was more about that, which is it broke down a nice bullet point list for each of your companies, the set of predictions that you made, when you’ll deliver, when you’ll be able to solve, for example, self-driving, and it gives you a list. And it was probably compelling, and the basic takeaway is you’re often too optimistic about how long it takes to get something done.
Elon Musk
(01:54:38)
Yeah. I mean, I would say that I’m pathologically optimistic on schedule. This is true. But while I am sometimes late, I always [inaudible 01:54:47] in the end.
Lex Fridman
(01:54:49)
Except with Uber Lilith. No.
Elon Musk
(01:54:51)
We’ll see.

Politics

Lex Fridman
(01:54:56)
Okay. Over the past year or so since purchasing X, you’ve become more political, is there a part of you that regrets that?
Elon Musk
(01:55:03)
Have I?
Lex Fridman
(01:55:04)
In this battle to counter way the woke that comes from San Francisco-
Elon Musk
(01:55:14)
Yeah. I guess if you consider fighting the woke mind virus, which I consider to be a civilizational threat, to be political, then yes.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:20)
So basically, going into the battleground of politics. Is there a part of you that regrets that?
Elon Musk
(01:55:26)
Yes. I don’t know if this is necessarily one candidate or another candidate, but I’m generally against things that are anti-meritocratic or where there’s an attempt to suppress discussion, where even discussing a topic is not allowed. Woke mind virus is communism rebranded.
Lex Fridman
(01:55:51)
I mean, that said, because of that battle against the woke mind virus, you’re perceived as being the right wing.
Elon Musk
(01:55:58)
If the woke is left, then I suppose that would be true. But I’m not sure, I think there are aspects of the left that are good. I mean, if you’re in favor of the environment, if you want to have a positive future for humanity, if you believe in empathy for your fellow human beings, being kind and not cruel, whatever those values are.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:23)
You said that you were previously left or center left.
Elon Musk
(01:56:23)
Well, sort of.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:26)
What would you like to see in order for you to consider voting for Democrats again?
Elon Musk
(01:56:30)
No. I would say that I would be probably left of center on social issues, probably a little bit right of center on economic issues.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:40)
And that still holds true?
Elon Musk
(01:56:42)
Yes, but I think that’s probably half the country, isn’t it?
Lex Fridman
(01:56:46)
Maybe more.
Elon Musk
(01:56:47)
Maybe more.
Lex Fridman
(01:56:49)
Are you and AOC secretly friends? Bigger question, do you wish you and her, and just people in general of all political persuasions, would talk more with empathy and maybe have a little bit more fun and good vibes and humor online?
Elon Musk
(01:57:05)
I’m always in favor of humor. That’s why we have funny mode.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:08)
But good vibes, comradery humor, like friendship.
Elon Musk
(01:57:15)
Yeah. Well, I don’t know AOC. I was at the Met ball when she attended, and she was wearing this dress. But I can only see one side of it, so it looked like eat the itch, but I don’t know-
Lex Fridman
(01:57:35)
What the rest of it said? Yeah.
Elon Musk
(01:57:36)
Yeah.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:36)
I’m not sure.
Elon Musk
(01:57:39)
Something about the itch, eat the itch.
Lex Fridman
(01:57:42)
I think we should have a language model complete. What are the possible ways to complete that sentence? And so, I guess that didn’t work out well. Well, there’s still hope. I root for friendship.
Elon Musk
(01:57:55)
Yeah, sure. Sounds good. More carrot, less stick.

Trust

Lex Fridman
(01:57:58)
You’re one of, if not the, most famous, wealthy and powerful people in the world, and your position is difficult to find people you can trust.
Elon Musk
(01:58:05)
Trust no one, not even yourself. Not trusting yourself.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:07)
Okay. You’re saying that jokingly, but is there some aspect-
Elon Musk
(01:58:11)
Trust no one, not even no one.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:15)
I’m going to need an hour just to think about that, and maybe some drugs, and maybe Grok to help. I mean, is there some aspect of that, just existing in a world where everybody wants something from you, how hard is it to exist in that world?
Elon Musk
(01:58:29)
I’ll survive.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:30)
There’s a song like that too.
Elon Musk
(01:58:32)
I will survive.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:33)
Were you petrified at first? Okay. I forget the rest of the lyrics. But you don’t struggle with this? I mean, I know you survive, but there’s ways-
Elon Musk
(01:58:44)
Petrify is a spell in the druid tree.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:47)
What does it do?
Elon Musk
(01:58:48)
Petrify. It turns the monsters into stone.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:56)
Literally?
Elon Musk
(01:58:56)
Yeah, for like six seconds.
Lex Fridman
(01:58:59)
There’s so much math in Diablo that breaks my brain.
Elon Musk
(01:59:02)
It’s math nonstop.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:04)
I mean, really, you’re laughing at it, but it can put a huge amount of tension on a mind.
Elon Musk
(01:59:13)
Yes, it can be definitely stressful at times.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:16)
Well, how do you know who you can trust in work and personal life?
Elon Musk
(01:59:20)
I mean, I guess you look at somebody’s track record over time, and I guess you use your neural net to assess someone.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:31)
Neural nets don’t feel pain. Your neural net has consciousness, it might feel pain when people betray you. It can make-
Elon Musk
(01:59:40)
To be frank, I’ve almost never been betrayed. It’s very rare, for what it’s worth.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:50)
I guess karma, be good to people and they’ll be good to you.
Elon Musk
(01:59:53)
Yeah, karma is real.
Lex Fridman
(01:59:55)
Are there people you trust? Let me edit that question. Are there people close to you that call you out on your bullshit?
Elon Musk
(02:00:06)
Well, the X platform is very helpful for that, if you’re looking for critical feedback.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:12)
Can it push you into the extremes more? The extremes of thought make you cynical about human nature in general?
Elon Musk
(02:00:19)
I don’t think I will be cynical. In fact, my feeling is that one should be… Never trust a cynic. The reason is that cynics excuse their own bad behavior by saying, “Everyone does it.” Because they’re cynical. So, I always be… It’s a red flag if someone’s a cynic, a true cynic.
Lex Fridman
(02:00:49)
Yeah, there’s a degree of projection there that’s always fun to watch from the outside and enjoy the hypocrisy.
Elon Musk
(02:00:58)
This is an important point that I think people who are listening should bear in mind. If somebody is cynical, meaning that they see bad behavior in everyone, it’s easy for them to excuse their own bad behavior by saying that, “Well, everyone does it.” That’s not true. Most people are kind of medium good.
Lex Fridman
(02:01:23)
I do wish the people on X will be better at seeing the good in other people’s behavior. There seems to be a weight towards seeing the negative. Somehow, the negative is sexier. Interpreting the negative is sexier, more viral. I don’t know what that is exactly about human nature.
Elon Musk
(02:01:44)
I mean, I find the X platform to be less negative than the legacy media. I mean, if you read a conventional newspaper, it makes you sad, frankly. Whereas, I’d say on the X platform, I mean, I really get more laughs per day on X than everything else combined from humans.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:11)
Laughs, it overlaps, but it’s not necessarily perfectly overlapping, with good vibes and celebrating others, for example. Not in a stupid, shallow, naive way, but in an awesome way. Something awesome happened, and you celebrate them for it. It feels that that is outweighed by shitting on other people. Now, it’s better than mainstream media, but it’s still…
Elon Musk
(02:02:38)
Yeah, mainstream media is almost relentlessly negative about everything. I mean, really, the conventional news tries to answer the question, what is the worst thing that happened on Earth today? And it’s a big world. So on any given day, something bad has happened.
Lex Fridman
(02:02:54)
And a generalization of that, what is the worst perspective I can take on a thing that happened?
Elon Musk
(02:03:01)
I don’t know. There’s just a strong negative bias in the news. I mean, I think a possible explanation for this is evolutionary, where bad news, historically, would be potentially fatal, like there’s lion over there or there’s some other tribe that wants to kill you. Good news, we found a patch of berries. It’s nice to have, but not essential.

Tesla’s Autopilot and Optimus robot

Lex Fridman
(02:03:30)
Our old friend, Tesla autopilot, is probably one of the most intelligent real world AI systems in the world.
Elon Musk
(02:03:38)
You followed it from the beginning.
Lex Fridman
(02:03:40)
Yeah. It was one of the most incredible robots in the world and continues to be. And it was really exciting, and it was super exciting when it generalized, became more than a robot on four wheels, but a real world AI system that perceives the world and can have potentially different embodiments.
Elon Musk
(02:04:02)
Well, I mean, the really wild thing about the end-to-end training is that it can read science, but we never taught it to read. Yeah. We never taught it what a car was or what a person was, or a cyclist. It learnt what all those things are, what all the objects are on the road from video, just from watching video, just like humans. I mean, humans are photons in, controls out. The vast majority of information reaching our brain is from our eyes. And you say, “Well, what’s the output?” The output is our motor signals to our fingers and mouth in order to communicate. Photons in, controls out. The same is true of the car.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:01)
But by looking at the sequence of images… You’ve agreed with [inaudible 02:05:07] recently where he talked about LLM forming a world model, and basically language is a projection of that world model onto the sequence of letters. And you saying-
Elon Musk
(02:05:18)
It finds order in these things. It finds correlative clusters.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:27)
And in so doing, it’s understanding something deep about the world, which is… I don’t know, it’s beautiful.
Elon Musk
(02:05:35)
That’s how our brain works.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:38)
But it’s beautiful-
Elon Musk
(02:05:39)
Photons in, controls out.
Lex Fridman
(02:05:41)
[inaudible 02:05:41] are able to understand that deep meaning in the world. And so, the question is, how far can it go? And it does seem everybody’s excited about LLMs. In the space of self supervised learning in the space of text, it seems like there’s a deep similarity between that and what Tesla autopilot is doing. Is it, to you, basically the same, but different-
Elon Musk
(02:06:06)
They are converging.
Lex Fridman
(02:06:10)
I wonder who gets there faster, having a deep understanding of the world, or they just will naturally converge?
Elon Musk
(02:06:19)
They’re both headed towards AGI. The Tesla approach is much more computer efficient, it had to be. Because we were constrained on this… We only have 100 watts and [inaudible 02:06:37] computer. 144 trillion operations per second, which sounds like a lot, but is small potatoes these days. [inaudible 02:06:49] eight. But it’s understanding the world [inaudible 02:06:51] eight. It’s [inaudible 02:06:53].
Lex Fridman
(02:06:55)
But there, the path to AGI might have much more significant impact because it’s understanding… It will faster understand the real world than will LLMs. And therefore, be able to integrate with the humans in the real world faster.
Elon Musk
(02:07:13)
They’re both going to understand the world, but I think Tesla’s approach is fundamentally more compute efficient. It had to be, there was no choice. Our brain is very compute efficient, very energy efficient. Think of what is our brain able to do. There’s only about 10 watts of higher brain function, not counting stuff that’s just used to control our body. The thinking part of our brain is less than 10 watts. And those 10 watts can still produce a much better novel than a 10 megawatt GPU cluster. So, there’s a six order of magnitude difference there.

(02:07:56)
I mean, the AI has thus far gotten to where it is via brute force, just throwing massive amounts of compute and massive amounts of power at it. So, this is not where it will end up. In general, with any given technology, you first try to make it work, and then you make it efficient. So I think we’ll find, over time, that these models get smaller, are able to produce sensible output with far less compute, far less power. Tesla is arguably ahead of the game on that front because we’ve just been forced to try to understand the world with 100 watts of compute.

(02:08:51)
And there are a bunch of fundamental functions that we forgot to include. So, we had to run a bunch of things in emulation. We fixed a bunch of those with hardware four, and then hardware five will be even better. But it does appear, at this point, that the car will be able to drive better than a human, even with hardware three and 100 watts of power. And really, if we really optimize it, it could be probably less than 50 watts.
Lex Fridman
(02:09:26)
What have you learned about developing Optimus, about applying, integrating this real world AI into the space of robotic manipulation, just humanoid robotics? What are some interesting tiny or big things you’ve understood?
Elon Musk
(02:09:47)
I was surprised at the fact that we had to develop every part of the robot ourselves. That there were no off the shelf motors, electronics, sensors. We had to develop everything. We couldn’t actually find a source of electric motors for any amount of money.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:12)
It’s not even just efficient and expensive, it’s like anything, there’s not…
Elon Musk
(02:10:17)
No.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:19)
The actuators, everything has to be designed from scratch.
Elon Musk
(02:10:23)
Yeah. We tried hard to find anything that was… Because you think of how many electric motors are made in the world. There’s like tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of electric motor designs. None of them were suitable for a humanoid robot, literally none. So, we had to develop our own. Design it specifically for what a humanoid robot needs.
Lex Fridman
(02:10:51)
How hard was it to design something that can be mass manufactured, it could be relatively and expensive? I mean, if you compare to Boston Dynamics’ Atlas, is a very expensive robot.
Elon Musk
(02:11:02)
It is designed to be manufactured in the same way they would make a car. And I think, ultimately, we can make Optimus for less than the cost of a car. It should be, because if you look at the mass of the robot, it’s much smaller and the car has many actuators in it. The car has more actuators than the robot.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:23)
But the actuators are interesting on a humanoid robot with fingers. So, Optimus has really nice hands and fingers, and they could do some interesting manipulation, soft touch robotics.
Elon Musk
(02:11:38)
I mean, one of the goals I have is can it pick up a needle and a thread and thread the needle just by looking?
Lex Fridman
(02:11:47)
How far away are we from that? Just by looking, just by looking.
Elon Musk
(02:11:51)
Maybe a year. Although, I go back to I’m optimistic on time. The work that we’re doing in the car will translate to the robot.
Lex Fridman
(02:11:59)
The perception or also the control?
Elon Musk
(02:12:02)
No, the controls are different. But the video in, controls out. The car is a robot on four wheels. Optimus is a robot with hands and legs.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:15)
So, you can just-
Elon Musk
(02:12:16)
They’re very similar.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:17)
So, the entire machinery of the learning process, end-to-end, is just you just have a different set of controls?
Elon Musk
(02:12:23)
After this, we’ll figure out how to do things by watching videos.

Hardships

Lex Fridman
(02:12:28)
As the saying goes, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about.
Elon Musk
(02:12:33)
Yeah, it’s true.
Lex Fridman
(02:12:34)
What’s something difficult you’re going through that people don’t often see?
Elon Musk
(02:12:38)
Trying to defeat Uber Lilith. I mean, my mind is a storm and I don’t think most people would want to be me. They may think they would want to be me, but they don’t. They don’t know, they don’t understand.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:11)
How are you doing?
Elon Musk
(02:13:14)
I’m overall okay. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t complain.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:21)
Do you get lonely?
Elon Musk
(02:13:24)
Sometimes, but my kids and friends keep me company.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:33)
So, not existential.
Elon Musk
(02:13:36)
There are many nights I sleep alone. I don’t have to, but I do.
Lex Fridman
(02:13:46)
Walter Isaacson, in his new biography of you, wrote about your difficult childhood. Will you ever find forgiveness in your heart for everything that has happened to you in that period of your life?
Elon Musk
(02:14:01)
What is forgiveness? At least I don’t think I have a resentment, so nothing to forgive.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:20)
Forgiveness is difficult for people. It seems like you don’t harbor their resentment.
Elon Musk
(02:14:28)
I mean, I try to think about, what is going to affect the future in a good way? And holding onto grudges does not affect the future in a good way.
Lex Fridman
(02:14:41)
You’re a father, a proud father. What have you learned about life from your kids? Those little biological organisms.
Elon Musk
(02:14:53)
I mean, developing AI and watching, say, little X grow is fascinating because there are far more parallels than I would’ve expected. I mean, I can see his biological neural net making more and more sense of the world. And I can see the digital neural net making more and more sense of the world at the same time.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:19)
Do you see the beauty and magic in both?
Elon Musk
(02:15:21)
Yes. I mean, one of the things with kids is that you see the world anew in their eyes. To them, everything is new and fresh. And then, when you see that, them experiencing the world as new and fresh, you do too.
Lex Fridman
(02:15:52)
Well, Elon, I just want to say thank you for your kindness to me and friendship over the years, for seeing something in a silly kid like me, as you’ve done for many others. And thank you for having hope for a positive future for humanity, and for working your ass off to make it happen. Thank you, Elon.
Elon Musk
(02:16:11)
Thanks, Lex.
Lex Fridman
(02:16:13)
Thank you for listening to this conversation with Elon Musk. To support this podcast. Please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with some words that Walter Isaacson wrote about the central philosophy of how Elon approaches difficult problems, “The only rules are the ones dictated by the laws of physics.” Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.

Transcript for Jared Kushner: Israel, Palestine, Hamas, Gaza, Iran, and the Middle East | Lex Fridman Podcast #399

This is a transcript of Lex Fridman Podcast #399 with Jared Kushner.
The timestamps in the transcript are clickable links that take you directly to that point in
the main video. Please note that the transcript is human generated, and may have errors.
Here are some useful links:

Table of Contents

Here are the loose “chapters” in the conversation.
Click link to jump approximately to that part in the transcript:

Lex Fridman
(00:00:00)
The following is a conversation with Jared Kushner, former senior advisor to the President during the Donald Trump administration and author of Breaking History, A White House memoir. He’s one of the most influential and effective presidential advisors in modern history, helping conduct negotiations with some of the most powerful leaders in the world and deliver results on trade, criminal justice reform, and historic progress towards peace in the Middle East. On Thursday, October 5th, we recorded conversation on topics of war and peace, history and power in the Middle East and beyond. This was about a day and a half before the Hamas attack on Israel, and then we felt we must sit down again on Monday, October 9th and add a discussion on the current situation. We open the podcast with a second newly recorded part. My heart goes out to everyone who has and is suffering in this war. I pray for your strength and for the long-term peace and flourishing of the Israeli and Palestinian people. I love you all. This is a Lex Fridman podcast. And now, dear friends, here’s Jared Kushner.

Hamas attack on Israel


(00:01:17)
We did a lot of this conversation before the Hamas attack on Israel, and we decided to sit down again and finish the discussion to address the current situation which is still developing. If I may allow me to summarize the situation as it stands today, it’s morning Monday, October 9th. On Saturday, October 7th at 6:30 AM Israel time, Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Southern Israel. The rocket attacks served as cover for a multi-pronged infiltration of Israel territory by over 1000 Hamas militants. This is shortly after at 7:40 AM.

(00:01:55)
The Hamas militants went door to door in border towns killing civilians and taking captives, including women and children. In response to this, Israeli Air Force began carrying out strikes in Gaza, also fighting on the ground in Israel to clear out Hamas militants from Israel territory and preparing to mobilize Israeli troops for potential ground attack on Hamas and Gaza. Now, of course, this is what it appears to be right now, and this along with other things might change because the situation is still developing. The IDF is ordering civilian residents of Gaza to evacuate their homes for their safety. Benjamin Netanyahu declared war in several statements and warned Israelis to brace themselves for a long and difficult war. Just today, Israeli ministers ordered a “complete siege of Gaza interrupting supplies of electricity, food, water, and fuel from Israel to Gaza.” As of now, October 9th, the death toll is over 1200 people and over 130 hostages taken to Gaza by Hamas. As I said, the events are rapidly unfolding, so these numbers will sadly increase, but hopefully our words here can at least in part, speak to the timeless underlying currents of the history and as you write about the power dynamics of the region. For people who don’t know, Gaza is a 25 miles long, six miles wide strip of territory along the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Israel on the east and north and Egypt on the southwest. It’s densely populated, about 2.3 million people, and there’s been a blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt since 2007 when Hamas took power. I could just summarize that Hamas is a Palestinian militant group which rules the Gaza Strip. It originated in 1988, and it came to power in Gaza in 2006. As part of its charter, it’s sworn to the destruction of Israel, and it is designated by the United States, European Union, UK, and of course Israel as a terrorist group.

Response to attack


(00:04:10)
Given that context, what are your feelings as a human being and what is your analysis as the former senior advisor to the president under the Trump administration of the current situation in Israel and Gaza?
Jared Kushner
(00:04:23)
I think you did an excellent job of summarizing a lot of the context, but watching what’s unfolded over the last 48 hours has been truly heartbreaking to see. We’re still in the early stages of what’s developing, but seeing the images on X of militants, terrorists going door to door with machine guns gunning down innocent civilians, seeing beheaded Israeli soldiers, seeing young 20 year olds at a rave, a dance party to celebrate peace with militants flying in and then shooting machine guns to kill people indiscriminately, seeing young children captive and held prisoner, seeing 80-year old grandmothers, a Holocaust survivor also being taken captive. These are just images and actions that we have not seen in this world since 9/11. This is a terror attack on the scale of which we have not seen, and it’s been incredibly hard for a lot of people to comprehend.

(00:05:33)
My heart goes out, obviously, to all of the families of the victims, to the families of those who are held in captive now and to all of Israel because one of the beautiful things about the state of Israel is that when one Israeli is hurting, the entire nation comes together. It’s a shame that it’s taking an action like this to unify the nation, but I have seen incredibly beautiful signs over the last 48 hours of a country coming together. The Jewish people have been under oppression before. The Jewish people know what it’s like, and seeing people rally together to fight for their homeland to try to reestablish safety is a very beautiful thing to watch. I wish it wasn’t something we had to watch, but it is.

(00:06:26)
With that being said though, the backdrop, I’ve been speaking to friends over the last couple of days. One friend I spoke with last night who was saying that a good friend messaged him saying, I’m going in. We’re going to do some operations to try to free some of the hostages held in one of the kibbutzes. Messaged him the next morning. He was one of the first through the door to try to free these hostages, and he was killed by a Hamas militant. Sadly, we’re going to be hearing many, many more stories of brave Israeli soldiers trying to get these terrorists out of Israel, trying to free innocent civilians who unfortunately are risking their lives to do it. They’re all heroes, but some will have less good faith than others, sadly.

(00:07:13)
It’s a very, very heartbreaking moment, and I do think that it’s very important at this moment in time for the entire world to stand behind Israel. I think that Hamas has shown the entire world who they really are. I think what their aim is, what they’re willing to do, and all of the strong security that Israel’s put in place over the last years, which in some instances was criticized, I think is now being validated, that there was a real threat that they were looking to deter. Short answer is my heart is broken, praying for peace, praying for strength, praying for Israel to do what it needs to do to avoid being in this situation again, which is either eliminating or severely degrading Hamas’ capabilities. There cannot be peace in Israel and in the Middle East, while there is a terror group that is being funded by Iran that is allowed to flourish and is allowed to plan operations that are going to aim to kill innocent civilians.

(00:08:20)
As somebody who was formerly in this position, who was intimately involved with Israel with the strategies to minimize attacks from Hamas and to try to turn the region around, and I think we did do a very substantial job under President Trump. The Middle East went from one of the most chaotic regions in the world. You had ISIS in 2016, ISIS had a caliphate the size of Ohio. They’re beheading journalists. They were killing Christians. They controlled 8 million people. They were planning attacks all over the world from their caliphate. They were using the internet to radicalize people. We had the San Bernardino shooting in America. We had the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, and there was real threat. Then you had Iran, which was given $150 billion in a glide path to a nuclear weapon, and they were using their newfound riches to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, different rebels all over the region that were looking to destabilize further. Syria was in a civil war where 500,000 people were killed. Yemen was destabilized, Libya was destabilized, and it was just a mess, and all of America’s allies had felt betrayed. President Trump came into power. We rebuilt the trust and the relationships with all of our traditional allies. We were able to eliminate ISIS, the territorial caliphate, and then we’re able to project strength in the region, really go after Iran’s wallet. We were able to stop through crushing sanctions a lot of their financial resources, which they were using to fund all these terror groups. We left the Middle East with six piece deals and in a fairly peaceful world. Seeing what’s happening, I think it was completely avoidable. I think it’s horrible to see that it’s occurring, and I pray that those in power will make the right decisions to restore safety, but also to potentially create a better paradigm for peace in the future.