Just Asking Questions

How do we escape stagnation and accelerate progress? What if bubbles are actually good? Just asking questions.  "They promised us flying cars. All we got was one hundred forty characters." Those were the words of Peter Thiel over a decade ago, lamenting technological stagnation. The character limit has since increased, but his point remains the same: Innovation in the software world of "bits" has accelerated, but progress in the material world of "atoms" has been stubbornly slow, at least in his telling. Economist Tyler Cowen, who popularized the term "Great Stagnation," argued that we picked all the low-hanging fruit in the early-to-mid 20th century thanks to cheap cultivation of unused land, mass education of a previously uneducated population, and revolutions in transportation, energy, and synthetic materials that could since be only marginally improved at increasingly greater expense and effort. The result has been stagnant wage growth when accounting for price inflation and a failure to realize any revolutionary breakthroughs in energy, transportation, or materials science for decades. But today's guest says there's another underlying reason for the stagnation: a self-defeating cultural and spiritual malaise and pessimism about the future. It manifests itself in the dystopian movies and shows that dominate Hollywood, as well as in the falling prevalence of words associated with progress and the future, and a rise of words associated with caution, worry, and risk found in contemporary literature.  Byrne Hobart is the co-author of Boom: Bubbles and the End of Stagnation, which offers a surprising way out of stagnation: embracing the dynamic and chaotic power of bubbles—investment bubbles, big social bubbles, and filter bubbles. Examples range from big, ambitious public investments like the Apollo missions and the Manhattan Project to the rise of bitcoin. Sources referenced: The Great Stagnation by Tyler Cowen Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta: "Real Wage Growth: A View from the Wage Growth Tracker" Financial Times: "Is the west talking itself into decline?" Boom: Bubbles and the End of Stagnation, by Byrne Hobart and Tobias Huber Zach and Liz's Bitcoin documentary "Bitcoin's Price History" Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: "The Pandemic's Influence on U.S. Fertility Rates" Federal debt held by the public Federal debt held by the public as a percent of Gross Domestic Product U.S. Treasury: The U.S. government has spent $1.25 trillion in fiscal year 2025 Moore's Law Chapters 00:00 Coming up… 00:17 Introduction 02:46 How popular language points to cultural malaise 07:30 do we actually have technological stagnation? 09:31 Financial bubbles are good, actually? 15:43 FOMO is good 18:00 When are bubbles bad? 21:13 Bretton Woods 25:05 There are productive and unproductive bubbles 28:10 Is Bitcoin a bubble? 40:05 Social bubbles 47:17 Is society getting more risk averse? 53:53 Religion and technological innovation 01:06:01 Natalism 01:11:11 how do we make progress cool and interesting and relevant again? 01:14:58 what is one question that you think more people should be asking?   Producer: John OsterhoudtThe post Byrne Hobart: What happened to progress? appeared first on Reason.com.

Must we accelerate AI innovation? You've probably heard of "effective altruism," but how about "effective accelerationism," or e/acc? "You claim to be building an artificial god in the human image. We're building the conduit for the thermodynamic god that created us. We are not the same."  Those are the words of Based Beff Jezos, a pseudonymous X account devoted to spreading the e/acc message far and wide, once described by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen as a "patron saint of techno-optimism" and by its detractors as "unhinged" and "absolutely toxic for the AI discourse."  The man behind Based Beff Jezos was unmasked in Forbes magazine last December as Guillaume Verdon, a Google quantum computing engineer-turned-co-founder of the AI startup Extropic, which has received about $14 million in seed funding to develop a new kind of chip for running AI models.  He joins us today to talk about effective accelerationism, the politics of AI, and what his company is doing to make sure that Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) arrives quickly and remains beyond the control of a single corporation or government.  Sources Referenced: "Who Is @BasedBeffJezos, The Leader Of The Tech Elite's 'E/Acc' Movement?" by Emily Baker-White in Forbes what the f* is e/acc, the e/acc newsletter "SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: The Decade Ahead," by Leopold Aschenbrenner Gavin Newsom's veto of California's AI bill "What is Moore's Law?" by Our World in Data "Microsoft, Google and Amazon turn to nuclear energy to fuel the AI boom," by Mehek Mazhar in CBC Radio Extropic: Ushering in the Thermodynamic Future Just Asking Questions with Bryan Johnson Chapters 00:00 Coming up… 00:28 Introductions 02:13 What is effective accelerationism? 04:33 Building a conduit for the thermodynamic god that created us? 09:54 Is AGI inevitable? 17:01 Why open source AI doesn't need regulation 29:18 A Second Amendment for AI? 31:58 Philosophical foundations of e/acc 37:16 An AI arms race between the U.S. and China? 55:27 Criticism of OpenAI 01:01:08 AI under the second Trump administration 01:07:22 Designing a biologically inspired chip 01:15:46 How the American chip industry will be impacted by China and Taiwan 01:18:44 Will AI make humans irrelevant? 01:23:53 How do we reimagine governance? Producer: John OsterhoudtThe post Guillaume Verdon: Should We Have a 'Second Amendment for AI'? appeared first on Reason.com.

About 0.5 percent of U.S. adults identify as transgender, according to a 2022 UCLA study. Among 13- to 17-year-olds, the figure has grown to about 1.4 percent. That uptick in the youth might help explain why trans issues are playing a growing role in American politics.  Registered voters told Gallup pollsters that transgender issues ranked among the least important political issues they considered when weighing their presidential vote—just below climate change.  Yet, the Trump campaign spent $65 million running ads in swing states attacking Vice President Kamala Harris' transgender policy stances in the final stretch of the campaign, according to The New York Times. The top Harris super PAC found that one such ad shifted voters who viewed it almost three points towards Trump, resonating particularly well with demographics that swung significantly in his favor.   In a relatively close election, is it possible that this actually was a deciding factor? And how should trans advocates and Democrats adjust their approach to this issue?  Joining us today to talk about it are Brianna Wu and TafTaj. They are two of the co-hosts of the new show Dollcast, a show about transgender issues and politics, aiming to correct what they see as the excesses or errors in both the trans and gender-critical movements. TafTaj is a streamer and commentator. Wu is a programmer, political activist, and commentator, best known for her involvement in Gamergate. She now runs the progressive Rebellion PAC. Sources to Reference: Williams Institute: How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States? Economy Most Important Issue to 2024 Presidential Vote The New York Times: Trump and Republicans Bet Big on Anti-Trans Ads Across the Country The New York Times: How Trump Won, and How Harris Lost The Washington Post: GamerGaters Inundated Her With Death Threats. Now Some Are Apologizing — and She Forgives Them. Brianna Wu: I Fear That Progressivism Has Become the Very Thing We Fought Against Brianna Wu: X Post "from the center" The Cass Review Should kids medically transition? | Jesse Singal | Just Asking Questions, Episode 21 IFLScience: The Woman Who Gave Birth Despite Most Of Her Cells Having XY Chromosomes PubMed Central: Rare successful pregnancy in a patient with Swyer Syndrome Chapters: 00:00 Coming up… 00:29 Introduction 03:24 Brianna Wu's political evolution 06:03 "The progressive purity spiral" 07:25 Taf's political evolution 09:58 "The centrist case for trans rights" 15:42 The "President Trump is for you" ad 23:10 "Non-binary" identity and science 29:17 Wu and Taf's personal stories 40:53 Youth gender dysphoria science and the Cass Review 48:46 Should insurance companies not be involved? 54:26 A libertarian approach? 01:05:05 Technological changes 01:07:48 Questions more people should be asking The post Brianna Wu and TafTaj: How Have Trans Issues Scrambled Our Politics? appeared first on Reason.com.

Was bitcoin the winner of the 2024 election? Just asking questions.  Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to protect bitcoin and the entire crypto economy.  Major endorsements from the industry followed, including from the Winklevoss twins, who each made a $1 million bitcoin donation to a pro-Trump PAC. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong called Trump's win the "dawn of a new crypto era." Bitcoin has hit new all-time highs, since the election. Today's guest has been writing and speaking on these topics for a long time, and was also celebrating after the election, going so far as to call Trump's win a victory in a "spiritual war." Nic Carter is a writer and general partner at Castle Island Ventures, which invests in crypto-financial infrastructure. Let's start with crypto and bitcoin before we zoom all the way out to spiritual warfare. Nick begins by telling us why he's optimistic about Trump's second term in regard to making America a better place for people to buy, sell, and hold bitcoin and other crypto assets. This conversation was recorded on Nov. 20, 2024. Between now and then, some important and relevant news has come to light, especially regarding debanking. There is a new intro to this episode detailing why this matters. Sources referenced: From the new intro: Marc Andreeson on The Joe Rogan Experience Lee Fang: Debanking Realignment: CFPB to Protect Christian Free Speech Just Asking Questions with Lee Fang Nic Carter: Marc Andreessen is right about Debanking Winklevoss Twins Say They Each Gave $1 Million to Trump Presidential Campaign Why Coinbase CEO Sees Trump's Win as the 'Dawn of a New Crypto Era' Bitcoin price chart Nic Carter on X: The 2024 Election as a Spiritual War Why You Should (Still) Care About Silvergate Rep. French Hill (R–Ark.) Says He'd Investigate Operation Choke Point 2.0 as Financial Services Chair "Mr. Carter goes to Washington" How Stablecoins Are Extending the U.S. Dollar Dominance Annual Volume of Stablecoins vs. Other Financial Services Polymarket Founder Alleges Political Retribution Archive of Polymarket from November 5 Carter's "Wish List" for Trump's Second Term Chapters: 00:00:00 Coming up… 00:00:35 New context regarding Operation Chokepoint 2.0 00:06:10 Did bitcoin win the 2024 election? 00:08:07 Nic is optimistic about Trump 2.0 00:10:26 Why has the GOP embraced crypto? 00:14:19 OCP 2.0 and Silvergate 00:18:44 How do you make normal people care about this? 00:21:45 The role of the FDIC 00:23:36 What will Trump do about all of this? 00:28:10 Central bank digital currencies, and why they matter 00:30:15 What can Nic tell us about his trip to congress? 00:31:08 What are stablecoins and why are they important? 00:37:29 The persecution of Polymarket 00:44:32 The election and spiritual warfare 00:57:30 Nic's wish list for Trump 2.0 01:07:58 Nic's No. 1 question: Where did COVID come from? Producer: John OsterhoudtThe post Nic Carter: Did Bitcoin Win the Election? appeared first on Reason.com.

Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at UC San Francisco, delves into Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s controversial health proposals. They discuss the implications of Kennedy's ideas on public health, including fluoride, food additives, and vaccine skepticism. Prasad critically evaluates the balance between individual rights and corporate influence in health policies. The conversation also highlights systemic issues in American healthcare and the need for accountability and innovation within drug regulation.

Yuval Levin, the Director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, dives into the complexities of Trump's presidency and its implications for American governance. He discusses the notion of a Trump mandate and argues against the idea of a decisive victory, emphasizing negative polarization. The conversation also touches on the internal struggles of political parties, the legitimacy crisis in American elections, and historical ideological divides between figures like Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine.

Lee Fang, an independent journalist and political commentator known for his incisive Substack writings, dives deep into the aftermath of Donald Trump's decisive victory. He critiques the Democratic Party's disconnect from key voter demographics, particularly among working-class Asians and younger men. Fang highlights the alarming trend of Latino voters shifting towards Republicans and discusses the urgent need for authentic engagement with local communities. He also explores the challenges of finding a transformative leader to unite diverse constituents within the party.

Why did Donald Trump win? Trump is back. Back again. He's secured the Electoral College majority needed to become America's 47th president and looks on track for a popular vote majority—the first Republican to pull that off in more than 20 years.  A New York Times breakdown shows that across just about every type of county—urban, suburban, older population, younger, white, black, Latino—Trump improved his numbers.  Surprising to many was Trump's large improvement among Latinos of all kinds, despite—or maybe in some cases because of—his hardline immigration stances and insult comic Tony Hinchcliffe calling Puerto Rico a "floating island of garbage" at his Madison Square Garden rally shortly before the election. Yet seven percent more Puerto Rican Americans appear to have voted for Trump this year than in 2020. One person who is less surprised than many is today's guest, Patrick Ruffini, who wrote a book predicting much of this called Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP. He's a Republican Party strategist, a pollster for Echelon Insights, and writes at The Intersection. Sources Referenced: 2024 Presidential General Election Results The New York Times: Early Results Show a Red Shift Across the U.S. The Wall Street Journal: How Different Groups Voted in the 2024 Election The married/unmarried gap Associated Press: How America voted in 2024 (demographic breakdowns) National Center for Education Statistics: College Enrollment Rates Florida election results 2024 vs. 2012 VoteCommon Kamala Harris Ad Producer: John OsterhoudtThe post Patrick Ruffini: Why Did Trump Win? appeared first on Reason.com.

Is this the most important election ever? And who should win? Just asking questions. Next week, America decides: elect the 78-year-old criminally indicted, twice-impeached ex-president who's pledged to impose a universal tariff of 20 percent and embark on the largest mass deportation in American history; or his opponent, the vice president, swapped in for a malfunctioning Joe Biden, whose first major policy proposal was to cap grocery store prices to fight inflation, and who has trouble explaining how she'd govern any differently than her increasingly unpopular predecessor. It's a close race. Independents, including libertarians, will likely decide it. So we've invited three of them on today with three different perspectives to explain their votes. The first is David Stockman. He's the former director of the Office of Budget Management under Ronald Reagan. He served as a U.S. representative, and he says whoever wins we're basically screwed because neither candidate is addressing the most important policy issues facing America today. Then we'll talk to Dave Smith, a repeat guest on the show, host of the popular Part of the Problem podcast. He says he's reluctantly and probably voting for Trump because of the threat that Kamala Harris—and the political machine that she represents—poses to liberty in America. And lastly, we'll talk with Jacob Grier, a writer and Reason contributor who says that from a libertarian and small government perspective, the choice is obvious. Donald Trump is an authoritarian threat and Kamala Harris is a far superior choice. Let's just ask each of them some questions. Sources Referenced: David Stockman at The Soho Forum: Are the Two Parties Any Different? Dave Smith: I'm Voting For Trump | Part Of The Problem Just Asking Questions with Ford Fischer: What's the Untold Story Behind 'Stop the Steal'? Just Asking Questions with Vivek Ramaswamy: Is There a Libertarian-Nationalist Alliance? Jacob Grier: To My Fellow Libertarians: It's Time to Embrace the Harris-Walz Ticket How Are Reason Staffers Voting in 2024? Chapters: 00:00 Coming up… 00:39 Introduction 02:50 David Stockman: Harris and Trump are both intolerable 35:15 Dave Smith: Voting against Harris 01:19:28 Jacob Grier: Voting against Trump Producer: John OsterhoudtThe post Dave Smith, David Stockman, and Jacob Grier: Who Is The Lesser Evil? appeared first on Reason.com.

Thierry Malleret, an economist and co-author of "The Great Reset," discusses the World Economic Forum's role and the implications of stakeholder capitalism. He critiques the declining influence of Western nations and the rise of nationalism, while exploring the complexities of Environmental, Social, and Governance standards. Malleret examines the relationship between governments and big tech amidst the pandemic, addresses conspiracy theories surrounding Davos, and highlights the challenges of global collaboration in tackling innovation and population concerns.