Building Tomorrow

Jim Cantrell’s career in the space industry spans thirty years and multiple countries, from NASA to the French and Russian space agencies. Now, after co-founding SpaceX with Elon Musk, Cantrell is the CEO of Vector, a micro-satellite launching company. The private sector space industry is booming; cheap, small satellites will transform the global economy and lead to fascinating knock-on innovation. At the same time, making it easier to put stuff up in space raises the specter of militarization, both by State actors including Donald Trump’s new Space Force and by non-State actors like terrorist groups. The question is not ‘if’ there will be a star war, but ‘when’ it will happen and what we can do to prepare for it.How big are space satellites? How does Vector hope to create a new economy in space? What has SpaceX done to change the space market? How can we convince more innovators to apply their thinking to space rather than joining yet another start-up software outfit? Does NASA hurt innovation? Who is responsible for space debris? What will the first war in space look like?Further Reading:He Worked in Russia and Palled Around With Elon Musk. Now This Entrepreneur Has Big Plans for His Own Rocket Company, written by Kevin J. RyanMorgan Stanley joins venture firms betting space start-up Vector can launch a lot of small rockets, written by Michael SheetzHow Elon Musk’s cold calls to rocket scientists helped kickstart SpaceX, written by Zameena MejiaRelated Content:Jim Cantrell on Vector, Elon Musk, and Space Force, written by Spencer NealIs China Beating the U.S. at Innovation?, Building Tomorrow PodcastA-Ray Vision Could Be More Than A Pipe Dream, written by Tyler Bettilyon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dog ownership is on the rise around the world, correlating to the decline in age of marriage and delays in childbearing. Given the slowing (and eventual reversal) of the global population birth rate, that means pets will demand an growing share of personal income, emotional investment, and technological innovation. Will and Paul are joined by Natalie Dowzicky (flatmate of the fabulous Corgi pup Pippa, who is on the list of Capitol Hill pooches to watch) to discuss these trends, various gadgets and apps designed for pet owners, and the prospect of cloned or robotic pets in future society.Legal Disclaimer: No dogs—named Marley or otherwise—were harmed in the recording of this episode.Are pets just accessories? Why has pet ownership increased? Is pet ownership a new way to find community? What is the difference between pets and livestock? Will people have pet robots in the future?Further Reading:Why Are So Many Millennials Opting for Pets, Not Parenthood?, written by Erin LowryThis is What the Senate Looks Like Through the Eyes of a Puppy, written by Katherine Tully-McManusHow Social Change Helps Explain Our Pet Choices, written by Hal HerzogPets Are Not Children, So Stop Calling Them That, written by M.A. WallaceRelated Content:Printing Pills for Pets, Building Tomorrow PodcastSwiping Right for Love, Building Tomorrow PodcastThe Collapse of Local Community, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Paul, Joe Verruni, and Peter Van Doren as they discuss why the Green New Deal is neither particularly “green,” all that “new,” nor all that great of a “deal.” However, there is a libertarian response to the Green New Deal that doesn’t just consist of “bah humbug.” There are market-based solutions that can more effectively and sustainably address carbon emissions and other environmental pollution. To illustrate that point, the hosts discuss fascinating new applications of energy storage tech that attempt to solve the “duck curve” problem limiting the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar.Should we be concerned when both political parties agree? How should libertarians think about the Green New Deal? What is the goal of the Green New Deal? How can we change emitting behavior through mechanisms other than those proposed in the Green New Deal? Will the Green New Deal take away your car (or your cows) entirely?Further Reading:The Impossible Green Dream of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, written by Michael GrunwaldThe New York Times is trying hard to clean up after AOC’s Green New Deal Mess, written by Becket AdamsThe ‘Duck Curve’ Is Solar Energy’s Greatest ChallengeRelated Content:Did Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Really Save America?, Free Thoughts PodcastThe End of Doom, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you live in a city, your relationship with the new scooter startups like Lime and Bird probably ranges somewhere between frustration at the sidewalk clutter or enthusiastic adoption for when you need to reach the Metro stop nearest your apartment. In this episode, Paul and Will talk with Jennifer Skees about whether scooters are a true transformational transportation technology or if they are overhyped. Are scooters a good disruptive technology? What is the ‘last mile’ problem in cities? Do scooters have a speed limit? Should they? How have norms developed about where you should or shouldn’t ride your scooters? How do conceptions of public space evolve over time?Further Reading:What Scooter Regulations Mean for Riders and Companies, written by Jennifer Huddleston SkeesNew Scooter Lawsuits Threaten Innovation, written by Jennifer Huddleston Skees8 Electric Scooters Charging at Once Cause Fire in St. Paul Garage, written by Mara H. GottfriedRelated Content:Welcome to the Sharing Economy, Free Thoughts PodcastIn the Economy of the Future, You Won’t Own Your Own Kitchen, written by Pamela J. HobartRide-Sharing Services Aren’t a Problem, They’re a Solution, written by Aeon Skoble Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the cultural economy (music, movies, television, and books) digitized around the turn of the 21st century, many critics worried about severe negative consequences, including declining creative output because of piracy and decreased aesthetic quality. Joel Waldfogel joins Paul and Aaron to discuss why those fears were wrong. Digitization has actually stimulated a renaissance in the cultural economy as both the number and perceived aesthetic quality of film, television, and books have soared. It has been a triumph of technological innovation enabling an expansion of the marketplace for the ultimate benefit of producers and consumers.Are we overproducing movies because of digitization? Are we consuming culture too fast? Is piracy a customer service problem? Does the business model of Spotify prevent piracy of music? Why did music take such a huge hit from piracy when TV and movies took a much smaller hit in comparison? Do we want ownership of products or the ability to have access to stream of service? Why are people unbundling their cable services? Should we get rid of all copyright?Further Reading:Digital Renaissance: What Data and Economics Tell Us about the Future of Popular Culture, written by Joel WaldfogelHow Does Spotify Make Money?, written by Rameez M. SydeekMusic Piracy Remains a Problem in the Spotify Era, written by Anne SteeleRelated Content:In the Economy of the Future, You Won’t Own Your Kitchen, written by Pamela J. HobartIntellectual Privilege, Free Thoughts PodcastIs Netflix Ruining Culture?, written by Pamela J. Hobart reviewing Joel Waldfogel’s book Digital Renaissance Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, more than a third of long-term relationships are started through online dating apps like Tinder and eHarmony. (And the percentage is even higher for LGBQT communities.) During the early years of online dating, critics suggested that the apps would lead to either sexual hedonism or the formation of shallow, unstable long-term relationships. Well, some of the first major longitudinal studies are finally out and we can see how those concerns panned out. Join us as we discuss the vast cultural ramifications of online dating and why it’s been a net positive for modern society. Oh, and we also talk about Bristlr, a dating app for the facially hirsute and those who love them. Let’s be honest; that’s the real draw for the episode!How do dating apps work? Do dating apps have a stigma attached to them? How do dating apps reenforce the silos in which we live our lives? Can we actually have an algorithm that creates the basis of love?Further Reading:Dating App for Trump Supporters Says it Will Sue Liberals Who Try to Join, written by Moran GstalterPheramor: New Dating App Matches Users Based on Their DNA, written by Olivia PetterHow the Internet Has Changed Dating, the EconomistRelated Content:“Rape Culture:” Yea or Nay?, written by Sharon PresleyFree Love: Victoria Woodhull, written by David S. D’AmatoWearable Tech: Health Care of the Future, Building Tomorrow Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Every new entertainment medium—from the 17th century novel to 21st century video games—has had its share of scolds who panic about the social implications. Those moral panics are always misguided, but entertainment can indeed shape its consumers. This week, Aaron, Paul, and Will debate the ways that video games, by engaging players with compelling narratives and giving them a feeling of player agency, can change peoples’ beliefs and values. Along the way, they discuss what features would make a game ‘libertarian’ and what makes games fun.What is player agency in video games? Are video games a vehicle for narrative stories? What makes video games valuable? Do video games inspire youth to act a certain way in real life? Is Minecraft a libertarian video game? What kind of video game player are you? Further Reading:Video Games Should Always Let You Win, written by Aaron Ross PowellAs Gamers Age, The Appeal of Competition Drops The Most. Strategy is The Most Age-Stable Motivation, written by Nick Yee6 Video Games Every Libertarian Should Play, written by Peter SudermanRelated Content:Communicating Liberty Through Film and the Making Of “Freedom on Trial”, Free Thoughts PodcastIntroducing Libertarianism: A Reading List, written by Aaron Ross Powell Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wearable tech includes everything from wearable thermometers to robotic exoskeletons. It’s a hot investment area for Silicon Valley venture capital funds. But most startups in the wearable industry are very careful to avoid claiming that they are producing “medical devices.” Yet the divide between these wearables and medical devices seems incredibly arbitrary. After all, how is a traditional thermometer that you place under your tongue a medical device, yet a patch that you place on your skin to monitor your PH levels not one?As this episode explores, that arbitrary distinction is made to avoid regulatory scrutiny from the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for medical devices. That regulation has perversely encouraged stagnation in the medical device industry, especially when compared to the bewildering array of new products and innovations coming out of the unregulated wearable industry.Where is wearable tech heading? What counts as essential and non-essential medical care? Why are health tracking wearables claiming to not be medical devices? How does the FDA regulate medical devices? How can you circumvent having to do a full review of a new medical device? How do FDA processes stifle innovation?Further Reading:L’oréal’s New Clip-On Sensor Tracks Your Exposure to UV Rays, by WiredUVM Study: Wearable Sensor Could Detect Hidden Anxiety, Depression In Young Children, written by Brian OwensBehind the Boom in Breast Pump Innovation, written by Heather R. JohnsonThe Top 10 Mental Health Apps, written by Hannah NicholsRelated Content:We Got Your Black Friday Shopping List, Building Tomorrow PodcastEmerging Tech, Free Thoughts PodcastHealth Care without Health Insurance, Building Tomorrow Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cryptocurrency advocates often praise its decentralized nature, which promises to strip out intermediaries that both slow and function as a tax on private exchanges of goods and services. But even the most decentralized cryptocurrency still needs go-betweens in order to function for a mass consumer audience. Simply put, most consumers are willing to give a little on transparency and privacy in order to get more convenience and ease of access.Even so, cryptocurrency should provide significant improvements in multiple venues, including international payments. Also, as Matthew Feeney notes, crypto-fueled alternatives to popular payment processing platforms could be a needed response to the rise of de-platforming and corporate censorship by tech giants like Apple and Google. However, to succeed, cryptocurrencies need to effectively respond to a wave of “double spend” attacks that exploit the dive in crypto prices over the past year for fraudulent ends.What is a decentralized currency? How do consensus and virtuous behavior relate to cryptocurrency? What is the problem with intermediaries? Does crypto-technology have potential applications for anti-corruption schemes and programs? What is a double-spend attack? Does Alex Tabbarok possess mystical, prophetic gifts?Further Reading:Should Cryptocurrencies Be Regulated like Securities?, written by Diego ZuluagaThe Future of Financial Services: Disintermediation, Decentralization: A Familiar Tune for Credit Unions?, speech delivered by Diego Zuluaga to Michigan Credit Union Economic SummitRippleJordan Peterson is leaving Patreon, Should You?, written by Nicole RussellRelated Content:The Future of Money, Free Thoughts PodcastWhat’s in Your (Crypto) Wallet?, Building Tomorrow PodcastIs Bitcoin the Future of Money?, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Politicians want their constituents to feel a sense of personal connection to them. Mass media makes those perceptions of intimacy and authenticity possible on a large scale, like FDR’s radio fireside chats, Ronald Reagan’s TV appearances, and Donald Trump’s tweets. But we are on the cusp of the political adoption of a new media form; it’s the age of livestreaming as an exercise in political branding, whether it’s Elizabeth Warren awkwardly taking a swig of beer, Beto O’Rourke carving a steak, or Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez wandering wide-eyed the corridors of Capitol Hill.Yet the adoption of livestreaming, as well as the rise of crowdfunded political campaigns, is drawing the attention of campaign finance regulators. Radio and television broadcasting by political candidates has long been regulated, but the internet has traditionally not. John Samples joins Will Duffield and Paul Matzko to discuss the legal and political implications of these new trends in fundraising and advertising.Are the social media accounts of politicians a more intimate way for voters to view them? Are politicians authentic on social media or do they try to hard to be seen as relatable? Do Americans have a right to view or hear Russian ads? Further Reading:Who Should Moderate Content on Facebook, written by John SamplesGoogle Is a Tricky Case but Conservatives Please Stay Strong — Reject the Temptation to Regulate the Internet, written by John SamplesRelated Content:New Year, New Congress, New Tech, Building Tomorrow PodcastPlace Your Political Bets, Building Tomorrow Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.