SPEAKER_01: 0:17

Hey everybody, welcome back to Solutions from the Multiverse. I'm Scott. I'm Adam. What's up, everybody? We're back. Yeah, a bit of a hiatus, but same show with new solutions. Unheard of. They're timely solutions, yet aren't being happening now. Right. That's what we're talking about.

SPEAKER_02: 0:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 0:46

So we can get we can get straight into it. Do it if we want to. Okay. What do you got for us today? Two words.

SPEAKER_01: 0:53

Ethical sabotage. Ethical sabotage. That's right. Like listening to that Beastie Boy song while you're doing good things for people. Let it Shepherd Cat.

SPEAKER_00: 1:08

That's right. But ethically.

SPEAKER_01: 1:11

Ethically doing it. So what is it just describes? Ethical sabotage.

SPEAKER_00: 1:19

Okay, so you know I'm a professor and I'm doing a PhD in ethics. Yes. And I have already now four papers published. Okay. And my PhD is almost done. Bona feed is. It's gonna take like a year or more, and then it's done. So I have some like yeah, training now. Street cred on the streets of philosophy. On the mean streets of the I guess the nice streets, the ethical streets of ethics. Very nice, very nice. I watched the show The Good Place just to prepare for this. Okay. It's a very ethical ethic prerequisite. Yeah. So I should say, as a disclaimer, this episode is going to be a little spicy. The way ethicists often get somewhat spicy. We talk about hypotheticals. We talk about should the people die? When can they die? Can you kill? Can you do things? You guys sit around and you go, should the people die? That is a conversation.

SPEAKER_01: 2:07

Ethicists have Ethicists have a sort of Should the people die? So it's like, I say no. And so it's like, I say yes. Right. Like, okay.

SPEAKER_00: 2:14

Yeah, no, actually, that's very common. Yeah, that's very common. Like, if you believe this, then in these cases, these people could be killed. In these cases, they couldn't. Like, yeah, yeah. Or animals or people. Yeah. So there's a little bit of like death and trolley problem. The trolley problem. Classic people would people die? Exactly. Okay. The trolley problem. So we're going to talk about before the trolley leaves the station. We know the trolley for sure is going to like kill people that day. Can we go and like grind the gears of the trolley so that it doesn't run the next day? Oh, so we we are using the trolley problem. Well, we might as well because people are familiar with the trolley problem. I'll just that's just our entry. We can talk about other examples. But yeah, what if you lay out the center of the trolley problem? So the trolley I knew nothing about this. The trolley problem is a trolley's going down a track, and it if it keeps going down the track, you notice that it was is going to hit five workers who are working on the track.

SPEAKER_02: 3:12

Right.

SPEAKER_00: 3:13

But you see that you there's a switch that and that you could like operate and it would change the trolley to go on a different track. But you see that there's actually one person who's working on that track. So would you change would you pull the switch to make it go to the one instead of the five?

SPEAKER_01: 3:28

So you have the choice of pulling the switch to have fewer people die. Right. But the conundrum is you are making a choice to kill someone in that process.

SPEAKER_00: 3:38

And so in the ethical sabotage case, the the the question is so you know somehow that this trolley is going to kill five people tomorrow. The question is, do you go at night and like grind the wheels or grind the gear? Make it so that trolley is not going to leave the station tomorrow. Okay. In the minimal, most minimal way. You know, you don't have to blow it up or anything. Just you know that the trolley can't leave if one of its lights are out and you just smash one of its lights with a baseball bat and then take off. Do you risk your do you risk your own, you know, being arrested for property damage and doing some damage to this trolley company's property in order to save five people's lives? That's kind of the setup of ethical sabotage. Okay. And if you say no, then that's fine. I mean, we're gonna be open-minded here. Maybe you shouldn't do that. But some people might say, no, I would take it upon myself to to to take that risk and to do that because that would be better than having the five people die.

SPEAKER_01: 4:36

So the idea is instead of waiting until the action that needs to be stopped is happening, you go somewhere up the chain of events and you start to do some property. You start, yeah, cre increasing friction or yeah, or making it more cumbersome.

SPEAKER_00: 4:53

Right. Like maybe you call in a bomb threat to the trolley station and you're like, I know I need to do something to disrupt the functioning of this trolley that I know is gonna kill five people tomorrow. So I'm gonna call it a bomb threat, or I'm gonna smash its tail light, or I'm gonna put you know, sand in its gears, or I'm gonna do something, something. I mean Okay. Yeah. So that's the idea of ethical sabotage.

SPEAKER_01: 5:17

So when all you guys with your monocles and your pipes sit around talking about this, what do you what do you come up with? What is the well this is a new idea?

SPEAKER_00: 5:25

This is a new idea. Oh, okay. Yeah, it's actually a pretty underdeveloped realm of of ethics, actually. This question of like prop, like because generally in ethics, there's this like line like violence. Like the word violence is very black and white. And smashing the trolley's gears is violence. That would be called violence, right? Does harm, right? So these are big words in ethics.

SPEAKER_01: 5:52

You can't justify the means if the means are violence, right?

SPEAKER_00: 5:56

Well, that's often the case. Usually there's kind of a no-to a lot of people have a kind of no tolerance ethic to violence. They're like, no, we should use non-violence, we should be not committed to nonviolence. And and and generally that's good for a lot of reasons. I like to think of that, but uh yeah, there's a lot of reasons. Yeah, and that's so that's good. I'm in favor of nonviolence. I'm a huge proponent, but it's interesting when you start to look at specific situations and you wonder if if nonviolence doesn't work, um, or you can't you don't have the means to do nonviolence, but you do have the means to do what I would call ethical sabotage, which which I I call it ethical sabotage and not some kind of ethical violence or something. Because I don't want to open up like a Pandora's box of like violence can be ethical. Okay. I want to say sabotage. Like no one should be hurt right in this.

SPEAKER_01: 6:54

You're not like you're not extending this to going like, well, if the trolley driver is kneecapped, then he can't drive the trolley. So that stops everything.

SPEAKER_00: 7:05

I mean, you're saying you'd have to do that if it was gonna kill like five 500 people, you might say, well, maybe now the kneecaps have come into scale, isn't it? Right, yeah, yeah. But also you take a way, way, way bigger risk to yourself and to your own cause if you start hurting people.

SPEAKER_01: 7:23

I think that's also a way, way, way bigger ask for people to do as a resistance thing. Yeah, if you're saying to people, hey, part of resisting this uh oppression is that you like mess with property, mess with stuff, right? That you're gonna get a bigger uh people joining on or being okay with, or better than if you're like, okay, now part of it is you gotta kill people or you gotta hurt. We're gonna have to take some heads. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 7:50

You only get the mafios, so yeah, exactly. Yeah, so no, you don't want to do that. And you know, there's a trolley problem for this, which is called the fat man. What have you heard of this? No, I think they've altered it now to be like the man with the rucksack or something. Not fat man, you're not supposed to call the fat man. The atomic bomb fat man. Well, that's actually interestingly enough, it's funny that you say that. But let me let me tell you the fat one scenario. So the fat man scenario is in someone after they did this original trolley problem where you have a switch, someone later, I can't remember the exact person, but another ethicist said, Well, what if you're on a bridge and you're standing next to like a fat man, and you know that if you put like physically push the fat man over the edge of the bridge and he falls onto the tracks and he's killed by the trolley hitting him, uh-huh, it also stops the five from dying. Okay.

SPEAKER_01: 8:40

So This is a man who needs to be investigated by the ethicist. Who's very dark? I'm telling you, the ethicists, we we we have a dark streak. You'd be like, you know. Nice idea, Bernard. We are putting you on a list, but let's discuss.

SPEAKER_00: 8:53

Yeah. So what what's fun, what's in if not maybe funny, but interesting is that 90% of people, it's like 90-10 would say they would flip the switch to prevent the five from dying. Okay. But then it's 1090 that they would push the fat man onto the tracks. When at the end of the day, it's you know, it's one person dies and five people don't. Right. Right. So it's sort of it's not totally the same because you know, when you really wrestle the man off, you are gonna feel differently about that. Yeah, plus on your own, you know.

SPEAKER_01: 9:26

The people on the trolley are no longer getting to their destination on time.

SPEAKER_00: 9:29

Well, they aren't in the other one either. They go off, they go off to a different direction.

SPEAKER_01: 9:33

I was just happy that they were still making time, but but they're making time going in the wrong direction. Yeah, okay, so that's not a big difference.

SPEAKER_00: 9:40

But there's some, I wouldn't say they're exactly the same. You know, they're not exactly the same, but there are like you to your point, there's more resistance to the idea of like I'm gonna hurt someone physically, like right there, I'm gonna be right there. But what if you like did gave food poisoning to the trolley driver so that they were just sick for a day? Then you might feel like, yeah, I'll still I'd still be willing to do that. But I wouldn't be willing to like kneecap him, like if any damage his body, you know, to to the point where it's never it's not gonna recover fully. That that's awful, yeah. And and really not only morally horrible, but but also puts you really in the crosshairs of public opinion. People are gonna say, like, you're bad. Right. They're gonna a whole bunch of the population's gonna be like you're bad.

SPEAKER_01: 10:22

The distinction between those two seems to me like to be one I would think falls squarely into the realm of cruel, yeah. And the other one is is smash a tail light so that the trolley can't go out.

SPEAKER_00: 10:35

Yeah. Right.

SPEAKER_01: 10:35

But if you're just like, I've hobbled you for life now for my for my purpose right this moment. You know, then it's kind of like oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 10:42

Like what if like what if you knew that your friend, this you had this horrible, you know, family member who had turned into a terrorist and you knew that they were going to like, you know, uh crash a plane or something, and you bought a plane ticket to that plane, and then you got on the plane and you just like fiddled with the like oxygen masks and just like ripped two or three of them out so that there wasn't an oxygen. The plane could not take off. But you're actually doing a really good thing because you're like saving the whole plane from being crashed. So that's kind of like this is where the this is where we're at with ethical sabotage, is you're you're damaging things so that you avoid far, far, far worse uh consequences.

SPEAKER_01: 11:23

Although the lot, I mean, we've seen the plane thing play out, and then that's how final destination happens. There's always every single person from their flight. They come and get that we should start a final destination situation. You're trying to get us to continue final destinationing other planes for it was only like six seats, though, right? In the movie, this would be a whole point for Steve for investing in the final destination film franchise. Wow, you really bought a lot of I know what's happening. Oh my gosh. Final destin. What are we on?

SPEAKER_00: 11:57

Four or six? What are they on?

SPEAKER_01: 11:58

Oh, they just had one and it was pretty fun. But uh those are fun. I don't know. Those are fun. They're yeah, they're a little wild.

SPEAKER_00: 12:05

Yeah. So okay. So this has something to do with current events. Does it if we want to go there?

SPEAKER_01: 12:12

No, absolutely. I mean, well, because right this is we're recording this on a big protest day of action where there's a big I've heard uh general strike and other walkouts in Minnesota and other uh similar ones in other places. I think there's a protest just six blocks from here in San Francisco, yeah. And it's and I I think like we talked about this a little bit that I think uh general strike is kind of a form of sabotage in a way, because it kind of it's attempting to sabotage the economy for yeah, yeah, but it's not I mean it's in principle though, it's not sabotage.

SPEAKER_00: 12:47

I mean, generally just striking means you're sort of withdrawing cooperation, it's a non-violent.

SPEAKER_01: 12:51

It's just taking a like a swipe at a structure that uh supports a lot of things.

SPEAKER_00: 12:58

Yeah, yeah. Something that kind of borders on this ethical sabotage thing that I've heard about recently is people making noise all night long outside the hotel rooms where ice are. So that starts to be closer to like a sabotage, doesn't it? Because you're kind of oh, I guess yeah. But but but uh anyways, it's interesting to think like so. I'll give another example that um you know, again, not advocating for anything here, we're talking philosophically and theoretically, hypothetically about how to oppose whatever you oppose in the world, but we're using this case because a lot of people publicly are opposing ice right now. Um so it's interesting to think of that as an example. But when there was all the Elon Musk protests, people started to do ethical sabotage because there was multiple attacks on Tesla lots and then also Tesla just cars that are private people's cars, which that I actually think is much worse than just a lot of Teslas, full of Teslas that are like probably insured by the lot, and you know, and if you painted them or smashed them or broke certain parts of them that could be repaired, but you added costs in a public kind of visible way.

SPEAKER_01: 14:18

You that was actually very central to Elon dropping out of all his political shenanigans, was he started to be like, Whoa, people are like literally destroying when I think the members of his comp uh the boards of his companies were kind of like, Hey, would you would you please get a lower uh public profile? Right.

SPEAKER_00: 14:38

I mean if you go in and damage uh I don't know 20 cars, you know, each of those cars is you know seventy thousand dollars. And even if the the point is, even if it even if it is a big isn't a lot of damage, if you just do a little bit, it actually it actually kind of grinds away the profit margins of capitalism. And and businesses just can't operate. You don't need to destroy a hundred percent of a business's revenue to destroy the business, you only need to destroy the profit margin, the wedge. And then the business stops being profitable, and now capitalism will destroy it. Capitalism will get rid of the whole thing, right?

SPEAKER_01: 15:15

Because it's you know, because that's what capitalism does. So here's a question that popped into my mind Would you consider hacking to be a form of ethical sabotage? Oh, that's nice. That's called have you heard of hacktivism? I've heard of hacktivism. So yeah, but I'm thinking like the group anonymous or things like that, where they hack in a certain pointed way. They're not like they're not emptying bank accounts into their own bank account, they're doing different type of things. Like an activist, yeah, it's not per hacking, they don't directly profit from their actions of hacking.

SPEAKER_00: 15:46

It's like if I don't think this is a real case, but it's like if Greenpeace like hacked the software on some oil platform or something. They do that all the time. Or some wailing.

SPEAKER_01: 15:53

Greta Lindbergh is over there just hacking over her. She types so fast.

SPEAKER_00: 15:58

I don't know, actually. Oh, I do know one example of hacktivism that just happened. A woman, I think we know she's a woman. We don't know who she is because she's like a really good hacker, so she keeps her identity completely secret. Okay. She dressed up in a pink Power Ranger uniform with the helmet. Probably Amy Joe Johnson. Yeah, it's probably who it is. She took a real like hard turn into cyber cyber activism. But she dressed up in the pink Power Ranger outfit and she went to this famous it's called Chaos Conference, I think, and it's like a hacker conference. And she went up on stage, and on stage, she like shared her screen and hit like enter, and she wiped out a bunch of white dating sites, which are known to be where like white supremacists all hang out. Oh, and she like doxxed everyone in them and deleted their database at the same time. Whoa, and everyone was like, just brought the house down. It was like the coolest thing. They're just like Alfred. She destroyed like four databases and doxed like millions of white supremacists and stuff. It was pretty wild. Yeah, people can look that up as a pretty interesting hacktivism example. So, yeah, that is absolutely uh like an ethical sabotage. I mean, if you I don't know if it's even that ethical, but because I mean, okay, white supremacists, they're dating sites, like it's not a very directed attack, you know? And I mean, white supremacists, I don't know. I mean, they're not great. I mean, I'm not like great, white supremacists are great, but you know what I mean. Like you're going to Adolemme or make that. You know, like it's not a very directed I I think the diet the tighter your spray is, the better. Right, right.

SPEAKER_01: 17:39

The the scope of results you get from deleting dating sites is limited. Right. But there's other things you could maybe.

SPEAKER_00: 17:46

And like, I don't know, like if you're on J Date and you want to find a Jewish partner, is there anything wrong with that? Like, no, right? No one's gonna say that's wrong. Have you been looking at my phone? How'd you or there's like a Hindu, there's like a Indian one too? I I forget what it's called, but yeah, and there's there's one, you know, there's even a farmer one. There's a farmer date. Yeah, the farmer date.

SPEAKER_01: 18:10

Yeah, that one I know about. I've heard what's it called though? Only farmers? Only is it something like that? Only farmers.

SPEAKER_00: 18:16

That's what comes but it's only no, it can't be.

SPEAKER_01: 18:19

It can't be only only farmers oats. Sow your wild oats. Find a farmer. It should be called grow your relationship. Oh, yeah, yeah, for sure. Fertilize that's I'm terrible in this brand.

SPEAKER_00: 18:34

Yeah, fertilize. I like that, I like sow your wild oats. That's a good one. It's like Tinder for farmers, right? It's just a chokeup site for farmers, yeah. But but anyway, so I don't think there's anything like wrong with you know, even hinge allows you to sort by race. So I mean whatever.

SPEAKER_01: 18:50

You know, that jingle that we are farmers. Is it?

SPEAKER_00: 18:55

No, that's state farm. No, what is that? What are you saying? Anyways, that's hacktivism. Hactivism is is is, I think, a a type of uh type of ethical sabotage. Okay, and probably a yeah, kind of a popular one.

SPEAKER_01: 19:07

Where are the lines in your mind of ethical because you're like hurting people? You don't want to go and get rid of that chop someone in the back with a knife, unless it's like an atomic bomb's gonna go off.

SPEAKER_00: 19:16

Then opening the door. Well, you have to, if the damage is big enough, then isn't there kind of a proportionality? This is the question, right? I mean that's what all movies are about. I mean, guys kill people all the time in the movies. The hero kills a bunch of people just to get the bomb to not go off. So everyone's like, they're the hero.

SPEAKER_01: 19:33

In a theory, like I feel like some people are saying no, there's no like a Gandhi in theory would be like nope, I'm not going to shoot someone to stop an atomic bomb because um that's you know, I have a a zero, you know, yeah, I don't I have a non-total commitment. Inflexible, exactly. Yeah. But you're you're right. There's a lot of people in the would be like, yeah, absolutely, it's worth it for one versus.

SPEAKER_00: 20:00

Well, I mean, like I said, all Hollywood movies, I mean, all action movies, right? You're like watching some hero kill like maybe 25 people at least in order to then prevent you know some massive horrible thing that'll k that would kill or harm millions or hundreds of thousands of people or something. So we're constantly like, we're on board with it. Like like our society is like on board with like if there's a big enough lateral damage. Yeah, if there's a big enough danger that there's some. Right. But but but I think in your if you're doing something more like uh opposing ice, it's like a lot of people are being deported, some of it, much of it legally and and just yeah, you know, in a normal course of business, a lot of it not. And that's kind of where people are mad, is where it's you know the due process and you know stuff. And obviously, killing people, they've killed that two people now. It's horrible. Bad look, yeah. Yeah, but it's not, it's not like a million people dying in a nuclear explosion.

SPEAKER_01: 20:54

So you can't you can't and I think it's also the just the impress the look of everything, these these guys showing up with masks and just like popping out of non non-marked vehicles out of nowhere and yeah, without it's just a major upgrade, and it looks like what we would expect to happen in other countries that aren't this right sucks too.

SPEAKER_00: 21:14

Yeah, no, I mean it's it's we you know it's bad. It's bad. But I'm just saying, in terms of we can't, you know, in terms of like you have proportionality, you'd have you could not definitely could not be like targeting, hurting people. That would be awful, not assassinating people. And it would not, or even hurting fighting people, punching people would be bad.

SPEAKER_01: 21:34

Okay, so let's start at the bottom. Like, uh okay, banana in the tailpipe. But Beverly Hill Hill Cops though, banana in the tailpipe. I think that's a good way. That's yeah, that's okay. That's ethical sabotage. I think that's a fantastic way to do it. Okay. What about like uh slashing tires or air in the like letting air out of tires and stuff? Banana car doesn't do anything.

SPEAKER_00: 21:53

Banana in the tail classic I think a key and car only works if the person or like the target uh is very, very conscious of the look of their car. Yeah. Right.

SPEAKER_01: 22:05

It doesn't really it doesn't really it like dating deleting a dating site. Maybe it's not the most effective means.

SPEAKER_00: 22:13

Well, it might be it might be effective if you're just adding costs. Like Like, you know, I heard that ICE rents all their cars in cities that they landed. Well, guess what? If those rental agencies all came back with cars, or not came back, just if you figured out what rental agencies were renting to the ICE agents, and and without even interacting with the ice agents at all, you just went and like keyed 50 cars at their lot in the middle of the night.

SPEAKER_02: 22:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 22:39

The next day, that rental agency is going to be like, we're not giving to ice anymore. And now if you do that to like five or six rental agencies, no rental agency will fall cars to rise. Yeah. Right. And now ice can't get around without buying entire fleets of cars, which they can't afford to do, right? Or of presumably.

SPEAKER_01: 23:00

Unless they use our money. Yeah, yeah. Well, they can if they do that.

SPEAKER_00: 23:03

But then they can't use it on other things. You know, it starts to put really throw the brakes on them. Yeah. So that's, I think, an example where uh where you start to see, and that's what we saw with Elon too. Like as soon as the Teslas on the lots, which are insured and no one's inside of them, and you know, there's no no no one's getting hurt at all from doing this. Right. Um, that's when you started to really see the frictions mount so much that then people came down from the top and said, even to Elon, like his investors and his board members were like, Look, this has gone too far. But if no one had ever done those those those strikes, would anyone have ever said that might have tipped the scales. Yeah. So I wonder about that with ice. Um we haven't heard of anybody doing that yet, though.

SPEAKER_01: 23:50

It's like a next level up of protest. I mean, it's not it's separate from protest, but it's just like it is illegal. It's in addition to it's like it it's making it an uncomfortable spot for oppression and in trying to get your it's making sure the trolley doesn't leave the station in a way.

SPEAKER_00: 24:10

Yeah, yeah. But you can consistently do all six people. And this this, I mean, because we're not actually advocating anyone do this, we're just hypothetically, you know, philosophers talking about it. And we can talk about other examples. We're lazy, we're not doing any of these things. No, we're not doing we're definitely not doing any of these things, though. But but you know, if you did say go and do this, you know, which we're not, then you could be deplatformed for sure from anything. And you know, and so so yeah, the another case where this has already been explored a little bit, and in pretty good depth, is there's a book about a book that's called How to Blow Up a Pipeline. I've heard of this, wait. I've heard of this. It's in a movie. Is there a movie about this? There's a movie too.

SPEAKER_01: 24:48

Yeah, they made a movie. That's why I've heard of it. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 24:51

I I didn't watch the movie. Did you see it?

SPEAKER_01: 24:53

I feel like I've I don't know. Is it a documentary? I think it's a very good movie.

SPEAKER_00: 24:59

No, no, it's a fictional movie. I think I heard it was about a group of people who are like, we're gonna go blow up a pipeline, and there's all this drama.

SPEAKER_01: 25:06

I think I just know it because that's a crazy name, but I also did not hear necessarily amazing.

SPEAKER_00: 25:11

I did not watch the movie, but I did read the book. Okay. And the book uh is quite good. Um, but he gets into this and he talks about how the environmental movement has been really, really disciplined and really, really like down to its roots, non-violent. And they're like not, they do not like to do any kind of property damage or definitely not any damage to any humans or you know, right. And and he and he he starts to kind of raise this question of like is that actually the right choice, ethically speaking? Because in the environmental case, you actually are more like a Hollywood movie where you actually are gonna damage like billions of life forms, essentially and animals and humans are gonna be damaged by climate change or or you know, if water, air gets polluted, like you really are harming, even killing many, many, many beings and people and animals.

SPEAKER_01: 26:03

Well, like if you chain yourself to a tree to stop them from cutting it down, sure, like that stops them from cutting down the one tree. Yeah, but if you disable the bulldozer, right, then it stops them from taking down all the trees, right?

SPEAKER_00: 26:16

Right. And maybe even stops them from being a profitable business anymore. Yeah, like they have all their capital invested in these giant machines. If those machines, even on a 5% basis or 2% basis, are being destroyed, that might eat away half the profit margin of the whole damn enterprise. Right. And now the capitalist says, We're not doing this business, we're gonna go to put our money in something else, we're gonna go put it in mobile ads or solar panels. Like we're gonna go put the money somewhere else because there's costs here that they weren't on our spreadsheet when we started, because no one on the spreadsheet said, Oh, yeah, protesters are gonna destroy 2% of our you know revenue from costs. But then if those pro if those costs emerge, uh then you know, then you're gonna stop. The capitalists are just gonna say, we'll put our money somewhere else.

SPEAKER_01: 27:04

So, what would you think in our in our example of the trolley problem, in our hypothetical? You're going up the chain of events and messing with the gears in the trolley. Yeah, is it ethical to even go up the chain of events to that and like mess with the shipping routes that deliver the gears that eventually get built into this trolley? Oh, you're not just the night before, you're thinking like well, I'm just like, how far up these events can I go before I can't credibly say that I'm trying to affect that one event?

SPEAKER_00: 27:37

You know, I'm just now causing chaos. But in an environmental case, you might just be saying, Yeah, I'd love to cause chaos if I was an environmentalist who wanted to keep as much carbon out of the atmosphere as possible. If I just screwed up the supply chain of like, you know, some carbon-emitting thing, planes, cars, whatever you, whatever you think, you know, fill-in blank oil, whatever, then that would be a success.

SPEAKER_01: 28:00

You're basically saying if I could wedge my giant shipping vessel in the middle of shipping.

SPEAKER_00: 28:08

If someone had done that on purpose, that would have been ethical seven. But it definitely wasn't done on purpose. Wait, is it are you introducing conspiracy theory?

SPEAKER_01: 28:16

I just think that's a delightful craziness. What was that? What was it called? Something green. Evergreen, every Evergreen.

SPEAKER_00: 28:22

Yeah, yeah. The Evergreen. Okay, everybody. We're here to lay down the conspiracy theory.

SPEAKER_01: 28:27

The evergreen turns out the globe is intentionally a dude.

SPEAKER_00: 28:32

There's another move, there's another book about this that actually I think borders into not ethical sabotage, but actual sabotage and actual violence. There's a book called The Ministry of the Future, which is all about people sabotaging the environment, like sabotaging to prevent climate change. Gotcha. It's quite good.

SPEAKER_01: 28:50

I was just gonna be like, what's the difference between ethical sabotage and just regular sabotage?

SPEAKER_00: 28:54

And I guess well, regular sabotage is not ethical sabotage. That's why I call it ethical sabotage. Regular sabotage is just messing stuff up as much as possible for just to screw up whatever your enemy is. Yeah. Okay. Like if you're like sabotage, okay, well, we're just gonna like like blowing up Nord 2, Nord Stream 2. You guys you know Nord Stream 2? So there's a pipeline that was destroyed, it was blown up. Okay, but it's blown up probably by Americans. I think that was an airplane. No, Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline that goes from Russia to Germany. Okay, like it goes from Russia to Europe. Yeah, and so when the Russian-Ukraine war started, a couple days later, Nord Stream 2 blew up. Whoops. And it was pro no one knows who they did it, but it was probably American special forces because it was a very deep, it was like a deep underwater pipeline. You had to have like a lot of special equipment to like get down there and blow it up and and not be there when it blows up. The idea being that this will prevent oil from going to natural gas, but yeah, natural gas. So it'll prevent Russian natural gas from going to um to going to Europe, which would make Russia have that much less income from that revenue stream. And so it was probably sort of like we like we probably couldn't said to the Europeans, stop buying natural gas in Russia. They would have said, like, no, we really need to buy it because it's gonna harm Europe to not have that natural gas. Like, there's literally old ladies in in Germany that like are cold, and you know, because they don't have that natural gas from Nord Stream 2, and the cost of is very high for heating your home in Europe now because Nord Stream 2 was blown up. So the Europeans probably wouldn't have done it if we asked them. So American Special Forces probably allegedly probably went to just took it out. So that would be sabotaging the problem out of the well that's just called I wouldn't call that ethical sabotage. I would call that sabotage in the interest of American national interest. You know, this is not like an ethical thing, this is like an act of war that they did under Wait. Everything America does isn't ethical. Some ethical things we do, some ethical things we do. Like George W. Bush gave HIV medications to Africa, like really in this amazing way. That's not people don't talk about that enough, maybe. I mean, I don't support most of what George W. Bush did, but Americans sometimes I think it's because we do a lot of things. Yeah. So then just out of our exuberance, a few things are pretty good, and then most of it's pretty bad.

SPEAKER_01: 31:14

Well, I mean, if you're the president of an administration, there are probably people that are still doing good things for you in church. That seems like a blanket statement, especially right now, it seems very dangerous.

SPEAKER_00: 31:24

Well, now that they've kind of Project 2025, they've kind of right, they've given there's more that that's centralized the power around the president. In the past, yeah, there was just like administrative people that the president couldn't, you know, couldn't affect their job.

SPEAKER_01: 31:38

And they're doing their job, they're going and doing things right to the administrative, right, right. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 31:43

So so yeah. So, anyways, I'm uh so no sabotage is ethical sabotage. No, ethical sabotage. Ethical sabotage has more constraints on it. Okay, yeah, yeah. And it has to be towards an actual moral good, it can't just be like national interests or can we come up with some other hypothetical versions of what that would look like?

SPEAKER_01: 32:04

Is that because you're saying messing with cars maybe, or uh would it be impeding? I don't know. I guess what you have to do.

SPEAKER_00: 32:15

Well, so I'll I'll give one example that I don't think is good, which is blowing up a pipeline. I don't think that's ethical sabotage. I think it's too because it's gonna have too much negative effects on too many people to the point where they could die of like a cold. Right? If you destroy a pipeline, you might really harm people's ability to heat their homes and like some older people and children babies and stuff are gonna like die from being exposed to cold. Yeah. So that's not good. Um and you know, so I so I think there's I think definitely he he he he provocatively called it how to blow up a pipeline, but actually I think in a way he I don't believe that that is sabotage that people should engage in ever. I think that's unethical sabotage.

SPEAKER_01: 32:57

Unless the unless the costs because it has too many, like too there are too many X factors that you can't account for that are potentially harm people, yeah, that are gonna really hurt people.

SPEAKER_00: 33:08

Yeah. But there they are. There they are, they're coming for us already. Somebody told them, have I been live streaming? Oh no. Oh my god. So uh yeah, so here okay, I can give you an example. Yeah, because I did do research on this. I do want to write a paper about this. I wanna write this all up. So your question about what the exact parameters are is very smart. I don't have those straight layer laid out yet, but something like don't hurt people and have a target and have the target be proportional to what you're trying to achieve. Okay. And don't be on the wrong side of public opinion. Like public opinion should be able to kind of be like, yeah, I see that. Like I understand that. I think it also has to do with estimating your enemy, your your opposition. So, like you said Gandhi would never do any violence. You're probably right. But but Nelson Mandela was the general of the army of the South African African Union, right? The black, you know, the kind of anti-Afrikaans, anti-apartheid government. I mean, he was on the side of anti-that. He was the government the general, and he like did sabotage uh against Afrikaans infrastructure, and but it was mostly sabotage that was trying to not hurt. It was kind of like I think it was close to an ethical sabotage is what he was doing. So they'd like smash train lines and smash radio lines and you know, hinder military and and other things in order to fight apartheid. And at that point, you know, that really is proportional to like a big harm. Apartheid was harming 98% of the population of South Africa was black and was being harmed. So, you know, so doing things that even were a little riskier or might have hurt some people who are around there who are like soldiers or something, it starts to become more uh acceptable. So I would say you look at Gandhi, yeah, very committed to non-violence. You look at Nelson Mandela, also in favor of nonviolence, but his enemy was Afrikaans, and the Afrikaans were basically Nazis, they were like white supremacist fascists, whereas the British were like not, they were like colonists and they weren't great, but they were like, you know, they would kind of fair play, they kind of believed in like you know, they believed in like the that the Indians had to sort of cooperate with them. Yeah. If the Indians refused to cooperate with them, they just couldn't rule them and they just left. But the Afrikaans were like, no, you don't have to cooperate with us, we're gonna force you to be just gonna be too brutal.

SPEAKER_02: 35:43

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 35:44

So it seems to me like ethical sabotage, you can look at it kind of thinking like kind of uh military terms, where you're like, oh, where are the resources and where are the supply lines, where are the load travel lines, where the logistics were and we can like strategically or whatever, we can uh target those things or those weak points. You're looking to try and like hit resources and things like that.

SPEAKER_00: 36:10

If I'm thinking about this as a it does start to be like you're thinking like it's like you're thinking like a military, but again, militaries are like let's kill people and let's like really, really right hurt our opponent. So it's not like that. It's this weird gray area that hasn't been well defined. Yeah, because non-violence has been defined by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and there's a kind of a nice actually a thing that I'm an expert in. There's all this interesting research about that. And then there's like war and violence, that's been studied for or you know, approached for thousands of years. But there's this weird uh in-between area that like I think the af the the fight against the South African apartheid in South Africa might be the closest case where the enemy was really rough, but then there might be other cases like banging pots outside of people trying to sleep. Starts to get starts to get there.

SPEAKER_01: 37:05

So I'm an audio guy. What about here's one. What if I'm uh the there's gonna be a press conference for somebody who's maybe a terrible government person, and oh look, their microphones aren't suddenly aren't working. Sure. Like microphones, electricity is not for some reason, there's something wrong with the you know sure, and now their message doesn't go out, they can't call they can be mad at me, but I can just be like shrug equipment, uh it's just who knows.

SPEAKER_00: 37:30

Think think about the the Tootsies and the Hutus, you know, the Tootsies and the Hutus. Okay. In 1994, there was a genocide in Rwanda. Yes, and it was the Tootsies versus the Hutus. I know about the call Rwanda. Yeah, exactly. Of course, that's all I know about this. I know, and it would the call was put out over the radio to do the genocide. So if ethical sabotage, if someone knew that some radio station was gonna do that, and then that day they went with an axe and they chopped at the wires so they couldn't do it, that would be good. That would be like a good thing. And so there's this, yeah, there's this ethical sabotage zone that isn't like killing people and war and stuff, but it's also not like sitting at the counter and saying I'm doing a sit-in. It's it's it's an it's this other thing, yeah. And so I'm trying so honing in on it is the question, you know.

SPEAKER_01: 38:19

It's also the the the matter of timing because like you could imagine going back if you have a time machine, oh my gosh, it's become like so much easier. So good. You know how good you are at the time.

SPEAKER_00: 38:31

There's all kinds of things you could do.

SPEAKER_01: 38:33

If you had a time machine, sure, but it's like identifying the things that you need to do now, and I guess you have to think strategically, yeah, tactically, yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 38:42

But not in a violent way, in uh ethical sabotage way. I mean, that's the thing. I'm trying to carve out like a zone because the word violence includes nuclear bombs and breaking windows. And to me, if you say we are against violence, I'm like, okay, um but I feel like there's something down close to breaking windows that you aren't actually against. Right. And so I want to I want to hash that out so you can be like, yeah, we uh embrace nonviolence, great. You probably want a whole wing of your movement to just be nonviolent, and then you probably don't want a wing of your movement to be outright violent. That's pretty scary and can act, you know, can be more volatile and dangerous. Right. But you might want part of your movement to be like on this ES, ethical sabotage zone, and and really smart about what they do. I mean, that's why they need the guidelines, is so that they can really smartly pick targets and uh do strategies that are gonna not blow up in their faces or hurt people or right, but it is going to have the effect that they want. You need the ESSF, the ethical sabotage special force.

SPEAKER_01: 39:47

That's right. And they can like they're trained in identifying the things to tackle and like mess with that aren't gonna aren't gonna mess with people, you know, they're not gonna be not like poisoning the reservoir. No, no, but you're you're doing something more targeted.

SPEAKER_00: 40:01

But you might make it so that the pipes are clogged or something.

SPEAKER_01: 40:05

You're clogging the pipes. The tailpipes are clogged with bananas. That's what we're saying. I love the banana.

SPEAKER_00: 40:13

Banana and the tailpipe is great. That's a good one. That's a good one. Banana and the tailpipe. You know, if you want a manual for this, we there is a manual for yes, for ethical sabotage. Okay. It's called the CIA wrote it. Oh, thank you. Yeah, that's very CIA. It's called the Simple Sabotage Manual. Or it's just called Simple Sabotage. And then there's a manual how to do it. Simple Sabotage. Why would the CIA is it for their own agents? Or what they have is they just wanted a bestseller. What they wanted was agents to be trained in exactly what we're talking about. They didn't want agents to, you know, throw pipe bombs in the windows and you know assassinate people, because then that that would just, you know, they would lose their sick their secretness, right?

SPEAKER_01: 40:59

Because it would, you would know who did that. Right. If you were the undercover trying to get deep in the mafia and they like let you into level one and you're like, get idiots. Like, okay, thanks for telling us about exactly.

SPEAKER_00: 41:11

So what they said, they wrote this whole manual and it's about simple sabotage. They call it simple sabotage. And um, it's not it's not the same as ethical sabotage because their concerns, again, they're like a military, they don't care about ethics, they care about advancing American interests, and that if you kill people or do bad things, they don't care. But the tactics inside this simple sabotage manual are very good tactics, I think, to line up with what ethical sabotage people trying to do an ethical form of sabotage should look at and and maybe copy. So they talk about things like yeah, salt or sand in gears. So there's lots of machinery that have very fine gears and they're often just open to the air in like a factory. And if you just take like sand, like dirt, and you just like drop it into those gears, they will stop working in like three days. You know, they'll run and run and run, and it'll just grind them until they just stop because they're just they their machining will just wear down. Yeah, and it's like great, now you just shut down that factory until they can like take the whole machine apart and replace all the gears. And they're like, Why is there dirt in here? Like there's you know, and no one dies, and no one's not right. Yeah, and so that's like one example, like just dust, dirt in the gears. Like a tiny thing, easy in a crucial part. If there's some newspaper that's say you have some newspaper that's controlled by the the the Tootsis and they're trying to kill the Hutus, and you're like, This newspaper, we need to shut it down. Sand in the gears of the newspaper machine, that newspaper will stop working in a couple days.

SPEAKER_01: 42:44

Oh, so like I was just gonna say make everyone stop doing things so there's no news to print. That would just have no news. Yeah, then they're just they have blank papers now. That would be like a very copket. Nobody's doing any news story is that there's no news top story. No news.

SPEAKER_00: 43:08

Can you believe it? News flash, no news, nothing going on, nothing doing. That's kind of the news that we have like 90% of the time. Not these days, not with Trump, but before Trump, like during the Biden, remember Biden? It was like the news was just like nothing, like a squirrel caught in a tree, you know, a cat caught in a tree. I kind of liked that so much.

SPEAKER_01: 43:29

We all did.

SPEAKER_00: 43:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 43:31

So where do I get this CIA? Like, do I go down to my local? You can just download it.

SPEAKER_00: 43:35

It's all it's all open source now. You can just download the CIA simple sabotage handbook and read it. Okay. And it just tells you, yeah. Then one of them's like sand in the gears, another one's like misplacing things. Like if you just go in to like the warehouse and there's like a pile of the stuff that they need every week or every month, and it's there, and you just like take it in a big bag and just like put it over in another part of the warehouse. Relocate, right? Creative relocate. So when people come to find it, they're like, Oh my god, we don't have what we need. And then they call back and they're like, We don't have the thing we need, uh and they're thrown off for a whole day while they like look for it, and then it's there. No one thinks someone sabotaged it, they just they're just slowed down by. I like this, you know, simple sabotage. But you can sabotage, yeah. So ethical sabotage could be used very broadly, the environment, carbon, right? Um there there is a there isn't a case of ethical sabotage in the environment. There were some, I think it was in France, there's a there was a very large cement factory that like ships cement all over the world. And cement is a major carbon contributor. It's like three or four percent of carbon every year is from cement. Because when you dry cement, it does a chemical reaction and carbon dioxide is released. So it's like a major thing. So these environmentalists, they they like they got all this like gear and like the and like tethers and stuff, and they like rope climbed their way up way up into like the machinery of the cement factory. Okay, and they had to shut the factory down because otherwise they'd be like smashed by the machinery, like they'd be schmushed.

SPEAKER_01: 45:10

It's a technical and they're like like we can't, we don't have the liability to yeah.

SPEAKER_00: 45:15

So they just were like, Well, we can't run the factory, and then they lived up there for like days. They like brought food and water, and they like had they were like ready to camp out up in this machinery, and they shut the machine down for like two weeks or three weeks or something, and it it was like really damn you know to the to the margins of the company was like hugely damaging, and so that's a good example, but it wasn't in a way sabotaged because again, environmentalists are very committed to nonviolence, and so they didn't harm anything, they didn't smash anything, they just put their physical bodies in the way, right? So that's and that's cool. I'm I'm not I'm not like you know, and I and I think also it's an open question of ethical sabotage how it will work and when it will work exactly. We don't know because again, it's this new thing.

SPEAKER_01: 45:58

What if you're you a group of people break into a like a place where they're testing on animals and they free the animals, sure. That's like the animals free. Is that ethical? Like, is it ethical?

SPEAKER_00: 46:11

It's somewhere in that vein, isn't it? Because no one gets harmed.

SPEAKER_01: 46:15

Okay, but now one of those animals has a zombie virus and you just let the zombie started the zombie apocalypse. That's 28 days later. I didn't tell you this fact, but you just walked right into my trap, sir. But so would you say, so we talk about the hypothetical of the trolley problem. You mess with the trolley, so it can't leave the station. Right. And that is a superior because that saves all six people. That's true. That's no other six really saves everybody.

SPEAKER_00: 46:43

Right. But it harms the property of the trolley company, and you're at risk because you could be arrested for vandalism. Right. Which vandalism, is it even a felony? I don't even know if it is. There might be like felony vandalism and misdemeanor vandalism.

SPEAKER_01: 46:56

And there's yeah, I've heard people talk about the idea of like fill the jails up with people doing minor things, and then you have to kind of like force them to reckon with the fact of are we really arresting people for the right amount of stuff, or are we maybe putting our force in the wrong?

SPEAKER_00: 47:12

I mean, unfortunately, America has so many prisons that probably they won't say that. This is true. Although they're crowded too, as bad as many as we have, they're actually quite crowded. So maybe it maybe it would have some effect. I don't know. I I think I think a lot of the nonviolent cases, um, the really, really embracing nonviolence. Um, again, you have to look at your opponent, you know. Is your opponent like a reasonable British man who like kind of like believes in fair play and kind of wants you to be like cooperative? Yeah. And if you're not, he's like put off, you know. Yeah. Or is your opponent like a really like hardcore fascist jerk who like does not care and actually relishes in you like being a soy boy protester, right? And just relishes in like brutalizing you, you know, then you might have to change your approach, right? Kind of like the way Nelson Mandela. There was a big debate in South Africa. Uh, you can read all about this um if you read about the South African uh anti-apartheid movement, but there was a huge debate because Gandhi invented nonviolence in South Africa. Not a lot of people know that, but he was in Durban, which is like an Indian enclave in South Africa, and he was there being a lawyer after he lived in London and trained as a lawyer. And when he was in Durban, there was like anti-apartheid stuff going on, and he was like, We should use this thing, and he developed it there, and then he took a boat back to India and was like, now let's do this in India. Yeah, so it was actually developed in South Africa. So in the South African movement, there was a lot of people who were like, let's use non-violence against the Afrikaans, against the English and Africans, against the apartheid, and they were like trying to do that, and it was not working very well because the Afrikaners were like brutal, really brutal white supremacist fascists who did not care that they were like protesting. They just were like, No, we're gonna just take them out.

SPEAKER_01: 49:18

Yeah, they just they didn't see them as they were, they were I don't think they were looking at them as human. Absolutely not. They're like, People are these are not we are different than these. It was a deep, deep us people are different than racism. Yeah, completely.

SPEAKER_00: 49:30

And the British had a kind of racism too. They were like, you know, they call them the coolies. That was like a negative negative term for India, like a dis a b you know, they they were not like thinking of them as equal or something, but it was different. The British were more like yeah, fair play and kind of you know, well, if you cooperate, then we can kind of do this, you know. But if you're non-cooperative, then I will take my things and go, you know. And that's what they eventually did, uh, without major warfare. I mean, without any major warfare, without the pressure, international pressure, you know. The the the British which receded from from India, but but the the Afrikaners required massive global sanctions and decades-long like sabotage and really serious protests, like all the children refusing to go to school for 10 years. Like that was a thing that happened in South Africa. It actually hobbled that whole generation because an entire like swath of young people would just never went to school because it was like a form of protest.

SPEAKER_01: 50:31

So, you know, yeah. I think honestly, one of the things that probably keeps more sabotage from happening is that we have the right to protest because you let people that's true, you let people get it out that way. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm not saying protest, but in places, especially I think of like super domineering places where you're not allowed to do that. That urge has to only come it can only come out one way. It's gonna be like I gotta mess with stuff in secret, yeah, that I think is gonna be effective, but not put me at risk or be directly.

SPEAKER_00: 51:06

I think that the opportunity with ethical sabotage that I that I take really a responsibility. Like I really want to develop this idea and I want to write this paper where I really try to lay out what what could be like the parameters and stuff is because so often, like you're saying, that you know, you're protesting and it's and it's not working, or you're protesting and you get cracked down on and you can't protest, you get pressure, like people get pressurized, and their only valve is like violence. And I don't want violence. I think violence is really dangerous and bad and kind of volatile, like it can kind of go in directions that you don't predict once it starts. Yeah, and you get retribution and you get all these justifications, and you often lose the battle for public opinion very rapidly when you go towards violence, and then you're kind of you know, you're kind of harming your own mission mission by going that way. But that I think that because the word violence is breaking glass and nuclear bombs, like when as soon as your right to protest is squashed or your ability to be successful by protesting is quashed, you go all the way to like let's kill people. And it's like what if we could create another zone that was actually had way better outcomes um, even if my opponents were doing this, you know. Well, I mean, my opponents in society would probably never do this because my opponents, I mean, I you know, if you know, I would just say let's talk and then figure out and figure it out. But so they would never be forced into this. But you know, yeah. I like it. Yeah, so it's it's meant to be a kind of a managed mission. A reservoir. It's like a reservoir so that you don't valve out to violence, you kind of valve out into this safe reservoir where you kind of escalate things, but you don't escalate them to violence, you escalate them to like sand in gears and like misplacing things in factories and stuff, which is way better than like blowing up the factory and like you know, killing the foreman and and stuff. You don't, you know.

SPEAKER_01: 53:11

If you're if all of a sudden your bureaucracy is filled with Mr. Beans, then it doesn't it doesn't work anymore.

SPEAKER_00: 53:19

Oh, you brought up when we were discussing this before, you brought up slowdowns, which is an interesting thing, like administrative slowdowns.

SPEAKER_01: 53:27

Yeah, like maybe you find yourself working for a organization and you're just like, Oh, I'm a cog in the machine. Well, I can maybe I can be a sandy geared cog. Yeah, I can just be slow at it.

SPEAKER_00: 53:41

Yeah, or even like I've heard following every single rule is a thing. Oh, yeah, yeah. Like every single rule super pedantic. Yeah, yeah. Every meeting you sit down and you say, We still haven't filed form 4234A, and we can't have this meeting until we file that. Like, you know, and then people are like, Oh my god, Jesus.

SPEAKER_01: 54:02

I hate to be this guy. I am so sorry. I would love to get on with things, but we just gotta do it.

SPEAKER_00: 54:12

You know, so yeah, so people could take a job at ice or go work for some oil company and be like, we just can't we can't make this oil platform until how we really gotta do these little things, you know. So yeah, that but those I think are still in the term is finding that's still that's non-violence, though. That's not ethical sabotage.

SPEAKER_01: 54:30

So I was gonna say, yeah, finding the middle ground where you're ineffective enough to be ineffective in there, but not ineffective enough to be fired for being bad at your yeah, ethical sabotage, you would be fired if it was ever discovered that you did it.

SPEAKER_00: 54:42

Yeah, like that's where you're crossing in this line of like you are actually taking some risk. Yeah, yeah. So and and and you shouldn't do it willy-nilly. I mean, you should only do it if the the the consequences are, yeah, really I mean ethical. It's right there in the name. Right, it's right there in the name. So, anyways, so yeah, so I've so that's a new it's a new idea, which which I should say at I should have said at the beginning, but this is a new idea. I mean, there's the book How to Blow a Pipeline, he starts to get into this, but he doesn't go fully, he doesn't fully say there's this realm of actions that are ethically sanctioned, and you know, under these parameters that are violent, but again, violent in the hiding things in a factory violence or sand in a gears violence, not kneecapping or you know, starting a fire, god forbid that would be because you can't control fire, it can go anywhere. That's not a good ethical sabotage. You can't control fire, not oh, are you pyro the the X-Man?

SPEAKER_01: 55:39

I mean, I've been working more on my telkinesis.

SPEAKER_00: 55:42

Oh, pyrkinesis? My pyro pyrokinesis? Pyro pyrokinesis, I think that's right. I think so. I think that's awesome. Pyrokinesis, what a great word.

SPEAKER_01: 55:54

No, but yeah, that's stuff when it can get out of control is obviously on the other side of the line for unethical. Right. Because now you might be doing more harm than good. But yeah. So new thing. All right. Uh, don't go out and do it, but do talk about it more. I thought, I thought I was gonna be more like, oh no, oh no, we can't talk about this. But I think you framed it well, and I understand why you're talking and serious.

SPEAKER_00: 56:19

Certainly academic. I mean, we're just too philosophy talking hypothetically about political change. We're not trying, we're not telling anyone to go.

SPEAKER_01: 56:29

But this is I think we're I think we're safe on those conversations. Yeah, me too. Me too. Yeah, I mean, until after I get AI to say edit having to say a bunch of things he didn't say, and then I'll add it. No. Deep fake. We should do that. Deep fake episode. That is our coverage. We can we can always say if we get in trouble for some reason we'll take that part, that one, that was that one episode that was added by that one section.

SPEAKER_00: 56:51

That was our enemies. That wasn't real. That would hacktivism if there was another hacktivism. Yeah. Well, cool. I mean, I think I think we got the whole idea. I think we've got the whole solution. Well, thank you. Yeah, oh, this is awesome. And this is awesome. Thanks for coming back. We're back.

SPEAKER_01: 57:07

Being back in, and uh, we'll see you again.

SPEAKER_00: 57:09

Yeah, send us uh send us questions, leave comments if you can on the Spotify. You can leave comments. Is that where the that's the only place you can comment on a podcast? I've seen Spotify. But if you're not on Spotify, then you have to email us with solutions from the multiverse at gmail.com. There you go. And you can send us mail. We'll do a mailbag episode of people sending questions or solution problems they want solutions to. We can do that. Yeah. Are we gonna get on TikTok? We're not on TikTok. What tick tock's dead, man? I've been practicing TikTok's dead now because it was taken over by and now people are not in the city.

SPEAKER_01: 57:41

Yeah, they were like, Freedom, make TikTok America. Oh, what happened? Oh, not freedom.

SPEAKER_00: 57:48

Wow. Oh yoke's on us. That's crazy. Yeah, right. Yoke on our faces, yeah. Yeah, but yeah, we're back. Excited to keep sharing solutions with people and bring this community, the small community now, 200. So we have about 200, 500. We have like I didn't count them all, but I think it's something like that, or maybe a thousand total. But uh, that's a small community. But hey, it's a real one, it's cool, and these are cool ideas, and they they they when we put them out in the world, I think it gives them a chance to happen. If we don't put them out in the world, then they kind of can never have a chance.

SPEAKER_01: 58:19

So and they're both timely and evergreen because that's right. That's right.

SPEAKER_00: 58:23

It's timely, this is the time, and you could also listen to this 10 years from now, and it would still be interesting.

SPEAKER_01: 58:29

Yeah, and we know evergreen is the way that you block shipping. That's how you block shipping.

SPEAKER_00: 58:33

That's how evergreen. Whoa, throwback, you throwback to that. All right. The solutions are out there in the multiverse. Go find 'em. All right. Yeah. Bye.