E97: Aging Populations & Their Global Consequences: Interview w/ Charles Goodhart

How human babies, big brains, and social life likely forced Homo sapiens to invent precise speech ~150–200k years ago—and what that means for learning, tech, and today’s kids.Guest Bio:Madeleine Beekman is a professor emerita of evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology at the University of Sydney and author of Origin of Language: How We Learned to Speak and Why. She studies social insects, collective decisions, and the evolution of communication.Topics Discussed:Why soft tissues don’t fossilize; language origins rely on circumstantial evidenceThree clocks for timing (~150–200k years): anatomy; trade/complex tech/art; phoneme “bottleneck”Why Homo sapiens (not Neanderthals) likely had full speechLanguage as a “virus” tuned to children; pidgin → creole via kidsSecond-language learning: immersion over translationBees/ants show precision scales with ecological stakesEvolutionary chain: bipedalism → narrow pelvis + big brains → helpless infants → precise speechOngoing human evolution (archaic DNA, altitude, Inuit lipid adaptations)Flynn effect reversal, screens, AI reliance, anthropomorphism risksReading, early interaction, and the Regent honeyeater “lost song” lessonUniversities, online classes, and “degree over learning”Main Points:Multiple evidence lines converge on speech emerging with anatomically modern humans ~150–200k years ago.Anatomical and epigenetic clues suggest only Homo sapiens achieved full vocal speech.Extremely dependent infants created strong selection for precise, teachable communication.Children’s brains shape languages; kids regularize grammar.Communication precision rises when mistakes are costly (bee-dance analogy).Humans continue to evolve; genomes show selected archaic introgression and local adaptations.Tech-driven habits may erode cognition and language skill; reading matters.AI is a tool that imitates human output; humanizing it can mislead and harm, especially for teens.Start early: talk, read, and interact face-to-face from birth.Top Quotes:“Only Homo sapiens was ever able to speak.”“Language will go extinct if it can’t be transmitted from brain to brain—the best host is a child.”“The precision of communication is shaped by how important it is to be precise.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

29 Okt 1h 10min

A candid conversation with psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer on why human judgment outperforms AI, the “stable world” limits of machine intelligence, and how surveillance capitalism reshapes society.Guest bio: Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer is a German psychologist, director emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, a leading scholar on decision-making and heuristics, and an intellectual interlocutor of B. F. Skinner and Herbert Simon.Topics discussed:Why large language models rely on correlations, not understandingThe “stable world principle” and where AI actually works (chess, translation)Uncertainty, human behavior, and why prediction doesn’t improve muchSurveillance capitalism, privacy erosion, and “tech paternalism”Level-4 vs. level-5 autonomy and city redesign for robo-taxisEducation, attention, and social media’s effects on cognition and mental healthDynamic pricing, right-to-repair, and value extraction vs. true innovationSimple heuristics beating big data (elections, flu prediction)Optimism vs. pessimism about democratic pushbackBooks to read: How to Stay Smart in a Smart World, The Intelligence of Intuition; “AI Snake Oil”Main points:Human intelligence is categorically different from machine pattern-matching; LLMs don’t “understand.”AI excels in stable, rule-bound domains; it struggles under real-world uncertainty and shifting conditions.Claims of imminent AGI and fully general self-driving are marketing hype; progress is gated by world instability, not just compute.The business model of personalized advertising drives surveillance, addiction loops, and attention erosion.Complex models can underperform simple, well-chosen rules in uncertain domains.Europe is pushing regulation; tech lobbying and consumer convenience still tilt the field toward surveillance.The deeper risk isn’t “AI takeover” but the dumbing-down of people and loss of autonomy.Careers: follow what you love—humans remain essential for oversight, judgment, and creativity.Likely mobility future is constrained autonomy (level-4) plus infrastructure changes, not human-free level-5 everywhere.To “stay smart,” individuals must reclaim attention, understand how systems work, and demand alternatives (including paid, non-ad models).Top quotes:“Large language models work by correlations between words; that’s not understanding.”“AI works well where tomorrow is like yesterday; under uncertainty, it falters.”“The problem isn’t AI—it’s the dumbing-down of people.”“We should become customers again, not the product.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

25 Okt 1h 3min

How a tech insider who helped build billion-view machines explains the attention economy’s playbook—and how to guard your mind (and data) against it.Guest bio:Richard Ryan is a software developer, media executive, and tech entrepreneur with 20+ years in digital. He co-founded Black Rifle Coffee Company and helped take it public (~$1.7B valuation; $396M revenue in 2023). He’s built multiple apps (including a video app released four years before YouTube) with millions of downloads, launched Rated Red to 1M organic subscribers in its first year, and runs a YouTube network—led by FullMag (2.7M subs)—that has surpassed 20B views.Topics discussed:The attention economy and 2012 as the mobile/monetization inflection point; algorithm design, engagement incentives, and polarization; personal costs (anxiety, comparison traps, body dysmorphia, addiction mechanics); privacy and data brokers, smart devices, cars, geofencing; policy ideas (digital rights, accountability, incentive realignment); practical defenses (digital detox, friction, community, gratitude, boundaries); careers, college, and meaning in an AI-accelerating world.Main points:Social platforms optimize time-on-device; “For You” feeds exploit threat/dopamine loops that keep users anxious and engaged.2012 marked a shift from tool to extraction: mobile apps plus partner programs turned attention into a tradable commodity.Outrage and filter bubbles are amplified because drama wins in the algorithmic reward system.Privacy risk is systemic: data brokers, vehicle SIMs, and IoT terms build behavioral profiles beyond traditional warrants.Individual resilience beats moral panic: measure use, do a 30-day reset, add friction, and invest in offline community and gratitude.Don’t mortgage your life to debt or trends; pursue adaptable, meaningful work—every field is vulnerable to automation.Societal fixes require incentive changes (digital rights, simple single-issue bills, real accountability), not just complaints.Top 3 quotes:“In 2012, you went from using your iPhone to the iPhone using you.”“If you can’t establish boundaries and adhere to them, you have a problem.”“The spirit of humanity shines in the face of adversity—we love an underdog story, and this is the underdog story.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

22 Okt 1h 12min

Dr. Luke Kemp, an Existential Risk Researcher at the University of Cambridge shows how today’s plutocracy and tech-fueled surveillance imperil society—and what we can do to build resilience.Guest bio:Dr. Luke Kemp is an Existential Risk Researcher at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at the University of Cambridge and author of Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse. His work examines how wealth concentration, surveillance, and arms races erode democracy and heighten global catastrophic risk.Topics discussed:The “Goliath” concept: dominance hierarchies vs. vague “civilization”Are we collapsing now? Signals vs. sudden shocksInequality as the engine of fragility; lootable resources & dataTech’s role: AI as accelerant, surveillance capitalism, autonomous weaponsNuclear risk, climate links, and system-level causes of catastropheDemocracy’s erosion and alternatives (sortition, deliberation)Elite overproduction, factionalism, and arms/resource/status “races”Collapse as leveler: winners, losers, and myths about mass die-offPractical pathways: leveling power, wealth taxes, open democracyMain points:“Civilization” consistently manifests as stacked dominance hierarchies—what Kemp calls the Goliath—which naturally concentrate wealth and power over time.Rising inequality spills into political, informational, and coercive power, making societies brittle and less able to correct course.Existential threats are interconnected; AI, nukes, climate, and bio risks share causes and amplify each other.AI need not be Skynet to be dangerous; it speeds arms races, surveillance, and catastrophic decision cycles.Collapse isn’t always apocalypse; often it fragments power and improves life for many outside the elite core.Durable safety requires leveling power: progressive/wealth taxation, stronger democracy (especially sortition-based, deliberative bodies), and curbing surveillance and arms races.Top 3 quotes:“Most collapse theories trace back to one driver: the steady concentration of wealth and power that makes societies top-heavy and blind.”“AI is an accelerant—pouring fuel on the fires of arms races, surveillance, and extractive economics.”“If we want a long future, we don’t just need tech fixes—we need to level power and make democracy real.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

15 Okt 1h 17min

A deep dive with historian Dr. Fyodor Tertitskiy on how North Korea’s dynasty survives—through isolation, terror, and nukes—and why collapse or unification is far from inevitable.Guest bio:Fyodor Tertitskiy, PhD, is a Russian-born historian of North Korea and a senior research fellow at Kookmin University (Seoul). A naturalized South Korean based in Seoul, he is the author of Accidental Tyrant: The Life of Kim Il-sung. He speaks Russian, Korean, and English, has visited North Korea (2014, 2017), and researches using Soviet, North Korean, and Korean-language sources.Topics discussed:Daily life under extreme authoritarianism (no open internet, monitored communications, mandatory leader portraits)Kim Il-sung’s rise via Soviet backing; historical fabrications in official narratives1990s famine, loss of sponsors, rise of black markets and briberyNukes/missiles as regime-survival tools; dynasty continuity vs. unificationWhy German-style unification is unlikely (costs, politics, identity; waning support in the South)Regime control stack: isolation, propaganda “white list,” terror, collective punishmentReliability of defectors’ accounts; sensationalism vs. fabricationResearch methods: multilingual archives, leaks, captured docs, propaganda close-readingElite wealth vs. citizen poverty; renewed patronage via RussiaCoups/assassination plots, succession uncertaintyNorth Korean cyber ops and crypto theft“Authoritarian drift” debates vs. media hyperbole in democraciesLife in Seoul: safety, civility, cultureMain points:North Korea bans information by default and enforces obedience through fear.Elites have everything to lose from change; nukes deter regime-ending threats.Unification would be socially and fiscally seismic; absent a Northern revolution, it’s improbable.Markets and graft sustain daily life while strategic sectors get resources.Collapse predictions are guesses; stable yet brittle systems can still break from shocks.Defector claims need case-by-case verification; mass CIA scripting is unlikely.Archival evidence shows key “facts” were retrofitted to build the Kim myth.Democracy’s victory isn’t automatic—citizens and institutions must defend it.Top 3 quotes:“There is no internet unless the Supreme Leader permits it—and even then, someone from the secret police may sit next to you taking notes.”“They will never surrender nuclear weapons—nukes are the guarantee of the regime’s survival.”“The triumph of democracy is not automatic; there is no fate—evil can prevail.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

11 Okt 58min

Dr. Devon Price unpacks “the laziness lie,” how AI and “bullshit jobs” distort work and higher ed, and why centering human needs—not output—leads to saner lives.Guest bio: Devon Price, PhD, is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology at Loyola University Chicago, a social psychologist, & writer. Prof Price is the author of Laziness Does Not Exist, Unmasking Autism, and Unlearning Shame, focusing on burnout, neurodiversity, and work culture.Topics discussed:The laziness lie: origins and three core tenetsAI’s effects on output pressure, layoffs, and disposabilityOverlap with David Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs and status hierarchiesAdjunctification and incentives in academiaDemographic cliff and the sales-ification of universitiesCareer choices in an AI era: minimize debt and stay flexibleRemote work’s productivity spike and boundary erosionBurnout as a signal to rebuild values around care and communityGap years, social welfare, and redefining “good jobs”Practicing compassion toward marginalized people labeled “lazy”Main points:The laziness lie equates worth with productivity, distrusts needs/limits, and insists there’s always more to do, fueling self-neglect and stigma.Efficiency gains from tech and AI are converted into higher expectations rather than rest or shorter hours.Many high-status roles maintain hierarchy more than they create real value; resentment often targets meaningful, low-paid work.U.S. higher ed relies on precarious adjunct labor while admin layers swell, shifting from education to a jobs-sales funnel.In a volatile market, avoid debt, build broad human skills, and choose adaptable paths over brittle credentials.Remote work raised output but erased boundaries; creativity requires rest and unstructured time.Burnout is the body’s refusal of exploitation; recovery means reprioritizing relationships, art, community, and self-care.A humane society would channel tech gains into shorter hours and better care work and infrastructure.Revalue baristas, caregivers, teachers, and artists as vital contributors.Everyday practice: show compassion—especially to those our culture labels “lazy.”Top three quotes:“What burnout really is, is the body refusing to be exploited anymore.” — Devon Price“Efficiency never gets rewarded; it just ratchets up the expectations.” — Devon Price“What is the point of AI streamlining work if we punish humans for not being needed?” — Devon Price   🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

4 Okt 59min

Dr. Joseph Crawford unpacks how AI is reshaping higher education - eroding student belonging, redefining assessment in a post-plagiarism era, and raising the stakes for soft skills.Guest bioDr. Joseph “Joey” Crawford is a Senior Lecturer in Management at the University of Tasmania and ranks among the top 1% of most-cited researchers globally. His work centers on leadership, student belonging, and the role of AI in higher education, and he serves as Editor-in-Chief of a leading education journal.Topics discussedAI in higher education and the “post-plagiarism” eraStudent belonging, loneliness, and mental health impactsMassification of education (8% → 30% → 50.2% participation)Programmatic assessment vs. essays/examsCOVID-19’s lasting effects on campus culture and learningRecorded lectures, flipped learning, and in-person tradeoffsSoft skills, leadership education, and employabilityAcademic integrity, peer review, and AI misuse by facultyLabor shortages, graduate readiness, and industry pathwaysSocial anxiety, AI “friendship,” and GPA outcomesMain points & takeawaysAI substitutes human support: Heavy chatbot use can provide a sense of social support but correlates with lower belonging and reduced GPA compared to human connections.Belonging matters: Human social support predicts higher well-being and better academic performance; AI support does not translate into belonging.Post-plagiarism reality: Traditional lecture-plus-essay or multiple-choice assessment is increasingly unreliable for verifying authorship.Assessment is shifting: Universities are exploring programmatic assessment—fewer, higher-stakes integrity checks across a degree instead of every course.Massification pressures quality: Participation in Australia rose from 8% (1989) to 30% (2020) to 50.2% (2021), straining rigor and prompting curriculum simplification and grade inflation.COVID + ChatGPT = double shock: Online habits and interaction anxiety from the pandemic compounded with AI convenience, reducing peer-to-peer engagement.Less face time: Many business courses dropped live lectures; students are now ~2 hours less in-class per subject, raising the bar for workshops to build soft skills.Workforce mismatch: Employers want communication and leadership; graduates often lack mastery because entry-level “practice” tasks are automated.Faculty risks too: Using AI to draft peer reviews can embed weak scholarship into training corpora and distort future models.Pragmatic advice: Don’t fear AI—use it—but replace lost micro-interactions with real people and deliberately practice human skills (e.g., leadership, psychology).Top quotes “We’re in a post-plagiarism world where knowing who wrote what is a real challenge.”“Some students are replacing librarians, peers, and support staff with bots—they’re fast, infinitely friendly, and never judge.”“AI social support doesn’t create belonging—and that shows up in grades.”“The lecture isn’t gone, but in many programs it’s recorded—and students now get less in-person time.”“Don’t substitute AI-created efficiency with more work—substitute it with more people.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

27 Sep 1h 19min

Author Eric Weiner argues that happiness depends less on wealth or location than on relationships, meaning, trust, and realistic expectations—while tech and social media often push the other way.Guest bio:Eric Weiner is a bestselling author and former NPR foreign correspondent whose books include The Geography of Bliss, The Geography of Genius, The Socrates Express, and Ben and Me. He writes about place, meaning, creativity, and how to live well.Topics discussed:The “where” of happiness vs. the “what/who”Nordic stability in the World Happiness ReportMoldova as a control case for unhappinessRelationships as the core driver of well-beingSocial media, AI, and the erosion of meaning/trustMoney, inequality, and the Easterlin paradoxU-shaped curve and Gen Z’s flatteningTravel as transformation (place as permission)Gross National Happiness (Bhutan) vs. GDPExpectations as the enemy of happinessMain points:Relationships matter most: “other people” are the two-word secret.Money helps only to a modest threshold; then diminishing returns.Inequality alone doesn’t predict happiness; trust does.Tech/social media amplify envy and faux-connection, sapping meaning.AI optimizes “good enough,” not creative leaps; it can erode trust.Gen Z shows worrying dips in meaning/connection post-2015 + pandemic.Travel reframes perspective; you can’t outrun yourself.Focus on process over outcomes; detach effort from results.Top quotes:“If I had to sum up the secret to happiness in two words: other people.”“Expectations are the enemy of happiness—invest 100% in effort, 0% in results.”“AI is dangerously seductive because it’s good enough—but creative leaps don’t come from averages.”“Social media are envy-generating machines.”“Trust is the hidden variable of happy societies.”“Technology promises time, but unstructured time doesn’t make us happier—meaning does.”Data points mentioned: U-shaped happiness across life; Gen Z may be an exception (smartphone ubiquity + pandemic).U.S. trust reversal: ~1960s ≈ two-thirds said “most people can be trusted”; recent polls ≈ two-thirds say the opposite.Easterlin paradox: happiness rises with income only up to a point.Gen Z snapshots (Harvard/Baylor cited in convo): ~58% lack meaning; ~56% financial concern; ~45% “things falling apart”; ~34% lonely. 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

24 Sep 54min