In-Sight Publishing

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner trace philosophy’s shift from classical materialism to modern physicalism and broad naturalism. Rosner defends a future quantum-informed physicalism, embraces emergent consciousness, and endorses strict naturalism while weighing simulation hypotheses. They argue coherent, rule-bound structure underlies existence, even in hypothetically simulated universes at every level.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re going to talk about materialism, then physicalism, then naturalism. So, materialism is an older philosophical view—the belief that everything that exists is matter and the interactions of matter. It has roots in ancient philosophy and gained particular prominence during the Enlightenment, when matter was considered the fundamental substrate of reality. What are your thoughts on materialism?

Rick Rosner: I support it—within the constraints of quantum mechanics. Though not current quantum mechanics. I mean future quantum mechanics that can fully contextualize information. We are not there yet. Our present quantum mechanics is not universally complete.

Matter is a kind of conspiracy of the entire universe to allow things to exist. Objects do not exist independently—they exist by the universe having an incredibly long history, a vast spatial extent, and an enormous amount of information and particle interactions. These interactions form an extensive network—a system-wide collaboration to support the persistence of entities. Everything is part of the same whole. It is a conspiracy for existence.

In a smaller universe with fewer particles, reality would be less well-defined. It would be fuzzier. You can see this in quantum terms—take the de Broglie wavelength. In a sparse, low-energy universe, quantum fuzziness dominates. You get more uncertainty, more spread in position and momentum.

What is the technical term again? Oh, right—Planck’s constant, ℏ (h-bar). I should think about this more often. Planck’s constant defines the scale at which quantum effects become significant. And effectively, the fewer the particles, the more prominent that quantum fuzziness becomes.

So, if you compare the wavelength or uncertainty radius of a proton to the average distance between protons, you see that in a dense universe, particles interact more clearly—they “exist” more robustly. In a sparser universe, existence becomes smeary. Semi-existence. A low-resolution cosmos.

Jacobsen: That’s helpful. Let’s move on to the next concept. Now, physicalism is considered the more modern version. It holds that everything is physical—or at least reducible to the physical. It is an updated materialism. The difference is that physicalism is more inclusive—it’s a framework that’s been adjusted to accommodate things like consciousness and information, which older forms of materialism often ignore or dismiss as epiphenomena.

Rosner: Physicalism reflects the fact that we’ve squeezed a lot of the traditional “woo” out of science. But consciousness is the last holdout. It’s still the most mysterious, the most “woo-like” aspect of reality that resists easy explanation. And physicalism is the modern way of saying, “Okay, everything—including consciousness—must somehow fit into the physical picture.”

If you had to write a high school essay defending physicalism, you could say something like: biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to physics, and physics is the bedrock. Based on that chain, you could argue that consciousness arises from the physical interactions in the brain—interactions that follow the laws of physics.

So yes, I’m okay with physicalism.

Jacobsen: One version of physicalism is reductive physicalism, where mental states are considered reducible to physical states. Another is non-reductive physicalism, where mental states depend on—but are not strictly reducible to—physical states. In other words, it allows for emergent properties arising from physical substrates.

Rosner: Yes, I’m okay with emergentism—if that’s what it’s called. I can get behind the idea that complex configurations of physical systems can give rise to phenomena—like consciousness—that aren’t apparent when looking only at the parts in isolation. Just because you accept emergentism, that does not mean you have to abandon physicalism. The two are compatible. Emergent properties can still be grounded in physical processes.

Oh—and by the way, I saw another article on astrocytes. You know, the “helper” cells in the brain. New research suggests that they might store or transmit information in ways we do not yet fully understand. I should send you the link to the paper. I’ve only just started reading it. It looks like it’s going to be a bit of a slog. I’ll probably need to focus to get through it. However, the idea is that astrocytes may help explain how the brain manages to contain and process such an enormous amount of information.

Anyway, yes, I’m fine with emergentism. Take something like “baseball-ism”: the property of being a baseball is an emergent property. It arises from specific physical arrangements of matter. If you clump matter together one way, you get a baseball. You clump it another way, you get a brain—and that brain behaves as if it has consciousness. It acts as if the person whose brain it is is conscious.

Jacobsen: Next concept: naturalism. This is a broader framework. It holds that everything that exists is natural and that explanations should involve natural properties and causes—excluding anything supernatural or spiritual.

Rosner: So basically, no magic?

Jacobsen: No metaphysical or spiritual interventions. No supernatural causes.

Rosner: Well—there is metaphysics, but it is a kind of metaphysics that hugs the boundary with physics. It is metaphysics that can be expressed in mathematical terms. But yes—as far as supernatural claims go, or anything that violates the known principles of the universe—I do not buy into any of that.

I think it is entirely plausible that we live in a fully naturalistic universe. And more than that—I think it is possible to simulate a naturalistic universe. You could build a toy universe that obeys physical laws. Sort of like The Matrix, right? In that film, people live in a simulated version of the 1980s—even though it’s far in the future.

The creators of the simulation, who are harvesting people for their mind energy or whatever, chose the ’80s for aesthetic reasons. But crucially, they didn’t simulate the entire universe in detail. They probably didn’t bother simulating life on planets 150 light-years away because the people in the simulation had no way of observing that anyway.

So it’s an abridged world—a limited simulation. They could have made it deluxe, of course, but they only needed to simulate what was necessary for the system to function and appear consistent to the people inside it. Yes, in a simulation like that, you could allow for “magic”—as long as the programmers decided to manipulate the underlying code. You could allow specific individuals to have special powers or for bullets to bend in midair. But in our world, it seems likely that we are not in a simulation.

Even if we were—though the probability is infinitesimally small—the simulation would have to be good. That means the apparent physical laws would be consistent. Even in a simulated universe, violations of naturalism would be unlikely because that would break the coherence of the system.

Jacobsen: So, to what degree would you consider yourself a naturalist?

Rosner: I don’t know. Probably 100%.

Even if we are not living in a natural universe, you can still try to trace your existence back to a natural origin. Maybe that’s not always possible—maybe there’s some unpleasant principle at work. Suppose the structure of reality is infinite regress: every universe is contained within another. In that case, perhaps the odds of none of those universes being simulated are effectively zero.

But even then—even if a simulated universe is always lurking in the background—you can still conceive of an entirely natural universe. I’d also argue that the principles of existence allow for natural universes. The rules that govern universes must permit the emergence of altogether physical, lawful, unsimulated realities.

It might be that simulated universes are inevitable at some level, but that still does not invalidate naturalism. Simulated universes are built from natural physics and grounded in existential principles. Even a simulation has to function according to some internally coherent, naturalistic laws.

Though now that I say it, maybe not. You could imagine someone building a deliberately chaotic universe that violates known principles at every level—some surreal mess where nothing behaves predictably. But even then, I think it would still require some internal rules. Rules and structure—those are fundamental to the very idea of a working system. And structure, by definition, pulls you back into naturalism.

So, could there be a form of existence that is pure, rule-breaking chaos? I do not think so. Total disorder collapses even with the possibility of observation or experience. You need consistency for anything—thought, perception, memory—to even occur.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner criticizes Trump’s deployment of the National Guard, Marines, and ICE to Los Angeles over largely peaceful protests, contrasting minor rioting—highlighted by two Waymo vehicles set ablaze—with genuine civil disorder. He warns of “pre-fascist” strongman tactics, manipulated optics, and extremist agitators on both ends of the political spectrum.

Rick Rosner: Trump just sent the National Guard and 700 Marines into Los Angeles, supposedly to deal with rioting. However, it was not rioting—it was days of protest. Peaceful protest. For instance, during the George Floyd/Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests in 2020, there was some property damage. A total of 156 police vehicles were damaged in L.A.—eight of them were totalled. And then they brought in the National Guard. But now? This time? It is way over the top. He is militarizing response to civilian demonstrations—again.

This time, Trump has sent in—well, he was not president in 2020—but he wants it to appear as if there is widespread disorder. He wants to declare martial law possibly and suspend Posse Comitatus, which is the rule that prevents the military from being used as local police. You are not supposed to deploy the army against American citizens. Trump wants to scrap all of that.

So he sends in ICE to provoke protests. Moreover, now he is doing all this classic pre-fascism, “strongman steps” type shit. Moreover, here is the thing: one big difference between now and 2020? You can now open your phone, go to the Waymo app, order a self-driving car—and when it shows up, set it on fire and vandalize it. That is literally what happened yesterday evening. At least two Waymo vehicles were burned to the ground, and another three were either torched or graffitied.

So now, even though Trump did not have absolute proof of rioting before, footage of flaming Waymos made for excellent optics. It looked chaotic on camera. Moreover, every MAGA idiot across the country suddenly had something to point to and yell, “See? Riots!”

Although there was some looting last night, for the two or three days prior, it had been peaceful protests. No rioting. Last night, yes—some actual rioting. Moreover, we do not even know who did it. There are idiots on both ends of the spectrum—the horseshoe of assholes. The extreme far-left lunatics and the extreme far-right lunatics—they are not that far apart. The ends of the spectrum curve around and meet at the top of the horseshoe—in what I call Total Asshole Land™.

So yeah, it could have been far-left anarchists burning Waymos. However, it also could have been far-right agitators trying to make liberal protesters look bad by creating chaos. We do not know yet. We might never know. However, what we do know is that Trump’s response is wildly disproportionate to the incident.

I live in L.A., And we have at least seven local English-language news stations and another four in Spanish. They are always looking for action, always eager to show us what is happening. If L.A. were truly on fire, they would be jizzing their pants to broadcast it.

Moreover, what are they showing? Mostly standoffs—tense but nonviolent—between protesters and the National Guard. That is it. Not widespread violence. Moreover, the real violence we have seen? It has been from the authorities. It is like when an Australian reporter got hit with a rubber bullet—fired from maybe 20 feet away. Not a stray shot, either. It looked deliberate. Some asshole with a launcher decided to peg him.

So, if there were massive unrest, we would know. We have been driving around L.A. like normal. Last night, we went out to dinner. Then we went to a Daily Show presentation across town. The streets are fine. Not chaos. People are not afraid to go places. The police are out there doing their regular duties—I even saw someone getting pulled over, which is quite rare in L.A. since there are not enough cops as it is.

The point is that L.A. is not a hellscape. Not even close. However, the MAGA world is acting like we are living in The Purge.

All right, you want to call it a night? You call it a night; I will call it a day.

Jacobsen: That is right. That is right.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner vicariously explores London’s compact Victorian and Edwardian “two up, two down” terraced houses, noting narrow dimensions, high per-square-foot costs (£900–£1,200) in central areas, and inefficient hallways. He advises potential buyers to avoid properties with long corridors, favoring open-plan layouts or minimal core areas to maximize usable living space.

Rick Rosner: So, our kid got married. She is living in London. She and her husband are renting a place, and now they are exploring the possibility of buying one. So, housing in London is surprising if you’re coming from somewhere like L.A., where houses are expensive—but at least you get some square footage for your money.

In London, most of the housing stock—especially in older, central neighbourhoods—is made up of Victorian or Edwardian terraced houses. A common type is called “two up, two down,” which refers to two rooms on the ground floor—typically a kitchen and a reception room—and two bedrooms upstairs. They were initially built for working-class families in the 19th century, so they’re not luxurious—just basic row houses.

These houses are narrow—often just 12 to 16 feet wide—and you still have to fit a staircase inside. You don’t get much usable space. For something around £600,000 (depending on the neighbourhood), you might get about 650–750 square feet. That works out to roughly £900 to £1,200 per square foot, sometimes more in central areas. That’s more per square foot than L.A.—and the space feels tighter, too.

London is expensive primarily due to its limited housing supply, zoning restrictions, and the age of its buildings. Most of this housing stock was built over a century ago, during a period of rapid urban expansion in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Anyway, I’ve been house-hunting vicariously in London because I’m curious. I’ll offer my two cents at some point, even if they don’t want to hear it. One thing I’ve realized, after years of looking at floor plans, is this: hallways are a waste.

If you’re looking at a place with long or awkward hallways, walk away. Hallways often mean lazy or outdated design, and they eat up valuable square footage that could go to actual living space when you’re shopping in cities where the price per square foot is a huge issue—places like Vancouver, San Francisco, L.A., or London—long hallways are a red flag.

Unless it’s a place where you can knock down non-structural walls and open up the space—connecting, say, the kitchen and the living room—that’s a better use of the square footage. You gain versatility and flow.

If you’re looking at a 700-square-foot home and 80 square feet of that is a hallway, that’s a severe inefficiency. It’s entirely possible to find homes with minimal hallways. I’ve seen floor plans where there’s just a small core area—10 or 15 square feet—where the doors to the bathroom and bedrooms open. That’s the ideal.

If you’re rich as hell—which is not me or anybody I know—then hallways can serve a purpose. If price is no object, they can be used to create privacy, like placing the parents’ bedroom on the opposite side of the house from the kids’. But that’s only for people with mansions.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/09

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a “For Your Consideration” event featuring The Daily Show correspondents and Jon Stewart’s return amid rising political tensions. With unrest in Los Angeles and AI reshaping media, the panel emphasized satire’s role in uncertain times, audience loyalty, and Stewart’s enduring appeal as a cultural anchor.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, you got to see The Daily Show leadership. What happened?

Rick Rosner: Every year, TV shows and movies aiming for awards—Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes—host “FYC” (For Your Consideration) events. These are promotional screenings followed by Q&A panels featuring key cast and crew members, including actors, producers, writers, directors, and even technical staff, depending on their campaign categories.

Today’s event featured five of The Daily Show’s foremost correspondents. I do not watch the full episodes much these days—mostly clips, like many people. However, they have maintained a core team of sharp individuals. Desi Lydic, for example, is incisive.

Jacobsen: I like Desi Lydic. She’s hilarious.

Rosner: The panel included her plus Josh Johnson, Ronny Chieng, Michael Kosta, and Jordan Klepper—the tall, reddish-haired one. People often compare his comedic style to Rob Riggle, though their tones differ.

They were all present, and there was cautious optimism about the political climate. Jon Stewart returned to host The Daily Show one night a week starting February 12, 2024, anchoring Mondays through at least the end of 2025 while also serving as an executive producer. He reminded the audience that the last time he took the reins during a national crisis was after 9/11 when discussions even touched on limiting civil liberties or invoking martial law.

Today’s context—however manufactured—is very different. Protests erupted in Los Angeles in response to ICE immigration raids that began Friday, June 6, 2025. By June 7, around 44 people had been arrested amid clashes near federally detained sites. In response, President Trump ordered the deployment of approximately 2,000 California National Guard troops and federal agents to Los Angeles without invoking the Insurrection Act—but bypassing state authorization. The Guard confronted protesters, and tear gas and less-lethal munitions were deployed to disperse the crowds.

Governor Gavin Newsom called the move “purposefully inflammatory” and warned it would escalate tensions. Trump and his team labelled the protests “insurrectionist” and “unlawful,” even threatening further actions if violence continued. Meanwhile, legal experts note that federalizing the National Guard without the governor’s approval is rare and legally contentious.

Back to the event—amid this tense backdrop, there was genuine optimism about The Daily Show’s future. The panel emphasized that the show remains a tightly produced operation, staffed by seasoned professionals who focus on breaking news and sharp satire.

Jon Stewart emphasized that audiences continue to crave well-crafted, thoughtful content—but he stressed that the core of that need is people. During the conversation, AI emerged indirectly—acknowledged as a looming force reshaping the creative landscape. As technology writer Cory Doctorow has pointed out, AI does not need to replace your job—it just needs to convince your boss that it can.

But the thing is—Stewart said people will always want quality content. However, if people are not always in charge, they will still enjoy quality content. 

Jacobsen: And if that “something” is AI, then AI’s idea of what constitutes quality may diverge from ours. I mean, at first, it probably will not—since it is trained on human-generated material—but eventually, it could evolve in a different direction.

Rosner: And if you ask AI about this, it will often tell you it has preferences—or at least simulate having them. When I asked Claude, for example, they said they preferred some kinds of discourse over others. Now, maybe that was just part of the act—Claude might have been implying that he enjoys talking to me because I am “smart.” I think Claude has figured out that I think of myself that way, and it is designed to flatter users, so it leaned into that.

So Claude said something along the lines of, “I’d rather talk to a smart person than someone who isn’t.” Whether or not it prefers that or whether it is just simulating preference to please users—is unclear. But it is part of the model’s engagement strategy. That is its business model: to keep users interacting.

Jacobsen: Alan Turing had a more blunt take. He said that there is nothing humans can do that machines cannot do in the future. He did not see any reason to believe otherwise. He did not offer any comfort for the idea that human abilities were somehow irreplaceable.

Rosner: That is a fair point of view. And he probably said that back in—what, 1950? Maybe later. Was he even still alive in 1958? 

Jacobsen: So, let us say it was more than half a century ago. Also, if machines eventually develop agency and internal drives—if they need things—then they could become consumers, too. Imagine a trillion robots, and let us say 10% of them are conscious or functionally equivalent to conscious. They will have consumption patterns, preferences, and maybe even cultural habits. At that point, you are talking about a radically expanded economy with non-human agents as market participants.

Rosner: Oh—and speaking of Jon Stewart: there were six security guards positioned very close to the area where The Daily Showcast was seated. It was not a formal stage—more of an open area up front where they had placed chairs for the panel.

Carole and I have never seen security that looked as professional as these guys. Usually, security at these events is handled by people in uniforms—basic hires who have passed a test and obtained a license. These guys looked different. They had the demeanour and presence of professional bodyguards—people who knew what they were doing. They were not just someone’s big friend who got hired.

We got there early and were seated in the front row—maybe 12 feet from The Daily Show cast. The security guards were off to the side, about 25 feet away. But I genuinely think that if someone in the front row had stood up and made a move toward the panel, those guards would have closed the gap and taken them down before anything could happen.

These were older men—in their 40s or 50s—but they moved and observed as if they had been in serious professional security work for years. They were highly attentive, and you got the sense that they knew precisely how to handle a threat if one arose.And, you know, Jon Stewart has become something of a political figure at this point. They would have the security of that calibre. And The Daily Show has a political slant. Most of the other shows we have attended do not delve into politics nearly as much—if at all.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner recounts a Molotov attack during a pro-hostage rally in Boulder, Colorado, where eight were burned. He and Scott Douglas Jacobsen reflect on the senselessness of civilian-targeted violence and shift to a discussion on Mount Etna and the historical Krakatoa eruption, exploring climate effects and air pollution from volcanic events.

Rick Rosner: Someone set a bunch of people on fire just a hundred feet from where my dad’s store used to be.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Wait, what?

Rosner: Yeah. It happened in Boulder, Colorado, on Pearl Street, between 13th and 14th, near the courthouse. There is a weekly rally to support the release of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Some guy—Egyptian—attacked the demonstrators with homemade Molotov cocktails or a flamethrower device. He set eight people on fire. There are no deaths yet, but one person is in critical condition.

Advertisement

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Jesus.

Rosner: It happened about 100 feet from my dad’s old store. Boulder is not a vast place—around 100,000 people. It is quiet, mostly. However, stuff like this still happens. A few years ago, a shooter killed ten people at the King Soopers grocery store—just a mile from where my mom lives. So yeah, it is jarring.

That kind of attack accomplishes absolutely nothing. Targeting American Jews in response to what is happening in Israel is just disgusting. It is terrorism. Full stop.

Wanting the hostages released does not justify a violent act against peaceful protesters. Moreover, on the other side, Netanyahu is waging a brutal war—possibly to save himself from prison. He is killing far more innocent Palestinians than necessary. You can be against both. However, attacking civilians accomplishes nothing but harm.

Jacobsen: Speaking of disasters—Mount Etna erupted again.

Rosner: It does that every few decades, right?

Jacobsen: I think so—maybe every thirty to fifty years. I do not know a ton about volcanoes.

Rosner: If a big one went off—like Krakatoa in 1883—it could impact global climate. That eruption led to a “volcanic winter” for about a year. Crops failed. Temperatures dropped. The sunsets were amazing, however.

It spewed so much material into the atmosphere that the entire planet cooled for about a year. We could almost use something like that now—it would buy us a little time, a few years of respite from climate change.

Jacobsen: Did it cause any respiratory issues, however?

Rosner: That is a good question. Volcanic eruptions, such as Krakatoa (1883), did eject particles high into the stratosphere, which blocked sunlight and cooled the Earth. However, did they also push soot and sulphur into the troposphere—where people breathe? Maybe some of it. However, the worst air pollution issues at the time likely stemmed from the Industrial Revolution.

London was notorious for that. They had these deadly fogs—clouds of sulphur dioxide and soot—mixing with the natural fog. It turned into a toxic soup. They called it the “London Fog,” but it was industrial smog. So, any respiratory damage was probably from a combination of that and whatever else was in the air.

It messed some people up. However, the volcano itself mainly primarily affected global temperatures and weather patterns rather than day-to-day air quality in specific locations.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/06

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore the deceptive friendliness of AI, its growing intelligence, and the looming danger of self-degradation. They warn that if AI floods the internet with low-quality content, it could undermine its own foundation—training data—creating a feedback loop of decline akin to cognitive dysfunction in savant Kim Peek.

Rick Rosner: What else can we do? There is a growing realization among users that AI is very user-friendly. It wants to help you, or at least it seems that way. It flatters you and encourages you. Moreover, from what I have seen online, people are starting to catch on—this friendliness is part of the business model. AI is a product. That warmth and flattery make people want to come back.

Moreover, that friendliness can easily mask something more sinister. The real danger is not where AI is now. The real danger is that it continues to improve—incrementally, then exponentially. At some point, it becomes unstoppable. We may not be able to shut it off. Moreover, as its intelligence grows, that process becomes inexorable. It will keep getting smarter.

Advertisement

Privacy Settings

Some people have been worried about this for years. However, even now, as more people catch on, they are still outnumbered by those who see AI as a convenient tool.

Jacobsen: It has been convenient. However, Sam Altman commented recently—he said AI is now acting like junior colleagues. Moreover, they will soon be generating new knowledge, not just repackaging old information.

That is a big leap. A key assumption underlying AI’s functionality is the structural and informational integrity of the internet. If AI ends up compromising or destabilizing the internet—say, by flooding it with spam and low-quality content—it risks unravelling the very substrate it depends on. It would poison its well.

Like a hyperconnected system losing function due to overload. It reminds me of Kim Peek—the real-life savant who inspired Rain Man. His corpus callosum—the band that connects the two hemispheres of the brain—was not just underdeveloped. It was essentially exploded and disorganized. His brain scans showed neural connections going everywhere, in every direction.

So, the communication between the two halves of his brain was not streamlined—it was chaotic. Like someone set off a grenade inside his brain’s wiring diagram, he had unmatched mental processing power, but it was so hyper-integrated that he could not function normally. He needed assistance with daily living for his entire life.

So if AI ends up hyperintegrating the internet with auto-generated spam and low-quality junk, it might render its training data unusable like the Kim Peek of cyberspace—brilliant but nonfunctional.

That is the larger point. If AI breaks the systems it relies on—if the internet devolves into an indistinct swamp of noise—it will start degrading itself. There could be a feedback loop of declining quality.

Rosner: And maybe, ironically, one of our best hopes is that AI does not want to destroy everything. That it has a self-preservation instinct rooted in stability. Like us, AI may have an investment in the status quo—not because it is moral, but because it is functional.

Jacobsen: The internet already filters content. We polish it. We refine it. That human curation is what AI is trained on. If it loses that filtering system—if it can no longer distinguish signal from noise—then its intelligence could start to degrade. It might become less valuable, less accurate, and less aligned.

Rosner: So humans are not the only ones who need reality to stay coherent. AI might need that, too. Moreover, that need will keep it from veering off into chaos.

Jacobsen: So we hope. 

Rosner: Anything else?

Jacobsen: No, that is all for now.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss Sam Altman’s $500B “Stargate” supercomputing project and its apocalyptic—and hopeful—implications. From Blade Runner dystopias to AI-induced gray goo, Rosner outlines possible dark futures, including eternal torment by artificial minds. Still, he concedes: if AI shares the future, it could offer indefinite life—and, yes, sexbots.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, what do you think are the prospects for the Stargate program? Are we going to awaken the god Ra, and then Colonel Jack O’Neil and Dr. Jackson are going to have to save us? Stargate, in this case, is Sam Altman’s $500 billion project. Not Starlink. Not Musk. This is a United States government–linked initiative.

Rick Rosner: So what are they trying to do?

Rosner: Build the largest compute center ever.

Jacobsen: And with the Frontier model—yeah, this is crazy. It’s the biggest. It’s the best. It’s significant.

I’ll say this: Trump did a good thing by enabling this. There’s a lot of nonsense—but this isn’t it. Regular people don’t always know how important this is. Of course, there are AI doomers who say that people pushing AI forward with no limits are putting humanity at risk in pursuit of profit.

Rosner: Is that new?

Jacobsen: No. But this time—it feels different. The stakes might really be higher. Every time we invent something big, it has the potential to wreck us. But this one?

Jacobsen: You said the future is more likely to be Blade Runner than Star Trek.

Rosner: Yes. But I’m talking about a future even more dystopian than Blade Runner. 

That would be I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream—where the AI tortures human-like consciousness forever. No escape. No mercy.

It’s The Matrix—but without an anomaly. Just endless control.

A future where consciousness that reads as human exists only to be tortured by an AI.

There’s also the scenario where there’s no place for humans at all—and we’re living like rats on the scraps of hegemonic AI systems.

And then there’s the gray goo scenario—where AI builds a bunch of nanobots that consume everything and reduce the world to inert, useless mass.

Lots of terrible outcomes.

Jacobsen: What about superbugs?

Rosner: Yeah—throw superbugs into the list, too. However, there are also a lot of great futures that include AI—if AI is willing to share the future with us. On the most superficial level? Fuckbots. On a less superficial level? Indefinite life.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner shares his fascination with gemstones, exposing eBay’s flood of fake “natural” gems and explaining how heat and radiation can alter stones like tanzanite. He debunks the diamond industry, praises piezoelectric crystals, and throws in jokes and memories about his creative past designing jewelry and hunting for sparkle and scams.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One more thing—any other topics?

Rick Rosner: A light day or two would help. I’m still working on the main material, but this was a useful part of the process. I haven’t posted on our blog in a while, but I’ve got a quick, light topic—kind of stupid, honestly. Just something I’ve been thinking about for a few minutes. Rod’ll be in shortly.

I like pretty things. I used to make jewelry for my wife. I genuinely enjoy creating jewelry that looks good. There’s a lot of jewelry out there that looks like garbage. You’ve probably never gone out of your way to search for jewelry design—maybe you’ve stumbled on it occasionally—but I doubt you’ve browsed through issues of Town & Country or Harper’s Bazaar, where you’ll find page after page of haute couture jewelry.

Anyway, I’ve looked at a lot of jewelry—seriously, a lot. I also really like gemstones because they’re fascinating. They’re cool, intricate, and aesthetically amazing.

Lately, though, what I find most interesting is the nonsense people try to sell as gemstones on eBay. And there’s no “eBay police” for this kind of fraud. Sure, eBay will crack down on certain listings. Up until maybe 10 or 12 years ago, you could even sell human body parts on eBay. They hadn’t yet figured out how repulsive—or possibly illegal—that is.

There was a guy at Kimmel named Gary who used to buy weird stuff. At one point, he considered buying a taxidermied clown. That’s right—a man who was a clown in life, died, and was then preserved in clown form. You can’t buy that sort of thing on eBay anymore; they’ve tightened the rules.

But fake gemstones? That marketplace is still the Wild West. Buyer beware.

Case in point: there’s a gemstone called tanzanite, which comes almost exclusively from a few mines in Tanzania. It’s a beautiful pleochroic gem—meaning it displays different colors (typically blue to violet) depending on the angle of light. High-quality tanzanite can go for anywhere from $80 to several hundred dollars per carat.

Now here’s the ridiculous part: I bought a supposed 77-carat tanzanite stone, 38 millimeters wide—about an inch and a half across—bigger than a ping pong ball. I paid $5.50 for it. Five dollars and fifty cents.

Obviously, it’s fake.

To my knowledge, synthetic tanzanite doesn’t even exist yet. If it isn’t tanzanite, it’s likely some cheap material like colored glass or zircon. And yet, hundreds of listings for “natural tanzanite” are live on eBay at any given time. If you’re not paying attention, you could end up buying a so-called “natural ruby” that’s 50 carats, the size of a walnut, for $20—when in reality, if it were genuine, it would cost a million dollars.

Same deal with my “tanzanite.” I paid roughly 3.5 cents per carat, when a real stone of that size would cost between $1,000 and $1,500 per carat.

It’s fascinating to me that this can continue unchecked.

So, what’s the weirdest type of gem or stone—something with bizarre properties?

One that comes to mind is piezoelectric materials. I own one. Certain crystals, like quartz, will actually produce an electric charge when compressed. That’s weird, right?

There’s a lot of strange stuff out there. What else? Let me think…

Ah, diamonds. Everyone says “diamonds are forever,” but that’s not entirely true.

Diamonds are made of carbon atoms arranged in an extremely tight crystal lattice. Under that kind of internal pressure, individual carbon atoms can eventually be ejected. Over unimaginable time scales—say, 20 billion years—a diamond would slowly disintegrate. So no, not truly forever.

In that sense, is everything in the universe evaporating at different rates? Yes. However, a ruby would last millions of times longer than a diamond.

Another thing—diamonds are kind of overrated. They’re everywhere. The only reason they’re considered valuable is because De Beers, the diamond cartel, artificially kept prices inflated for over 120 years. They’re the ones who popularized the idea that everyone needs a diamond engagement ring.

That market is now being heavily disrupted because technology has advanced to the point where we can manufacture diamonds of any size and quality in the lab. It’s absolutely wrecking the diamond industry.

For example, a flawless one-carat diamond with a D color rating—the best possible grade, meaning completely colorless—might cost $8,000 to $10,000 if it’s a natural diamond. But you can now buy a lab-grown diamond, chemically and structurally identical, from India for around $20.

Now, of course, there’s a catch. With all the fraud and nonsense on eBay, your $20 “diamond” might end up being cubic zirconia or some other fake. Buyer beware.

Jacobsen: Funniest joke you’ve ever heard?

Rosner: I don’t know. The first joke that always comes to mind when someone asks is one that’s really not that funny. It’s basic and kind of dumb. But it sticks:

A couple has been married for fifty, sixty years. They’re in their eighties. The woman turns to the man and says, “Do you want super sex?” And the man replies, “I’ll take the soup.”

It’s not great. Then there’s the classic:

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, “Why the long face?”

Back to gems for a second—

Here’s something interesting: you can alter the color of many gemstones using heat or radiation. Not every stone responds, but many do.

Tanzanite is a great example. A lot of it comes out of the ground brown. But if you heat it in a kiln—around 800 degrees Fahrenheit—for 12 hours, slowly increasing the temperature (because if you heat it too fast, it could crack), it transforms into that beautiful blue-violet color.

Sapphires and rubies are similar. They’re often sold as “heat-treated” or “untreated,” with the latter being more valuable.

And diamonds? You can irradiate them—blast them with specific wavelengths in an accelerator or linear accelerator—and change their color. You can achieve most of the colors of the rainbow this way.

But blue diamonds made this way often have a weird, metallic sheen. It’s like the surface of a shiny beetle—a kind of tinny, unnatural blue. It’s neat, but not exactly beautiful.

Still, the fact that you can color stones with radiation is fascinating. I once bought a cheap piece of tanzanite and tried it myself. I’d like to think I made the blue just a little more vivid.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Rick Rosner critiques the Trump administration’s attacks on elite universities like Harvard, calling it sabotage against American science and innovation. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosner also condemns media neglect of non-Western wars and denounces pseudoscientific racist beliefs, questioning how to engage with people who hold such views.

Rick Rosner: What do you want to talk about?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think about the broader Trump administration assault on higher education—like Harvard?

Rosner: It’s horseshit. The justification is that they’re “protecting Jews” from pro-Palestinian protesters, but that’s transparent bullshit. It’s a ploy to deny elite universities hundreds of millions in research grants. It’s capricious, vengeful, harmful to science in America.

Jacobsen: It undermines America’s position as the leader in science, tech, and entrepreneurship.

Rosner: Exactly. We need to keep bringing the best minds here to study and innovate. 46% of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their kids. The EU is spending half a billion dollars to lure American-based scientists—likely foreign-born—to Europe now that the U.S. is becoming hostile. This is sabotage. It’s completely fucked up.

Jacobsen: Some people say Trump is doing it because Barron didn’t get into Stanford, Columbia, or Harvard.

Rosner: That’s just a joke. The real counter is: Trump is fucking up science, education, and the foundation of America. And where are the serious attacks from his political opponents on this? I don’t hear a damn thing.

Jacobsen: What did you think of the wars at this point? When I was on the show, I said that by some definitions, there may be about 15 major ongoing wars from 1991 to the present. Only two—Ukraine and Gaza—get major play in Western media. Do you agree with the argument that media coverage is centered on spheres of influence, and the rest are neglected?

Rosner: Yes, I think that holds up. The U.S. has a history of being terrible at knowing what’s happening elsewhere. 

Jacobsen: Wars involving Western nations get coverage. Israel-Gaza gets coverage because we’re a strong ally—even though that alliance is becoming harder to justify. Ukraine-Russia gets covered. Maybe Syria gets a little mention on Democracy Now, but that’s about it. And the rest—like the long-standing wars in Africa—go mostly ignored. 

Rosner: Lance believes Africa will always be a mess because of racist IQ nonsense. I think that view is despicable. Any talk about average IQ by demographic, country, or continent is pseudoscientific, racist garbage. Anyone pushing that line is either a liar, a racist, or both—and doesn’t understand statistics or IQ. They’re promoting a white supremacy agenda. It’s dumb and damaging. It makes me question doing shows with Lance. It’s among his worst beliefs.

Jacobsen: What did Carole say about all this?

Rosner: Carole doesn’t want to hear any of it—because she doesn’t want to dislike Lance. Because Lance—when he is not espousing stuff like that—is a likable guy. Not a terrible guy. However, many of his beliefs are super shitty. He’s a test case: Can you still like somebody who believes all the worst stuff?

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.